seas, and notwithstanding a certain presidential candidate, exports
are vital to this country's future. Whether it is out of your district
or other surrounding States, 50 percent of GDP growth since 1986
has been due to exports, imports or exports-related activity.
Now that these larger ships are plying the ocean and now that
industrialization has moved further West so that you have got
ships going up to the Suez Canal and into the Southeast, Charles-
ton is particularly well-poised and particularly competitive. We
need help with the deepening.
Thank you for your time, sir.
[The statement of Mr. Sanford follows:]
The Grand Strand Beach Nourishment Project and South Carolina Port
Remarks by the Honorable Mark Sanford
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
February 28. 1996
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask that my written statement be included in the record.
1 am here to talk about a significant portion of the district that I represent. South Carolina's
Grand Strand, that contains both national and regional interests. Tliis area is a cluster of
popular coastal communities that covers two counties and stretches 30 miles south from the
North Carolina border. Myrtle Beach is the anchor community, but the smaller,
neighboring coastal towns have their share of residents and visitors.
Storms and day-to-day erosion have drastically depleted the Grand Strand beaches. In
many areas there is no beach at high tide or even at low tide.
The US Army Corps of Engineers has designed and is executing the Grand Strand beach
nourishment project. The project's price tag is $54 million, and after the fiscal year of
1997, 83% of the federal share will be completed. The federal government will contribute
$35 million, and local and state governments will contribute a total of $19
million. This money will pay for the nourishment of 25 miles of beaches with over 5
million cubic yards of sand.
My pledge of fiscal conservatism and responsible use of our economic resources is one of
the primary reasons the citizens of my state sent me to Washington. Beach nourishment is
not the solution to all of this nation's erosion woes, but this federal, state, and local
partnership makes sense here in South Carolina for several reasons.
â€¢ For one, beach nourishment will work here. The beaches of the Grand Strand
are stable; the average erosion rate is one foot per year. Beaches with high erosion
rates are not good candidates for beach nourishment.
â€¢ Secondly, the state has a responsible coastal zone management program in
place, one that has been rated number one in the country. We are doing a good job
managing our coastal resources. Beach damaging erosion control structures are
banned; reasonable ocean front setbacks are required; and beach nourishment is
â€¢ Grand Strand beaches represent an important portion of South
Carolina's economic resources. South Carolina's second largest business is
tourism, and the Grand Strand accounts for a full one-third of this industry. Grand
Strand tourism is an economic powerhouse, helping our state create more businesses,
and even more importantly, new jobs.
â€¢ The state and local governments are sharing in the cost. While many
government programs are being cut, beach nourishment is recognized as a wise
investment and has the support of our citizens and elected officials.
Page 2 of 3
This plan will lower the contingent liability of the government with
respect to its Federal Flood Insurance Program. According to Corps of
Engineers estimates, this project will have an average $15.5 million annual benefit in terms
of damage reduction. A good example of this benefit was an '87 storm in Myrtle Beach
which caused damages of $260.()0() to $760,000 per mile in unnourished beach areas and
only $40,000 per mile in nourished beach areas.
To fully understand this project, you have to understand the Grand Strand and the
tremendous, positive tlnancial impact Grand Strand beaches have on South Carolina's
economy. The popularity of South Carolina's coast has increased greatly in the past 15
years, making it our fastest growing region. The vacation industry is expanding rapidly, as
are the benefits we reap from this enterprise.
â€¢ In 1995, visitors to the Grand Strand spent $ 2.5 billion, which amounted to a
statewide impact of $6 billion.
â€¢ The Grand Strand tourism industry employs over 97,000 people who
collectively earn an annual paycheck of $1.3 bilUon.
â€¢ Grand Strand tourism generated $139 miUion in state taxes in 1994, and there
was a 12.5 % increase in this figure for 1995. This makes the Grand Strand
one of the most significant pillars of our economy.
