[Senate Report 112-75]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 157
112th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 112-75
======================================================================
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2012
_______
September 7, 2011.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mrs. Feinstein, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 2354]
The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the
bill (H.R. 2354) making appropriations for energy and water
development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, reports the same to
the Senate with an amendment and recommends that the bill as
amended do pass.
New obligational authority
Total of bill as reported to the Senate................. $32,765,568,000
Amount of 2011 appropriations........................... 31,789,895,000
Amount of 2012 budget estimate.......................... 36,575,809,000
House allowance......................................... 30,224,061,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
2011 appropriations................................. +975,673,000
2012 budget estimate................................ -3,810,241,000
House allowance..................................... +2,541,507,000
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Purpose.......................................................... 4
Summary of Estimates and Recommendations......................... 4
Title I:
Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army:
Corps of Engineers--Civil:
General Investigations............................... 22
Construction, General................................ 28
Flood Control, Mississippi River, and Tributaries.... 36
Operation and Maintenance, General................... 38
Regulatory Program................................... 55
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program...... 55
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies................ 56
General Expenses..................................... 56
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works)............................................. 57
General Provisions--Corps of Engineers--Civil........ 00
Title II:
Department of the Interior:
Central Utah Project Completion Account.................. 60
Bureau of Reclamation:
Water and Related Resources.......................... 61
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.............. 71
California Bay-Delta Restoration..................... 72
Policy and Administration............................ 72
Indian Water Rights Settlements...................... 73
San Joaquin Restoration Fund......................... 73
General Provisions--Department of the Interior........... 73
Title III:
Department of Energy:
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy................... 77
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.............. 80
Nuclear Energy........................................... 80
Fossil Energy Research and Development................... 84
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves................... 85
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.............................. 85
Strategic Petroleum Account.............................. 85
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve....................... 86
Energy Information Administration........................ 86
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup........................ 86
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning
Fund................................................... 87
Science.................................................. 88
Nuclear Waste Disposal................................... 95
Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy................ 96
Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program............. 96
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program.. 97
Better Buildings Pilot Loan Guarantee Initiative......... 97
Departmental Administration.............................. 97
Office of the Inspector General.......................... 98
Weapons Activities....................................... 98
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation......................... 107
Naval Reactors........................................... 112
Office of the Administrator.............................. 113
Defense Environmental Cleanup............................ 113
Other Defense Activities................................. 116
Power Marketing Administrations:
Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power
Administration..................................... 117
Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power
Administration..................................... 117
Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and
Maintenance, Western Area Power Administration..... 117
Falcon and Amistad Operations and Maintenance Fund... 117
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Salaries and
Expenses............................................... 118
General Provisions--Department of Energy................. 141
Title IV:
Independent Agencies:
Appalachian Regional Commission.......................... 142
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.................. 142
Delta Regional Authority................................. 142
Denali Commission........................................ 142
Northern Border Regional Commission...................... 142
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission................... 142
Nuclear Regulatory Commission............................ 142
Office of Inspector General.......................... 144
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board..................... 145
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas
Transportation Projects................................ 145
Title V: General Provisions...................................... 146
Title VI: Emergency Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief..... 147
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 149
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules
of the
Senate......................................................... 149
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of
the
Senate......................................................... 150
Budgetary Impact of Bill......................................... 156
Comparative Statement of Budget Authority........................ 157
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for
the fiscal year 2012 beginning October 1, 2011, and ending
September 30, 2012, for energy and water development, and for
other related purposes. It supplies funds for water resources
development programs and related activities of the Department
of the Army, Civil Functions--U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
Civil Works Program in title I; for the Department of the
Interior's Bureau of Reclamation in title II; for the
Department of Energy's energy research activities, including
environmental restoration and waste management, and atomic
energy defense activities of the National Nuclear Security
Administration in title III; and for related independent
agencies and commissions, including the Appalachian Regional
Commission, Delta Regional Authority, Denali Commission, and
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in title IV.
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The fiscal year 2012 budget estimates for the bill total
$36,539,809,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The
recommendation of the Committee totals $31,625,000,000. This is
$4,889,809,000 below the budget estimates and $57,000,000 below
the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year.
The Committee recommendation also includes $1,044,568,000
in additional funding for disaster relief.
Subcommittee Hearings
The Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water held
three sessions in connection with the fiscal year 2012
appropriation bill. Witnesses included officials and
representatives of the Federal agencies under the
subcommittee's jurisdiction.
The recommendations for fiscal year 2012 therefore, have
been developed after careful consideration of available data.
Votes in the Committee
By a vote of 29 to 1 the Committee on September 7, 2011,
recommended that the bill, as amended, be reported to the
Senate.
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is made up of
approximately 35,000 civilian and 650 military members that
perform both military and Civil Works functions. The military
and civilian engineers, scientists and other specialists work
hand in hand as leaders in engineering and environmental
matters. The diverse workforce of biologists, engineers,
geologists, hydrologists, natural resource managers, and other
professionals meets the demands of changing times and
requirements as a vital part of America's Army.
The Corps' mission is to provide quality, responsive
engineering services to the Nation including:
--Planning, designing, building, and operating water
resources and other Civil Works projects (Navigation,
Flood Control, Environmental Protection, Disaster
Response, et cetera);
--Designing and managing the construction of military
facilities for the Army and Air Force (Military
Construction); and
--Providing design and construction management support for
other Defense and Federal agencies (Interagency and
International Services).
The Energy and Water bill only funds the Civil Works
missions of the Corps of Engineers. Approximately 23,000
civilians and about 290 military officers are responsible for
this nationwide mission.
While the Corps Civil Works programs impact all 50 States
and virtually every citizen of our Nation, they are a
relatively minor part of the Federal budget. Funding for the
Corps comprised a little over 0.13 percent of the total Federal
budget for fiscal year 2011.
OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET REQUEST
The fiscal year 2012 budget request for the Corps of
Engineers is composed of $4,609,000,000 in new budget authority
including a proposed $22,000,000 rescission. This is a decrease
of $308,000,000 from the fiscal year 2011 request. The budget
request is $284,213,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted
amount. The budget request assumes a $22,000,000 rescission
that was included as a part of the fiscal year 2011 enacted
bill. The administration has not proposed a budget amendment to
close this $22,000,000 gap. Therefore the Committee will refer
to the Corps' budget request as $4,631,000,000 throughout this
report.
The tradition of this bill has been that virtually all
funding for the Corps of Engineers is designated to specific
studies/projects. The administration's budget request for
fiscal year 2012 continues this tradition. The four major
study/project accounts (General Investigations, Construction,
General, Mississippi River and Tributaries, and Operation and
Maintenance) comprise $4,108,000,000 of the administration's
overall budget request of $4,631,000,000 for the Corps of
Engineers. Only $309,198,000 of the budget request in these
four accounts is considered as programmatic funding. That is
about 7.5 percent of the funding proposed in these accounts.
The remainder of the $3,798,802,000 proposed in the four major
accounts is divided among 876 individual line item studies or
projects proposed by the administration. As the Corps of
Engineers has no inherent programmatic authorities under which
the organization was created, all of these individual studies
and projects are intended to be specifically authorized by
Congress and specifically funded through appropriations acts.
This Committee continues to believe that Members of
Congress are best positioned to know the unique needs of their
individual States and congressional districts. In past years,
Congress, exercising their prerogatives under the Constitution
would have added projects and studies to the administration's
request to ensure that the Nation's water resource needs were
met. As the four major study/project accounts in the Corps are
comprised of individual line items of studies or projects, the
Committee usually added line items for studies or projects that
were not included in the administration's budget request or,
alternatively, increased funding to items requested by the
administration to accelerate the project delivery process on
those items.
The line items that were added by Congress in previous
years were authorized and vetted in a public process in the
same manner as those line items that the administration
included in their request. The difference between the items
added by Congress and those included by the administration is
that the administration applied a number of supplemental
criterion for budgeting a study or project that the
authorizations for these studies or projects does not require.
Establishment of budget criteria was, and continues to be, an
administrative prerogative. It should be understood that this
criteria is established not necessarily to meet the Nation's
water resource needs, but rather to help the administration
decide which needs they choose to include in their budget
request. History has shown that this criteria is extremely
flexible depending on what an administration wants to fund in a
given year. This Committee does not believe that this budget
criteria, established by the administration without input from
the public or Congress, has any more validity than the criteria
that the Congress has used in the past to decide which projects
to fund.
Due to the vagaries of the administration's budget
criteria, the Congress has provided the consistency in funding
for items within the Corps of Engineers budget. Corps of
Engineers projects generally have two definitive points where
Congress can decide the Federal commitment to a water resources
development project. The first point is when an item is being
studied. By providing the initial study funding, the Congress
is making a tacit commitment that it intends to see the study
process through to completion. By the same token when a project
is authorized for construction and receives its initial
construction funding, that is a commitment that the Congress
intends to see the project through to completion. That is why
so few ``new'' studies and projects have been funded in recent
years. Congress has acknowledged the tight fiscal environment
by not creating tremendous outyear obligations for the Corps
with new work.
The administration used to adhere to these two definitive
starting points as well in their budget process, but that has
changed in recent years. There are numerous examples of
projects or studies that are included in the budget request in
a given year or for several years in a row and then suddenly,
due to changed budgeting criteria, they are not included.
Nearly all studies and projects are cost shared. That means
a local sponsor has contractually agreed to provide a
proportionate non-Federal share to match the Federal funds
appropriated. When these projects are not provided either
through the budget or an appropriations act, the work is
deferred until funding is appropriated. This inconsistent
funding, increases project costs, defers the projects benefits
to the national economy and plays havoc with the non-Federal
entities' financing plans for a projects and studies.
Traditionally, Congress has provided the consistency for
studies and projects undertaken by the Corps of Engineers
through congressionally directed spending by maintaining the
commitments to local sponsors and insuring consistent levels of
funding for the projects or studies that were initiated or
funded in appropriation acts.
A few examples will illustrate this point of this
inconsistent budgeting.
Congress added initial construction funding for St. Louis
flood protection in fiscal year 2008. This project was not
proposed by the administration because it did not meet their
budgetary criteria. Yet the administration included this
project in their fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2010 budget
and completed the project because their criteria for those
years allowed it to be budgeted. Had Congress not initiated
this project, it is unclear when it might have made it into the
administration's budget request.
Initial funding for the Ozark-Jeta Taylor and Whitney Lake
Powerhouse rehabilitations were added by Congress in fiscal
year 2004. In fiscal year 2005, they were included in the
administration budget request. In fiscal year 2006, neither was
included in the budget request. In fiscal year 2007, neither
was included in the administration budget request, but Whitney
Lake was funded in the fiscal year 2007 work plan when the
administration decided how the fiscal year 2007 continuing
resolution funding would be administered. In fiscal year 2008,
Ozark was included in the budget but Whitney was excluded. In
fiscal year 2009, Ozark was in the budget request and Whitney
was out. In fiscal year 2010-2012, both were excluded from the
budget request. The Corps informed the Committee that the
termination costs for the Ozark contract would exceed
$20,000,000 in fiscal year 2011. Yet, the administration
managed to include funding under the continuing resolution for
fiscal year 2011 to avoid this termination even though this was
not an item that was budgeted for. In the cases of both Whitney
and Ozark, Congress consistently provided needed funding
through Appropriation Acts since they were initiated.
A final example is the Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal
Dispersal Barrier. This project was initiated by Congress in
fiscal year 2003. In fiscal year 2004 it was included in the
budget request and funded by Congress at more than the
administration requested. In fiscal year 2005, it was not
included in the budget request but was funded by Congress. In
fiscal year 2006 it was not in the budget request and no
funding was provided. However, it has been requested and funded
in every year from fiscal year 2007-2012. This is the main
barrier designed to keep Asian carp out of the Great Lakes. How
could a project as important as this be treated so
inconsistently in the administration's budget request?
In fiscal year 2011 Congress was not able to provide the
usual level of funding oversight and consistency because of the
decision by Congress to forgo congressionally directed
spending. Instead the administration was required to submit a
work plan detailing how they would spend the funding provided
by Congress. The administration primarily funded their budget
requests with the funding included in the various accounts.
With the additional funding that Congress included, the
administration chose to fund a number of the line items that
were funded in the fiscal year 2010 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act but not in the fiscal year 2011
budget request. However, many items funded in fiscal year 2010
were suspended.
The General Investigations Program is proposed at
$104,000,000 for fiscal year 2012. This is a decrease of
$22,746,000 from the fiscal year 2011 enacted amount. This
account funds the preauthorization studies necessary to
determine the Federal interests in a water resource problem or
need.
The Construction, General account is proposed at
$1,480,000,000 for fiscal year 2012. The 85 line items proposed
for the construction, general account can be broken down as
follows:
--Dam safety activities $436,700,000 (29.5 percent);
--Environmental compliance activities comprise $202,800,000
(13.7 percent);
--Flood control and storm damage reduction activities
comprise $243,500,000 (16.5 percent);
--Coastal or deep draft navigation activities comprise
$110,900,000 (7.5 percent);
--Inland and shallow draft navigation activities comprise
$157,400,000 (10.6 percent);
--Ecosystem or environmental restoration activities comprise
$272,600,000 (18.4 percent); and
--An additional $56,100,000 is proposed for national programs
(3.8 percent).
This is a decrease of $133,822,000 from the fiscal year
2011 enacted amount. This account funds post authorization
studies and physical construction of authorized projects.
The Mississippi River and Tributaries account is proposed
at $152,000,000 and includes two rescissions totaling
$58,000,000 that are no longer available. The actual amount
requested when disregarding these rescissions is $210,000,000.
This account funds studies, construction and operation and
maintenance activities along the Mississippi River and
designated tributaries from Cape Giradeau, Missouri to the Gulf
of Mexico.
The Operation and Maintenance account is proposed at
$2,314,000,000. This is a decrease of $51,759,000 from the
fiscal year 2011 enacted amount. This account funds post
authorization studies of operating projects, maintenance of
Federal facilities and Federal operation of facilities where
authorized by law.
The Regulatory Program is proposed at $196,000,000 for
fiscal year 2012. This is an increase of $6,380,000 over the
fiscal year 2011 enacted amount to this program that provides
the funding for the Corps nationwide regulatory roles primarily
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act and section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
The Committee is disappointed that funding for the Formerly
Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP] proposed at
$109,000,000 was cut by $20,740,000 from the fiscal year 2011
enacted amount of $129,740,000. This program was transferred to
the Corps from the Department of Energy, because the Committee
was concerned with management and cost issues of the program
within the Energy Department. This is a program that is being
well-managed by the Corps and should have stable, adequate
budget resources to continue these radiological clean-up
activities. This decrease in funding will further stretch out
the clean-up of these sites.
The Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account is
proposed at $27,000,000 for fiscal year 2012. These funds are
proposed for readiness and preparedness activities for the
Corps of Engineers.
The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works) is proposed as a separate account for $6,000,000. This
is $1,010,000 more than provided in fiscal year 2011. The
Committee continues to believe that the Assistant Secretary's
office should be funded in the Defense appropriations bill.
However, until such time as this account can be reintegrated
into that bill, the Committee agrees that the office should be
funded as a separate account. The Assistant Secretary's duties
encompass much more than the Civil Works functions of the Corps
of Engineers and the budget needs of the office should be
addressed separately.
The General Expenses [GE] account is proposed at
$185,000,000 for fiscal year 2012. This is approximately the
same as the fiscal year 2011 enacted amount. With inflation,
this is a cut to the management and oversight functions of the
headquarters of the Corps. The Committee notes that the Corps
operates one of the most efficient headquarters staffs in the
National Capital region. Only about 3.5 percent of their
staffing is at headquarters as opposed to 10 percent or more
for comparable agencies in the National Capital region.
THE NATION'S WATERWAY SYSTEM
The Nation's waterway system constructed, operated, and
maintained by the Corps is an incredibly versatile and
interconnected system providing vital linkages to other modes
of transportation as well as providing benefits to the national
economy of more than $7,000,000,000 through transportation
savings over other available modes of transportation. This
system has been developed over the past 200 years and is
starting to show its age. Whether it is lock chambers that are
long past their design life or lock chambers that need to be
enlarged to handle increased traffic or harbor and channel
projects that need to be deepened or enlarged to handle
contemporary vessel sizes, a major recapitalization of this
infrastructure is needed, particularly if the Nation is to meet
the President's goal of doubling exports in the next 5 years.
Unfortunately only about 18 percent of the administration's
proposed construction budget is dedicated to navigation
projects. Despite whatever other efforts may be underway to
meet this goal, the budget request for the Corps for
improvements and maintenance of the waterway system falls
woefully short. It is hard for this Committee to understand how
exports can be doubled without improvements and adequate
maintenance to the projects that provide for the transit and
the exit points for these commodities.
INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND
The Committee is deeply trouble by the lack of progress on
finding a solution to the funding shortfalls in the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund. This fund provides one-half the costs of
construction and rehabilitation of locks and dams on the Inland
Waterways System. The system moves nearly 600 million tons of
cargo annually. To move that amount of cargo on the Nation's
highways would require an additional 24 million trucks or 5.456
million rail cars. Moving these same commodities by rail or
truck would cost billions more in fuel costs as well as
generating millions of tons of pollution. The Inland Waterways
System includes 238 lock chambers--138 of which have been in
operation for more than 50 years. Modernization of this system
is critical if the Nation expects to continue to benefit from
this highly fuel efficient and low pollution transportation
link.
The previous administration notified this Committee when
they submitted the fiscal year 2008 budget (February 2007) that
there was a looming problem with the amount of revenues
available in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund and that a
legislative proposal would be forthcoming to address the
situation. That legislative proposal was not presented to
Congress until April 2008. In the fiscal year 2009 budget
(February 2008) the previous administration proposed a lockage
user fee to replace the current fuel tax as a mechanism to
enhance revenues in the trust fund. This lockage fee was
roundly criticized as being developed without any input from
navigation users and was rejected by Congress. Unfortunately
the administration assumed these revenues as a part of their
fiscal year 2009 budget request which overstated the amount of
funding available for cost sharing with these projects.
Budgeted items could not be funded without these assumed
revenues leading to curtailment of the work planned for fiscal
year 2009. For fiscal year 2010-2012, the current
administration did not make that assumption. Rather they
aligned their budget request to account for expected revenues
to be generated by the trust fund in the given budget year.
This severely curtailed the funding available for modernization
of the system. However, the budget request has still discussed
the lockage fee proposal as a way to enhance revenues in the
trust fund.
In fiscal year 2010 this Committee recommended that
waterway users, the Corps and the appropriate authorizing
committees should work together to find a solution to this
funding issue. A working group consisting of a combination of
Corps of Engineers navigation, economics and engineering
experts and Inland Waterways User Board members from industry,
worked diligently for over a year to develop a 20-year capital
investment strategy for the Inland Waterways System. The
proposal they developed not only enhanced revenues in the trust
fund, but also provided a schedule to prioritize the work over
a 20-year period. The plan was submitted to the Congress and
the administration last year.
In December 2010, the administration provided their views
on the capital investment strategy. While the administration
noted the efforts of the working group, it found fault with
virtually every facet of the strategy. While the Committee
recognizes that implementation of some of the proposals in the
overall strategy would have been problematic, the Committee
believes that the strategy could have been further modified to
develop a plan that was acceptable to all parties.
Unfortunately, the overall tone of the administration response
was dismissive of the working group's efforts. This is
especially disappointing since a number of members of the
working group were employees of the administration. The
administration's response to the strategy further decided to
bring in extraneous issues to the Trust Fund discussion
concerning operation and maintenance costs. Those issues may
need to be addressed, but not in the scope of determining an
investment strategy to recapitalize the Inland Waterways
System.
We are now in the fifth budget cycle, since this problem
was identified with no solutions on the horizon. The Committee
remains committed to cost shared solutions to modernizing the
Nation's Inland Waterways System. The Committee recognizes that
this system, constructed over the last 100 years, is critical
to our national economy. However, the current financing model
for the Inland Waterways System is barely providing for minimal
improvements to the current system, much less the modernization
required if the system is to remain a low cost mode of
transportation. The Committee urges all of the parties involved
(including the administration) to reassemble and commit to
finding a solution that can be proposed as a part of the fiscal
year 2013 budget submission.
The Inland Waterways System is far too important to allow
it to continue to languish with inadequate funding and
crumbling infrastructure. The Committee is willing to wait for
a while longer to see if all of the appropriate parties are
willing to fulfill their responsibilities to resolve this
issue. If not, this Committee will be forced to act in some
manner to address the serious funding shortfalls in modernizing
this system.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING FOR INLAND WATERWAYS
The administration segregates the Inland Waterways System
into at least two parts for budgeting purposes. Those that are
designated as ``low use'' are given considerably lower budget
priority for maintenance dollars than the remainder of the
system. But is the administration really saving money by
segregating the projects in this manner? The ``low use''
waterways move more than 50 million tons annually. That
obviously pales in comparison to the roughly 550 million tons
moved on the ``high use'' waterways. However, these 50 million
tons of cargo would still have to be moved somehow, if they are
not moved by water transportation. The only other candidates
are truck and rail. It would require 2 million trucks or
455,000 rail cars to move the same amount of cargo that can be
moved on 33,500 barges. The shipping costs to the national
economy to move the same commodities to the same destinations
would likely increase by at least $500,000,000 by rail or
$1,500,000,000 by truck. The costs cited do not even begin to
include the costs to the economy of the increased pollution,
the likely increase in transportation fatalities or other costs
that are incurred. If maintenance of all ``low use'' projects
were fully funded, the Corps budget would be increased by less
than $200,000,000. Therefore the Committee has to ask, where
are the savings?
The Committee urges the administration to reconsider this
short-sighted budgetary decision in future budget submissions.
HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND
The administration has discussed a proposal as a part of
the fiscal year 2012 budget request to expand the authorized
uses of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund [HMTF] so that its
receipts are available to finance the Federal share of efforts
carried out by several agencies in support of commercial
navigation through the Nation's ports. No legislative proposal
to provide for this expansion has been forthcoming from the
administration. The administration asserts that work that other
Federal agencies perform at our Nation's ports would be more
appropriately charged to the HMTF rather than the general
treasury. However current law limits funds in the HMTF to be
used only for maintenance of waterways and harbors.
Available revenue from the 0.125 percent tax on the value
of imports at designated harbors amounts to roughly
$1,500,000,000 annually. These revenues can be utilized for
maintenance on more than 1,500 ports, harbors and waterways.
Current expenditures for maintenance of commercial waterways
and ports average about one-half of the revenue generated. This
imbalance has led to a surplus in the HMTF of roughly
$6,000,000,000. However, the Committee is concerned that if the
administration's proposal was implemented, the current surplus
in the HMTF would be rapidly exhausted. The funds deposited in
the HMTF are available through appropriations provided by this
Committee. As such, these appropriations are subject to the
same budget authority cap that all other appropriated funds in
this bill are subject to. To appropriate more funds for
maintenance of these projects would require the Committee to
cut funding elsewhere within the bill in order to stay within
the budget authority cap. With all of the competing demands on
funding from this Committee, it is impossible to find
sufficient funds to fully expend revenues that are generated by
the HMT.
There are at least two potential solutions to providing
more funding for these projects. One would be for the
authorizing committees to modify the HMTF so that it is not
subject to appropriation by this Committee. In other words, the
revenues would flow directly to the projects through whatever
mechanism was legislated. The second potential solution would
be for the administration to increase the amount of funding
from the HMTF included in their budget request. This could, if
the increase did not result in a corresponding decrease
elsewhere in the bill, lead to a higher allocation cap for the
bill allowing the Committee to dedicate more budget authority
to these items. Absent either of these solutions, the Committee
has provided some additional funding for maintenance of
projects subject to the HMT. However, the Committee recognizes
that these additional funds are insufficient to dredge all
eligible projects to their authorized widths and depths.
DAM SAFETY
The Committee notes that dam safety related activities in
fiscal year 2012 comprise more than $436,000,000 or 29.5
percent of the administration's $1,480,000,000 CG request. That
is a significant part of the construction budget and has been
consistent for the last several years while overall
construction funding has declined. The Committee is concerned
that with the downward trends in administration budgets that
there will be no room in the budget for anything but safety
improvements at Corps facilities.
The Committee does not dispute the need for these dam
safety improvements. When most of these projects were built,
they were located in very rural or remote areas with low
population density. In the intervening years, populations have
exploded around these projects placing many more people at
risk. Failure of these structures could potentially wipe out
entire communities that have grown-up in the valleys below
these projects.
The Committee is concerned that sometimes the desire to
keep the public informed about dam safety risks outstrips the
available engineering data. A prime case of this is a project
that reportedly needed immediate fixes of approximately
$50,000,000 and the public was told that the ultimate fix was
estimated at more than $500,000,000. This created tremendous
public angst as to how and when this project would be repaired.
However, when all of the engineering data was available, it was
determined that the ultimate fix was less than $50,000,000. The
Corps is to be commended for a solution that was so cost
effective versus earlier estimates. However, a lot of angst
could have been averted if the Corps had been more circumspect
in when and how the information was shared.
LEVEE SAFETY
Hurricane Katrina was for the Corps was what the Teton Dam
failure was for the Bureau of Reclamation--the first time a
major structure designed and constructed by the agencies had
failed and cost lives. Reclamation became a pioneer in dam
safety over the intervening 30 years since the Teton Dam
failure and continue to upgrade their structures across the
west. The Corps seems to be on a similar albeit accelerated
track since Hurricane Katrina.
One positive outcome from the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina
was that the public became more aware of the levees that
protect their communities. This new awareness resulted in an
examination of the conditions of these projects. Concurrent
with this new awareness was the Federal Emergency Management
Agency map modernization program for flood insurance rate maps.
With this remapping came the issue of certification of existing
levees and the need to determine how safe these levees are. All
of these factors have combined to cause a great deal of
uncertainty.
While the Committee would like to believe that engineered
structures will never fail, the reality is that all engineered
structures have the potential for failure if the right set of
circumstances happen at the right time. The Corps' own analysis
of the levee failures in New Orleans indicate that the failure
mode that occurred was not unknown to the Corps. However, the
Corps's designers did not account for that failure mode,
because it was not thought that type of failure could occur at
that location.
Risk is inherent in any man-made structure and the Corps is
charged with balancing that risk with the costs of the risk
reduction measures. The cost for risk-free protection is more
than the Nation has been willing to consider for any project.
There are always trade-offs. This is especially true with flood
control structures. There is always a larger flood, or an
unknown or unaccounted for failure mode that can cause the
structure to fail. The Committee looks to the Corps to build
structures to protect people based on the risks that they may
face and to communicate the residual risk that people protected
by these structure still face. It should be understood that
while the structures mitigate risk, they do not eliminate it.
The Committee fully supports the Corps efforts on levee
safety. However, the Committee is concerned that the costs to
repair levees may be overwhelming to local interests. The
Committee is not suggesting that the Corps should back away
from its safety culture, only that there should be checks and
balances to ensure that recommendations are not blindly made in
the name of safety without determining if the recommendations
actually provide cost effective safety improvements. The
Committee encourages the Corps when working with communities on
levee issues to be cognizant of the costs for proposed fixes
and the community's ability to fund the repairs.
The Committee is concerned about what it believes is an
overly broad reading of the definition of levees provided in
section 9002 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007.
While the definition includes ``structures along canals that
constrain water flows and are subject to more frequent water
loadings but that do not constitute a barrier across a
watercourse'' the Committee does not believe that the intent
was that the Corps should be setting the standards for
irrigation canals or canals that convey water for power
projects. Water in these canals can be shut off in relatively
short period of time as opposed to a canal failure in a flood
situation. Also, the Federal agencies responsible for these
canals have active safety programs in-place and Corps efforts
would be duplicative. The Committee encourages the Committee on
Levee Safety to provide categorical exclusions for these canal
systems.
THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER FLOOD OF 2011
This year, the greatest flood in the history of the
Mississippi River proved that the Mississippi River and
Tributaries System could withstand and manage epic flows, and
the most critical aspect of the 2011 event was what did not
happen because the system performed as designed.
Runoff from a snowpack three times greater than normal
combined with rainfall 10 times greater than average spread out
over a 200,000-square-mile area within the Mississippi River's
watershed and produced the Great Flood of 2011.
Even though there was water in historic proportions,
significant economic losses and plenty of pain and disruption
for many people, the real story was the non-event: a massive,
even unprecedented, discharge that was passed from north of
Cairo, Illinois, to the Gulf of Mexico without major
catastrophe.
This was a non-story due solely to the foresight of the
Federal Government acting in close partnership with State and
local officials after what some have called the worst natural
disaster to strike the United States--the 1927 flood.
The 1927 disaster which claimed 500 lives, left 600,000
people homeless and created a pathway of destruction 80 miles
wide and 1,000 miles long, flooding more than 26,000 square
miles, or 16.6 million acres of land.
After this massive flood, it was apparent to thoughtful
observers that the previous ``levees only'' approach to
containing the Mississippi River was ill-conceived. Under the
leadership of the Chief of Engineers, Major General Edgar
Jadwin, a plan was developed and submitted for approaching
flood control on the Mississippi River and its tributaries
which is unprecedented in its scope and foresight. Here are a
few significant excerpts from Jadwin's report:
``The plan heretofore pursued has been the construction of
levees high enough and strong enough to confine all of the
flood waters within the river channels. The levees that have
been constructed are not sufficiently high for such floods as
are now predicted. The cost of raising and strengthening them
sufficiently to carry extreme floods would greatly exceed the
cost of the plan proposed. Furthermore, the extent of the
disaster which follows a crevasse increases greatly as the
flood is forced to higher stages by confinement wholly within
the levee system. The loss of life and property in the recent
great flood in the alluvial valley followed the breaking of the
levees which reclaimed the land for the use of man. This
reclamation had been pushed so far that insufficient room was
left in the river for the passage of the unprecedented volume
of flood water. The levees must be strengthened but a halt must
be called on further material increase in their heights and the
consequent threat to the inhabitants of the areas they are
built to protect.
``Man must not try to restrict the Mississippi River too
much in extreme floods. The river will break any plan which
does this. It must have the room it needs, and to accord with
its nature must have the extra room laterally.
``The plan recommended provides the requisite space for the
passage of floods, and levees of adequate strength to withstand
them, so that should a flood recur of the magnitude of the
flood just experienced, the maximum of record, it would be
passed out to the gulf without danger to life in the alluvial
valley, and without damage to property except in the floodways
allotted for its passage.''
As faulty as the ``levees only'' plan was for flood
protection in the Lower Mississippi River Valley, it was
recognized that the levees had contributed to making the lower
valley an inhabitable area, a major contributor to the Nation's
economic security and providing one of the world's great
producers of food and fiber.
The Jadwin plan had four major components working together
in a complementary fashion:
--Levees;
--Floodways;
--Channel improvements to increase the river's carrying
capacity at a given stage; and
--Backwater improvements, including use of backwater areas to
store water until it can be safely released.
Levees had to be set back to reduce bottlenecks and where
that was not practical floodways were created--reconnecting the
river to its natural floodplains in today's parlance. The Corps
developed a comprehensive, systems approach for managing floods
on the river. A systems approach was necessary because many
features and components had to work together in a coordinated
fashion for the overall plan to function. This was decades
before comprehensive watershed planning was proposed for other
rivers and streams. Long before the Dutch developed their ideas
for ``room for the river'' or other advocates proposed letting
``rivers run free'', the Chief of Engineers was recommending
space for rivers in 1927 while as a practical matter including
levees and other features too.
The Jadwin plan was adopted into law in the 1928 Flood
Control Act and the major components of the resulting project,
the Mississippi River and Tributaries [MR&T] project, remain
largely unchanged today.
The epic floodwaters experienced in the valley this year
surpassed even the Great Flood of 1927 in many locations. The
Corps of Engineers' response required using every flood control
resource within the Mississippi River watershed, the third
largest in the world, to shave height from historic crest
levels during the flood's most dangerous hours.
Reservoirs and lakes along the Ohio, Missouri, and upper
Mississippi Rivers were filled to capacity and exceeded many
historic levels to help keep the water from overtopping the
Mississippi River and Tributaries System's flood control
structures.
Still, the reservoirs were not enough to stem the steadily
rising river. Fortunately other safety valves had been built
into the system. Floodways in Missouri and Louisiana were
operated to lower peak stages at various points in the river to
ensure that levees were not overtopped. While operating these
floodways led to loss of property and livelihood, the damages
were minimized as these areas were designed to flood, rather
than having levees overtopped and flooding in an uncontrolled
manner.
The floodways served their design purposes. Over a 3-day
period, activation of the Birds Point-New Madrid Floodway
reduced the forecasted crest near Hickman, Kentucky, by 3.8
feet and prevented the river from overtopping Federal levees
protecting cities and towns in Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri,
and Tennessee. The operation of both the Morganza and Bonnet
Carre Floodways resulted in a 2.5-foot lowering of the river's
forecasted crest at New Orleans and Baton Rouge, protecting a
200-mile-long corridor of people and the Nation's commerce.
History was made with the opening of the Morganza spillway
because it represented the first time three floodways had been
operated simultaneously.
During this flood, the Corps worked closely with the U.S.
Coast Guard to ensure navigation safety as well as the
integrity of flood control structures. Even though navigation
was constrained at times, the channel improvements along the
river were a critical part of the flood control system during
this historic event. Without river bend cutoffs, dikes, and
revetments, the high water would have overwhelmed levees and
floodwalls and the communities they protect. From Cairo to
Baton Rouge, flood stage records were broken; however, where
channel improvements were made--at Memphis, Helena, and
Arkansas City--river crests stayed well below prior record
levels.
As waters from the upper Mississippi and Ohio Rivers
gathered below the confluence at Cairo, Illinois, on May 3, the
river grew to monstrous proportions with flows of more than 2.3
million cubic feet per second, equal to 25 times the amount of
water flowing over Niagara Falls. During the peak of the flood
at Memphis, the Mississippi River was more than 8 miles wide.
Between May 3 and May 19, the river inundated 6.8 million acres
of farmland in unprotected areas between Cape Girardeau,
Missouri, and the Head of Passes in Louisiana. These were areas
which were designed to flood as a part of the Mississippi River
and Tributaries project. Approximately 10,000 people were
evacuated due to backwater flooding.
Despite giving up some ground to allow the river to flex
its power, the flood control system operated as designed and
protected almost 10 million acres, thousands of homes, more
than 4 million people and $200,000,000,000 of infrastructure
from inundation. By operating the MR&T system as it was
designed, including the floodways, the value of this investment
to our Nation can be counted by what we haven't lost: lives,
critical infrastructure for the energy industry and more than
$70,000,000,000 in damages to homes and businesses.
This was despite flows near or above those experienced
during the 1927 and 1937 floods. All the MR&T's flood control
features (floodways/spillways, backwater levees, channel
improvements, levees/floodwalls, gates, pumps, reservoirs and
relief wells) worked in concert to pass historic flows while
accommodating the natural tendencies of the mighty Mississippi
River.
To date, over the 80 years since passage of the 1928 Flood
Control Act, the Nation has spent $13,000,000,000 toward the
planning, construction, operation, and maintenance of the
project and, to date, the Nation has received a 27-to-1 return
on that investment, including $350,000,000,000 in flood damages
prevented. Such astounding figures place the MR&T project among
the most successful and cost-effective public works projects in
the history of the United States.
THE MISSOURI RIVER FLOOD AND OTHER FLOOD EVENTS OF 2011
The Mississippi River was not the only natural disaster
that the Nation faced in 2011. Floods on the Red River of the
North in North Dakota and Minnesota, on the West Coast, in the
Ohio Valley and on the Missouri River also caused major damages
across the Nation. However, the scope of the Missouri River
flood was second only to the Mississippi River flood of 2011
and the duration of the flooding along the Missouri River may
be longer.
Runoff into the Missouri River Basin above Sioux City,
Iowa, during the month of June was the highest single runoff
month since the Corps began keeping detailed records in 1898.
The previous record monthly runoff was 13.2 million acre feet
[MAF] in April of 1952. June 2011 runoff into the Missouri
River Basin above Sioux City was 13.8 MAF, enough water to fill
the Memorial Stadium in Lincoln, Nebraska, more than 9,700
times, or once every 1.5 minutes during the entire month.
The May 2011 runoff into the Missouri River Basin above
Sioux City was 10.5 MAF, the third highest single month of
runoff since 1898. The May and June combined runoff totaled
24.3 MAF, just short of the normal total annual runoff of 24.8
MAF. Runoff for the calendar year is projected to reach 57.7
MAF, approximately 230 percent of normal. The previous record
of 49 MAF was reached in 1997.
At the beginning of the runoff season, the Corps had
evacuated all of the floodwaters from last year and the
reservoirs were prepared to capture the expected 2011 runoff of
16.3 million acre feet. However, during May, the eastern half
of Montana received between 300 and 400 percent of normal
rainfall, more than a year's worth of rain in some locations
during a 2-week span. Portions of North Dakota, South Dakota,
and Wyoming received more than 200 percent of normal rainfall.
Heavy rain continued into June with significant areas of
Montana and South Dakota receiving more than 200 percent of
normal rainfall. Mountain snowpack, which typically peaks
around April 15, continued to accumulate until early May. To
date, more than 90 percent of that snowpack has melted and run
off into the system.
There are six lakes that comprise the main stem Missouri
River System. The base of the annual flood control and multiple
use pool storage is 56.8 MAF. As a system, the Missouri River
reservoirs can store a total of 73.1 MAF of water. On March 1,
the system storage level was 57.6 MAF, 0.8 MAF above the base
of the annual flood control and multiple use pool. The
additional water in the system was from early plains snowmelt
runoff in February.
The dams along the river allow the Corps to hold back
floodwaters in various communities. With the upper basin
reservoirs (Fort Peck, Garrison, and Oahe) providing nearly 85
percent of the flood control storage capacity, they store
floodwaters until conditions downstream permit release.
Fort Randall also contains a significant amount of flood
control storage and serves a major role in reducing flood
damages on the lower river. The remaining two reservoirs (Big
Bend and Gavins Point), have very little flood control storage
available and as a result function more as a pipeline
regulating the releases from the upstream reservoirs.
The system is protecting the public from unregulated flows.
Unregulated flows--which occur when flood waters flow
uncontrolled in a spillway--would result in significantly more
damage. In 2010 alone, the system prevented $2,300,000,000 in
flood damages and reduced peak river stages by 4 to 6 feet in
various areas. Without the dams, some communities would
otherwise have experienced flooding and damages similar to what
the river historically yielded in the late 1940s and early
1950s.
To deal with the onslaught of water, the Corps stepped up
reservoir releases leading to record amounts of water
downstream. Reservoir releases on the Missouri changed several
times in the span of a few weeks, due to changing daily
forecasts and increasing precipitation in Wyoming, Montana,
North Dakota, and South Dakota. The Corps released as much as
160,000 cubic feet per second from five of the six main stem
dams, which resulted in much higher levels on the river
downstream, on an earlier timeline than originally forecast.
The releases from the reservoirs set new records and in most
cases were more than double the previous records.
Flooding started in late May and has been working its way
through the Missouri River since that time. It is anticipated
that flood stages and high water will extend well into the late
summer and early fall of this year.
Damages to Corps of Engineers, owned, operated or inspected
infrastructure, both known and anticipated, due to all of these
natural disasters is anticipated to exceed $3,000,000,000.
PLANNING PROGRAM
The Committee is pleased that the Corps has taken an in
depth review of its planning program and is trying to make it
more responsive to the local sponsors and congress. One of the
Committee's major concerns was the inconsistent nature across
the Corps concerning planning efforts. The Corps seems to have
interpreted this as a desire to shorten the planning process.
While that is a laudable goal, the Committee recognizes that
some timeframes within the planning process are statutory and
cannot be shortened and some studies require a more in-depth
look. Items such as determining the future without project
conditions and determining the array of alternatives that
should be considered require careful evaluation. The Committee
is more concerned with the inconsistency of the planning
process across the Corps. Some districts seem rigid and overly
bureaucratic in their approach to planning. Others are creative
and accommodating to a fault. In large measure it depends on
the culture of the Corps district and division. The Corps needs
to continue to work on this. While a one-size-fits-all approach
will not work due to the great variations in problems and needs
throughout the country, more consistency as to how these
problems and needs are evaluated should be the goal. The
importance of these study reports cannot be overstated. They
are the basis from which all of the Corps' work is derived and
Congress depends heavily on these planning reports to inform
the decisionmaking process for authorizing and funding these
infrastructure investments. The Committee will continue to
monitor the progress of improving the consistency of the
planning process.
CONTINUING CONTRACTS AND REPROGRAMMING
The Committee expects the Chief of Engineers to execute the
Civil Works program generally in accordance with congressional
direction. This includes moving individual projects forward in
accordance with the funds annually appropriated. However, the
Committee realizes that many factors outside the Corps' control
may dictate the progress of any given project or study.
The Committee is retaining the reprogramming legislation
provided in the fiscal year 2010 Energy and Water Development
Act.
NEW STARTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
Due to continued declining budgets for the foreseeable
future, the Committee has concluded that it would not be
prudent to include any of the new starts proposed in the
administration's fiscal year 2012 budget request because of the
outyear requirements that would be incurred. This also includes
the new starts that the administration proposed in fiscal year
2011 and included in their fiscal year 2012 budget as
continuing projects.
FLOOD CONTROL CREDITS
The Committee is concerned about the Secretary's recent
policy change concerning credits--particularly for flood
control projects utilizing section 104 of Public Law 99-662.
The Secretary, in a letter dated May 5, 2011, stated that her
office will no longer consider applications for section 104
credit eligibility. The letter goes on to state that section
221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended by section
2003 of WRDA 2007, provides a more contemporary and
comprehensive general authority for affording credit for non-
Federal in-kind contributions that covers all water resources
development projects. The Committee does not dispute that the
Secretary has the right to set policy based on laws passed by
Congress. However, the Committee believes that in this case,
the law may not be as clear as perhaps it should have been. The
Committee is concerned that under this revised crediting policy
local projects that could reduce flood damages or improve flood
protection might not be constructed in a timely matter by local
interests because they are waiting on the Federal project to
get to a stage such that credits can be considered under this
new policy. Of particular concern are cases where local
communities are trying to restore flood control projects to
provide 100-year level of protection in order to avoid
mandatory flood insurance requirements. The Committee does not
believe it is the Secretary's intent via this policy change to
cause delays in constructing needed local flood control
measures that would be integral to a Federal project.
Therefore, the Committee urges the Secretary to consider
requests for flood control credits on a case-by-case basis to
ensure that legitimate credits that could be afforded under
section 104 would still be eligible for inclusion in an
eventual Federal project.
LAKE TAHOE CROSS-CUT BUDGET
The Committee is aware that considerable funding is being
expended by various Federal agencies to improve the water
quality of Lake Tahoe. However, the Committee cannot tell
whether the various agencies are coordinating their efforts and
putting these resources to their best uses. Therefore the
Committee directs the Corps to prepare a cross-cut budget that
displays the amounts of funding and the types of work being
expended for the improvement of Lake Tahoe. The initial cross-
cut budget for fiscal year 2012 should be prepared and
submitted to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees
within 120 days of enactment of this act. Subsequent cross-cut
budgets should be prepared and submitted concurrently with the
annual budget submission by the Corps.
SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE
Savings and slippage [S&S] is a budgetary term that
recognizes that nothing ever goes completely as planned. As
Corps budgets are initiated some 22 months before they are
presented to Congress a myriad of changes occur between this
initial budget submission and when funds are actually
appropriated. Projects speed up and slow down for a number of
reasons. Hazardous wastes or a cultural resources site is
discovered in the project right-of-way; a local sponsor may not
have his cost share in-place; additional alternatives may need
to be examined in a study; studies or even projects are
terminated. All of these things lead to uncertainties which
impact Corps' budgets.
When viewed in the historical context of annual Corps
spending rates, reasonable percentages of S&S make sense as a
way to accommodate additional projects needs, even if funding
is insufficient and has been utilized by the Committee for the
four major accounts. The Committee directs that the S&S amount
in each subaccount initially be applied uniformly across all
projects within the subaccounts. Upon applying the S&S amounts,
normal reprogramming procedures should be undertaken to account
for schedule slippages, accelerations, or other unforeseen
conditions.
CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING
Congressionally directed spending has become synonymous
with earmarks in recent debates, even for agencies such as the
Corps of Engineers where the majority of the budget request is
based on individual line item studies and projects. Due to this
ongoing debate, the Committee has voluntarily refused all
congressionally directed spending requests for fiscal year
2012. That means that the administration has total discretion
as to how the funding that this Committee appropriates will be
spent as it relates to individual studies and projects. The
Committee has retained the traditional tables for each of the
four major accounts delineating the 876 line items requested by
the President in the budget request. Due to inadequacies in the
administration's budget request, the Committee has also
inserted some additional line item funding under the nationwide
heading for specific categories of studies or projects that the
Committee feels are underrepresented in the administration's
budget request. The Corps has discretion within the guidelines
provided in each account as to which line items this additional
funding will be applied to. The Committee has not included any
congressionally directed spending as defined in section 5(a) of
rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate.
