United States. Congress. House. Committee on Appro.

Energy and water development appropriations for 1996 : hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session (Volume Part 3) online

. (page 1 of 75)
Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. House. Committee on ApproEnergy and water development appropriations for 1996 : hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session (Volume Part 3) → online text (page 1 of 75)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


yy ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
^ ^ APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1996




I 4,AP 6/1: EN 2/2/996/
PT. 3

Energy and Hater Developiie**H*fprop. . . f'M'r^Q

< -l'''^'"7 BEFORE A

^lij SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

r^ COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION



SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT

JOHN T. MYERS, Indiana, Chairman

^^9iB.?5^^^' Kentucky TOM BEVILL. Alabama

i2!v^°^^^^^^^' Michigan VIC FAZIO. California

FRANK RIGGS, California JIM CHAPMAN Texas

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN. New Jersey ^"^«iaxm. lexas

JIM BUNN, Oregon

'*?^^^" m"" ^"r^ ^"'.f^**'- L'^"88ton. as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Obey. a« Ranking
Mmonty Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees

James D. Ogsbury, Bob Schmidt, and Jeanne Wilson, Staff Assistants

PART 3

Appalachian Regional Commission 1

Tennessee Valley Authority Ig7

Bureau of Reclamation 311

Testimony of the Secretary of the Interior ."...!.!!.!..!.!..."." 311

Delaware River Basin Commission 871

Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin ..... 903

Susquehanna River Basin Commission 921



Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations



Ml



8



mi



ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1996



HEARINGS

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION



SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT

JOHN T. MYERS, Indiana, Chairman

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky TOM BEVILL, Alabama

JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan VIC FAZIO, California

FRANK RIGGS, California jm CHAPMAN, Texas

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey
JIM BUNN, Oregon

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr Livingston, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr Obey, as Ranking
Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.

James D. Ogsbury, Bob Schmidt, and Jeanne Wilson. Staff Assistants



PART 3

Page

Appalachian Regional Commission 1

Tennessee Valley Authority 167

Bureau of Reclamation 311

Testimony of the Secretary of the Interior 311

Delaware River Basin Commission 871

Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 903

Susquehanna River Basin Commission 921



Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations



U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
90-067 O WASHINGTON : 1995



For .sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-047144-3



90-067 O— 9.>



COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
BOB LIVINGSTON, Louisiana, Chairman



JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania

JOHN T. MYERS, Indiana

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida

RALPH REGULA, Ohio

JERRY LEWIS, California

JOHN EDWARD PORTER, IlUnois

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky

JOE SKEEN, New Mexico

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia

TOM Delay, Texas

JIM KOLBE, Arizona

BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada

JIM LIGHTFOOT, Iowa

RON PACKARD, California

SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama

JAMES T. WALSH, New York

CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina

DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio

ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma

HENRY BONILLA, Texas

JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan

DAN MILLER, Florida

JAY DICKEY, Arkansas

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia

FRANK RIGGS, CaUfomia

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN. New Jersey

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi

MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York

GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., Washington

JIM BUNN, Oregon

MARK W. NEUMANN, Wisconsin



DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin

SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois

LOUIS STOKES, Ohio

TOM BEVILL, Alabama

JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania

CHARLES WILSON, Texas

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington

MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota

JULIAN C. DIXON, California

VIC FAZIO, California

W. G. (BILL) HEFNER. North Carolina

STENY H. HOYER, Maryland

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois

RONALD D. COLEMAN, Texas

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia

JIM CHAPMAN, Texas

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio

DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado

NANCY PELOSI, CaUfornia

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana

THOMAS M. FOGLIETTA, Pennsylvania

ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES, CaUfornia

NITA M. LOWEY, New York

RAY THORNTON, Arkansas



James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director



(II)



ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996



Tuesday, February 28, 1995.
APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

WITNESSES

JESSE L. WHITE, JR., FEDERAL CO-CHAIRMAN

BRERETON JONES, GOVERNOR, KENTUCKY, STATES' CO-CHAIRMAN

THOMAS M. HUNTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

MICHAEL WENGER, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GOVERNORS

Mr. Myers. The committee will come to order.

