(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed reorganization plan : hearings before the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, first session, May 6, and 11, 1993"

\p 



U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PROPOSED 
REORGAN IZATION PLAN 

H. P 96/1 1 ; 1 03-23 

vs. Arny Corps of Enji.eers Propos... 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 
INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION 

HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIONS 

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 



MAY 6, AND 11, 1993 



SERIAL NO. 103-23 




'''""a»«iie],. 



JUN 2 7 m 



■'^.'»te«.. 



Printed for the use of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation 



U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PROPOSED 
REORGANIZATION PLAN 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 
INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 



MAY 6, AND 11, 1993 



SERIAL NO. 103-23 




Printed for the use of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation 



U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
72-424 WASHINGTON : 1993 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office. Washington, DC 20402 
ISBN 0-16-044046-7 



COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION 



NORMAN Y. MINETA, CaUfomia, Chair 



JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia 

DOUGLAS APPLEGATE, Ohio 

RON DE LUGO, Virgin Islands 

ROBERT A. BORSKI, Pennsylvania 

TIM VALENTINE, North CaroUna 

WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI, IlUnois 

ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia 

JAMES A. TRAFICANT, Jr., Ohio 

PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon 

JAMES A. HAYES, Louisiana 

BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

MIKE PARKER, Mississippi 

GREG LAUGHLIN, Texas 

PETE GEREN, Texas 

GEORGE E. SANGMEISTER, IlUnois 

GLENN POSHARD, IlUnois 

DICK SWETT, New Hampshire 

BUD CRAMER, Alabama 

BARBARA-ROSE COLLINS, Michigan 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 
LUCIEN E. BLACKWELL, Pennsylvania 
JERROLD NADLER, New York 
SAM COPPERSMITH, Arizona 
LESLIE L. BYRNE, Virginia 
MARL\ CANTWELL, Washington 
PAT DANNER, Missouri 
KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah 
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 
JAMES E. CLYBURN, South CaroUna 
CORRINE BROWN, Florida 
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 
JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan 
DAN HAMBURG, California 
BOB FILNER, California 
WALTER R. TUCKER III, CaUfornia 
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 



BUD SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

WILLIAM F. CLINGER, Jr., Pennsylvania 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

BILL EMERSON, Missouri 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee 

SUSAN MOLINARI, New York 

WILLIAM H. ZELIFF, Jr., New Hampshire 

THOMAS W. EWING, IlUnois 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

JENNIFER DUNN, Washington 

Y. TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas 

BILL BAKER, CaUfomia 

MICHAEL A. (Mac) COLLINS, Georgia 

JAY KIM, CaUfomia 

DAVID A. LEVY, New York 

STEPHEN HORN, CaUfomia 

BOB FRANKS, New Jersey 

PETER I. BLUTE, Massachusetts 

HOWARD P. (Buck) McKEON, CaUfornia 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan 

JACK QUINN, New York 



Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight 

ROBERT A. BORSKI, Pennsylvania, Chair 



BARBARA-ROSE COLLINS, Michigan, 

Vice Chair 
ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia 
LUCIEN E. BLACKWELL, Pennsylvania 
LESLIE L. BYRNE, Virginia 
JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan 
BOB FILNER, California 
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(VACANCY) 
NORMAN Y. MINETA, CaUfomia 

(Ex Officio) 



JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee 
SUSAN MOLINARI, New York 
WILLIAM H. ZELIFF, Jr., New Hampshire 
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 
BILL BAKER, CaUfornia 
BUD SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 
(Ex Officio) 



(II) 



CONTENTS 



Proceedings of: Page 

May 6, 1993 1 

May 11, 1993 429 

Summary of subject matter VII 

MAY 6, 1993 

TESTIMONY 

Bartlett, Hon. Steve, Mayor, Dallas, TX, accompanied by J. Scott Carlson, 

assistant city attorney, city of Dallas, TX 36 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from California 9 

Evans, Hon. Lane, a Representative in Congress from Illinois 13 

Foglietta, Hon. Thomas, a Representative in Congress from Pennsylvania 13 

Gardner, Frank, vice president, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District, 

Chicago, IL 48 

Gilley, J. Wade, president, Marshall University, Huntington, WV 28 

Hoffman, Joseph K., chairman, Great Lakes Commission 48 

Ives, Paul Lane, Jr., chairman. Joint Executive Committee for the Improve- 
ment and Development of the Philadelphia Port Area 21 

Jones, Barbara, Director, Government and Public Relations, Delaware River 

Port Authority 21 

Kaul, N.G., Director, Division of Water, New York State Department of Envi- 
ronmental Conservation, accompanied by Richard Konsella, chief, flood con- 
trol project section. Division of Water 41 

LaRue, John P., executive director, Philadelphia Regional Port Authority 21 

Leonard, Donald J., representative of the North Central Division Concerned 

Employees 48 

Quinn, Hon. Jack, a Representative in Congress from New York 41 

Weldon, Hon. Curt, a Representative in Congress from Pennsylvania 13 

Wise, Hon. Robert E., Jr., a Representative in Congress from West Virginia ... 13 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Blackwell, Hon. Lucien E., of Pennsylvania 11 

Molinari, Hon. Susan, of New York 8 

Quinn, Hon. Jack, of New York 359 

Rahall, Hon. Nick J. II, of West Virginia 27 

Saxton, Hon. H. James, of New Jersey 8 

Sundquist, Hon. Don, of Tennessee 7 

Zeliff, Hon. William H., Jr., of New Hampshire 13 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Bartlett, Hon. Steve 59 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara 71 

Evans, Hon. Lane 74 

Foglietta, Hon. Thomas 76 

Gardner, Frank 77 

Gilley, J. Wade 82 

Hoffman, Joseph K 88 

Ives, Paul Lane, Jr 94 

Jones, Barbara 100 

Kaul, N.G 105 

(III) 



IV 

Page 

LaRue, John P 114 

Leonard, Donald 119 

Wise, Hon. Robert E., Jr 366 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Operation Mountain Storm, statement 33 

Sturdivant, John N., national president, American Federation of Government 

Employees, AFL-CIO, statement 32 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Statements received from Members of Congress (House & Senate): 

Clement, Hon. Bob, of Tennessee 370 

CoUins, Hon. Barbara-Rose, of Michigan 372 

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, of California 374 

Hughes, Hon. William J., of New Jersey 377 

Leach, Hon. James A., of Iowa 379 

Moseley-Braun, Hon. Carol, of Illinois 393 

Pelosi, Hon. Nancy, of California 399 

Porter, Hon. John Edward, of Illinois 404 

Simon, Hon. Paul, of Illinois 407 

Schumer, Hon. Charles A., of New York 409 

Other correspondence: 

Delaware River Port Authority, Harry J. Kennedy, Jr., manager, govern- 
ment, letter 418 

Town of Matewan, WV., Hon. Johnny W. Fullen, Mayor, letter 419 

Maritime Advisory Council of New Jersey, letter 420 

Miller, Matt, Board of Directors member, Huntington, WV, Regional 

Chamber of Commerce, letter 422 

Waterways Association of Pittsburgh, Arthur Parker, executive vice presi- 
dent, letter 424 

City of Williamson, WV., Hon. Sam G. Kapourales, Mayor, letter 426 



MAY 11, 1993 

TESTIMONY 

Dickey, Dr. G. Edward, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army of Civil 

Works 448 

Griffis, F.H. (Bud), professor of civil engineering (construction) and Director 

of the National Center for Infrastructure Studies at Columbia University .... 500 

Smith, Kenneth J., president. Coastal Advocate, Inc., Ship Bottom, NJ 500 

Williams, Lt. Gen. Arthur E., Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 448 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Barcia, Hon. James A., of Michigan 447 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., of Oklahoma 430 

Quinn, Hon. Jack, of New York 431 

ZelifT, Hon. William H., of New Hampshire 444 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Dickey, Dr. G. Edward 511 

Griffis, F.H. (Bud) 516 

Smith, Kenneth J 522 

Williams, Lt. Gen. Arthur E 525 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Dickey, Dr. G. Edward, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army, Civil Works, 
responses to post-hearing questions submitted by Representative Eddie Ber- 
nice Johnson 497 



V 



Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bemice, a Representative in Congress from Texas, Opin- 
ion of the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service, 
Subject: "U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Reorganization: The Mississippi 

River Commission and Division OflTice Site Selection" 435 

Williams, Lt. Gen. Arthur E., Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: 

Annualized workload projections by District 470 

Charts: 

Minorities and women in Division HQs (as percent of work force) 492 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Statements received from Members of Congress: 

Barcia, Hon. James A., of Michigan 531 

Yates, Hon. Sidney R., of Illinois 534 

Other Communications: 

Committee to Save SPD (COTOSS) San Francisco, CA., B. Getzen, state- 
ment 539 

Green Brook Flood Control Commission, Green Brook, NY, resolution 546 

New Jersey Alliance for Action, Inc., Edison, NJ., Ellis S. Vieser, presi- 

dent stfltdTiGrit 04y 

Port of New York and New Jersey, Lillian C. Liburdi, director. Port 

Development, letter 552 

State of New York, Legislature of Erie County, clerk's office, resolution .... 555 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reorganization plan 557 



[" ^-'il^^'^^^rz^ ^•3- ^iDDSf of KtpitBcntatiDES 

_ ErH'Bi'^'IX-. COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS 

' EnSH^.. AND TRANSPORTATION ^__^^^ 

t."n"i'Ti?.*iTL«,~, SUITE 2165 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING liico'ill^^.^ 

"'='' ■ " ■''"" ^ '— WASHINGTON, DC 205 1 6 Sl'v,| I'Ti^'C.- 

— ..v.sc«.^— . 0-.-J— (2021 225-«472 5^1.!;^"^°^, 

NCM>raJtO ' ~VUCi WcUOM C*k*«fTM 

^ May 5. 1993 Si'o'Si'^^r;'" 

TO: Members, Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight 

FROM: Subcommittee Staff 

RE: SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER for HEARINGS ON THE US. ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS PROPOSED REORGANIZATION PLAN. Thursday. 
May 6. 1993. Room 2167. 10:00 a.m. and a proposed second day. Tuesday. May 
U. 1993. Room 2253. 1:30 p.m. 

On November 19. 1992. the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) announced a 
major reorganization plan which would eliminate 2.600 full-time jobs and transfer 
5,000 employees. The plan, which is under review by Secretary of Defense Aspin, 
calls for a reduction in the number of Division offices from 11 to 6. a modification in 
Headquarters operations, and a restructuring of District offices. The Corps estimated 
the cost of implementation to be $215 million and aimual savings of $115 million by 
1995. 

The Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight will hold two days of 
hearings to examine the Corps reorganization plan. The first day will begin at 10:00 
a.m. in Room 2167 Raybum House Office Building where testimony will be received 
from Members of Congress and other parties affected by the reorganization plan. A 
proposed second day of hearings will begin at 1:30 p.m. in Room 2253 Raybum 
Building. Testimony will be received from Corps officials and a representative of the 
academic community. 

A background summary of events leading to the proposed reorganization and a 
discussion of the issues which are expected to be addressed at the hearing follows. 

(VII) 



VIII 
-2- 

BACKGROUND 

The Corps' Missions 

The primary missions of the Corps of Engineers are military construction and 
water resource development. In carrying out those missions, the Corps performs a 
number of roles, including design and construction, regulatory oversight, emergency 
operations, project management, and operations and maintenance. 

In addition to its primary missions, the Corps has performed engineering tasks 
in the past for other entities, including construction activities for the U.S. Postal 
Service, NASA, and the countries of Israel and Saudi Arabia. Currently the Corps is 
performing work for EPA in construction grants management and in the Superfund 
program. The Corps also has a significant role in the development of magnetic 
levitation passenger trains. This "support-for-others" function could become a larger 
part of the Corps' work program in the event of a reorganization. 

The Need for Reorganization 

According to Corps officials with whom subcommittee staff spoke, the nature 
of the Corps' work program has undergone significant change over the past decade, 
prompting the need for an organizational reassessment. During the first half of the 
1980s, increased military expenditures meant additional work for the Corps of 
Engineers. However, the military construction program peaked in 1987 and the Corps 
is faced with the prospect of a sharply-reduced military construction program in the 
years ahead. At the same time, the Corps' civil works program emphasis has changed 
from new construction projects to the operation and maintenance of existing projects. 



See AtUchment 1 for a comprehensive outline of Corps responsibilities. 



IX 
-3- 



Recognizing that the scop)e and nature of its mission had changed over the 
years, the Corps began to reevaluate its organizational structure in 1988. 
Subsequently, Congress expressed its concern about the Corps' structure in reports 
accompanying the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Acts for Fiscal 
Years '90 and '91. In report language. Congress directed the Corps to develop 
"broad -based, conceptual alternatives for reorganization and to identify factors and 
criteria for shaping an optimally efficient organizational structure." The Bayley 
Report, issued to Congress on January 4, 1991, presented six broad-based alternatives 
for reorganization, and identified initial criteria to use in comparing merits of the 
different conceptual alternatives. 

What ultimately emerged from the Bayley Report was a 1991 plan to close 14 of 
the Corps' 38 District offices and 3 of its 11 Division offices, with a fourth Division 
being downgraded to a District. Corps officials estimated that the plan would have 
resulted in annual savings of $112 million: the cost of implementation was estimated to 
be $266 million. This plan, as shall be described in more detail below, was 
subsequently abandoned and replaced by the plan that is currently under review. 

The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act (BRAC-91) 

Following the passage of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 
1990 (also known as "BRAC." and enacted as Title XXIX of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for FY 1991), the Army attempted to use BRAC as a vehicle for 
implementing the 1991 reorganization plan. BRAC was enacted to provide a process 
that would result in the timely closure and realignment of military instaUations in 
the United States. The process included the establishment of a commission to review 
proposed base closings and realignment for Corps offices. The BRAC procedure 



would have required the Secretary of Defense to submit to the BRAC Commission a 
list of specific Corps offices to be closed or realigned. The entire package would then 
have been submitted to Congress for an up-or-down vote. 

Responding to concerns expressed by the leadership of the Public Works and 
Transportation Committee, however, then-Secretary of Defense Cheney decided 
against including the Corps' reorganization plan in the 1991 list of BRAC base closures. 
Nevertheless, the BRAC Commission included the Corps' plan in its recommendations, 
but would have delayed implementation for one year in order to allow time for the 
civil works authorizing committees to develop an alternative reorganization plan. 

In the fall of 1991, Congress passed legislation that blocked implementation of 
the plan. The FY 92 Appropriations Act for Energy and Water Development and for 
the Department of Defense contained language prohibiting the use of appropriated 
funds to implement the plan. Also, the DoD Authorization Act retroactively amended 
the BRAC legislation to remove the Army's authority to reorganize the Corps through 
the BRAC process. 

1992 Reorganization Plan 

In early 1992, the Corps began a reconsideration of the need for reorganization 
by reviewing Corps roles, missions, workload, staffing, funding, and cost-efficiency. 
Then-Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Nancy Dorn discussed the need 
for reorganization in testimony before the Subcommittee on Water Resources on 
March 11, 1992. Congress signaled its continued interest in Corps reorganization 
through passage of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for FY 
93, which allocated $5 million to reorganize Corps headquarters and division offices 
and provided transfer authority of up to $7 million for the same purpose. The Act 



XI 
-5- 



also included language prohibiting the Corps from closing any district offices. 

On November 19, 1992, the Corps released a revised, two-phased reorganization 
plain. Phase I. which had been scheduled to go into effect on February 1. 1993, caUed 
for reducing the number of Division offices from 11 to 6 and reorganizing 
headquarters to expedite decisions on projects. Phase II, scheduled for 1994 (assuming 
available funding), would retain all District offices but realign their real estate, 
engineering, and planning functions. 

On February 2. 1993. Chair Mineta wrote to Defense Secretary Aspin 
expressing concern about the disproportionately adverse effect the proposed plan 
would have on a limited number of cities that would lose Division offices and 
exp)erience substantial reductions in force at District offices because of the 
establishment of technical and administrative centers at other locations. As 
mentioned above. Defense Secretary Aspin is currently reviewing the proposed 
reorganization plan. EXiring a BRAC Commission hearing on March 15. 1993. Aspin 
responded to a question about the status of the Corps reorganization plan as follows: 

I think it is important to know that the Corps needs to be 
realigned and we do need to do some work with the Corps. I was 
concerned about the one that was done last faU. >^Tiat happened 
was, Congress was worried about it, made some moves, and then 
they went ahead and did the realignment after Congress 
adjourned. I thought that was not the way to do it. But 
sometime in the next couple of months we need to come up with 
a proposed on how to deal with that and we'U be back in touch 
with you on that. We're not just going to sit on it, but we do 
want to make sure that any realignment that takes place is done 
with the proper non-political tone to it. 



XII 
-6- 



CORPS OF ENGINEERS CIVIL WORKS REORGANIZATION 

Current Structure 

Congress has charged the Department of the Army and the Corps of Engineers 
with responsibility for civil works programs. "Civil works" refers to non-military 
Corps activities. The Secretary of the Army oversees the Corjjs and its civil works 
programs. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works 
[ASACW] works closely with the Corps' Chief of Engineers on substantive 
management areas of the Corps, including general programming of the civil works 
budget, policy issues, prioritization of new construction starts, and legislative drafting 
requested by Members of Congress. The ASACW also reviews and transmits the 
proposed Corps civil works budget to the Office of Management and Budget as a basis 
for the President's budget recommendations to Congress. 

The bulk of the civil works program is delegated to field officers and their 
staffs. Under the Corps' current organizational structure, Division offices supervise 
Corps activity in specified geographical areas, usually based on watershed boundaries. 
Division offices review and approve the programs of District offices, oversee the 
operations of District offices, and implement the plans and policies of the Chief of 
Engineers. There are currently 11 Division offices in the Corps. 

The 38 District offices are the principal planning and project implementation 
offices of the Corps. District offices are responsible for: 

• Preparing water resource studies in response to specific Congressional 
resolutions; 

Conducting engineering design and operations and maintenance studies; 

* Constructing civil works facilities; 



XIII 

-7- 



• Operating and maintaining major water resource projects; 

• Administering laws for the protection and preservation of the navigable waters 
of the United States; 

• Acquiring, managing, and disposing of real estate property pursuant to 
carrying out civil works and military functions. 

Attachment 2 and Attachment 3 depict current and future Division/District 
boundaries and office locations. 

Proposed Structural Changes 

The Corps' reorgamzation plan contemplates changes to both structure and 
process. (Attachment 4 depicts the Corps' current Civil Works structure and changes 
to that structure presented under the reorganization plan.) 
Structural changes would: 

• Reduce the number of Division offices from 11 to 6; 

• Retain all 38 District offices, but consolidate technical functions into 15 
Technical Centers and administrative functions into 5 Administrative Centers; 

• Retain program/project management, regulatory functions, operations, and 
construction management at District offices; and 

• Collocate military project and construction management and design at the same 
centers. 

Under the reorganization plan, the 11 existing Division offices would be 
reduced to 6 during FY 93. Division offices targeted for closing are: Chicago, Dallas, 
New York, Omaha, and San Francisco (District offices in these cities would remain 
ojjen, except for Dallas, which would be served from the District office in Fort 
Worth). Remaining (restructured) Division offices would include: Portland. 



XIV 

-8- 



Vicksburg, Atlanta. Boston. Cincinnati, and Honolulu. 

All current District offices would be retained, and a new one would be added 
in the Boston area. Planning and engineering functions for Civil Works (currently 
vested in all District offices) would be consolidated in 15 Technical Centers, which 

would be collocated with 15 Districts. Military Design and Construction would be 

2 
centralized at 10 of the Districts collocated with Technical Centers. 

District-specific changes are scheduled to begin in FY 94. 