â€¢ This productivity should continue. Robust growth in the '70s and '80s has
earned the Grand Strand a visitor base large enough to support new attractions
and other forms of tourism-related business development
The essential focus of this tourism industry is the Grand Strand beaches. The restaurants,
entertainment facilities, and golf courses of the area add to the allure, but the beach is the
central draw. Unfortunately, these beaches are in trouble. While our new coastal policies
address this problem, for the time being, we have to live with the older buildings, the
seawalls, the rock revetments and the troubles these structures bring. The Grand Strand's
major attraction is washing away.
This erosion problem also costs the federal government money. Ocean front construction
represents billions of investment dollars. After a minor hurricane, ocean front damages can
cost a million dollars per mile to repair and rebuild. Since all of this property is insured
through the federally sponsored flood insurance program, federal tax dollars are used every
time a hurricane or brisk winter storm sweeps through.
The combination of a wide beach and a strong coastal zone management program is the
only way we can protect our natural resources, our growing tourism industry, and federally
insured ocean front construction.
South Carolina is doing its part Tougher state laws are now on the books. Private
property rights and the rights of the public to a healthy beach are given equal consideration.
These laws require that destroyed structures be rebuilt on the landward side of the property,
size of structures, and prohibit the type of erosion control devices which often actually
South Carolina and its citizens have spent over $50 million in the past fifteen years on
private and pubUc beach nourishment projects throughout the coastal zone. TTie Grand
Strand beach nourishment project would close the outstanding gap in South Carolina's
coastal management program.
Page 3 of 3
The project officially began in 1994. In the first year. $3 million wa.s appropriated from
the federal government and $10.5 million from the state of South Carolina. The Corps has
fmalized its plans, and is completing the process of securing easements for ocean front
property owners. This is time consuming, but sand could be on our beaches by the winter
of 1996 for the first vmo reaches. We need $13 million in the federal government's 1997
budget to continue with the Corps' plan.
The dredging of the Charleston and Georgetown Harbors is a vital function that is also
provided by the Army Corps of Engineers. These two ports provide 78,000 jobs for the
area. These jobs resulted in $2.2 billion dollars in personal income, and $257.6 million in
corporate, property, sales, excise and personal income tax revenues. Of South Carolina's
$8.9 billion in sales revenue, $8.1 billion was attributed to the port users. The figures have
not been officially released for the 1997 budget, but in 1995 the total cost of dredging the
Georgetown and Charleston Harbors was $2.8 million and $4.2 million respectively. This
is obviously a small price to pay for the return in tax dollars as well as jobs and revenue
created by the port activities.
The Port of Charleston received funds to deepen its harbor in 1986 from 35 to 40 feet, and
the port flourished as a result From 1987 to 1994, Custom's receipts in the Charleston
district were over $3 billion. Since that time the port has continued to grow significantly
with the ongoing efforts to deepen the Charleston harbor again. It is very clear that the
return from this investment is going to more than justify this proposal. These
improvements are necessary in order to sustain the growth of this port that benefits not only
my district, but also the exporters throughout South CaroUna. As you might know
exporters have a +60 % advantage in Charleston.
The Port of Charleston needs to continue to be deepened to keep up with newer and larger
container ships. The new ships draw 41-46 feet of water, and this proposal will deepen the
harbor from 40 feet to 45 feet. This program cost is unknown at this time, but the cost is to
be a shared cost with non-federal dollars picking up around 35% of die total. This should
be viewed as a basic maintenance cost on what is a national resource that creates jobs as
well as revenues for the federal treasury.
Mr. Knollenberg. Thank you.
Gentlemen, we appreciate the testimony. And I appreciate the
I guess in terms of comparable size, if you were to compare
Charleston to Savannah in terms of the capacity currently and
what the expected potential is, would you have any comment on
Mr. Sanford. Charleston is the second largest container port in
the entire East Coast, second only to the combined wards of New
York and New Jersey â€” Newark and New York. So it is significantly
larger in size because of the containerization. There is much more
break-bulk trsiffic in and out of Savannah. Charleston is a contain-
Mr. Knollenberg. In terms of nuclear waste, and I think one
of the previous testifiers mentioned that, that has not happened
yet, but Charleston was not considered?