And we are proud and happy today to have the ARC with us. Mr.
Chairman, your entire prepared statement will be in the record,
but if you would like, you may proceed and introduce your associ-
ates.

Opening Statement — Jesse White

Mr. White. Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members
of the committee for this opportunity for us to come testify on be-
half of the administration's budget request and to tell you what we
think is a very proud story about the success of a unique agency
under your purview, the Appalachian Regional Commission.

I am particularly pleased to be joined in testimony today by our
State partners at the commission represented by the State cochair-
man. Governor Jones of Kentucky. I am always pleased to be with
him. He has been an outstanding State cochairman this year and
I know you look forward to hearing from him.

In addition, I guess for the first time to be introduced to the Con-
gress, is our relatively new Executive Director of the Commission,
Tom Hunter, who moved up from Tennessee about six months ago.
And Tom heads the program staff of the Appalachian Regional
Commission.

Mr. Myers. Governor, we are pleased to have you once again.

Mr. White. I am also pleased that Governor Jones can be here
because, for the last three years, the administration, of course, has
given its strong support to the Appalachian Regional Commission
and our State partners and the 13 governors have joined in support
of the administration request.

So we are pleased to be here singing from the same song sheet
today, Mr. Chairman.

As most of you know, the Appalachian Regional Commission was
created in 1965 as a result of a visit first to President Kennedy and
then to President Johnson by the Appalachian governors. It was a

(1)



gubernatorial initiative, and Congress responded by creating in
1965 the Appalachian Regional Development Act.

The Congress found that it was, in fact, in the national interest,
even though there were only parts of 13 States served, to bring
these communities and these people, to the table of the American
economy, and to make them contributors to the national resources
rather than drains upon them.

Congress wisely, I think, and in a very farsighted way created
two aspects to our program. One is the Appalachian regional devel-
opment highway system authorizing some 3,000 miles, because
Congress found that, in fact, the interstate highways had largely
bypassed the mountains both because of low traffic count and the
high cost of construction. Congress further found that a region
apart, a region isolated could never participate in the American
economy and so it authorized this special highway program.

It is now 75 percent complete, and I would personally like to add
my word of praise to the courage of Congress through the last 30
years in keeping faith with the people of Appalachia in building
this highway system because it has, in many cases, been quite ex-
pensive.

Congress also found that highways were a necessary but not suf-
ficient condition of economic development and, therefore, created
the other side of our program which we call the area development
program. Congress found that communities also need the other
building blocks leading to economic development such as health, in-
frastructure, education, training, housing, and business develop-
ment; and it created a very broad statute that lets us get involved
at the Commission in a broad spectrum of development activities,
the ultimate goal of which, of course, is to make self-sustaining
economies and independent rather than dependent people.

Congress did this through a unique structure called the Appa-
lachian Regional Commission, which we like to say is a unique crit-
ter in town. We are the only true Federal-State partnership in
which the Federal representative — which I am honored to be, ap-
pointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate — has half
the votes on the Commission. The 13 governors have the other half.

As far as we can tell, we are the only program ever created by
Congress in which the Federal official does not have the final au-
thority over the program. Congress appropriates the money to the
Commission and not a dime can be spent nor any regulation issued
until the Federal cochairman and a majority of the governors reach
consensus. And so we say this is neither dictating policy from
Washington to the States nor is it abdicating policy to the States
but calls on us to be a true collaboration.

In addition, the States underwrite half of the administrative cost
of the ARC and that, along with other efficiencies, has meant that
our administrative budget has been less than 3 percent of our ap-
propriated funds over the 30-year history of the agency. Over 90
percent of our money goes into the communities.