Over the next two years, one Administrative Center would be established for 

each Division, with the exception of the Pacific Ocean Division, which would continue 

to handle administrative functions internally. The Corps also plans to establish a 

single Finance and Accounting Center. 

Proposed Procedural Chang es 

Changes in process would focus on two aspects of project development: (1) the 
project manager's authority to select the organization responsible for planning or 
designing a project, and (2) the project review process. Project managers, located at 
the District office level, would be responsible for project development from the 
initiation of the first study through project completion; they may select the most 
appropriate Technical Center to perform planning and design functions based on 
demonstrated competence, timeliness, and cost. 



These Technical Centers would thus do both military and civil design. Eight of these would also be 
staffed for hazardous, toxic, and radiological waste remediation design. 



XV 
-9- 



Division offices would no longer perform technical reviews but would, instead, 
ensure that Districts develop and maintain review capability. Technical review 
functions would be transferred to Districts with Technical Centers. A single, national 
center, to be named the "Central Review Center." would be responsible for all policy 
reviews of dvil works projects. The Central Review Center would review all 
reconnaissance reports, feasibility reports, and other policy-sensitive project 
documents, eliminating duplicative reviews now performed at the Division and 
Headquarters level. Each Division would have an Administrative Center, in which 
human resources, information management, resource management, and audit 
functions would be consolidated. In addition, the Corps would establish a single, 
national Finance and Accounting Center to process all financial and accounting 
documentation. 

Attachment 5 depicts functional changes anticipated under the reorganization 
plan. 

Criteria for Concept Selection 

To develop its plan, the Corps first identified six major alternative concepts for 
reorganization: Base Case (status quo). Realignment, Regionalization, 
Decentralization, Elimination of Divisions, and Combination of Alternatives. Next, 
the Corps defined criteria upon which to base the selection of a preferred concept. 
Those criteria, discussed by then-Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works 
Nancy Dorn in hearing testimony before the Water Resources Subcommittee on 
March 11, 1992, were: cost efficiency, flexibility enhancement, retention of 
competence, and management effectiveness. The Corps was seeking, first, timely, 
cost-effective work products and services; second, the flexibility to address changing 



XVI 
-10- 



workioad and mission; third, the ability to maintain technical expertise; and fourth, 
the consistent administration of civil and military missions. 

Using a computer program. Corps planners reviewed the reorganization 
concepts against the selected criteria. Each of the criteria was assigned an equal value 
in the analysis. The results of the analysis showed that the highest rated concept was 
an amalgamation of concepts which caUed for eliminating Divisions, retaining aU 
Districts, and creating Technical Centers at 15 Districts. Military design and 
construction management would be centralized at 10 Districts collocated with 
Technical Centers. The number of Division offices to be retained was based on the 
projected Corps workload for the future, the level of funding available through the 
Operations Jind Maintenance and General Expense Accounts, and the geographical 
workload distribution. The Corps decided to retain six Division offices. The 
boundaries created among the E>ivisions represented a compromise between creating 
an approximately level workload (including civil works, military programs, and 
envirorunental work), and preserving logical groupings (particularly civil works 
programs with their dependence on physical geography). 

Criteria for Site Selection 

The Corps currently employs approximately 34.000 people in its Headquarters. 
Division, and District offices. The reorganization plan, as currently configured, would 
result in the elimination of 2,600 full-time equivalents and the transfer of 5,000 
positions. In order to decide where to close Division offices, where to establish 
Technical Centers, and where to establish Adminstrative Centers, the Corps chose five 
site-selection criteria which had been recommended by the Field Advisory Committee. 
The Field Advisory Committee was comprised of one representative from each 



XVII 

-u- 



District and Division office, and was designed to enable the Corps' reorganization 
program office to communicate with field offices and to serve as a conduit for 
receiving input from the field. 
The five criteria were: 

• Current Corps Office Site 

• Cost of Living 

• Educational Availability 

• Transportation Hub Availability 

• Number of Current Personnel 

An additional criterion, "Central to Workload." was used in several cases where 
geographic considerations seemed to require it (e.g., St. Louis was chosen as a site for 
inland navigation planning). 

These criteria took the folloi^ing specific form: 

1) Only sites with existing Division or District functions were considered for 
future office site selections. 

2) All sites that were officially designated high-cost areas for Federal salary 
purposes (namely New York. Los Angeles, and San Francisco) were given a 
cost-of-living rating of 1; sites not designated as high-cost were given a rating of 2. 

3) The educational availability criterion was based on the quantitative ratings 
for 4-year college engineering programs provided in the Gourman Report. Overall 
ratings for 4-year college programs were also used for corroborative purposes. 
Essentially, all sites within 75 miles of a college with an engineering program rating 



Jack Gourman, The Gourman Report. A Rating of U ndergraduate Programs in Amer J an and 
7th ed rev. 1989 (Los Angeles National Education Sutistics). 



XVIII 
-12- 



higher than 3.5 (on a scale of 5) were given an educational availability rating of 2; 
other sites were given a rating of 1. 

4) The transportation hub criterion was used by taking FY 1991 Federal 
Aviation Administration data classifying airports as non-hubs, small hubs, medium 
hubs, or large hubs. Sites near airports classified as medium or large hubs were given 
a rating of 2; small hubs or non-hubs were given a rating of 1. 

5) The "number of current personnel" criterion was used as a "tiebreaker" after 
other criteria were used to rank available sites for decisions involving District 
functions. When two sites were tied based on the other criteria, the site with the 
larger number of staff that would be affected by the location decision was given 
preference. 

The above criteria were used to rank all existing Corps sites and to determine 
which Divir-ion offices should be closed and where Technical Centers and 
Administrative Centers should be located. Among Division offices, although Dallas 
was ranked higher than Vicksburg (6 to 4), Vicksburg was chosen as a Division site 
because of the legal requirements that the Mississippi River Commission be located on 
the Mississippi River and and that its President be a Division Engineer. On the West 
Coast, although San Francisco and Portland were ranked equally (5 to 5), Portland 
was chosen as the Division office because the cost-savings which could be realized (the 
8% federal pay differential in San Francisco would result in an additional aimual cost 
to the government of $1 million) were judged to be more important than access to a 
better engineering school. 



XIX 
-13- 



BENEFITS OF REORGANIZATION 

As stated earlier, the Corps was guided by four major criteria in selecting a 
reorganization concept: cost-effectiveness, enhancement of competence, flexibility, 
and management effectiveness. The Corps believes that, through the intended changes 
to structure and process, these benefits will be achieved. 

First, the Corps calculates the $215 million implementation cost of the plan to 
be recoverable in 1.7 years. Thereafter, annual savings of $115 million would be 
realized through savings in overhead costs. 

Second, the Corps believes it is essential to maintain technical competence in 
this era of declining traditional missions and uncertain future missions. The Corps 
believes that through the consolidation of technical expertise in dedicated centers, and 
through the reallocation of functions among Headquarters, Divisions, and Districts, 
the capability to p)erform missions on a nationwide and worldwide basis will be 
retained. 

Third. The Corps believes that it must have the organizational flexibility to 
better respond to fluctuations in the nature of its work. In this era of less 
construction and more operations and maintenance, the Corps intends for its 
reorganization to allow the agency to expand its role in non-traditional areas, such as 
mobilization for disaster relief, rebuilding and replacing the nation's infrastructure, 
toxic waste cleanup, and building future land-support facilities for NASA. 

Finally, by removing redundant levels of project review and consolidating 
technical and administrative functions, the Corps believes that management 
effectiveness will be increased. Consistency of policy, simplified communication, and 
more efficient work processes are benefits anticipated by the Corps. 



XX 
-14- 



CRITICISMS OF THE REORGANIZATION PLAN 

Critics have raised a number of objections to the reorganization plan. These 
objections may summarized as follows: 

• Consolidation of planning, design, and review functions into 15 Technical 
Centers will result in the loss of local knowledge and expertise. 

• Reductions in Force will be made in the field offices, with no corresponding 
reductions at the Headquarters level. 

• Distancing of technical expertise from the local area will increase 
coordination problems, travel costs, and eliminate the close coordination that is now 
enjoyed between Corps Districts and their customers. 

• The simple point system through which the site selection criteria were 
expressed did not adequately reflect the qualitative differences among engineering 
schools and transportation hubs. 

• Localized planning and engineering support during emergencies (e.g., in the 
event of a hurricane) will not be available in many areas. 

• The Corps did not coordinate its proposal with local sponsors and interest 
groups that are Ukely to be heavily affected by the reorganization. 

• Closing nearly half of the Corps' existing Division offices will result in the 
loss of a regional knowledge base. 

• Civil works planning and design projects already partially completed by 
Districts losing those functions (i.e., those Districts without Technical Centers) will be 
taken over by other Districts with little or no previous knowledge of the project 
history, the technical requirements of the geographical area, or local sponsor desires. 



XXI 
-15- 



In the best case, this will result in lost time and efficiency; in the worst case, this will 
result in wasted effort if the "gaining" District decides to start from "ground zero." 

WITNESSES 

The following Members of Congress will provide testimony at the hearing: 

Sen. Barbara Boxer (CA) 

Rep. Robert E. Wise, Jr. (WV) 

Rep. John Porter (ID 

Rep. Thomas Foglietta (PA) 

Rep. Lane Evans (ID 

Rep. Curt Weldon (PA) 

Rep. Jack Quinn (NY) 

Additional Members have been invited, but. as of the time of this writing, have 
not confirmed their intentions to appear. 

U.S. Army Corps of E ngineers 

G. Edward Dickey, Acting Asst. Secretary of the Army for Civil Works 

Lt. General Arthur Williams, Commander. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Dickey's statement will detail the background of the reorganization effort. 
Williams will spell out the details of the current reorganization plan. 

Philadelphia/Delaware Valley Panel 

Representatives of the Philadelphia Port Area. South Jersey Port Area, and 



XXII 
-16- 



Delaware Valley will testify about the potential impact of the reorganization plan on 
their areas. 

West Virginia Area Pane l 

Two mayors, the President of Marshall University, a businessperson. and the 
associate editor of a local newspaper are expected to testify about the plan's potential 
impact on the economy of Huntington. West Virginia, and the surrounding area. 

Chicago/Great Lakes Panel 

Chairman of the Great Lakes Commission, the Vice President of the 
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District, and the Director of the North Central 
Division Concerned Citizens Group will testify about the potential impact of the 
reorganization plan on the eight States which make up the Great Lakes Region. 



XXIII 

ATTACHMENT 1 



THE CORPS' CIVIL WORKS RESPONSIBILITIES 



The civil works responsibilities of the Corps began with an Act of Congress in 1824 
which called for the improvement of rivers and harbors for navigation. Legislation in 1879 
created the Mississippi River Corrimission, which was given jurisdiction over navigation work 
and flood control related thereto on the lower Mississippi River. Legislative expansion of 
the Corps' responsibility for civil works has included: 

• Regulatory activities over waters 

(1899. 1972. 1977. 1987) 

• Hydroelectric power in dams 

(1912. 1917) 

• Flood control 

(1917, 1927. 1936, 1974) 

• Recreation Tiavigation 

(1932) 

• Recreation 

(1944. 1962) 

• Irrigation (limited) 

(1944) 

• "^'ater supply 

(1944, 1958, 1965) 

• Shore and beach erosion protection 

(1946. 1956. 1962. 1974) 

• Hurricane protection 

(1955. 1958) 

• Water quality 

(1961. 1972, 1974) 

• Environmental concern and emphasis 

(1970) 

• Fish and uildlife conservation 

(1958. 1965. 1974) 

• Wastewater management 

(1972) 

• Groundwater damages 

(1986) 



XXIV 



§ 



I 

i 










XXV 



AJTfiCHfneAJT3 




XXVI 



Amcm^^JT^ 



O 



V) 

g. 

O 

o 




(1) 




XXVII 



AVACtihSUT^ 







U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PROPOSED 
REORGANIZATION PLAN 



THURSDAY, MAY 6, 1993 

House of Representatives, 
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, 
Committee on Public Works and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 
2165, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert A. Borski (chair- 
man of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. Borski. The subcommittee will come to order. 

The subcommittee today is looking at how our massive Federal 
Government should operate in the 1990s. How can we make the 
best use of taxpayer money? And how can we provide the absolute 
best delivery of the valuable services that are supplied by the Army 
Corps of Engineers? 

In this time of tighter and tighter budgets, when we in the Con- 
gress must make every effort to ensure that the American people 
are getting their money's worth for every single tax dollar, we must 
do all in our power to reduce unnecessary administrative costs, 
eliminate unneeded overhead, and end the duplication of services. 

As President Clinton and many others have said, now is the time 
for us to find ways to reinvent Government. The restructuring of 
the Corps of Engineers to meet the challenges of the coming dec- 
ades is just one example of how an outdated Government organiza- 
tion must be overhauled. 

There is broad agreement on the need to restructure the Corps. 
We must assess the future mission of the Corps, determine the best 
structure to accomplish that mission, and then evaluate the best 
use of the Corps' personnel and resources to accomplish the as- 
signed mission. 

Last year, the Corps of Engineers proposed a plan that would 
have resulted in the first major restructuring in 5 decades. Over 
the objections of the leadership of this committee, the previous Ad- 
ministration gave its approval to the plan. However, Secretary of 
Defense Aspin has the issue under review. 

The Corps' plan would eliminate 2,600 full-time jobs and transfer 
another 5,000 employees. It would reduce the number of division 
headquarters from 11 to 6 and restructure the district offices. The 
Corps estimates the cost of implementation to be $215 million with 
an annual savings of $115 million in 2 years. 

The objection to the Corps' plan — and there have been many — 
have covered the whole range of issues. The opponents have 
charged that the Corps failed to take account of changes in its mis- 
CD 



sion, that the reorganization does not provide the Corps with the 
right structure, and that personnel have been shifted from the 
wrong locations. 

The subcommittee hopes to give all sides the opportunity to place 
their views on the record. The people who deal with the Corps' 
local offices on an everyday basis on individual projects have an ex- 
tremely important part to play in letting us know the best struc- 
ture for the Corps. 

It should be emphasized that the purpose of the hearing is not 
to question the Corps' engineering capabilities, but to determine 
the best way to bring those services to the users. The Corps has 
a long and proud history of being the Nation's engineering firm 
providing the technical foundation for our port development, inland 
waterway, flood control, beach erosion control, and many other pro- 
grams. 

Our intention is to make an already good organization even bet- 
ter through a restructuring that reflects the many changes in the 
past 5 decades. The bottom line is that we want to work with ev- 
eryone else who is involved — the Corps, the Clinton Administra- 
tion, and the customers who rely on the Corps — to develop a new 
structure that works. A newly revitalized and reorganized Corps of 
Engineers can be a major positive force in our Nation's infrastruc- 
ture development and environmental protection. 

At this point, I would like to recognize the ranking member 
today, the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Due to a death in the family, the true ranking member of this 
subcommittee. Congressman Inhofe, is unable to be with us. He 
has asked that I fill in for him briefly during the first of these 
hearings. 

Today we will begin 2 days of hearings on the proposed plan to 
reorganize the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Since 1965, 
the Corps' civil works, engineering, and construction workload has 
declined by 40 percent. The end of the Cold War has changed the 
need for traditional military design and construction functions of 
the Corps to base realignment and closure. Accordingly, we must 
rethink the role and organizational design of the Corps of Engi- 
neers. 

We cannot rethink the Corps' new role and design within a vacu- 
um. Careful analysis must be given to effects of reorganization on 
communities and ongoing Corps projects. 

The testimony we will hear today will be very useful in evaluat- 
ing the current proposals in light of community needs. Downsizing 
an organization such as the Corps is never an easy or popular task. 
However, we must recognize economic realities. We can no longer 
afford the current Corps structure. Without question, the Corps 
still has an important civil and military role to play, but these roles 
have changed and we must allow the Corps to change to meet 
these new challenges. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me welcome our distinguished col- 
leagues, our good friends. Congressman Wise, Congressman 
Evans— Senator Boxer, it is certainly an honor to have you back 
from the other body — and my good friend Congressman Curt 



Weldon. I look forward to hearing the testimony of all the wit- 
nesses. 

I would also like to thank our ranking member of the full com- 
mittee, my good friend, Congressman Bud Shuster, who is with us 
at this time. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BORSKI. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

The gentlewoman from Michigan? 

Miss Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank you for holding this hearing on the reorganization of the 
Army Corps of Engineers. As we recognize the changing role of the 
Army Corps and consider its reorganization, we must carefully as- 
sess the impact that this reorganization would have on the various 
regions of the United States and on the ability of the Corps to carry 
out its mission. 

I look forward today to an open discussion of the criteria used 
by the Corps. For example, when deciding on a technical center site 
for the North Central Division, the Corps seems to have ignored its 
own criteria, including its tie-breaker, and has skipped over Saint 
Louis and Nashville for geographic reasons. 

I would contend that if the Corps would like to consider geog- 
raphy in the North Central Division, they should consider that 
none of the sites selected to be technical centers are along the 
Great Lakes. Although Detroit was among the cities that scored 
the highest on the Corps' original three criteria and is along a 
major waterway, the Detroit River, it did not qualify. 

I look forward to an examination of the Corps' original criteria 
and its tie-breaking criteria. I appreciate the opportunity to hear 
from today's witnesses. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BORSKI. I thank the gentlewoman. 

The distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster? 

Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I certainly look forward to this hearing today and the testimony 
of the witnesses and the Corps, particularly with regard to their re- 
organization. One of the concerns that I have about the reorganiza- 
tion proposal is whether it goes too far in cutting field offices and 
not far enough in streamlining headquarters. I think this is one of 
the issues on which we should focus. The second area is the whole 
redefinition of the Corps' mission. In particular. Congressman Mur- 
tha and I have introduced legislation which has become law as an 
authorization to look at the question of the Corps' possible in- 
creased involvement in the development of rural water and sewer 
systems. This is a mission in which the Corps certainly has exper- 
tise and which I think could become an appropriate new mission 
for the Corps. 

I will be looking forward to these issues and others as we proceed 
in these important hearings. 

Mr. BORSKI. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

The gentlewoman from Texas? 

Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I congratulate both you and Chairman Mineta for 
the leadership you have shown in ensuring that our committee has 



the ability to contribute through our oversight function to the reor- 
ganization of the Army Corps of Engineers. 

I also want to recognize that a little later in these proceedings 
we will have the opportunity to hear the testimony of Mr. Steve 
Bartlett, the Mayor of Dallas and a distinguished former Member 
of this Congress. I am proud to work with Mayor Bartlett on issues 
of importance to the city of Dallas and I thank him for his willing- 
ness to come to Washington to testify. 

I am delighted that we will have the opportunity to hear from 
him as well as all other witnesses we have before us today. 

Today we will hear testimony from many officials expressing dis- 
satisfaction about the methodology used by the Corps in the reorga- 
nization plan which was presented in November of 1992. Indeed, 
I have very strong concerns about the procedure used by the Corps 
in reaching their decision. I believe that these decisions go against 
the best interests of the Corps and the southwest region of the 
United States. 

The- Corps' 1992 reorganization plan contains so much faulty 
logic and seems to lack sufficiently designed process. So it is dif- 
ficult for me to determine exactly where to start, but I will venture 
to forge ahead anyway. Let's look at the criteria used by the Corps 
to rank the various division office candidates. Page C-10 of the re- 
organization plan lays out eight criteria which were judged to be 
the best guides for determining future regional office sites. 

But as we will get into later in this hearing, these criteria were 
not used consistently nor across the board. In fact, they were used 
selectively to help the chances of some sites and hurt the chances 
of others. When the criteria were used, the point ranking — one for 
a low grade and two for a high — made it difficult, if not impossible, 
to accurately assess the strengths and weaknesses of each site on 
any reasonable basis. 

Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to understand why a reputable Gov- 
ernment agency would base their decisionmaking upon decidedly 
inaccurate and incomplete information, but this appears to be what 
happened. 