Mr. Sanford. No, Charleston is going â€” DOE has said that they
are going to bring it through Charleston. Charleston is their choice,
which, again, when you are measuring the whole notion of equaliz-
ing the basket, we hope that we â€” again, that is not your basket but
I hope it will be taken into consideration.
Mr. Knollenberg. Thank you, gentlemen.
Thank you very kindly.
Mr. Sanford. Yes, sir.
Wednesday, February 28, 1996.
WEST COLUMBUS FLOODWALL PROJECT
HON. DEBORAH PRYCE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Knollenberg. We are going to deviate slightly, and in terms
of getting on into the bottom part of this morning's session, we
have got Congresswoman Deborah Pryce from Ohio. So it is appro-
priate for her now, if she would, to come forward and we will ac-
cept her testimony.
So Congresswoman Pryce.
Ms. Pryce. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, gentle-
men of the committee. It is a pleasure for me to be here.
This committee and staff is very familiar with this project be-
cause I have been here before, and I thank you for the opportunity
to appear again in support of the West Columbus Flood Wall
The Flood Wall Project continues to be critically important to the
City of Columbus, Ohio. I testified in the past about severe damage
done to my fair city by the floods of 1913, 1937 and 1959, when
the Scioto River overflowed its banks and these disasters resulted
in millions of dollars in damage to commercial and residential
property, destruction of homes and businesses and the loss of
many, many lives.
Today, Columbus continues to face the same threat of flooding.
And each winter and spring the combined effects of snow and rain-
fall raise serious concerns, and especially this year when we have
seen so much of it in other parts of the Nation.
The proposal to construct the flood wall in Columbus had its gen-
esis in 1970 when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
preauthorization studies to consider the problem. Following con-
gressional authorizations in 1988 and 1990, groundbreaking for the
initial phase of the Dry Run Levee took place in 1993. The project
has advanced a very long way since then, and I am pleased to re-
port the City of Columbus and the Army Corps dedicated Phase I
of the Dry Run Levee in October of 1995.
This initial construction will strengthen the existing Dry Run
Levee and install a flow control structure on the city sanitary sew-
ers to prevent excess sanitary flows into the protected area during
any flooding. Construction of Phase I B of the Dry Run Levee is
underway and proceeding on schedule for completion by the fall of
1996. Proposals for construction of Phase II A, which extends the
flood wall significantly, will be reviewed in March and construction
will be underway by this summer.
Design work and real estate acquisition have already been com-
pleted for Phase II B and contracts will be awarded by this sum-
mer with construction to begin soon thereafter. Phase II B will in-
clude construction of a new storm sewer pumping station in Dodge
Park to accommodate interior drainage from the flood protected
area. The remaining portions of Phase II are in various stages of
To date, the flood wall construction has proceeded on schedule
and reflected very smooth coordination between the Army Corps of
Engineers and the City of Columbus. Substantial progress has been
made for protecting Columbus, but there is much more to be done.
And I urge your support for the $11.4 million included in the Presi-
dent's fiscal 1997 budget request for continued construction of the
West Columbus Flood Wall.
This construction is critical to ensure protection from future
flooding. There are 4,000 homes, 370 businesses, 26 industrial and
institutional structures situated in this downtown area, including
a 498-bed Mount Carmel Hospital, the Central Ohio Transit Au-
thority, bus garage, et cetera, et cetera.
Completion of the flood wall construction will directly benefit
businesses and residents of the entire City of Columbus, and both
the city and State will have firmly supported this project for many,
Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, I appreciate
the opportunity to be here and would provide answers to any of
Mr. Knollenberg. Any questions for Congresswoman Pryce?
I guess there are none, so we can discharge you at this point. We
appreciate your coming before the committee and providing that
Ms. Pryce. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time.
Mr. Knollenberg. Thank you.
Wednesday, February 28, 1996.
CORPS OF ENGINEERS PROGRAMS
YVONNE ARCENEAUX, COUNCIL MEMBER, THIRD DISTRICT, CITY OF
Mr. Knollenberg. Now we want to bring up the representative
from the City of Compton, California.