We think Congress was wise in also building into our program
wide flexibility. The governors have broad authority in how the
money will be used in his or her State. The breadth of our program
and the fact that it is a regional agency means that we can attack



problems on an interstate rather than a State-by-State basis. I will
say a little bit more about that in a moment.

Finally, we were set up to be supplemental to other Federal
agencies and not duplicative. Our entire staff is only 50 people and
many of our programs are in fact administered by other Federal
agencies. We were seen as the glue money to enable poor commu-
nities to participate in other Federal programs.

In terms of our budget, Mr. Chairman, this year I will just give
you the higWights. The President is requesting $183 million which
is $99 million less than our appropriated level for this year— a 35
percent reduction, and a $4 million reduction over the administra-
tion request for this year.

And so, on the one hand, we think we are doing our part in tight-
ening the belt in these troubled times, but also we think $183 mil-
lion would sustain a viable program.

In terms of these two sides of the house that I mentioned a mo-
ment ago, first the highway side. There are 3,028 miles authorized
by Congress in the Appalachian highway system. 2,275 are either
open to traffic or under contract. 752 remain to be completed.

Our request this year for highways is $90 million, which is a $10
million reduction from the request last year and a $99 million re-
duction from the appropriated levels but, again, we feel like this
$90 million is a viable amount. It will allow us to put about 45
miles under contract, 50 miles purchased right-of-way, and 30
miles for completion of design.

The other side of the house is area development, and there we
are requesting $82 million which is almost a $6 million increase
over this year's request and appropriated levels. Area development
money is spent in the areas of physical development— which is
mostly infrastructure, water, and sewer, and so forth; human re-
source development— education, training, health, and other
projects; and business development— such as the creation of indus-
trial parks, business incubators, technology transfer systems busi-
ness networks and so forth.

As you will see, the drift of the Clinton administration budget
has been to move more toward balance between the highway side
and the nonhighway side. Our request this year would be $90 mil-
lion for highways and $84 million for area development and we are
moving in that direction for two reasons. First of all, when Con-
gress enacted ISTEA, most of our roads were brought under the
National Highway System and, therefore. States can now build the
Appalachian roads out of both the Highway Trust Fund and the
special Appalachian appropriation. And secondly, we feel the need
to pay more attention to these issues such as basic infrastructure
human resource development, and business development.

A study that was done a few years ago which related job creation
to the corridors found that there was a high correlation in northern
and southern Appalachia but a weak correlation in central Appa-
lachia suggesting to us that we need to emphasize the human re-
source development and the business development side of the equa-
tion. So we are moving to more balance there.

Also, in the nonhighway category, we were requesting a level
tunding of $5.3 million in support to our 69 local development dis-



tricts from which many of our projects arise. It is pretty much a
bottom-up process and also technical assistance.

I would also like to mention that this year, the Commission — as
I say, we have to sit with the governors and the Federal cochair-
man together — we voted to take $6.2 million off of the top of this
area development allocation which would normally go on a state-
by-state basis to fund what we consider to be three critical regional
initiatives.

These initiatives are international trade development, tele-
communications, and the development of leadership and social and
civic institutions at the community level. We are very excited about
these regional initiatives and we hope the Commission will con-
tinue to fund those in the future. Again, that comes out of the area
development money and I will be glad to say more about those in
the question and answer period.

The Appalachian Regional Commission, in short, has worked. It
has been a success story both in terms of our Federal-State model
where the governors are key players, also in terms of impact, Mr.
Chairman. The National Science Foundation a couple of years ago
funded a study — the ARC really didn't know it was going on — in
which these researchers went back to 1960 data and took the 397
counties originally in our program and found statistical twins to
those counties that were not inside ARC. From 1969 to 1991 they
traced the impact of the ARC investment and found that the Appa-
lachian counties grew 48 percent faster in total personal income, 5
percent faster in population, and 17 percent faster in per capita in-
come — the most rigorous study we have seen yet of the impact of
the ARC investment. These, however, are aggregate statistics, and
I would like to also say a word about the more human impact of
the ARC investment over the past 30 years.