Although centrality to workload distribution was deemed to be 
an important criteria by the field advisory committee, the Corps 
only used this important factor on a very selective basis. For in- 
stance, the Corps felt that centrality of workload distribution was 
important in deciding where to locate the North Central and West- 
ern Division offices, but not the South Central. This is most per- 
plexing and regrettable. 

Vicksburg, Mississippi, is the eastern most point of the newly 
proposed South Central Division. Dallas, Texas, is in fact far more 
central and accessible to each of the district offices, which is where 
the day-to-day work will be carried out. 

I am also concerned with the Corps' use of another important fac- 
tor, which is the educational availability comparison for Dallas and 
Vicksburg. Educational availability is one important factor in help- 
ing the Corps maintain a top quality workforce. To the best of my 
knowledge, this is contained in the Corps' report. 

The only university in the proximity of Vicksburg is Jackson 
State University. While Jackson State is a fine institution, they do 
not have an engineering school. Meanwhile, when the Corps looked 



at Dallas, they could find only Southern Methodist University, 
which does indeed include a fine school of engineering. But some- 
how SMU was the only relevant university in the region which the 
Corps could identify. But if they had asked me, I would have been 
able to let them know of the University of Texas at Dallas, one of 
the foremost schools in math, science, and engineering, and the 
University of Texas at Arlington, both of which have very excellent 
engineering schools. 

Further, Texas Christian University is an outstanding institution 
for learning of the sciences and even today has help the Corps se- 
cure an educated workforce for their increasing operations dealing 
with environmental cleanup. And we could go on. They are a lot 
closer than Jackson State is to Vicksburg, as a matter of fact, with- 
in 10 to 15 miles while Jackson is at least 60 to 75 miles away. 

Other colleges in my area also help supplement the labor needs 
of the Dallas district office. Schools such as the University of Dal- 
las, Dallas Baptist University, University of North Texas, and 
Texas State Technical Institute all have excellent educational pro- 
grams in business and the sciences. In addition, Dallas County has 
seven campuses of the finest community college system in this 
country. 

Overlooking for a moment the fact that the Corps was not able 
to identify these institutions of higher education in the Dallas re- 
gion, they still gave the Dallas region two points for having the 
high grade, and Vicksburg one point for having the low grade. A 
spread of one point does not even begin to identify the qualitative 
differences in educational availability between Vicksburg and Dal- 
las. 

There are similar horror stories for each of the criteria, but the 
shortcomings were especially apparent when the Corps examined 
education, transportation infrastructure, labor availability, and 
centrality to workload distribution. 

While no Member of Congress likes to see constituents lose their 
jobs, this is not the only reason for my concern. The reorganization, 
as presently formulated, would lead to the loss of productivity, loss 
of capability, loss of workforce diversification, and loss of expertise. 
The Southwest Region as a whole and the district offices in Gal- 
veston, Albuquerque, Tulsa, Fort Worth, and Little Rock will all be 
negatively impacted if this plan is carried through. Urban flood 
control efforts will be severely impacted, as will hazardous waste 
cleanup efforts. 

I would rest here, Mr. Chairman, but at the hearing on Tuesday 
when the Corps' headquarters personnel will be present, I will di- 
rect my statement and questions toward the future internal struc- 
ture of the Corps, including the Mississippi River Commission. The 
Corps should be following past Congressional direction to refrain 
from micro-managing, but it seems apparent that this reorganiza- 
tion plan is designed to give the Washington headquarters the abil- 
ity to further micro-manage division and district offices. Also at 
this point I am extremely skeptical of the Corps' rationale for re- 
quiring that the South Central Division be located at the same site 
as the Mississippi River Commission. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will have questions later. 

Mr. BORSKI. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman. 



72-424 0-94-2 



The gentlewoman from New York? 

Ms. MOLINARI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, let me say that it is rare that we see such a wonder- 
ful panel of experts before us to testify. [Laughter.] 

I want to particularly welcome the chairman of my subcommit- 
tee, Bob Wise. It is a real pleasure to have you here with us today. 

One of the terrible things that happened during the last election, 
as I am sure has already been noted, that while we gained more 
women in the United States Senate — for which we are very grate- 
ful — we lost Barbara Boxer in the House of Representatives. It is 
nice to see you here, Senator. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit my remarks for the record, 
but would like to state that I thank you for holding this hearing 
today. I know everyone who works for or with the North Atlantic 
Division in New York appreciates your interest in this matter. We 
all hope that the Corps will rethink its costly reorganization pro- 
posal. 

I was pleased to hear that Secretary Aspin is concerned about 
the Army Corps of Engineers' reorganization plan put forth last 
fall. It is good to know that the Secretary is committed to ensuring 
that "any realignment that takes place is done with the proper 
non-political tone to it." 

Secretary Aspin's commitment to a fair process is a welcome 
change from the proposal currently under consideration. The cur- 
rent proposal disproportionately affects large cities like New York 
City and San Francisco. They seem to have been targeted for clo- 
sure and then a set of meaningless criteria was established to 
eliminate them. Even the environmental assessments were con- 
ducted after the decisions were made. 

At best, we have a poorly designed realignment plan. At worst, 
we have a contrived set of criteria designed to eliminate division 
offices not favored by the Washington headquarters. In any case, 
we have a plan that takes decisionmaking out of the field, displaces 
thousands of workers, costs millions of dollars, and provides ques- 
tionable returns in terms of efficiency and cost-savings. 

I have an entire statement to submit for the record, Mr. Chair- 
man, that details more specifically my problems with moving, obvi- 
ously, the Corps of Engineers' headquarters field office from the 
New York/New Jersey region and moving it to Boston. It was a 
move that I think flies in the face of the authorization process we 
were trying to establish several years ago when we asked the Base 
Closure Commission not to get involved and to allow us to do prop- 
er oversight and proper thought in using some judicial discussion. 

That obviously was not done and I am grateful for the oppor- 
tunity not only for those of us who sit on this panel but for our col- 
leagues to voice their concerns and dissatisfaction with where we 
are today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to enter into the record 
at this point statements from Representatives Don Sundquist of 
Tennessee, and H. James Saxton of New Jersey 

Mr. BORSKI. Without objections, so ordered. 

[Statements referred to follow:] 



Testimony of Representative Don Sundquist 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to share 
with you my great concern about the reorganization plan for the Army Corps of En- 
gineers as it affects the district offices covering my district in Tennessee, Memphis 
and Nashville. 

I am all for efficiency and saving money. It seems to me, however, that the sav- 
ings projections for this reorganization are unrealistic, better achieved in other 
ways, and likely to be offset out of the region. It should raise red flags everywhere 
when a reorganization proposal bases 90 percent of its savings on eliminating jobs 
at the district level, where the work gets done, while achieving only 10 percent of 
its savings by trimming bureaucracy higher up. 

In the case of the Memphis District office, which would have its technical respon- 
sibilities shifted to New Orleans, the changes are enormously disruptive and the 
cost savings to the Corps are perhaps two percent, and that assumes there will be 
no increased costs for travel and per diem expenses — an assumption I find com- 
pletely unrealistic. 

Similarly, the Corps' proposal to close the Nashville district office is unwise, given 
the responsibilities and performance record of the Nashville District and the fact 
that Nashville currently has specific responsibilities not easily transferred else- 
where. 

Allow me, if you will, a few moments to summarize my specific concerns about 
the reorganization plan's impact on Memphis and Nashville. 

MEMPHIS district 

The Memphis District currently has responsibility for some 369 miles of the lower 
Mississippi River, a unique and difficult stretch of waterway which carries the flood- 
waters from 48 percent of the United States. The Memphis District has handled 
these responsibilities with distinction, ranking second nationally among district of- 
fices in efficiency. 

When the Corps is needed to fight flooding on the lower Mississippi, as if often 
the case, it is the technical divisions which are called upon to do so. Yet it is these 
technical divisions which will be transferred from Memphis — and Vicksburg, Mis- 
sissippi — to New Orleans, 400 miles away from the district's northernmost part. 

From an operational standpoint, it is dangerously short sighted to strip this im- 
portant region of its technical expertise, especially when the cost savings to the 
Corps will be negligible and probably offset by the increased travel cost incurred by 
New Orleans-based technical staff. 

NASHVILLE DISTRICT 

The Nashville District covers most of Tennessee, as well as portions of Alabama, 
Mississippi, Georgia, North CaroUna, Virginia and Kentucky. It operates nine of the 
Corps' 71 hydroelectric power facilities and returns almost $35 million annually to 
the U.S. Treasury through their operation. It operates a total of fourteen naviga- 
tional locks on the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers, which carry over 60 million 
tons of cargo each year. 

The Nashville District is also the Ohio River Division's designated district for 
Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste. It has an impressive history of handling 
difficult, high profile projects, such as the Divide Cut on the Tennessee-Tombigbee 
Waterway, the construction of Fort Campbell, construction of the first modem dam 
on the Tennessee River, and the planning of a new large capacity lock at Kentucky 
Dam. 

Nashville is home to the Corp's first and most comprehensive hydropower training 
program, and has a specific expertise in tunnelling technology that has been applied 
to projects such as the Harlan tunnels in Kentucky and the Passaic River tunnels 
in New York. 

It seems to me that the Corps of Engineers can find a way to cut its expenses 
by two percent without leaving the vital waterways of the lower Mississippi, Ten- 
nessee and Cumberland Rivers without on-site technical diversions. I urge this com- 
mittee to reject the changes proposed for Memphis and Nashville. 

Thank you. 



Statement of Congressman H. James Saxton 

reorganization of north atlantic division of the army corps of engineers 

I would like the Committee to be aware that I am opposed to the Corps reorga- 
nization plans, especially as it relates to the removal of Engineering and Planning 
resources in the Philadelphia and New York Districts and the relocation of the 
North Atlantic Division to the Boston area. These offices, which bring local engi- 
neering knowledge and experience and a regional perspective, have combined to 
bring the State of New Jersey and New York together to complete efficiently engi- 
neered projects in a timely manner. 

In addition, I request no funds be appropriated for the reorganization of the Phila- 
delphia, New Jersey and New York Division offices. 

Please submit these remarks for the hearing record. Thank you. 

[Ms. Molinari's prepared statement follows:] 

Remarks of Congresswoman Susan Molinari 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. I know everyone who 
works for or with the North Atlantic Division office in New York appreciates your 
interest in this matter. We all hope that the Corps will rethink its costly reorganiza- 
tion proposal. 

I was pleased to hear that Secretary Aspin is concerned about the Army Corps 
of Engineers reorganization plan put forth last fall. It is good to know that the Sec- 
retary is committed to ensuring "that any realignment that takes place is done with 
the proper non-political tone to it." 

Secretary Aspin's commitment to a fair process is a welcome change from the pro- 
posal currently under consideration. The current proposal disproportionately affects 
large cities. Cities like San Francisco and New York seem to have been targeted for 
closure, and then a set of meaningless criteria established to eliminate them. Even 
the environmental assessments were conducted after the decision was made. 

At best what we have is a poorly designed realignment plan. At worst what we 
have is a contrived set of criteria designed to eliminate division office not favored 
by the Washington Headquarters. In any case, we have a plan that takes decision 
making out of the field, displace thousands of workers, cost millions of dollars, and 
provides questionable returns in terms of efficiency and cost savings. 

Moving the responsibilities of the North Atlantic Division to an area around Bos- 
ton does not make sense logistically or economically. The move itself would set the 
Federal government back an estimated $8 to $10 million depending on the exact lo- 
cation in Boston. Savings after the move are limited to about $500,000 a year in 
wages. This savings will occur because New York has an interim locality pay dif- 
ferential of up to 8%. Once locality pay comes into existence, Boston will have a 
comparable locality pay to New York. This savings will cease. 

The closing of the North Atlantic Division office in New York City would cost the 
city 200 jobs and the benefits of direct oversight of vital Corps projects. New York- 
New Jersey harbor is one of the busiest ports in the world. Many of the projects 
underway in the harbor are maintenance rather than new construction. District of- 
fices do not have the resources to manage these non-construction programs. If New 
York is left; with only a district office, these programs will suffer. 

The loss of the North Atlantic Division office would be most noticeable when dis- 
aster strikes. Last December 11th a powerful Northeaster struck Staten Island and 
the entire coastline of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. The North Atlantic 
Division was on the scene immediately and ready to help with emergency repairs. 
Without the Corps division office to assist us, we would not have been able to re- 
bound from the storms devastation. A district office alone would not be able to pro- 
vide the support the North Atlantic Division extended to the community. 

The North Atlantic Division office continues to help victims of the December 11th 
storm. In fact the Division has prepared a survey resolution to revise a 20 year old 
beach fortification plan for Staten Island, NY. The Public works and Transportation 
Committee will consider this resolution later this month. Without the North Atlan- 
tic Division office, the future of this essential project may be in jeopardy. 

The contentious nature of the current reorganization plan and the many pressing 
projects the Corps must complete in New York led Congressman Schumer and I to 
contact Secretary Aspin regarding the reprogramming of funds appropriated for 
Corps reorganization. The $5 million in the Energy and Water Appropriations Act 
for Fiscal Year 1993 could be put to much better use repairing storm damaged 
shoreline in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. 



Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this hearing to help us all better un- 
derstand the proposed realignment plan. I hope that the testimony of our witnesses 
today will ensure that the Corps will put forth a new plan that in Secretary Aspin's 
word is "done with the proper non-political tone to it." 

Mr. BORSKI. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman. 

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Blackwell? 

Senator BoXER. Mr. Chairman, can I make a point of inquiry? 

I have been called by a Subcommittee Chair who was in an acci- 
dent and can't convene a subcommittee hearing that was supposed 
to start at 10:00 in the other body. All I would ask is for about 3 
minutes to summarize my statement, if there could be consent, so 
that I can help out Senator Lautenberg on the other side. 

Mr. BORSKI. If the remaining members of the panel will yield, let 
me then turn to the distinguished chair of the committee, who I 
know wants to introduce our first panel. 

The Chair. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me acknowledge the recognition that has already been paid 
to our leading witness by our colleague, Ms. Molinari. All of us in 
California are very, very proud of the California delegation in the 
Congress. Probably no election in the State of California was more 
significant than last November's. We are proud to have represent- 
ing us in the United States Senate Barbara Boxer. 

Barbara Boxer and I are — I don't want to say "old" friends — we 
are friends of longstanding. But from her work with Congressman 
Burton, her work as a member of a county board of supervisors, 
with her background and her work here in the House of Represent- 
atives — when she was chairing the Transportation Subcommittee 
on Government Operations, we worked very closely together. 

But now we have lost her voice in the House, but we have gained 
another great voice in the Senate. So it really does give me a great 
deal of pleasure to welcome Senator Boxer before our Subcommit- 
tee on Investigations and Oversight. 

Barbara, you know very well that you are always welcome before 
the Committee on Public Works and Transportation at any time. 
I know that you are in a rush, so I would like to go ahead and yield 
to you the time. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, UNITED STATES 
SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA 

Senator Boxer. Thank you, Norman. 

Mr. Chairman, I am really moved by the welcome I received from 
both sides of the aisle. All of you are so wonderfully gracious. As 
you know, Mr. Chairman, I sought out the Committee on Public 
Works and Environment over in the Senate and was so delighted 
that we will have this chance to work together. And that goes for 
all the members of this subcommittee and of the committee. If you 
need a helping hand, I want to help over there. 

I would ask unanimous consent that I can place my statement 
in the record. 

Mr. BORSKI. Without objection, your prepared statement will ap- 
pear in the record. 

Senator Boxer. I will summarize it briefly. 

First of all, I am greatly relieved to hear the comments from all 
of you this morning. When this hits you in your area, you think 



10 

that maybe you are the only one that is going through this. But 
to be very candid with you, I think this plan is really a political 
decision in search of a rationale. It should be completely walked 
away from. 

I can tell you — and I know many of you have experienced this — 
there was a set of criteria that was developed and it was ignored. 
In the case of San Francisco, the Corps had already used the cri- 
teria. They came down to the fact that San Francisco was the place 
for this consolidation to take place. And by some strange kind of 
immaculate conception, the next day Oregon was born as the place 
for this new division. 

When you compare the workload, it is 10 to 1 the other way. 
When you compare universities, you can't compare it. When you 
compare airports, you can't compare it. It just goes down the line 
and it makes no sense. 

As a matter of fact, then Senator-elect Dianne Feinstein and I 
swung into action with many of our colleagues, including Congress- 
woman Pelosi, and under the Freedom of Information Act we gar- 
nered all this material, which I would like to turn over to your sub- 
committee, Mr. Chairman. We think it is going to prove that all 
this was really a political decision, that the facts were on our side. 

I am not going to go into all the details. You don't need to hear 
them because it looks as if there is a pattern here. I think with this 
information and with my testimony and that of everyone else — 
Congresswoman Molinari is so right. Secretary Aspin I think sees 
what this was. I look forward to working with you to turning this 
decision around. 

Let's use criteria. Let's make objective, sensible decisions. Then 
if some of us lose out, some of us lose out. But let's find cost-sav- 
ings and not put politics into the equation. 

I thank you very much for your courtesies. I say to all my col- 
leagues here that I miss you and I especially think you have 
perked the place up. It is wonderful to see you. Let's work together 
on this and many other issues. 

Mr. BORSKI. The Chair thanks the distinguished Senator very 
much. 

We would just note that we have a new chairman of the Public 
Works and Transportation Committee and that is why we have 
some new equipment here. 

Senator Boxer. It is very exciting. [Laughter.] 

Mr. BORSKI. I know the Senator has another important engage- 
ment to go to and I appreciate her testimony. 

Senator Boxer. If you have any questions, I would answer them 
in writing, if that is acceptable. 

Mr. Borski. By all means. Thank you very much. 

I now turn back to our panel up here. 

Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania have an opening state- 
ment to make? 

Mr. Blackwell. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement, but I am 
going to do as the Senator did. I will let it be a part of the record. 

I would like to say that I am delighted to hear that just about 
everybody here is against this plan. This plan would completely 
devastate the port of Philadelphia. I am hoping that what we learn 



11 

today will allow us to turn this matter around and send it in the 
right direction. 

Thank you. 

[Mr. Blackwell's prepared statement follows:] 

Statement of Congressman Lucien E. Blackwell 

Mr. Chairman, I am extremely pleased that you have brought this crucial issue 
to the forefront of the Subcommittee agenda. 

When the Army Corps of Engineers announced the details of their reorganization 
plan last November, I was dismayed to learn that the Philadelphia district office 
was slated to lose their planning and engineering sections. 

That dismay turned to disgust when the rest of this misgviided proposal was un- 
veiled. 

For more than forty years, I have been affiliated with the Port of Philadelphia. 

I started on the docks unloading cargo, and worked my way up, until I became 
the President of Local 1332 of the International Longshoreman's Association, a posi- 
tion which I regretfully resigned following my election to Congress. 

Today, I faithfully remain a Commissioner of the Delaware River Port Authority. 

In addition, I have served on the Board of Directors of the Port Corporation and 
the Governor's Infrastructure Task Force. And as a Member of Philadelphia City 
Council, I constantly monitored activity at the Port. 

My entire professional Ufe has been connected to the Port of Philadelphia. 

This is an affiUation for which I have the greatest sense of pride. 

In all of my years at the Port Mr. Chairman, one thing I have truly learned is 
the value of the Philadelphia district office of the Army Corps of Engineers. 

The Corps is charged with the incredibly difficult task of maintaining one of the 
most difficult shipping channels in the nation. 

The Delaware River channel is chock full of shoals, and without the Corps' ability 
to perform emergency dredgings, the grim possibility of ruptures is a very real dan- 
ger. 

The Philadelphia Corps office is moving forward to expand the depth of this chan- 
nel to 45 feet in order to improve the safety of this vital waterway. This project is 
essential for the entire economy of the Delaware Valley region, and we are grateful 
to have the presence of such a skilled and well maintained office in our City. 