I don't know, Mr. Fazio, if that is near you.
Mr. Fazio. Well, California is a big State and we are really at
the other end, but we are glad to have Compton represented. They
don't have a Member of Congress at the moment and we look for-
ward to that problem being resolved shortly, but we would cer-
tainly want to be helpful.
Mr. Knollenberg. We didn't get your name. Would you kindly
introduce yourself and your colleague?
Ms. Arceneaux. My name is Yvonne Arceneaux, Council Person
of the Third District, City of Compton, and this is the City Man-
ager, Howard Caldwell.
Mr. Knollenberg. Very good.
You are recognized.
Ms. Arceneaux. Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommit-
tee, I am Yvonne Arceneaux, Third District Councilwoman for the
City of Compton, California. I want to thank you for the oppor-
tunity to provide testimony on behalf of the city concerning the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers involvement in Compton on the
Mr. Chairman, today I come before the subcommittee in hopes of
resolving a long-standing issue that is critical â€” that is of critical
importance to the people of Compton. Within the city's boundaries
of Compton lies the Compton Creek Channel, a tributary to the Los
Angeles River and part of the Los Angeles County Drainage Area.
Maintenance of the creek has been the responsibility of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and the L.A. County Department of Pub-
lic Works. Over the past several years, a portion of the creek under
the maintenance and supervision of the Corps has deteriorated to
such a state that it now poses a direct threat to the ecological envi-
ronment and the City of Compton and the neighboring commu-
Nearly 10 years of undermaintenance, coupled with intermittent
seasonal flows and unrestrained dumping has let the Corps-man-
aged portion of the channel with accumulated sediment, debris, a
thick mat of non-woody, weedy and monocot vegetation. The sedi-
ments and vegetative shoaling have threatened the channel's de-
sign ability to carry high flow to the L.A. River.
During January 1995, as a result of these circumstances,
stormwater overlapped the channel banks, causing flooding in sev-
eral areas surrounding lower Compton Creek. In addition to envi-
ronmental hazards, the city was also concerned with the creek's ad-
verse effect on economic conditions and health and safety of the
Many residents have legitimate concerns about potential de-
crease in their property value. Due to the inadequate flood control.
the infestation of rodents in the portion of the creek where there
is vegetative shoaling has proven to be a proven problem â€” a par-
ticular problem for economic development near the creek.
The accommodated debris and vegetation has also harbored un-
sanitary conditions in the creek. In addition to becoming a feeding
ground for mosquitoes and rodents, it has also become a dumping
ground for dead animals, abandoned cars and other waste.
In 1994, the city attempted to rally the community to try to clean
portions of the creek. The cleanup had to be cut short because
the overpowering stench from the channel had caused problems
for many of the residents, including Omar Bradley, the Compton
Mayor, He became very, very ill after trjdng to clean up that canal
with a number of other residents during that time.
In the spring of 1995, the city combined efforts with a local envi-
ronmental group, and that was the Friends of the L.A. River, once
again to attempt to clean up the portions of the creek. There was
a significant show of support by city residents but the energy, the
trash bags and the garden tools were not enough to tackle this ar-
In 1987, the city has sought to work with the Los Angeles Dis-
trict Army Corps of Engineers in an effort to clean up the creek.
From day one, the Army Corps of Engineers has accepted the re-
sponsibility to clean up their portion of the creek. However, while
it is true the Corps has proven â€” ^provided maintenance in the area
over this period of time, it has proven to be insufficient and ineffec-
In the fiscal year 1994, funds had been provided for the removal
of the vegetation and debris from the creek but the monies were
deferred to repair flood damage to the Corps' project in Arizona.
In 1994, with the help of various Members of Congress, the city
was able to facilitate a meeting between the Corps and the county
to establish a comprehensive plan that would provide for a major
one-time clean-up of the sediment and shoaling, and for an ade-
quate ongoing maintenance operation of the creek.