The ARC has brought clean drinking water and sanitary sewer
systems to over 700,000 residents in our most distressed counties.
We have invested $16.5 million in revolving loan funds in all but
two of our States that have helped some 740 small businesses cre-
ate 8,000 permanent jobs. We have funded the building of 400 pri-
mary health care clinics that now serve over 4 million people, and
now there is some basic health care within 30 minutes of every citi-
zen of Appalachia.

We built some 700 vocational and technical schools that now
serve about 500,000 students a year. And in terms of education, we
have seen Appalachian adults over 25 move from 32 percent having
high school educations in 1965 to 68 percent today. And even more
heartening among young adults, 18 to 24, the percentage that have
high school educations now actually exceed the national average by
one point, so we thank you. It is a real success story.

The question might arise, if we have done so well, then why do
we need to stay in business? Has the job, in fact, not been com-
pleted? The truth of the matter is that Appalachia over the last 30
years has become a region of contrast and some of our areas have,
in fact, done very well and approached national norms in terms of
economic development. But much of our region still has not. And
so it is important, I think, to disaggregate the total statistics.

The northern and southern part of Appalachia has done very
well; central Appalachia remains severely distressed. In all of Ap-



palachia, there is also a difference between our metropolitan econo-
mies which are doing well, and the rural and small town economies
which are almost uniformly doing more poorly. In fact, we have 115
of our 399 counties that are classified as severely distressed. In
these 115 counties, the counties have two-thirds of national per
capita income; 150 percent of U.S. poverty; and 150 percent of U.S.
unemployment.

These 115 counties are eligible under commission policies for spe-
cial assistance. As a matter of fact, these 13 States also vote to
take 20 percent of the area development money off the top to target
our distressed counties and four of our 13 States stand aside be-
cause they don't have any distressed counties.

And so I commend this committee again, Mr. Chairman, with
keeping faith with the 20 million people of Appalachia through
these years. Many of them have been tough politically to build the
highways and put the education and training systems and business
development systems in place. The theme of my chairmanship has
been to create entrepreneurial communities and enterprising peo-
ple. What we strive for is to create self-sustaining economies and
independent rather than dependent people. And our ultimate vic-
tory, Mr. Chairman, is when we can come to you and say the ARC
is no longer needed.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Myers. Thank you.

Governor Jones. We are pleased to have you here today.

Governor Brereton Jones — Opening Statement

Governor JONES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a
pleasure to be here. I want to thank not only you but Ranking Mi-
nority Member Congressman Bevill. Difficult to use that Minority
term. But speaking of that, my very good friend for whom I have
unlimited respect. Congressman Rogers from Kentucky and other
Members of the committee, I very much appreciate this oppor-
tunity.

I have a very competent staff that has prepared some marvelous
remarks here and wonderful statistics and I think I could be daz-
zling if I read from this script, however it would seem that you
probably hear enough scripts read from day to day and I would just
like to try to tell you in my own words how important the Appa-
lachian Regional Commission is to what it is that each of you is
about.

You would not be in Congress if you didn't care about people.
You would not be going through the physical rigors of campaigns
and elections if you were not trying to accomplish things to help
people. And if ever there was a program that ought to be contin-
ued, quite frankly ought to be expanded, it is the Appalachian Re-
gional Commission because it really is a relationship between peo-
ple at the grassroots level where these programs start, which is, of
course, at the level where I think there is the greatest knowledge
of what needs to be done.

And it works its way up to the State House and then all the way
up to the Congress of the United States. And it is this cooperative



effort and this cooperative spirit that has allowed us to put to-
gether the statistics that I think are so important.

As you just heard Jesse White saying that as we are here today,
that in the group of people between 18 and 24, that we actually
have a higher education rate, a higher high school education rate
in Appalachia now than we do in the rest of America. And of course
that was not true at the very beginning.