But if this critical office were stripped down, we would be confronted with the po- 
tential for massive economic devastation of the Port of Philadelphia. 

At a time when we finally have a President who is committed to restoring our 
nation's cities, this plan stands directly opposite to his mission. 

Continued development of the Port is essential for the economic well being of a 
countless number of minorities, women, and other economically disadvantaged resi- 
dents in the City of Philadelphia. 

I am extremely concerned that if the Corps does not maintain its current presence 
in Philadelphia, the Port will be challenged to lure the massive amounts of cargo 
into the area that it potentially could. 

I know that you share my concerns Mr. Chairman. I am also pleased that we will 
receive testimony from two of our Delaware Valley colleagues, as well as several 
representatives of the Philadelphia and South Jersey Port areas. 

But when we look at the broader picture Mr. Chairman, we will hear from every 
corner of the country, that this plan is seriously flawed. We must examine the fol- 
lowing questions: 

Why did the Corps fail to coordinate its proposal with local offices and interest 
groups which will be most affected by this plan? 

In the event of emergency, or environmental catastrophe, how will a skeleton of- 
fice with no planning or engineering expertise be able to handle such a disaster? 
And perhaps the most revealing question which will demonstrate the incom- 
petence of this misguided proposal, is how the Corps failed to trim the fat ofT of its 
own budget here in their Washington headquarters, while they made drastic cuts 
to vital offices across the nation? 

I am confident Mr. Chairman, that during the course of these valuable hearings, 
the answers to these and other questions will emerge as we put the pieces together 
of this confused and muddled reorganization plan. 

Yes, the Army Corps must be reorganized. But this difficult task must be con- 
ducted with the utmost, careful consideration. Reorganizing simply for the sake of 
reorganizing is useless. 



12 

By studsdng the details of this failed proposal, I am certain that we will emerge 
with a clear understanding of what must actually be done to formulate the most 
economically sensible reorganization plan possible. 

I commend the Chairman and the Subcommittee staff for all of their hard work, 
and welcome all of our witnesses here today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BORSKI. Thank you. 

The distinguished gentleman from California, the full committee 
chair, Mr. Mineta? 

The Chair. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me congratulate you, Mr. Inhofe, and the substitute, Mr. 
Duncan, for the leadership being exhibited by this subcommittee. 
There is no doubt that the proposed Corps reorganization an- 
nounced last November naturally raises significant concerns for the 
members of this committee. Some division offices will be closed and 
some district offices will have dramatic staff reductions, with staff 
positions moved to other cities. 

We all recognize that the Corps' workload is shrinking, and that 
the Corps does need to reduce its staff to match these reduced re- 
sponsibilities. My only concern is to make sure that the reorganiza- 
tion is done in a way that preserves the maximum effectiveness of 
the Corps in serving its missions and that it is fair to all con- 
cerned. To do that, I need to get answers to several questions. 

First, I want to make sure that the basic concept of the reorga- 
nization makes sense. In particular, is it appropriate to streamline 
the Corps' field offices without streamlining its own headquarters 
staff? 

Second, I want to make sure that the Corps used the right cri- 
teria to select which division offices would remain open and which 
district offices would retain their technical staffs. For example, 
should the Corps have taken into account how close potential divi- 
sion offices are to the workload for their respective division? 

Third, I want to make sure that the Corps applied its criteria ap- 
propriately. We would all agree that having access to good air 
transportation is important. But should an airport that FAA classi- 
fies as a medium hub be considered just as good as one it classifies 
as a large hub? 

Fourth, I want to make sure that the criteria were applied con- 
sistently. In cases where the rather simplistic scoring system pro- 
duced ties, why were different tie-bresikers used in different divi- 
sions? 

I think we would all agree that the Corps needs to be stream- 
lined and that there needs to be a rational plan for doing that. I 
hope that today's hearing will make clear whether the proposal be- 
fore us is the rational plan for which all of us are looking. 

Again, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Duncan sitting in for Mr. Inhofe, 
thank you very much for your leadership on the subcommittee. 

Mr. BORSKI. I thank the chairman very much. 

Let me note, if I may, that we have a distinguished guest in our 
audience. The distinguished State representative from Philadel- 
phia, David Richardson is here, a good friend and a gentleman I 
sat next to in the State House for several years. 

The gentleman from Michigan? 

Mr. Barcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I don't actually have an opening statement, but I would like to 
thank the panel members for their presentation to the committee 



13 

today and applaud Chairman Borski and the staff for placing on 
the agenda of this committee the discussion of reorganization of the 
Army Corps of Engineers throughout the country. 

With the 5th congressional district that I represent, in excess of 
700 miles of Lake Huron shoreline, numerous inland lakes, as well 
as the entire Saginaw Bay, I am vitally interested in the reorga- 
nization of the Army Corps of Engineers and what impact that may 
have on the Great Lakes Basin and the State of Michigan, particu- 
larly the 5th congressional district. 

I have no opening statement, but I would like to say that I ap- 
preciate the distinguished panel guests who are about to share 
their insight with us on this important and vital issue. I applaud 
your efforts, Mr. Chairman, and the stand of Chairman Mineta as 
well, for your interest in this very timely issue. 

Mr. Borski. The Chair thanks the gentleman very much. 

I have a statement for the record from Congressman William H. 
Zeliff that I will place in the record. 

[Mr. Zeliffs prepared statement follows:] 

Statement of Hon. William H. Zeliff, Jr. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for calUng this hearing today to examine the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers proposed reorganization plan. This represents a major new ini- 
tiative for the Corps that will have an impact across the country. 

Clearly, the major emphasis today in our defense force structure is downsizing to 
meet the changing security needs of this country. All functions within the Depart- 
ment of Defense are feeling the impact of changing missions and reduced budgets. 

I for one hope that the effort at downsizing the Department of Defense, whether 
it impacts the Corps of Engineers or the Marine Corps, is based on a careful and 
prudent analysis of the security needs of this country and not on political expedi- 
ency. 

There is no questioning the fact that the traditional mission of the Corps of Engi- 
neers has changed in recent years, and we need to take a close look at ways to 
streamline the Corps to make use of our tax dollars in the most practical and effi- 
cient manner possible. 

The latest reorganization plan developed by the Corps would eliminate 2,600 full- 
time jobs, transfer 5,000 employees, reduce the number of division offices from 11 
to 6, modify headquarters operations and restructure district offices. All told, the 
plan is expected to cost $215 million to implement and generate annual savings of 
$115 million by 1995. 

Mr. Chairman, however well researched and developed this plan may be, there 
is no question that it will likely have an adverse impact on many areas of the coun- 
try. As such, I am looking forward to hearing the testimony being offered today by 
our distinguished colleagues in Congress and Representatives from areas affected by 
the proposal. 

The decision on this reorganization plan should be carefully reviewed, and I think 
these hearings will provide an important forum for weighing the facts. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Borski. Now let me recognize the distinguished chairman of 
our Economic Development Subcommittee on Public Works and 
Transportation, the Honorable Robert Wise of West Virginia. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. ROBERT E. WISE, JR., A REPRESENTA- 
TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM WEST VIRGINIA; HON. THOMAS 
FOGLIETTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM PENN- 
SYLVANIA; HON. LANE EVANS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CON- 
GRESS FROM ILLINOIS; AND HON. CURT WELDON, A REP- 
RESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. Wise. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 



14 

I want to thank you and the subcommittee for your quick re- 
sponse to the pleas of a lot of us that this hearing be conducted 
and the one to come when the Corps of Engineers will be appearing 
because this is just vitally important to so many areas. 

Looking closely at the reorganization proposal, I can see how 
many areas currently served by the Corps will be severely preju- 
diced by the massive reductions in force. I am here to speak on be- 
half of the Corps' Huntington district in West Virginia. I think it 
provides an excellent example of how the proposed reorganization 
plan is seriously flawed. 

The proposed reorganization plan for the Huntington district con- 
templates a reduction of more than 350 staff. These are profes- 
sional engineers, analysts, technicians, some of the most highly 
skilled jobs in the area. This would deal a serious blow to the local 
economy. But I am not here to make the argument simply because 
of the local economy. I am here to make this argument on behalf 
of the merit. 

A massive staff reduction in the Huntington office would have a 
devastating effect on the planned and ongoing Corps projects in the 
Ohio River Valley, projects essential for promoting safety and in- 
creased commerce along the inland waterway system. I understand 
that the staff in the Huntington district has a national reputation 
for the excellent quality of its work, so the proposed staff cuts 
would not only leave the Huntington district without competent 
and efficient technical support, but generally disrupt Corps of Engi- 
neer activities in the region and throughout the Nation. 

I am prepared to accept the need to realign the Corps in the face 
of budget constraints and changing military priorities. It is impor- 
tant for the Corps to redefine its mission and to use its limited re- 
sources more efficiently. However, a close look at the proposed reor- 
ganization plan reveals that just the opposite would happen. I 
think the statements already made here bear that out. 

Under the current proposal, I foresee greater problems in the co- 
ordination of activities between Corps district offices and greater 
waste of time, energy, and money to conduct its varied activities. 

Let's talk a minute about the selection criteria. The manner in 
which the Corps used its selection criteria to choose the larger 
technical centers among the district offices was crude and incon- 
sistent. For example, although the central-to-workload criterion 
was used as a tie-breaker to enlarge the Saint Louis district office, 
the same criterion was completely ignored by moving hundreds of 
staff from Huntington to Pittsburgh, despite the fact that the Hun- 
tington office is so much closer to the major workload in that re- 
gion. 

It makes no sense that Huntington was rated dead last among 
the 12 districts in the proposed North Central Division, yet Hun- 
tington now supports the largest civil works mission in the divi- 
sion. 

Another tie-breaking criterion was the consideration of the num- 
ber of technical personnel, again completely ignored in the case of 
the Huntington office. Although the Huntington district currently 
has almost 80 more technical personnel than the neighboring dis- 
trict, the neighboring district was chosen as one of the four tech- 
nical centers in the new North Central District. Yet in view of the 



15 

heavy workload in the Huntington district, this element of the reor- 
ganization plan makes no sense. 

I understand that one of the criteria used for the Corps' decision 
to slash the workforce in Huntington was the lack of a hub airport 
in the vicinity. I am troubled by this because plans for a major re- 
gional airport in the Huntington/Charleston/Parkersburg area are 
already underway and have been on the front pages of the Hun- 
tington newspapers for several years. Congressman Rahall and I 
and other members of the delegation have worked hard to move 
that project along. 

In any event, the Huntington district seems to have been unaf- 
fected by the lack of a hub airport in the past. For that reason, I 
question the importance of that criterion in the first place. 

Interestingly enough, 2 years ago a different reorganization plan 
was presented by the Army Corps of Engineers. Under that plan, 
a number of district offices were to be closed, including neighboring 
district offices. Yet I cannot understand how the earlier proposal 
aimed to close a neighboring office and now the current proposal 
seeks to double that office while taking the personnel from the 
Huntington office. 

Overall, it seems as if the selection criteria in the current pro- 
posal were used conveniently to justify desires to increase size and 
importance of some offices and to slash the workforce in other of- 
fices. In cases where the selection criteria did not meet the desired 
objective, they were simply ignored. 

I have another problem in my district, but it is not just my dis- 
trict because it affects you all as well. We are not talking just 
about construction. We are talking about environmental cleanup. I 
have the distinction, I guess, of having two Army Corps of Engi- 
neers Superfund sites in my district. If you think construction can 
be a problem, try the Army Corps of Engineers in Superfund. Right 
now, trying to pull together meetings, the Huntington district has 
to depend on the Nashville and Omaha offices for direction. The re- 
sulting delays and coordination problems not only cause a waste of 
time and money, but exacerbate a very serious problem: the threat 
to the health of affected communities from highly toxic materials. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate so much your response on this issue 
and we are going to get back to you on the environmental cleanup 
aspect of it. 

The Corps of Engineers believes its reorganization would allow 
it to expand its role in such non-traditional areas as hazardous 
waste cleanup and disaster relief. However, what I have witnessed 
in my district thus far indicates that the Corps cannot perform 
these functions competently, much less expand the functions where 
management comes from remote offices and increases costs, delays, 
and response times. 

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to bring up another concern 
that I have. I think it may affect many of your districts as well as 
mine, which is back-door reorganization. Yes, we have heard that 
this is on hold. The Secretary of Defense has put this on hold. The 
Corps assures me that this reorganization is on hold. 
Let me tell you something else that is happening. 
There are reports from around the country, including the Hun- 
tington district office, that the Corps is acting pursuant to the Ex- 



16 

ecutive Order calling for a 4 percent reduction in the Federal 
workforce and attempting to implement a de facto reorganization. 
Plans have been developed, although currently on hold, which in- 
clude staffing and workload assignments and funding allocations 
which closely follow the details of the reorganization plan which 
the committee reviews today. 

For example, the Ohio River division has targeted the Hunting- 
ton district office to absorb almost 50 percent of the total cuts in 
the Ohio River division as part of the 4 percent reduction in overall 
workforce. By aligning the district office staff in accordance with 
the proposed reorganization plan, which is on hold, the Corps is cir- 
cuitously attempting to implement the reorganization through 
other means. The front door got shut, so they're coming around to 
the back door to do much of the same thing. 

I am aware that the back-door reorganization is taking place in 
many places in Corps offices throughout the Nation. This greatly 
concerns me and I want to ensure that no reductions in staff take 
place in any Corps district office until the reorganization plan is 
thoroughly reviewed and revised. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the subcommittee for making 
this hearing possible. Some have said that if this is on hold there 
is no need to hold this hearing. Perhaps there is a funeral about 
to occur, but I think it is time to put the nails in this coffin. I ap- 
preciate this subcommittee bringing this to public light. 

Mr. BORSKI. The Chair thanks the gentleman very much and 
particularly appreciates his leadership on this question. 

I now recognize my good friend and distinguished colleague from 
Pennsylvania, my friend and neighbor and member of the Appro- 
priations Committee and chairman of the Urban Caucus, Congress- 
man Foglietta. 

Mr. Foglietta. I would like to thank you, my colleagues, for the 
great job you are doing here in Congress and for the city of Phila- 
delphia. I am sorry that our other colleague, Congressman 
Blackwell, has left, but I am happy to be here with Congressman 
Weldon, who is our adjoining district. It is quite normal for us to 
be together on a bipartisan basis for things that are good for the 
city of Philadelphia and the Delaware Valley. 

Many times, most of the things that work well for us are good 
for the cities of America, whether Republican or Democratic areas. 
We work together for the urban areas of America. I would like to 
congratulate my colleague, Bob Borski, again for convening this 
hearing today. 

Over the years, I have testified on the importance of the Army 
Corps of Engineers district office in Philadelphia and the devastat- 
ing effect its loss would have on the port. Without the planning and 
engineering sections, this office will not be able to meet the needs 
of the Delaware Valley. From deep draft projects along the Dela- 
ware River to storm damage control along the New Jersey and 
Delaware coastlines, a fully staffed office is essential to the envi- 
ronmental and economic well-being of the Delaware Valley. 

Simply put, a majority of the money in the North Atlantic Region 
is spent on projects in the Delaware Valley. That money should 
continue to be managed in the area. 



17 

All of my colleagues who have testified before me and those who 
will follow me today make compelling arguments for why their of- 
fices should stay open. In the case of Philadelphia, there are some 
striking differences. 

Over the last 5 years, the Federal Gk>vernment has done every- 
thing in its power to disinvest itself from the city of Philadelphia. 
The closings, restructurings, downsizings, reorganizations — they all 
mean one thing, and that is loss of jobs in the city of Philadelphia. 
I do not intend to stand by for further Federal disinvestment. 

In this same time frame, the city of Philadelphia has been tar- 
geted on all three defense base closure lists. All told, Philadelphia 
can expect almost 50,000 direct and indirect civilian job losses. I 
cannot think of another congressional district in the country that 
has suffered more job losses as a result of the base closure process. 

I think Chairman Borski and my colleagues from southeastern 
Pennsylvania would agree that enough is enough. I don't care if 
we're talking about two jobs or 2,000 jobs. This recommendation 
will not stand. We must stand together against this kind of dis- 
investment in the city of Philadelphia. Let's keep Philadelphia 
open, fully staffed, and fully employed. 

Thank you. 

Mr. Borski. The Chair thanks the gentleman very much for his 
statement and his hard work on behalf of the city of Philadelphia. 

The Chair would now like to recognize my friend, colleague, and 
classmate from Illinois, Mr. Lane Evans. 

Mr. Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am here today to explain to the subcommittee why I believe 
that the United States Army Corps of Engineers' reorganization 
plan would be detrimental to the work already underway at the 
Rock Island district office. As you know, the plan would consolidate 
planning and engineering functions at various technical centers. In 
the case of the Rock Island district, those functions would be moved 
to Saint Paul, Minnesota. 

This change would come at a time when the Corps is receiving 
funds to begin major rehabilitation work on locks and dams on the 
Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. Specifically, the President's fiscal 
year 1994 budget recommends $5.06 million to begin rehabilitation 
work on Lock and Dam 13; $11.33 million for Lock and Dam 15; 
and $5.2 million for four locks on the Illinois River. At the same 
time, the Rock Island district office is responsible for the operation 
and maintenance of 18 other lock and dam sites on the Mississippi 
and Illinois Rivers. 

In addition, the Corps is developing a major plan for increasing 
capacity on those rivers. These improvements would be made over 
the next 50 years. Seven of the ten locks and dams that require 
major expansion are within the current Rock Island district. In 
fact. Rock Island is central to a majority of the lock and dam sites 
on the Mississippi. Since the Rock Island office is centrally located, 
travel is minimized and there is greater efficiency. 

It is also important to recognize that the Corps of Engineers 
owns the buildings it occupies in Rock Island. Only two other of- 
fices are in buildings owned by the Corps. Personnel turnover is 
low — 5 percent compared to a Corps-wide average of 10 percent — 
and the Rock Island district ofiice is only 15 minutes from the 



18 

Quad City Airport, which has regular connections to all major met- 
ropolitan areas. 

Throughout the 1980s, west central Illinois suffered from a deep 
recession that devastated our agricultural manufacturing sectors 
and squeezed local resources. Maintaining the Mississippi and Illi- 
nois Rivers as a means of transportation is essential to ensuring 
that we can achieve a full economic recovery. These important 
transportation corridors are absolutely essential to the economic 
well-being of the region. We cannot neglect these resources. 

I believe that the Corps' plan as currently proposed would jeop- 
ardize the efficient operation and maintenance of this system. For 
this reason, I urge the committee to oppose the plan and rec- 
ommend that the Rock Island office remain a full functioning dis- 
trict office. 

Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify before you 
today. 

Mr. BORSKI. The Chair thanks the gentleman very much. 

The Chair now recognizes my good friend from Pennsylvania, 
member of the Armed Services, and ranking member of the Mer- 
chant Marine Committee, Mr. Curt Weldon. 

Mr. Weldon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

To you and the other members of this subcommittee, I am very 
happy to be here today. 

Mr. Chairman, I am outraged at the Army Corps of Engineers 
and what they have proposed. I think this whole Congress is out- 
raged at an agency that I think right now is out of control. I appre- 
ciate the opportunity to testify here not just because of some paro- 
chial concerns in the Delaware Valley that will have a dramatic 
impact on Philadelphia, which I do not represent, but the Delaware 
Valley, which as you know I do represent. 

But more importantly, I am here as a member of the Armed 
Services and Merchant Marine Committee to talk about concerns 
I have in a top-heavy process that has been used to maintain the 
status quo of jobs inside the beltway and the command structure, 
but yet which is starving the offices that provide the services 
around the country. It is absolutely outrageous. This Congress has 
to stand up and fight. 