Officials from both sides acknowledged the need for a clean-up
and agreed the facilitation of the clean-up should begin imme-
diately. Three months later, following the flooding in January, a
scope of work was put together by the Corps identifying their ap-
proach to clean up the sediment and vegetation shoaling. Seven
months passed before the city heard from the Corps regarding the
environmental assessment. The assessment also called for a major
clean-up of the creek to ensure proper flood control and to reduce
health and environmental risks. Another 3 months after this as-
sessment, tests â€” assessment, tests of the sediment for the Corps
portion of the creek revealed yet another problem, hazardous traces
Mr. Chairman, the city is at its wit's end. It is in this vein that
we are asking that the committee provide $500,000 and to direct
the Corps of Engineers to perform a major one-time clean-up of the
creek sediment and vegetative shoaling and to work with the city
to establish an adequate ongoing maintenance program. It is
Compton's intent to work with the Corps to achieve a desirable re-
sult. With the committee's help, I believe it can be â€” it can happen.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony.
I again thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
and I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
[The statement of Ms. Arceneaux follows:]
Council Member, Third District
The City of Compton
The United States House of Representatives
Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Energy and Water
February 28, 1996
Mr. Chainnan, Mr.Bevill, and other Members of the subcommittee, I am Yvomie
Arceneaux, Third District Councilwoman from the City of Compton, California. I want
to thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the City concerning the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' involvement with the Compton Creek. Joining me this
morning is Mr. Howard Caldwell, the City Manager of Compton.
Before discussing the issue of Compton Creek, I first would like to add my name to the
list of persons who are saddened by the departure of both you and the ranking member at
the end of this session. On behalf of the City of Compton, I want to congratulate you
both for your dedication and service to the subcommittee and for promoting a just,
bipartisan approach to the appropriations process. The City wishes you and Mr. Bevill
much success in your future endeavors.
Mr. Chairman, The City of Compton is a strong, resilient community fifteen miles south
of downtown Los Angeles, with a solid heritage spanning 107 years. These 107 years
have brought the winds of change and sometimes adversity, but the citizens of Compton
have displayed a remarkable ability to overcome each hardship with new resolve and
determination. Many outside our city are unfamiliar with the full breadth of our story.
Some orJy remember Compton as being one of the areas that experienced civil imrest
following the Rodney King trial; while others identify the City only with crime and gang
activity. There is, however, another side to the story. The vast majority of Compton's
91,000 residents are hardworking, law-abiding citizens who are dedicated to uplifting the
community. Their actions have left an indelible impression on the fabric and structure of
the City. As a result of this type of commimity involvement, Compton has experienced a
reduction in violent crime and gang-related activity in recent years. Moreover, the year
following the civil unrest, Compton was named as one of the top 25 large metropolitan
submarkets in the United States for economic development.
Mr. Chairman, today, I come before the subcommittee in hopes of resolving a long-
standing issue that is of critical importance to the people of Compton. Within the city
boundaries of Compton lies the Compton Creek channel, a tributary to the Los Angeles
River and part of the Los Angeles County Drainage Area. Maintenance of the Creek has
been the responsibility of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the L.A. County
Department of Public Works. Over the past several years, the portion of the Creek xmder
the maintenance supervision of the Corps has deteriorated to such a state that it now
poses a direct threat to the ecological environment of the City of Compton and
Nearly ten years of undermaintenance, coupled with intermittent seasonal flows and
imrestrained dumping, has left the Corps-managed portion of the channel with
accumulated sediments, debris and a thick mat of non-woody, weedy and monocot
vegetation. These sediments and vegetative shoaling have threatened the chaimel's
design ability to carry high flows to the L.A. River. During January 1995, as a result of
these circumstances, stormwater overlapped the channel banks, causing flooding in
several areas siirroimding lower Compton Creek. In addition to enviroimiental hazards,
the City is also concerned with the creek's adverse effect on economic conditions and the
health and safety of the surrounding neighborhoods. Many residents have legitimate
concerns about a potential decrease in their property values, due to the inadequate flood