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
Appropriations, 2011.................................... $126,746,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 104,000,000
House allowance......................................... 104,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 125,000,000
This appropriation funds studies to determine the need,
engineering feasibility, economic justification, and the
environmental and social suitability of solutions to water and
related land resource problems; and for preconstruction
engineering and design work, data collection, and interagency
coordination and research activities.
The planning program is the entry point for Federal
involvement in solutions to the Nation's water resource
problems and needs. Unfortunately, the General Investigations
[GI] account amount proposed in the budget is generally the
same as what has been proposed in previous budgets. Nationwide
studies and programs consume almost one-half of the
administration's GI request. This budget asserts that the
Nation should concentrate scarce resources on completing
studies but not carrying forward ongoing studies.
The Committee has provided for a robust and balanced
planning program for fiscal year 2012. However, no new starts
are included in this recommendation.
The first column represents the reconnaissance phase of the
planning process. These studies determine if there is a Federal
interest in a water resource problem or need and if there is a
cost sharing sponsor willing to move forward with the study.
The next column represents the feasibility phase of the study.
These detailed cost-shared studies determine the selected
alternative to be recommended to the Congress for construction.
The third column represents the preconstruction engineering and
design phase. These detailed cost-shared designs are prepared
while the project recommended to Congress is awaiting
authorization for construction.
The Committee believes that by segregating the table in
this manner, more attention will be focused on the various
study phases, and a more balanced planning program will be
developed by the administration. As the last two columns are
generally cost shared, they demonstrate the commitment by cost-
sharing sponsors to be a part of the Federal planning process.
By the same token, it also shows the level of commitment of the
Federal Government to these cost-sharing sponsors.
The budget request and the recommended Committee allowance
are shown on the following table:
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation
Project title --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECON FEAS PED RECON FEAS PED RECON FEAS PED
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALASKA
MATANUSKA RIVER WATERSHED, AK........................ ......... 100 ......... ......... 100 ......... ......... 100 .........
YAKUTAT HARBOR, AK................................... ......... 100 ......... ......... 100 ......... ......... 100 .........
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA COASTAL SEDIMENT MASTER PLAN, CA.......... ......... 900 ......... ......... 900 ......... ......... 900 .........
COYOTE & BERRYESSA CREEKS, CA........................ ......... ......... 500 ......... ......... 500 ......... ......... 500
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA............................... ......... 80 ......... ......... 80 ......... ......... 80 .........
MALIBU CREEK WATERSHED, CA........................... ......... 210 ......... ......... 210 ......... ......... 210 .........
SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN COMPREHENSIVE BASIN STUDY, ......... 300 ......... ......... 300 ......... ......... 300 .........
CA..................................................
SAC-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ISLANDS AND LEVEES, CA......... ......... 1,015 ......... ......... 1,015 ......... ......... 1,015 .........
SAN PABLO BAY WATERSHED, CA.......................... ......... 500 ......... ......... 500 ......... ......... 500 .........
SOLANA BEACH, CA..................................... ......... 133 ......... ......... 133 ......... ......... 133 .........
SUTTER COUNTY, CA.................................... ......... 339 ......... ......... 339 ......... ......... 339 .........
UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK, CA........................... ......... 177 ......... ......... 177 ......... ......... 177 .........
YUBA RIVER FISH PASSAGE, CA.......................... 100 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
FLORIDA
LAKE WORTH INLET, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL.............. ......... 293 ......... ......... 293 ......... ......... 293 .........
MILE POINT, FL....................................... ......... 50 ......... ......... 50 ......... ......... 50 .........
GEORGIA
SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA........................ ......... ......... 600 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
TYBEE ISLAND, GA..................................... ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 .........
HAWAII
ALA WAI CANAL, OAHU, HI.............................. ......... 400 ......... ......... 400 ......... ......... 400 .........
ILLINOIS
DES PLAINES RIVER, IL (PHASE II)..................... ......... 500 ......... ......... 500 ......... ......... 500 .........
ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION, IL................. ......... 400 ......... ......... 400 ......... ......... 400 .........
INTERBASIN CONTROL OF GREAT LAKES--MISSISSIPPI RIVER ......... 3,000 ......... ......... 3,000 ......... ......... 3,000 .........
AQ..................................................
INDIANA
INDIANA HARBOR, IN................................... ......... ......... 300 ......... ......... 300 ......... ......... 300
KANSAS
TOPEKA, KS........................................... ......... ......... 100 ......... ......... 100 ......... ......... 100
LOUISIANA
BAYOU SORREL LOCK, LA................................ ......... ......... 2,000 ......... ......... 2,000 ......... ......... 2,000
CALCASIEU LOCK, LA................................... ......... 1,000 ......... ......... 1,000 ......... ......... 1,000 .........
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, LA........ ......... 100 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA..... ......... 10,845 5,400 ......... 10,845 5,400 ......... 10,845 5,400
MARYLAND
CHESAPEAKE BAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MD, PA, AND VA.... 250 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
EASTERN SHORE, MID CHESAPEAKE BAY ISLAND, MD......... ......... ......... 169 ......... ......... 169 ......... ......... 169
MASSACHUSETTS
PILGRIM LAKE, TRURO AND PROVINCETOWN, MA............. ......... 113 ......... ......... 113 ......... ......... 113 .........
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, MN AND SD (MINNESOTA ......... 350 ......... ......... 350 ......... ......... 350 .........
RI..................................................
KANSAS CITYS, MO AND KS.............................. ......... 330 ......... ......... 330 ......... ......... 330 .........
MISSOURI RIVER DEGRADATION, MO....................... ......... 600 ......... ......... 600 ......... ......... 600 .........
MONTANA
YELLOWSTONE RIVER CORRIDOR, MT....................... ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 .........
NEW HAMPSHIRE
MERRIMACK RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, NH AND MA........... ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 .........
NEW JERSEY
DELAWARE RIVER COMPREHENSIVE, NJ..................... ......... 290 ......... ......... 290 ......... ......... 290 .........
HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS, NJ... ......... ......... 100 ......... ......... 100 ......... ......... 100
HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, LOWER PASSAIC RIVER, NJ...... ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 .........
NEW MEXICO
RIO GRANDE BASIN, NM, CO, AND TX..................... ......... 300 ......... ......... 300 ......... ......... 300 .........
NEW YORK
HUDSON--RARITAN ESTUARY, NY AND NJ................... ......... 400 ......... ......... 400 ......... ......... 400 .........
JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND PLUMB BEACH, NY......... ......... ......... 170 ......... ......... 170 ......... ......... 170
WESTCHESTER COUNTY STREAMS, BYRAM RIVER BASIN, NY AND ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 .........
CT..................................................
NORTH CAROLINA
CURRITUCK SOUND, NC.................................. ......... 400 ......... ......... 400 ......... ......... 400 .........
NEUSE RIVER BASIN, NC................................ ......... ......... 450 ......... ......... 450 ......... ......... 450
SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH, NC................ ......... ......... 300 ......... ......... 300 ......... ......... 300
NORTH DAKOTA
FARGO, ND--MOORHEAD, MN.............................. ......... ......... 12,000 ......... ......... 12,000 ......... ......... 12,000
RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN, ND, MN, SD, AND ......... 433 ......... ......... 433 ......... ......... 433 .........
MANITOBA, CANADA....................................
OREGON
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR AND WA ......... 300 ......... ......... 300 ......... ......... 300 .........
WILLAMETTE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OR.......... ......... 250 ......... ......... 250 ......... ......... 250 .........
WILLAMETTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION, OR.......... ......... 213 ......... ......... 213 ......... ......... 213 .........
PENNSYLVANIA
SCHUYLKILL RIVER BASIN, WISSAHICKON CREEK BASIN, PA.. ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 .........
UPPER OHIO NAVIGATION STUDY, PA...................... ......... 1,363 ......... ......... 1,363 ......... ......... 1,363 .........
PUERTO RICO
CANO MARTIN PENA, PR................................. ......... 100 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
SOUTH CAROLINA
EDISTO ISLAND, SC.................................... ......... 100 ......... ......... 100 ......... ......... 100 .........
TEXAS
BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, BROWNSVILLE CHANNEL, TX........ ......... 726 ......... ......... 726 ......... ......... 726 .........
DALLAS FLOODWAY, UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX....... ......... 700 ......... ......... 700 ......... ......... 700 .........
GIWW, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER REALIGNMENTS, TX... ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 .........
GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO RIVER BASINS, TX........... ......... 400 ......... ......... 400 ......... ......... 400 .........
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, TX....................... ......... 425 ......... ......... 425 ......... ......... 425 .........
NUECES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, TX..................... ......... 650 ......... ......... 650 ......... ......... 650 .........
SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TX..................... ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 .........
VIRGINIA
CHOWAN RIVER, VA..................................... 124 ......... ......... 124 ......... ......... 124 ......... .........
JOHN H. KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA AND NC (SECTION ......... 365 ......... ......... 365 ......... ......... 365 .........
216)................................................
LYNNHAVEN RIVER BASIN, VA............................ ......... ......... 300 ......... ......... 300 ......... ......... 300
UPPER RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, VA..... ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 .........
WASHINGTON
MOUNT ST. HELENS, WA................................. ......... 225 ......... ......... 225 ......... ......... 225 .........
PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE MARINE HABITAT RESTORATION, WA. ......... 400 ......... ......... 400 ......... ......... 400 .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES................... 474 31,675 22,389 124 31,475 21,789 124 31,475 21,789
NATIONAL PROGRAMS
ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATIONS............................ ......... ......... ......... ......... 3,650 ......... ......... ......... .........
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK:
REMOTE COASTAL OR SMALL WATERSHEDS............... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 2,000 .........
SHORE PROTECTION................................. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 3,000 .........
SMALL, REMOTE OR SUBSISTENCE NAVIGATION.......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1,500 .........
FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION........................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 11,000 .........
ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 1,500 .........
INLAND NAVIGATION................................ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 3,000 .........
COASTAL AND DEEP DRAFT NAVIGATION................ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 10,500 .........
MULTI-PURPOSE.................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 4,000 .........
COORDINATION STUDIES WITH OTHER AGENCIES:
ACCESS TO WATER DATA............................. ......... 350 ......... ......... 350 ......... ......... 350 .........
COMMITTEE ON MARINE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS....... ......... 100 ......... ......... 100 ......... ......... 100 .........
OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS:
CALFED....................................... ......... 100 ......... ......... 100 ......... ......... 100 .........
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM....................... ......... 75 ......... ......... 75 ......... ......... 75 .........
COORDINATION WITH OTHER WATER RESOURCE ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 .........
AGENCIES....................................
GULF OF MEXICO............................... ......... 100 ......... ......... 100 ......... ......... 100 .........
INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT........ ......... 600 ......... ......... 600 ......... ......... 600 .........
INTERAGENCY WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT....... ......... 955 ......... ......... 955 ......... ......... 955 .........
INVENTORY OF DAMS............................ ......... 400 ......... ......... 400 ......... ......... 400 .........
LAKE TAHOE................................... ......... 100 ......... ......... 100 ......... ......... 100 .........
PACIFIC NW FOREST CASE....................... ......... 10 ......... ......... 10 ......... ......... 10 .........
SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS....................... ......... 1,550 ......... ......... 1,550 ......... ......... 1,550 .........
PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES.................... ......... 5,000 ......... ......... 5,000 ......... ......... 5,000 .........
COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA:
AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT TRI-CADD... ......... 350 ......... ......... 350 ......... ......... 350 .........
COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION.................... ......... 1,000 ......... ......... 1,000 ......... ......... 1,000 .........
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES....................... ......... 75 ......... ......... 75 ......... ......... 75 .........
FLOOD DAMAGE DATA................................ ......... 220 ......... ......... 220 ......... ......... 220 .........
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES.................. ......... 9,000 ......... ......... 9,000 ......... ......... 9,000 .........
HYDROLOGIC STUDIES............................... ......... 250 ......... ......... 250 ......... ......... 250 .........
INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES...................... ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 .........
PRECIPITATION STUDIES............................ ......... 225 ......... ......... 225 ......... ......... 225 .........
REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM ......... 75 ......... ......... 75 ......... ......... 75 .........
SUPPORT.........................................
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTERS..... ......... 50 ......... ......... 50 ......... ......... 50 .........
STREAM GAGING.................................... ......... 600 ......... ......... 600 ......... ......... 600 .........
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS........................... ......... 350 ......... ......... 350 ......... ......... 350 .........
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT............................. ......... 17,252 ......... ......... 17,252 ......... ......... 17,252 .........
OTHER--MISCELLANOUS:
INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW.......................... ......... 500 ......... ......... 500 ......... ......... 500 .........
NATIONAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM........... ......... 3,000 ......... ......... 3,000 ......... ......... 3,000 .........
NATIONAL SHORELINE............................... ......... 175 ......... ......... 175 ......... ......... 175 .........
PLANNING SUPPORT PROGRAM......................... ......... 3,100 ......... ......... 3,100 ......... ......... 3,100 .........
TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM....................... ......... 1,000 ......... ......... 1,000 ......... ......... 1,000 .........
WATER RESOURCES PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES........ ......... 500 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
WATER RESOURCES PRIORITIES STUDY................. ......... 2,000 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, NATIONAL PROGRAMS.................... ......... 49,462 ......... ......... 50,612 ......... ......... 83,462 .........
SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE................................. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... -11,850 .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL.......................................... 474 81,137 22,389 124 82,087 21,789 124 103,087 21,789
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS.................. 104,000
104,000
125,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Englebright and Daguerre Point Dams (Yuba River),
California.--No funding is included for this new item proposed
in the fiscal year 2012 budget.
Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia.--The Committee has not
funded this item in the GI account as recommended by the
administration. The Committee has transferred the budget
request to the Construction, General account where the
Committee has funded it every year since fiscal year 2009.
Louisiana Coastal Comprehensive Study, Louisiana.--No
funding is included for this new item proposed in the fiscal
year 2012 budget.
Chesapeake Bay Comprehensive Plan, Maryland, Virginia,
Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia, Delaware, and District
of Columbia.--No funding is included for this new item proposed
in the fiscal year 2012 budget.
Cano Martin Pena, Puerto Rico.--No funding is included for
this new item proposed in the fiscal year 2012 budget.
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The Committee
recommendation includes additional funds above the budget
request to continue ongoing studies. The Committee recommends
that these funds be used to accelerate high priority flood
control, storm damage reduction, navigation, and environmental
restoration studies. The Committee recommends that priority in
allocating these funds should be towards completing on-going
studies or for accelerating studies which will enhance the
Nation's economic development, job growth and international
competitiveness or for areas that have suffered recent natural
disasters.
The administration has complete discretion over how these
funds are to be used. The intent of these funds is for ongoing
work that either did not make it into the administration
request or were inadequately budgeted for. While this
additional funding is shown in the feasibility column, the
Corps should utilize these funds in whichever phase of work
that the funding should be applied to. Within 30 days of
enactment, the Corps shall provide the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees a work plan delineating how these
funds are to be distributed and in which phase the work is
being accomplished.
Water Resources Principles and Guideline.--No funding is
included for this new item first proposed in the fiscal year
2011 budget and treated as a continuing item in the fiscal year
2012 budget request.
Water Resources Priorities Study.--No funding is included
for this new item first proposed in the fiscal year 2009
budget. This item has never been funded but was treated as a
continuing item in the fiscal year 2012 budget request.
CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL
Appropriations, 2011.................................... $1,613,822,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 1,480,000,000
House allowance......................................... 1,565,191,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,610,000,000
This appropriation includes funds for construction, major
rehabilitation and related activities for water resources
development projects having navigation, flood and storm damage
reduction, water supply, hydroelectric, environmental
restoration, and other attendant benefits to the Nation. The
construction and major rehabilitation for designated projects
for inland and costal waterways will derive one-half of the
funding from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Funds to be
derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund will be applied
to cover the Federal share of the Dredged Material Disposal
Facilities Program.
The administration request for the Construction, General
account is $1,480,000,000, a decrease of $133,822,000 from the
fiscal year 2011 enacted amount. By the Committee's estimate,
less than 60 percent of the needed funding is available in this
account. Construction levels will slip due to constrained
funding and benefits to the national economy will be deferred.
The Committee is concerned that this lack of investment will
inevitably lead to another Katrina-style disaster somewhere in
the Nation, whether it is a catastrophic failure on the Inland
Waterways System or overwhelmed incomplete or damaged flood
control or shore protection infrastructure. The aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina should have taught us, if nothing else, that
more robust investment before the fact would have led to
considerably smaller payouts after the disaster. Yet, based on
the budget requests in the intervening 6 years, it is obvious
that no lesson has been learned.
The Committee recommendation includes $1,610,000,000 in new
budget authority for this account. The Committee recognizes
that this is considerably less than the needs in the program,
but is the best that can be accomplished in this constrained
fiscal environment.
The Committee deleted the new construction starts requested
by the administration as sufficient funding does not exist in
the current budget nor is there reasonable assurance that
sufficient funds will be available in the future to accommodate
these new items as well as ongoing work.
Continuing Authorities Program [CAP].--The Continuing
Authorities Program (projects which do not require specific
authorizing legislation) includes projects for flood control
(section 205), emergency streambank and shoreline protection
(section 14), beach erosion control (section 103), mitigation
of shore damages (section 111), navigation projects (section
107), snagging and clearing (section 208), aquatic ecosystem
restoration (section 206), beneficial uses of dredged material
(section 204), and project modifications for improvement of the
environment (section 1135). The Committee rejects the
administration proposal to transfer funds from other sections
of the CAP to only fund sections 205, 206 and 1135 for fiscal
year 2012. The Corps has told the Committee on numerous
occasions that there is a considerable backlog of ongoing work
in all sections of the CAP program. For that reason the
Committee is surprised that the administration would propose to
carry over funding to fiscal year 2012 for this ill considered
proposal when the funding proposed for carryover was previously
provided to address this backlog. The Committee believes these
funds should be expended for the CAP sections for which they
were appropriated and should be executed as quickly as
possible. The Committee continues to believe that the various
sections of the CAP program provide a useful tool for the Corps
to undertake small localized projects without being encumbered
by the lengthy study and authorization phases typical of most
Corps projects.
Even though there was no budget request for funding in the
CAP program for fiscal year 2012, the Committee has included a
total of $30,000,000 spread over the nine CAP sections for work
in fiscal year 2012. The Committee believes that it was an
imprudent and shortsighted decision by the administration to
not propose any funding for this program. The Committee urges
the administration to execute the program laid out by the
Committee and include funding for this program in future
budgets in the same manner as in the past.
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget House Committee
Item estimate allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALIFORNIA
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (COMMON FEATURES), CA.................. 25,548 23,149 25,548
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM MODIFICATIONS), CA......... 21,000 19,028 21,000
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM RAISE), CA................. 1,000 906 1,000
HAMILTON AIRFIELD WETLANDS RESTORATION, CA...................... 8,250 7,475 8,250
HAMILTON CITY, CA............................................... 8,000 .............. ..............
NAPA RIVER, SALT MARSH RESTORATION, CA.......................... 9,500 8,607 9,500
OAKLAND HARBOR (50 FOOT PROJECT), CA............................ 350 317 350
SACRAMENTO DEEPWATER SHIP CHANNEL, CA........................... 3,500 3,171 3,500
SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA.................... 10,000 9,061 10,000
SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA.................................... 20,500 18,575 20,500
SANTA PAULA CREEK, CA........................................... 2,078 1,882 2,078
SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY STREAMS, CA............................. 5,000 4,530 5,000
SUCCESS DAM, TULE RIVER, CA (DAM SAFETY)........................ 18,000 18,000 18,000
YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA............................................ 2,000 1,812 2,000
FLORIDA
BREVARD COUNTY, CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL............................ 350 317 350
DADE COUNTY, FL................................................. 15,202 13,774 15,202
DUVAL COUNTY, FL................................................ 100 90 100
FORT PIERCE BEACH, FL........................................... 350 317 350
HERBERT HOOVER DIKE, FL (SEEPAGE CONTROL)....................... 85,000 85,000 85,000
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL......................................... 7,000 6,342 7,000
MANATEE COUNTY, FL.............................................. 100 90 100
NASSAU COUNTY, FL............................................... 700 634 700
SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL......................... 162,724 130,000 162,724
ST. JOHN'S COUNTY, FL........................................... 350 317 350
TAMPA HARBOR, FL................................................ 3,000 2,718 3,000
GEORGIA
LOWER SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN, GA.................................. 45 40 45
RICHARD B. RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND SC...................... 3,200 2,899 3,200
SAVANNAH HARBOR DISPOSAL AREAS, GA AND SC....................... 5,040 4,566 5,040
SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA................................... .............. 543 600
ILLINOIS
ALTON TO GALE ORGANIZED LEVEE DISTRICTS, IL AND MO.............. 500 453 500
CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (DEF CORR).......... 2,250 2,038 2,250
CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIER, IL........... 13,500 21,805 24,065
DES PLAINES RIVER, IL........................................... 1,000 906 1,000
EAST ST. LOUIS, IL.............................................. 1,350 1,223 1,350
LOCK AND DAM 27, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (MAJOR REHAB)............ 100 90 100
MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL.............................. 12,000 10,873 12,000
OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL AND KY.................... 150,000 135,915 150,000
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION, IL, IA, MN, MO, AND........ 18,150 16,445 18,150
WOOD RIVER LEVEE, DEFICIENCY CORRECTION AND RECONSTRUCTION...... 830 752 830
INDIANA
LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, IN........................................ 9,000 7,100 9,000
IOWA
MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE RECOVERY, IA, KS, MO,.......... 72,888 72,888 72,888
KANSAS
TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS AND MO................................... 4,000 3,624 4,000
KENTUCKY
WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY............................. 132,000 132,000 132,000
LOUISIANA
LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION).............. 5,500 4,983 5,500
LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA................ 10,620 .............. ..............
MARYLAND
ASSATEAGUE, MD.................................................. 1,000 906 1,000
CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD AND VA....................... 5,000 4,530 5,000
POPLAR ISLAND, MD............................................... 12,000 10,873 12,000
MASSACHUSETTS
MUDDY RIVER, MA................................................. 4,000 3,624 4,000
MINNESOTA
CROOKSTON, MN................................................... 1,250 1,132 1,250
MISSOURI
BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO............................. 3,000 2,718 3,000
CLEARWATER LAKE, MO............................................. 32,900 32,900 32,900
KANSAS CITYS, MO AND KS......................................... 500 453 500
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN THE OHIO AND MISSOURI RIVERS.......... 7,320 6,632 7,320
MONARCH--CHESTERFIELD, MO....................................... 1,351 1,224 1,351
ST. LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, MO.................................. 100 90 100
NEW JERSEY
GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET AND PECK BEACH, NJ....................... 500 453 500
LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY POINT, NJ...................... 7,650 6,931 7,650
RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY (PORT MONMOUTH), NJ.............. 3,000 2,718 3,000
RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB-BASIN, NJ.................. 6,000 5,436 6,000
NEW MEXICO
RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY, SAN ACACIA TO BOSQUE DEL APACHE,........... 10,000 9,061 10,000
NEW YORK
ATLANTIC COAST OF NYC, ROCKAWAY INLET TO NORTON POINT, NY....... 100 90 100
FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NY.......................... 1,350 1,223 1,350
LONG BEACH ISLAND, NY........................................... 300 271 300
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY AND NJ....................... 65,014 58,909 65,014
OHIO
DOVER DAM, MUSKINGUM RIVER, OH (DAM SAFETY ASSURANCE)........... 5,000 5,000 5,000
OKLAHOMA
CANTON LAKE, OK................................................. 11,100 11,100 11,100
OREGON
COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING ACCESS SITES, OR AND WA........... 2,000 1,812 2,000
LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR AND WA........... 4,200 3,805 4,200
PENNSYLVANIA
EMSWORTH LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, PA.......................... 3,000 3,000 3,000
LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3, AND 4, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA............... 1,000 1,000 1,000
PRESQUE ISLE PENINSULA, PA (PERMANENT).......................... 1,500 1,359 1,500
PUERTO RICO
PORTUGUES AND BUCANA RIVERS, PR................................. 45,000 40,774 45,000
RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR............................................ 7,000 6,342 7,000
TENNESSEE
CENTER HILL LAKE, TN............................................ 78,700 78,700 78,700
TEXAS
BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX........................................ 3,000 2,718 3,000
HOUSTON--GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TX...................... 600 543 600
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN (WHARTON/ONION), TX.................. 5,000 .............. ..............
VIRGINIA
LEVISA AND TUG FORKS AND UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER, VA, W.......... 5,000 4,530 5,000
NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, CRANEY ISLAND, VA.................. 27,400 24,827 27,400
ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS AREA, VA.................. 1,075 974 1,075
WASHINGTON
COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR, AND ID.................. 128,405 128,405 128,405
DUWAMISH AND GREEN RIVER BASIN, WA.............................. 2,060 1,866 2,060
LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE COMPENSATION, WA,........... 1,500 1,500 1,500
MOUNT SAINT HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA......................... 6,500 5,889 6,500
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA............................................ 1,000 906 1,000
WEST VIRGINIA
BLUESTONE LAKE, WV.............................................. 70,000 70,000 70,000
-----------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, PROJECTS........................................ 1,423,950 1,320,479 1,411,495
NATIONAL PROGRAMS
ADDITIONAL FLOOD AND COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION............. .............. 124,600 ..............
ADDITIONAL NAVIGATION........................................... .............. 118,400 ..............
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK:
SHORE PROTECTION............................................ .............. .............. 40,000
FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION...................................... .............. .............. 50,000
NAVIGATION.................................................. .............. .............. 22,000
MISCELLANEOUS............................................... .............. .............. 7,000
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION OR COMPLIANCE PROJECTS............ .............. .............. 15,000
ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCURE PROJECTS........................ .............. .............. 40,000
HYDROPOWER PROJECTS......................................... .............. .............. 15,000
AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM................................... .............. .............. 4,000
CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROJECTS NOT REQUIRING SPECIFIC:
AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION 206)................. .............. .............. 5,000
BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL (SECTIONS 20............ .............. .............. 3,000
EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE PROTECTION (SECTION)..... .............. .............. 2,000
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205)........................ .............. .............. 5,000
NAVIGATION MITIGATION PROJECT (SECTION 111)................. .............. .............. 2,500
NAVIGATION PROGRAM (SECTION 107)............................ .............. .............. 3,000
PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT.... .............. .............. 5,000
SHORE PROTECTION (SECTION 103).............................. .............. .............. 4,000
SNAGGING AND CLEARING (SECTION 208)......................... .............. .............. 500
DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY CORRECTION PROGRAM............. 37,155 37,155 37,155
EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION......................................... 15,000 13,591 15,000
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--BOARD EXPENSE..................... 70 63 70
INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD--CORPS EXPENSE..................... 825 747 825
ESTUARY RESTORATION PROGRAM (PUBLIC LAW 106-457)................ 2,000 .............. 2,000
PERIODIC REVIEW OF BCRS......................................... 1,000 906 1,000
-----------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, NATIONAL PROGRAMS............................... 56,050 295,462 279,050
SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE............................................ .............. .............. -80,545
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL, CONSTRUCTION GENERAL............................... 1,480,000 1,615,941 1,610,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hamilton City, California.--No funding is included for this
new item proposed in the fiscal year 2012 budget.
Napa River, Salt Marsh Restoration, California.--This
project was a new start construction project proposed by the
administration as a part of the fiscal year 2010 budget.
Congress agreed with this new start proposal and provided
$100,000 for this project in the fiscal year 2010 conference
report. A total of $17,250,000 was included in the work plan
developed by the administration as directed in the fiscal year
2011 continuing resolution. An additional $9,500,000, the
administration's fiscal year 2012 request, is included in this
report.
However, it has come to the Committee's attention that the
administration has directed the Corps to only budget for the
parts of the authorization that the administration supports and
that no funds can be budgeted for parts of the project that the
administration does not support. The Committee believes that if
the administration did not support portions of the project as
authorized, the project should have never been a part of the
administration budget request, much less one of the
administration proposals as a new start. The Committee believes
that if the administration puts forth a project as a new start
in their budget request, it should have the administration's
unqualified support and by definition, should have risen to the
top of all other potential new starts available for the
administration to choose from. If the authorization was flawed,
in the administration's view, then how could the project have
risen to the top of the list? This is a clear case of the
administration trying to budget for what they wish had been
authorized, rather than what was actually authorized.
The Committee's position is that the administration (by
budgeting) and Congress (by appropriating funds) has committed
to the project as authorized in section 101(12) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2007 regardless of what the
administration may have wanted. The project partnership
agreement executed between the Government and the non-Federal
sponsor delineates the project as authorized, not the project
that the administration would like to have been authorized.
Therefore, the Committee directs the Corps to utilize any
unspent funds that have been previously provided for this
project as well as those included in the administration's
fiscal year 2012 budget request, provided in this bill, for all
of the authorized project features as appropriate to the
current stage of construction. Further, the Committee directs
that future budget submissions should not selectively budget
for parts of this project, but should include all authorized
project features as appropriate for the work planned for that
budget request.
Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia.--The administration
budget request for this item that was proposed in the GI
account has been moved to this account where it has been funded
for the last 3 fiscal years.
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier,
Illinois.--After release of the fiscal year 2012 budget
justifications, the Corps informed the Committee that the
funding proposed in the O&M account for this project was
actually needed in this account. The Committee has accommodated
this change and provided no funding in the O&M account.
Raritan and Sandy Hook Bay, Port Monmouth, New Jersey.--The
Committee recommendation includes the budget request for this
project as proposed by the administration even though the
administration labeled this project as a ``previously unfunded
item'' in their budget request. The Committee does not consider
this as a new start as it was provided funding in the fiscal
year 2010 Energy and Water Act. The Committee's view is that
since the Congress enacted the fiscal year 2010 bill and the
President signed the bill into law, that this project has been
initiated.
Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration, Louisiana.--
No funding is included for this new item first proposed in the
fiscal year 2011 budget and treated by the administration as a
continuing project in fiscal year 2012.
Onion Creek, Lower Colorado River, Texas.--No funding is
included for this new item first proposed in the fiscal year
2011 budget and treated by the administration as a continuing
project for fiscal year 2012.
Norfolk Harbor, Craney Island, Virginia.--This project,
much like the one mentioned previously, was a new start
construction project proposed by the administration as a part
of the fiscal year 2010 budget. Congress agreed with this new
start proposal and provided $100,000 for this project in the
fiscal year 2010 conference report. $1,000,000 was included in
the work plan developed by the administration as directed in
the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution. An additional
$27,400,000, the administration's fiscal year 2012 request, is
included in this report.
However, it has come to the Committee's attention that the
administration has directed the Corps to only budget for the
parts of the authorization that the administration supports and
that no funds can be budgeted for parts of the project that the
administration does not support. The Committee believes that if
the administration did not support portions of the project as
authorized, the project should have never been a part of the
administration, budget request, much less one of the
administration proposals as a new start. The Committee believes
that if the administration puts forth a project as a new start
in their budget request, it should have the administration's
unqualified support and by definition, should have risen to the
top of all other potential new starts available for the
administration to choose from. If the authorization was flawed,
in the administration's view, then how could the project have
risen to the top of the list? This is a clear case of the
administration trying to budget for what they wish had been
authorized, rather than what was actually authorized.
The Committee's position is that the administration (by
budgeting) and Congress (by appropriating funds) has committed
to the project as authorized in section 101(45) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2007 regardless of what the
administration may have wanted. The project partnership
agreement executed between the Government and the non-Federal
sponsor delineates the project as authorized, not the project
that the administration would like to have been authorized.
Therefore, the Committee directs the Corps to utilize any
unspent funds that have been previously provided for this
project as well as those included in the administration's
fiscal year 2012 budget request, provided in this bill, for all
of the authorized project features as appropriate to the
current stage of construction. Further, the Committee directs
that future budget submissions should not selectively budget
for parts of this project, but should include all authorized
project features as appropriate for the work planned for that
budget request.
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The Committee
recommendation includes additional funds above the budget
request to continue ongoing projects and activities. The
Committee recommends that these funds be used for flood
control, storm damage reduction, navigation, environmental
restoration, environmental infrastructure, and miscellaneous
projects. The Committee recommends that priority in allocating
these funds should be towards completing on-going projects,
accelerating projects which will enhance the Nation's economic
development, job growth and international competitiveness or
those where the local sponsor has the funding in-place for
their share of the construction contemplated with the funds
available.
The administration has complete discretion over how these
funds are to be used. The intent of these funds is for ongoing
work that either did not make it into the administration
request or were inadequately budgeted. Within 30 days of
enactment, the Corps shall provide the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees a work plan delineating how these
funds are to be distributed and in which phase the work is
being accomplished.
Continuing Authorities Program.--For each Continuing
Authorities Program [CAP] section, available funds shall be
allocated utilizing this sequence of steps until the funds are
exhausted:
--capability-level funds for ongoing projects that have
executed cost-sharing agreements for the applicable
phase;
--capability-level funds for projects that are ready for
execution of new cost-sharing agreements for the
applicable phase and for which Corps headquarters
authorizes execution of the agreements;
--funds, as permitted by Corps policies, for other projects
previously funded for the applicable phase but not
ready for execution of new cost-sharing agreements; and
--funds as permitted by Corps policies, for projects not
previously funded for the applicable phase.
Funds shall be allocated by headquarters to the appropriate
Field Operating Agency [FOA] for projects requested by that
FOA. If the FOA finds that the study/project for which funds
were requested cannot go forward, the funds are to be returned
to Corps headquarters to be reallocated based on the nationwide
priority listing. In no case should the FOA retain these funds
for use on a different project than the one for which the funds
were requested without the explicit approval of the Corps'
headquarters.
Within the step at which available funds are exhausted for
each CAP section, funds shall be allocated to the projects in
that section that rank high according to the following factors:
high overall performance based on outputs; high percent
fiscally complete; and high unobligated carry-in. Section 14
funds shall be allocated to the projects that address the most
significant risks and adverse consequences, irrespective of
phase or previous funding history.
The Corps shall continue the ongoing process for suspending
and terminating inactive projects. Suspended projects shall not
be reactivated or funded unless the sponsor reaffirms in
writing its support for the project and establishes its
willingness and capability to execute its project
responsibilities.
In order to provide a mix of studies, design and
construction within each CAP section, the Corps is directed to
divide the funding generally 80/20 between the Design and
Implementation and the Feasibility phases within each
authority. The Chief of Engineers shall provide a report to the
Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of enactment of
this act detailing how funds will be distributed to the
individual items in the various CAP sections for the fiscal
year. The Chief shall also provide an annual report at the end
of each fiscal year detailing the progress made on the backlog
of projects. The report should include the completions and
terminations as well as progress of ongoing work.
The Corps may initiate new continuing authorities projects
in all sections as funding allows. New projects may be
initiated after an assessment is made that such projects can be
funded over time based on historical averages of the
appropriation for that section and after prior approval by the
Committees on Appropriations.
FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, ARKANSAS, ILLINOIS,
KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, AND TENNESSEE
Appropriations, 2011.................................... $241,906,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 152,000,000
House allowance......................................... 210,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 250,000,000
This appropriation funds planning, construction, and
operation and maintenance activities associated with water
resource projects located in the lower Mississippi River Valley
from Cape Girardeau, Missouri to the Gulf of Mexico.
The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are
shown on the following table:
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget House Committee
Item estimate allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEMPHIS METRO AREA, STORM WATER MANAGEMENT STUDY, TN............ 100 100 100
-----------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, INVESTIGATIONS.................................. 100 100 100
CONSTRUCTION
CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, AND TN............. 45,570 45,570 45,570
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, AND TN........ 24,180 24,180 24,180
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA.......................... 1,900 1,900 1,900
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA........................................... 6,300 6,300 6,300
-----------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, CONSTRUCTION.................................... 77,950 77,950 77,950
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, AND TN............. 61,230 61,230 61,230
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR.............................. 122 122 122
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR............................... 189 189 189
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR............................ 223 223 223
LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR............................ 150 150 150
MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, AND TN........ 7,951 7,951 7,951
ST. FRANCIS BASIN, AR AND MO.................................... 4,174 4,174 4,174
TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, AR AND LA................ 1,884 1,884 1,884
WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR....................................... 896 896 896
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL............................... 110 110 110
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY............................... 60 60 60
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA.......................... 1,468 1,468 1,468
ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA........................................... 8,918 8,918 8,918
BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA............................. 42 42 42
BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA.............................. 48 48 48
BONNET CARRE, LA................................................ 2,145 2,145 2,145
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA............................... 697 697 697
LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA.......................... 377 377 377
MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA.................................... 438 438 438
OLD RIVER, LA................................................... 6,954 6,954 6,954
TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA........................... 2,473 2,473 2,473
GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS........................................... 18 18 18
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS............................... 109 109 109
VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS............................................ 32 32 32
YAZOO BASIN, ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS................................. 4,606 4,606 4,606
YAZOO BASIN, BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS............................ 185 185 185
YAZOO BASIN, ENID LAKE, MS...................................... 4,386 4,386 4,386
YAZOO BASIN, GREENWOOD, MS...................................... 807 807 807
YAZOO BASIN, GRENADA LAKE, MS................................... 4,511 4,511 4,511
YAZOO BASIN, MAIN STEM, MS...................................... 1,019 1,019 1,019
YAZOO BASIN, SARDIS LAKE, MS.................................... 5,687 5,687 5,687
YAZOO BASIN, WILL M. WHITTINGTON AUXILARY CHANNEL, MS........... 378 378 378
YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS........................... 517 517 517
YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO CITY, MS..................................... 731 731 731
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO............................... 125 125 125
WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO............................................. 4,167 4,167 4,167
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN............................... 60 60 60
MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN............................... 1,394 1,394 1,394
-----------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE....................... 130,248 130,248 130,248
REMAINING ITEMS
COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA.............................. 500 500 500
MAPPING......................................................... 1,202 1,202 1,202
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK
DREDGING.................................................... .............. .............. 5,000
FLOOD CONTROL............................................... .............. .............. 25,000
MISCELLANEOUS............................................... .............. .............. 20,000
-----------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS................................. 1,702 1,702 51,702
SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE............................................ .............. .............. -10,000
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER & TRIBUTARIES.................... 210,000 210,000 250,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-2011 Flood Studies.--The Committee recognizes that the
Mississippi River and Tributaries project performed as designed
during the 2011 flood, but also recognizes that the project has
not yet been completed. The flooding that did occur within the
project area could have been mitigated by remaining features
yet to be constructed. The Committee directs the Secretary to
provide a report to the Committee within 90 days of enactment
of this act that describes the construction features that
remain and the costs of those features, a report on the prior
studies that proposed to make improvements to the system, and
to evaluate, within existing authorities, the issue of
backwater flooding that occurred in this year's flood and what
can be done in the future to mitigate this issue.
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The Committee
recommendation includes additional funds above the budget
request to continue ongoing studies projects or maintenance.
The Committee recommends that these funds be used for flood
control, navigation, water supply, ground water protection,
waterfowl management, bank stabilization and environmental
restoration work. The Committee recommends that priority in
allocating these funds should be towards completing on-going
work or for accelerating work which will enhance the region and
Nation's economic development, job growth and international
competitiveness or for areas that have suffered recent natural
disasters.
The administration has complete discretion over how these
funds are to be used. The intent of these funds is for ongoing
work primarily along the Mississippi River tributaries that
either did not make it into the administration request or were
inadequately budgeted. While this additional funding is shown
under remaining items, the Corps should utilize these funds in
whichever phase of work that the funding is applied to. Within
30 days of enactment, the Corps shall provide the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees a work plan delineating how
these funds are to be distributed and in which phase the work
is being accomplished.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL
Appropriations, 2011.................................... $2,365,759,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 2,314,000,000
House allowance......................................... 2,368,925,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,360,000,000
This appropriation funds operation, maintenance, and
related activities at the water resources projects that the
Corps operates and maintains. Work to be accomplished consists
of dredging, repair, and operation of structures and other
facilities, as authorized in the various river and harbor,
flood control, and water resources development acts. Related
activities include aquatic plant control, monitoring of
completed projects where appropriate, removal of sunken
vessels, and the collection of domestic waterborne commerce
statistics.
Maintenance of our aging water infrastructure inventory
gets more expensive every year, however, it is consistently
underfunded. If this trend continues, the Corps will not be
able to maintain expected levels of service at all of its
projects. The Committee has maintained its tradition of
supporting what the budget request terms as ``low use harbors
and waterways''. The Committee recognizes the importance of
these facilities and will continue to provide funding for them.
The Committee is concerned about the general downward trend in
the administration's O&M request. Since fiscal year 2010, the
administration's budget proposal has decreased by $190,000,000
for operation and maintenance. The Committee understands that
the O&M budget fluctuates from year to year due to periodic
maintenance dredging requirements, however, the general trend
should be for this budget to increase. Nearly 75 percent of the
O&M budget consists of labor and dredging costs in most years.
Labor costs rarely decrease for the Corps as it takes roughly
the same amount of manpower to operate Corps projects on a
yearly basis. That means that when the budget request is
reduced as it is for fiscal year 2012, the only areas available
to reduce are dredging and real maintenance items.
This is the wrong trend for this program. The Corps is to
be commended for managing to keep as much of their
infrastructure operable as they have with the O&M budgets that
have been put forward and enacted. The Committee urges the
administration to commit to a more realistic budget for O&M in
future fiscal years.