I am speaking to the choir here because you personally and this 
subcommittee and this full committee have all been real leaders in 
the fight to make sure that there is a rational approach to the 
Corps of Engineers' reorganization as well as local efforts that af- 
fect our cities and towns across this country. 

I think it is important that all members of this subcommittee 
and the Corps understand the depth of the concern of the entire 
Congress from both political parties. Those from both Republican 
and Democrat districts around this country have expressed out- 
rage, as I have and as other Members are doing today. We need 
a more responsible approach and a more logical approach to 
downsize the Army Corps, which we all know has to take place. 

As you know, the fiscal year 1993 Energy and Commerce Appro- 
priations Act prohibits the closing of any Corps of Engineers dis- 
trict office as part of reorganization. Yet the proposed reorganiza- 
tion transfers the key operational functions of several district of- 
fices to other facilities and in effect precludes at least 21 district 



19 

offices from performing their work and serving the Corps' cus- 
tomers. That is unacceptable. 

It appears that the Corps' customers and sponsors were not 
asked for input on the impact of the proposed reorganization on 
their programs and projects and future partnership relations. For- 
tunately, these hearings will expose the facts as we know them to 
be. 

Mr. Chairman, you are well aware that in the Philadelphia area 
the Philadelphia district office provides critical services for flood 
control, coastal, environmental, port dredging, and emergency man- 
agement needs. It has done its job very effectively. By establishing 
technical centers in Baltimore, Maryland and Boston the reorga- 
nization moves the Corps away from customer services in the area 
and forces the area to compete with other regional needs. 

The expertise required to address the unique problems in the 
greater Delaware Valley area will be lost. The Corps' response to 
the recent storms along the Delaware and New Jersey coastlines 
illustrates the importance of the Corps' proximity to the area it 
serves. Put simply, the division's response time and availability 
would be seriously hampered by a move to Boston. 

As I said earlier, all of us understand that the Corps has to reor- 
ganize and downsize. But let it start with the beltway crowd. Let 
it start with the leadership. Let them show us where they are will- 
ing to make the kind of cuts that will allow us to continue to serve 
the kinds of needs that we have across the country. 

The Water Resources Development Act of 1992 provides new op- 
portunities and missions for the Corps. I believe that any reorga- 
nization should reflect that as well as the need to protect basic 
timely services. 

I urge this subcommittee to do three specific things, Mr. Chair- 
man. Number one, have the Corps provide a detailed accounting of 
funding, implementation, and planning for each section of the 
water belt and an explanation of how the reorganization relates to 
each of these requirements. 

Number two, direct the Corps to develop a plan to address the 
practice of billing back centrally funded activities against projects 
and studies. GAO strongly criticized this practice, and yet its con- 
tinued use justifies centralization of resources in Washington at the 
expense of projects desired by Corps' customers. It is outrageous 
and it should come to an end. 

Number three, direct the Corps to undertake a review of its 
Washington headquarters and related operations with a view to- 
ward minimizing resources spent on such activities. Only those 
roles crucial to centralized execution should be retained for Wash- 
ington. 

Finally, I urge this subcommittee to continue its strong over- 
sight. You are really a key in this process. You have done a fantas- 
tic job in the past. With our support collectively on both sides of 
the aisle, you will have the votes on the Floor of the House to carry 
forth any recommendations that you bring forth to fruition. 

I would say that we can take an example of what needs to be 
done around the country in terms of controlling spending, and that 
is not by taking away services that affect people, but by tightening 



20 

the belt of the crowd inside the beltway. This is a perfect case in 
point. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time you have given us in al- 
lowing us to address this important issue. 

Mr. BORSKI. The Chair thanks the gentleman very much. 

Can this plan be saved, or should Secretary Aspin scratch it com- 
pletely and start all over? 

Mr. Wise. I believe given the Corps' track record in reorganiza- 
tion in the past 3 or 4 years since they came out with a plan a cou- 
ple of years ago, then junked that, and then came back and an- 
nounced something totally the opposite — at least in our area — in 
order to have the credibility, you need to go back and start again, 
announce the criteria in advance, let the Public Works Committee 
and those other involved review those criteria, and then go ahead 
and make those selections. 

I thought Senator Boxer said it well. Any reorganization that is 
credibly carried out — ^yes, we know that some areas are going to 
win and some areas are going to lose. But the problem here is that 
no one has much faith in this fmal product. I would urge starting 
over. 

Mr. Evans. I would agree with my colleague from West Virginia. 
I think this plan has bipartisan distrust and that we have to start 
anew. 

Mr. FOGLIETTA. I would agree, again. I believe we are going to 
be unanimous here. First of all, I believe that we have to establish 
the criteria and standards by which we are going to make these de- 
cisions. Then most importantly, as was said so ably by my col- 
league Curt Weldon, we have to hear from those people who are 
going to be most affected. After we have had those hearings and 
after we have established those standards, then I think they can 
start to make a plan that would be acceptable to the Congress and 
to the people of this country. 

Mr. Weldon. Mr. Chairman, I would just add that one of the 
buzz words that Les Aspin has been using as our new Defense Sec- 
retary is called the "bottoms up" review. The focus is to look at 
what the needs are and what the missions are, and then to design 
whatever our support is based on what the needs and missions are. 

Unfortunately, the way the Corps does it it is like a "top down" 
review. They take care of the niceties in the beltway, make sure 
they are all happy and comfortable, and not worry about the serv- 
ice delivery out there. We need a "bottoms up" review of the Corps. 
Let's start with what those services are around the country and 
how they are being delivered. Then decide how much overhead we 
want to have in Washington. I would encourage that process to be 
used in this decisionmaking function as well. 

Mr. Wise. Mr. Chairman, assuming that goes ahead and there is 
another plan put forward, I would urge that if possible this sub- 
committee, the full committee, and others be involved in monitor- 
ing something else that is occurring parallel and that is the 4 per- 
cent FTE reduction that is occurring administratively to make sure 
that that doesn't parallel the reorganization that is supposedly 
abandoned. 

I think it would be a shame if over the next year or so the Corps 
abandons reorganization, implements the reductions that in effect 



21 

carry that out and then come back in 2 years and say that districts 
like the Huntington district — it is a self-fulfilHng prophecy — be- 
cause they don't have the personnel they did, therefore more of 
their function should be eliminated. 

Mr. BORSKI. The Chair thanks the gentleman and I appreciate 
very much all our distinguished colleagues for coming by here. This 
issue here certainly has a lot of interest in the Congress. 

The Chair will have a very brief recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. BORSKI. The subcommittee will reconvene. 

On our second panel, we would like to welcome Ms. Barbara 
Jones, director, government and public relations, Delaware River 
Port Authority; Mr. Paul Lane Ives, Jr., chairman. Joint Executive 
Committee for the Improvement and Development of the Philadel- 
phia Port Area; and Mr. John P. LaRue, executive director, Phila- 
delphia Regional Port Authority. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. BORSKI. Thank you. Please be seated. 

Mr. Ives, you may begin, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL LANE IVES, JR., CHAIRMAN, JOINT EXEC- 
UTIVE COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPROVEMENT AND DEVELOP- 
MENT OF THE PHILADELPHIA PORT AREA; BARBARA JONES, 
DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC RELATIONS, DELA- 
WARE RIVER PORT AUTHORITY; AND JOHN P. LaRUE, EXEC- 
UTIVE DIRECTOR, PHILADELPHIA REGIONAL PORT AU- 
THORITY 

Mr. Ives. Gk>od morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished mem- 
bers of the subcommittee. 

My name is Paul Ives and I am chairman of a group with a long 
name, which we call the JEC, which represents 24 public and pri- 
vate organizations in the Delaware Valley area. Our common cause 
is the main channel of the Delaware Bay and River water point 
commerce on the river. Our organization is well over 100 years old. 

Among the members of our organization are the representatives 
of major port authorities we have with us today. 

In our port area we have eight major port areas along 130 miles 
of river. We have at least 24 general cargo, bulk, and oil chemical 
terminals. All of this encompasses three States. Last year we 
moved 74 million tons of cargo through the ports and contributed 
over $4 billion into the local economy. 

We are a very busy port, and this is all possible largely through 
the maintenance and construction efforts of the Army Corps of En- 
gineers. 

In my other life as Delaware Bay and River ship pilot and presi- 
dent of the pilot's association, I worked almost on a daily basis 
with the Corps. I have the highest respect for them and think there 
are few Federal agencies that give the customer more for their 
money than the Corps. I am here to tell you today — and I am grati- 
fied to hear the discussion that has taken place so far — that we 
look with great foreboding on the planned reorganization. 

The Philadelphia district is essential to the operation of our 
ports, to the ongoing day-to-day operations of all the many things 
they do in the area, and to the future improvements that may come 



22 

down the line in the years to come. We feel that the consolidation 
plan will have a devastating effect on our region. 

I have prepared testimony which I have submitted to the com- 
mittee and I will not take your time this morning to read it into 
the record. 

I am privileged to have with me this morning representatives of 
our two main port authorities in the Philadelphia port area, Ms. 
Barbara Jones representing the Delaware River Port Authority, 
and Mr. John LaRue from the Philadelphia Regional Port Author- 
ity, of which I also serve as commissioner. 

I would like to yield to Ms. Jones at this time. 

Mr. BORSKI. Let me welcome Ms. Jones and remind all of our 
witnesses that your testimony will be made a part of the record 
and you may proceed in any fashion you would feel most com- 
fortable with. 

Ms. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to you and 
to members of this subcommittee. 

I am here this morning on behalf of the Delaware River Port Au- 
thority, which is a bi-State agency between the State of New Jersey 
and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I have submitted a writ- 
ten copy of my testimony. I will not belabor the points and read 
through it, but I would like to highlight a few issues contained 
therein. 

Essentially, the proposed reorganization would create extreme 
economic hardship for the Delaware Valley area. It would also strip 
us of the localized technical expertise which has proven beneficial 
to us in the past. And it would threaten our ability to continue to 
receive localized, cost-efficient, and environmentally sensitive solu- 
tions to the problems of the Delaware Valley. 

On December 16, 1992, the Board of Commissioners of the Dela- 
ware River Port Authority adopted a resolution, the text of which 
is contained in my testimony. The Board strongly objects to the re- 
organization plan and we seek your assistance in helping us to pre- 
serve that office. 

The Philadelphia office has been and continues to be extremely 
useful, cost-effective, and vital to the economic interests of the 
Delaware Valley. The Delaware River Port Authority firmly be- 
lieves that the office should be preserved, its functional responsibil- 
ities should be maintained, and it should be permitted to continue 
to provide planning, design, engineering, and environmental exper- 
tise to us. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BORSKI. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman. 

Mr. LaRue. 

Mr. LaRue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is a pleasure to be here. Thank you for including us in these 
hearings. I would also like to thank the members of this committee, 
including the Chairman, who helped to bring a stop to this hasty 
and ill-conceived reorganization last year. 

We recognize that reorganization of all areas of government is 
something that is going to have to take place. Government at the 
Federal, State, and local levels will have to become more effective 
and productive. We know that we're going to have to do more with 



23 

less. But we think the Corps' approach here is dead wrong and that 
it will hurt and not help our Nation's ports and the environment. 

In Philadelphia, the proposed elimination of the planning, engi- 
neering, and environmental units will really gut the district office, 
leave it a shell that we don't think can in any way respond to local 
needs. 

Let me give you a couple of examples of this. 

One of our major issues, as Captain Ives alluded to, is the depth 
of the channel and maintaining 40 feet. We have a very long chan- 
nel that needs constant attention. This is not just an economic 
issue for the port, but it is also a safety and environmental issue. 
The loss of these key functions to another area we think could spell 
future disaster for our port. 

Another area is permitting. We are undergoing a major rehabili- 
tation of one of our container facilities that is about 25 years old. 
Key to that is permitting by the Corps of Engineers. It is our feel- 
ing that if we had to depend upon somebody flying in from Boston 
to help us with permits that right now we can get on the phone 
and have somebody on-site in less than an hour — we are not going 
to get that kind of service. 

When you get delays and somebody says they can't fly down be- 
cause there are budget or travel restrictions from Boston — those 
kind of delays are going to cost us money. They will lead to delays 
in construction, and that will cost everybody more money in the 
long-run. 

We are not asking you in any sense to just come here and say 
to leave the Philadelphia office open, although I think we could be- 
cause the rankings that have been done by the Corps show that of- 
fice to be one of the best and most productive that we have. But 
we think you should challenge the Corps' basic concept and this 
centralization concept that they have. I think it was both Congress- 
man Shuster and Congressman Weldon that talked about cen- 
tralization within the beltway. 

That is what we're afraid of. We're concerned that we're going to 
lose the local expertise, the people who know the port, who know 
the community on environmental issues and emergency planning 
issues, and that those eliminations from a community and cen- 
tralization in Washington are going to lead to delays and disasters 
as we move forward in the future. 

We think if the local office concept, the district office concept, has 
worked. If there is going to be a place to look for reorganization, 
it ought to be in the central office and we are willing to work with 
you and the Corps. They never asked in this review for any local 
input, which we would like to see if they start another reorganiza- 
tion. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BORSKI. I thank the gentleman very much. 

In fact, that was one of the questions I had as to whether or not 
you were consulted at all from the Corps on this project. 

Mr. LaRue. We were not and I will turn it over to Captain Ives. 

Mr. Ives. I really don't think there was anyone in the port who 
participated in the reorganization design. 

Ms. Jones. Nor were we consulted. 



24 

Mr. BORSKI. The resolution adopted by DRPA commissioners 
states, "the Philadelphia office of the Corps of Engineers is a lower 
cost office than that maintained in other areas." 

Do you have any cost data you can provide to the subcommittee 
that compares Philadelphia to the other three district offices? 

Ms. Jones. Although that is not included in the testimony that 
I submitted, I can submit that to the chairman in writing. 

Mr. BORSKI. We would appreciate that. 

Mr. Ives, in your testimony, you refer to work in various stages 
of completion on the New Jersey intercoastal waterway, the Salem 
River, the channel from Philadelphia to the Atlantic Ocean, and 
the Christina River channel. 

Would you please detail the effects the proposed reorganization 
would have on these projects? 

Mr. Ives. As my colleague, Mr. LaRue, pointed out, to have to 
go to a competing port such as Baltimore or Boston to ask for work 
on our channel is kind of like coming to your mother-in-law to com- 
plain about your wife. I am not so sure we would get a very warm 
reception. 

We have a very close relationship with the Corps now, a good 
working relationship. We are very concerned as this gets into a 
centralized operation, that this will break down. I can give you an 
illustration of where it works today. 

We have presently a 40-foot channel and we bring 40-foot ships — 
predominately oil tankers — up that channel. We do it very carefully 
and use the tides to help us get under keel clearance. Occasionally 
a shoal will appear in the channel unexpectedly. This causes not 
only a safety issue with the threat of an oil spill, but it also causes 
a serious economic issue if the ship cannot come up to service the 
refineries. 

The Philadelphia district is structured to respond within a day 
or two for emergency dredging because they are there and the peo- 
ple are there and we can talk face-to-face. I question if this would 
operate if we had to go afield to get help. 

Mr. BORSKI. Mr. LaRue, in your statement you stress the impor- 
tance of dredging the Delaware River in a timely manner. 

How often does the river need to be dredged to prevent the dis- 
ruption of traffic? 

Mr. LaRue. It is a constant effort. It is ongoing all the time. As 
you know, we have testified also in the past about the Corps of En- 
gineers hopper dredge issues. Philadelphia is one of the major 
users of that. Our channel is about 125 miles. So there is constant 
activity there in keeping that open. It also affects us at our port 
facilities in that the Corps doesn't do any of the maintenance 
dredging at the piers and berths. That is our responsibility. We 
need to get permits to do that from the Corps of Engineers. 

Again, if we have to go to Boston or if they are going to come 
down, we are not going to get nearly the same response as walking 
5 or 6 blocks and meeting with the people we have to meet with 
to get it done. 

Mr. Ives. Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that the port of Wil- 
mington, Delaware is not represented on our panel today. That is 
a very busy port and a contributor to the economic picture in the 
Delaware Valley. 



25 

That port requires constant dredging, and it is off the main chan- 
nel of the Delaware River and the Christina River. That port could 
not survive without continuous dredging from the Army Corps of 
Engineers. 

Ms. Jones. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add a point on the 
dredging issue. 

You will note in our testimony that we refer to dredging as being 
important as well. As an example, this year's appropriation for 
dredging in our area is $13 million. That shows the significance of 
our dredging projects. 

Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would just like to ask the panel a couple of brief questions. 

First of all, everyone who has testified this morning has recog- 
nized the fact that the entire military is downsizing and all of you 
have acknowledged a need to reduce or downsize the Army Corps 
of Engineers itself If you think that the plan that the Corps has 
come up with itself is a bad plan, then it would seem to me that 
you would be under some obligation to come up with or propose 
some alternative. 

Have any of you done that? Other than to simply criticize what 
has been done so far, do you have any suggestions? In other words, 
if you acknowledge the need to cut, where are we going to cut? 
Every place except your office? 

Mr. LaRue. I would agree with you. I would echo what I heard 
from Congressman Shuster and Congressman Weldon. I think the 
first place to look is at the Corps' headquarters and look within the 
beltway and not outside. I think a lot of the local needs and serv- 
ices that we see from the Corps are being well delivered. But as 
I understand, this reorganization almost leaves the headquarters 
staff untouched. 

It is a concept, and I would disagree with the concept, to central- 
ize some of the Corps' activities and to keep a strong central office. 
From my experience in government, I think you get a much better 
response in a decentralized way with local offices with people who 
are there and understand the particular issues than with a central- 
ized activity. 

Mr. Duncan. I agree with that. In fact, I have said that our most 
important job as Members of Congress is to bring the Federal Gov- 
ernment home to the people because I have heard all my life that 
that government is best which is closest to the people, and I believe 
that. 

At the same time, we have to get the specifics. We apparently 
need to cut someplace. How much can be cut from the head- 
quarters? How many people work there now and how many do you 
think can be cut? Do you have any specific suggestions or proposals 
or alternatives? 

Mr. Ives. Mr. Duncan, I think that is part of the problem. We 
have not been included in this planning process at all. I would be 
very willing — and I am sure my colleagues would as well — to work 
with the Corps to start from scratch and look at how we can do 
this from the ground up. 

I thought the gentleman from West Virginia said it very suc- 
cinctly that the whole operation needs to be cut but it has to go 



26 

all the way up. We feel that we were not consulted, our input was 
not solicited, and the cuts seemed to be at the very local level and 
not above. 

Mr. Duncan. I am not trying to defend this plan because I am 
not really all that familiar with it. In fact, I am just now learning 
about it. When I hear Congressman Wise say that 350 positions are 
going to be cut in Huntington but they are all going to be moved 
to Pittsburgh and the size of the office there is going to be doubled, 
I am not sure if that is really going to save any money. So I think 
we need to take a close look at this. 

All of you have said or implied in your testimony that this reor- 
ganization is going to cause a delay or problems with the delivery 
of Corps of Engineers' services to the ongoing projects in the Dela- 
ware River Valley. Could you be more specific on that? Can you tell 
us why you think this will cause problems or delays? 

We are living in an age of instant communication. I don't really 
believe in centralization. On the other hand, I would like to know 
if you can tell me any specific project that will be stopped, halted, 
or delayed by this reorganization? 

Mr. LaRue. I think one example I used in my remarks was in 
some of the permitting activities as it relates — because of the 
Corps' location, we are able to get people — if something is changing 
and we are driving piles and you run into something you didn't ex- 
pect — ^you may have to drive deeper or a particular environmental 
problem. In that case, we have the Corps right there. They can 
come and actually see the issue. 

Those are the types of things you can't do by a fax or a phone 
call. You need that kind of local presence where they can come 
down and look at the site. They know the conditions of the termi- 
nal, whether it is our Packer Avenue terminal or one in Wilming- 
ton or New Jersey. They know the conditions if they are dredging. 
They know what to expect. 