And if you look at where investments have been made over these
last 30 years, you will see that it was primarily put together in
order to build water lines and sewer lines and to do those things
that would allow Appalachia to be able to help themselves. And we
have made great progress in that regard. And now we are begin-
ning to invest more in human capital.

I think you would agree with me that it is fundamentally impor-
tant to try to make certain that every American has indoor plumb-
ing, but it is even more important to make sure that they have a
good education. And then they will be able to provide their own
plumbing once we give them that education. So it is a combination
of these things which we must do.

And in Kentucky we have fought for and been able to build more
water lines and sewer lines and develop for business and more jobs
and help more people to have indoor plumbing. We have also fo-
cused on specific projects that we feel are of paramount impor-
tance.

I thought it might be interesting to go over just a few of these
for you to kind of let you know where we are coming from and why
this is so fundamentally important.

I went to the Blaine Elementary School in Lawrence County,
Kentucky, where $430,000 had been approved to help build 31
miles of water line for that area. And the principal of the school
met me at the door and literally had a few tears rolling down his
cheeks because the children in that school did not have clean water
that they could drink. They had to provide bottled water and at
home, they didn't have clean water they could drink. And this prin-
cipal was justifiably worried and concerned about where they were
going to get that clean drinking water.

And what was going to happen to those kids if they didn't have
clean drinking water. Some of them had never had running water
at all, even in their own homes and that $430,000 that we came
up with was only part of the funding because the community has
also gotten another community development block grant of
$750,000 and a Farmers Home Administration grant of $500,000,
a Farmers Home loan of $400,000, plus local funding of $118,000,
and then people in that community doing over $35,000 worth of the
work themselves that they donated to this project.

So that $450,000 that the ARC put forward had been parlayed
into a construction project of $2.3 million. And I dare say that
there are very few programs in Washington — and you are far more
knowledgeable about what programs exist than I am — but I dare
say there are not many programs that can match that kind of
record where they inspire people to invest their own money, inspire
communities to invest their own resources in order to bring water
lines and sewer lines and educational opportunities to their people.
So in terms of getting your money's worth, I don't think that there



is any question that the taxpayers of America have more than got-
ten their money's worth from the ARC.

I think we all recognize that government at all levels has gotten
too big. It is too wasteful, and I think the public has generally sent
that message to all of us, Democrats, Republicans, and Independ-
ents alike. But I think that what we are asking for is a program
like the ARC. A program where people must commit to help them-
selves or else it doesn't work.

The ARC doesn't put up all the money as we know. We get
matching funds. It averages throughout the whole program a three-
to-one match. We are pleased in Kentucky we even have a little
better match than that. We put up more local money than that. We
feel that this is important.

I went to the Hindman Settlement School in Knott County, Ken-
tucky to take word that the school would be receiving $75,000 to
give scholarships to hire tutors who would help the dyslexic chil-
dren there learn how to read. And during my stop, some of the stu-
dents read to me to show me how much they had learned so far
in that school.

And during just a six-week summer program, the students there
advanced on the average, a full grade level. In six weeks of a sum-
mer program that was financed primarily with the help of the ARC
and other matching funds, they advanced a full year, a full grade
level in math, reading, and comprehension.

So the school started with $75,000 and ended up with other
matches, it was a $235,000 program, and something that every one
of you would be extremely proud of if you watched those kids read

I went into rural Pike County with $381,000 of ARC money that
would help the community purchase a modular building to be used
as a health clinic and medical equipment for that building. 18,000
people in that county did not have access to primary health care.
And to show you how important the clinic was in Pike County,
more than 20,000 people signed a petition asking for this. That is
20,000 people in a total population of 73,000 people.

That is a tremendous outpouring of support for this program,
$381,000 that we had was a start and the local community contrib-



Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. House. Committee on ApproEnergy and water development appropriations for 1996 : hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session (Volume Part 3) → online text (page 1 of 75)