The budget request and the Committee recommendation are
shown on the following table:
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget House Committee
Item estimate allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA
ALABAMA-COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER STUDY, AL..................... 250 245 250
ALABAMA RIVER LAKES, AL......................................... 13,120 12,857 13,120
BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL.......................... 21,429 21,000 21,429
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL.................................. 5,335 5,228 5,335
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL............................... 30 29 30
MOBILE HARBOR, AL............................................... 23,360 22,892 23,360
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL................................... 100 98 100
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY WILDLIFE MITIGATION, AL............ 1,847 1,810 1,847
TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL AND MS......................... 23,141 22,678 23,141
WALTER F. GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL AND GA........................ 7,744 7,589 7,744
ALASKA
ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK............................................ 14,000 13,720 14,000
CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK........................................... 2,948 2,889 2,948
DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK........................................... 987 967 987
HOMER HARBOR, AK................................................ 453 443 453
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK............................... 194 190 194
NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK............................................ 420 411 420
NOME HARBOR, AK................................................. 1,066 1,044 1,066
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK................................... 500 490 500
ARIZONA
ALAMO LAKE, AZ.................................................. 1,758 1,722 1,758
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ............................... 87 85 87
PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ............................................ 1,307 1,280 1,307
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ............................. 48 47 48
WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ........................................... 288 282 288
ARKANSAS
BEAVER LAKE, AR................................................. 5,784 5,668 5,784
BLAKELY MT. DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR.............................. 7,241 7,096 7,241
BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR.......................................... 1,854 1,816 1,854
BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR............................................ 6,050 5,929 6,050
DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM, AR..................................... 7,914 7,755 7,914
DEGRAY LAKE, AR................................................. 5,712 5,597 5,712
DEQUEEN LAKE, AR................................................ 1,687 1,653 1,687
DIERKS LAKE, AR................................................. 1,421 1,392 1,421
GILLHAM LAKE, AR................................................ 1,345 1,318 1,345
GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR........................................... 5,654 5,540 5,654
HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR.............................. 100 98 100
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR............................... 397 389 397
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR............. 26,610 26,077 26,610
MILLWOOD LAKE, AR............................................... 2,558 2,506 2,558
NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR................................... 4,342 4,255 4,342
NIMROD LAKE, AR................................................. 2,182 2,138 2,182
NORFORK LAKE, AR................................................ 9,091 8,909 9,091
OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR & LA.............................. 7,451 7,301 7,451
OZARK-JETA TAYLOR LOCK AND DAM, AR.............................. 6,064 5,942 6,064
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AR................................... 8 7 8
CALIFORNIA
BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA............................................ 2,337 2,290 2,337
BUCHANAN DAM, HV EASTMAN LAKE, CA............................... 2,032 1,991 2,032
CHANNEL ISLANDS HARBOR, CA...................................... 525 514 525
COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA........................... 3,647 3,574 3,647
DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND CHANNEL, CA................... 5,624 5,511 5,624
FARMINGTON DAM, CA.............................................. 470 460 470
HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA.................................... 2,272 2,226 2,272
HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA..................................... 2,800 2,744 2,800
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA............................... 3,854 3,776 3,854
ISABELLA LAKE, CA............................................... 1,721 1,686 1,721
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA............................ 5,083 4,981 5,083
MARINA DEL REY, CA.............................................. 3,170 3,106 3,170
MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA....................................... 399 391 399
MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA............................................ 332 325 332
MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA............................................ 1,590 1,558 1,590
NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA.............................................. 2,456 2,406 2,456
NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA........................ 1,897 1,859 1,897
OAKLAND HARBOR, CA.............................................. 8,755 8,579 8,755
OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA............................................ 1,520 1,489 1,520
PINE FLAT LAKE, CA.............................................. 3,291 3,225 3,291
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA................................... 1,710 1,675 1,710
RICHMOND HARBOR, CA............................................. 8,146 7,983 8,146
SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS CONTROL), CA........... 1,299 1,273 1,299
SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL, CA...................... 125 122 125
SAN DIEGO HARBOR, CA............................................ 3,800 3,724 3,800
SAN FRANCISCO BAY DELTA MODEL STRUCTURE, CA..................... 986 966 986
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY, CA (DRIFT REMOVAL)................ 1,979 1,939 1,979
SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA........................................ 2,548 2,497 2,548
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, PORT OF STOCKTON, CA......................... 3,746 3,671 3,746
SAN PABLO BAY AND MARE ISLAND STRAIT, CA........................ 3,470 3,400 3,470
SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA....................................... 3,530 3,459 3,530
SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA........................................ 2,040 1,999 2,040
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA............................. 1,648 1,615 1,648
SUCCESS LAKE, CA................................................ 2,564 2,512 2,564
SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA.......................................... 2,770 2,714 2,770
TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA................................... 2,346 2,299 2,346
VENTURA HARBOR, CA.............................................. 2,805 2,748 2,805
YUBA RIVER, CA.................................................. 97 95 97
COLORADO
BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO............................................. 569 557 569
CHATFIELD LAKE, CO.............................................. 1,269 1,243 1,269
CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO........................................... 1,162 1,138 1,162
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO............................... 260 254 260
JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO....................................... 2,629 2,576 2,629
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO............................. 740 725 740
TRINIDAD LAKE, CO............................................... 1,701 1,666 1,701
CONNECTICUT
BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT............................................. 582 570 582
COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT........................................ 641 628 641
HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT.......................................... 376 368 376
HOP BROOK LAKE, CT.............................................. 1,022 1,001 1,022
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT............................... 368 360 368
LONG ISLAND SOUND DMMP, CT...................................... 1,000 980 1,000
MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT....................................... 672 658 672
NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT....................................... 437 428 437
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CT................................... 850 833 850
STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT.................................. 463 453 463
THOMASTON DAM, CT............................................... 839 822 839
WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT.......................................... 686 672 686
DELAWARE
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DE............................... 15 14 15
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE RIVER TO CHESAPEAKE BAY......... 18,648 18,275 18,648
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DE................................... 105 102 105
WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE........................................... 3,250 3,185 3,250
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DC............................... 154 150 154
POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS, DC (DRIFT REMOVAL)................ 875 857 875
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DC................................... 40 39 40
WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC........................................... 25 24 25
FLORIDA
CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL............................................ 5,150 5,047 5,150
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL................................ 15,063 14,761 15,063
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL............................... 1,350 1,323 1,350
JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL......................................... 6,500 6,370 6,500
JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE SEMINOLE, FL, AL, AND GA........ 8,159 7,995 8,159
OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL......................................... 2,008 1,967 2,008
PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL........................................... 2,850 2,793 2,850
PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL.......................................... 2,015 1,974 2,015
PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL...................................... 2,000 1,960 2,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL................................... 1,575 1,543 1,575
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL................................... 3,750 3,675 3,750
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, FL............................. 32 31 32
SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL......................... 5,276 5,170 5,276
TAMPA HARBOR, FL................................................ 6,287 6,161 6,287
GEORGIA
ALLATOONA LAKE, GA.............................................. 6,335 6,208 6,335
APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT RIVERS, GA, AL AND........ 638 625 638
BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA............................................ 3,000 2,940 3,000
BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA........................... 8,346 8,179 8,346
CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA........................................ 7,722 7,567 7,722
HARTWELL LAKE, GA AND SC........................................ 10,549 10,338 10,549
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, GA.............. 85 83 85
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA............................... 141 138 141
J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA AND SC................................ 9,786 9,590 9,786
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, GA................................... 149 146 149
RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA, AND SC...................... 7,305 7,158 7,305
SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA............................................. 17,452 17,102 17,452
SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA................................ 85 83 85
WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA AND AL.............................. 7,857 7,699 7,857
HAWAII
BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI........................................ 266 260 266
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI............................... 984 964 984
NAWILIWILI HARBOR, HI........................................... 250 245 250
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI................................... 931 912 931
IDAHO
ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID............................................ 1,404 1,375 1,404
DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID.................................. 2,695 2,641 2,695
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID............................... 312 305 312
LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID............................................. 2,918 2,859 2,918
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID............................. 514 503 514
ILLINOIS
CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL AND IN............................. 3,983 3,903 3,983
CARLYLE LAKE, IL................................................ 5,340 5,233 5,340
CHICAGO HARBOR, IL.............................................. 2,158 2,114 2,158
CHICAGO RIVER, IL............................................... 523 512 523
CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIER, IL........... 10,565 .............. ..............
FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL....................................... 432 423 432
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), IL AND IN...................... 31,937 31,298 31,937
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL AND IN...................... 2,181 2,137 2,181
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL............................... 1,945 1,906 1,945
KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL.................................. 1,539 1,508 1,539
LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL..................................... 725 710 725
LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL............................................ 6,865 6,727 6,865
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS........ 49,748 48,753 49,748
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS........ 23,582 23,110 23,582
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL................................... 111 108 111
REND LAKE, IL................................................... 5,436 5,327 5,436
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IL.................... 689 675 689
INDIANA
BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN............................................. 1,155 1,131 1,155
BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN....................................... 176 172 176
CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN............................................ 1,087 1,065 1,087
CECIL M. HARDEN LAKE, IN........................................ 1,178 1,154 1,178
INDIANA HARBOR, IN.............................................. 6,675 6,541 6,675
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN............................... 645 632 645
J. EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN........................................ 2,270 2,224 2,270
MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN........................................... 1,231 1,206 1,231
MONROE LAKE, IN................................................. 1,252 1,226 1,252
PATOKA LAKE, IN................................................. 1,118 1,095 1,118
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN................................... 185 181 185
SALAMONIE LAKE, IN.............................................. 1,073 1,051 1,073
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IN.................... 129 126 129
IOWA
CORALVILLE LAKE, IA............................................. 4,298 4,212 4,298
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA............................... 552 540 552
MISSOURI RIVER-SIOUX CITY TO THE MOUTH, IA, KS, MO, AND......... 6,199 6,075 6,199
RATHBUN LAKE, IA................................................ 2,184 2,140 2,184
RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA.............................. 4,639 4,546 4,639
SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA............................................ 5,275 5,169 5,275
KANSAS
CLINTON LAKE, KS................................................ 2,140 2,097 2,140
COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS.......................................... 2,237 2,192 2,237
EL DORADO LAKE, KS.............................................. 1,086 1,064 1,086
ELK CITY LAKE, KS............................................... 871 853 871
FALL RIVER LAKE, KS............................................. 1,308 1,281 1,308
HILLSDALE LAKE, KS.............................................. 849 832 849
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS............................... 339 332 339
JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS.............................. 1,453 1,423 1,453
KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS.............................................. 1,619 1,586 1,619
MARION LAKE, KS................................................. 1,800 1,764 1,800
MELVERN LAKE, KS................................................ 2,068 2,026 2,068
MILFORD LAKE, KS................................................ 2,073 2,031 2,073
PEARSON-SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS............................... 1,323 1,296 1,323
PERRY LAKE, KS.................................................. 2,358 2,310 2,358
POMONA LAKE, KS................................................. 2,371 2,323 2,371
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS............................. 150 147 150
TORONTO LAKE, KS................................................ 699 685 699
TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS........................................... 2,239 2,194 2,239
WILSON LAKE, KS................................................. 1,607 1,574 1,607
KENTUCKY
BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY AND TN......................... 10,091 9,889 10,091
BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY........................................... 2,362 2,314 2,362
BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY............................................ 1,655 1,621 1,655
BUCKHORN LAKE, KY............................................... 1,615 1,582 1,615
CARR CREEK LAKE, KY............................................. 1,765 1,729 1,765
CAVE RUN LAKE, KY............................................... 990 970 990
DEWEY LAKE, KY.................................................. 1,792 1,756 1,792
FALLS OF THE OHIO NATIONAL WILDLIFE, KY AND IN.................. 21 20 21
FISHTRAP LAKE, KY............................................... 1,969 1,929 1,969
GRAYSON LAKE, KY................................................ 1,515 1,484 1,515
GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY..................................... 2,280 2,234 2,280
GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY............................................ 2,222 2,177 2,222
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY............................... 865 847 865
KENTUCKY RIVER, KY.............................................. 10 9 10
LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY........................................... 1,589 1,557 1,589
MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY........................................... 1,224 1,199 1,224
MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY.......................... 240 235 240
NOLIN LAKE, KY.................................................. 2,487 2,437 2,487
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN, AND OH................... 33,561 32,889 33,561
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, IN, OH, PA, AND WV........ 5,582 5,470 5,582
PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY............................................ 1,195 1,171 1,195
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, KY................................... 7 6 7
ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY............................................ 2,514 2,463 2,514
TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY........................................... 1,205 1,180 1,205
WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY............................. 7,559 7,407 7,559
YATESVILLE LAKE, KY............................................. 1,135 1,112 1,135
LOUISIANA
ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF AND BLACK, LA......... 7,152 7,008 7,152
BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA...................................... 2,057 2,015 2,057
BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP WATERWAY, LA................. 1,191 1,167 1,191
BAYOU PIERRE, LA................................................ 24 23 24
BAYOU TECHE AND VERMILION RIVER, LA............................. 15 14 15
BAYOU TECHE, LA................................................. 132 129 132
CADDO LAKE, LA.................................................. 220 215 220
CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA.................................... 15,474 15,164 15,474
FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA............................................ 1,695 1,661 1,695
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA.................................. 30,575 29,963 30,575
HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA...................................... 885 867 885
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA............................... 814 797 814
J. BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA................................ 7,717 7,562 7,717
MERMENTAU RIVER, LA............................................. 1,250 1,225 1,250
MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA......................... 1,272 1,246 1,272
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE GULF OF MEXICO,........... 68,000 66,640 68,000
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA................................... 60 58 60
REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA................................... 200 196 200
WALLACE LAKE, LA................................................ 239 234 239
MAINE
DISPOSAL AREA MONITORING, ME.................................... 1,050 1,029 1,050
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME............................... 117 114 117
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME................................... 800 784 800
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ME.................... 20 19 20
MARYLAND
BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT), MD..................... 13,879 13,601 13,879
BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD (DRIFT REMOVAL)............................ 400 392 400
CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV................................. 150 147 150
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD............................... 171 167 171
JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD AND WV............................... 1,955 1,915 1,955
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD................................... 500 490 500
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD............................. 64 62 64
SUSQUEHANNA-HAVRE DE GRACE, MD.................................. 180 176 180
WICOMICO RIVER, MD.............................................. 1,500 1,470 1,500
MASSACHUSETTS
BARRE FALLS DAM, MA............................................. 687 673 687
BIRCH HILL DAM, MA.............................................. 839 822 839
BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA............................................ 609 596 609
CAPE COD CANAL, MA.............................................. 17,457 17,107 17,457
CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE AREA, MA................... 300 294 300
CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA........................................... 278 272 278
EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA......................................... 558 546 558
HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA.......................................... 580 568 580
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA............................... 437 428 437
KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA............................................. 692 678 692
LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA............................................ 643 630 643
NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET HURRICANE BARRIER,........... 446 437 446
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA................................... 1,100 1,078 1,100
TULLY LAKE, MA.................................................. 781 765 781
WEST HILL DAM, MA............................................... 686 672 686
WESTVILLE LAKE, MA.............................................. 633 620 633
MICHIGAN
CHANNELS IN LAKE ST. CLAIR, MI.................................. 722 707 722
CHARLEVOIX HARBOR, MI........................................... 325 318 325
DETROIT RIVER, MI............................................... 5,817 5,700 5,817
GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI.......................................... 743 728 743
HOLLAND HARBOR, MI.............................................. 10 9 10
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI............................... 200 196 200
KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI........................................... 12 11 12
MUSKEGON HARBOR, MI............................................. 700 686 700
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI................................... 600 588 600
ROUGE RIVER, MI................................................. 960 940 960
SAGINAW RIVER, MI............................................... 550 539 550
SEBEWAING RIVER, MI............................................. 20 19 20
ST. CLAIR RIVER, MI............................................. 643 630 643
ST. MARYS RIVER, MI............................................. 26,031 25,510 26,031
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MI.................... 2,576 2,524 2,576
MINNESOTA
BIGSTONE LAKE-WHETSTONE RIVER, MN AND SD........................ 236 231 236
DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN AND WI............................... 7,581 7,429 7,581
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN............................... 377 369 377
LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN........................ 611 598 611
MINNESOTA RIVER, MN............................................. 270 264 270
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS........ 44,993 44,093 44,993
ORWELL LAKE, MN................................................. 409 400 409
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN................................... 86 84 86
RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN.......................................... 163 159 163
RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN............... 3,357 3,289 3,357
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MN.................... 452 442 452
MISSISSIPPI
BILOXI HARBOR, MS............................................... 25 24 25
EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS.................................. 258 252 258
GULFPORT HARBOR, MS............................................. 1,801 1,764 1,801
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS............................... 70 68 70
MOUTH OF YAZOO RIVER, MS........................................ 40 39 40
OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS.............................................. 1,605 1,572 1,605
PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS........................................... 5,655 5,541 5,655
PEARL RIVER, MS AND LA.......................................... 133 130 133
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MS................................... 82 80 82
MISSOURI
CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE, MO..................... 6,330 6,203 6,330
CLEARWATER LAKE, MO............................................. 3,288 3,222 3,288
HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO............................ 7,801 7,644 7,801
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO............................... 2,255 2,209 2,255
LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO..................................... 907 888 907
LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO............................................ 1,018 997 1,018
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN THE OHIO AND MISSOURI RIVERS.......... 25,571 25,059 25,571
POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO......................................... 2,415 2,366 2,415
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MO................................... 14 13 14
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MO............................. 400 392 400
SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO............................................. 1,257 1,231 1,257
STOCKTON LAKE, MO............................................... 3,895 3,817 3,895
TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO AND AR...................................... 7,082 6,940 7,082
UNION LAKE, MO.................................................. 7 6 7
MONTANA
FORT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT...................................... 15,366 15,058 15,366
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT............................... 200 196 200
LIBBY DAM, MT................................................... 1,736 1,701 1,736
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MT............................. 147 144 147
NEBRASKA
GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE, NE AND SD............... 7,434 7,285 7,434
HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE.......................................... 2,722 2,667 2,722
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE............................... 345 338 345
MISSOURI RIVER-KENSLERS BEND, NE TO SIOUX CITY, IA.............. 137 134 137
PAPILLION CREEK, NE............................................. 835 818 835
SALT CREEKS AND TRIBUTARIES, NE................................. 1,267 1,241 1,267
NEVADA
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV............................... 185 181 185
MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV AND CA.................................... 954 934 954
PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV.............................. 304 297 304
NEW HAMPSHIRE
BLACKWATER DAM, NH.............................................. 644 631 644
EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH....................................... 775 759 775
FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH.......................................... 769 753 769
HOPKINTON-EVERETT LAKES, NH..................................... 1,489 1,459 1,489
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NH............................... 91 89 91
OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH............................................ 653 639 653
PORTSMOUTH HARBOR AND PISCATAQUA RIVER, NH...................... 500 490 500
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NH................................... 250 245 250
SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH......................................... 735 720 735
NEW JERSEY
BARNEGAT INLET, NJ.............................................. 350 343 350
COLD SPRING INLET, NJ........................................... 360 352 360
DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ.................................... 15 14 15
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA, NJ, PA, AND DE......... 21,410 20,981 21,410
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ............................... 238 233 238
MANASQUAN RIVER, NJ............................................. 300 294 300
NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC RIVERS, NJ................... 60 58 60
PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS, NJ......................... 570 558 570
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NJ................................... 1,575 1,543 1,575
RARITAN RIVER TO ARTHUR KILL CUT-OFF, NJ........................ 65 63 65
RARITAN RIVER, NJ............................................... 60 58 60
NEW MEXICO
ABIQUIU DAM, NM................................................. 3,738 3,663 3,738
COCHITI LAKE, NM................................................ 3,240 3,175 3,240
CONCHAS LAKE, NM................................................ 3,317 3,250 3,317
GALISTEO DAM, NM................................................ 938 919 938
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM............................... 843 826 843
JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM............................................ 1,155 1,131 1,155
RIO GRANDE ENDANGERED SPECIES COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM, NM......... 2,425 2,376 2,425
SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM..................................... 1,814 1,777 1,814
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM............................. 548 537 548
TWO RIVERS DAM, NM.............................................. 1,053 1,031 1,053
UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL STUDY, NM............... 1,312 1,285 1,312
NEW YORK
ALMOND LAKE, NY................................................. 696 682 696
ARKPORT DAM, NY................................................. 354 346 354
BAY RIDGE AND RED HOOK CHANNELS, NY............................. 60 58 60
BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, NY..................... 1,324 1,297 1,324
BUFFALO HARBOR, NY.............................................. 950 931 950
BUTTERMILK CHANNEL, NY.......................................... 60 58 60
EAST RIVER, NY.................................................. 130 127 130
EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY............................................ 823 806 823
FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY...................................... 60 58 60
HUDSON RIVER CHANNEL, NY........................................ 60 58 60
HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINTENANCE).................................. 2,150 2,107 2,150
HUDSON RIVER, NY (O & C)........................................ 1,700 1,666 1,700
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY............................... 959 939 959
JAMAICA BAY, NY................................................. 3,360 3,292 3,360
LITTLE SODUS BAY HARBOR, NY..................................... 5 4 5
MOUNT MORRIS DAM, NY............................................ 2,861 2,803 2,861
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY............................ 40 39 40
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY............................................. 6,558 6,426 6,558
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY AND NJ (DRIFT REMOVAL)...................... 9,200 9,016 9,200
NEW YORK HARBOR, NY (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSIT.......... 1,100 1,078 1,100
NEWTOWN CREEK, NY............................................... 60 58 60
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY................................... 1,990 1,950 1,990
ROCHESTER HARBOR, NY............................................ 5 4 5
SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS, NY.................... 900 882 900
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, NY.................... 642 629 642
WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY.......................................... 822 805 822
NORTH CAROLINA
B. EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC.............................. 1,833 1,796 1,833
CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC............................ 806 789 806
FALLS LAKE, NC.................................................. 2,014 1,973 2,014
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC............................... 261 255 261
MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC..................................... 1,000 980 1,000
MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC........................................ 5,900 5,782 5,900
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC................................... 700 686 700
ROLLINSON CHANNEL, NC........................................... 50 49 50
SILVER LAKE HARBOR, NC.......................................... 250 245 250
W. KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC............................. 3,449 3,380 3,449
WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC........................................... 12,445 12,196 12,445
NORTH DAKOTA
BOWMAN HALEY, ND................................................ 151 147 151
GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND................................ 10,519 10,308 10,519
HOMME LAKE, ND.................................................. 208 203 208
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND............................... 262 256 262
LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND............................. 1,249 1,224 1,249
PIPESTEM LAKE, ND............................................... 702 687 702
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ND............................. 137 134 137
SOURIS RIVER, ND................................................ 351 343 351
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ND.................... 28 27 28
OHIO
ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH............................................. 1,462 1,432 1,462
BERLIN LAKE, OH................................................. 2,613 2,560 2,613
CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH........................................... 1,599 1,567 1,599
CLARENCE J. BROWN DAM, OH....................................... 1,274 1,248 1,274
CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH............................................ 9,665 9,471 9,665
DEER CREEK LAKE, OH............................................. 1,275 1,249 1,275
DELAWARE LAKE, OH............................................... 2,363 2,315 2,363
DILLON LAKE, OH................................................. 1,354 1,326 1,354
FAIRPORT HARBOR, OH............................................. 1,000 980 1,000
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH............................... 610 597 610
LORAIN HARBOR, OH............................................... 1,056 1,034 1,056
MASSILLON LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH.......................... 29 28 29
MICHAEL J. KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH......................... 1,356 1,328 1,356
MISSISSIPPI FLOOD CONTROL, OH................................... 1,993 1,953 1,993
MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH......................................... 1,454 1,424 1,454
MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH....................................... 12,381 12,133 12,381
NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH............................ 444 435 444
PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH............................................ 1,740 1,705 1,740
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH................................... 305 298 305
ROSEVILLE LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH.......................... 35 34 35
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OH.................... 270 264 270
TOLEDO HARBOR, OH............................................... 5,982 5,862 5,982
TOM JENKINS DAM, OH............................................. 655 641 655
WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH................................ 838 821 838
WILLIAM H HARSHA LAKE, OH....................................... 1,069 1,047 1,069
OKLAHOMA
ARCADIA LAKE, OK................................................ 591 579 591
BIRCH LAKE, OK.................................................. 987 967 987
BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK............................................. 2,058 2,016 2,058
CANTON LAKE, OK................................................. 3,902 3,823 3,902
COPAN LAKE, OK.................................................. 1,420 1,391 1,420
EUFAULA LAKE, OK................................................ 6,049 5,928 6,049
FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK............................................ 4,992 4,892 4,992
FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK............................................ 1,089 1,067 1,089
GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK...................................... 711 696 711
HEYBURN LAKE, OK................................................ 634 621 634
HUGO LAKE, OK................................................... 1,549 1,518 1,549
HULAH LAKE, OK.................................................. 772 756 772
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK............................... 201 196 201
KAW LAKE, OK.................................................... 2,149 2,106 2,149
KEYSTONE LAKE, OK............................................... 7,071 6,929 7,071
MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, OK............. 6,827 6,690 6,827
OOLOGAH LAKE, OK................................................ 4,369 4,281 4,369
OPTIMA LAKE, OK................................................. 32 31 32
PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE CHEROKEES, OK.................. 128 125 128
PINE CREEK LAKE, OK............................................. 1,254 1,228 1,254
ROBERT S. KERR LOCK AND DAM AND RESERVOIR, OK................... 5,399 5,291 5,399
SARDIS LAKE, OK................................................. 1,002 981 1,002
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK............................. 1,000 980 1,000
SKIATOOK LAKE, OK............................................... 1,767 1,731 1,767
TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK........................................ 4,055 3,973 4,055
WAURIKA LAKE, OK................................................ 1,537 1,506 1,537
WEBBERS FALLS LOCK AND DAM, OK.................................. 4,913 4,814 4,913
WISTER LAKE, OK................................................. 1,231 1,206 1,231
OREGON
APPLEGATE LAKE, OR.............................................. 931 912 931
BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR............................................. 561 549 561
BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA.............................. 6,640 6,507 6,640
CHETCO RIVER, OR................................................ 561 549 561
COLUMBIA AND LOWER WILLAMETTE RIVERS BELOW VANCOUVER,........... 24,378 23,890 24,378
COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR AND WA.......................... 12,857 12,599 12,857
COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND THE DALLES, OR......... 693 679 693
COOS BAY, OR.................................................... 4,793 4,697 4,793
COQUILLE RIVER, OR.............................................. 298 292 298
COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR.......................................... 1,299 1,273 1,299
COUGAR LAKE, OR................................................. 1,682 1,648 1,682
DETROIT LAKE, OR................................................ 830 813 830
DORENA LAKE, OR................................................. 1,100 1,078 1,100
ELK CREEK LAKE, OR.............................................. 60 58 60
FALL CREEK LAKE, OR............................................. 1,130 1,107 1,130
FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR............................................. 1,771 1,735 1,771
GREEN PETER-FOSTER LAKES, OR.................................... 1,658 1,624 1,658
HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR............................................ 702 687 702
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, OR.............. 20 19 20
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR............................... 575 563 575
JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA................................ 4,394 4,306 4,394
LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR.......................................... 1,835 1,798 1,835
LOST CREEK LAKE, OR............................................. 3,487 3,417 3,487
MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA.................................. 5,309 5,202 5,309
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR................................... 200 196 200
ROGUE RIVER AT GOLD BEACH, OR................................... 574 562 574
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR............................. 95 93 95
SIUSLAW RIVER, OR............................................... 551 539 551
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OR.................... 7,400 7,252 7,400
WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR........................ 104 101 104
WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR............................ 459 449 459
WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR........................................... 685 671 685
YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR...................................... 1,962 1,922 1,962
PENNSYLVANIA
ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA............................................. 4,000 3,920 4,000
ALVIN R. BUSH DAM, PA........................................... 816 799 816
AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA....................................... 384 376 384
BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA............................................. 1,473 1,443 1,473
BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA............................................. 2,891 2,833 2,891
CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA........................................ 1,356 1,328 1,356
COWANESQUE LAKE, PA............................................. 2,446 2,397 2,446
CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA.......................................... 2,086 2,044 2,086
CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA........................................... 893 875 893
DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO TRENTON, NJ................. 1,095 1,073 1,095
EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA.............................. 1,660 1,626 1,660
FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA.................................... 898 880 898
FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA........................................ 1,216 1,191 1,216
GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR, PA...................... 400 392 400
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA............................... 1,101 1,078 1,101
JOHNSTOWN, PA................................................... 80 78 80
KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA.......................... 1,565 1,533 1,565
LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA............................................. 1,611 1,578 1,611
MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA......................................... 2,005 1,964 2,005
MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA........................................... 17,018 16,677 17,018
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH, AND WV....................... 23,140 22,677 23,140
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA, OH, AND WV.................... 626 613 626
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA................................... 120 117 120
PROMPTON LAKE, PA............................................... 623 610 623
PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA................................................ 63 61 63
RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA............................................... 4,507 4,416 4,507
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, PA............................. 46 45 46
SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PA............................................ 250 245 250
SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA......................................... 2,426 2,377 2,426
STILLWATER LAKE, PA............................................. 514 503 514
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, PA.................... 112 109 112
TIOGA-HAMMOND LAKES, PA......................................... 2,752 2,696 2,752
TIONESTA LAKE, PA............................................... 2,421 2,372 2,421
UNION CITY LAKE, PA............................................. 390 382 390
WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA......................................... 1,431 1,402 1,431
YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA........................................ 883 865 883
YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA AND MD.............................. 2,210 2,165 2,210
PUERTO RICO
SAN JUAN HARBOR, PR............................................. 2,700 2,646 2,700
RHODE ISLAND
FOX POINT BARRIER, NARRANGANSETT BAY, RI........................ 558 546 558
GREAT SALT POND, BLOCK ISLAND, RI............................... 250 245 250
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI............................... 90 88 90
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, RI................................... 450 441 450
WOONSOCKET, RI.................................................. 420 411 420
SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC........................................... 13,841 13,564 13,841
COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC............................. 5,408 5,299 5,408
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC............................... 65 63 65
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC................................... 875 857 875
SOUTH DAKOTA
BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD................................... 8,285 8,119 8,285
COLD BROOK LAKE, SD............................................. 296 290 296
COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD..................................... 222 217 222
FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD......................... 8,818 8,641 8,818
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD............................... 189 185 189
LAKE TRAVERSE, SD AND MN........................................ 554 542 554
OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD AND ND.................................. 10,318 10,111 10,318
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD............................. 84 82 84
TENNESSEE
CENTER HILL LAKE, TN............................................ 6,020 5,899 6,020
CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN....................................... 6,346 6,219 6,346
CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TENNESSEE RIVER, TN........................... 3,098 3,036 3,098
CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN.............................. 6,358 6,230 6,358
DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN............................................ 5,925 5,806 5,925
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN............................... 34 33 34
J. PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN........................... 4,380 4,292 4,380
OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN.................................... 8,106 7,943 8,106
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TN................................... 8 7 8
TENNESSEE RIVER, TN............................................. 21,845 21,408 21,845
WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN........................................... 109 106 109
TEXAS
AQUILLA LAKE, TX................................................ 1,081 1,059 1,081
ARKANSAS-RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE CONTROL--AREA VI............. 1,593 1,561 1,593
BARDWELL LAKE, TX............................................... 1,861 1,823 1,861
BAYPORT SHIP CHANNEL, TX........................................ 3,776 3,700 3,776
BELTON LAKE, TX................................................. 3,516 3,445 3,516
BENBROOK LAKE, TX............................................... 2,464 2,414 2,464
BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX........................................ 3,878 3,800 3,878
BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX............................... 3,670 3,596 3,670
CANYON LAKE, TX................................................. 3,580 3,508 3,580
CEDAR BAYOU, TX................................................. 350 343 350
CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX................................. 5,912 5,793 5,912
DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX.................................... 6,939 6,800 6,939
ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT, TX...................... 44 43 44
FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O' THE PINES, TX...................... 3,464 3,394 3,464
FREEPORT HARBOR, TX............................................. 4,796 4,700 4,796
GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX................................ 3,738 3,663 3,738
GIWW, CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX................................... 3,519 3,448 3,519
GIWW, CHOCOLATE BAYOU, TX....................................... 500 490 500
GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX........................................ 2,305 2,258 2,305
GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX.............................................. 2,981 2,921 2,981
GREENS BAYOU, TX................................................ 800 784 800
GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX.................................. 24,277 23,791 24,277
HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX............................................ 1,635 1,602 1,635
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX........................................ 18,188 17,824 18,188
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX............................... 1,343 1,316 1,343
JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX............................................ 1,586 1,554 1,586
JOE POOL LAKE, TX............................................... 1,956 1,916 1,956
LAKE KEMP, TX................................................... 183 179 183
LAVON LAKE, TX.................................................. 3,062 3,000 3,062
LEWISVILLE DAM, TX.............................................. 3,199 3,135 3,199
MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX...................................... 4,307 4,220 4,307
NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX.......................................... 2,867 2,809 2,867
NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE GEORGETOWN, TX................... 2,447 2,398 2,447
O C FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX..................................... 1,802 1,765 1,802
PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX.............................................. 1,211 1,186 1,211
PROCTOR LAKE, TX................................................ 3,526 3,455 3,526
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX................................... 100 98 100
RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX............................................ 1,922 1,883 1,922
SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX...................................... 14,182 13,898 14,182
SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX............................... 5,045 4,944 5,045
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX............................. 242 237 242
SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX............................................. 3,246 3,181 3,246
STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX....................................... 2,087 2,045 2,087
TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TX..................................... 4,667 4,573 4,667
TEXAS WATER ALLOCATION ASSESSMENT, TX........................... 100 98 100
TOWN BLUFF DAM, B A STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX......................... 2,935 2,876 2,935
WACO LAKE, TX................................................... 3,035 2,974 3,035
WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX............................................ 1,990 1,950 1,990
WHITNEY LAKE, TX................................................ 5,397 5,289 5,397
WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX.................................. 3,847 3,770 3,847
UTAH
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT............................... 31 30 31
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT............................. 642 629 642
VERMONT
BALL MOUNTAIN, VT............................................... 889 871 889
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT............................... 79 77 79
NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT......................................... 748 733 748
NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT...................................... 941 922 941
TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT.............................................. 879 861 879
UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT........................................... 1,993 1,953 1,993
VIRGINIA
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--ACC, VA......................... 1,742 1,707 1,742
ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY--DSC, VA......................... 1,156 1,132 1,156
CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA.......................................... 600 588 600
GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA............................... 2,253 2,207 2,253
HAMPTON ROADS, NORFOLK & NEWPORT NEWS HARBOR, VA (DRIF.......... 1,048 1,027 1,048
HAMPTON ROADS, VA (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS).......... 75 73 75
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA............................... 461 451 461
JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA......................................... 4,363 4,275 4,363
JOHN H. KERR LAKE, VA AND NC.................................... 10,629 10,416 10,629
JOHN W. FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA......................... 2,341 2,294 2,341
NORFOLK HARBOR, VA.............................................. 11,050 10,829 11,050
NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA.............................. 486 476 486
PHILPOTT LAKE, VA............................................... 4,694 4,600 4,694
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA................................... 902 883 902
WASHINGTON
CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA............................................ 708 693 708
EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA.......................... 2,445 2,396 2,445
GRAYS HARBOR, WA................................................ 8,500 8,330 8,500
HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA........................................... 3,050 2,989 3,050
ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA..................................... 3,734 3,659 3,734
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, WA.............. 70 68 70
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA............................... 730 715 730
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA.................................. 10,553 10,341 10,553
LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA................................... 2,062 2,020 2,062
LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA.................................. 2,823 2,766 2,823
LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA............................... 2,172 2,128 2,172
MILL CREEK LAKE, WA............................................. 3,021 2,960 3,021
MOUNT ST. HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA........................... 313 306 313
MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA............................................ 3,549 3,478 3,549
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA................................... 516 505 516
PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA............................ 995 975 995
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA............................. 453 443 453
SEATTLE HARBOR, WA.............................................. 4,240 4,155 4,240
STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA......................................... 271 265 271
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WA.................... 55 53 55
TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA...................................... 145 142 145
THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA AND OR.............................. 3,236 3,171 3,236
WEST VIRGINIA
BEECH FORK LAKE, WV............................................. 1,366 1,338 1,366
BLUESTONE LAKE, WV.............................................. 2,039 1,998 2,039
BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV............................................. 2,695 2,641 2,695
EAST LYNN LAKE, WV.............................................. 2,116 2,073 2,116
ELKINS, WV...................................................... 60 58 60
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV............................... 528 517 528
KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV................................ 12,401 12,152 12,401
OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY, AND OH....................... 34,232 33,547 34,232
OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY, AND OH.................... 2,805 2,748 2,805
R D BAILEY LAKE, WV............................................. 2,407 2,358 2,407
STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV...................................... 1,064 1,042 1,064
SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV........................................... 2,692 2,638 2,692
SUTTON LAKE, WV................................................. 2,587 2,535 2,587
TYGART LAKE, WV................................................. 1,406 1,377 1,406
WISCONSIN
EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI........................................ 741 726 741
FOX RIVER, WI................................................... 2,889 2,831 2,889
GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI............................................ 3,406 3,337 3,406
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI............................... 69 67 69
PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI................................... 288 282 288
STURGEON BAY HARBOR AND LAKE MICHIGAN SHIP CANAL, WI............ 19 18 19
SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WI.................... 524 513 524
WYOMING
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WY............................... 55 53 55
JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY......................................... 1,014 993 1,014
SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WY............................. 111 108 111
-----------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, ITEMS LISTED UNDER STATES....................... 2,112,016 2,059,118 2,101,451
NATIONAL PROGRAMS
ADDITIONAL FLOOD AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION..................... .............. 10,400 ..............
ADDITIONAL NAVIGATION........................................... .............. 123,313 ..............
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK:
SMALL, REMOTE OR SUBSISTENCE HARBOR MAINTENANCE............. .............. .............. 30,000
INLAND NAVIGATION CHANNEL MAINTENANCE....................... .............. .............. 15,000
COMMERCIAL HARBOR MAINTENANCE............................... .............. .............. 55,000
MISCELLANEOUS MAINTENANCE................................... .............. .............. 34,000
MULTI-PURPOSE PROJECT O&M................................... .............. .............. 9,000
INTERAGENCY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION TASK FORCE/HURRICANE......... 6,000 2,450 6,000
AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL RESEARCH............................... 690 676 690
ASSET MANAGEMENT/FACILITIES AND EQUIP MAINT (FEM)............... 4,750 4,655 4,750
BUDGET/MANAGEMENT SUPPORT FOR O&M BUSINESS PROGRAMS:
STEWARDSHIP SUPPORT PROGRAM................................. 750 735 750
PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT PROGRAM................. 4,000 3,920 4,000
RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT PROGRAM....................... 1,650 1,617 1,650
OPTIMIZATION TOOLS FOR NAVIGATION........................... 392 384 392
COASTAL AND OCEAN DATA SYSTEM................................... 3,000 3,920 5,000
COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM.................................. 2,700 2,646 2,700
RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE AT CORPS PROJECTS.................... 5,000 4,900 5,000
CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/CURATION)............................ 4,500 4,410 4,500
DREDGE MCFARLAND READY RESERVE.................................. 12,000 11,760 ..............
DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE.................................... 12,000 11,760 ..............
DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM............ 1,150 1,127 1,150
DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH [DOER]........... 6,300 6,174 6,300
DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT PROGRAM [DOTS]............ 2,820 2,763 2,820
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM............................ 270 264 270
FACILITY PROTECTION [CISP]...................................... 6,500 6,370 6,500
FERC HYDROPOWER COORDINATION.................................... 3,000 2,940 3,000
FISH & WILDLIFE OPERATING FISH HATCHERY REIMBURSEMENT........... 3,800 3,724 3,800
GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODEL..................................... 1,080 1,058 1,080
GLOBAL CHANGE SUSTAINABILITY.................................... 10,000 .............. ..............
INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION CHARTS............................... 3,420 3,351 3,420
INSPECTION OF COMPLETED FEDERAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.......... 26,780 26,244 26,780
MONITORING OF COMPLETED NAVIGATION PROJECTS..................... 3,920 3,841 3,920
NATIONAL (LEVEE) FLOOD INVENTORY................................ 21,000 20,580 21,000
NATIONAL (MULTIPLE PROJECT) NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT........ 4,230 4,145 4,230
NATIONAL COASTAL MAPPING PROGRAM................................ 6,300 6,174 8,300
NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM (PORTFOLIO RISK ASSESSMENT.......... 15,000 14,700 15,000
NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM [NEPP].................. 6,750 6,615 6,750
NATIONAL PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT FOR REALLOCATIONS................. 571 559 571
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT TECHNICAL SUPPORT........................... 300 294 300
PROTECT, CLEAR, AND STRAIGHTEN CHANNELS......................... 50 49 50
REMOVAL OF SUNKEN VESSELS....................................... 500 490 500
WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS.................................. 4,771 4,675 4,771
HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA COLLECTION.......................... 825 808 825
RECREATIONONESTOP [R1S] NATIONAL RECREATION RESERVATION......... 65 63 65
REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM............................ 1,800 1,764 4,100
RELIABILITY MODELS PROGRAM FOR MAJOR REHAB...................... 300 294 300
SHORELINE USE PERMIT STUDY...................................... 250 245 250
SUSTAINABILITY AND ENERGY (NEW)................................. 12,300 .............. ..............
WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT [WOTS]....................... 500 490 500
-----------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, REMAINING ITEMS................................. 201,984 307,347 304,984
REDUCTION FOR SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE.............................. .............. .............. -46,435
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.......................... 2,314,000 2,366,465 2,360,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dam Re-operation Studies.--As soon as practicable after the
date of enactment of this act, the Secretary of the Army,
acting through the Chief of Engineers, is encouraged to
initiate and complete, on the most expedited basis practicable,
a study to determine the feasibility and estimated water supply
benefit of updating the operations and maintenance manuals for
the dams in the State of California within the jurisdiction of
the Sacramento and San Francisco office of the Corps of
Engineers.
Additional Funding for Ongoing Work.--The Committee
recommendation includes additional funds above the budget
request to continue ongoing projects and activities. The
Committee is concerned that the administration criteria for
navigation maintenance, does not allow small, remote, or
subsistence harbors to properly compete for scarce navigation
maintenance funds. The Committee urges the Corps to revise the
criteria used for determining which navigation maintenance
projects are funded to account for the economic impact that
these projects provide to local and regional economies. The
Committee recommends that priority in allocating these funds
should be towards completing ongoing work maintaining harbors
and shipping channels, particularly where there is a U.S. Coast
Guard presence, or that will enhance national, regional, or
local economic development, and promote job growth and
international competitiveness or for critical backlog
maintenance activities.
The administration has complete discretion over how these
funds are to be used. The intent of these funds is for ongoing
work that either did not make it into the administration
request or were inadequately budgeted. Within 30 days of
enactment, the Corps shall provide the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees a work plan delineating how these
funds are to be distributed and in which phase the work is
being accomplished.
Coastal Ocean Data System.--The administration proposed a
line item called Coastal Data Information Program under the
Operation and Maintenance account in the Press Book that
accompanied the administration's fiscal year 2011 budget
request as a ``previously unfunded item'' commonly referred to
as a new start. When the fiscal year 2011 budget justification
sheets were delivered to the Committee, this line item was
renamed Coastal Ocean Data System. The fiscal year 2012 budget
request treated this as a continuing item for 2012 as Coastal
Ocean Data System under the Operations and Maintenance account
because the fiscal year 2011 appropriations process was not
completed when the budget was released. Once the continuing
resolution for fiscal year 2011 was enacted and the Corps
prepared their work plan, the Corps included funding for this
newly named item in the Investigations account under the
traditional line item Coastal Field Data Collection.
The Committee has reviewed the budget justifications for
fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012 and does not agree that
this item should be designated as a new start. While the line
item description is new, the work proposed appears to be
similar, if not the same work as to what has traditionally been
funded for this item regardless of the name. Therefore the
Committee has included funding for this as a continuing item.
Additional funding has been recommended for the maintenance of
wave observations and expansion of the national wave monitoring
network. The Committee notes the importance of accurate
directional wave measurements to the success of coastal
projects.
Dredge Wheeler and McFarland Ready Reserve.--The Committee
notes that $24,000,000 has been requested to keep these two
dredges in ready reserve status in accordance with legislation
provided in the Water Resources Development Acts of 1996 and
2007. These funds are intended to allow the dredges to be
staffed and ready for periodic testing and utilization, if
needed, based on very specific criteria.
In this tight fiscal environment, the Committee does not
believe that it is justifiable for $24,000,000 to be provided
to the Corps for these vessels to sit at the dock. The fiscal
year 2002 Energy and Water conferees commissioned a GAO study
of the benefits and impacts of the minimum dredge fleet. That
report, published in March 2003, stated that ``Restrictions on
the use of the Corps' hopper dredge fleet, which began in
fiscal year 1993, have imposed costs on the Corps' dredging
program, but have thus far not resulted in proven benefits.
Most of the costs of the Corps' hopper dredges are incurred
regardless of how frequently the dredges are used. For example,
the Corps' placement of the Wheeler in ready reserve--55 annual
workdays plus emergencies--reduced the vessel's productivity by
56 percent but reduced costs by only 20 percent.'' The Corps
has yet to provide any documentation showing the benefits of
the ready reserve of these dredges.
In light of this report and the current economic climate,
the Committee believes that it is prudent to fully utilize the
capabilities of these dredges. The Committee recommends that
rather than using the proposed $24,000,000 for keeping these
vessels in a ready reserve status that these funds be used for
actual dredging of navigation harbors and channels.
Consequently, the Committee has included legislative language
directing full utilization of these dredges.
Global Change Sustainability.--No funding is included for
this new item first proposed in the fiscal year 2011 budget. As
it has not received any funding it is considered a new start
and is ineligible for funding in fiscal year 2012.
Sustainability and Energy.--No funding is included for this
new item proposed in the fiscal year 2012 budget.
REGULATORY PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2011.................................... $189,620,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 196,000,000
House allowance......................................... 196,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 193,000,000
An appropriation of $193,000,000 is recommended for the
regulatory program of the Corps of Engineers.
This appropriation provides for salaries and costs incurred
administering regulation of activities affecting U.S. waters,
including wetlands, in accordance with the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1899 33 U.S.C. section 401, the Clean Water Act of 1977
Public Law 95-217, and the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 Public Law 92-532.
The appropriation helps maintain program performance,
protects important aquatic resources, and supports partnerships
with States and local communities through watershed planning
efforts.
FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2011.................................... $129,740,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 109,000,000
House allowance......................................... 109,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 109,000,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $109,000,000
to continue activities related to the FUSRAP in fiscal year
2005.
The responsibility for the cleanup of contaminated sites
under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program was
transferred to the Army Corps of Engineers in the fiscal year
1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, Public
Law 105-62.
FUSRAP is not specifically defined by statute. The program
was established in 1974 under the broad authority of the Atomic
Energy Act and, until fiscal year 1998, funds for the cleanup
of contaminated defense sites had been appropriated to the
Department of Energy through existing appropriation accounts.
In appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the
Committee intended to transfer only the responsibility for
administration and execution of cleanup activities at eligible
sites where remediation had not been completed. It did not
intend to transfer ownership of and accountability for real
property interests that remain with the Department of Energy.
The Corps of Engineers has extensive experience in the
cleanup of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes through its
work for the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies.
The Committee always intended for the Corps' expertise be used
in the same manner for the cleanup of contaminated sites under
FUSRAP. The Committee expects the Corps to continue programming
and budgeting for FUSRAP as part of the Corps of Engineers--
Civil program.
The Corps is directed to prioritize sites that are nearing
completion.
FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES
Appropriations, 2011....................................................
Budget estimate, 2012................................... $27,000,000
House allowance......................................... 27,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 27,000,000
The Committee has recommended $27,000,000 for the Flood
Control and Coastal Emergencies account. This account provides
funds for preparedness activities for natural and other
disasters, response, and emergency flood fighting and rescue
operations, hurricane response, and emergency shore protection
work. It also provides for emergency supplies of clean water
where the source has been contaminated or where adequate
supplies of water are needed for consumption.
GENERAL EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2011.................................... $184,630,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 185,000,000
House allowance......................................... 177,640,000
Committee recommendation................................ 185,000,000
This appropriation finances the expenses of the Office,
Chief of Engineers, the Division Offices, and certain research
and statistical functions of the Corps of Engineers. The
Committee recommendation is $185,000,000.
Executive Direction and Management.--The Office of the
Chief of Engineers and 8 division offices supervise work in 38
district offices.
Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity.--This support
center provides administrative services (such as personnel,
logistics, information management, and finance and accounting)
for the Office of the Chief of Engineers and other separate
field operating activities.
Institute for Water Resources.--This institute performs
studies and analyses, and develops planning techniques for the
management and development of the Nation's water resources.
Within the funds provided, the Institute for Water
Resources is directed to submit to the Senate Appropriations
Committee within 180 days of enactment of this act, a vision on
how the Nation should address the critical need for port and
inland waterway modernization to accommodate the post-Panamax
vessels that currently transit the Suez Canal and will soon
take advantage of the Panama Canal Expansion. Factors for
consideration within the vision include the costs associated
with deepening and widening deep-draft harbors; the ability of
the waterways and ports to enhance the Nation's export
initiatives benefitting the agricultural and manufacturing
sectors; the current and projected population trends that
distinguish regional ports and ports which are immediately
adjacent to large population centers; and the environmental
impacts resulting from the modernization of inland waterways
and deep-draft ports.
United States Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center.--This
center provides centralized support for all Corps finance and
accounting.
Office of Congressional Affairs.--The Committee believes
that an Office of Congressional Affairs for the Civil Works
Program would hamper the efficient and effective coordination
of issues with the Committee staff and Members of Congress. The
Committee believes that the technical knowledge and managerial
expertise needed for the Corps headquarters to effectively
address Civil Works authorization, appropriation, and
headquarters policy matters resides in the Civil Works
organization. Therefore, the Committee strongly recommends that
the Office of Congressional Affairs not be a part of the
process by which information on Civil Works projects, programs,
and activities is provided to Congress.
The Corps is reminded that General Expense funds are
appropriated solely for the executive management and oversight
of the Civil Works Program under the direction of the Director
of Civil Works.
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)
Appropriations, 2011.................................... $4,990,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 6,000,000
House allowance......................................... 5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,000,000
The Committee has recommended $5,000,000 for the Office of
the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) [OASA(CW)].
As has been previously stated, the Committee believes that this
office should be funded through the Defense appropriations bill
and directs the administration to budget for this office under
the Department of Defense, Operation and Maintenance--Army
account in future budget submissions. It is the Committee's
opinion that the traditional role of the ASA(CW) is to provide
the Chief of Engineers advice about policy matters and
generally be the political spokesperson for the
administration's policies; however, the Chief of Engineers is
responsible for carrying out the program. This is underscored
by the administration's budget documents that state that the
OASA(CW) provides policy direction and oversight for the civil
works program and the Headquarters of the Corps provides
executive direction and management of the civil works program.
The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works advises
the Secretary of the Army on a variety of matters, including
the Civil Works program of the Corps of Engineers. The
Assistant Secretary is a member of the Army Secretariat with
responsibilities, such as participating in continuity of
Government exercises that extend well beyond Civil Works.
The Army's accounting system does not track OMA funding of
overhead or Army-wide support offices on the basis of which
office receives support, nor would it be efficient or effective
to do so for a 20-person office. Instead, expenses such as
legal support, personnel services, finance and accounting
services, the executive motor pool, travel on military
aircraft, and other support services are centrally funded and
managed on a department-wide basis. Transferring the funding
for the expenses of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works to
a separate account has greatly complicated the Army's
accounting for such indirect and overhead expenses with no
commensurate benefit to justify the change. The Committee does
not agree that these costs should be funded in this bill and
therefore has only provided funding for salaries and expenses
as in previous years.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL
Section 101. The bill includes language concerning
reprogramming guidelines.
Section 102. The bill includes language prohibiting
implementation of competitive sourcing or HPO.
Section 103. The bill includes language concerning
continuing contracts and the Inland Waterway Trust Fund.
Section 104. The bill includes language concerning report
notifications.
Section 105. The bill includes a provision providing the
Corps of Engineers authorization for emergency measures to
exclude Asian carp from the Great Lakes. It should be noted
that when considering this language for inclusion in this bill
that the Committee did not consider hydrologic separation of
the Great Lakes Basin from the Mississippi River Basin to be an
emergency measure. The Committee believes that the issue of
hydrologic separation should be fully studied by the Corps of
Engineers and vetted by the appropriate congressional
authorizing committees and specifically enacted into law rather
than have implementation be attempted through this limited
provision.
Section 106. The bill includes language concerning funding
transfers.
Section 107. The bill includes language authorizing
employees to serve on an International Commission.
Section 108. The bill includes language concerning the
utilization of the Revolving Fund for the acquisition of a
building.
Section 109. The bill includes language concerning the
transfer of funds to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Section 110. The bill includes language concerning Federal
dredges.
Section 111. The bill includes language concerning Federal
dredges.
Section 112. The bill includes language concerning Federal
dredges.
Section 113. The bill includes language concerning a real
property interest.
Section 114. The bill includes language concerning the
deauthorization of a portion of a project.
Section 115. The bill includes language concerning the
utilization of the revolving fund for construction of
facilities.
Section 116. The bill includes language concerning
disposition of acquired lands.
Section 117. The bill includes language concerning dredge
material disposal sites.
Section 118. The bill includes language deauthorizing a
portion of a project.
TITLE II
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Central Utah Project Completion Account
Appropriations, 2011.................................... $31,940,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 32,991,000
House allowance......................................... 28,704,000
Committee recommendation................................ 28,991,000
The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2012 to carry
out the provisions of the Central Utah Project Completion Act
totals $28,991,000. An appropriation of $25,441,000 has been
provided for Central Utah project construction; $2,000,000 for
fish, wildlife, and recreation, mitigation and conservation.
The Committee recommendation provides $1,550,000 for program
administration and oversight.
Legislative language is included which allows up to
$1,500,000 of the funds provided to be used for administrative
costs.
The Central Utah Project Completion Act (titles II-VI of
Public Law 102-575) provides for the completion of the central
Utah project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District.
The act also authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish,
wildlife, recreation, mitigation, and conservation; establishes
an account in the Treasury for the deposit of these funds and
of other contributions for mitigation and conservation
activities; and establishes a Utah Reclamation Mitigation and
Conservation Commission to administer funds in that account.
The act further assigns responsibilities for carrying out the
act to the Secretary of the Interior and prohibits delegation
of those responsibilities to the Bureau of Reclamation.
Bureau of Reclamation
INTRODUCTION
The Bureau of Reclamation was established in 1902 with the
primary mission of harnessing the western rivers that led to
homesteading and the economic development in the west. Today,
Reclamation has evolved into a contemporary water management
agency. In addition to the traditional missions of bringing
water and power to the west, Reclamation has developed and
continues to develop, programs, initiatives, and activities
that will help the Western States, Native American tribes, and
others meet new water needs and balance the multitude of
competing uses of water in the West.
While Reclamation only has projects in the 17 Western
States, their programs impact the entire Nation. Reclamation is
the largest wholesaler of water in the country operating 348
reservoirs with a total storage capacity of 245 million acre-
feet. Reclamation projects deliver 10 trillion gallons of water
to more than 31 million people each year, and provide 1 out of
5 Western farmers (140,000) with irrigation water for 10
million acres of farmland that produce 60 percent of the
Nation's vegetables and 25 percent of its fruits and nuts.
Reclamation manages, with partners, 289 recreation sites that
have 90 million visits annually.
OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET REQUEST
The fiscal year 2012 budget request for the Bureau of
Reclamation is composed of $1,018,389,000 in new budget
authority. The budget request is $44,196,000 less than the
fiscal year 2011 enacted amount.
Unfortunately this budget proposal is woefully inadequate
in funding the infrastructure needs. The Committee is
particularly disappointed to see that rural water projects are
greatly underfunded in this budget. In many cases the budget
proposals for these projects are less than the inflation rate
for the project. In other words, at this level of investment,
these projects will never be completed because project costs
are increasing faster than the amount recommended by the
administration.
The largest account in Reclamation's budget is the Water
and Related Resources account. The administration budget
proposal includes $805,187,000 for this account. This is a
decrease of $106,486,000, from the fiscal year 2011 enacted
amount.
The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund is proposed at
$53,068,000 for fiscal year 2012. This is an increase of
$3,154,000 over the fiscal year 2011 enacted amount. This
account is primarily funded from revenues collected from water
and power customers. Levels of funding in this account are
based on a 3-year rolling average of revenues collected.
The California Bay-Delta Restoration account is proposed at
$39,651,000 for fiscal year 2012. This is approximately the
same as the fiscal year 2011 enacted amount.
The Policy and Administration account is requested at
$60,000,000, $1,078,000 less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted
amount.
WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES
Appropriations, 2011.................................... $911,673,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 805,187,000
House allowance......................................... 822,300,000
Committee recommendation................................ 885,670,000
An appropriation of $885,670,000 is recommended by the
Committee for the Bureau of Reclamation. The water and related
resources account supports the development, management, and
restoration of water and related natural resources in the 17
Western States. The account includes funds for operating and
maintaining existing facilities to obtain the greatest overall
level of benefits, to protect public safety, and to conduct
studies on ways to improve the use of water and related natural
resources. Work will be done in partnership and cooperation
with non-Federal entities and other Federal agencies.
The Committee has divided underfinancing between the
Resources Management subaccount and the Facilities Operation
and Maintenance subaccount. The Committee directs that the
underfinancing amount in each subaccount initially be applied
uniformly across all projects within the subaccounts. Upon
applying the underfinanced amounts, normal reprogramming
procedures should be undertaken to account for schedule
slippages, accelerations, or other unforeseen conditions.
CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING
The budget for the Bureau of Reclamation consists of
individual line items of projects. As presented by the
President, the budget contains 204 specific line-item requests
for directed spending by the administration. An additional 42
line-item requests for funding by the administration is for
nationwide line items. All of these line items were specific
requests by the administration to be funded in fiscal year
2012. They did not request these funds programmatically, they
requested them for a specific project in a specific location
for a specific purpose.
Congressionally directed spending has become synonymous
with earmarks in recent debates, even for agencies such as the
Bureau of Reclamation where the majority of the budget request
is based on individual line item studies and projects. Due to
this ongoing debate, the Committee has voluntarily refused all
congressionally directed spending requests for fiscal year
2012. That means that the administration has total discretion
as to how the funding that this Committee appropriates will be
spent as it relates to individual studies and projects. The
Committee has retained the traditional table for the Water and
Related Resources Account delineating the line items requested
by the President in the budget request. Due to inadequacies in
the administration's budget request, the Committee has also
inserted some additional line item funding under the Regional
Programs heading for specific categories of studies or projects
that the Committee feels are underrepresented in the
administration's budget request. Reclamation has discretion
within the guidelines provided as to which line items this
additional funding will be applied to. The Committee has not
included any congressionally directed spending as defined in
section 5(a) of rule XLIV of the standing rules of the Senate.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION--WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate House allowance Committee
------------------------------------------------ recommendation
Project title -----------------------
Resources Facilities Resources Facilities Resources Facilities
management OM&R management OM&R management OM&R
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARIZONA
AK CHIN INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT .......... 12,706 .......... 12,489 .......... 12,706
ACT PROJECT............................
COLORADO RIVER BASIN PROJECT--CENTRAL 6,589 436 6,476 428 6,589 436
ARIZONA PROJECT........................
COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE 2,049 .......... 2,014 .......... 2,049 ..........
SYSTEM.................................
NORTHERN ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM. 326 .......... 320 .......... 326 ..........
PHOENIX METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION 200 .......... 196 .......... 200 ..........
AND REUSE PROJE........................
SALT RIVER PROJECT...................... 646 230 635 226 646 230
SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE WATER SETTLEMENT 335 .......... 329 .......... 335 ..........
ACT PROJECT............................
SIERRA VISTA SUBWATERSHED FEASIBILITY 463 .......... 455 .......... 463 ..........
STUDY..................................
SOUTH/CENTRAL ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS 702 .......... 690 .......... 702 ..........
PROGRAM................................
WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE WATER RIGHTS .......... .......... 4,865 .......... .......... ..........
QUANTIFICATION.........................
YUMA-AREA PROJECTS...................... 1,576 19,378 1,549 19,048 1,576 19,378
CALIFORNIA
CACHUMA PROJECT......................... 622 625 611 614 622 625
CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 1,452 .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
RECYCLING PROJECT......................
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECTS:
AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION, FOLSOM DAM 1,474 7,746 1,448 7,614 1,474 7,746
UNIT/MORMON IS.....................
AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT............ 33 2,668 32 2,622 33 2,668
DELTA DIVISION...................... 7,304 5,377 7,179 5,285 7,304 5,377
EAST SIDE DIVISION.................. 1,358 2,754 1,334 2,707 1,358 2,754
FRIANT DIVISION..................... 1,738 3,246 1,708 3,190 1,738 3,246
SAN JOAQUIN RESTORATION......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 9,000 ..........
MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS...... 11,367 846 11,173 831 11,367 846
REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND .......... 17,911 .......... 17,606 .......... 17,911
EXTRAORDINARY MAINTENANCE..........
SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION........... 35,344 1,578 34,743 1,551 35,344 1,578
SAN FELIPE DIVISION................. 638 29 627 28 638 29
SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION................ 356 .......... 349 .......... 356 ..........
SHASTA DIVISION..................... 378 7,766 371 7,633 378 7,766
TRINITY RIVER DIVISION.............. 10,786 4,201 10,602 4,129 10,786 4,201
WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS.......... 917 8,002 901 7,865 917 8,002
WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS 15,426 5,388 15,163 5,296 15,426 5,388
UNIT...............................
LONG BEACH AREA WATER RECLAMATION 500 .......... 491 .......... 500 ..........
PROJECT................................
LONG BEACH DESALINATION PROJECT......... 500 .......... 491 .......... 500 ..........
ORLAND PROJECT.......................... .......... 709 .......... 696 .......... 709
SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT............. 294 .......... 289 .......... 294 ..........
SAN DIEGO AREA WATER RECLAMATION PROGRAM 2,485 .......... 2,442 .......... 2,485 ..........
SAN JOSE AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND 247 .......... 242 .......... 247 ..........
REUSE PROGRAM..........................
SOLANO PROJECT.......................... 1,323 2,382 1,300 2,341 1,323 2,382
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS 268 .......... 263 .......... 268 ..........
PROGRAM................................
VENTURA RIVER PROJECT................... 344 41 338 40 344 41
COLORADO
ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT, COLORADO RIVER 11,504 1,249 11,308 1,227 11,504 1,249
STORAGE PARTIC.........................
COLLBRAN PROJECT........................ 217 1,461 213 1,436 217 1,461
COLORADO--BIG THOMPSON PROJECT.......... 275 10,859 270 10,674 275 10,859
COLORADO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM......... 344 .......... 338 .......... 344 ..........
FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT................ 99 166 97 163 99 166
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT.............. 108 8,871 106 8,720 108 8,871
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT--ARKANSAS 2,958 .......... 2,907 .......... 2,958 ..........
VALLEY CONDUIT.........................
GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II..... 209 1,351 205 1,328 209 1,351
LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY .......... 4,652 .......... 4,572 .......... 4,652
PROJECT................................
LOWER COLORADO RIVER INVESTIGATIONS 95 .......... 93 .......... 95 ..........
PROGRAM................................
MANCOS PROJECT.......................... 67 120 65 117 67 120
PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II... 100 2,633 98 2,588 100 2,633
PINE RIVER PROJECT...................... 152 240 149 235 152 240
SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT................. 356 4,479 349 4,402 356 4,479
UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT..................... 754 197 741 193 754 197
UPPER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM. 256 .......... 251 .......... 256 ..........
IDAHO
BOISE-AREA PROJECTS..................... 3,004 3,240 2,952 3,184 3,004 3,240
COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY 17,830 .......... 17,526 .......... 17,830 ..........
PROJECT................................
IDAHO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM............ 59 .......... 57 .......... 59 ..........
LEWISTON ORCHARDS PROJECT............... 1,086 30 1,067 29 1,086 30
MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS.................. 2,361 12,093 2,320 11,887 2,361 12,093
KANSAS
WICHITA PROJECT......................... 6 464 5 456 6 464
WICHITA PROJECT (EQUUS BEDS DIVISION)... 49 .......... 48 .......... 49 ..........
MONTANA
CROW TRIBE WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT...... .......... .......... 8,194 .......... .......... ..........
FORT PECK RESERVATION/DRY PRAIRIE RURAL 493 .......... 484 .......... 493 ..........
WATER SYSTEM...........................
HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT.................... .......... 345 .......... 339 .......... 345
HUNTLEY PROJECT......................... 31 53 30 52 31 53
LOWER YELLOWSTONE PROJECT............... 534 15 524 14 534 15
MILK RIVER PROJECT...................... 327 1,421 321 1,396 327 1,421
MONTANA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.......... 50 .......... 49 .......... 50 ..........
ROCKY BOYS/NORTH CENTRAL MT RURAL WATER 493 .......... 484 .......... 493 ..........
SYSTEM.................................
SUN RIVER PROJECT....................... 52 275 51 270 52 275
NEBRASKA
MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT.................... 13 110 12 108 13 110
NEVADA
LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT (HUMBOLT, 4,209 3,022 4,137 2,970 4,209 3,022
NEWLANDS, AND WASHOE...................
LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT 105 .......... 103 .......... 105 ..........
LAKE MEAD/LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM........ 493 .......... 484 .......... 493 ..........
NEW MEXICO
AAMODT LITIGATION SETTLEMENT ACT........ .......... .......... 9,240 .......... .......... ..........
CARLSBAD PROJECT........................ 2,391 1,613 2,350 1,585 2,391 1,613
EASTERN NEW MEXICO INVESTIGATIONS 47 .......... 46 .......... 47 ..........
PROGRAM................................
JICARILLA APACHE RURAL WATER SYSTEM..... 496 .......... 487 .......... 496 ..........
MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT............... 11,838 11,734 11,636 11,534 11,838 11,734
NAVAJO NATION INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.... 230 .......... 226 .......... 230 ..........
NAVAJO-GALLUP WATER SUPPLY.............. .......... .......... 24,375 .......... .......... ..........
RIO GRANDE PROJECT...................... 1,010 4,027 992 3,958 1,010 4,027
RIO GRANDE PUEBLOS PROJECT.............. 250 .......... 245 .......... 250 ..........
SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATIONS 181 .......... 177 .......... 181 ..........
PROGRAM................................
SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO/WEST TEXAS 192 .......... 188 .......... 192 ..........
INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.................
TAOS PUEBLO INDIAN WATER RIGHTS .......... .......... 3,932 .......... .......... ..........
SETTLEMENT.............................
TUCUMCARI PROJECT....................... 40 32 39 31 40 32
UPPER RIO GRANDE BASIN INVESTIGATIONS 78 .......... 76 .......... 78 ..........
PROGRAM................................
NORTH DAKOTA
P-SMBP--GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT (NON- 10,524 5,814 10,345 5,715 10,524 5,814
RURAL WATER)...........................
OKLAHOMA
ARBUCKLE PROJECT........................ 66 170 64 167 66 170
MCGEE CREEK PROJECT..................... 37 724 36 711 37 724
MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT................... 25 547 24 537 25 547
NORMAN PROJECT.......................... 37 537 36 527 37 537
WASHITA BASIN PROJECT................... 67 1,397 65 1,373 67 1,397
W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT..................... 56 604 55 593 56 604
OREGON
CROOKED RIVER PROJECT................... 473 487 464 478 473 487
DESCHUTES PROJECT....................... 264 192 259 188 264 192
EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS................. 594 216 583 212 594 216
KLAMATH PROJECT......................... 16,726 1,883 16,441 1,850 16,726 1,883
OREGON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM........... 59 .......... 57 .......... 59 ..........
ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT 354 325 347 319 354 325
DIVISION...............................
TUALATIN PROJECT........................ 90 204 88 200 90 204
UMATILLA PROJECT........................ 446 2,461 438 2,419 446 2,461
SOUTH DAKOTA
LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM...... 493 .......... 484 .......... 493 ..........
MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT.......... .......... 15 .......... 14 .......... 15
MNI WICONI PROJECT...................... 16,270 10,058 15,993 9,887 16,270 10,058
RAPID VALLEY PROJECT.................... .......... 93 .......... 91 .......... 93
TEXAS
BALMORHEA PROJECT....................... 43 14 42 13 43 14
CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT.................. 52 85 51 83 52 85
LOWER RIO GRANDE WATER CONSERVATION 49 .......... 48 .......... 49 ..........
PROJECT................................
NUECES RIVER PROJECT.................... 17 601 16 590 17 601
SAN ANGELO PROJECT...................... 28 638 27 627 28 638
UTAH
HYRUM PROJECT........................... 166 136 163 133 166 136
MOON LAKE PROJECT....................... 10 61 9 59 10 61
NEWTON PROJECT.......................... 53 106 52 104 53 106
NORTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.... 181 .......... 177 .......... 181 ..........
OGDEN RIVER PROJECT..................... 214 215 210 211 214 215
PROVO RIVER PROJECT..................... 1,163 393 1,143 386 1,163 393
SANPETE PROJECT......................... .......... 10 .......... 9 .......... 10
SCOFIELD PROJECT........................ 301 49 295 48 301 49
SOUTHERN NEVADA/UTAH INVESTIGATIONS 74 .......... 72 .......... 74 ..........
PROGRAM................................
SOUTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.... 206 .......... 202 .......... 206 ..........
STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT............... 354 34 347 33 354 34
WEBER BASIN PROJECT..................... 920 752 904 739 920 752
WEBER RIVER PROJECT..................... 65 62 63 60 65 62
WASHINGTON
COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT.................. 3,278 4,446 3,222 4,370 3,278 4,446
WASHINGTON AREA PROJECTS................ 388 46 381 45 388 46
WASHINGTON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM....... 59 .......... 57 .......... 59 ..........
YAKIMA PROJECT.......................... 824 5,608 809 5,512 824 5,608
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT 8,940 .......... 8,788 .......... 8,940 ..........
PROJECT................................
WYOMING
KENDRICK PROJECT........................ 117 4,231 115 4,159 117 4,231
NORTH PLATTE PROJECT.................... 255 1,964 250 1,930 255 1,964
SHOSHONE PROJECT........................ 75 883 73 867 75 883
WYOMING INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.......... 20 .......... 19 .......... 20 ..........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, ITEMS UNDER STATES...... 237,915 224,832 282,987 220,966 245,463 224,832
REGIONAL PROGRAMS
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ONGOING WORK:
RURAL WATER......................... .......... .......... .......... .......... 21,000 ..........
FISH PASSAGE AND FISH SCREENS....... .......... .......... .......... .......... 4,000 ..........
WATER CONSERVATION AND DELIVERY .......... .......... .......... .......... 8,000 ..........
STUDIES AND PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND .......... .......... .......... .......... 5,000 ..........
COMPLIANCE.........................
ADDITIONAL MAINTENANCE NEEDS........ .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 2,500
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL .......... 11,519 .......... 11,323 .......... 11,519
PROJECT--TITLE.........................
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL 6,939 .......... 6,821 .......... 6,939 ..........
PROJECT--TITLE.........................
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT [CRSP], 3,551 4,469 3,490 4,393 3,551 4,469
SECTION 5..............................
COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT [CRSP], 4,039 217 3,970 213 4,039 217
SECTION 8..............................
COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT 729 .......... 716 .......... 729 ..........
PROGRAM................................
DAM SAFETY PROGRAM:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DAM .......... 1,600 .......... 1,600 .......... 1,600
SAFETY PROGRAM.....................
INITIATE SAFETY OF DAMS CORRECTIVE .......... 63,587 .......... 63,587 .......... 63,587
ACTION.............................
SAFETY EVALUATION OF EXISTING DAMS.. .......... 18,520 .......... 18,520 .......... 18,520
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND DISASTER RESPONSE .......... 1,300 .......... 1,277 .......... 1,300
PROGRAM................................
ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY 19,954 .......... 19,614 .......... 19,954 ..........
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM.................
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION.... 1,610 .......... 1,582 .......... 1,610 ..........
EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES...... .......... 9,167 .......... 9,011 .......... 9,167
FEDERAL BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY PROGRAM. .......... 1,400 .......... 1,376 .......... 1,400
GENERAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES............. 2,294 .......... 2,255 .......... 2,294 ..........
INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS:
TAOS................................ .......... .......... .......... .......... 4,000 ..........
AAMODT.............................. .......... .......... .......... .......... 9,400 ..........
NAVAJO-GALLUP....................... .......... .......... .......... .......... 23,754 ..........
WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE............... .......... .......... .......... .......... 4,950 ..........
CROW................................ .......... .......... .......... .......... 8,336 ..........
LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM....... 8,945 .......... 8,792 .......... 8,945 ..........
LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM. 25,980 .......... 25,538 .......... 25,980 ..........
MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS.. .......... 875 .......... 860 .......... 875
NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM......... 6,951 .......... 6,832 .......... 6,951 ..........
NEGOTIATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF WATER 2,060 .......... 2,024 .......... 2,060 ..........
MARKETING..............................
OPERATION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT........ 874 1,222 859 1,201 874 1,222
PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN PROGRAM (OTHER 3,137 40,449 3,083 39,761 3,137 40,449
PICK SLOAN)............................
POWER PROGRAM SERVICES.................. 1,735 307 1,705 301 1,735 307
PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM........ 711 155 698 152 711 155
RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION.......... 2,258 .......... 2,219 .......... 2,258 ..........
RECREATION AND FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM 2,181 .......... 2,143 .......... 2,181 ..........
ADMINISTRATION.........................
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:
DESALINATION AND WATER PURIFICATION 986 1,100 .......... .......... 986 1,100
PROGRAM............................
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM...... 10,108 .......... 9,936 .......... 10,108 ..........
RURAL WATER PROGRAM, TITLE I............ 2,000 .......... 1,966 .......... 2,000 ..........
SITE SECURITY ACTIVITIES................ .......... 25,942 .......... 25,500 .......... 25,942
UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES-- 95 .......... 93 .......... 95 ..........
TECHNICAL SUPPORT......................
WATERSMART PROGRAM:
WATERSMART GRANTS (CHALLENGE GRANT 18,500 .......... 10,798 .......... 18,500 ..........
IN 2010)...........................
COOPERATIVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT 250 .......... .......... .......... 250 ..........
WATER CONSERVATION FIELD 5,108 .......... 4,000 .......... 5,108 ..........
SERVICES PROGRAM...............
TITLE XVI WATER RECLAMATION/REUSE 23,616 .......... 16,138 .......... 23,616 ..........
PROJECTS...........................
BASIN STUDIES....................... 6,000 .......... 4,000 .......... 6,000 ..........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, REGIONAL PROGRAMS....... 160,611 181,829 139,272 179,075 249,051 184,329
UNDERFINANCING.......................... .......... .......... .......... .......... -12,005 -6,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL............................. 398,526 406,661 422,259 400,041 482,509 403,161
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION...... 805,187
822,300
885,670
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buried Metallic Water Pipe.--The Committee is aware of
concerns regarding implementation and review of Reclamation's
Technical Memorandum [TM] 8140-CC-2004-1 (``Corrosion
Considerations for Buried Metallic Water Pipe''). The
Committee's primary concern is that this TM may be applying
different materials to different standards of reliability and
potentially increasing project costs unnecessarily. The
Committee understands that Reclamation contracted with the
National Academy of Sciences in 2009 for an independent review
of the TM. While the National Academy generally supported the
TM, the Committee notes that the National Academy also
recommended in their report (``Review of the Bureau of
Reclamation's Corrosion Prevention Standards for Ductile Iron
Pipe'' (2009)) that Reclamation assemble data on pipeline
reliability for all types of pipe specified in Table 2 of TM
8140-CC-2004-1 along with the specified corrosion protection
applied in the various soil types. Reclamation has yet to carry
out this recommendation which has contributed to continued
concerns and challenges to the TM. Therefore, the Committee
directs Reclamation to use the TM as only one of the possible
criterion for determinations on whether to deny funding or
approve of a project or to disqualify any type of pipe from use
in highly corrosive soils until it has assembled data on
pipeline reliability as recommended by the National Academy and
conducted an analysis of the performance of these types of pipe
installed in the same or similar conditions. This analysis
shall apply consistent standards of reliability and cost
effectiveness over the life cycle of the project.
Calleguas Municipal Water District Recycling Project,
California.--No funding has been provided for this project as
Reclamation apportioned sufficient funding to complete the
authorized Federal share of the project.
Indian Water Rights Settlements Account.--The Committee has
chosen not to include a separate account for this work. The
Committee recognizes that these are legal settlements with the
affected tribes, however, believe it is prudent to keep these
items within the Water and Related Resources Account. Beyond
the actual water rights settlement funding, many of these
settlements included construction components very similar to
rural water projects funded elsewhere in this account. The
Committee understands that due to the way the settlements were
structured, that some of the discretionary funding may not be
obligated in fiscal year 2012 and will be carried over into
later years. The Committee urges Reclamation to minimize this
practice to the extent practicable and within the confines of
these settlements. To maintain the visibility of these
projects, the Committee has included the five projects under
the Regional Programs heading with a subheading called Indian
Water Rights Settlements.
San Joaquin Restoration Account.--The Committee has chosen
not to include a separate account for this item. Rather it is
being funded as a sub element under the Friant Division of the
Central Valley Project. The Committee believes that this is
prudent to keep these funds within the Water and Related
Resources account maximizing the flexibility of the funding.
Additional Funding for Water and Related Resources Work.--
The Committee recommendation includes additional funds above
the budget request for Water and Related Resources studies,
projects and activities. The Committee recommends that priority
in allocating these funds should be to complete ongoing work,
improve water supply reliability, improve water deliveries,
tribal and nontribal water settlement studies, ecosystem
restoration, enhance national, regional, or local economic
development, promote job growth or for critical backlog
maintenance activities.
The administration has complete discretion over how these
funds are to be used. The intent of these funds is for work
that either did not make it into the administration request or
were inadequately budgeted. Within 30 days of enactment,
Reclamation shall provide the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees a work plan delineating how these funds are to be
distributed and in which phase the work is being accomplished.
WaterSmart Program, Title XVI Water Reclamation/Reuse
Projects.--The Committee is concerned that constrained budgets
will severely impact the research and development vital to
improvements in water recycling and desalination technologies'
development and applications. The Committee believes that only
through enhanced Federal and non-Federal research partnerships
can this situation be bridged. Therefore, the Bureau of
Reclamation should consider how competitively procured cost-
shared research on water reuse and desalination can be
incorporated into this program. This would potentially allow
qualified organizations with extensive experience in conducting
research on water reuse and desalination to leverage the
Bureau's funding with other cost sharing partners.
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND
Appropriations, 2011.................................... $49,914,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 53,068,000
House allowance......................................... 53,068,000
Committee recommendation................................ 53,068,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $53,068,000
for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.
The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized
in the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, title 34 of
Public Law 102-575. This fund was established to provide
funding from project beneficiaries for habitat restoration,
improvement and acquisition, and other fish and wildlife
restoration activities in the Central Valley project area of
California. Revenues are derived from payments by project
beneficiaries and from donations. Payments from project
beneficiaries include several required by the act (Friant
Division surcharges, higher charges on water transferred to
non-CVP users, and tiered water prices) and, to the extent
required in appropriations acts, additional annual mitigation
and restoration payments.
The Central Valley Project Improvement Act, enacted into
law in October 1992, established 34 activities to restore and
enhance fish and wildlife habitats in California's Central
Valley and Trinity Basins. The act set up a Restoration Fund
for the deposit of contributions from CVP water and power users
to pay for those activities, along with contributions from the
State of California, Federal appropriations, and other
contributors. Unfortunately a number of sources envisioned to
contribute to this fund never materialized or funding is no
longer available from those sources.
Power users, in particular, are paying a much greater share
than anyone anticipated. This has resulted in high CVP power
costs, and unpredictable fee assessments on power agencies. The
power users fees are unpredictable, since in low water years
the water users pay very little and the power users make up the
difference. The Restoration Fund collection in the early years
of the act was the equivalent of adding $1 per megawatt hour to
the cost of CVP power, but this has now increased to an average
cost of approximately $11 per megawatt hour over the last 4
years.
Since the fund was established in 1992 more than
$1,400,000,000 has been spent for restoration activities, but
there has been little accountability on how effectively it has
been used. There is very little assurance that the goals of the
Restoration Fund will be met in the near future, such that the
fees could be reduced under the statute. Therefore, the
Committee urges the Commissioner to work with power users to
determine a more predictable payment stream for power users and
to develop measures to provide more accountability and
transparency to the restoration process. Reclamation should
provide a report to the Senate Appropriations Committee within
180 days of enactment of this act on actions they are taking in
this regard. Further, a report covering the previous fiscal
year activities should be incorporated into the budget
justifications submitted with the President's budget request
starting in fiscal year 2013.
CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2011.................................... $39,920,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 39,651,000
House allowance......................................... 35,928,000
Committee recommendation................................ 39,651,000
The Committee recommendation includes an appropriation of
$39,651,000 for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
This account funds activities that are consistent with the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program, a collaborative effort involving 18
State and Federal agencies and representatives of California's
urban, agricultural, and environmental communities. The goals
of the program are to improve fish and wildlife habitat, water
supply reliability, and water quality in the San Francisco Bay-
San Joaquin River Delta, the principle hub of California's
water distribution system.
POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION
Appropriations, 2011.................................... $61,078,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 60,000,000
House allowance......................................... 60,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 60,000,000
The Committee recommendation for general administrative
expenses is $60,000,000.
The policy and administrative expenses program provides for
the executive direction and management of all reclamation
activities, as performed by the Commissioner's offices in
Washington, DC, Denver, Colorado, and five regional offices.
The Denver office and regional offices charge individual
projects or activities for direct beneficial services and
related administrative and technical costs. These charges are
covered under other appropriations.
INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS
Appropriations, 2011....................................................
Budget estimate, 2012................................... $51,483,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $0 for the
Indian Water Rights Settlements Account.
This account was proposed as a part of the administration
request to cover expenses associated with four Indian water
rights settlements contained in the Claims Resolution Act of
2010 (Public Law 111-291), title X of the Omnibus Public Lands
Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11), and the White
Mountain Apache Tribe Rural Water System Loan Authorization Act
(Public Law 110-390). Rather than create a new account as the
budget request suggested, the Committee has chosen to provide
this funding request under the Regional Programs section of the
Water and Related Resources Account as similar work and funding
has been previously provided in that account.
SAN JOAQUIN RESTORATION FUND
Appropriations, 2011....................................................
Budget estimate, 2012................................... $9,000,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $0 for the San
Joaquin Restoration Fund Account.
This account was proposed to implement the provisions
described in the Stipulation of Settlement for the National
Resources Defense Council et al. v. Rodgers lawsuit. Rather
than provide discretionary funding in this account as the
budget request suggested, the Committee has chosen to provide
this funding request under the Central Valley Project, Friant
Division of the Water and Related Resources Account as similar
work and funding has been previously provided in that account.
General Provisions--Department of the Interior
Section 201. The bill includes language regarding Bureau of
Reclamation Reprogramming.
Section 202. The bill includes language regarding the San
Luis Unit and the Kesterson Reservoir in California.
Section 203. The bill includes language concerning a
project cost ceiling increase.
Section 204. The bill includes language concerning the
desalination act.
Section 206. The bill includes language concerning the Bay
Delta Conservation Plan.
Section 207. The bill includes language concerning
groundwater banking.
Section 208. In 2009, the Bureau of Reclamation approved a
total of 168 individual transfers among water contractors
within the CVP. These transfers represented 435,286 acre feet
of Federal contract water, most of which were accomplished with
accelerated water transfer programs using programmatic
environmental documentation. Reclamation's accelerated transfer
programs apply only to water transfers among CVP contractors
within specifically defined geographic regions. This provision
is not intended to affect existing accelerated water transfer
programs that are carried out in compliance with all applicable
Federal and State law. Instead, the provision is intended to
strengthen Reclamation's ability to facilitate appropriate
water transfers between CVP contractors south of the Delta by
applying key elements of the existing accelerated programs more
broadly within the CVP.
The provision subsumes within it the San Joaquin River
Restoration Settlement Act and the Settlement, so that any
proposed transfer under section (a) that would interfere with
the Settlement Act, the Settlement or implementation of that
Settlement would violate the new condition language in section
(a) and would not be approved by the Secretary.
The Committee understands that if transfers of water may
take up capacity in the San Joaquin River channel it is the
intent of the Committee that no transfers under this authority
shall be approved if they would occupy capacity needed for
interim flows or restoration flows under the Settlement. The
intention is to preserve the Settlement, not to expand or
diminish it and this provision does not modify or amend the
rights and obligations of the parties to the Settlement. It
also does not modify, amend or supersede the separate water
transfer authorities in section 10010(e) of the Settlement Act.
Section 209. This provision concerns the Friant prepayment
for the San Joaquin River Settlement currently authorized for
disbursement starting in 2019. The provision advances
disbursement of these prepaid funds to 2014 and limits
expenditure of these authorized mandatory funds to $40,000,000
per year. The provision changes no other provisions of the San
Joaquin River Settlement.
TITLE III
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
The Committee recommends $25,548,976,000 for the Department
of Energy. Within these funds, $11,050,000,000 is for the
National Nuclear Security Administration [NNSA]. The
Committee's highest priority is accelerating breakthroughs in
clean energy technologies to reduce the Nation's dependence on
foreign oil and developing carbon-free sources of energy that
will change the way the United States produces and consumes
energy. Increases to ARPA-E should accelerate the
commercialization of these technologies and a shift of funding
in the Office of Science toward goal-oriented research will
focus limited investments. The Committee also provides credit
subsidies for renewable loan guarantees to encourage the early
commercial production and use of new or significantly improved
energy efficient technologies. Moreover, the Committee
recommends an increase of $528,000,000 above fiscal year 2011
enacted levels for NNSA to address critical national security
missions. The increase would allow NNSA to stay on track to
meet its goal of securing all vulnerable nuclear materials in 4
years to protect the United States against nuclear terrorism,
continue modernizing the nuclear weapons complex consistent
with the Nuclear Posture Review and New START Treaty, and
develop a new reactor core for the OHIO-class submarine.
Exascale Initiative
The Committee supports the Department's initiative to
develop exascale computing--1,000 times more powerful than
today's most powerful computer. The Committee recommends
$126,000,000 to support this initiative, which includes
$90,000,000 for the Office of Science and $36,000,000 for the
National Nuclear Security Administration. The Committee
encourages the Office of Science and the National Nuclear
Security Administration to continue collaborating on the
development of exascale computing to take advantage of each
other's expertise and avoid duplication of effort. The
Committee understands that the path to exascale computing will
be extremely challenging and will require significant research
and development breakthroughs. For example, an exaflop system
made entirely out of today's technology would probably cost
$100,000,000,000, require $1,000,000,000 a year to operate,
need its own dedicated power plant to power the computing
system, and be very unreliable. Despite these challenges, the
Department has set an ambitious goal of 2018 to deploy the
first exascale system. The Committee directs the Department's
Undersecretary for Science and the National Nuclear Security
Administration [NNSA] Administrator to submit within 120 days
of enactment of this act, a joint, integrated strategy and
program plan with estimated budget needs through 2018 on how
the Office of Science's Advanced Scientific Computing Research
and NNSA's Advanced Simulation and Computing programs will
share responsibilities and coordinate research and development
activities to reach exascale computing required for national
security, energy, environmental, and other science missions and
to retain the United States' global leadership and
competitiveness in advanced computing.
Project Management
In November 2010, the President's Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology recommended that the Secretary of Energy
extend procedures used successfully in ARPA-E to all DOE energy
programs. For example, ARPA-E uses a rigorous peer review
process to select the most deserving projects and from
conception to the award of the contract it only takes 6 to 8
months, much faster than other DOE energy programs. The
Committee directs the Secretary of Energy within 120 days of
enactment of this act to submit a report on how the Department
will implement the Council of Advisors' recommendation to
extend ARPA-E processes and procedures to all DOE energy
programs.
Reprogramming Guidelines
The Department of Energy is directed to operate in a manner
fully consistent with the following reprogramming guidelines. A
reprogramming request must be submitted to the Committees on
Appropriations for consideration before any implementation of a
reorganization proposal which includes moving previous
appropriations between appropriation accounts. The Department
is directed to inform the Committees promptly and fully when a
change in program execution and funding is required during the
fiscal year. To assist the Department in this effort, the
following guidance is provided for programs and activities
funded in the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act. The Department is directed to follow this
guidance for all programs and activities unless specific
reprogramming guidance is provided for a program or activity.
Definition.--A reprogramming includes the reallocation of
funds from one activity to another within an appropriation, or
any significant departure from a program, project, activity, or
organization described in the agency's budget justification as
presented to and approved by Congress. For construction
projects, a reprogramming constitutes the reallocation of funds
from one construction project identified in the justifications
to another project or a significant change in the scope of an
approved project.
Any reallocation of new or prior year budget authority or
prior year deobligations must be submitted to the Committees in
writing and may not be implemented prior to approval by the
Committees on Appropriations.
Energy Programs
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
Appropriations, 2011...................................\1\$1,825,641,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 3,200,053,000
House allowance......................................... 1,304,636,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,795,641,000
\1\Does not include rescission of $30,000,000 under Public Law 112-10.
The Committee recommendation is $1,795,641,000 for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
The Committee notes that the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act of 1975 authorized the Department to issue efficiency
standards for a list of products, and to date televisions are
the only item for which DOE has failed to issue a standard. The
Committee also notes that recent studies demonstrate that set
top boxes consume $3,000,000,000 in electricity per year in the
United States, and 66 percent of that power is when the
television is not on. The Committee directs the Secretary to
initiate rulemaking processes to establish effective efficiency
standards for electronic devices, including both televisions
and set-top boxes, within 12 months.
Hydrogen Technology.--The Committee recommends $98,000,000
for hydrogen technology. The Committee recognizes the progress
and achievements of the Fuel Cell Technologies program. The
program has met or exceeded all benchmarks, and has made
significant progress in decreasing costs and increasing
efficiency and durability of fuel cell and hydrogen energy
systems. Further, the Committee believes fuel cell and hydrogen
energy systems for stationary, transportation and other motive,
mobile and portable power applications have the potential to
enable clean and efficient use of our domestic energy
resources. The Committee affirms its support for stable and
continued funding for these programs now and in the future.
Within the available funds, the Committee recommends funding is
provided for Technology Validation focused on passenger vehicle
and hydrogen infrastructure applications, hydrogen fuels R&D,
and for Market Transformation in early markets.
Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D.--The Committee
recommends $180,000,000 for biomass and biorefinery systems
R&D. Within the available funds a total of $30,000,000 is for
algae biofuels.
Solar Energy.--The Committee recommends $290,000,000 for
solar energy. The Committee encourages the Department of Energy
to designate and fund, in fiscal year 2012, a center for solar
energy innovation to be located in close proximity to high-
quality solar resources and focused on promoting the
integration of solar technologies and products into utility,
building and commercial systems, and to improve their
reliability, affordability and rapid deployment across the
Southwest region and the United States. The Department of
Energy shall continue to award funding for its Solar
Demonstration Zone Project in recognition of the work needed to
test, evaluate and develop innovative solar energy projects and
the link such a zone could provide between DOE's advanced
technology development and utility-scale commercialization
efforts.
The Committee encourages the Department, in partnership
with universities, to support the research and development of
organic photovoltaic cells for the advancement of developing
alternative energy technologies.
Wind Energy.--The recommendation is $80,000,000 for wind
energy. The Committee supports the Department's efforts to
develop advanced offshore wind energy technologies, including
freshwater, deepwater, shallow water, and transitional depth
installations.
Geothermal Technology.--The recommendation for geothermal
technology is $34,000,000. The funds made available by this
section shall be disbursed to the full spectrum of geothermal
technologies as authorized by the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140) and the Department of
Energy shall continue its support of comprehensive programs
that support academic and professional development initiatives.
The Committee directs the Department to make not less than
$5,000,000 available to continue development and deployment of
low-temperature geothermal systems.
Water Power Energy R&D.--The Committee recommends
$34,000,000 for water power. All funding provided is for marine
and hydrokinetic technology research, development, and
deployment. Within available funds, the Committee directs the
Department to provide not less than $10,000,000 to build
necessary infrastructure at marine and hydrokinetic industry
testing sites designated by the Department as National Marine
Renewable Energy Centers. Additionally, the Committee
encourages the Department to provide not less than $15,000,000
in funding for competitive demonstrations of marine and
hydrokinetic technologies and requests the Department consider
reducing and/or waiving cost share requirements for small
businesses.
Vehicle Technologies.--The Committee recommends
$319,157,000 for vehicle technologies. The Energy Policy Act
[EPAct] of 1992 requires that State, Federal and certain
private fleets convert an increasing percentage of their
vehicle fleets to alternative fuel vehicles [AFVs]. However,
the EPAct 1992 provision does not contemplate the emergence of
new alternative fuel vehicle technologies, so the definition of
AFV does not include key electric drive technologies, such as
hybrid electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. To remedy
this, ensuring that the EPAct 1992 fleet requirements reflected
evolving technology options and provided covered fleets
critical options in meeting their obligations under the law,
the Energy Independence and Security Act [EISA] of 2007 amended
the law. EISA expands the AFV definition to include electric
drive vehicles (including hybrid and plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles), infrastructure and other emerging technologies. To
implement this change, DOE was directed to issue guidance no
later than January 31, 2009. To date, no guidance has been
issued, which constrains the covered fleets' ability to
integrate electric drive vehicles into their fleets. The
Committee directs DOE to move forward with due diligence and to
provide a status report on the effort and a timeline for
issuance.