If suddenly they are centralizing everything at one location — 
even if they were doing it in Philadelphia and pulling people out 
of Boston and Baltimore — ^you are going to lose that expertise of 
the local conditions. You are going to have people who may be ex- 
perts in a general sense but don't understand the particular activi- 
ties of a particular port or river. 

I think as you will probably hear from other port people and 
from some of the other congressmen, the conditions are particular 
and specific. You need people with that local knowledge. Just as 
Captain Ives, being a pilot, is very familiar with the Delaware 
River, I would think he might in the middle of a rainstorm, if he 
were taking a vessel up the Mississippi, have a difficult time. 
While he has all the technical expertise and knows how to handle 
a vessel and how to give those commands, he doesn't have that 
local experience of dealing with that particular project. 

Mr. Duncan. I have no more questions, but let me say that I cer- 
tainly am not criticizing anybody. The Army Corps of Engineers is 
going to be cut someplace. I am suggesting that all the people who 
don't like the plan that is out there now — it might be a good idea 
for you to get together and come up with a better plan. Otherwise 
you are going to see a plan go in that you might not like 

Ms. Jones. We welcome that opportunity. 



27 

Mr. Duncan. You have the opportunity. Just go ahead and do it. 

Mr. BORSKI. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Tennessee. I 
think he is absolutely right on this question. But I also agree that 
our panelists have not been asked. Hopefully today we are starting 
to provide that forum. We do hope to receive that kind of written 
testimony from all our guests today as to how this organization can 
better work. 

If there are no further questions of this panel, we thank you very 
much for your testimony. 

Ms. Jones. Thank you. 

Mr. LaRue. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Ives. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BORSKI. We would like to welcome our third panel. Dr. J. 
Wade Gilley, president, Marshall University, Huntington, West 
Virginia. 

[Witness sworn.] 

Mr. BORSKI. Before you testify, I wish to recognize the distin- 
guished Chairman of the Surface Transportation Committee for 
purposes of introduction, Mr. Rahall. 

Mr. Rahall. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I ask unanimous consent also that my prepared statement be put 
into the record. 

Mr. BORSKI. Without objection, your prepared statement will ap- 
pear in the record. 

[Mr. Rahall's prepared statement follows:] 

Statement of Representative Nick J. Rahall II 

Mr. Chairman, let me take this time to thank you for holding these hearings. I 
believe the people who will be affected by the proposed Corps of Engineers Reorga- 
nization plan welcome the opportunity to express their views. 

Huntington, West Virginia is the site of a Corps of Engineers district office which 
would be, in simple terms, gutted if the proposed reorganization plan were imple- 
mented. In my view, and in the view of the citizens, businesses, educators and the 
employees of the Corps in the Huntington area, this plan makes little sense. 

The three hundred and sixty-five positions proposed to be moved from the Hun- 
tington district is a much larger percentage of Huntington's economic base than it 
would be of larger cities. Losing that many jobs would induce a tremendous ripple 
effect that would soon reach all sectors of the economy. 

Furthermore, it is illogical to take people from a district office which has proven 
itself to be efficient and effective and which is located in an area with a low cost- 
of-living and move them to a city with a high cost-of-living. The Huntington district 
has proven itself by managing a relative large civil works budget with a relatively 
small staff. This plan, which is intended to save tax dollars seems to penaUze them 
for their efficiency rather than giving them credit. 

Those who promote this plan now say an economic impact analysis ought to be 
performed on Huntington and three other Corps facilities before the plan proceeds. 
I say AMEN. 

But, I must ask, why such an impact analysis was not done prior to moving for- 
ward with such a plan not only in Huntington, but all Corps facihties? Why did the 
Corps proceed forward blindly without the express authorization of the Congress to 
reorganize districts? 

I have pointed out many factors the Corps did not consider in this plan. Any set 
of criteria, the Corps has replied, is subjective. 

I am reminded of Will Roger's words — An economist is a man that can tell you 
what can happen under any given condition, and his guess is liable to be as good 
as anybody else's, too." 

Of course criteria are subjective, but the Corps and the executive branch must, 
as the Congress must, keep in mind our charge — to promote the general welfare — 
I believe the constitution states. 



28 

The Corps reorganization is not about a bunch of number crunching going on in 
somebody's personal laptop computer. No, this reorganization is about how we best 
serve the needs of this nation and promote the general welfare. 

To do less is to violate our public responsibilities, to do more would enhance this 
country's infrastructure, boost our competitiveness and expand our economy. 

I will stop short of Senator Rollings plea that we "shoot all economists." But per- 
haps a lesson or two in public service would not hurt them. 

Given the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, I say the Corps ought to shelve this so- 
called plan and go back to the drawing board. If the Corps want to reorganize they 
should work with the Congress, work vnth those affected and together build a work- 
able plan. I will work with them. 

Mr. Chairman, it is factors such as these that the Corps seemed to ignore when 
devising this ill-conceived plan. I am glad to see that you have taken the initiative 
to hold hearings on this urgent matter. 

At this time, I am pleased to introduce to you and to the members of the sub- 
committee Dr. J. Wade Gilley of Marshall University in Huntington. Dr. Gilley is 
fully aware of and seriously concerned about the adverse effects that the proposed 
plan will have on the entire Huntington area and on Marshall University in particu- 
lar. I feel that this testimony today will be particularly meaningful as the sub- 
committee analyzes the full impact the reorganization, as presently formulated, will 
have on many areas of this nation. 

Mr. Rahall. And of course, in my statement are discussed the 
adverse effects that this proposed reorganization or downsizing of 
the Corps of Engineers would have upon its Huntington, West Vir- 
ginia district office. This office is very efficient and very talented. 
A great deal of expertise exists in this office and they are becoming 
busier by the day. 

This proposed downsizing would in effect gut this particular of- 
fice and gut the many valuable infrastructure projects with which 
the Corps is involved. 

The individual I now have the honor of presenting to this sub- 
committee is fully aware of the adverse effects this downsizing 
would have on the city of Huntington and on West Virginia in gen- 
eral. 

He is the president of Marshall University, located in Hunting- 
ton, West Virginia. He is one who brings a great deal of leadership 
and a great deal of professionalism to our education community in 
West Virginia. The positive impact he has had upon Marshall Uni- 
versity, upon the city of Huntington, and upon our entire State 
cannot be measured. 

I look forward to hearing Dr. Gilley's testimony today. We have 
had preliminary discussions about establishing joint engineering ef- 
forts between the Corps of Engineers and his school at Marshall 
University. Those efforts would only be set back by a quantum leap 
if this downsizing were to be approved. 

I introduce to you Dr. Wade Gilley, president of Marshall Univer- 
sity. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BORSKI. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Dr. Gilley. 

TESTIMONY OF J. WADE GILLEY, PRESIDENT, MARSHALL 
UNIVERSITY, HUNTINGTON, WV 

Mr. Gilley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the oppor- 
tunity to be here. I thank Congressman Rahall and Congressman 
Wise for inviting me. 

I can't say that I am an expert on the Corps of Engineers, but 
there are two or three points I would like to make. 



29 

One is that the Corps of Engineers in Huntington is an essential 
part of our economy. We probably have three or four anchors to the 
economy: the Corps of Engineers, health care, petrochemical manu- 
facturing, and possibly the university. As we look at the future of 
the economy of Huntington, I guess like many small cities in mid- 
dle America, many of our anchors in our economy are under stress. 

Our health care is a major portion of our economy. We have two 
major hospitals, the university as a medical school, and again that 
offers an uncertain future because of what is happening in health 
care and what may happen in the future in this country. 

We look at the Corps of Engineers and they represent 300 to 400 
high-paying professional jobs that contribute enormously to the 
Huntington economy. These are professionals who are involved in 
every aspect of community life. Now this anchor within our eco- 
nomic development strategy is also under threat. 

It seems to us that if we are serious about economic development 
in this country, something like the reorganization of the Corps of 
Engineers cannot take place in a vacuum. It should be part of some 
comprehensive, coherent idea about where we are going as a coun- 
try economically. It has to be tied in with all the other things that 
are happening. 

It seems to me that this plan was developed without any local 
input apparently here along the banks of the Potomac and sprung 
full-bloom at the end of last year. I think we probably need to have 
more discussion about the economy and the impact on the local 
economies all across the country and have the Corps' reorganiza- 
tion, as well as other things happening in Grovernment, to be an 
integral part of some coherent plan for the country. 

The second point I would like to make is that as we look at the 
Corps of Engineers and their educational needs, one of the reasons 
that the Huntington district office was not designated as a tech- 
nical center or was designated for downsizing was the lack of an 
engineering school within 75 miles. 

When we look at the Corps of Engineers, they do have a lot of 
professionals, but they are not all in engineering. None of the of- 
fices depended on the local university for a supply of civil engineers 
or environmental engineers. 

Just to digress a minute, my doctorate is in civil and environ- 
mental engineering, so I know a little about that subject. 

The Corps recruits students for employees from all across the 
country, but they need to have the opportunity for those employees 
to continue to work toward master's degrees. When we look at the 
educational opportunities in Huntington, our university has almost 
3,000 graduate students ranging from medical students to Ph.D.'s 
in biomedical science, M.B.A., more than 50 masters degrees in a 
variety of fields. 

Just up the road 35 miles from us is a part of our system, the 
West Virginia College of Graduate Studies, which has 3,000 grad- 
uate students, including a fully accredited graduate school of engi- 
neering with master's degrees. In fact, currently in Huntington 
they are in the process this spring of awarding degrees in engineer- 
ing management to 15 or 20 employees at the Corps of Engineers' 
office there. 



30 

So we cannot understand who decided that Huntington didn't 
meet this criteria when no one in Huntington was consulted. We 
were not approached on the subject, neither was the College of 
Graduate Studies. Together, we have more than 6,000 graduate 
students within a 25-minute drive of Huntington and the Corps of 
Engineers' office. 

We would like to ask the committee to revisit this plan, look at 
it in terms of its technical aspects, but also to look at in terms of 
some coherent approach to economic development in this country 
as we move forward to a new economy under a new Administration 
and a new way of doing things. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

Mr. BORSKI. Thank you for your testimony. 

Let me now welcome the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. 
Wise. 

Mr. Wise. I yield to Mr. Rahall, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BORSKi. Mr. Rahall. 

Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Gilley, I appreciated very much your fine testimony. 

You say that you were not consulted at all in the Corps' study 
of the reorganization. Is that correct? 

Mr. Gilley. Yes, sir. That is correct. In fact, I do not know any- 
one in Huntington, in the university, or even you that was con- 
sulted. We did not know until we read it in the paper. 

Mr. Rahall. That is what I had found all around in my discus- 
sions. That includes not only in the Huntington area but up here 
on Capitol Hill as well. 

Evidently, there weren't even any economists consulted either in 
an economic analysis because in my understanding of this proposed 
reorganization such was not done. Now they are saying that they 
are going to do such, but I wonder why they proceeded so blindly 
with such a plan in the beginning without even having done the 
most simple of preliminary steps, which should have been an eco- 
nomic analysis study. I think if they would have done that they 
would have seen how large a civil works budget this particular of- 
fice handles, what a small staff they have today handling that 
large budget, and what an efficient job they're doing. 

All economic analysis should also have included the cost of living 
in Huntington, West Virginia, the cost of labor there, the fine qual- 
ity of life we have, the effect upon worker productivity and morale, 
and how transferring such a workforce to another area would be 
counterproductive to the long-range plan of a more efficient Gov- 
ernment and the long-range goals of deficit reduction. 

I just point that out and use your response as further proof that 
no such consultation was done whatsoever. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I yield back to my colleague. 

Mr. Wise. We greatly appreciate your being here. I am happy to 
say that a large number of students at Marshall University are 
from the 2nd district as well. Thanks to Nick Rahall, I proudly 
wear a green jacket. [Laughter.] 

You mentioned the engineering program. Did the Corps of Engi- 
neers consult with you about the engineering programs that might 
be available in the area? 



31 

Mr. GiLLEY. We have had discussions and interaction with the 
local office for many years. In fact, we have a department of soft- 
ware engineering and they have a number of training contracts and 
relationships with the Corps. 

But in relation to this study and the possibility of moving the of- 
fice to some other location, there have been no discussions. 

Mr. Wise. Were you aware that in the case of Louisville they 
were given credit for an engineering school that was located 75 
miles away? 

Mr. GiLLEY. No, I was not aware of that. 

Mr. Wise. If that same criterion were applied to the Huntington 
district, would there be engineenng programs within easy access, 
that is, as easy as 75 miles is? 

Mr. GiLLEY. There is a fully accredited graduate school of engi- 
neering within 35 miles on Interstate 64 and they have an office 
and operation in Huntington in cooperation with Marshall Univer- 
sity where they are now offering graduate engineering programs 
for the Corps of Engineers' office there. 

Mr. Wise. And then if you went another 25 miles, roughly, you 
would be in Montgomery, where there is a fully accredited Institute 
of Technology with another fully accredited engineering program. 

Mr. GiLLEY. That's right. 

Mr. Wise. I find interesting also that two factors are weighted 
equally — cost of living and transportation. The cost of living to the 
Corps is that 75 percent of its costs are in wages, 2 percent in trav- 
el, and yet they were weighted equally. Quite honestly, I am not 
aware of Huntington, West Virginia, nor its surrounding area, as 
being a high cost area compared to urban areas that I have known. 

How did you get here this morning? Did you fly or drive? 

Mr. GiLLEY. Actually, I have been up here all week. 

Mr. Wise. At some point do you fly? 

Mr. GiLLEY. I do fly. We lived for 10 years in Northern Virginia 
and our children are in Reston and Fairfax and they routinely fly. 
We can buy tickets 2 weeks in advance for $149 round trip. Our 
son is a college student, so we are always planning ahead on him. 

So transportation is adequate. We have Charleston 40 minutes 
away. We have no difficulty at the university. Hundreds of people 
fly in and out of airports all the time. 

Mr. Wise. I know you are very much involved in economic devel- 
opment. Is it also a fact that a regional airport, which would serv- 
ice Huntington, Charleston, and Parkersburg, an area of over 1 
million people, plus a tri-State area is presently in the works and 
being actively considered? Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. GiLLEY. Yes, sir. It is my understanding that they have nar- 
rowed it to four sites for that. 

Mr. Wise. It is down to 4 from 42, and will be narrowed down 
to 1 in August? 

Mr. GiLLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wise. I appreciate it because these are some facts that are 
important to get into the record. I greatly appreciate your involve- 
ment with this. 

Mr. Chairman, some of the facts I was citing have come from 
statements of people who could not be here. They asked for these 
to be included. 



32 

One would be the statement of John Sturdivant, the national 
president of the American Federation of Government Employees. 
He points out the problems of centralization of planning and design 
functions and the need at this point for some decentralization. 

I also have another statement by Operation Mountain Storm 
with members from the tri-State area. They ask that their state- 
ment be introduced. They have statistics in there, including the one 
about the engineering school being credited to Louisville, which is 
75 miles away, as well as the issues of transportation costs and 
cost of living. 

I would ask unanimous consent that both of these statements be 
included as part of the record. 

Mr. BORSKI. Without objection, your prepared statement will ap- 
pear in the record. 

Mr. Wise. Thank you. 

[Mr. Sturdivant's prepared statement follows:] 

Statement by John N. Sturdivant, National President, American Federation 
OF Government Employees (AFL-CIO) 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee; my name is John Sturdivant. 
I am National President of the American Federation of Government Employees, 
AFL-CIO, which represents over 700,000 government workers nationwide, of which 
300,000 work in the Department of Defense. I thank you for the opportunity to 
present this statement concerning the proposed reorganization of the Army Corps 
of Engineers. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to make it unalterably clear that AFGE strongly opposes 
the proposed Army Corps of Engineer reorganization. It is a clear cut fact that the 
dedicated and capable employees of the Corps of Engineers have made a significant 
and long-lasting contribution to the excellent civil works program in the United 
States. At a time when all America is calling for a revitalization of our highways, 
bridges, waterways, and airports, we must reject this draconian proposal that would 
dismantle the agency that plans and manages the construction of these essential fa- 
cilities. In these critical times, we need to keep our talented people right where they 
are so they can continue to make America stronger and more competitive in the 
global economy. 

AFGE has carefully reviewed and analyzed the Corps of Engineers reorganization 
plan released last November. Our evaluation is that the plan has substantial flaws, 
including deficient decision criteria and economic assumptions. Primarily, we find 
that this plan will result in decreased service to Corps customers. The reason for 
this decreased service is essentially because the proposed Corps organization would 
centraUze key planning and design functions into newly-created technical centers 
that will serve large geographic areas. As a result of this centralization, a technical 
center in the North Central Division will serve an area extending from New York 
to Montana and as far south as Alabama. This organizational configuration yields 
projects that are planned in St. Paul, designed in Omaha, and constructed by the 
Huntington, West Virginia, district. Not only will this confuse the external cus- 
tomers, but it will likely baffle the very Corps workers who have to coordinate and 
verify a mjrriad of complex technical data. 

We also found that the proposed plan inappropriately applied decision criteria for 
site selection. As an example, cost-of-living in proposed sites was given a minimal 
weighted value, while access to a major air terminal was used as a determining fac- 
tor. This approach ignores the fact that labor costs are about 75% of expenditures 
and travel accounts for about 2%. There are numerous other areas in which the pro- 
posed plan inappropriately applies management efficiency criterion against cost ef- 
fectiveness criterion. 

In summary, Mr. Chairman, AFGE strongly opposes the Corps reorganization pro- 
posal because: 

America needs to concentrate its efforts on rebuilding our infrastructure, not dis- 
rupting the agency that manages this rebuilding. 

The proposed plan will result in decreased service to Corps customers. 

The proposed plan has substantial flaws in decision criteria and economic as- 
sumptions. 



33 

The centralization of planning and design functions in technical centers will frag- 
ment these critical activities, geographically and organizationally, from the Corps 
district responsible for large project construction. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to submit our statement on this im- 
portant issue. 

[Operation Mountain Storm's prepared statement follows:] 
Statement From Operation Mountain Storm 

(By Dale P. Jones) 

Operation Mountain Storm (OMS) is made up of a group of citizens of Hunting- 
ton, West Virginia and surrounding areas. We are very concerned with the present 
reorganization plan proposed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. While recogniz- 
ing that reorganization of the Corps is needed, our goal is to assure that any reorga- 
nization be done in a way to be good for the country, the employees, and the Hun- 
tington Tri-State area. We appreciate the opportunity express our concerns and to 
place the following statement into the record of this hearing. 

During the last three years, the Corps of Engineers has been developing plans to 
reorganize in an effort to streamline its operations and to better meet the demands 
of the future. And, clearly, there is a legitimate need for the Corps to change in re- 
sponse to changes in its workload. 

However, no reorganization of the Corps of Engineers should be undertaken with- 
out the highest order of circumspection and forethought. The Corps is the largest 
and best engineering organization in the world, with a unique role in water re- 
sources development, military support and economic development in the United 
States. For this reason, any changes to the Corps should be the product of an open 
and participatory process and rigorous economic analysis. 

The plan that is currently on the table is not the product of any such process or 
analysis. The plan was developed behind closed doors, and was sprung on Congress, 
the Corps and the public last November, resulting in widespread surprise and oppo- 
sition, even among those district and division employees who participated on the 
Field Advisory Committees. The methods of analysis that were used to evaluate the 
alternative plans and implementation strategies were of the crudest sort imag- 
inable. 

Consequently, a very poor plan has been recommended. There are good reasons 
to expect this plan to result in decreased services to the Corps' customers. The plan 
calls for the transfer of thousands of jobs from low-cost areas to high-cost areas. The 
plan calls for the dismantling of exemplary Corps districts with strong workloads 
and demonstrated expertise, and the transfer of those jobs to districts whose superi- 
ority has not been demonstrated. 