Funds provided to Vehicle Technology Deployment are to be
used to expand the program's activities in promoting the
adoption and use of petroleum reduction technologies and
practices by working with Clean Cities coalitions and their
stakeholders on alternative fuel and electric drive advanced
technology vehicles and related fueling/charging
infrastructure.
Medium- and heavy-duty trucks consume roughly one-fifth of
transportation fuels in the United States, and increasing the
efficiency of these vehicles can lower the costs of land-based
freight and the industries that depend on it, while greatly
reducing the Nation's dependence on imported oil. The
SuperTruck program focuses on truck efficiency in a partnership
between DOE and commercial vehicle and equipment manufacturers
to conduct research and develop the next generation of more
efficient engines and vehicles. At a time of overall
constraints on resources for worthy initiatives, the Committee
appreciates the Department continuing to set as a priority this
high value public-partnership to develop advanced vehicle
technologies that will improve the efficiency of medium- and
heavy-duty commercial vehicles.
Within available funds, $4,000,000 is provided for
lightweight materials modeling and design for vehicle
optimization. The Committee also recommends up to $5,000,000
from within available funds to commission a study from the
National Academies to comprehensively examine market barriers
that impede the commercial deployment of electric vehicles and
supporting infrastructure. The study should incorporate input
from stakeholders, including State utility commissions,
electric utilities, automobile manufacturers, and local and
Federal governmental entities with relevant missions. The study
should include recommendations on the Federal role (including
specific roles for different Federal agencies) in resolving the
market barriers the study identifies.
Further, within available funds up to $10,000,000 is made
available to fund section 131 of the 2007 Energy Independence
and Security Act [EISA] to promote zero emission cargo
transport in areas of severe nonattainment and severe traffic
congestion. Eligible recipients must provide 1-to-1 matching
funds.
Building Technologies.--The Committee recommends
$210,500,000 for building technologies. Within these funds, the
Committee directs $12,000,000 to manufacturing improvements for
general illumination LED lighting products that meet the
efficiency requirements of section 321 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007.
The Committee urges the Department create a strategic plan
to promote the use of geothermal heat pumps in both residential
and commercial buildings; develop innovative technologies to
enhance the use of geothermal heat pumps; and collect and
disseminate information regarding the benefit of geothermal
heat pumps. The Department is directed to report to the
Committee within 6 months of enactment of this act on the
progress of this effort.
Industrial Technologies.--The Committee recommends
$96,000,000 for industrial technologies.
Federal Energy Management Program.--The Committee
recommends $30,000,000 for the Federal Energy Management
Program [FEMP].
Facilities and Infrastructure.--The Committee recommends
$26,407,000 for facilities and infrastructure consistent with
the budget request.
Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $165,000,000
for program direction.
Strategic Programs.--The Committee recommends $50,000,000
for strategic programs.
Weatherization Assistance Program.--The Committee provides
$174,300,000. Of that amount, $3,000,000 is for training and
technical assistance.
Intergovernmental Activities.--The Committee provides
$50,000,000 for State Energy Programs and $10,000,000 for
Tribal Energy Activities.
Use of Prior-Year Balances.--The Department is directed to
use $26,364,000 of prior-year balances as proposed in the
budget request.
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
Appropriations, 2011.................................... \1\$144,710,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 237,717,000
House allowance......................................... 139,496,000
Committee recommendation................................ 141,010,000
\1\Does not include rescission of $3,700,000 under Public Law 112-10.
The Committee recommends $141,010,000 for Electricity
Delivery and Energy Reliability. No funding is provided for the
proposed new hub. The recommendation includes $27,000,000 for
Clean Energy Transmission and Reliability with $17,000,000 of
this going toward integration and $10,000,000 toward advanced
modeling. The recommendation includes $24,000,000 for Smart
Grid Research and Development with $4,000,000 of this for power
electronics.
The Committee recognizes the opportunities presented by the
application and integration of smart grid technologies across
all sectors of the economy, but particularly in the growing
number of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles coming to market.
The Department of Energy should ensure that the efforts within
the Office of Electricity Delivery and Reliability and at the
Vehicle Technologies Program are coordinated and focused on
developing and deploying electric vehicle technologies that can
help expedite grid-integration of clean and renewable power
generation sources and those energy resources can be used
effectively to meet peak daytime electricity demand.
Within the funds appropriated to the Office of Electricity
Delivery and Energy Reliability the Committee encourages it to
accelerate its efforts to provide grants for regional
transmission planning and technical assistance to entities that
support or implement additional deployment of new renewable
electricity generation in the Western and Eastern
interconnections.
Nuclear Energy
Appropriations, 2011.................................... \1\$732,124,000
Budget Estimate, 2012................................... 754,028,000
House allowance......................................... 733,633,000
Committee recommendation................................ 583,834,000
\1\Does not include rescission of $6,300,000 under Public Law 112-10.
The Committee recommends $583,834,000 for Nuclear Energy.
The events at the Fukushima-Daiichi facilities in Japan
have resulted in a reexamination of our Nation's policies
regarding the safety of commercial reactors and the storage of
spent nuclear fuel. These efforts have been supported by
appropriations in this bill, and the Committee provides funding
for continuation and expansion of these activities.
While the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has found that
spent nuclear fuel can be stored safely for at least 60 years
in wet or dry cask storage beyond the licensed life of the
reactor, the Committee has significant questions on this matter
and is extremely concerned that the United States continues to
accumulate spent fuel from nuclear reactors without a
comprehensive plan to collect the fuel or dispose of it safely,
and as a result faces a $15,400,000,000 liability by 2020. The
Committee approved funding in prior years for the Blue Ribbon
Commission on America's Nuclear Future [BRC], which was charged
with examining our Nation's policies for managing the back end
of the nuclear fuel cycle and recommending a new plan. The BRC
issued a draft report in July 2011 with recommendations, which
is expected to be finalized in January 2012. The Committee
directs prior existing funding, contingent on the renewal of
its charter, to the BRC to develop a comprehensive revision to
Federal statutes based on its recommendations, to submit to
Congress for its consideration.
The Committee directs the Department to develop and prepare
to implement a strategy for the management of spent nuclear
fuel and other nuclear waste within 3 months of publication of
the final report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's
Nuclear Future. The strategy shall reduce long-term Federal
liability associated with the Department's failure to pick up
spent fuel from commercial nuclear reactors, and it should
propose to store waste in a safe and responsible manner. The
Committee notes that a sound Federal strategy will likely
require one or more consolidated storage facilities with
adequate capacity to be sited, licensed, and constructed in
multiple regions, independent of the schedule for opening a
repository. The Committee directs that the Department's
strategy include a plan to develop consolidated regional
storage facilities in cooperation with host communities, as
necessary, and propose any amendments to Federal statute
necessary to implement the strategy.
Although successfully disposing of spent nuclear fuel
permanently is a long-term effort and will require statutory
changes, the Committee supports taking near- and mid-term steps
that can begin without new legislation and which provide value
regardless of the ultimate policy the United States adopts. The
Committee therefore includes funding for several of these steps
in the Nuclear Energy Research and Development account,
including the assessment of dry casks to establish a scientific
basis for licensing; continued work on advanced fuel cycle
options; research to assess disposal in different geological
media; and the development of enhanced fuels and materials that
are more resistant to damage in reactors or spent fuel pools.
The Committee has provided more than $500,000,000 in prior
years toward the Next Generation Nuclear Plant [NGNP] program.
Although the program has experienced some successes,
particularly in the advanced research and development of TRISO
fuel, the Committee is frustrated with the lack of progress and
failure to resolve the upfront cost-share issue to allocate the
risk between industry and the Federal Government. Although the
Committee has provided sufficient time for these issues to be
resolved, the program has stalled. Recognizing funding
constraints, the Committee cannot support continuing the
program in its current form. The Committee provides no funding
to continue the existing NGNP program, but rather allows the
Department to continue high-value, priority research and
development activities for high-temperature reactors, in
cooperation with industry, that were included in the NGNP
program.
NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The Committee recommends $291,667,000 for Nuclear Energy
Research and Development.
Use of Prior Existing Balances.--If the Secretary renews
the charter of the Blue Ribbon Commission, the Department is
directed to use $2,500,000 of prior existing balances
appropriated to the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management to develop a comprehensive revision to Federal
statutes based on its recommendations. The recommendation
should be provided to Congress not later than March 30, 2012
for consideration.
Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies.--The Committee
recommends $68,880,000 for Nuclear Energy Enabling
Technologies, including $24,300,000 for the Energy Innovation
Hub for Modeling and Simulation, $14,580,000 for the National
Science User Facility at Idaho National Laboratory, and
$30,000,000 for Crosscutting research. The Committee does not
recommend any funding for Transformative research. The
Committee recommends that the Department focus the Energy
Innovation Hub on the aspects of its mission that improve
nuclear powerplant safety.
Light Water Reactor Small Modular Reactor Licensing
Technical Support.--The Committee provides no funding for Light
Water Reactor Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical
Support.
Reactor Concepts Research, Development, and
Demonstration.--The Committee provides $31,870,000 for Reactor
Concepts Research, Development and Demonstration. Of this
funding, $21,870,000 is for Advanced Reactor Concepts
activities. The Committee does not include funding for the Next
Generation Nuclear Plant Demonstration project. The Department
may, within available funding, continue high-value, priority
research and development activities for high-temperature
reactor concepts, in cooperation with industry, that were
conducted as part of the NGNP program. The remaining funds,
$10,000,000, are for research and development of the current
fleet of operating reactors to determine how long they can
safely operate.
Fuel Cycle Research and Development.--The Committee
recommends $187,917,000 for Fuel Cycle Research and
Development. Within available funds, the Committee provides
$10,000,000 for the Department to expand the existing modeling
and simulation capabilities at the national laboratories to
assess issues related to the aging and safety of storing spent
nuclear fuel in fuel pools and dry storage casks. The Committee
includes $60,000,000 for Used Nuclear Fuel Disposition, and
directs the Department to focus research and development
activities on the following priorities:
--$10,000,000 for development and licensing of standardized
transportation, aging, and disposition canisters and
casks;
--$3,000,000 for development of models for potential
partnerships to manage spent nuclear fuel and high
level waste; and
--$7,000,000 for characterization of potential geologic
repository media.
The Committee provides funding for evaluation of
standardized transportation, aging and disposition cask and
canister design, cost, and safety characteristics, in order to
enable the Department to determine those that should be used if
the Federal Government begins transporting fuel from reactor
sites, as it is legally obligated to do, and consolidating
fuel. The Committee notes that the Blue Ribbon Commission on
America's Nuclear Future has, in its draft report, recommended
the creation of consolidated interim storage facilities, for
which the Federal Government will need casks and canisters to
transport and store spent fuel.
The Committee also requests that the Department revisit the
recommendations of the 2006 National Academies report titled
``Going the Distance: the Safe Transport of Spent Nuclear Fuel
and High-Level Radioactive Waste in the United States,'' as
recommended by the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear
Future in its draft report. The Committee shares the view of
the Blue Ribbon Commission that ``NAS recommendations that have
not yet been implemented, for whatever reason, should be
revisited and addressed as appropriate.'' The Department is
directed to report to the Committee within 90 days of enactment
of this act on its plan to revisit these recommendations.
The Committee further recommends $59,000,000 for the
Advanced Fuels program. With the increased funding the
Department is directed to give priority to developing enhanced
fuels and cladding for light water reactors to improve safety
in the event of accidents in the reactor or spent fuel pools.
While the Committee acknowledges the value of engineering
upgrades and regulatory enhancements to ensure the safety of
the Nation's current fleet of nuclear reactors following the
disaster at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear powerplant, it is
becoming increasingly clear that failure of the nuclear fuel
upon loss of coolant was the ultimate cause of the destruction
of the Japanese reactors and the extensive environmental
damage. The Committee continues to support the Department's
advanced fuels activities, in particular the ongoing coated
particle fuel (deep burn) effort, and urges that special
technical emphasis and funding priority be given to activities
aimed at the development and near-term qualification of
meltdown-resistant, accident-tolerant nuclear fuels that would
enhance the safety of present and future generations of Light
Water Reactors. Last, the Department is directed to report to
the Committee, within 90 days of enactment of this act, on its
plan for development of meltdown-resistent fuels leading to
reactor testing and utilization by 2020.
International Nuclear Energy Cooperation.--The Committee
recommends $3,000,000 for International Nuclear Energy
Cooperation.
RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
Space and Defense Infrastructure.--The Committee provides
$69,888,000 for Space and Defense Infrastructure, including
$15,000,000 for nuclear infrastructure at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory.
The Committee encourages the Department, within available
funds, to provide the base infrastructure funding such that all
strategic nuclear materials and engineering facilities are
maintained in full compliance with Department of Energy
operational and safety orders and directives for nuclear
infrastructure and to ensure these facilities are capable of
serving Department mission needs in nuclear research and
development.
Plutonium-238 Production Restart Project.--The Committee
provides no funding for the Plutonium-238 Production Restart
project.
IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
The Committee provides $136,000,000 for Idaho Facilities
Management.
Fossil Energy Research and Development
(INCLUDING RESCISSION)
Appropriations, 2011.................................... \1\$584,529,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 452,975,000
House allowance......................................... 476,993,000
Committee recommendation................................ \2\445,471,000
\1\Does not include rescission of $140,000,000 under Public Law 112-10.
\2\Does not include proposed rescission of $187,000,000.
The Committee recommends $445,471,000 for Fossil Energy
Research and Development, including the use of $23,007,000 of
prior-year balances as proposed in the request. This is
$7,504,000 less than the budget request which reflects a
reduction in program direction to fiscal year 2011 levels. The
Committee also rescinds $187,000,000 in prior year funds.
CCS and Power Systems.--The Committee recommends
$291,358,000 for CCS and Power Systems, the same as the
request. The Committee recognizes and encourages the Department
of Energy to provide funding for regional carbon sequestration
partnerships, including those that are seeking to identify
geologic formations, using seismic reflection technology,
suitable for carbon sequestration. Using computer modeling,
investigations should assess the storage potential of
underground reservoirs, the potential volume of carbon dioxide
that can be stored, the effect of storing carbon dioxide in the
reservoir, and the length of time carbon dioxide may be stored.
Studies should also address how injecting carbon dioxide in
underground reservoirs could increase the amount of natural gas
that can be recovered from coalbed methane wells near the
reservoirs.
Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $151,729,000
for program direction, which will remain available until
September 30, 2014.
Other Programs.--The Committee recommends $16,794,000 for
Plant and Capital Equipment; $7,897,000 for Fossil Energy
Environmental Restoration; and $700,000 for Special Recruitment
Programs. Within available funds, the Committee directs the
Department to continue the Risk Based Data Management System.
The Committee directs the Department to continue funding
methane hydrates research within the Office of Fossil Energy.
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves
Appropriations, 2011.................................... \1\$22,954,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 14,909,000
House allowance......................................... 14,909,000
Committee recommendation................................ 14,909,000
\1\Does not include rescission of $2,100,000 under Public Law 112-10.
The Committee recommends $14,909,000 for Naval Petroleum
and Oil Shale Reserves, the same as the budget request. The
Committee requests the Department provide a report on the
Department's obligations related to the reserves and a time-
line for exiting from responsibility for the reserves.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Appropriations, 2011.................................... \1\$209,441,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 192,704,000
House allowance......................................... 192,704,000
Committee recommendation................................ 192,704,000
\1\Does not include rescission of $86,300,000 under Public Law 112-10.
The Committee recommends $192,704,000 for the operation of
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The recommendation does not
include the budget's proposed rescission of $71,000,000 as that
was already included in the fiscal year 2011 continuing
resolution.
The Committee notes that the Department has continued to
ignore the statutory directive in Public Law 111-8 to submit a
report to Congress regarding the effects of expanding the
Reserve on the domestic petroleum market by April 27, 2009. The
Department has not yet submitted the report, and continues to
fail to meet other congressionally mandated deadlines without
explanation or cause. Although now nearly 2\1/2\ years delayed,
the information requested in the report continues to be
pertinent to policy decisions, and the Secretary is directed to
submit the report as expeditiously as possible to the
Committee.
Strategic Petroleum Account
Appropriations, 2011....................................................
Budget estimate, 2012................................... -$250,000,000
House allowance......................................... -500,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ -500,000,000
The fiscal year 2012 budget request proposes a non-
emergency sale of oil valued at $500,000,000. The sale of oil
will free up space in the reserve in order to conduct necessary
maintenance.
Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve
(INCLUDING RESCISSION)
Appropriations, 2011.................................... $10,978,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... \1\10,119,000
House allowance......................................... \1\10,119,000
Committee recommendation................................ \1\10,119,000
\1\Does not include proposed rescission of $100,000,000.
The Committee recommends $10,119,000 for the Northeast Home
Heating Oil Reserve as requested. The Reserve was sold in early
2011 to transition to low-sulfur heating oil. The budget
request proposes, and the Committee supports, the cancellation
of any excess revenues from the sale which is scored as a
saving of $100,000,000.
Energy Information Administration
Appropriations, 2011.................................... \1\$95,409,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 123,957,000
House allowance......................................... 105,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 105,000,000
\1\Does not include rescission of $86,300,000 under Public Law 112-10.
The Committee recommends $105,000,000 for the Energy
Information Administration. The Committee notes that the Energy
Information Administration has announced that it will not
release the 2007 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey
[CBECS] due to data and sample flaws resulting from the survey
method employed. The 2003 CBECS remains the most current survey
of commercial building efficiency used as the baseline for The
Energy Star program at U.S. EPA, the U.S. Green Building
Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design [LEED]
program, and Green Globes. In light of the age of the 2003
survey and the failure of the 2007 study, the Committee
recommends that the Energy Information Administration complete
a new Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey during
fiscal year 2012.
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup
Appropriations, 2011.................................... \1\$224,350,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 219,121,000
House allowance......................................... 254,121,000
Committee recommendation................................ 219,121,000
\1\Does not include rescission of $900,000 under Public Law 112-10.
The Committee's recommendation for Non-Defense
Environmental Cleanup is $219,121,000, the same as the budget
request.
Reprogramming Control Levels.--In fiscal year 2012, the
Environmental Management program may transfer funding between
operating expense funded projects within the controls listed
below using guidance contained in the Department's budget
execution manual (DOE M 135.1-1A, chapter IV). All capital
construction line item projects remain separate controls from
the operating projects. The Committees on Appropriations in the
House and Senate must be formally notified in advance of all
reprogrammings, except internal reprogrammings, and the
Department is to take no financial action in anticipation of
congressional response. The Committee recommends the following
reprogramming control points for fiscal year 2012:
--Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility Decontamination and
Decommissioning;
--Gaseous Diffusion Plants;
--Small Sites; and
--West Valley Demonstration Project.
Internal Reprogramming Authority.--Headquarters
Environmental Management may transfer up to $2,000,000, one
time, between accounts listed above to reduce health and safety
risks, gain cost savings, or complete projects, as long as a
program or project is not increased or decreased by more than
$2,000,000 in total during the fiscal year.
The reprogramming authority--either formal or internal--may
not be used to initiate new programs or to change funding
levels for programs specifically denied, limited, or increased
by Congress in the act or report. The Committee on
Appropriations in the House and Senate must be notified within
30 days after the use of the internal reprogramming authority.
Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility Decontamination and
Decommissioning.--The Committee recommends $2,703,000.
Gaseous Diffusion Plants.--The Committee recommends
$100,588,000.
Small Sites.--The Committee recommends $57,430,000. The
Committee is aware of the lack of remediation activity at
various DOE-sponsored facilities and small sites characterized
as under the responsibility of DOE, such as national
laboratories and small experimental nuclear research reactors.
The Committee directs the Department to submit detailed action
plans within 3 months of enactment of this act for remediating
these sites and sponsored facilities.
West Valley Demonstration Project.--The Committee
recommends $58,400,000.
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund
Appropriations, 2011.................................... \1\$506,984,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 504,169,000
House allowance......................................... 449,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 429,000,000
\1\Does not include rescission of $9,900,000 under Public Law 112-10.
The Committee's recommendation is $429,000,000 to sustain
cleanup activities at uranium enrichment facilities. Of the
funds provided, $77,780,000 is recommended to the Paducah
Gaseous Diffusion Plant, $162,747,000 is recommended for the
East Tennessee Technology Park, and $188,473,000 is recommended
for the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. With these funds
and any transfers of uranium from the Department's inventory,
the Department is encouraged to maintain its current
accelerated cleanup schedule at the Portsmouth site to the
degree possible, consistent with the Committee's direction
below. The Department is also directed to consider all Federal
sites in allocating services for cleanup resulting from any
uranium transfers.
Although the Committee recognizes the use of uranium
transfers to accelerate cleanup at Federal sites, the Committee
expresses continued concern with the Department's lack of
oversight and transparency of this program. The Government
Accountability Office [GAO] has twice found DOE's
administration of the program in violation of Federal law.
According to GAO, the Department has violated the miscellaneous
receipts statute, which requires Government agencies to deposit
money received from any source into the Treasury. The Committee
directs the Secretary to ensure the Department's uranium
transfer program is in compliance with Federal law.
The Committee is also frustrated by the Department's
refusal to submit the program to congressional oversight. The
Department continues to ignore the Committee's requests to be
notified of basic information about the program, such as the
dates and amounts of uranium prior to the consummation of a
transfer. Although the Department had previously requested to
be allowed to voluntarily notify the Committee of information
regarding the program, it has failed to do so, and the
Committee accordingly includes language to codify notification
requirements and expects the Department to adhere strictly to
them. Because the Department is dealing with such significant
sums of taxpayer dollars in an off-budget manner, it should
expect Congress to scrutinize this program.
The Committee also expresses concern about the Department's
market impact analyses required under the USEC Privatization
Act prior to any sale or transfer of uranium. The scope of the
previous market impact analysis included the calendar years of
2011, 2012, and 2013. The price of uranium continues to be
volatile, and attempting to make predictions months in
advance--let alone 3 years--is extremely speculative and may
not justify a determination that certain transfers would not
adversely affect the uranium industry. The Committee includes
language to allow the Department to cover only 2 years in the
future for each market impact analysis.
Finally, the Committee includes a requirement for the
Department to conduct an economic feasibility study on the re-
enrichment of depleted uranium tailings that are located at
Federal sites. Although there are currently 60,000 cylinders of
depleted uranium located at Federal sites, the Department has
no updated plan or timeline for either re-enriching high-assay
tails or disposing of them. The Department is directed to
consider the economic feasibility of re-enriching these
materials, taking into account factors including safety, cost,
national security, the costs of storage and disposal, and the
enrichment capacity at domestic sites. The Department is
directed to prepare and submit this economic feasibility study
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations prior to
December 31, 2011.
SCIENCE
Appropriations, 2011...................................\1\$4,857,665,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 5,416,114,000
House allowance......................................... 4,800,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,842,665,000
\1\Does not include rescission of $15,000,000 under Public Law 112-10.
The Committee recommends $4,842,665,000. The Committee
believes this level of funding will maintain U.S. leadership in
science and technology during a time of significant funding
constraints. Investments in basic research will lead to new and
improved energy technologies and the construction and operation
of new, large-scale scientific facilities will be vitally
important for many areas of science as well as private
industry, such as pharmaceutical and aerospace companies.
Funding for advanced computing will also position the United
States to maintain international leadership in scientific
computing and simulation over the next decade.
Office of Science Priorities.--The Committee commends the
Office of Science for identifying three clear priorities for
basic scientific research:
--the discovery and design of new materials for the
generation, storage, and use of energy,
--better understanding of microorganisms and plants for
improved biofuels production, and
--the development and deployment of more powerful computing
capabilities to take advantage of modeling and
simulation to advance energy technologies and maintain
U.S. economic competitiveness.
Office of Science Advisory Committee.--The Committee
encourages the Office of Science to continue prioritizing
within its broad scientific portfolio to help accelerate the
discovery of new energy technologies for a clean energy future,
especially during a time of fiscal constraints. The Committee
also encourages the Office of Science to establish an advisory
committee that would help the Secretary of Energy and the
Director of the Office of Science prioritize among the
different areas of basic research. An independent advisory
committee for the Office of Science could provide valuable
advice at a time of declining budgets on research priorities,
determining the proper balance among the different disciplines,
and what areas of basic research would best maintain U.S.
scientific leadership and a technical workforce.
Project Management.--While scientific exploration without
use-inspired goals is important to advancing science,
innovation, and American intellectual property, Department of
Energy funded research is ultimately centered on energy-focused
goals. Within that context, most Office of Science research
should have concrete goals, and most research should have
measurable performance. The Department is therefore directed to
create a performance ranking of all ongoing multi-year research
projects across Basic Energy Sciences, Fusion Energy, High
Energy Physics, Nuclear Energy, Biological and Environmental
Research, and Advanced Supercomputing Research, including those
at universities, national laboratories, Energy Frontier
Research Centers, Energy Innovation Hubs and other recipients,
by comparing current performance with original project goals.
BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES
The Committee recommends $1,693,860,000 for Basic Energy
Sciences. Of these funds, $151,400,000 is provided for
construction activities as requested in the budget. The
remaining $1,542,460,000 is for research. Within the research
funds provided, up to $100,000,000 shall be used to support the
46 Energy Frontier Research Centers. The Committee encourages
the Department to continue interim science and management
reviews during these centers' 5-year award period to maintain
proper oversight and ensure that the centers continue to pursue
fundamental research needed to accelerate breakthroughs in
clean energy technologies.
The Committee recommends $24,300,000 for the Fuels from
Sunlight energy innovation hub and $20,000,000 for a new Hub
for Batteries and Energy Storage. The Committee also recommends
$10,000,000 for predictive modeling of internal combustion
engines. In 2007, the engine company Cummins achieved a
milestone in engine design by bringing a diesel engine to
market solely with computer modeling. The diesel engine is
being used in more than 200,000 Dodge Ram pickup trucks. The
only testing was after-the-fact to confirm performance, which
significantly reduced development time and cost. Building on
this success, developing more advanced computer models for
engines holds the promise of increasing the efficiency of
current engines in the short to medium term by 50 percent for
automobiles and 30 percent for trucks, which would reduce
carbon emissions and the country's dependence on foreign oil.
This research would also demonstrate the feasibility of using
renewable fuels, such as biofuels, in internal combustion
engines.
The Committee also recommends $37,000,000 for major items
of equipment, including $11,500,000 for new instruments and
$5,500,000 for a power upgrade at the Spallation Neutron Source
at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, $8,000,000 for design and
engineering work to enhance the capabilities of the Linac
Coherent Light Source at SLAC, and $12,000,000 for equipment
for the new National Synchrotron Light Source facility at
Brookhaven. The Committee recommends no funding for upgrades to
the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National Laboratory or to
build a new electron microscope. The Committee is concerned
about outyear liabilities for major construction projects and
upgrades to facilities at a time of flat or declining budgets.
Upgrades to the Advanced Photon Source and the Linac Coherent
Light Source both have estimated costs of over $300,000,000.
The Office of Science should consider phasing these projects to
reflect the highest priority or demonstrate how it can build
both concurrently without significant impacts to basic
research.
The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research [EPSCoR] to support
science and technology programs in States that have
historically received relatively less Federal research funding.
The Committee directs the Office of Basic Energy Sciences
[BES] to implement the recommendations in the April 2010 Basic
Energy Sciences Advisory Committee report on ways to strengthen
the link between basic research and industry. One of the
report's main conclusions was that more direct feedback,
communication, and collaboration between industrial and BES
scientists was needed to better identify scientific roadblocks
to emerging clean energy technologies, address the scientific
challenges, and transfer the results to industry for
commercialization. BES-supported scientists need to be better
informed of the detailed scientific issues facing industry and
industry more aware of BES capabilities and how to utilize
them.
The Committee understands that catalysis is the key
enabling technology for transportation fuel production today
and further advances in catalysis are required to develop
advanced fuels from domestic sources that use the country's
existing energy infrastructure and are the lowest cost path to
reducing oil imports. The Committee encourages the Office of
Science to continue catalysis research. The Committee also
encourages the Office of Science in partnership with
universities to support research and development of novel
device materials for alternative energy applications.
The Committee encourages the Department of Energy in
partnership with universities to support research and
development of advanced nanostructure polymer-particle
composite materials for improved ultra-capacitor devices. The
Committee also encourages the Department to continue funding to
support research and development needs of graduate and post-
graduate science programs at Historically Black Colleges and
Universities.
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
The Committee recommends $621,823,000 for Biological and
Environmental Research. The Committee recommends $295,079,000
for climate and environmental sciences. The Committee
recognizes the unique contributions of this program in
advancing climate research. DOE has stationary and mobile
facilities around the world that collect data on climate change
and the world's best high-performance computers to develop
sophisticated climate models to help decisionmakers understand
the impact of climate change. Despite advances in climate
models, there is still uncertainty in predicting how climate
change may impact future energy use, land use, food production,
and water resources and affect regional stability. The
Committee supports DOE's efforts in improving the reliability
and accuracy of climate models by resolving two major areas of
uncertainty--the effect of clouds and aerosols on climate. The
Committee encourages DOE to continue using data obtained from
satellite sensors operated by other Federal agencies in
addition to ground based data to produce the most accurate and
reliable information for climate modeling.
The Committee also supports research related to producing
biomass-based biofuels to reduce the country's dependence on
fossil-based transportation fuels. The Committee understands
that making efficient use of organic materials to make biofuels
continues to be a major challenge. The Committee agrees that a
top priority should be developing biomass feedstocks than can
produce the most biomass at the least cost and take into
account environmental factors, such as water consumption,
competition with food production, and insect resistance. The
Committee believes that synthetic biology, which involves
designing new biological parts, devices and systems for
specific purposes, will accelerate major breakthroughs not only
in biofuels, but also in other important energy and
environmental missions of the Department. The Committee directs
the Secretary of Energy, not later than 9 months after
enactment of this act, in consultation with other relevant
Federal agencies, the academic community, research based
nonprofit entities, and the private sector, to submit a
comprehensive synthetic biology plan for federally supported
research and development activities that will support the
energy and environmental missions of the Department and enable
a competitive synthetic biology industry in the United States.
The plan shall assess the need to create a database for
synthetic biology information, the need and process for
developing standards for biological parts, components, and
systems, and funding requirements for implementing the plan.
Within the funds provided, $20,000,000 shall be used for
radiobiology to help determine health risks from exposures to
low levels of ionizing radiation to properly protect radiation
workers and the general public. The Fukushima Daiichi disaster
in Japan is an opportunity to learn about the impacts of the
disaster on human health and apply lessons learned to make more
informed decisions on protection if a similar accident occurs
in the future, including dose trip points for evacuation and
shelter-in-place orders. Within the funds provided, $12,000,000
is to continue nuclear medicine research with human
application. The Committee notes that DOE-funded nuclear
medicine research has led to numerous achievements in patient
care, such as cutting-edge nuclear medicine imaging and therapy
procedures, including PET scans, that are crucial for
identifying the presence of cancer in the body and cardiac
stress tests to analyze heart function.
ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH
The Committee recommends $441,619,000 for Advanced
Scientific Computing Research. The Committee recommends
$90,000,000 for the exascale initiative to spur U.S. innovation
and increase the country's ability to address critical national
challenges. The Committee understands that exascale computing
will help maintain U.S. industrial competitiveness. In
particular, high-tech industries such as transportation,
aerospace, nuclear energy, and petroleum will increasingly rely
on high-performance computing, especially when traditional
experiments would be impossible, dangerous, or inordinately
costly to perform.
The Committee understands that the Department will have the
lead Government role in computing research and development. The
Department's role in developing more advanced computing
platforms is even more important with the elimination of the
DARPA High Performance Computing program. For this reason, the
Committee supports the budget request for the Leadership
Computing Facilities, which will enable Oak Ridge and Argonne
National Laboratories to move forward with upgrades to their
Cray XT5 and IBM Glue Gene/P systems, respectively. These
upgrades will ensure that they remain on track to be the most
powerful supercomputers in the world and represent an important
step in the Department's research effort to develop the first
exascale system.
HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS
The Committee recommends $780,200,000 for High Energy
Physics. With the shutdown of the Tevatron at Fermilab at the
end of fiscal year 2011 and the successful operation of the
most powerful energy particle collider in the world, the Large
Hadron Collider in Switzerland, U.S. dominance of the energy
frontier has come to an end. However, the Committee understands
that the United States has an opportunity to lead in the
intensity frontier. Specifically, the United States has unique
capabilities that should be exploited to develop a world-
leading program of neutrino science to understand the role
neutrinos play in the evolution of the universe and design new
particle beams and highly sensitive detectors to advance this
area of science. The Committee directs the Office of Science to
submit a report not later than 180 days of enactment that lays
out
--the expected benefits of intensity frontier science,
--a strategy for maintaining the U.S. lead, and
--the funding needs over the next 10 years, including
construction activities, of implementing the proposed
strategy.
The Committee provides no construction funds for the Long
Baseline Neutrino Experiment. The Committee is concerned that
this project is not mature enough for construction because a
location for this experiment in an underground laboratory has
not yet been selected and the decision of the National Science
Foundation to discontinue construction funding for the Deep
Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory in South Dakota
has created uncertainty about the future of the project. In
addition, the Office of Science has not yet selected a
technology, which affects where the experiment can be located
and total cost.
The Committee also recommends $15,000,000 as requested--
$10,000,000 from the High Energy Physics program and $5,000,000
from the Nuclear Physics program--to support minimal,
sustaining operations at the Homestake Mine in South Dakota.
The Committee is aware of the National Science Foundation's
decision. However, the Committee encourages the Office of
Science to examine cost-effective options for using the mine to
stage critical experiments related to neutrino and dark matter
research.
The Committee understands that powerful new accelerator
technologies created for basic science and developed by
industry will produce particle accelerators with the potential
to address key economic and societal issues confronting our
Nation. However, the Committee is concerned with the divide
that exists in translating breakthroughs in accelerator science
and technology into applications that benefit the marketplace
and American competitiveness. The Committee directs the
Department to submit a 10-year strategic plan by June 1, 2012
for accelerator technology research and development to advance
accelerator applications in energy and the environment,
medicine, industry, national security, and discovery science.
The strategic plan should be based on the results of the
Department's 2010 workshop study, Accelerators for America's
Future, that identified the opportunities and research
challenges for next-generation accelerators and how to improve
coordination between basic and applied accelerator research.
The strategic plan should also identify the potential need for
demonstration and development facilities to help bridge the gap
between development and deployment.
NUCLEAR PHYSICS
The Committee recommends $550,114,000 for Nuclear Physics.
The Committee recommends $55,000,000 in construction funds for
the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility, which the
Nuclear Physics Advisory Committee concluded was the highest
priority for the Nation's nuclear physics program. The
Committee also recommends $24,000,000 for the Facility for Rare
Isotope Beams.
FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES
The Committee recommends $335,463,000 for Fusion Energy
Sciences. The Department is directed to submit a 10-year plan,
not later than 12 months after enactment of this act, on the
Department's proposed research and development activities in
magnetic fusion under four realistic budget scenarios. The
report shall (1) identify specific areas of fusion energy
research and enabling technology development in which the
United States can and should establish or solidify a lead in
the global fusion energy development effort and (2) identify
priorities for facility construction and facility
decommissioning under each of the four budget scenarios. The
Department is encouraged to use a similar approach adopted by
the Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel that
developed a 10-year strategic plan for the Department's high
energy physics program.
Of the $24,741,000 requested for the High Energy Density
Laboratory Plasma program, $12,000,000 shall be spent on heavy-
ion fusion, laser-driven fusion, and magneto-inertial fusion to
be evenly distributed among these three areas of science. A
recent Department of Energy report on scientific grand
challenges for fusion energy sciences identified these three
areas of research as critical toward advancing inertial fusion
energy. In particular, the Committee does not understand why
the Department would redirect funding for magnetized high-
energy-density plasma research after the panel report found
that this approach has the potential to significantly reduce
power requirements compared to conventional inertial
confinement fusion and could permit fusion development without
building multi-billion dollar facilities.
The Committee is concerned about the impact ITER will have
on the domestic fusion energy budget. Based on DOE budget
estimates, DOE will be requesting between $300,000,000 to
$400,000,000 a year from fiscal years 2014 through 2016 to help
build ITER. If current trends of declining or flat budgets
continue, almost all of the fusion energy sciences budget will
be consumed by ITER. The Committee encourages DOE to find a
solution to this problem without compromising the scientific
and technical expertise residing at U.S. universities, labs,
and industrial partners.
The Committee encourages the Office Fusion Energy Sciences
Program to closely collaborate with the Office of Basic Energy
Sciences, the Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research,
the Office of Nuclear Energy, and the National Nuclear Security
Administration to address mutual needs for technology
development in magnetic fusion, inertial fusion, and next-
generation fission reactor concepts. One focus area of these
collaborations should be on identifying, characterizing, and
developing new materials that can endure the intense neutron
and heat fluxes expected in these reactor environments. The
Committee expects the Department to consider these nuclear
technology needs as it develops its prioritization plan.
The Committee also encourages the fusion energy program
take continue taking advantage of high performance computing to
address scientific and technical challenges on the path to
fusion energy. The Committee supports the Fusion Simulation
Program to provide experimentally validated predictive
simulation capabilities that are critical for ITER and other
current and planned toroidal fusion devices. Given current and
future budget constraints, the Committee views this initiative
as critical to maintain U.S. world leadership in fusion energy
in a cost-effective manner.
SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE
The Committee provides $136,800,000 to support
infrastructure activities. Within these funds, $25,000,000
shall be used to accelerate excess facility clean up at the
national laboratories, which may include remediation of
seismically deficient buildings and areas in need of
modernization.
SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY
The Committee provides $82,000,000 for Safeguards and
Security activities.
SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION
The Committee provides $180,786,000 for the Office of
Science Program Direction. No funds shall be used to hire new
site office personnel, except for field staff at the Integrated
Support Centers in Chicago and Oak Ridge.
SCIENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
The Committee provides $20,000,000. Of these funds, up to
$7,500,000 shall be available for the graduate fellowship
program. The Committee encourages the Office of Science to
monitor the impact of this program and demonstrate whether
students continue to pursue careers in scientific and technical
fields. The Committee commends the Office of Science for
terminating student and teacher education programs that did not
have clear program goals and were not effective in encouraging
students to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering,
and math. Limited resources will be better targeted to programs
that are most effective in developing a skilled scientific and
technical workforce to address energy, environmental, and
national security challenges. As the Office of Science
evaluates the impact of workforce development activities and
makes changes to the program, the Committee urges the Office of
Science to look at other uses for these funds, including the
Distinguished Scientist program authorized in the America
COMPETES bill.
NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL
Appropriations, 2011.................................... (\1\)
Budget estimate, 2012...................................................
House allowance......................................... $25,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................
\1\Does not include rescission of $2,800,000 under Public Law 112-10.
The Committee recommends no funding for the nuclear waste
disposal program.
ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY--ENERGY
Appropriations, 2011.................................... $179,640,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 550,011,000
House allowance......................................... 179,640,000
Committee Recommendation................................ 250,000,000
The Committee recommends $250,000,000 for the Advanced
Research Projects Agency-Energy [ARPA-E]. ARPA-E is responsible
for funding high-risk research and development projects to meet
long-term energy challenges. The Committee understands that
ARPA-E is currently funding 121 projects. Given the high-risk
nature of the research, the Committee understands that not all
of them will be successful. However, if just a fraction of
ARPA-E funded projects are successful in reaching the
marketplace, the United States would benefit greatly by
creating new industries and jobs, making energy technologies
substantially more efficient and profitable, and accelerating
the timeframe for achieving energy and security goals. The
Committee is encouraged that private investors have provided
$220,000,000 in additional funding to several projects to help
accelerate development of new, promising technologies. For
example, a $750,000 ARPA-E award to develop a compressed air
energy storage system to help integrate renewable energy, such
as wind, into the grid, attracted $12,000,000 in follow-on
private funding. ARPA-E funding allowed a company to build an
improved version of their technology that showed that their
technology worked and has the potential to store electricity
anywhere on the grid, which subsequently attracted private
investment.
Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
GROSS APPROPRIATION
Appropriations, 2011.................................... \1\$239,490,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 1,098,000,000
House allowance......................................... 198,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 238,000,000
\1\Does not include rescission of $181,830,000 under Public Law 112-10.
The Committee reiterates its support for the $8,000,000,000
in loan guarantee authority authorized in Public Law 110-161
for Advanced Fossil Energy Projects. The Committee recognizes
the importance of carbon dioxide pipelines to advanced fossil
energy projects such as advanced coal gasification and
industrial gasification activities incorporating carbon capture
and sequestration or other beneficial uses of carbon and the
Department of Energy is authorized to consider associated costs
of connected carbon pipelines as eligible under section 1703.
OFFSETTING RECEIPTS
Appropriations, 2011.................................... -$58,000,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... -38,000,000
House allowance......................................... -38,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ -38,000,000
NET APPROPRIATION
Appropriations, 2011.................................... \1\$181,490,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 1,060,000,000
House allowance......................................... 160,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 200,000,000
\1\Does not include rescission of $181,830,000 under Public Law 112-10.
The Committee recommends $200,000,000 for the cost of
renewable loan guarantees.
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING LOAN PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2011.................................... $9,978,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 6,000,000
House allowance......................................... 6,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 6,000,000
The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the Advanced
Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program.
BETTER BUILDINGS PILOT LOAN GUARANTEE INITIATIVE
Appropriations, 2011....................................................
Budget estimate, 2012................................... $105,000,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
The Committee recommends no funding for the Better
Buildings Pilot Loan Guarantee Initiative.
Departmental Administration
(GROSS)
Appropriations, 2011.................................... \1\$250,139,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 240,623,000
House allowance......................................... 63,374,000
Committee recommendation................................ 237,623,000
\1\Does not include rescission of $81,900,000 under Public Law 112-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES)
Appropriations, 2011.................................... -$119,501,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... -111,883,000
House allowance......................................... -111,883,000
Committee recommendation................................ -111,883,000
NET APPROPRIATION
Appropriations, 2011.................................... \1\$130,638,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 128,740,000
House allowance......................................... -48,509,000
Committee recommendation................................ 125,740,000
\1\Does not include rescission of $81,900,000 under Public Law 112-10.
The Committee recommends $237,623,000 for Department
Administration.
An Independent Review of DOE Oversight of National
Laboratories.--DOE accomplishes most of its activities through
a network of Government-owned, contractor-operated laboratories
and facilities across the United States. In providing an
appropriate level of oversight of these contractor-operated
facilities, DOE must carefully balance the need to protect the
Government's interests while not overly burdening contractors
or depriving them of the ability to operate most effectively
and efficiently. The Committee notes that the National
Laboratory Directors Council has expressed concerns about
overly burdensome oversight and operational requirements.
The Committee directs the Secretary of Energy to contract
with National Academy of Public Administration [NAPA] for a
study that assesses its processes for reviewing contractor
performance, including performance metrics currently being used
by DOE for that purpose, as well as assesses the validity and
applicability of the findings and recommendations of the recent
Laboratory Directors' report. The Committee has included
$1,000,000 within the funds available to carry out this
activity. NAPA shall submit a report to the Committee with
findings in the above areas and recommendations for improvement
no later than 9 months after DOE has contracted with NAPA
pursuant to this directive.
Office of the Inspector General
Appropriations, 2011.................................... $42,764,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 41,774,000
House amount............................................ 41,774,000
Committee recommendation................................ 41,774,000
The Committee recommends $41,774,000 for the Office of the
Inspector General.
WEAPONS ACTIVITIES
Appropriations, 2011...................................\1\$6,946,398,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................\2\7,629,716,000
House allowance.........................................\2\7,131,993,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,190,000,000
\1\Does not include rescission of $50,000,000 under Public Law 112-10.
\2\Does not include proposed rescission of $40,332,000.
The Committee recommends $7,190,000,000 for National
Nuclear Security Administration's [NNSA] Weapons Activities.
The Committee recognizes the important contributions that
advanced computing and experimental facilities have made in the
last few years to the success of the stockpile stewardship
program and to increase confidence in the safety, security, and
reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile. After investing
billions of dollars over more than a decade, critical
capabilities are in place to respond to nuclear weapons issues
without underground nuclear weapons testing. Petascale
computing capabilities allow weapons scientists and engineers
to conduct weapons simulations with reasonable efficiency and
resolution. In the past year, the Dual-Axis Radiographic
Hydrodynamic Test facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory
successfully completed four experiments that resolved a long
open significant finding investigation, improved the basis for
the assessment of several stockpile systems, and provided data
to better understand multipoint safety options for possible use
in future life extension programs. The past year also marked
the execution of the Barolo series of subcritical experiments
at the U1a underground facility at the Nevada National Security
Site. These experiments provided data on the behavior of
plutonium driven by high explosives, which is critical to
understanding primary implosions. The National Ignition
Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory also
successfully completed its first set of weapon-relevant physics
experiments to help validate computer models that resolved one
of the most critical areas of uncertainty in assessing nuclear
weapons performance.
DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK
The Committee recommends $1,804,882,000 for directed
stockpile work.
Life Extension Programs.--The Committee recommends
$437,039,000 for the Life Extension Program.
B61 Life Extension Program.--The Committee is concerned
about NNSA's plans to incorporate new safety and security
features in the life extension version of the B61. The B61 life
extension program will be the most ambitious and extensive
refurbishment of a weapon system to date. For example, the B61
has three times as many major components that must be replaced
as the W76. Further complicating matters is the ambitious
timeframe for replacing these components before they reach the
end of their life and affect weapon reliability. In a May 2011
study, the Government Accountability Office identified
significant challenges in building the first refurbished weapon
by 2017, including manufacturing critical materials and
components, meeting production requirements, ensuring the
quality of finished products, and coordinating the production
of bomb components between NNSA and the Air Force. Adding to
this ambitious scope of work, NNSA plans to incorporate untried
technologies and design features to improve the safety and
security of the nuclear stockpile. The Committee supports
enhanced surety of weapon systems to avoid accidents and
unauthorized use, but it should not come at the expense of
long-term weapon reliability. New safety and security features
should be incorporated in weapon systems when feasible, but the
primary goal of a life extension program should be to increase
confidence in warhead performance without underground nuclear
testing.
For these reasons, the Committee recommends $180,000,000
for the B61 life extension program, a reduction of $43,562,000.
The Committee directs that:
--the JASON group of scientific advisers submit a classified
and unclassified assessment by February 1, 2012 to the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees that
determines whether proposed intrinsic nuclear warhead
safety and security features for the B61 bomb will
affect the long-term safety, security, reliability, and
operation of the weapon, whether these surety features
are justified when measured against the plausible range
of deployment scenarios and threats likely to confront
the future B61 stockpile, and the benefits outweigh the
costs of installing such features; and
--the Administrator of NNSA and the laboratory directors from
Los Alamos, Livermore, and Sandia certify to the House
and Senate Appropriations Committees that the benefits
of installing intrinsic safety and security features
outweigh the costs and there are no less costly and
effective alternatives to surety that can be
accomplished without introducing intrinsic surety
features in the B61 by March 1, 2012.
In addition, when NNSA completes its Phase 6.2/6.2A study
for the B61 life extension program, the Committee directs NNSA
to submit to the Committee both a classified and unclassified
report 90 days after the completion of the study with:
--a description of the safety and security features NNSA
would add to a refurbished B61 and
--a cost and benefit analysis of installing the proposed
features in the warhead.
The cost and benefit analysis should include:
--the costs of science, technology, and engineering to
install new safety and security features;
--the costs of assessing the impact the new features may have
on the performance of the nuclear explosive package at
the national laboratories;
--the extent to which the proposed safety and security
features address specific safety and security concerns;
and
--why current safety and security features would not be
sufficient.
Stockpile Systems.--The Committee recommends $472,109,000.
Of these funds, at least $175,000,000 shall be used for
surveillance activities. The Committee commends NNSA for
sustaining increased funding for surveillance activities in the
fiscal year 2012 request. The Committee encourages NNSA to
continue developing and using non-destructive evaluation
technologies to economically obtain greater quantities of
assessment data while reducing warhead or component
destruction. The Committee also recommends $26,000,000, a
decrease of $25,087,000 below the request, for the planned W78
life extension program because of delays in completing the
Phase 6.1 study.
Weapons Dismantlement.--The Committee recommends
$56,770,000 as requested.
Stockpile Services.--The Committee recommends $838,964,000.
Within these funds, at least $64,000,000 shall be used to
support surveillance activities. The Committee understands that
NNSA completed building the last W88 war reserve pits in fiscal
year 2011 and is preparing to transition to build the W87 pit.
However, the Committee is concerned about NNSA's ability to
maintain a pit manufacturing capability during the transition.
The Committee directs NNSA to provide a report to the Committee
90 days after enactment that:
--describes how NNSA will maintain a pit manufacturing
capability without manufacturing pits;
--assesses the costs of maintaining a pit manufacturing
capability without pit production; and
--evaluates the costs of developing pit manufacturing
capabilities for future requirements.
CAMPAIGNS
The Committee recommends $1,716,407,000 for NNSA Campaigns.
Science Campaign.--The Committee recommends $347,055,000.
Within these funds, at least $44,000,000 shall be used for
plutonium and other physics experiments at Sandia's Z facility.
The Committee commends Sandia National Laboratory for
successfully and safely performing two plutonium experiments at
the refurbished Z facility. The Committee understands that
these experiments yielded fundamentally new and surprising data
about the behavior of plutonium at high pressure and this new
data has been one of the most valuable contributions to the
stockpile stewardship program. The Committee continues to
strongly support the weapons physics activities at Sandia's Z
facility that are critical to sustaining a safe, secure, and
effective nuclear stockpile.
No funding shall be used to design, prepare, or execute a
scaled experiment. The Committee is concerned that a scaled
experiment, which is a type of subcritical experiment that uses
plutonium pit-like designs, may not be needed for annual
assessments of the current stockpile and a new program for
scaled experiments may interfere with achieving the Nuclear
Posture Review's goals and schedule. In addition, the Committee
is concerned that NNSA does not have the diagnostic equipment
at the Nevada National Security Site to collect the necessary
data for scaled experiments. Hundreds of millions of dollars
and several years may be needed to install new radiographic
capabilities to conduct scientifically meaningful scaled
experiments. These costs are not included in budget projects
for future years and the Committee is concerned that adding
this additional requirement will come at the expense of higher
priorities. The Committee directs NNSA to wait until the JASON
study group completes its review of scaled experiments before
making a decision on whether to proceed with scaled
experiments. If NNSA decides to conduct scaled experiments, the
Committee expects NNSA to submit a plan explaining the
scientific value of scaled experiments for stockpile
stewardship and meeting the goals of the Nuclear Posture
Review, the costs of developing the capabilities for and
conducting scaled experiments, and the impact on other
stockpile stewardship activities under constrained budgets if
scaled experiments are pursued.
Engineering Campaign.--The Committee recommends
$143,078,000 as requested.
Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High-Yield
Campaign.--The Committee recommends $476,274,000 as requested.
Within these funds, at least $62,500,000 and $48,000,000 shall
be used for inertial confinement fusion activities at the
University of Rochester's Omega facility and Sandia National
Laboratory's Z facility, respectively. The Committee encourages
NNSA to increase pulsed power capabilities at the Z facility by
increasing available current and attainable pressures and
radiation, especially for new radiographic capabilities. The
Committee also recommends at least $5,000,000 as requested for
the Naval Research Laboratory to continue operating laser
facilities focused on laser plasma interactions, target
hydrodynamics, and materials--issues which are important for
ignition. The Committee recognizes and supports the important
work of medium scale laser facilities such as Trident at Los
Alamos National Laboratory, Jupiter at Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, and Nike at the Naval Research Laboratory
to provide independent peer review of experiments at larger
scale facilities, such as the National Ignition Facility, and
help resolve scientific barriers to achieving ignition.
The Committee recognizes the National Ignition Facility's
important contribution to resolving a critical stockpile
stewardship issue related to radiation transport. Scientists
used the National Ignition Facility to conduct non-ignition
experiments, which do not require using the full capability of
the facility, to achieve temperatures and pressures that
exceeded any other facility and address one of the largest
sources of uncertainty in calculating weapon performance. These
experiments validated physics-based models and increased NNSA's
confidence in assessing the safety, security, and reliability
of the stockpile. Despite this success, the Committee remains
concerned about NNSA's ability to achieve ignition--the primary
purpose of constructing the facility--by the end of fiscal year
2012 when the National Ignition Campaign ends and the facility
should transition to regular ignition operations and pursues
broad scientific applications. The Committee directs NNSA to
establish an independent advisory board by January 1, 2012 that
can evaluate experiments planned at the National Ignition
Facility pre- and post-ignition, identify potential weaknesses
with the experimental plan, and recommend, if necessary,
alternative approaches to address scientific and technical
challenges. The Committee also strongly supports the advisory
committee's role in setting a strategic direction for inertial
confinement fusion and high-energy density physics research and
determining how best to use current facilities to advance this
scientific field. If the National Ignition Facility does not
achieve ignition by the end of fiscal year 2012 using a
cryogenically layered deuterium and tritium target that
produces a neutron yield with a gain greater than 1, the
Committee directs NNSA to submit a report by November 30, 2012
that (1) explains the scientific and technical barriers to
achieving ignition, (2) the steps NNSA will take to achieve
ignition with a revised schedule, and (3) the impact on the
stockpile stewardship program.
The Committee commends NNSA for taking the first steps in
soliciting competitive bids for its full portfolio of target
fabrication contracts. The Committee encourages NNSA to
consider various criteria when awarding contracts, such as the
extent to which the contract spurs innovation, lowers costs,
reduces technical risk, and maintains a competitive multi-
vendor market to avoid relying on one contractor for all future
target fabrication needs. The Committee also encourages NNSA to
take advantage of existing and presently underutilized
fabrication capabilities to meet increased demands for targets
rather than developing and building new infrastructure. The
Committee also urges NNSA to develop a long-term plan that
assesses the demand for targets for inertial confinement fusion
facilities that support the stockpile stewardship program and
identifies ways to meet that demand without significant cost
increases.
Advanced Simulation and Computing.--The Committee
recommends $625,000,000. High-performance computing underpins
NNSA's ability to scientifically resolve outstanding weapons
performance issues, address material aging and compatibility
challenges, conduct future life extension program activities,
and rapidly address results from Significant Findings
Investigations. As the stockpile continues to age, NNSA will
require a thousandfold improvement over today's modeling and
simulation capability, commonly referred to as exascale.
Therefore, of the funds provided, the Committee recommends
$36,000,000 as requested for the exascale initiative.
Readiness Campaign.--The Committee recommends $125,000,000
for the Readiness Campaign. Within these funds, no more than
$60,000,000 shall be used for tritium production efforts.
READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES
The Committee recommends $2,170,546,000. The Committee is
concerned about the escalating costs for two new nuclear
facilities to handle plutonium and uranium. The new cost
estimates for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research
Replacement-Nuclear Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory
and the Uranium Processing Facility at Y-12 are two to three
times more than previous estimates and constructions for these
two facilities alone may exceed $12,000,000,000 over the next
decade. An independent Corps of Engineers study that concluded
that the cost range for the Uranium Processing Facility is
between $6,500,000,000 and $7,500,000,000 only adds to the
Committee's concerns. Since completing life extension programs
to maintain the safety, security, and reliability of the
stockpile is the highest priority and fiscal constraints will
limit construction funding, the Committee directs NNSA to
submit a contingency plan by February 1, 2012 that would
identify the consequences to cost, scope, and schedule of
delaying project implementation and the impact of sequencing
construction of these two major facilities on stockpile
requirements.
The Committee supports NNSA's decision to reach the 90
percent engineering design stage before establishing a project
baseline and initiating construction of these two nuclear
facilities. Initiating construction before designs are largely
complete contributes to increased costs and schedule delays.
The Committee also agrees with NNSA's decision not to forward
fund these projects until a project baseline has been
established and Congress has a more complete understanding of
the costs.
The Committee encourages NNSA to develop a plan by the end
of fiscal year 2012--consistent with NNSA's May 2011 strategic
plan--to create an open, unclassified research and development
space known as the Livermore Valley Open Campus that would
increase interactions and partnerships between Lawrence
Livermore and Sandia/California National Laboratories as well
as the private sector and academia. This type of campus would
help Livermore and Sandia maintain leadership in science,
technology, and engineering in a wide variety of areas,
including high-performance computing, energy and environmental
security, and cybersecurity, and attract the workforce needed
to fulfill the laboratories' NNSA mission.
Acquisition Strategy.--The Committee is concerned the
Department took steps to implement a major new contracting
strategy in the absence of complete information. Specifically,
DOE was urged to await a Government Accountability Office
review of the cost savings NNSA claimed it would achieve by
combining the Management and Operations contracts at the Y-12
and Pantex production plants. GAO's preliminary findings did
not validate that these savings were achievable and GAO has
informed the Committee that efficiencies could be achieved
through existing contracting mechanisms. However, NNSA has
decided to proceed anyway. Many critical activities are at
stake as NNSA begins to implement the requirements of the
Nuclear Posture Review and the New START Treaty, while a
contract overhaul likely will cause significant disruption and
put these activities at risk. While the Committee strongly
supports efforts to implement administrative efficiencies at
all NNSA sites, efficiencies will come about in large part when
NNSA improves its oversight of contracts.
Regardless of the outcome of the acquisition strategy, the
Committee expects all efforts will be taken to ensure a minimum
of disruption to work associated with the Uranium Processing
Facility to keep this facility on time and on budget.
Operations and Maintanance.--The Committee recommends
$1,555,278,000 for the Readiness in Technical Base and
Facilities Operations and Maintenance account. Of these funds:
Operations of Facilities.--The Committee recommends
$1,411,000,000.
Program Readiness.--The Committee recommends the requested
amount of $69,170,000.
Material Recycle and Recovery.--The Committee recommends
$80,000,000.
Containers.--The Committee recommends the requested amount
of $28,979,000 as requested.
Storage.--The Committee recommends the requested amount of
$30,289,000.
Construction.--The Committee recommends $551,108,000.
Project 12-D-301, TRU Waste Facilities, Los Alamos, New
Mexico.--The Committee recommends $9,881,000 as requested to
begin construction of a new transuranic waste facility to meet
regulatory requirements of the State of New Mexico.
Project 11-D-801, TA-55 Reinvestment Project, Los Alamos,
New Mexico.--The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to begin the
second phase of this effort to mitigate safety risks to workers
identified by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. NNSA
has unobligated funds that can be used to fund additional
upgrades to the facility.
Project 10-D-501, Nuclear Facility Risk Reduction, Y-12,
Oak Ridge, Tennessee.--The Committee recommends $35,287,000 as
requested to upgrade equipment and infrastructure in buildings
9212 and 9204-2E for continued safe uranium operations until
the new Uranium Processing Facility is operational.
Project 09-D-404, Test Capabilities Revitalization Phase
II, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico.--The
committee recommends $25,168,000 as requested to refurbish non-
nuclear capabilities, such as rocket sled tracks and mechanical
shock facilities, to test weapons components needed for the B61
and future life extension programs.
Project 08-D-802, High Explosive Pressing Facility, Pantex
Plant, Amarillo, Texas.--The Committee recommends $66,960,000
as requested to build a new facility to make high explosive
hemispheres for nuclear weapons that is more reliable and can
meet the projected workload for life extension programs.
Project 07-D-140, Project Engineering and Design [PED],
Various Locations.--The Committee recommends $3,518,000 as
requested to complete design work on the Transuranic Waste
Facilities Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Project 06-D-141, PED, Uranium Process Facility, Y-12, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee.--The Committee recommends $160,194,000 as
requested.
Project 04-D-125 Chemistry and Metallurgy Facility
Replacement Project, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los
Alamos, New Mexico.--The Committee recommends $240,000,000.
Within these funds, $35,000,000 is to complete equipment
installation at the Radiological Laboratory, $125,000,000 is
for design activities to reach 90 percent design maturity by
the end of the fiscal year, $40,000,000 is for long-lead
procurements, and $40,000,000 is for site preparation.
SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET
The Committee recommendation for the Secure Transportation
Asset program is $251,272,000, the same as the budget request.
NUCLEAR COUNTERTERRORISM INCIDENT RESPONSE
The Committee recommends full funding of the nuclear
counterterrorism incident response program. The Committee
provides $222,147,000 as requested.
FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION
The Committee recommends $96,380,000 for Facilities and
Infrastructure Recapitalization activities, consistent with the
budget request. The Committee is concerned about an increasing
backlog of deferred maintenance costs within NNSA's nuclear
weapons laboratories and production facilities. Based on a
March 2011 NNSA assessment, deferred maintenance costs are
expected to increase by $70,000,000 a year. The Facilities and
Infrastructure Recapitalization Program has only reduced some
of the backlog in deferred maintenance and this program will
end in fiscal year 2013. To increase transparency in NNSA's
efforts to sustain existing physical infrastructure, the
Committee directs NNSA to identify funds for maintenance and
operations by site as separate line items under the Readiness
in Technical Base and Facilities Account starting with the
fiscal year 2014 budget submission. The sites include the three
national security labs, the Y-12 National Security Complex, the
Kansas City Plant, the Savannah River Site, and the Nevada
National Security Site. The budget justification shall include
an explanation of how NNSA plans to manage deferred maintenance
costs, including ways NNSA will stabilize deferred maintenance
for mission critical facilities and dispose of excess capacity.
Further, the budget shall include total deferred maintenance
backlog and how much NNSA is spending at each site each year to
reduce deferred maintenance. The Committee recommends using the
Office of Science's Science Laboratories Infrastructure budget
information on deferred maintenance as a model. Further, the
Committee is concerned by a recent Government Accountability
Office finding that NNSA does not have accurate, reliable, or
complete data on the condition and replacement value of its
almost 3,000 weapons activities facilities. The Committee
directs NNSA to develop standardized practices for assessing
the condition of its facilities and review the sites'
methodologies for determining replacement value to ensure
consistency, accuracy, and completeness through the complex.
SITE STEWARDSHIP
The Committee recommends $90,000,000. The Committee
supports NNSA's efforts to consolidate and dispose of NNSA
special nuclear material that is no longer required for the
nuclear weapons mission.
SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY
The Committee recommendation for the Safeguards and
Security Program is $828,366,000.
Defense Nuclear Security Operations and Maintenance.--The
Committee recommends $701,752,000. The Committee support NNSA's
efforts to reduce costs related to securing national
laboratories and production sites while still maintaining
effective physical security measures at each site. The
Committee encourages NNSA to continue eliminating unnecessary
costs while still protecting facilities' assets and resources
against theft, sabotage, and other criminal acts.
Construction.--The Committee recommends $11,752,000 as
requested.
Project 08-D-701 Nuclear Materials Safeguards and Security
Upgrades Project Phase II, Los Alamos, New Mexico.--The
Committee recommends the requested level of $11,752,000 for
this project.
Cybersecurity.--The Committee recommends the full request
of $126,614,000.
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND ENGINEERING CAPABILITY
The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for Science,
Technology, and Engineering Capability activities. The
Committee supports NNSA's efforts to leverage its science,
engineering, and technological expertise to work with the
Defense Threat Reduction Agency and intelligence agencies to
improve the Nation's counterterrorism capabilities. The
Committee also supports activities to build and sustain
analytical capabilities at Los Alamos, Sandia, and Livermore to
assess the nuclear and biological weapons capabilities of
foreign adversaries to support the intelligence community. The
Committee notes that $30,000,000 was provided in the 2009
Supplemental Appropriations Act to help build the technical
capabilities for nuclear and biological weapons assessments.
The Committee is concerned, however, that DOE's Office of
Intelligence is not fully utilizing these newly constituted
capabilities and sustaining the human talent needed to address
national security issues. The Committee encourages DOE's Office
of Intelligence to further develop the analytical capabilities
needed to fully utilize these improved scientific, technical,
and engineering capabilities at the national security labs.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
(INCLUDING RESCISSION)
Appropriations, 2011...................................\1\$2,318,653,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................\2\2,549,492,000
House allowance.........................................\2\2,056,770,000
Committee recommendation................................\3\2,404,300,000
\1\Does not include rescission of $45,000,000 under Public Law 112-10.
\2\Does not include proposed rescission of $30,000,000.
\3\Does not include proposed rescission of $21,000,000.
The Committee recommends $2,383,300,000 for Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation, which includes a rescission of $21,000,000 of
prior-year unobligated funds. The Committee commends NNSA for
making significant progress in meeting the goal of securing all
vulnerable nuclear materials within 4 years. In 2009, the
Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United
States found that ``the surest way to prevent nuclear terrorism
is to deny terrorist acquisition of nuclear weapons or fissile
materials . . . An accelerated campaign to close or secure the
world's most vulnerable nuclear sites as quickly as possible
should be a top national priority.'' To that end, since April
2009, when President Obama announced the 4-year goal, NNSA has
removed over 960 kilograms of highly enriched uranium--enough
material for 38 nuclear weapons. NNSA has also removed all
highly enriched uranium from six countries. One of these
countries was Libya. Given the recent unrest in Libya, the
presence of this dangerous nuclear material in an unstable part
of the world would have increased the risk of nuclear
terrorism. Removing highly enriched uranium from six countries
in 2 years is much faster than one country a year NNSA has
averaged in the last 13 years. Further, NNSA has completed
security upgrades at 32 additional buildings in Russia
containing weapons usable materials. The Committee encourages
NNSA to continue its accelerated efforts to secure vulnerable
nuclear materials.
NONPROLIFERATION AND VERIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The Committee recommends $417,598,000 as requested to
support investment in developing advanced nuclear detection
technologies. Within available funds, $5,710,000 should be used
for the Global Seismographic Network [GSN] Equipment Renewal
project. The GSN, among other things, has 46 sites--the single
largest contribution--that monitor compliance with the
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and could detect foreign
nuclear tests. However, GSN equipment, such as sensors, is more
than 15 years old, obsolete, and increasingly difficult to
effectively maintain. The committee supports this one-time
investment to purchase new equipment to sustain and maintain
GSN's critical monitoring activities.
The Committee supports research and development activities
to develop new tools, technologies, techniques, and expertise
to improve detection of nuclear weapons technology and special
nuclear materials. However, the Committee is concerned that
NNSA is not doing enough to transfer new technologies to its
customers, including the Department of Homeland Security and
intelligence agencies. The Committee encourages NNSA to develop
better performance metrics that measure not only improvements
in existing technologies but also the extent to which new
technologies are adopted and used by its customers. NNSA should
also be able to explain how the development of novel
technologies reduced the threat to national security posed by
nuclear weapon proliferation or detonation and the illicit
trafficking of nuclear materials.
The Committee also supports NNSA's efforts to develop and
build space based sensors to detect surface, atmospheric, or
space nuclear detonations. However, the Committee is concerned
that the requirements for these space based sensors have not
changed since the Eisenhower administration and new
capabilities may be required to detect illicit activities
beyond just nuclear detonations. The Committee directs NNSA to
work with U.S. Strategic Command, the Air Force, and other
Department of Defense agencies to review the requirements for
space based sensors, determine whether new requirements are
needed to detect a broader and more diverse set of nuclear
threats, the resource needs to implement new requirements, and
the extent to which new space based sensors can increase
capabilities at a lower cost than current technologies.
The Committee also encourages NNSA to accelerate efforts to
find alternatives to helium-3 for radiation detection
technologies, especially portal monitors that are deployed at
ports and border crossings to detect radiation and prevent the
smuggling of nuclear material into the United States. The
Committee is concerned that critical shortages of this gas may
limit deployments of this critical technology. NNSA's success
in finding alternatives will benefit other Government agencies.
NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
The Committee recommends $155,305,000. The Committee
recommends $14,972,000, a reduction of $3,500,000, for the
Global Initiative for Proliferation Prevention. The Committee
believes that this program to assist weapons scientists in
Russia and other countries needs to be reassessed. NNSA has not
provided sufficient justification to the Committee on the
continuing nonproliferation benefits of this program,
especially the continuing threat posed by scientists in Russia
and other countries who once worked on weapons of mass
destruction programs, and whether improved economic conditions
in these countries merit U.S. aid. The Committee directs NNSA
to reassess this program and determine whether it is still
needed based on the proliferation risk posed by weapons
scientists in Russia and other countries. If the program is
still needed, NNSA should develop a well-defined strategy to
more effectively target the scientists of highest proliferation
concern and have a clear exit strategy, including specific
criteria to determine when specific countries are ready to
graduate from the program.
INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS PROTECTION AND COOPERATION
The Committee recommends $571,639,000. The Committee is
encouraged by NNSA's efforts in completing security upgrades at
213 out of 229 buildings that store weapons usable nuclear
material and warheads in Russia and other former Soviet
countries. These upgrades directly support the U.S. effort to
secure all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world within
4 years by securing warheads and weapons-exploitable nuclear
materials at their source. The Committee is also encouraged by
NNSA's efforts in preventing and detecting the illicit transfer
of nuclear materials by installing radiation detection
equipment at 399 sites--365 borders, airports, and strategic
ports and 34 megaports across the world.
The Committee understands that materials protection,
control, and accounting work in Russia will continue past
fiscal year 2013--the original deadline for this program. The
Committee supports continued cooperation between the United
States and Russia, but the United States must receive an
assurance from Russia that it will assume full responsibility
for sustaining U.S.-provided nuclear security systems over the
long term. The Committee directs NNSA to work with the State
Department to request future spending plans from the Russian
Government to have a clearer sense of Russian intentions on
funding nuclear security programs.
While NNSA has made considerable progress in securing
Russian nuclear warheads and materials at numerous sites, the
Committee believes more progress is needed in consolidating and
reducing the number of locations in Russia with nuclear
materials and phasing out the use of highly enriched uranium at
Russian research reactors and related facilities. A recent
Government Accountability Office report found that NNSA's plans
involved removing highly enriched uranium from 5 sites and 50
buildings by 2010, but it has only removed material from 1 site
and 25 buildings. In addition, of the 71 highly enriched
uranium-fueled research reactors and related facilities in
Russia, only 3 have been shut down. The Committee believes
accelerating material consolidation will provide a higher level
of security at lower potential cost and reactor shut downs and
conversion will reduce quantities of weapons-usable materials
potentially accessible in Russia.
The Committee understands that NNSA plans to establish
Nuclear Security Centers of Excellence in China and India. The
purpose of these centers is to help implement international
efforts to lock down and remove vulnerable nuclear materials
around the world and advance nuclear security best practices,
research and development, and bilateral and regional
initiatives. The U.S. role is limited to providing technical
advice and equipment for nuclear safeguards and security. While
China has taken concrete steps toward procuring land and
developing a detailed design for building a center of
excellence, the Committee is concerned about delays in
establishing a center in India and how NNSA would use available
funding to help develop and support the center. If by the end
of third quarter of fiscal year 2012, NNSA, India, and other
relevant international counterparts have not finalized an
agreement that, among other things, specifies the overall cost
estimate for the center, details how NNSA funding will be
utilized to develop and support the center, and spells out
Indian and other international cost-sharing arrangements in
support of the center, the Committee directs NNSA to reprogram
the $7,000,000 for the Indian center to the Global Threat
Reduction Initiative's Nuclear and Radiological Material
Removal program and notify the Committee as to how these funds
have been reprogrammed.
FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION
The Committee recommends $751,489,000 to support the
plutonium disposition program and construction projects.
U.S. Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition.--The Committee
recommends $250,435,000 including $224,000,000 for the U.S.
plutonium disposition and $26,435,000 as requested for the U.S.
uranium disposition programs.
Construction.--The Committee recommends $500,054,000 to
support construction of three facilities at Savannah River in
South Carolina--the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility
[MFFF], the Waste Solidification Building, and the Pit
Disassembly and Conversion [PDC] project. These facilities will
dispose of at least 34 metric tons of plutonium by fabricating
it into mixed oxide fuel for domestic nuclear reactors. The
Committee remains concerned with the overall management of the
U.S. plutonium disposition program. The Committee notes a
history of rising costs and schedule delays in the construction
of these major disposition facilities, and believes that
further costs increases or delays in program implementation may
result from several pending NNSA decisions to reconfigure key
program elements. In particular, the Committee is concerned by
the prolonged delay by NNSA and DOE in achieving a CD-1
decision on the consolidation of the Pit Disassembly and
Conversion Facility and the Plutonium Preparation Project into
a new Pit Disassembly and Conversion capability, a possible
redesign of the PDC program to produce plutonium feedstock at a
lower rate than currently planned, and a proposed redesign of
MFFF to allow production of MOX fuel suitable for
use in boiling water reactors and next generation light water
reactors. The Committee further notes wavering interest and
lack of firm commitments from U.S. utilities to irradiate
MOX fuel in their reactors. For these reasons, the
Committee directs NNSA to provide a report no later than
December 31, 2011 with:
--updated cost and schedule estimates for both PDC and MFFF;
--the anticipated startup date for both MFFF and PDC;
--the sources of and strategy for providing plutonium
feedstock in the gap period between start up of MFFF
operations and availability of feedstock from PDC;
--the status of agreements from U.S. utilities to irradiate
MOX fuel in their reactors, the deadline to
obtain such agreements, and the status of contingency
plans NNSA has developed should it fail to achieve such
agreements with utilities; and
--the timeframe for completing disposition of 34 metric tons
of U.S. surplus plutonium.
The Committee is aware that MFFF faced schedule delays and
cost increased because of difficulties in identifying suppliers
and subcontractors with the ability and experience to fabricate
and install equipment that met strict quality assurance
standards and requirements for nuclear work. The lack of
experienced nuclear equipment suppliers resulted in a lack of
competition for work and higher than expected bids. NNSA also
had to station dedicated MOX facility quality
assurance and engineering personnel at supplier and
subcontractor stations to train personnel and ensure fabricated
equipment and installations met requirements. Based on the
lessons learned from this construction project and the large
investment NNSA made to train nuclear equipment suppliers, the
Committee directs NNSA to establish a working group that meets
regularly composed of project managers and key management,
acquisition, and procurement staff of MFFF and NNSA's three
other major construction projects--UPF, CMRR-NF, and PDC--to
share lessons learned and help new construction projects stay
on time and on budget.
Project 99-D-143, Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility,
Savannah River, South Carolina.--The Committee recommends
$435,172,000. This increase represents a transfer of
$50,000,000 from Other Project Costs for the Mixed Oxide Fuel
Fabrication Facility to construction to keep construction on
schedule and help install ventilation equipment, process
piping, and electrical equipment and assemble and test
gloveboxes.
Project 99-D-141-02, Waste Solidification Building,
Savannah River, South Carolina.--The Committee recommends full
funding of $17,582,000 for this project.
Project 99-D-141-01, Pit Disassembly and Conversion
Facility, Savannah River, South Carolina.--The Committee
recommends $47,300,000 because NNSA has not completed a study
of alternatives or a conceptual design report with a new cost
and schedule range that is required under DOE guidance before
construction can begin.
Russian Surplus Materials Disposition.--The Committee
recommends $1,000,000, a reduction of $9,174,000. No funding
shall be used to support research and development of the Gas
Turbine-Modular Helium Reactor in Russia. The Committee
understands that the United States committed $400,000,000,
subject to future appropriations, to help Russia dispose of 34
metric tons of excess weapon-grade plutonium, but the Committee
will not provide funding for this effort until NNSA can explain
how the United States would spend the $400,000,000 and the
milestones that Russia must meet before the United States
releases any of those funds.
GLOBAL THREAT REDUCTION INITIATIVE
The Committee recommends $508,269,000 as requested. The
Committee recommends the full request of $148,269,000 for the
reactor conversion program. The Committee supports NNSA's
efforts to accelerate the shut down or conversion of research
reactors that use highly enriched uranium [HEU] around the
world. HEU-fueled research reactors have some of the world's
weakest security measures and a determined terrorist could use
HEU reactor fuel for a nuclear device. The Committee agrees
that eliminating these HEU stockpiles should be a priority and
directly supports efforts to secure vulnerable nuclear
materials because once a reactor is converted or shut down, the
HEU fuel can be shipped to the United States or Russia for
permanent disposition and would no longer pose a threat.
Despite the slow progress in converting or shutting down HEU-
fueled research reactors in Russia, the Committee commends NNSA
for reaching agreements quickly with other countries, such as
China and the Czech Republic, to convert or shut down their
reactors. The Committee also supports related activities such
as developing high density low enriched uranium fuel to convert
high performance HEU-fueled reactors and developing a
capability which does not currently exist in the United States
to produce Moly-99--a medical isotope used in 16 million
nuclear medicine procedures in the United States each year--
with low enriched uranium. The Committee notes the significant
achievement of South Africa's ability to convert their reactor
from HEU to low enriched uranium fuel to produce Moly-99 and
that the United States received the first shipment of Moly-99
produced with low enriched fuel in December 2010.
The Committee continues to support efforts to remove,
dispose, and protect domestic nuclear and radiological
materials. Nuclear and radiological materials are located at
more than 2,500 facilities in the United States. Domestic
stockpiles of nuclear and radioactive materials could be used
by terrorist groups in an improvised nuclear device or a
radiological dispersal device, or dirty bomb, in the United
States. The Committee understands that the Department of Energy
is responsible for disposing of many types of low-level
radioactive materials because there are no commercial disposal
options. The Committee commends the Department for reducing
domestic public health and national security threats by
recovering over 27,000 disused, unwanted and orphan sources in
the United States and securing over 250 buildings.
Naval Reactors
Appropriations, 2011.................................... \1\$960,176,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 1,153,662,000
House allowance......................................... 1,030,600,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,100,000,000
\1\Does not include rescission of $1,000,000 under Public Law 112-10.
The Committee recommends $1,100,000,000 for Naval Reactors.
In fiscal year 2010, NNSA began work on three significant
projects: design of a reactor plant for new OHIO-class
ballistic missile submarines, refueling of a land-based reactor
prototype, and construction of a new spent fuel facility. Based
on current projections, funding for these three projects will
grow from $200,000,000 in fiscal year 2011 to over $600,000,000
in fiscal year 2015. In the current budget environment, the
Committee is concerned that there may not be sufficient funds
to fund all three projects concurrently. The Committee directs
the Office of Naval Reactors to submit a contingency plan by
February 1, 2012 that would sequence these three major
projects. The plan should identify the highest priority
project, justify which project or projects could be delayed,
and explain the consequences to cost, scope, and schedule of
delaying project implementation.
Office of the Administrator
Appropriations, 2011.................................... \1\$398,993,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 450,060,000
House allowance......................................... 400,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 404,000,000
\1\Does not include rescission of $5,700,000 under Public Law 112-10.
The Committee recommends $404,000,000 for the Office of the
Administrator. The Committee strongly supports NNSA's efforts
to improve Federal oversight of major nuclear construction
projects, such as the Uranium Processing Facility and the
Chemistry and Metallurgy Replacement Facility. The Committee
believes NNSA must do more to build confidence it has the
ability to execute large line item construction projects within
budget and on schedule.
Defense Environmental Cleanup
Appropriations, 2011...................................\1\$4,991,638,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 5,406,781,000
House allowance......................................... 4,937,619,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,002,308,000
\1\Does not include rescission of $11,900,000 or transfer of $33,633,000
to the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund under
Public Law 112-10.
The Committee recommendation for Defense Environmental
Cleanup is $5,002,308,000. Within the total provided, the
Department is directed to fund the Hazardous Waste Worker
Training Program.
Reprogramming Control Levels.--In fiscal year 2012, the
Environmental Management program may transfer funding between
operating expense funded projects within the controls listed
below using guidance contained in the Department's budget
execution manual (DOE M 135.1-1A, chapter IV). All capital
construction line item projects remain separate controls from
the operating projects. The Committees on Appropriations in the
House and Senate must be formally notified in advance of all
reprogrammings, except internal reprogrammings, and the
Department is to take no financial action in anticipation of
congressional response. The Committee recommends the following
reprogramming control points for fiscal year 2012:
--Closure Sites;
--Hanford Site;
--Idaho National Laboratory;
--NNSA Sites;
--Oak Ridge Reservation;
--Office of River Protection;
--Savannah River Site;
--Waste Isolation Pilot Plant;
--Program Direction;
--Program Support;
--Technology Development and Deployment;
--Safeguards and Security; and
--All Capital Construction Line Items, regardless of site.
Internal Reprogramming Authority.--The new reprogramming
control points above obviates, in most cases, the need for
internal reprogramming authority. However, at the few sites to
which the internal reprogramming statute still applies,
Environmental Management site managers may transfer up to
$5,000,000, one time, between accounts listed above to reduce
health and safety risks, gain cost savings, or complete
projects, as long as a program or project is not increased or
decreased by more than $5,000,000 in total during the fiscal
year.
The reprogramming authority--either formal or internal--may
not be used to initiate new programs or to change funding
levels for programs specifically denied, limited, or increased
by Congress in the act or report. The Committee on
Appropriations in the House and Senate must be notified within
30 days after the use of the internal reprogramming authority.
Environmental Management Reorganization.--The Department
announced on July 8, 2011, its intention to change the
reporting structure of the Office of Environmental Management,
the Office of Legacy Management, and the Office of the Chief of
Nuclear Safety so that these offices would report directly to
the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security. According to the
Department, this reorganization is meant to capitalize on the
expertise that exists throughout the Department on project
management, nuclear materials and waste, and nuclear safety and
security. While the Committee shares the Department's desire to
improve EM project management and nuclear safety and security,
confusion remains as to how the reorganization will impact day-
to-day operations of EM and how specifically it will result in
improved project management. The Department failed to provide
sufficient advance notice of its plans and rationale for these
plans, resulting in skepticism and frustration amongst DOE
stakeholders. In addition, it is not clear how the Under
Secretary for Nuclear Security--who is tasked with implementing
an ambitious nuclear modernization effort--will be able to
manage this additional, critical responsibility, without
detracting from the NNSA mission. The Committee directs the
Department to provide a detailed plan for implementation of the
new EM management structure within 30 days of enactment of this
act.
Closure Sites.--The Committee recommends $5,375,000 for
Closure Sites activities.
Hanford Site.--The Committee recommends $953,252,000 for
Richland Operations. The Committee is aware that the B Reactor
has been identified as a National Historic Landmark and the
Department of Energy has stated that the intent is preserving
the reactor for public access. To ensure this intent is
accomplished, the Committee believes that it is appropriate to
use cleanup dollars for the maintenance and public safety
efforts at the B Reactor. Funding for the Hazardous Materials
Management and Emergency Response [HAMMER] facilities are
provided for within available funds.
Idaho National Laboratory.--The Committee recommends
$384,499,000 for Idaho National Laboratory.
NNSA Sites.--The Committee recommends $253,767,000 for NNSA
sites.
Oak Ridge Reservation.--The Committee recommends
$202,509,000 for Oak Ridge Reservation. The amount provided
includes $40,000,000 to downblend U-233 in Building 3019. It is
expected this will be a 5-year effort with an annual
requirement of $40,000,000. In view of the proximity of
employees at Oak Ridge National Laboratory to this highly
contaminated facility, this work should be a high priority
within the Environmental Management program.
Office of River Protection.--The Committee recommends
$1,207,000,000 for the Office of River Protection.
Savannah River Site.--The Committee recommends
$1,190,879,000 for the Savannah River site.
H-Canyon.--The request for Savannah River proposes to place
H-Canyon into hot standby pending a determination by the
Department to begin reprocessing spent fuel. The Committee is
concerned by EM's plan to meet its statutory requirements to
maintain the facility in a high state of readiness. H-Canyon is
a unique national capability for performing large scale
chemical processing operations that would take considerable
time and funding to reconstitute if lost. The Department should
demonstrate it can adequately maintain the condition of the
chemical processing areas while it deliberates on the
disposition of spent nuclear fuel. Additionally, as the
Department continues to analyze ways to address the back end of
the fuel cycle, the Committee notes the supportive role that H-
Canyon could play in research and development.
The Committee also notes that with regards to its
deliberations on spent nuclear fuel, H-Canyon appears to be the
only available disposition path for nearly 14 metric tons of
aluminum clad fuel currently residing at SRS and other sites
around the complex. The decision not to process aluminum clad
fuel may require the Department to spend millions of dollars to
increase the storage space in L-basin to accommodate additional
aluminum clad fuel. The indefinite storage of this material
will be costly to the taxpayers and take budgetary focus away
from other priorities at SRS and around the complex. The
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board noted its opinion that
there are unintended safety consequences of orphaning this
material in a letter to Secretary Chu. The Committee directs
that within 90 days, the Department provide a report to the
Senate and House Appropriations Committees, as well as the
Senate and House Armed Service Committees on the disposition
path for the 14 MT of aluminum clad fuel.
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.--The Committee recommends
$200,000,000 for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. The Committee
notes the Department submitted a request for $28,771,000 in
fiscal year 2012 to continue providing economic assistance to
the State of New Mexico, even though the requirement to provide
such payments under the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land
Withdrawal Act, as amended, was completed in fiscal year 2011.
In light of the overall size of this grant relative to other
State grants that EM makes, as well as other budget
constraints, the Committee recommends no funding for making a
voluntary payment under that act in fiscal year 2012.
Program Direction.--The Committee recommends $321,628,000
for program direction.
Program Support.--The Committee recommends $20,380,000 for
program support.
Safeguards and Security.--The Committee recommends
$252,019,000 for safeguards and security.
Technology Development and Deployment.--The Committee
recommends $11,000,000 for technology development and
deployment. The Department is encouraged to continue successful
efforts with industry to transfer and demonstrate international
technologies and approaches to the cleanup program. The
Committee also encourages the Department to work with industry
on initiatives which better support the transition of ideas and
technology into practice.
Other Defense Activities
Appropriations, 2011.................................... \1\$788,420,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 859,952,000
House allowance......................................... 814,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 819,000,000
\1\Does not include rescission of $3,400,000 under Public Law 112-10.
The Committee recommendation is $819,000,000. The Committee
provides no funding for acquisition workforce improvement
because the Department did not provide sufficient justification
to support this new program.
The Committee recommends that the Department consider
changes to the structure of this account. Activities not
related to defense are included in this account, such as
hearings on whistleblower complaints, health and safety
investigations, and safeguards and security at Idaho National
Laboratory for the Office of Nuclear Energy. Many of these
activities belong in other accounts, such as Departmental
Administration or Nuclear Energy, or as separate accounts. The
Committee encourages the Department to work with the
Appropriations Committees to better structure this account and
provide a new account structure to the Committees by February
1, 2012.
Health, Safety and Security.--The Committee recommends
$437,436,000 for the Office of Health, Safety, and Security,
including $72,058,000 for Health and Safety programs and
$263,378,000 for Security programs. Within the Security
programs funding, $186,699,000 is for Specialized Security
Activities.
Office of Legacy Management.--The Committee recommends
$169,740,000, as requested.
Idaho Sitewide Safeguards and Security.--The Committee
recommends $93,350,000, a decrease of $5,150,000, for Idaho
infrastructure for sitewide safeguards and security.
Defense-Related Administrative Support.--The Committee
recommends $114,332,000, a reduction of $4,504,000.
Office of Hearings and Appeals.--The Committee provides
$4,142,000 as requested.
Power Marketing Administrations
The Nation's power marketing administrations shall make
every effort to use available funds and borrowing authority,
where applicable, to facilitate and fully develop renewable
energy resources and related transmission capacity in their
region, and to work in a coordinated fashion with each other
and regional transmission authorities, public and private
utilities, and other entities to reduce barriers to greater
movement of electricity between regions and interconnections to
promote reliability and the delivery of affordable, clean
power.
BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION
The Bonneville Power Administration is the Department of
Energy's marketing agency for electric power in the Pacific
Northwest. Bonneville provides electricity to a 300,000-square-
mile service area in the Columbia River drainage basin.
Bonneville markets the power from Federal hydropower projects
in the Northwest, as well as power from non-Federal generating
facilities in the region. Bonneville also exchanges and markets
surplus power with Canada and California. The Committee
recommends no new borrowing authority for BPA during fiscal
year 2011.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION
Appropriations, 2011....................................................
Budget estimate, 2012...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
For the Southeastern Power Administration, the Committee
recommends no funding, the same as the budget request.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION
Appropriations, 2011.................................... $13,050,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 11,892,000
House allowance......................................... 11,892,000
Committee recommendation................................ 11,892,000
For the Southwestern Power Administration, the Committee
recommends $11,892,000, the same as the budget request.
CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, WESTERN AREA
POWER ADMINISTRATION
Appropriations, 2011.................................... $108,963,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 95,968,000
House allowance......................................... 95,968,000
Committee recommendation................................ 95,968,000
For the Western Area Power Administration, the Committee
recommends $95,968,000, the same as the budget request.
FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND
Appropriations, 2011.................................... $220,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 220,000
House allowance......................................... 220,000
Committee recommendation................................ 220,000
For the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund,
the Committee recommends $220,000 the same as the request.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2011.................................... $298,000,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 304,600,000
House allowance......................................... 304,600,000
Committee recommendation................................ 304,600,000
REVENUES APPLIED
Appropriations, 2011.................................... -$298,000,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... -304,600,000
House allowance......................................... -304,600,000
Committee recommendation................................ -304,600,000
The proposed legislative language requires FERC to
establish regulations which will assist States that choose to
do so to develop technology-specific feed-in-tariff programs
under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978. Such
regulations will clarify for general applicability to all
qualifying facilities findings that FERC made in a series of
recent orders on issues related to California's feed-in-tariff
program for small (less than 20 MW), highly efficient combined
heat and power facilities, at 132 FERC para. 61,047 (July 15,
2010) (FERC Declaratory Order), 133 FERC para. 61,059 (October
21, 2010) (FERC Clarification Order), and 134 FERC para.
61,044, (January 20, 2011) (FERC Rehearing Order).