In selecting sites for civil works technical centers, administrative centers, and di- 
visions, a very crude grading system was used. 

Originally, eight criteria were to be used to select these sites, but three were 
eliminated from explicit consideration because it was "impossible" or "too hard" to 
apply them. One of the five remaining criteria was used as a first-order qualifica- 
tion: only existing Corps districts and divisions were to be considered. Districts and 
divisions were graded on three of the foiu- remaining criteria and the fourth was 
used as a tie-breaker. 

The first criterion that was explicitly considered was the cost-of-living criterion. 
This criterion was all but ignored. Three cities have been designated by the 0PM 
as high-cost areas where federal employees are paid locality pay differentials: New 
York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. These three cities alone were treated as high- 
cost areas, with all other cities being treated equally — as low-cost areas. The 28 
high-cost cities whose locality pay is targeted to begin in 1994 were treated as low- 
cost areas, as were another 20 cities now being considered for locality pay. 

Boston, Vicksburg, Chicago, Walla Walla, Houston and Huntington were all treat- 
ed as low-cost areas and were given a score of 2 points; the three high-cost areas 
(New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco) were given 1 point. Labor costs account 
for more than two-thirds of the Corps' non-contract expenditures and the effects of 
locality pay and retention pay on the Corps' cost of doing business is likely to over- 
ride all other considerations. The use of such a crude measure of cost-of-living is 
grossly inadequate. 

The next two criteria — educational availability and transportation hub availabil- 
ity — were graded using the same l-point/2-point scale. Each of these two criteria 
were given the same weight as the cost-of-living criteria, even though training and 
travel costs together account for only about 2 percent of the Corps' non-contracting 
budget. 



34 

The selection of gaining districts and divisions was to be based on the total scores 
that districts received for the cost-of-living, educational availability, and air trans- 
portation criteria. Only three scores were possible: 4, 5, and 6. [A score of 3 is im- 
possible, since New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco all have major air hubs 
and major engineering schools located nearby.] As should be expected, there were 
many tied scores. 

This grading system was clearly ineffectual. Of the five new divisions, only one 
of the headquarters was picked by virtue of its score on the criteria listed above: 
Boston was selected over New York City because Boston was treated as a low-cost 
area. Ten of the twelve districts in the new North Central Division were tied for 
first place. Huntington, which was selected as a site for a Super-District under the 
last reorganization plan, was rated dead last. 

Twenty-four decisions were to be based on this grading system: the selection of 
sites for fourteen technical centers, five administrative centers, and five divisions. 
Only two of the twenty-four decisions were based on the three graded criteria. 

The number of employees whose jobs would be transferred or consolidated was to 
be the deciding criteria in the event of ties. However, the numbers that were used 
included many persons not affected by the reorganization, such as engineers work- 
ing in specialized technical centers and in military construction. This criteria, used 
as the tie-breaking criteria, was especially important since so many of the scores 
were tied. 

Departures from the stated methods are too numerous to list. As an example, the 
irregularities in the selection of sites for division headquarters are worth noting. Di- 
vision boundaries were drawn so that the selection of Atlanta was uncontested. 
Vicksburg was chosen over Dallas even though it had a lower score. Cincinnati was 
picked over Omaha even though Omaha had a higher ranking. 

There were also numerous irregularities in the selection of sites for technical cen- 
ters. Division boundaries were shifted so that the Norfolk District could be selected 
as a technical center. To satisfy the educational availability criterion, Louisville was 
given credit for an engineering school located more than 75 miles away. Once grades 
and ranks were established, the architects of this plan commonly skipped through 
the rankings, passing over higher-ranked districts for subjective reasons. 

The methods used to assess the economic impacts of the plan are embarrassingly 
crude. The "Rational Threshold Value" (RTV) methods have never been subjected to 
academic peer review and have absolutely no support whatsoever from the fields of 
economics or regional science. This methodology is a make-shift technique developed 
by engineers at the University of Illinois to work with an inadequate data set, and 
is loosely based on ideas borrowed from dam safety analysis. The RTV methods may 
be appropriate for use in some reconnaissance studies, but are grossly inadequate 
for use in the final analysis of plans of such great importance. 

Our goal is not to prevent reorganization of the Corps of Engineers. It is to assure 
that the Corps reorganizes ift the manner that is best for the Corps and our nation. 

Plans developed behind closed doors by a handful of political appointees and other 
interested parties are not likely to achieve this objective. An open and participatory 
process is not likely to call for the dismantling of the strongest Corps districts in 
favor of some that have been unable to produce a major civil works project in the 
last 20 years. 

It is our opinion that minimizing unnecesseiry layers of costs and delays in head- 
quarters and divisions and strengthening the Corps where the work is done, i.e., in 
the districts, is an important step in the right direction. This is the objective of the 
Decentralization alternative. 

In light of the overwhelming magnitude of labor costs and of recent and antici- 
pated future trends toward locality pay differentials, moves to consolidate Corps 
functions should overwhelmingly favor low-cost areas. In terms of relative mag- 
nitude, costs of education and transportation are dust in the balance. 

Thank you for your support in helping us achieve our common goal. This state- 
ment is respectfully submitted this 6th day of May, 1993. 

Mr. BORSKI. The gentleman from Tennessee? 

Mr. Duncan. Dr. Gilley, thank you for your testimony. I might 
just mention to you briefly that since I have been in Congress one 
of the very biggest things I have gotten is people coming to me 
wanting help in getting jobs with the Federal Government. Federal 
pay and benefits have gone up so much that they almost have to 
keep job openings hidden. If they were well-publicized I think there 
would be thousands of applicants for every position. 



35 

I can't imagine that the Corps of Engineers would have trouble 
getting well-qualified engineers to come to Huntington. 

Have you ever heard of them having a problem in this regard? 

Mr. GiLLEY. To my knowledge, they have no difficulty. 

Mr. Duncan. I represent Knoxville, Tennessee, which is a me- 
dium-sized city, and several smaller counties that surround Knox- 
ville. I have always felt that with the fax machines and all that we 
really didn't need to put all these Federal agencies into the large 
cities where the land costs and the building costs are much higher 
and the cost of living is much higher. I think it would be good for 
the country if we would move more Government agencies to the 
small towns and rural areas of this country. 

How close is Pittsburgh to Huntington? 

Mr. GiLLEY. About 4 hours driving. 

Also, Congressman, it seems to me that corporations like Citicorp 
are moving their operations to South Dakota rather than consoli- 
dating them in major cities. 

Mr. Duncan. Most of the surveys I have seen show that many 
of the people who live in our largest cities really don't want to be- 
cause of all the pollution, crime, and congestion type problems. 
They would really like to move to the smaller towns if they could, 
but the jobs just aren't there. 

Why don't you get together with some of the people who are in- 
terested in this and see if you can get them to move the office from 
Pittsburgh to Huntington? 

Mr. GiLLEY. I heard that an earlier reorganization plan proposed 
moving some jobs from Pittsburgh to Huntington. 

For 10 years, I lived in Vienna, Virginia before going to Hunting- 
ton. I can tell you that the cost of living is far, far less, the quality 
of life is excellent. Not only is there a lot less traffic and good 
roads, but in every respect the quality of life is excellent compared 
to Northern Virginia. There are a lot of people who would like to 
come to a place like Huntington if there were only jobs. I think it 
would be a tragedy to move jobs out to some major city when you 
could save money and have more productive employees. 

Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BORSKI. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Any further questions? 

[No response.] 

Mr. BORSKI. Thank you. Dr. Gilley, very much for your testi- 
mony. 

Mr. GiLLEY. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. BORSKI. We would like to change the order of our witnesses 
at this point to accommodate their busy schedules. We would there- 
fore like to welcome our next witness, the distinguished mayor of 
the city of Dallas, Texas, a former Member of our body. We were 
hoping that you would be closing our testimony today. We had a 
distinguished former Member as our first witness and a distin- 
guished former Member as our last, but we are happy to accommo- 
date you right now. 

I don't know why you would leave this place with its charm and 
fun and go to try do a tough job like manage a major city, but we 
are happy that a man of your abilities is doing such a good job. 



36 

TESTIMONY OF HON. STEVE BARTLETT, MAYOR, DALLAS, TX; 
ACCOMPANIED BY J. SCOTT CARLSON, ASSISTANT CITY AT- 
TORNEY, CITY OF DALLAS, TX 

Mayor Bartlett. Mr. Chairman, it is very good to be here. I ap- 
preciate the welcome. You and I came in in the same class to- 
gether, as I recall. As I recall, you have been a friend and ally to 
somebody I admire a great deal in the city business, Ed Rendell, 
of Philadelphia. He and I share — even though different parties — a 
good deal of commonality in terms of reinventing government, a 
more efficient government, and a more effective government type 
of approaches. 

It is very good to see you and also my good friend, John Duncan, 
who came in just as I was leaving, and Robert Wise, who also came 
in with me. This is kind of like a class reunion. 

Mr. BORSKI. Before you begin your testimony, I would ask you 
to stand. 

[Witness sworn.] 

Mayor Bartlett. Mr. Chairman, I have with me an assistant 
city attorney for the city of Dallas who has conducted some of the 
research involved in this. I don't expect that he will testify, but he 
may be available for technical answers. 

I am here both on my own behalf and also working with a mem- 
ber of this subcommittee, a new Member of Congress, Eddie Ber- 
nice Johnson, who has been a long-time friend and ally of mine and 
she with me. As she went to Congress, I went to being mayor and 
our ships crossed. She and I have worked together on this issue 
and this testimony. I expect that she will either be here this morn- 
ing or be back later this afternoon. 

Mr. Chairman, I have submitted written testimony for the record 
and would like to have it considered in its entirety. 

Mr. BORSKI. Without objection, your prepared statement will ap- 
pear in the record. 

Mayor Bartlett. Mr. Chairman, I am a fan of the Corps of Engi- 
neers, so I come here with somewhat of a heavy heart with what 
I have to say about a particular aspect of the reorganization. I am 
not here to tell you that I am an expert on the reorganization as 
a whole, but I am here to tell you that it was my job to become 
an expert on the reorganization portion that concludes that the 
Dallas division office should be relocated to Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

As a fan of the Corps of Engineers, I think they do an excellent 
job in one of the strongest, most effective, and professional organi- 
zations in Grovernment. But I have to tell you that the proposal, by 
the Corps' own criteria, to relocate 200 individuals of Dallas divi- 
sion to Vicksburg, Mississippi may be one of the dumbest ideas I 
have seen come out of a (xovernment agency in a long time. And 
I have been around long enough to have seen a fair share of dumb 
ideas. 

I say that with a heavy heart. That is based on a review of the 
documents. 

My testimony will not relate to the downsizing itself. And that 
is obviously a subject for this committee, the Corps, and the Con- 
gress as a whole. I understand that Gk)vernment as a whole is 
going through some downsizing. But what I have to say is with re- 
gard to the location of this division office. And what I have to say 



37 

will demonstrate why a relocation to Vicksburg from Dallas will 
provide a higher cost to the taxpayers and a substantially lower ef- 
ficiency. That is what I am going to focus on. 

I am prepared to answer questions on other subjects as they 
come up. 

You would expect the mayor of Dallas to say that, and that is 
why I wanted to be sure to come fully prepared with what the facts 
are. Most of the facts have come from the Corps' own plan itself. 

Based on the Corps own determinations, the actual plan they 
submitted and their findings, the Dallas division office should re- 
main in Dallas. The irony of it is that that was the Corps' conclu- 
sion based on their analysis. 

The Corps' analysis identified eight criteria in their own study. 
The eight criteria were: 

To locate the division offices in cities with existing Corps' offices. 
Both Dallas and Vicksburg are the same. 

Cost of living. The Corps concluded that that was the same. 

Educational availability; transportation hub availability; and the 
number of current personnel. They both have current personnel, so 
that is not applicable. 

Labor availability; office space availability; and central to work- 
load. 

These criteria, Mr. Chairman, were developed by the Field Advi- 
sory Committee within the Corps itself. In evaluations leading to 
that proposed reorganization plan, the Corps then, for reasons not 
made clear in the report, used only the first five of the criteria and 
not the last three. In other words, they didn't consider labor avail- 
ability, office space availability, and central location, even though 
the field offices said they should have. So they only used the first 
five and disregarded the others. 

To further skew the results, the final decision only evaluated 
each criteria on a pass/fail system. In the mayor's business, you do 
a lot of corporate relocations. So you have a scale of one to ten and 
you have somebody who may rate an eight on one criterion and a 
two on another one. In this case, the Corps used a pass/fail system. 
You either got a one if you weren't very good or a two if you were 
very good. 

Even with that skewed system, using only five criteria — of which 
Dallas was way ahead on the other three criteria — and using strict- 
ly a pass/fail system and not a qualitative system — even with that, 
Dallas was a superior location by the Corps' own conclusion, a rat- 
ing of six points compared to four points. 

I sat down and analyzed some of the criteria, and let me share 
with you some examples. 

For example, one of the criteria is transportation availability. 
DFW Airport is the hub of the universe. I know people sometimes 
hate for us to say that, and you hate it even more when you have 
to go through DFW to get to anywhere in the world. In 1991, DFW 
Airport has 2,100 operations per day. Love Field, which also serves 
this division office, has an additional 500 to 600 flights per day. 

Vicksburg is a wonderful city, but it doesn't have an airport at 
all. There is an airport in Jackson, Mississippi 60 miles away. 
These are government personnel from both the Federal and local 
governments who will have to go there from 60 miles away in Jack- 



72-424 0-94-3 



38 

son, Mississippi. In 1991, Jackson averaged 180 daily operations, 
which includes both general and commercial aviation. 

And it is not just air availability. Dallas is the headquarters for 
Greyhound bus. Dallas has the highway system, rail, and other 
things. 

Putting transportation aside, which is just overwhelming, in 
terms of cost and convenience and low cost to the Government, 
these seven district offices that are served by this division all have 
access to Southwest Airlines, of which Love Field is the hub for 
Southwest Airlines. You would also get low-cost fares for all the 
district offices. 

Moving on to educational availability, the Dallas/Fort Worth area 
is the home to Southern Methodist University, the University of 
Texas at Dallas with a new engineering school of first class, the 
University of Texas at Arlington with a long-time and well-re- 
garded engineering school, the University of North Texas, Texas 
Christian University, Paul Quinn College, and Dallas Baptist Uni- 
versity. Plus, our community college system is regarded as one of 
the two best in the Nation in terms of technical skills, drafting, and 
the kinds of people the Corps uses. 

As I said a minute ago, the Corps concluded on the cost of living 
criteria that the Dallas and Vicksburg areas rate equally on cost 
of living. I am not sure if the costs are the same. I believe they are 
reasonably the same, but I do have to gently suggest that Dallas 
also has the Dallas Cowboys and a world-class symphony, and 
World Cup 1994, and a new NHL franchise. We are only one of two 
cities west of the Mississippi with all four professional sports. That 
simply adds convenience to the personnel, which then adds to the 
benefit of the Government. 

Similarly, with labor force capacity, a city of 25,000 population 
and a metropolitan area of 4.5 million. Mr. Chairman, that doesn't 
make us better. It means that we can serve the needs of the Corps 
of Engineers better and less costly and more efficiently. 

So in summary, there is no significant reason to support the clo- 
sure of the Dallas division. The Corps didn't find any significant 
reason. They just recommended it. It is not related to the reorga- 
nization or the downsizing plan. It is something that no one can 
develop a reason, either qualitative or quantitative, as to why it 
should be changed both by the Corps' own criteria, by the skeletal 
criteria, and by the expanded criteria. 

Now, it has been mentioned that one of the reasons might be be- 
cause of the Mississippi River Commission and the need to have 
that in Vicksburg. 

Mr. Chairman, it is created by Federal law. It is already in 
Vicksburg. It doesn't have a permanent staff. It uses staff from the 
Vicksburg office. Insofar as I know, it could use some of the staff 
from the Dallas office if it chose. It is not related. The Mississippi 
River Commission has been created by Federal law. It meets in 
Vicksburg, it ought to meet in Vicksburg. We would love to have 
it in Dallas, but there is no reason for it to be in Dallas. It ought 
to be in Vicksburg. It is just simply not related to what the Dallas 
division does. 

Mr. Chairman, the committee also asked for an impact on Dallas. 
Let me say something about downtown. 



39 

The Federal Government spends a lot of time, effort, resources, 
and money — whether enterprise zones, economic stimulus pack- 
ages, community development block grants, or other kinds of 
things — to rebuild the downtowns of big cities. Our downtown has 
begun to deteriorate like everyone else's. This would be a signifi- 
cant loss of jobs for our downtown area and run counter to the Fed- 
eral Government's role. 

We are also engaged as a city in a lot of flood control projects 
with the Corps. Currently we are building some $25 million in 
flood control at our own expense. We do work with the Corps and 
the Corps is conducting a study currently on that project and relat- 
ed projects. If you move them away, it becomes less efficient and 
doesn't do anything for Vicksburg. 

Geographic location was one of the criteria, central to workload. 
The cities that will report to this division office — whether it is in 
Dallas or Vicksburg — are Albuquerque, Tulsa, Fort Worth, Little 
Rock, and Galveston. All of those cities are west of Vicksburg. In- 
deed, Dallas is in the exact center of those cities and that is why 
it was organized that way in the first place. 

Concerning technical conferences, this division office hosts large 
numbers of technical conferences, one this month of 1,500 mem- 
bers. Dallas is the second largest convention city in America in 
terms of number of conventioneers. So we have the facilities. Vicks- 
burg is a very pleasant place, but it is difficult to have very many 
1,500-person symposia in Vicksburg both for travel as well as for 
facilities. 

You also asked my recommendation on the creation of technical 
centers. Mr. Chairman, I am not an expert on that. My cursory re- 
view would indicate that technical centers would create an addi- 
tional layer of bureaucracy. Mayor Rendell, I, and others who are 
reinventing government are doing everything we can in our cities 
to eliminate layers of bureaucracy. There may be things that I 
don't know about the technical centers, but from reading the Corps' 
report, it seems to me that it would require approval to be done 
by two different places and two different people, but one approval. 

One of the things that we're doing in Dallas and that a lot of gov- 
ernments are doing is consolidating where one person does all the 
approval. We have a one-stop permit process in Dallas so that if 
you want to build a subdivision, building, or a house, you can come 
to one place, see one person, get one permit with one set of plans 
all the way from foundation through finish and electrical. So the 
technical centers would seem to run contrary to that. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the extra time and submit my testi- 
mony for the record. 

Mr. BORSKI. The Chair thanks the gentleman very much. 

Let me first come to the gentlewoman from Texas. 

Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am delighted that a great man of a great city has found the 
time to come. I appreciate it. 

Are you aware of any efforts by the Corps to begin cutting back 
staff in the Dallas office, although the reorganization plan is on 
hold? 

Mayor Bartlett. We hear on a regular basis rumors of cutting 
staff. We have nothing definitive. We are quite concerned about 



40 

that because if staff is cut inadvertently or in anticipation of a re- 
organization that does not occur, then it will hurt the efficiency of 
the Corps. We hear that, but we have no definitive results. We 
would like to find out, though. 

Ms. Johnson. Thank you. 

I have read your testimony and heard your statement and agree 
with you very strongly on many of the points. Regarding the air- 
ports in Dallas and Vicksburg, do you know of any direct flights 
from Jackson, Mississippi to any of the division offices that will fall 
in the new South Central Division? 

Mayor Bartlett. Congresswoman, there are no direct flights 
to — first of all, there are no direct flights to Vicksburg at all. But 
Jackson is 60 miles away. There are no direct flights to Jackson, 
Mississippi from any of the district offices within the division ex- 
cept Memphis. Memphis would be in the reorganization and not 
currently. So there are no direct flights except Memphis. In all of 
those flights, in order to get to Jackson from Little Rock or Tulsa, 
you have to fly to Dallas first, then fly to Jackson. 