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee recommendation compared to--
Enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee --------------------------------------------------
recommendation Enacted Budget estimate House allowance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE
Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy RDD&D:
Hydrogen and fuel cell 98,000 100,450 91,450 98,000 ............... -2,450 +6,550
technologies................
Biomass and Biorefinery 182,695 340,500 150,000 180,000 -2,695 -160,500 +30,000
Systems R&D.................
Solar energy................. 263,500 457,000 166,143 290,000 +26,500 -167,000 +123,857
Wind energy.................. 80,000 126,859 76,000 80,000 ............... -46,859 +4,000
Geothermal technology........ 38,003 101,535 38,000 34,000 -4,003 -67,535 -4,000
Water Power.................. 30,000 38,500 50,000 34,000 +4,000 -4,500 -16,000
Vehicle technologies......... 300,000 588,003 254,000 318,798 +18,798 -269,205 +64,798
Building technologies........ 210,500 470,700 150,000 210,500 ............... -260,200 +60,500
Industrial technologies...... 108,241 319,784 96,000 96,000 -12,241 -223,784 ...............
Federal energy management 30,402 33,072 30,000 30,000 -402 -3,072 ...............
program.....................
Facilities and
infrastructure:
National Renewable Energy 11,705 26,407 26,407 26,407 +14,702 ............... ...............
Laboratory [NREL].......
Construction:
08-EE-01 Energy 39,295 ............... ............... ............... -39,295 ............... ...............
systems integration
facility National
Renewal Energy Lab,
Golden, Colorado....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 51,000 26,407 26,407 26,407 -24,593 ............... ...............
Facilities and
infrastructure..
Program direction............ 170,000 176,605 110,000 165,000 -5,000 -11,605 +55,000
Program support.............. 32,000 ............... ............... ............... -32,000 ............... ...............
Strategic programs........... ............... 53,204 25,000 25,000 +25,000 -28,204 ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Energy Efficiency 1,594,341 2,832,619 1,263,000 1,587,705 -6,636 -1,244,914 +324,705
and Renewable Energy RDD&D
Weatherization and
intragovernmental:
Weatherization:
Weatherization assistance 171,000 220,000 30,000 171,000 ............... -49,000 +141,000
Training and technical 3,300 3,000 3,000 3,300 ............... +300 +300
assistance..............
Innovations in ............... 97,000 ............... ............... ............... -97,000 ...............
weatherization..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............... 174,300 320,000 33,000 174,300 ............... -145,700 +141,300
Other:
State energy program 50,000 63,798 25,000 50,000 ............... -13,798 +25,000
grants..................
Tribal energy activities. 7,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 +3,000 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............... 57,000 73,798 35,000 60,000 +3,000 -13,798 +25,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 231,300 393,798 68,000 234,300 +3,000 -159,498 +166,300
Weatherization and
intragovernmental.....
Floor amendments................. ............... ............... 3,800 ............... ............... ............... -3,800
Use of prior year balances....... ............... -26,364 -26,364 -26,364 -26,364 ............... ...............
Rescission....................... -30,000 ............... ............... ............... +30,000 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, ENERGY EFFICENCY AND 1,795,641 3,200,053 1,308,436 1,795,641 ............... -1,404,412 +487,205
RENEWABLE ENERGY..........
======================================================================================================================
ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY
RELIABILITY
Research and development:
Clean energy transmission and 26,000 60,817 20,000 27,000 +1,000 -33,817 +7,000
reliability.................
Smart grid research and 29,000 45,000 33,813 24,000 -5,000 -21,000 -9,813
development.................
Energy storage............... 20,000 57,000 20,000 20,000 ............... -37,000 ...............
Cyber security for energy 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 ............... ............... ...............
delivery systems............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 105,000 192,817 103,813 101,000 -4,000 -91,817 -2,813
Permitting, siting, and analysis. 6,000 8,000 8,000 7,000 +1,000 -1,000 -1,000
Infrastructure security and 6,100 6,187 6,187 6,000 -100 -187 -187
energy restoration..............
Program direction................ 27,610 31,217 22,000 27,010 -600 -4,207 +5,010
Use of prior year balances....... ............... -504 -504 ............... ............... +504 +504
Rescission....................... -3,700 ............... ............... ............... +3,700 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, ELECTRICITY DELIVERY 141,010 237,717 139,496 141,010 ............... -96,707 +1,514
AND ENERGY RELIABILITY....
======================================================================================================================
NUCLEAR ENERGY
Research and development:
Nuclear energy enabling 51,383 97,364 95,014 68,880 +17,497 -28,484 -26,134
technologies................
Integrated university program ............... ............... 5,000 ............... ............... ............... -5,000
LWR SMR licensing technical ............... 67,000 67,000 ............... ............... -67,000 -67,000
support.....................
Reactor concepts RD&D........ 168,535 125,000 136,986 31,870 -136,665 -93,130 -105,116
Fuel cycle research and 187,615 155,010 132,000 187,917 +302 +32,907 +55,917
development.................
International nuclear energy 2,994 3,000 3,000 3,000 +6 ............... ...............
cooperation.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 410,527 447,374 439,000 291,667 -118,860 -155,707 -147,333
Infrastructure:
Radiological facilities
management:
Space and defense 46,906 49,902 44,014 64,902 +17,996 +15,000 +20,888
infrastructure..........
Research reactor 4,808 4,986 4,986 4,986 +178 ............... ...............
infrastructure..........
PU-238 production restart ............... 10,000 ............... ............... ............... -10,000 ...............
project.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............... 51,714 64,888 49,000 69,888 +18,174 +5,000 +20,888
INL facilities management:
INL Operations and 183,604 150,000 155,000 136,000 -47,604 -14,000 -19,000
infrastructure..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............... 183,604 150,000 155,000 136,000 -47,604 -14,000 -19,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 235,318 214,888 204,000 205,888 -29,430 -9,000 +1,888
Infrastructure........
Program direction................ 86,279 93,133 92,000 86,279 ............... -6,854 -5,721
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Nuclear Energy... 732,124 755,395 735,000 583,834 -148,290 -171,561 -151,166
Use of prior year balances....... ............... -1,367 -1,367 ............... ............... +1,367 +1,367
Rescission....................... -6,300 ............... ............... ............... +6,300 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY...... 725,824 754,028 733,633 583,834 -141,990 -170,194 -149,799
======================================================================================================================
FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT
CCS and power systems:
Carbon capture............... ............... 68,938 68,938 68,938 +68,938 ............... ...............
Carbon storage............... ............... 115,477 115,477 115,477 +115,477 ............... ...............
Advanced energy systems...... ............... 64,193 105,000 64,193 +64,193 ............... -40,807
Cross-cutting research....... ............... 42,750 49,347 42,750 +42,750 ............... -6,597
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, CCS and power ............... 291,358 338,762 291,358 +291,358 ............... -47,404
systems...................
Fuels and Power Systems:
Innovations for existing 64,869 ............... ............... ............... -64,869 ............... ...............
plants......................
Advanced integrated 52,894 ............... ............... ............... -52,894 ............... ...............
gasification combined cycle.
Advanced turbines............ 30,920 ............... ............... ............... -30,920 ............... ...............
Carbon sequestration......... 142,057 ............... ............... ............... -142,057 ............... ...............
Fuels........................ 11,976 ............... ............... ............... -11,976 ............... ...............
Fuel cells................... 49,835 ............... ............... ............... -49,835 ............... ...............
Advanced research............ 47,614 ............... ............... ............... -47,614 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Fuels and power 400,165 ............... ............... ............... -400,165 ............... ...............
systems...................
Natural Gas Technologies......... 1,996 ............... 15,000 ............... -1,996 ............... -15,000
Program direction................ 151,729 159,233 120,847 151,729 ............... -7,504 +30,882
Plant and Capital Equipment...... 19,960 16,794 16,794 16,794 -3,166 ............... ...............
Fossil energy environmental 9,980 7,897 7,897 7,897 -2,083 ............... ...............
restoration.....................
Special recruitment programs..... 699 700 700 700 +1 ............... ...............
Use of prior year balances....... ............... -23,007 -23,007 -23,007 -23,007 ............... ...............
Rescission....................... -140,000 ............... ............... -187,000 -47,000 -187,000 -187,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, FOSSIL ENERGY 444,529 452,975 476,993 258,471 -186,058 -194,504 -218,522
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT..
======================================================================================================================
NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE
RESERVES
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale 22,954 14,909 14,909 14,909 -8,045 ............... ...............
Reserves........................
Rescission....................... -2,100 ............... ............... ............... +2,100 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, NAVAL PETROLEUM AND 20,854 14,909 14,909 14,909 -5,945 ............... ...............
OIL SHALE RESERVES........
======================================================================================================================
STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE
Strategic Petroleum Reserve...... ............... 192,704 192,704 192,704 +192,704 ............... ...............
Storage facilities development... 188,528 ............... ............... ............... -188,528 ............... ...............
Management for SPR operations.... 20,913 ............... ............... ............... -20,913 ............... ...............
Rescission....................... -86,300 -71,000 ............... ............... +86,300 +71,000 ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, STRATEGIC PETROLEUM 123,141 121,704 192,704 192,704 +69,563 +71,000 ...............
RESERVE...................
======================================================================================================================
SPR PETROLEUM ACCOUNT............ ............... -250,000 -500,000 -500,000 -500,000 -250,000 ...............
CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY -16,500 ............... ............... ............... +16,500 ............... ...............
(RESCISSION)....................
NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL
RESERVE
Northeast Home Heating Oil 10,978 10,119 10,119 10,119 -859 ............... ...............
Reserve.........................
Rescission....................... ............... -100,000 -100,000 -100,000 -100,000 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, NORTHEAST HOME 10,978 -89,881 -89,881 -89,881 -100,859 ............... ...............
HEATING OIL RESERVE.......
======================================================================================================================
ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION
Energy Information Administration 95,409 123,957 105,000 105,000 +9,591 -18,957 ...............
Rescission....................... -400 ............... ............... ............... +400 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, ENERGY INFORMATION 95,009 123,957 105,000 105,000 +9,991 -18,957 ...............
ADMINISTRATION............
======================================================================================================================
NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP
Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility 3,652 2,703 2,703 2,703 -949 ............... ...............
(WA)............................
Gaseous Diffusion Plants......... 99,302 100,588 97,588 100,588 +1,286 ............... +3,000
Small sites...................... 63,730 57,430 55,930 57,430 -6,300 ............... +1,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Small sites...... 63,730 57,430 55,930 57,430 -6,300 ............... +1,500
West Valley Demonstration Project 57,666 58,400 56,900 58,400 +734 ............... +1,500
Floor amendment.................. ............... ............... 41,000 ............... ............... ............... -41,000
Rescission....................... -900 ............... ............... ............... +900 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE 223,450 219,121 254,121 219,121 -4,329 ............... -35,000
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP.....
======================================================================================================================
URANIUM ENRICHMENT
DECONTAMINATION AND
DECOMMISSIONING FUND
Oak Ridge........................ ............... 182,747 182,747 162,747 +162,747 -20,000 -20,000
Paducah.......................... ............... 77,780 77,780 77,780 +77,780 ............... ...............
Portsmouth....................... ............... 243,642 188,473 188,473 +188,473 -55,169 ...............
Undistributed funds.............. 506,984 ............... ............... ............... -506,984 ............... ...............
Rescission....................... -9,900 ............... ............... ............... +9,900 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, UED&D FUND/URANIUM 497,084 504,169 449,000 429,000 -68,084 -75,169 -20,000
INVENTORY CLEANUP.........
======================================================================================================================
SCIENCE
Advanced scientific computing 421,997 465,600 427,093 441,619 +19,622 -23,981 +14,526
research........................
Basic energy sciences:
Research..................... 1,526,898 1,833,600 1,547,343 1,542,460 +15,562 -291,140 -4,883
Construction:
07-SC-06 Project 151,297 151,400 140,802 151,400 +103 ............... +10,598
engineering and design
[PED] National
Synchrotron light source
II [NSLS-II]............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Basic 1,678,195 1,985,000 1,688,145 1,693,860 +15,665 -291,140 +5,715
energy sciences.....
Biological and environmental
research:
Biological systems science... 316,744 376,262 ............... 326,744 +10,000 -49,518 +326,744
Climate and environmental 295,079 341,638 ............... 295,079 ............... -46,559 +295,079
sciences....................
Research..................... ............... ............... 547,075 ............... ............... ............... -547,075
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Biological and 611,823 717,900 547,075 621,823 +10,000 -96,077 +74,748
environmental research....
Fusion energy sciences program... 375,463 399,700 406,000 335,463 -40,000 -64,237 -70,537
High-energy physics:
Research..................... 795,420 756,200 759,070 756,200 -39,220 ............... -2,870
Construction:
11-SC-40 Project ............... 17,000 15,810 ............... ............... -17,000 -15,810
engineering and design
[PED] long baseline
neutrino experiment,
FNAL....................
11-SC-41 Project ............... 24,000 22,320 24,000 +24,000 ............... +1,680
engineering and design
[PED] muon to electron
conversion experiment,
FNAL....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............. ............... 41,000 38,130 24,000 +24,000 -17,000 -14,130
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, High-energy 795,420 797,200 797,200 780,200 -15,220 -17,000 -17,000
physics.............
Nuclear physics:
Operations and maintenance... 504,186 539,300 512,000 495,114 -9,072 -44,186 -16,886
Construction:
06-SC-01 Project 35,928 66,000 40,000 55,000 +19,072 -11,000 +15,000
engineering and design
[PED] 12 GeV continuous
electron beam
accelerator facility
upgrade, Thomas
Jefferson National
Accelerator facility
(was project 07-SC-001),
Newport News, Virginia..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Nuclear 540,114 605,300 552,000 550,114 +10,000 -55,186 -1,886
physics.............
Workforce development for 22,600 35,600 17,849 20,000 -2,600 -15,600 +2,151
teachers and scientists.........
Science laboratories
infrastructure:
Infrastructure support:
Payment in lieu of taxes. 1,382 1,385 1,385 1,385 +3 ............... ...............
Excess facility disposal. ............... ............... ............... 25,000 +25,000 +25,000 +25,000
Oak Ridge landlord....... 5,249 5,493 5,493 5,493 +244 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............... 6,631 6,878 6,878 31,878 +25,247 +25,000 +25,000
Construction:
11-SC-71 Utility ............... ............... ............... 12,086 +12,086 +12,086 +12,086
infrastructure
modernization at TJNAF..
12-SC-70 Science and user ............... 12,086 10,273 ............... ............... -12,086 -10,273
support building, SLAC..
10-SC-70 Research support 40,694 12,024 11,182 12,024 -28,670 ............... +842
building and
infrastructure
modernization, SLAC.....
10-SC-71 Energy sciences 14,970 40,000 37,200 40,000 +25,030 ............... +2,800
building, ANL...........
10-SC-72 Renovate science 14,970 15,500 14,415 15,500 +530 ............... +1,085
laboratory, Phase II,
BNL.....................
09-SC-72 Seismic life- 20,063 12,975 12,066 12,975 -7,088 ............... +909
safety, modernization
and replacement of
general purpose
buildings Phase 2, PED/
Construction, LBNL......
09-SC-74, Technology and 28,419 12,337 11,473 12,337 -16,082 ............... +864
engineering development
facilities PED, TJNAF...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............. 119,116 104,922 96,609 104,922 -14,194 ............... +8,313
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Science 125,747 111,800 103,487 136,800 +11,053 +25,000 +33,313
laboratories
infrastructure......
Safeguards and security.......... 83,786 83,900 83,900 82,000 -1,786 -1,900 -1,900
Science program direction:
Science program direction.... 202,520 216,863 ............... 180,786 -21,734 -36,077 +180,786
Headquarters................. ............... ............... 78,028 ............... ............... ............... -78,028
Office of Science and ............... ............... 7,700 ............... ............... ............... -7,700
Technical Information.......
Field offices................ ............... ............... 94,272 ............... ............... ............... -94,272
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Science program 202,520 216,863 180,000 180,786 -21,734 -36,077 +786
direction.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Science.......... 4,857,665 5,418,863 4,802,749 4,842,665 -15,000 -576,198 +39,916
Rescission....................... -15,000 ............... ............... ............... +15,000 ............... ...............
Use of prior year balances....... ............... -2,749 -2,749 ............... ............... +2,749 +2,749
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, SCIENCE............. 4,842,665 5,416,114 4,800,000 4,842,665 ............... -573,449 +42,665
======================================================================================================================
NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL
Repository program............... ............... ............... 20,000 ............... ............... ............... -20,000
Program direction................ ............... ............... 5,000 ............... ............... ............... -5,000
Rescission....................... -2,800 ............... ............... ............... +2,800 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, NUCLEAR WASTE -2,800 ............... 25,000 ............... +2,800 ............... -25,000
DISPOSAL..................
======================================================================================================================
ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY-
ENERGY
ARPA-E projects.................. ............... 521,943 80,000 ............... ............... -521,943 -80,000
Program direction................ ............... 28,068 20,000 ............... ............... -28,068 -20,000
Undistributed funds.............. 179,640 ............... ............... 250,000 +70,360 +250,000 +250,000
Floor amendment.................. ............... ............... 79,640 ............... ............... ............... -79,640
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, ADVANCED RESEARCH 179,640 550,011 179,640 250,000 +70,360 -300,011 +70,360
PROJECTS AGENCY-ENERGY....
======================================================================================================================
TITLE 17--INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY
GUARANTEE PROGRAM
Administrative operations........ 58,000 38,000 38,000 38,000 -20,000 ............... ...............
Offsetting collection............ -58,000 -38,000 -38,000 -38,000 +20,000 ............... ...............
Loan volume rescission........... -181,830 ............... ............... ............... +181,830 ............... ...............
Additional loan volume........... 11,830 360,000 ............... ............... -11,830 -360,000 ...............
Fed participation in title 17 ............... 500,000 ............... ............... ............... -500,000 ...............
loan guarantee projects.........
Additional subsidy cost.......... 169,660 200,000 160,000 200,000 +30,340 ............... +40,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, TITLE 17-- -340 1,060,000 160,000 200,000 +200,340 -860,000 +40,000
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY
GUARANTEE PRO- GRAM....
======================================================================================================================
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES
MANUFACTURING LOAN PROGRAM
Administrative expenses.......... 9,978 6,000 6,000 6,000 -3,978 ............... ...............
BETTER BUILDINGS PILOT LOAN
GUARANTEE INITIATIVE
Cost of loan guarantees.......... ............... 100,000 ............... ............... ............... -100,000 ...............
Administrative costs............. ............... 5,000 ............... ............... ............... -5,000 ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, BETTER BUILDINGS ............... 105,000 ............... ............... ............... -105,000 ...............
PILOT LOAN INITIATIVE.....
======================================================================================================================
DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION
Administrative operations:
Salaries and expenses:
Office of the Secretary:
Program direction...... 5,380 5,030 5,000 5,030 -350 ............... +30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Office of the 5,380 5,030 5,000 5,030 -350 ............... +30
Secretary...........
Chief Financial Officer...... 57,575 53,204 52,000 53,204 -4,371 ............... +1,204
Management................... 68,636 62,693 60,000 62,693 -5,943 ............... +2,693
Human capital management..... 25,294 23,089 22,000 23,089 -2,205 ............... +1,089
Chief Information Officer.... 34,238 36,615 35,000 36,615 +2,377 ............... +1,615
Congressional and
intergovernmental affairs:
Program direction........ 4,428 4,690 4,500 4,690 +262 ............... +190
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Congressional 4,428 4,690 4,500 4,690 +262 ............... +190
and intergovernmental
affairs...............
Economic impact and diversity 4,279 5,660 5,660 5,660 +1,381 ............... ...............
General Counsel.............. 31,997 34,642 30,000 33,553 +1,556 -1,089 +3,553
Policy and international 20,795 22,429 17,000 20,518 -277 -1,911 +3,518
affairs.....................
Public affairs............... 4,129 3,801 3,500 3,801 -328 ............... +301
Office of Indian energy 1,476 1,500 2,000 1,500 +24 ............... -500
policy and programs.........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Salaries and 258,227 253,353 236,660 250,353 -7,874 -3,000 +13,693
expenses..................
Program support:
Minority economic impact. 2,000 1,813 1,813 1,813 -187 ............... ...............
Policy analysis and 671 441 441 441 -230 ............... ...............
system studies..........
Environmental policy 791 520 250 520 -271 ............... +270
studies.................
Climate change technology 5,500 5,482 2,500 5,482 -18 ............... +2,982
program (program
support)................
Cybersecurity and secure 32,072 21,934 21,934 21,934 -10,138 ............... ...............
communications..........
Corporate management 8,333 ............... ............... ............... -8,333 ............... ...............
information program.....
Corporate IT program ............... 27,379 27,379 27,379 +27,379 ............... ...............
support [CIO]...........
Energy information 18,310 ............... ............... ............... -18,310 ............... ...............
technology services.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Program 67,677 57,569 54,317 57,569 -10,108 ............... +3,252
support...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 325,904 310,922 290,977 307,922 -17,982 -3,000 +16,945
Administrative
operations............
Cost of work for others...... 30,475 48,537 48,537 48,537 +18,062 ............... ...............
Floor amendments............. ............... ............... -158,140 ............... ............... ............... +158,140
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Departmental 356,379 359,459 181,374 356,459 +80 -3,000 +175,085
administration............
Funding from other defense -106,240 -118,836 -118,000 -118,836 -12,596 ............... -836
activities......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Departmental 250,139 240,623 63,374 237,623 -12,516 -3,000 +174,249
administration (gross)....
Rescission....................... -81,900 ............... ............... ............... +81,900 ............... ...............
Miscellaneous revenues........... -119,501 -111,883 -111,883 -111,883 +7,618 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL 48,738 128,740 -48,509 125,740 +77,002 -3,000 +174,249
ADMINISTRATION (net)......
======================================================================================================================
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.. 42,764 41,774 41,774 41,774 -990 ............... ...............
======================================================================================================================
TOTAL, ENERGY PROGRAMS..... 9,181,665 12,596,391 8,248,316 8,615,988 -565,677 -3,980,403 +367,672
======================================================================================================================
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION WEAPONS ACTIVITIES
Directed stockpile work:
Life extension program:
B61 Life extension ............... 223,562 278,562 180,000 +180,000 -43,562 -98,562
program.................
W76 Life extension 248,249 257,035 255,000 257,039 +8,790 +4 +2,039
program.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............... 248,249 480,597 533,562 437,039 +188,790 -43,558 -96,523
Stockpile systems:
B61 Stockpile systems.... ............... 72,396 72,396 72,396 +72,396 ............... ...............
W76 Stockpile systems.... ............... 63,383 63,383 63,383 +63,383 ............... ...............
W78 Stockpile systems.... ............... 109,518 99,518 84,000 +84,000 -25,518 -15,518
W80 Stockpile systems.... ............... 44,444 44,444 44,444 +44,444 ............... ...............
B83 Stockpile systems.... ............... 48,215 48,215 48,215 +48,215 ............... ...............
W87 Stockpile systems.... ............... 83,943 83,943 83,943 +83,943 ............... ...............
W88 Stockpile systems.... ............... 75,728 75,728 75,728 +75,728 ............... ...............
Undistributed balance.... 646,203 ............... ............... ............... -646,203 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............... 646,203 497,627 487,627 472,109 -174,094 -25,518 -15,518
Weapons dismantlement and
disposition:
Operations and 57,909 56,770 56,770 56,770 -1,139 ............... ...............
maintenance.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Weapons 57,909 56,770 56,770 56,770 -1,139 ............... ...............
dismantlement and
disposition...........
Stockpile services:
Production support........... ............... 354,502 300,441 310,000 +310,000 -44,502 +9,559
Research and development ............... 30,264 30,264 30,264 +30,264 ............... ...............
support.....................
R and D certification and ............... 190,892 165,892 170,000 +170,000 -20,892 +4,108
safety......................
Management, technology, and ............... 198,700 193,000 188,700 +188,700 -10,000 -4,300
production..................
Undistributed balance........ 932,998 ............... ............... ............... -932,998 ............... ...............
Plutonium sustainment........ ............... 154,231 142,231 140,000 +140,000 -14,231 -2,231
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 932,998 928,589 831,828 838,964 -94,034 -89,625 +7,136
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Directed 1,885,359 1,963,583 1,909,787 1,804,882 -80,477 -158,701 -104,905
stockpile work........
Campaigns:
Science campaign:
Advanced certification... 76,495 94,929 19,400 40,000 -36,495 -54,929 +20,600
Primary assessment 85,074 86,055 86,055 86,055 +981 ............... ...............
technologies............
Dynamic materials 96,237 111,836 96,984 110,000 +13,763 -1,836 +13,016
properties..............
Advanced radiography..... 23,410 27,058 23,594 26,000 +2,590 -1,058 +2,406
Secondary assessment 81,303 86,061 86,061 85,000 +3,697 -1,061 -1,061
technologies............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............... 362,519 405,939 312,094 347,055 -15,464 -58,884 +34,961
Engineering campaign:
Enhanced surety.......... 42,148 41,696 41,696 41,696 -452 ............... ...............
Weapons system 13,443 15,663 15,663 15,663 +2,220 ............... ...............
engineering assessment
technology..............
Nuclear survivability.... 19,665 19,545 19,545 19,545 -120 ............... ...............
Enhanced surveillance.... 65,676 66,174 66,174 66,174 +498 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............... 140,932 143,078 143,078 143,078 +2,146 ............... ...............
Inertial confinement fusion
ignition and high-yield
campaign:
Ignition................. 109,287 109,888 109,888 109,888 +601 ............... ...............
NIF diagnostics, 99,651 86,259 86,259 86,259 -13,392 ............... ...............
cryogenics, and
experimental support....
Pulsed power inertial 4,970 4,997 4,997 4,997 +27 ............... ...............
confinement fusion......
Joint program in high- 3,992 9,100 4,000 9,100 +5,108 ............... +5,100
energy density
laboratory plasmas......
Facility operations and 259,701 266,030 266,030 266,030 +6,329 ............... ...............
target production.......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............... 477,601 476,274 471,174 476,274 -1,327 ............... +5,100
Advanced simulation and 610,995 628,945 616,000 625,000 +14,005 -3,945 +9,000
computing...................
Readiness campaign:
Stockpile readiness...... 18,903 ............... ............... ............... -18,903 ............... ...............
High explosives and 2,994 ............... ............... ............... -2,994 ............... ...............
weapon operations.......
Nonnuclear readiness..... 21,820 65,000 ............... 65,000 +43,180 ............... +65,000
Tritium readiness........ 36,811 77,491 63,591 60,000 +23,189 -17,491 -3,591
Advanced design and 18,064 ............... ............... ............... -18,064 ............... ...............
production technologies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............... 98,592 142,491 63,591 125,000 +26,408 -17,491 +61,409
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Campaigns.... 1,690,639 1,796,727 1,605,937 1,716,407 +25,768 -80,320 +110,470
Readiness in technical base and
facilities [RTBF]:
Operations of facilities:
Operations of facilities. ............... ............... ............... 1,411,000 +1,411,000 +1,411,000 +1,411,000
Kansas City Plant........ 184,199 156,217 156,217 ............... -184,199 -156,217 -156,217
Lawrence Livermore 79,237 83,990 83,990 ............... -79,237 -83,990 -83,990
National Laboratory.....
Los Alamos National 315,652 318,526 318,526 ............... -315,652 -318,526 -318,526
Laboratory..............
Nevada Test Site......... 79,917 97,559 97,559 ............... -79,917 -97,559 -97,559
Pantex................... 121,011 164,848 164,848 ............... -121,011 -164,848 -164,848
Sandia National 116,685 120,708 120,708 ............... -116,685 -120,708 -120,708
Laboratory..............
Savannah River Site...... 91,850 97,767 97,767 ............... -91,850 -97,767 -97,767
Y-12 Productions Plant... 218,715 246,001 246,001 ............... -218,715 -246,001 -246,001
Institutional Site 40,888 199,638 10,000 ............... -40,888 -199,638 -10,000
Support.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............... 1,248,154 1,485,254 1,295,616 1,411,000 +162,846 -74,254 +115,384
Program readiness............ 69,170 74,180 69,180 69,170 ............... -5,010 -10
Material recycle and recovery 69,910 85,939 75,639 80,000 +10,090 -5,939 +4,361
Containers................... 27,808 28,979 28,979 28,979 +1,171 ............... ...............
Storage...................... 24,028 31,272 31,272 30,289 +6,261 -983 -983
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Readiness in 1,439,070 1,705,624 1,500,686 1,619,438 +180,368 -86,186 +118,752
technical base and
facilities..............
Construction:
12-D-301 TRU waste ............... 9,881 ............... 9,881 +9,881 ............... +9,881
facility project, LANL..
11-D-801 TA-55 19,960 19,402 19,402 10,000 -9,960 -9,402 -9,402
Reinvestment project II,
LANL....................
10-D-501 Nuclear ............... 35,387 35,387 35,387 +35,387 ............... ...............
facilities risk
reduction Y-12 National
security complex,
Oakridge, Tennessee.....
09-D-404, Test ............... 25,168 25,168 25,168 +25,168 ............... ...............
capabilities
revitalization II,
Sandia National
Laboratory, Albuquerque,
New Mexico..............
08-D-802 High explosive 29,940 66,960 66,960 66,960 +37,020 ............... ...............
pressing facility Pantex
Plant, Amarillo, Texas..
07-D-140 Project 4,990 3,518 3,518 3,518 -1,472 ............... ...............
engineering and design
[PED], various loca-
tions...................
06-D-140 Project 3,992 ............... ............... ............... -3,992 ............... ...............
engineering and design
[PED], various loca-
tions...................
06-D-141 Project 114,786 160,194 160,194 160,194 +45,408 ............... ...............
engineering and design
[PED], Y-12 Uranium
Processing Facility, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee........
04-D-125 Chemistry and 224,550 300,000 200,000 240,000 +15,450 -60,000 +40,000
metallurgy replacement
project, Los Alamos
National Laboratory, Los
Alamos, New Mexico......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............. 398,218 620,510 510,629 551,108 +152,890 -69,402 +40,479
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Readiness 1,837,288 2,326,134 2,011,315 2,170,546 +333,258 -155,588 +159,231
in technical base
and facilities......
Secure transportation asset:
Operations and equipment..... 152,620 149,274 145,274 149,274 -3,346 ............... +4,000
Program direction............ 94,929 101,998 98,002 101,998 +7,069 ............... +3,996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 247,549 251,272 243,276 251,272 +3,723 ............... +7,996
Nuclear counterterrorism incident 231,005 222,147 222,147 222,147 -8,858 ............... ...............
response........................
Facilities and infrastructure 93,296 96,380 96,380 96,380 +3,084 ............... ...............
recapitalization program........
Site stewardship:
Site stewardship............. 89,652 104,002 78,680 90,000 +348 -14,002 +11,320
Construction:
11-D-601 Sanitary 14,970 ............... ............... ............... -14,970 ............... ...............
effluent reclamation
facility LANL...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Site 104,622 104,002 78,680 90,000 -14,622 -14,002 +11,320
stewardship...........
Safeguards and security:
Defense nuclear security. 661,602 711,105 679,105 690,000 +28,398 -21,105 +10,895
Construction:
08-D-701 Nuclear 51,896 11,752 11,752 11,752 -40,144 ............... ...............
materials S&S
upgrade project
Los Alamos
National
Laboratory......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 713,498 722,857 690,857 701,752 -11,746 -21,105 +10,895
Defense nuclear
security........
Cybersecurity............ 123,348 126,614 126,614 126,614 +3,266 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Safeguards and 836,846 849,471 817,471 828,366 -8,480 -21,105 +10,895
security..............
Legacy contractor pensions... ............... ............... 147,000 ............... ............... ............... -147,000
Science, technology and 19,794 ............... ............... ............... -19,794 ............... ...............
engineering capability......
National security ............... 20,000 ............... 10,000 +10,000 -10,000 +10,000
applications................
Rescission................... -50,000 -40,332 -40,332 ............... +50,000 +40,332 +40,332
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES.. 6,896,398 7,589,384 7,091,661 7,190,000 +293,602 -399,384 +98,339
======================================================================================================================
DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION
Nonproliferation and 360,986 417,598 346,150 417,598 +56,612 ............... +71,448
verification, R&D...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Nonproliferation 360,986 417,598 346,150 417,598 +56,612 ............... +71,448
& verification R&D........
Nonproliferation and 147,494 161,833 161,833 155,305 +7,811 -6,528 -6,528
international security..........
International nuclear materials 571,994 571,639 496,465 571,639 -355 ............... +75,174
protection and cooperation......
Fissile materials disposition:
U.S. plutonium disposition... 200,400 274,790 244,690 224,000 +23,600 -50,790 -20,690
U.S. uranium disposition..... 25,985 26,435 16,435 26,435 +450 ............... +10,000
Construction:
MOX fuel fabrication
facilities:
99-D-143 Mixed oxide 501,788 385,172 385,172 435,172 -66,616 +50,000 +50,000
fuel fabrication
facility, Savannah
River, South
Carolina............
99-D-141-01 Pit 17,000 176,000 20,000 47,300 +30,300 -128,700 +27,300
disassembly and
conversion facility,
Savannah River, SC..
99-D-141-02 Waste 57,000 17,582 17,582 17,582 -39,418 ............... ...............
solidification
building, Savannah
River, SC...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 575,788 578,754 422,754 500,054 -75,734 -78,700 +77,300
Construction....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, U.S. 802,173 879,979 683,879 750,489 -51,684 -129,490 +66,610
fissle materials
disposition.....
Russian surplus materials 25 10,174 10,174 1,000 +975 -9,174 -9,174
disposition.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Fissile materials 802,198 890,153 694,053 751,489 -50,709 -138,664 +57,436
disposition...............
Global threat reduction 435,981 508,269 388,269 508,269 +72,288 ............... +120,000
initiative......................
Floor amendment.................. ............... ............... 35,000 ............... ............... ............... -35,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense Nuclear 2,318,653 2,549,492 2,121,770 2,404,300 +85,647 -145,192 +282,530
Nonproliferation..........
Rescission....................... -45,000 -30,000 -30,000 -21,000 +24,000 +9,000 +9,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense Nuclear 2,273,653 2,519,492 2,091,770 2,383,300 +109,647 -136,192 +291,530
Nonproliferation..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR 2,273,653 2,519,492 2,091,770 2,383,300 +109,647 -136,192 +291,530
NONPROLIFERATION..........
======================================================================================================================
NAVAL REACTORS
Naval reactors development....... 887,721 1,069,262 498,700 1,015,600 +127,879 -53,662 +516,900
OHIO replacement reactor systems ............... ............... 121,300 ............... ............... ............... -121,300
development.....................
Naval reactors operations and ............... ............... 332,100 ............... ............... ............... -332,100
infrastructure..................
Construction:
10-D-903, Security upgrades, 399 100 100 100 -299 ............... ...............
KAPL........................
10-D-904, NRF infrastructure 499 12,000 12,000 12,000 +11,501 ............... ...............
upgrades, Idaho.............
09-D-902, NRF Office Building 3,992 ............... ............... ............... -3,992 ............... ...............
#2 ECC upgrade, Idaho.......
08-D-190, Project engineering 24,950 27,800 27,800 27,800 +2,850 ............... ...............
and design, Expended Core
Facility M-290 recovering
discharge station, Naval
Reactor Facility, ID........
07-D-190, Materials research 2,695 ............... ............... ............... -2,695 ............... ...............
tech complex [MRTC].........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction..... 32,535 39,900 39,900 39,900 +7,365 ............... ...............
Program direction................ 39,920 44,500 38,600 44,500 +4,580 ............... +5,900
Rescission....................... -1,000 ............... ............... ............... +1,000 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS...... 959,176 1,153,662 1,030,600 1,100,000 +140,824 -53,662 +69,400
======================================================================================================================
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
Office of the Administrator...... 398,993 450,060 420,000 404,000 +5,007 -46,060 -16,000
Rescission....................... -5,700 ............... ............... ............... +5,700 ............... ...............
Floor amendment.................. ............... ............... -20,000 ............... ............... ............... +20,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE 393,293 450,060 400,000 404,000 +10,707 -46,060 +4,000
ADMINISTRATOR.............
======================================================================================================================
GENERAL PROVISION
Section 309--Contractor Pay
Freeze:
Security..................... ............... ............... ............... -27,300 -27,300 -27,300 -27,300
======================================================================================================================
TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR 10,522,520 11,712,598 10,614,031 11,050,000 +527,480 -662,598 +435,969
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION...
======================================================================================================================
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP
Closure Sites:
Closure sites administration. 175 ............... ............... ............... -175 ............... ...............
Closure sites................ ............... 5,375 5,375 5,375 +5,375 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Closure sites....... 175 5,375 5,375 5,375 +5,200 ............... ...............
Hanford Site:
Central plateau remediation:
Nuclear material 69,102 48,458 68,458 68,458 -644 +20,000 ...............
stabilization and
disposition PFP.........
Solid waste stabilization 128,038 143,897 143,897 143,897 +15,859 ............... ...............
and disposition 2035....
Soil and water 164,628 222,285 222,285 222,285 +57,657 ............... ...............
remediation--groundwater
vadose zone 2035........
Nuclear facility D&D-- 139,640 56,288 56,288 56,288 -83,352 ............... ...............
remainder of Hanford
2035....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Central 501,408 470,928 490,928 490,928 -10,480 +20,000 ...............
plateau remediation...
River corridor and other
cleanup operations:
Nuclear facility D&D 351,027 330,534 330,534 330,534 -20,493 ............... ...............
river corridor
closure project.....
Richland community 19,540 ............... ............... 19,540 ............... +19,540 +19,540
and regulatory
support.............
SNF stabilization and 94,016 112,250 112,250 112,250 +18,234 ............... ...............
disposition.........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, River 464,583 442,784 442,784 462,324 -2,259 +19,540 +19,540
corridor and other
cleanup operations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Hanford Site 965,991 913,712 933,712 953,252 -12,739 +39,540 +19,540
Idaho National Laboratory:
SNF stabilization and 7,900 20,114 20,114 18,000 +10,100 -2,114 -2,114
disposition--2012...........
Solid waste stabilization and 169,760 165,035 165,035 165,035 -4,725 ............... ...............
disposition.................
Radioactive liquid tank waste 136,850 110,169 110,169 110,000 -26,850 -169 -169
stabilization and
disposition.................
06-D-401, Sodium bearing 12,500 ............... ............... ............... -12,500 ............... ...............
waste treatment project, ID.
Soil and water remediation-- 67,764 87,451 87,451 87,451 +19,687 ............... ...............
2012........................
Idaho community and 3,892 ............... ............... 4,013 +121 +4,013 +4,013
regulatory support..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Idaho National 398,666 382,769 382,769 384,499 -14,167 +1,730 +1,730
Laboratory................
NNSA:
Lawrence Livermore National ............... 873 873 873 +873 ............... ...............
Laboratory..................
NNSA Service Center/SPRU..... ............... 1,500 1,500 1,500 +1,500 ............... ...............
Nevada....................... ............... 63,380 61,380 63,380 +63,380 ............... +2,000
Los Alamos National ............... 357,939 185,000 185,000 +185,000 -172,939 ...............
Laboratory..................
Sandia national Laboratory... ............... ............... ............... 3,014 +3,014 +3,014 +3,014
Undistributed funds...... 309,041 ............... ............... ............... -309,041 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, NNSA sites and 309,041 423,692 248,753 253,767 -55,274 -169,925 +5,014
Nevada off-sites......
Oak Ridge Reservation:
Building 3019................ ............... ............... ............... 40,000 +40,000 +40,000 +40,000
Nuclear facility D&D ORNL.... ............... 44,000 39,000 39,000 +39,000 -5,000 ...............
Nuclear facility D&D Y-12.... ............... 30,000 30,000 30,000 +30,000 ............... ...............
Nuclear facility D&D, East ............... 100 100 100 +100 ............... ...............
Tennessee Technology Park...
Soil and water remediation-- ............... 3,000 3,000 3,000 +3,000 ............... ...............
offsites....................
OR reservation community and ............... ............... ............... 6,409 +6,409 +6,409 +6,409
regulatory support..........
Solid waste stabilization and ............... 99,000 84,000 84,000 +84,000 -15,000 ...............
disposition--2012...........
Undistributed funds...... 152,135 ............... ............... ............... -152,135 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Oak Ridge 152,135 176,100 156,100 202,509 +50,374 +26,409 +46,409
Reservation...........
Office of River Protection:
Waste Treatment and
Immobilization Plant:
Waste treatment and 379,418 363,000 363,000 363,000 -16,418 ............... ...............
immobilization plant 01-
D-16 A-D................
Waste treatment and 359,280 477,000 377,000 377,000 +17,720 -100,000 ...............
immobilization plant 01-
D-16 E..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Waste 738,698 840,000 740,000 740,000 +1,302 -100,000 ...............
Treatment and
Immobilation Plant....
Tank Farm activities:
Rad liquid tank waste 396,900 521,391 408,000 467,000 +70,100 -54,391 +59,000
stabilization and
disposition.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Office of River 1,135,598 1,361,391 1,148,000 1,207,000 +71,402 -154,391 +59,000
Protection............
Savannah River site:
Cleanup and waste
disposition:
Savannah River community 17,230 ............... ............... 15,000 -2,230 +15,000 +15,000
and regulatory support..
Site risk management
operations:
NM stabilization and 261,302 235,000 235,000 235,000 -26,302 ............... ...............
disposition.............
SNF stabilization and 28,327 40,137 40,137 40,137 +11,810 ............... ...............
disposition.............
Solid waste stabilization ............... 30,040 30,040 30,040 +30,040 ............... ...............
and disposition.........
Radioactive liquid tank 631,122 710,487 667,081 658,722 +27,600 -51,765 -8,359
waste stabilization and
disposition.............
PE&D Glass Waste Storage ............... ............... ............... 3,500 +3,500 +3,500 +3,500
Building #3.............
Construction:
05-D-405 Salt 234,403 170,071 170,071 170,071 -64,332 ............... ...............
waste processing
facility,
Savannah River..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, 865,525 880,558 837,152 832,293 -33,232 -48,265 -4,859
Radioactive
liquid tank
waste...........
Soil and water ............... 38,409 38,409 38,409 +38,409 ............... ...............
remediation.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Site risk 1,155,154 1,224,144 1,180,738 1,175,879 +20,725 -48,265 -4,859
management operations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Savannah River 1,172,384 1,224,144 1,180,738 1,190,879 +18,495 -33,265 +10,141
site..................
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant:
Operate WIPP................. ............... 228,926 220,000 147,000 +147,000 -81,926 -73,000
Central Characterization ............... ............... ............... 24,000 +24,000 +24,000 +24,000
Project.....................
Transportation............... ............... ............... ............... 29,000 +29,000 +29,000 +29,000
Undistributed funds...... 215,714 ............... ............... ............... -215,714 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Waste Isolation 215,714 228,926 220,000 200,000 -15,714 -28,926 -20,000
Pilot Plant...........
Program direction................ 320,006 321,628 316,948 321,628 +1,622 ............... +4,680
Program support.................. 21,101 ............... ............... 20,380 -721 +20,380 +20,380
Community, regulatory and program ............... 91,279 89,779 ............... ............... -91,279 -89,779
support.........................
Safeguards and Security.......... 247,781 248,826 248,826 252,019 +4,238 +3,193 +3,193
Safeguards and security...... ............... 248,826 248,826 ............... ............... -248,826 -248,826
Undistributed funds...... 247,781 ............... ............... ............... -247,781 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Safeguards and 495,562 497,652 497,652 252,019 -243,543 -245,633 -245,633
Security..................
Technology development........... 19,413 32,320 10,000 11,000 -8,413 -21,320 +1,000
Uranium enrichment D&D fund 33,633 ............... ............... ............... -33,633 ............... ...............
contribution....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Defense 5,239,419 5,658,988 5,189,826 5,002,308 -237,111 -656,680 -187,518
Environmental Clean up....
Use of prior year balances....... ............... -3,381 -3,381 ............... ............... +3,381 +3,381
Rescission....................... -11,900 ............... ............... ............... +11,900 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, DEFENSE 5,227,519 5,655,607 5,186,445 5,002,308 -225,211 -653,299 -184,137
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN UP....
======================================================================================================================
OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
Health, safety and security:
Health, safety and security.. ............... 349,445 332,039 335,436 +335,436 -14,009 +3,397
Program direction............ ............... 107,037 99,369 102,000 +102,000 -5,037 +2,631
Undistributed funds...... 426,933 ............... ............... ............... -426,933 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Health, safety 426,933 456,482 431,408 437,436 +10,503 -19,046 +6,028
and security..........
Office of Legacy Management:
Legacy management............ 159,117 157,514 155,014 157,154 -1,963 -360 +2,140
Program direction............ 12,504 12,586 12,086 12,586 +82 ............... +500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Office of Legacy 171,621 170,100 167,100 169,740 -1,881 -360 +2,640
Management................
Defense-related activities:
Infrastructure:
Idaho sitewide safeguards 77,550 98,500 93,350 93,350 +15,800 -5,150 ...............
and security............
Defense related administrative 106,240 118,836 118,000 114,332 +8,092 -4,504 -3,668
support.........................
Office of hearings and appeals... 6,076 4,142 4,142 4,142 -1,934 ............... ...............
Acquisition workforce improvement ............... 11,892 ............... ............... ............... -11,892 ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Other Defense 788,420 859,952 814,000 819,000 +30,580 -40,952 +5,000
Activities................
Rescission....................... -3,400 ............... ............... ............... +3,400 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE 785,020 859,952 814,000 819,000 +33,980 -40,952 +5,000
ACTIVITIES................
======================================================================================================================
TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY 16,535,059 18,228,157 16,614,476 16,898,608 +363,549 -1,329,549 +284,132
DEFENSE ACTIVITIES........
======================================================================================================================
POWER MARKETING
ADMINISTRATIONS\1\
SOUTHEASTERN POWER
ADMINISTRATION:
Operation and maintenance:
Purchase power and 85,264 114,870 114,870 114,870 +29,606 ............... ...............
wheeling................
Program direction........ 7,638 8,428 8,428 8,428 +790 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operation and 92,902 123,298 123,298 123,298 +30,396 ............... ...............
maintenance...........
Less alternative financing -14,458 -14,708 -14,708 -14,708 -250 ............... ...............
(PPW).......................
Offsetting collections....... -78,444 -108,590 -108,590 -108,590 -30,146 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
ADMINISTRATION............
======================================================================================================================
SOUTHWESTERN POWER
ADMINISTRATION:
Operation and maintenance:
Operating expenses....... 14,918 14,346 14,346 14,346 -572 ............... ...............
Purchase power and 48,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 +2,000 ............... ...............
wheeling................
Program direction........ 27,432 31,889 31,889 31,889 +4,457 ............... ...............
Construction............. 6,386 10,772 10,772 10,772 +4,386 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operation and 96,736 107,007 107,007 107,007 +10,271 ............... ...............
maintenance...........
Less alternative financing... -13,818 -21,997 -21,997 -21,997 -8,179 ............... ...............
Offsetting collections....... -69,868 -73,118 -73,118 -73,118 -3,250 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER 13,050 11,892 11,892 11,892 -1,158 ............... ...............
ADMINISTRATION............
======================================================================================================================
WESTERN AREA POWER
ADMINISTRATION:
Operation and maintenance:
Construction and 109,887 110,449 110,449 110,449 +562 ............... ...............
rehabilitation..........
Operation and maintenance 50,526 72,863 72,863 72,863 +22,337 ............... ...............
Purchase power and 542,510 471,535 471,535 471,535 -70,975 ............... ...............
wheeling................
Program direction........ 171,582 205,247 205,247 205,247 +33,665 ............... ...............
Utah mitigation and 7,569 3,375 3,375 3,375 -4,194 ............... ...............
conservation............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operation and 882,074 863,469 863,469 863,469 -18,605 ............... ...............
maintenance...........
Less alternative financing... -271,895 -266,207 -266,207 -266,207 +5,688 ............... ...............
Offsetting collections -349,807 -306,541 -306,541 -306,541 +43,266 ............... ...............
(Public Law 108-477, Public
Law 109-103)................
Offsetting collections -3,879 -4,821 -4,821 -4,821 -942 ............... ...............
(Public Law 98-381).........
Offsetting collections (for ............... -156,609 -156,609 -156,609 -156,609 ............... ...............
program direction)..........
Offsetting collections (for ............... -33,323 -33,323 -33,323 -33,323 ............... ...............
O&M)........................
Offsetting collections (for -147,530 ............... ............... ............... +147,530 ............... ...............
program direction, O&M).....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER 108,963 95,968 95,968 95,968 -12,995 ............... ...............
ADMINISTRATION............
======================================================================================================================
FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND
MAINTENANCE FUND:
Operation and maintenance.... 3,715 4,169 4,169 4,169 +454 ............... ...............
Offsetting collections....... -3,495 -3,949 -3,949 -3,949 -454 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, FALCON AND AMISTAD 220 220 220 220 ............... ............... ...............
O&M FUND..................
======================================================================================================================
TOTAL, POWER MARKETING 122,233 108,080 108,080 108,080 -14,153 ............... ...............
ADMINISTRATIONS...........
======================================================================================================================
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Federal Energy Regulatory 298,000 304,600 304,600 304,600 +6,600 ............... ...............
Commission......................
FERC revenues.................... -298,000 -304,600 -304,600 -304,600 -6,600 ............... ...............
GENERAL PROVISION
Section 309--Contractor Pay
Freeze:
Non-Security................. ............... ............... ............... -46,400 -46,400 -46,400 -46,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, General Provisions.. ............... ............... ............... -46,400 -46,400 -46,400 -46,400
======================================================================================================================
GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF 25,838,957 30,932,628 24,970,872 25,548,976 -289,981 -5,383,652 +578,104
ENERGY....................
(Total amount (26,533,587) (31,173,960) (25,141,204) (25,930,676) (-602,911) (-5,243,284) (+789,472)
appropriated).........
(Rescissions).......... (-694,630) (-241,332) (-170,332) (-381,700) (+312,930) (-140,368) (-211,368)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Totals include alternative financing costs, reimbursable agreement funding, and power purchase and wheeling expenditures. Offsetting collection
totals reflect funds collected for annual expenses, including power purchase and wheeling.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
The following list of general provisions is recommended by
the Committee. The recommendation includes several provisions
which have been included in previous Energy and Water
Appropriations Acts and new provisions as follows:
Section 301. Language is included on unexpended balances.
Section 302. Language is included on user facilities.
Section 303. Language is included specifically authorizing
intelligence activities pending enactment of the fiscal year
2012 Intelligence Authorization Act.
Section 304. The Committee has included a provision related
to 5-year budgeting.
Section 305. The Committee has included language related to
loan guarantee co-pay.
Section 306. Language is included related to the minor
construction threshold.
Section 307. The Committee has included language related to
minor construction threshold.
Section 308. The Committee has included a provision on
mandatory funding.
Section 309. Language is included related to contractor pay
freeze.
Section 310. The Committee has included a provision on
lighting standards.
Section 311. The Committee has included a provision on the
barter of uranium.
Section 312. The Committee has included a provision on the
use of metering stations.
TITLE IV
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Appalachian Regional Commission
Appropriations, 2011.................................... $68,263,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 76,000,000
House allowance......................................... 68,400,000
Committee recommendation................................ 58,024,000
Established in 1965, the Appalachian Regional Commission is
an economic development agency composed of 13 Appalachian
States and a Federal co-chair appointed by the President. For
fiscal year 2012, the Committee recommends $58,024,000 for the
ARC.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2011.................................... $23,203,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 29,130,000
House allowance......................................... 29,130,000
Committee recommendation................................ 29,130,000
The Committee recommends $29,130,000, for the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. The Committee carries a
provision requiring the Board to enter into an agreement with
an inspector general office from another agency for such
services.
Delta Regional Authority
Appropriations, 2011.................................... $11,677,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 13,000,000
House allowance......................................... 11,700,000
Committee recommendation................................ 9,925,000
For the Delta Regional Authority, the Committee recommends
$9,925,000. The Delta Regional Authority was established to
assist the eight State Mississippi Delta Region in obtaining
basic infrastructure, transportation, skills training, and
opportunities for economic development.
Denali Commission
Appropriations, 2011.................................... -$4,321,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 11,965,000
House allowance......................................... 10,700,000
Committee recommendation................................ 9,077,000
The Denali Commission is a Federal-State partnership
responsible for promoting infrastructure development, job
training, and other economic development services in rural
areas throughout Alaska. For fiscal year 2012, the Committee
recommends $9,077,000.
Northern Border Regional Commission
Appropriations, 2011.................................... $1,497,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 1,500,000
House allowance......................................... 1,350,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,275,000
The Committee recommends $1,275,000 for the Northern Border
Regional Commission.
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission
Appropriations, 2011.................................... $250,000
Budget estimate, 2012...................................................
House allowance......................................... 250,000
Committee recommendation................................ 212,500
The Committee recommends $212,500 for the Southeast
Crescent Regional Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2011.................................... $1,043,208,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 1,027,240,000
House allowance......................................... 1,037,240,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,027,240,000
REVENUES
Appropriations, 2011.................................... -$906,220,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... -899,726,000
House allowance......................................... -890,713,000
Committee recommendation................................ -899,726,000
NET APPROPRIATION
Appropriations, 2011.................................... $136,988,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 127,514,000
House allowance......................................... 146,527,000
Committee recommendation................................ 127,514,000
The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission for fiscal year 2012 is $1,027,240,000. This amount
is offset by estimated revenues of $899,726,000 resulting in a
net appropriation of $127,514,000.
National Academy of Sciences Study.--At the recommendation
of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, the
Committee directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to contract
with the National Academy of Sciences [NAS] for a study of the
lessons learned from the Fukushima nuclear disaster. The study
should assess:
--the causes of the crisis at Fukushima;
--the lessons that can be learned;
--the lessons' implications for conclusions reached in
earlier NAS studies on the safety and security of
current storage arrangements for spent nuclear fuel and
high-level waste in the United States, including an
assessment of whether the amount of spent fuel
currently stored in reactor pools should be reduced;
--the lessons' implications for commercial nuclear reactor
safety and security regulations; and
--the potential to improve design basis threats assessment.
This study shall build upon the 2004 NAS study of storage
issues and complement the other efforts to learn from Fukushima
that have already been launched by the NRC and industry. The
Committee directs the Commission to proceed with its own
efforts to improve regulations as expeditiously as possible.
From the funds made available to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, the Committee directs the Commission to transfer
$2,000,000 to the National Academy of Sciences to undertake
this study. The Committee expects the Commission to execute
this transfer within 30 days of enactment of this act. The
study should be conducted in coordination with the Department
of Energy and, if possible, the Japanese Government. The
Committee expects the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the
Department of Energy, and the Department of State to assist the
National Academy of Sciences in obtaining the information it
needs to complete this study in a timely manner.
Beyond Design-basis Events.--In light of recent earthquakes
that exceeded the design basis of nuclear power plants in both
Japan and the United States, the Committee encourages the
Commission to evaluate whether it would be appropriate for the
Commission to oversee, evaluate and test licensee beyond-
design-basis event management guidelines and mitigation
strategies in a more comprehensive manner, especially with
regard to seismic and flooding events.
Mitigating the Impact of Earthquakes.--The Committee is
concerned that risks to public health and safety exist due to a
lack of understanding how critical nuclear energy
infrastructure, particularly storage ponds and containers for
spent nuclear fuel and waste, will respond to a catastrophic
earthquake or kinetic impact event. The Committee directs the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC] to develop protocols for
the use of existing domestic seismic testing facilities,
including the National Science Foundation's National Earthquake
Engineering Simulation [NEES] program, to conduct tests on
full-scale specimens of critical nuclear infrastructure, in
order to validate related computer models and inform subsequent
mitigation strategies. The NRC shall collaborate with NEES to
submit a related plan and proposed budget to the Committee by
January 23, 2012.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
GROSS APPROPRIATION
Appropriations, 2011.................................... $10,858,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 10,860,000
House allowance......................................... 10,860,000
Committee recommendation................................ 10,860,000
REVENUES
Appropriations, 2011.................................... -$9,774,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... -9,774,000
House allowance......................................... -9,774,000
Committee recommendation................................ -9,774,000
NET APPROPRIATION
Appropriations, 2011.................................... $1,084,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 1,086,000
House allowance......................................... 1,086,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,086,000
The Committee recommends a net appropriation of $1,086,000.
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
Appropriations, 2011.................................... $3,883,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 3,400,000
House allowance......................................... 3,400,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,400,000
The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board was established to
evaluate the scientific and technical validity of the
Department of Energy's nuclear waste disposal program. The
Board reports its findings no fewer than two times a year to
Congress and to the Secretary of Energy. For fiscal year 2012,
the Committee recommends $3,400,000.
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation
Projects
Appropriation, 2011..................................... $4,457,000
Budget estimate, 2012................................... 4,032,000
House allowance......................................... 4,032,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,000,000
The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural
Gas Transportation Projects was established as an independent
agency in the executive branch on December 13, 2006. The
Committee recommends $1,000,000. The Committee notes that only
one joint venture is still pursuing the design and construction
of a natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the Lower 48. This
joint venture continues with extensive financial support from
the State of Alaska. The Committee further notes that the
Office of the Federal Coordinator is legally allowed to receive
funding from the companies for its work. The Committee urges
the agency to take greater advantage of this potential funding
source as the work of the agency directly benefits the
companies.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 401. The Committee carries a provision related to
spent nuclear fuel.
Section 402. The Committee carries a provision related to
design basis.
TITLE V
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The following list of general provisions are recommended by
the Committee.
Section 501. The provision prohibits the use of any funds
provided in this bill from being used to influence
congressional action.
Section 502. The provision addresses transfer authority
under this act.
Program, Project and Activity
In fiscal year 2012, for purposes of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177),
as amended, the following information provides the definition
of the term ``program, project of activity'' for departments
and agencies under the jurisdiction of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriation bill. The term ``program, project or
activity'' shall include the most specific level of budget
items identified in the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Bill, 2012 and the report accompanying the bill.
If a sequestration order is necessary, in implementing the
Presidential order, departments and agencies shall apply any
percentage reduction required for fiscal year 2012 pursuant to
the provisions of Public Law 99-177 to all item specified in
the report accompanying the bill by the Senate Committee on
Appropriations in support of the fiscal year 2012 budget
estimates as modified by congressional action.
TITLE VI
EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR DISASTER RELIEF
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Natural disasters have impacted a large part of the Nation
this year. The Committee recognizes that some of these
disasters are on-going such as the flood on the Missouri River
as well as the flooding and devastation caused by Hurricane
Irene in late August and early September. The Corps of
Engineers has dutifully attempted to provide the Committee with
information concerning damaged Federal flood control, storm
damage, navigation and other infrastructure associated with
these Federal projects as waters recede and the damages can be
assessed. The funding provided under this title represents the
verifiable damages provided by the Corps. The Committee
recognizes that as the waters recede and additional damage
assessments are made, that funding needs will increase. Those
needs as they become known and verifiable will be addressed by
the Committee at a later date. These funds are not earmarked
and the Corps should utilize them for the highest priority
disaster needs.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES
The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project has suffered
a record flood event, in many cases surpassing the 1927 and
1937 floods. For only the second time ever and the first time
since 1937, the Corps has had to operate the Birds Point-New
Madrid Floodway. Because of the rarity of the use of this
floodway, there is no structure to open or close. The Corps had
to literally blow up sections of the levee in order to keep
from overtopping levees on the Mississippi River. This floodway
was designed as one of four floodways to help pass the project
design flood on the Mississippi River. Floodways at Morganza
and Bonnet Carre in Louisiana were operated as well to ensure
that levees were not overtopped in this reach of the river.
While these structures operated as planned, repairs will be
necessary. The Birds Point-New Madrid levee has to be rebuilt
as well as damages to the structures at Morganza and Bonnet
Carre due to high flows and scouring. Numerous navigation
structures that provide reliable navigation widths and depths
on the Mississippi River were damaged by these unprecedented
flows. Seepage under and through levees caused damages to the
levees. Bank protection measures were impacted as well as
tremendous amounts of silt deposited in navigable harbors.
Recreation facilities were, in some cases, obliterated by the
torrent of water that inexorably raged downstream.
All of these damages must be repaired if the Mississippi
River and Tributaries project is to provide similar protection
for future events. The Committee has included $890,177,300 to
allow the Corps to address these repairs. Lessons learned from
prior disasters should be put to use in making these repairs as
expeditiously as possible. The Committee has also included
language directing a report of the allocation and obligation of
these funds within 60 days of enactment of this act.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Projects that are part of the Mississippi River and
Tributaries project were not the only items damaged by flood
events. The flood on the Mississippi River moved tremendous
amounts of sediment downstream clogging harbors and navigation
channels. This sediment will have to be removed to restore the
authorized widths and depths to these projects. Corps
infrastructure has been damaged by high flows and scouring.
Repairs to these facilities will have to be made if they are to
provide similar functions in the future. The Committee has
included $88,003,700 to allow the Corps to address these
repairs. Lessons learned from prior disasters should be put to
use in making these repairs as expeditiously as possible. The
Committee has also included language directing a report of the
allocation and obligation of these funds within 60 days of
enactment of this act.
FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES
The Corps participated in many flood fights alongside
numerous local and State agencies. Most of these were
successful. However, on the Missouri River, a few levees have
failed that protect primarily agricultural lands. These levees
will have to be rebuilt. Damages to levees and structures that
are part of the Federal levee system that experienced damages
due to seepage and erosion will have to be repaired if these
levees are to reliably protect the areas from the next high
water event. The Corps must take actions necessary to ensure
that they are prepared for the inevitable natural disasters of
the future. The Committee has included $66,387,000 for the
Corps to address these repairs and for other activities related
to responding and preparing for natural disasters. Lessons
learned from prior disasters should be put to use in making
these repairs as expeditiously as possible. The Committee has
also included language directing a report of the allocation and
obligation of these funds within 60 days of enactment of this
act.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on
general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment
to the House bill ``which proposes an item of appropriation
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously
passed by the Senate during that session.''
The Committee recommends funding for the following programs
or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal
year 2012:
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: General Investigations;
Construction, General; Mississippi River and Tributaries;
Operations and Maintenance; Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial
Action Program;
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation;
Water and Related Resources;
Department of Energy: Energy Conservation and Supply
Activities:
Office of Fossil Energy: Fossil Energy R&D, Clean Coal,
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Research;
Health, Safety and Security;
Non-Defense Environmental Management;
Office of Science;
Department of Administration;
National Nuclear Security Administration: Weapons
Activities; Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation; Naval Reactors;
Office of the Administrator;
Defense Environmental Management, Defense Site Acceleration
Completion;
Other Defense Activities;
Defense Nuclear Waste Fund;
Office of Security and Performance Assurance;
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;
Power Marketing Administrations: Southeastern,
Southwestern, Western Area; and
Energy Information Administration.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(c), RULE XXVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on September 7,
2011, the Committee ordered favorably reported en bloc the
fiscal year 2012 budget allocation a proposed by the Chairman,
and a bill (H.R. 2112) making appropriations for Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2012, and for other purposes, with an amendment in the nature
of a substitute; a bill (H.R. 2354) making appropriations for
energy and water development and related agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes,
with an amendment in the nature of a substitute; and a bill
(H.R 2017) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland
Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for
other purposes, with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute; provided, that each bill be subject to further
amendment and that each bill be consistent with its spending
allocations, by a recorded vote of 29-1, a quorum being
present. The vote was as follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairman Inouye Mr. Johnson (WI)
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson (SD)
Ms. Landrieu
Mr. Reed
Mr. Lautenberg
Mr. Nelson
Mr. Pryor
Mr. Tester
Mr. Brown
Mr. Cochran
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Shelby
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Alexander
Ms. Collins
Ms. Murkowski
Mr. Graham
Mr. Kirk
Mr. Coats
Mr. Blunt
Mr. Moran
Mr. Hoeven
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by
the Committee.''
In compliance with this rule, changes in existing law
proposed to be made by the bill are shown as follows: existing
law to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is
printed in italic; and existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman.
TITLE 16--CONSERVATION
Chapter 12H--Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation
Sec. 839B. REGIONAL PLANNING AND PARTICIPATION
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(h) Fish and wildlife
(1)(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(10)(A) * * *
(B) The Administrator may make expenditures from
such fund which shall be included in the annual or
supplementary budgets submitted to the Congress
pursuant to the Federal Columbia River Transmission
System Act [16 U.S.C. 838 et seq.]. Any amounts
included in such budget for the construction of capital
facilities with an estimated life of greater than 15
years and an estimated cost of at least [$1,000,000]
$5,000,000 shall be funded in the same manner and in
accordance with the same procedures as major
transmission facilities under the Federal Columbia
River Transmission System Act.
------
TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
Chapter 149--National Energy Policy and Programs
Subchapter XV--Incentives for Innovative Technologies
Sec. 16512. Terms and conditions
(a) In general
Except for division C of Public Law 108-324 [15 U.S.C.
720 et seq.], the Secretary shall make guarantees under
this or any other Act for projects on such terms and
conditions as the Secretary determines, after
consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, only
in accordance with this section.
[(b) Specific appropriation or contribution
[No guarantee shall be made unless--
[(1) an appropriation for the cost has been
made; or
[(2) the Secretary has received from the
borrower a payment in full for the cost of the
obligation and deposited the payment into the
Treasury.]
[(b) Specific Appropriation or Contribution.--
[(1) In general.--
[(A) an appropriation for the cost of the
guarantee has been made;
[(B) the Secretary has received from the
borrower a payment in full for the cost of the
guarantee and deposited the payment into the
Treasury; or
[(C) a combination of one or more
appropriations under subparagraph (A) and one
or more payments from the borrower under
subparagraph (B) has been made that is
sufficient to cover the cost of the guarantee.]
(b) Specific appropriation or contribution.--
(1) In general.--No guarantee shall be made
unless.--
(A) an appropriation for the cost of the
guarantee has been made;
(B) the Secretary has received from the
borrower a payment in full for the cost of the
guarantee and deposited the payment into the
Treasury;
(C) a combination of one or more
appropriations under subparagraph (A) and one
or more payments from the borrower under
subparagraph (B) has been made that is
sufficient to cover the cost of the guarantee.
* * * * * * *
------
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1996, PUBLIC LAW 104-303
TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
SEC. 333. PASSAIC RIVER, NEW JERSEY.
Section 1148 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(100 Stat. 4254) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 1148. PASSAIC RIVER BASIN.
``(a) Acquisition of Lands.--The Secretary may acquire from
willing sellers lands on which residential structures are
located and that are subject to frequent and recurring flood
damage, as identified in the supplemental floodway report of
the Corps of Engineers, Passaic River Buyout Study, September
1995, at an estimated total cost of $194,000,000.
``[(b) Retention of Lands for Flood Protection.--Lands
acquired by the Secretary under this section shall be retained
by the Secretary for future use in conjunction with flood
protection and flood management in the Passaic River Basin.]
(b) Disposition of Acquired Land.--The Secretary may
transfer land acquired under this section to the non-Federal
sponsor by quitclaim deed subject to such terms and conditions
as the Secretary determines to be in the public interest.
``(c) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of
carrying out this section shall be 25 percent plus any amount
that might result from application of subsection (d).
``(d) Applicability of Benefit-Cost Ratio Waiver
Authority.--In evaluating and implementing the project under
this section, the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal
interest to participate in the financing of the project in
accordance with section 903(c), to the extent that the
Secretary's evaluation indicates that applying such section is
necessary to implement the project.''.
(e) Funds for Land Acquisition.--Funds for acquiring such
lands as are necessary in carrying out the requirements of this
section and requirements as further recommended by the
Secretary shall include funds as provided in subsection (c) and
(d) of this section herein and also funds as previously
appropriated with any and all such funds to be held by the
Secretary for use in acquiring the requisite lands in
proportion to the project cost sharing percentages.
------
WATER DESALINATION ACT, 1996, PUBLIC LAW 104-298
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Section 3.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out section 3 of this Act $5,000,000 per year for fiscal
years 1997 through [2011] 2016. Of these amounts, up to
$1,000,000 in each fiscal year may be awarded to institutions
of higher education, including United States-Mexico binational
research foundations and interuniversity research programs
established by the two countries, for research grants without
any cost-sharing requirement.
(b) Section 4.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out section 4 of this Act [$25,000,000 for fiscal years
1997 through 2011] $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2012
through 2016.
------
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT, 2000, PUBLIC LAW 106-541
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 529. LAS VEGAS, NEVADA.
(a) Definitions.-- * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Participation in Project.-- * * *
(1) In general.-- * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated [$20,000,000] $30,000,000
to carry out this section.
------
FARM SECURITY AND RURAL INVESTMENT ACT, 2002, PUBLIC LAW 107-171
TITLE II--CONSERVATION
Subtitle F--Other Conservation Programs
SEC. 2507. DESERT TERMINAL LAKES.
(a) Transfer.-- * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Permitted Uses.--[In any case in which there are
willing sellers] For the benefit of at-risk natural desert
terminal lakes and associated riparian and watershed resources,
in any case in which there are willing sellers or willing
participants, the funds described in subsection (a) may be
used--
(1) to lease water;
(2) to purchase land, water appurtenant to the
land, and related interests [in the Walker River Basin
in accordance with section 208(a)(1)(A) of the Energy
and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public
Law 109-103; 119 Stat. 2268)]; and
(3) for efforts consistent with researching,
supporting, andconserving fish, wildlife, plant, and
habitat resources [in the Walker River Basin].
------
OMNIBUS PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT ACT, 2009, PUBLIC LAW 111-11
TITLE X--WATER SETTLEMENTS
Subtitle A--San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement
PART I--SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION SETTLEMENT ACT
SEC. 10009. APPROPRIATIONS; SETTLEMENT FUND.
(a) Implementation Costs.-- * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Fund.--
(1) In General.-- * * *
* * * * * * *
(2) Availability.--All funds deposited into the
Fund pursuant to subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of
paragraph (1) are authorized for appropriation to
implement the Settlement and this part, in addition to
the authorization provided in subsections (a) and (b)
of section 10203, except that $88,000,000 of such funds
are available for expenditure without further
appropriation; provided that after [October 1, 2019,
all funds in the Fund shall be available for
expenditure without further appropriation.] October 1,
2014, all funds in the Fund shall be available for
expenditure on an annual basis in an amount not to
exceed $40,000,000 without further appropriation.
------
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS, 2010,
PUBLIC LAW 111-85
TITLE II
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
General Provisions--Department of the Interior
Sec. 208. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b)(1) The amount made available under subsection (a)(1)
shall be--
(A) * * *
(B) allocated as follows:
(i) * * *
* * * * * * *
(iv) $10,000,000 for associated
conservation and stewardship activities,
including water conservation and management,
watershed planning, land stewardship, habitat
restoration, and the establishment of a local,
nonprofit entity to hold and [exercise water
rights] manage land, water appurtenat to the
land, and related interests acquired by, and to
achieve the purposes of, the Walker Basin
Restoration Program.
* * * * * * *
(2)(A) [The amount made available under subsection
(a)(1) shall be provided to the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation] Any amount made available to the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation under subsection
(a) shall be provided--
BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
AMENDED
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays
---------------------------------------------------
Committee Amount of Committee Amount of
allocation bill allocation bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations
to its subcommittees of amounts in the Budget Resolution
for 2012: Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development:
Mandatory............................................... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Discretionary........................................... 31,625 32,670 45,071 \1\45,838
Security............................................ 11,050 11,050 NA NA
Nonsecurity......................................... 20,575 21,620 NA NA
Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:
2012.................................................... ........... ........... ........... \2\19,500
2013.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 9,315
2014.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 3,038
2015.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 580
2016 and future years................................... ........... ........... ........... 181
Financial assistance to State and local governments for NA 71 NA 15
2012.......................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
NA: Not applicable.
Consistent with the funding recommended in the bill for disaster funding and in accordance with section
251(b)(2)(D) of the BBEDCA and section 106 of the Deficit Control Act of 2011, the Committee anticipates that
the Budget Committee will file a revised section 302(a) allocation for the Committee on Appropriations
reflecting an upward adjustment of $1,045,000,000 in budget authority plus associated outlays.
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2012
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation compared with (+
or -)
Item 2011 Budget estimate House allowance Committee --------------------------------------------------
appropriation recommendation 2012
appropriation Budget estimate House allowance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Investigations................... 126,746 104,000 104,000 125,000 -1,746 +21,000 +21,000
Construction..................... 1,789,822 1,480,000 1,615,191 1,610,000 -179,822 +130,000 -5,191
Rescission................... -176,000 ............... -50,000 ............... +176,000 ............... +50,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 1,613,822 1,480,000 1,565,191 1,610,000 -3,822 +130,000 +44,809
Mississippi River and tributaries 263,906 210,000 210,000 250,000 -13,906 +40,000 +40,000
Rescission................... -22,000 -23,000 ............... ............... +22,000 +23,000 ...............
Rescission of emergency ............... -35,000 ............... ............... ............... +35,000 ...............
funding (Sec. 105)..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 241,906 152,000 210,000 250,000 +8,094 +98,000 +40,000
Operations and maintenance....... 2,365,759 2,314,000 2,368,925 2,360,000 -5,759 +46,000 -8,925
Regulatory program............... 189,620 196,000 196,000 193,000 +3,380 -3,000 -3,000
FUSRAP........................... 129,740 109,000 109,000 109,000 -20,740 ............... ...............
Flood control and coastal ............... 27,000 27,000 27,000 +27,000 ............... ...............
emergencies.....................
Expenses......................... 184,630 185,000 177,640 185,000 +370 ............... +7,360
Office of Assistant Secretary of 4,990 6,000 5,000 5,000 +10 -1,000 ...............
the Army (Civil Works)..........
======================================================================================================================
Total, title I, Department 4,857,213 4,573,000 4,762,756 4,864,000 +6,787 +291,000 +101,244
of Defense--Civil.........
Appropriations......... (5,055,213) (4,631,000) (4,812,756) (4,864,000) (-191,213) (+233,000) (+51,244)
Rescissions............ (-198,000) (-23,000) (-50,000) ............... (+198,000) (+23,000) (+50,000)
Rescissions of ............... (-35,000) ............... ............... ............... (+35,000) ...............
emergency funding.....
======================================================================================================================
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
Central Utah Project Completion
Account
Central Utah project construction ............... 29,441 25,154 25,441 +25,441 -4,000 +287
Fish, wildlife, and recreation ............... 2,000 2,000 2,000 +2,000 ............... ...............
mitigation and conservation.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... ............... 31,441 27,154 27,441 +27,441 -4,000 +287
Program oversight and ............... 1,550 1,550 1,550 +1,550 ............... ...............
administration..................
Undistributed funding level...... 31,940 ............... ............... ............... -31,940 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Central Utah project 31,940 32,991 28,704 28,991 -2,949 -4,000 +287
completion account........
Bureau of Reclamation
Water and related resources...... 911,673 805,187 822,300 885,670 -26,003 +80,483 +63,370
Central Valley project 49,914 53,068 53,068 53,068 +3,154 ............... ...............
restoration fund................
California Bay-Delta restoration. 39,920 39,651 35,928 39,651 -269 ............... +3,723
Policy and administration........ 61,078 60,000 60,000 60,000 -1,078 ............... ...............
Indian water rights settlements.. ............... 51,483 ............... ............... ............... -51,483 ...............
San Joaquin restoration fund..... ............... 9,000 ............... ............... ............... -9,000 ...............
Rescission................... ............... ............... -66,000 ............... ............... ............... +66,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... ............... 9,000 -66,000 ............... ............... -9,000 +66,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Bureau of 1,062,585 1,018,389 905,296 1,038,389 -24,196 +20,000 +133,093
Reclamation...............
======================================================================================================================
Total, title II, Department 1,094,525 1,051,380 934,000 1,067,380 -27,145 +16,000 +133,380
of the Interior...........
======================================================================================================================
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Energy Programs
Energy efficiency and renewable 1,825,641 3,200,053 1,308,436 1,795,641 -30,000 -1,404,412 +487,205
energy..........................
Rescission................... -30,000 ............... ............... ............... +30,000 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 1,795,641 3,200,053 1,308,436 1,795,641 ............... -1,404,412 +487,205
Electricity delivery and energy 144,710 237,717 139,496 141,010 -3,700 -96,707 +1,514
reliability.....................
Rescission................... -3,700 ............... ............... ............... +3,700 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 141,010 237,717 139,496 141,010 ............... -96,707 +1,514
Nuclear energy................... 732,124 754,028 733,633 583,834 -148,290 -170,194 -149,799
Rescission................... -6,300 ............... ............... ............... +6,300 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 725,824 754,028 733,633 583,834 -141,990 -170,194 -149,799
Fossil energy research and 584,529 452,975 476,993 445,471 -139,058 -7,504 -31,522
development.....................
Rescission................... -140,000 ............... ............... -187,000 -47,000 -187,000 -187,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 444,529 452,975 476,993 258,471 -186,058 -194,504 -218,522
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale 22,954 14,909 14,909 14,909 -8,045 ............... ...............
Reserves........................
Rescission................... -2,100 ............... ............... ............... +2,100 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 20,854 14,909 14,909 14,909 -5,945 ............... ...............
Strategic petroleum reserve...... 209,441 192,704 192,704 192,704 -16,737 ............... ...............
Rescission................... -86,300 -71,000 ............... ............... +86,300 +71,000 ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 123,141 121,704 192,704 192,704 +69,563 +71,000 ...............
SPR petroleum account............ ............... -250,000 -500,000 -500,000 -500,000 -250,000 ...............
Clean coal technology -16,500 ............... ............... ............... +16,500 ............... ...............
(rescission)....................
Northeast home heating oil 10,978 10,119 10,119 10,119 -859 ............... ...............
reserve.........................
Rescission................... ............... -100,000 -100,000 -100,000 -100,000 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 10,978 -89,881 -89,881 -89,881 -100,859 ............... ...............
Energy Information Administration 95,409 123,957 105,000 105,000 +9,591 -18,957 ...............
Rescission................... -400 ............... ............... ............... +400 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 95,009 123,957 105,000 105,000 +9,991 -18,957 ...............
Non-defense environmental clean 224,350 219,121 254,121 219,121 -5,229 ............... -35,000
up..............................
Rescission................... -900 ............... ............... ............... +900 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 223,450 219,121 254,121 219,121 -4,329 ............... -35,000
Uranium enrichment 506,984 504,169 449,000 429,000 -77,984 -75,169 -20,000
decontamination and
decommissioning fund............
Rescission................... -9,900 ............... ............... ............... +9,900 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 497,084 504,169 449,000 429,000 -68,084 -75,169 -20,000
Science.......................... 4,857,665 5,416,114 4,800,000 4,842,665 -15,000 -573,449 +42,665
Rescission................... -15,000 ............... ............... ............... +15,000 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 4,842,665 5,416,114 4,800,000 4,842,665 ............... -573,449 +42,665
Nuclear Waste Disposal........... ............... ............... 25,000 ............... ............... ............... -25,000
Rescission................... -2,800 ............... ............... ............... +2,800 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... -2,800 ............... 25,000 ............... +2,800 ............... -25,000
Advanced Research Projects Agency- 179,640 550,011 179,640 250,000 +70,360 -300,011 +70,360
Energy..........................
Innovative Technology Loan 58,000 38,000 38,000 38,000 -20,000 ............... ...............
Guarantee Program...............
Offsetting collection........ -58,000 -38,000 -38,000 -38,000 +20,000 ............... ...............
Loan volume rescission....... -181,830 ............... ............... ............... +181,830 ............... ...............
Additional loan volume....... 11,830 360,000 ............... ............... -11,830 -360,000 ...............
Federal participation in ............... 500,000 ............... ............... ............... -500,000 ...............
Title 17 loan guarantee
projects....................
Additional subsidy cost...... 169,660 200,000 160,000 200,000 +30,340 ............... +40,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... -340 1,060,000 160,000 200,000 +200,340 -860,000 +40,000
Advanced technology vehicles 9,978 6,000 6,000 6,000 -3,978 ............... ...............
manufacturing loans program.....
Better buildings pilot loan
guarantee initiative:
Loan guarantees.............. ............... 100,000 ............... ............... ............... -100,000 ...............
Administrative costs......... ............... 5,000 ............... ............... ............... -5,000 ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... ............... 105,000 ............... ............... ............... -105,000 ...............
Departmental administration...... 250,139 240,623 63,374 237,623 -12,516 -3,000 +174,249
Miscellaneous revenues....... -119,501 -111,883 -111,883 -111,883 +7,618 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net appropriation.......... 130,638 128,740 -48,509 125,740 -4,898 -3,000 +174,249
Rescission................... -81,900 ............... ............... ............... +81,900 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 48,738 128,740 -48,509 125,740 +77,002 -3,000 +174,249
Office of the Inspector General.. 42,764 41,774 41,774 41,774 -990 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Energy programs..... 9,181,665 12,596,391 8,248,316 8,615,988 -565,677 -3,980,403 +367,672
Atomic Energy Defense Activities
National Nuclear Security
Administration
Weapons activities............... 6,946,398 7,629,716 7,131,993 7,190,000 +243,602 -439,716 +58,007
Rescission................... -50,000 -40,332 -40,332 ............... +50,000 +40,332 +40,332
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 6,896,398 7,589,384 7,091,661 7,190,000 +293,602 -399,384 +98,339
Defense nuclear nonproliferation. 2,318,653 2,549,492 2,121,770 2,404,300 +85,647 -145,192 +282,530
Rescission................... -45,000 -30,000 -30,000 -21,000 +24,000 +9,000 +9,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 2,273,653 2,519,492 2,091,770 2,383,300 +109,647 -136,192 +291,530
Naval reactors................... 960,176 1,153,662 1,030,600 1,100,000 +139,824 -53,662 +69,400
Rescission................... -1,000 ............... ............... ............... +1,000 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 959,176 1,153,662 1,030,600 1,100,000 +140,824 -53,662 +69,400
Office of the Administrator...... 398,993 450,060 400,000 404,000 +5,007 -46,060 +4,000
Rescission................... -5,700 ............... ............... ............... +5,700 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 393,293 450,060 400,000 404,000 +10,707 -46,060 +4,000
General Provision
Section 309--Contractor pay
freeze:
Security (rescission)........ ............... ............... ............... -27,300 -27,300 -27,300 -27,300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, National Nuclear 10,522,520 11,712,598 10,614,031 11,050,000 +527,480 -662,598 +435,969
Security Administration...
Environmental and Other Defense
Activities
Defense environmental cleanup.... 4,991,638 5,406,781 4,937,619 5,002,308 +10,670 -404,473 +64,689
(Transfer to Uranium (-33,633) ............... ............... ............... (+33,633) ............... ...............
enrichment decontamination
and decommissioning fund)...
Rescission................... -11,900 ............... ............... ............... +11,900 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 4,979,738 5,406,781 4,937,619 5,002,308 +22,570 -404,473 +64,689
Other defense activities......... 788,420 859,952 814,000 819,000 +30,580 -40,952 +5,000
Rescission................... -3,400 ............... ............... ............... +3,400 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 785,020 859,952 814,000 819,000 +33,980 -40,952 +5,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Environmental and 5,764,758 6,266,733 5,751,619 5,821,308 +56,550 -445,425 +69,689
other defense activities..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Atomic Energy 16,287,278 17,979,331 16,365,650 16,871,308 +584,030 -1,108,023 +505,658
Defense Activities........
Power Marketing
Administrations\1\
Operation and maintenance, 78,444 8,428 8,428 8,428 -70,016 ............... ...............
Southeastern Power
Administration..................
Offsetting collections....... -78,444 -8,428 -8,428 -8,428 +70,016 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Operation and maintenance, 82,918 45,010 45,010 45,010 -37,908 ............... ...............
Southwestern Power
Administration..................
Offsetting collection........ -69,868 -33,118 -33,118 -33,118 +36,750 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 13,050 11,892 11,892 11,892 -1,158 ............... ...............
Construction, rehabilitation, 610,179 285,900 285,900 285,900 -324,279 ............... ...............
operation and maintenance,
Western Area Power
Administration..................
Offsetting collections....... -497,337 -189,932 -189,932 -189,932 +307,405 ............... ...............
Offsetting collection -3,879 ............... ............... ............... +3,879 ............... ...............
Colorado River Dam Fund.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 108,963 95,968 95,968 95,968 -12,995 ............... ...............
Falcon and Amistad operating and 2,568 4,169 4,169 4,169 +1,601 ............... ...............
maintenance fund................
Offsetting collections....... -2,348 -3,949 -3,949 -3,949 -1,601 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 220 220 220 220 ............... ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Power Marketing 122,233 108,080 108,080 108,080 -14,153 ............... ...............
Administrations...........
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
Salaries and expenses............ 298,000 304,600 304,600 304,600 +6,600 ............... ...............
Revenues applied................. -298,000 -304,600 -304,600 -304,600 -6,600 ............... ...............
General Provision
Section 309--Contractor pay
freeze:
Non security (rescission).... ............... ............... ............... -46,400 -46,400 -46,400 -46,400
======================================================================================================================
Total, title III, 25,591,176 30,683,802 24,722,046 25,548,976 -42,200 -5,134,826 +826,930
Department of Energy......
Appropriations......... (26,285,806) (30,925,134) (24,892,378) (25,930,676) (-355,130) (-4,994,458) (+1,038,298)
Rescissions............ (-694,630) (-241,332) (-170,332) (-381,700) (+312,930) (-140,368) (-211,368)
======================================================================================================================
TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Appalachian Regional Commission.. 68,263 76,000 68,400 58,024 -10,239 -17,976 -10,376
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 23,203 29,130 29,130 29,130 +5,927 ............... ...............
Board...........................
Delta Regional Authority......... 11,677 13,000 11,700 9,925 -1,752 -3,075 -1,775
Denali Commission................ 10,679 11,965 10,700 9,077 -1,602 -2,888 -1,623
Rescission................... -15,000 ............... ............... ............... +15,000 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... -4,321 11,965 10,700 9,077 +13,398 -2,888 -1,623
Northern Border Regional 1,497 1,500 1,350 1,275 -222 -225 -75
Commission......................
Southeast Crescent Regional 250 ............... 250 213 -37 +213 -37
Commission......................
Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
Salaries and expenses........ 1,043,208 1,027,240 1,037,240 1,027,240 -15,968 ............... -10,000
Revenues..................... -906,220 -899,726 -890,713 -899,726 +6,494 ............... -9,013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 136,988 127,514 146,527 127,514 -9,474 ............... -19,013
Office of Inspector General.. 10,858 10,860 10,860 10,860 +2 ............... ...............
Revenues..................... -9,774 -9,774 -9,774 -9,774 ............... ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 1,084 1,086 1,086 1,086 +2 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Nuclear Regulatory 138,072 128,600 147,613 128,600 -9,472 ............... -19,013
Commission................
Nuclear Waste Technical Review 3,883 3,400 3,400 3,400 -483 ............... ...............
Board...........................
Office of the Federal Coordinator 4,457 4,032 4,032 1,000 -3,457 -3,032 -3,032
for Alaska natural gas
transportation proj- ects......
======================================================================================================================
Total, title IV, 246,981 267,627 276,575 240,644 -6,337 -26,983 -35,931
Independent agencies......
Appropriations......... (261,981) (267,627) (276,575) (240,644) (-21,337) (-26,983) (-35,931)
Rescissions............ (-15,000) ............... ............... ............... (+15,000) ............... ...............
======================================================================================================================
TITLE V--EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL
FUNDING FOR
DISASTER RELIEF
Corps of Engineers--Civil:
Construction, fiscal year ............... ............... 376 ............... ............... ............... -376
2011 (emergency)............
Mississippi River and ............... ............... 589,505 ............... ............... ............... -589,505
tributaries, fiscal year
2011 (emergency)............
Operation and maintenance, ............... ............... 204,927 ............... ............... ............... -204,927
fiscal year 2011 (emergency)
Flood control and coastal ............... ............... 233,876 ............... ............... ............... -233,876
emergencies, fiscal year
2011 (emergency)............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Corp of ............... ............... 1,028,684 ............... ............... ............... -1,028,684
Engineers--Civil..........
Transfer from title XII, Public ............... ............... -1,028,684 ............... ............... ............... +1,028,684
Law 111-5 (emergency)...........
Rescission of emergency ............... ............... -471,316 ............... ............... ............... +471,316
appropriations (Public Law 111-
5)..............................
======================================================================================================================
Total, Title V, Emergency ............... ............... -471,316 ............... ............... ............... +471,316
supplemental for disaster
relief....................
Emergency ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
appropriations........
Rescissions of ............... ............... (-471,316) ............... ............... ............... (+471,316)
emergency
appropriations........
TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR
DISASTER RELIEF
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Mississippi River and tributaries ............... ............... ............... 890,177 +890,177 +890,177 +890,177
(disaster relief category)......
Operations and maintenance ............... ............... ............... 88,004 +88,004 +88,004 +88,004
(disaster relief category)......
Flood control and coastal ............... ............... ............... 66,387 +66,387 +66,387 +66,387
emergencies (disaster relief
category).......................
======================================================================================================================
Total, Title VI, Emergency ............... ............... ............... 1,044,568 +1,044,568 +1,044,568 +1,044,568
supplemental for disaster
relief....................
======================================================================================================================
Grand total................ 31,789,895 36,575,809 30,224,061 32,765,568 +975,673 -3,810,241 +2,541,507
Appropriations......... (32,697,525) (36,875,141) (30,981,709) (32,102,700) (-594,825) (-4,772,441) (+1,120,991)
Disaster relief ............... ............... ............... (1,044,568) (+1,044,568) (+1,044,568) (+1,044,568)
category..............
Rescissions............ (-907,630) (-264,332) (-286,332) (-381,700) (+525,930) (-117,368) (-95,368)
Rescissions of ............... (-35,000) (-471,316) ............... ............... (+35,000) (+471,316)
emergency
appropriations........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Totals adjusted to net out alternative financing costs, reimbursable agreement funding, and power purchase and wheeling expenditures. Offsetting
collection totals only reflect funds collected for annual expenses, excluding power purchase wheeling.