Congresswoman, I might go on to say that this is for the effi- 
ciency and cost-saving of government and government employees at 
all levels of government because local governments have to go to 
see the Corps also. There are direct flights to Dallas, Texas — both 
Love Field and DFW — from every city in North America, including 
each of these district offices which have multiple daily flights 
morning, noon, and night that are direct with no stops. That is be- 
cause we have a hub airport with DFW and it is because we have 
Love Field, which is the largest origin and destination airport in 
the country. 

Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BORSKI. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman. 

The gentleman from West Virginia? 

Mr. Wise. I just have an observation to the mayor. 

Steve, I was on the Floor yesterday and you know that we have 
a new member of the Republican party named Bartlett from Mary- 
land. I was looking at the sheet of proposed amendments today on 
the National Competitiveness Act, and sure enough there is a cost- 
cutting amendment by a gentleman named Bartlett. I said, "He is 
back. How did he get here? I thought he was in Dallas." [Laugh- 
ter.] 

It is good to see you. I really appreciate your efforts because your 
efforts and those of the gentlewoman from Dallas, joined with those 
of us who also raise exactly the same concerns, are highlighting the 
problems with this reorganization and the need to go back and 
think this one over again. 

Thank you very much for taking the time to be here and for the 
gentlewoman. 

Mayor Bartlett. I enjoyed serving with you. We did a few of 
those Wise/Bartlett amendments ourselves together. It is good to 
see you. 

Mr. Wise. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BORSKI. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Mr. Mayor, again we want to thank you very much and wish you 
well in your job. I think it is the toughest job in America trying 



41 

to run a big city these days. It is a pleasure to know that someone 
of your abilities is there doing an outstanding job in Dallas. Hope- 
fully you and Mayor Rendell will work well together. I know we are 
a little disappointed that the Cowboys beat our Eagles last year, 
but I guess all good things are happening in Dallas. 

Mayor Bartlett. Mr. Chairman, I would say that Ed Rendell 
and I get along very well 362 days a year, but there are 3 rather 
notable exceptions. 

Mr. BORSKI. I hope that continues for several years. 

Thank you again. Mayor. I appreciate your testimony. 

Mayor Bartlett. Thank you. I appreciate your time. 

Mr. BORSKI. On our next panel, we would like to welcome Con- 
gressman Jack Quinn of New York; Mr. N.G. Kaul, director. Divi- 
sion of Water, New York State Department of Environmental Con- 
servation, accompanied by Mr. James Kelly, chief of Flood Protec- 
tion Bureau, Division of Water, Department of Environmental Con- 
servation. 

We don't swear in Members of Congress, but we would like Mr. 
Kaul and Mr. Kelly to rise. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

TESTIMONY OF HON. JACK QUINN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
CONGRESS FROM NEW YORK; N.G. KAUL, DIRECTOR, DIVI- 
SION OF WATER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVI- 
RONMENTAL CONSERVATION, ACCOMPANIED BY RICHARD 
KONSELLA, CHIEF, FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT SECTION, DI- 
VISION OF WATER, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CON- 
SERVATION 

Mr. Quinn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We may not swear each 
other in, but we may swear at each other. [Laughter.] 

Thank you for the time this morning. It is nice to be on the other 
side of hearings once in awhile. I will be as brief as I can. 

I want to begin by saying that I am pleased to have Mr. Kaul 
with me today. As you have noted, he is from the New York State 
Division of Water of our New York State DEC. Our testimony is 
important to be approached in a very bipartisan way. 

Also, at the end of the testimony, I would like to submit a state- 
ment and resolution from our county legislature. I will mention 
that toward the end of my remarks. 

Mr. Chairman, I come before you this afternoon to express my 
opposition to the proposed plan to reorganize the United States 
Army Corps of Engineers as well as to propose ways to minimize 
the adverse affects of this reorganization plan. My opposition to the 
plan stems from several areas. 

The reorganizational plan ignores the fundamental problems 
with the internal structure of the Corps, focusing instead on the 
physical location of Corps' facilities around the country. Con- 
sequently, this reorganization plan ignores the unique and dire 
needs of the Great Lakes Basin and it ignores the detrimental eco- 
nomic impact that would result in the State of New York and the 
city of Buffalo in my district. 

Mr. Chairman, I agree that improvements to the organization of 
the Corps must be made in order to improve efficiency and realize 
cost savings, but I believe that we must first streamline the bu- 



42 

reaucracy before making more drastic changes that might put the 
Great Lakes at risk. For instance, if we look at ehminating need- 
less and overlapping bureaucratic levels within the Corps — includ- 
ing the five-layer civil works review process, the reorganization 
plan eliminates 2,700 jobs and relocates another 4,900 people, 
mostly the field personnel that we need more of — we cannot im- 
prove efficiency by firing the people who actually get the work done 
in the field. 

We cannot improve efficiency by moving the people with exper- 
tise in the Great Lakes region to offices in other parts of the coun- 
try. We need total quality management. This proposed reorganiza- 
tion plan completely ignores the top-heavy bureaucracy within the 
Corps. 

I realize that there must be sacrifice, but we must not and can- 
not sacrifice the future of the Great Lakes and we should not sac- 
rifice the jobs of hundreds of people in Buffalo and around New 
York State. 

I believe that the Great Lakes is one of our Nation's most pre- 
cious natural resources. It comprises the largest freshwater system 
in the world. As a transportation route and a source of energy, the 
Great Lakes are vital to the economy of a vast portion of the Na- 
tion. As a source of drinking water and a habitat for animals and 
plants, the Great Lakes are also an integral part of the region's 
ecology as well. Millions of people depend on the Great Lakes for 
their livelihood as well as their lives. 

However, under the reorganization plan, the economic and eco- 
logical value of the Great Lakes would be jeopardized. This plan 
would create a new North Central Division, the NCD. It would be 
the largest new division both in terms of sheer geography and in 
the number of districts subdivided within the NCD. 

This North Central Division would stretch from the Allegheny 
Mountains in Pennsylvania to the Rocky Mountains in Montana 
and would include virtually all of the Great Lakes Basin. It would 
further subdivide into 12 regional districts, and 4 of those would 
include technical centers. But not one of the technical centers ac- 
cording to this plan would be located on the Great Lakes. The en- 
tire North Central Division would be left with the lowest percent- 
age of technical centers, lower than any other of the new districts 
in the country. 

The Great Lakes would be left with almost nothing. The failure 
to retain the specialized engineering and planning functions pro- 
vided by the Corps would result in an immeasurable loss of exper- 
tise on navigation systems, remediation of contaminated sediments, 
and the lake level regulations within the Great Lakes Basin, and 
would risk the economy and environment throughout the region. 

I firmly believe, Mr. Chairman, that the new North Central Dis- 
trict needs another technical center on the Great Lakes. I propose, 
Mr. Chairman, that the ideal location for the additional tech center 
would be Buffalo, New York. Locating the Great Lakes technical 
center in Buffalo would help to offset some of the other losses that 
Buffalo and New York as a State will otherwise suffer as a result 
of the reorganization. New York State would lose 600 Corps jobs 
and an estimated $42 million in private contracts related to Corps 
services and projects. Buffalo would stand to lose 141 jobs alone. 



43 

I ask you to remember that in the original reorganization study 
conducted under the Base Relocation and Closure Commission Buf- 
falo would have gained jobs instead of losing 141. This is not the 
only reason I base my recommendation to locate the tech center in 
Buffalo, however. Buffalo is on the eastern doorway to the Great 
Lakes and affords proximity and access to the entire basin. Buffalo 
also offers excellent resources to the Corps. In fact, the Buffalo 
branch has already been working with the local engineering, edu- 
cational, and business communities to help improve the system of 
identifying, delineating, and protecting wetlands. 

Buffalo also offers a lower cost of living than other metropolitan 
areas around the Great Lakes. It would be more affordable to lo- 
cate stuff there because of lower costs. 

As I have said, Mr. Chairman, the proposed reorganization plan 
ignores some fundamental needs. It ignores the need to improve 
the efficiency and effectiveness of the Corps, and it ignores the 
need to protect the economic and environmental value of the Great 
Lakes. 

I urge the Corps to consider the recommendations I have made 
today before this subcommittee, along with my colleague from Grov- 
ernor Cuomo's office, to locate a Great Lakes tech center in Buffalo, 
New York. Our recommendation will help ensure that the Great 
Lakes do not suffer and that the local economy does not suffer from 
the reorganization. 

Without further objection, Mr. Chairman, I would like to include 
this testimony, resolutions passed by the common council of the 
city of Buffalo and the Erie County Legislature. 

I thank the chairman and the committee for their time. 

Mr. BORSKI. Without objection, your prepared statement will ap- 
pear in the record. 

Mr. Kaul. 

Mr. Kaul. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I ap- 
preciate the opportunity to come before you to provide testimony 
regarding the proposed reorganization. For the record I would like 
to note that Mr. James Kelly is not accompanying me, instead I am 
accompanied by Mr. Richard Konsella who is Chief, Flood Control 
Project Section for the Division of Water. 

I just want to start off by saying that New York State is com- 
pletely opposed to this reorganization proposal. This reorganization 
proposal would have a tremendous impact on New York State. It 
would eliminate essentially the Corps' North Atlantic Division of- 
fice in New York city and in Buffalo. We stand to lose over 600 jobs 
in New York State. If you take the multiplier effect of those jobs, 
we are looking at losses which will run well over $70 million. 

One of the basic reasons that we have for opposing this proposal 
is the way the proposal was developed. We seem to be going 
against the face of what American industry and American govern- 
ment are beginning to realize, that the way to get out of some of 
the inefficiencies of the past is to embody this concept of total qual- 
ity management and have the people who are actually involved in 
the work make the decision about the work. 

This notion of removing all the engineering, planning, technical 
work, and establishing it far away from where the real work is to 
be done just flies in the face of what we have learned over the past 



44 

10 to 15 years. These big centralized establishments are not the 
way to solve some of the problems we have. We learned this from 
both private and public enterprise — witness IBM. The trend seems 
to be more toward quality circles and smaller local control where 
people who know the issues solve the problems. 

The concept of the partnership which Congress has time and 
time again encouraged between the Corps and the States would es- 
sentially be lost because we wouldn't be dealing with people who 
know New York and New York conditions, but we would be dealing 
with an added level of bureaucracy far removed from the work. 

To give you some specific examples, New York State is right in 
the midst of fairly severe flooding. The fact that the Corps has been 
available to New York State, has been staffed by people who know 
the local programs, who know the flood control structures, who 
know each of the areas that have been impacted allows for a very 
quick response time. It allows for people who essentially have over 
the years designed and built these structures to come in now in 
time of need and work to operate and fix the structures. If we re- 
move all the guts of these programs and send them to external 
sources. States like New York would experience a tremendous im- 
pact. 

The whole notion of taking away a well-established functioning 
organization and reestablishing it elsewhere seems wrong. I would 
like to point out that New York State is fairly unique in one re- 
spect in that we deal with multiple Corps districts. We have some 
of the best technical folks that the Army Corps has to deal with 
the kind of problems New York faces. As Congressman Quinn said, 
if you look at the Great Lakes, that is a unique resource which 
both the Congress and the States are spending a lot of time in try- 
ing to resolve. 

The Corps is now getting involved in Great Lakes activities. We 
need their technical input in terms of dealing with contaminated 
sediment, hazardous waste remediation and how to handle some of 
these issues. If you remove those engineering and those technical 
folks from the areas where the problems exist, you will have solved 
nothing. 

We believe in cost-cutting. We believe in streamlining. That 
should be obvious. The issue is how one does this. 

This Corps' plan, as you know, violated one of the fundamental 
instances that I can think of as to how you deliver a better product. 
The first thing you do is to ask your customer. If you look at the 
way this plan was done by the Corps without taking into account 
this partnership with States like New York that have been dealing 
with the Corps for years, the planning will result in a program that 
will not work at the local and at the State level. 

One more program I would like to give special emphasis to is the 
New York/New Jersey Harbor drift removal program. 

Mr. Quinn. If the gentleman would yield, Because of another 
committment I must excuse myself, I would like to offer myself to 
be available for questions you may have either later today or later 
in the week through my office. 

Mr. BORSKI. Very good. We appreciate that. Thauik you very 
much. Congressman. 



45 

Mr. Wise. I would like to thank Jack for his role in this. It is 
vitally important that we have this bipartisan across-the-country 
show of concern over this reorganization. You have certainly been 
very active in that and I appreciate very much your help. 

Mr. QuiNN. Anything I can do. 

Thank you. 

Mr. Kaul. The Army Corps and the States of New York and New 
Jersey have been involved in the New York/New Jersey Harbor 
drift removal program. This single effort has resulted in tremen- 
dous economic growth in the city and the harbor area. The Corps 
has been a vital function in making that program happen and help- 
ing us in removing unsightly decayed wood from the waterfront. 

We hope that the Corps would increase programs and not de- 
crease them. 

The Corps is involved in dredging in the New York Harbor and 
in the Great Lakes. New York has no upland disposal site. So it 
is vitally important for us that the Corps, who has all the expertise 
in contained dredged material disposal, remain active and stay 
within the areas where the problem exists. 

Mr. Chairman, New York recommends first that the existing re- 
organization be withdrawn. If it is the judgment of the Department 
of Defense that an alternative plan should be developed. States 
should be consulted in the process. States are clients of the Corps 
and they understand the weaknesses and strengths of the current 
alignment. We can propose new structures and provide sound ad- 
vice on impacts. 

Secondly, the size and nature of the Corps' mission in New York 
justifies a formidable Corps presence in New York City and at the 
very least a significant technical center in Buffalo to serve the 
Great Lakes' needs. In particular, if you have something that 
works, and if you have a center in Buffalo that is functioning and 
serving the needs of their clients, it makes little sense to shut them 
down and shift them somewhere else. 

I will not read any more of the testimony that is going into the 
record. I will be glad to address any questions or issues. 

Mr. BORSKI. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kaul, I appreciate the fact that you have offered some rec- 
ommendations in your testimony. 

Give us your views, please, on the overall allocation of respon- 
sibilities among Corps' headquarters, divisions, and districts as en- 
visioned in the reorganization. 

Mr. Kaul. In terms of the reorganization plan, in our experience 
what has worked best for us is when the Corps allows its districts 
to get more involved in the decisionmaking. It has always caused 
problems when a decision that should be made at the local level in 
cooperation with either the locality or the State has to go back up 
the several layers of bureaucracy and get signed off by a third 
party. 

So in terms of the thrust of the reorganization, the thrust seems 
to us to be under the guise of streamlining, under the guise of sav- 
ing money. It appears to us that just the reverse will happen where 
decisions get made further and further removed and higher up the 
chain rather than leaving it at the districts that should be making 
the decisions in the first place. 



46 

Mr. BORSKI. Also in your testimony you talk about the problems 
with hazardous and radioactive waste. You say that they would be 
negatively impacted by the Corps' reorganization in your region. 
Could you expound on that a little bit? 

Mr. Kaul. It is not something that we are very proud of, but un- 
fortunately the western part of New York State and New York 
State is home to some of the most difficult hazardous waste sites 
and radioactive contaminated sites in the country. 

The Buffalo office of the Corps is involved with site remediation. 
In terms of the total number of sites which the International Joint 
Commission has identified as of concern, there are 42 which stretch 
all across the Great Lakes, 14 of which are in Buffalo. In terms of 
the technical skills, the Buffalo office has the only hazardous and 
radioactive waste design teams in the North Central District. If we 
remove those people who have the technical expertise we will lose 
our ability to handle site remediation. 

Why would you take technical people who are the only technical 
people in the North Central who have this hazardous waste experi- 
ence and remove them from areas that they will impact, work in, 
and remedy and send them to some other place? The logic com- 
pletely fails me. 

Mr. BORSKI. Thank you, sir. I appreciate very much what you 
point out here. 

Let me turn now to the gentleman from New Hampshire. 

Mr. Zeliff. I, unfortunately, did not hear all your testimony, but 
I was able to read your prepared comments. 

To what extent were you consulted by the Corps of Engineers 
when they developed the new plan? Did you have a chance to put 
in any ideas or talk with them at all? 

Mr. Kaul. No, sir. Absolutely none. The first time we saw the 
bombshell was in November of 1992. 

Mr. Zeliff. (Joing back to November, when you first saw the 
bombshell, what steps did you take to give input at that point? 

Mr. Kaul. We immediately contacted our congressional delega- 
tion. The commissioner of the Department sent a letter to Senator 
Moynihan. We raised this issue. 

The interesting thing is — and this should come as no surprise — 
our allies in this were the Corps' offices in New York and Buffalo 
who recognized what this would do to some of the work that was 
to be done. 

Mr. KONSELLA. Besides contacting our congressional folks, we 
have advised the local municipal governments where the Corps is 
performing studies leading to flood protection projects and where 
projects are scheduled for construction to advise them of what our 
opinions were as to what the reorganization would do in terms of 
continuation of project development and project construction and 
urged them to let their congressional representatives know that 
this would be a disservice to the communities in New York State. 

Mr. Zeliff. I would assume, then, that your greatest concern is 
that they would be going to a more centralized system and you are 
not going to have the capacity to deal with localized needs. Is that 
correct? 

Mr. KONSELLA. Yes. And we also feel that when a project man- 
ager, as in this plan, is free to shop around for the technical center 



47 

services that it is possible for a New York project — and we have 
some very unique areas in New York, hydrologically very complex, 
and the kind of expertise that the New York district and the Buf- 
falo district have developed over the years is very important. 

If they wind up in Portland, Oregon for planning and design 
services, our projects are going to be competing with other projects 
from around the Nation, being handled by people that are phys- 
ically very far removed from the project site, and we don't see that 
as being anything but an impediment to efficient delivery of pro- 
gram services and construction. 

Mr. Zeliff. With recognition that the Corps has to cut back and 
downsize, too few dollars being chased by too many projects, what 
would you recommend if you had to do the cuts and the 
downsizing? What recommendations would you have to serve your 
area? 

Mr. KONSELLA. I would reiterate what Mr. Kaul has said regard- 
ing moving decisionmaking capability back down to the district 
level. As a case in point, the project cooperative agreement between 
the sponsor and the Federal Government has to be approved in 
Washington and most of them have to be signed in Washington. 
The district commander has no flexibility to tailor a project co- 
operation agreement to a particular project at a particular site. We 
need decisionmaking capability back in the hands of district com- 
manders. 

Trim the divisions and then the trim the office of the chief of en- 
gineers. That is my recommendation. 

Mr. Zeliff. So, reorganize at the top as well? 

Mr. KoNSELLA. Trim from the top down. 

Mr. Zeliff. Thank you. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BORSKI. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

What did you say your name was? 

Mr. KoNSELLA. Dick Konsella. 

Mr. Lipinski. What is your historical ethnic background? 

Mr. Konsella. It is an anglicized Polish name, which was 
Kondzalla. 

Mr. Lipinski. I would like to say that I thought your testimony 
was absolutely brilliant here today. I am proud to see that Polish 
people are coming forward and testifying. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.] 

Mr. BORSKI. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

The Chair would like to thank our panelists very much for their 
input. 

On our next panel we would like to welcome Mr. Joseph Hoff- 
man, chairman. Great Lakes Commission; Mr. Donald Leonard, 
representative of the North Central Division Concerned Employees; 
and Mr. Frank Gardner, vice president. Metropolitan Water Rec- 
lamation District, Chicago, Illinois. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Hoffman, you may begin. 



48 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH K. HOFFMAN, CHAIRMAN, GREAT 
LAKES COMMISSION; FRANK GARDNER, VICE PRESIDENT, 
METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT, CHICAGO, 
IL; AND DONALD J. LEONARD, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE 
NORTH CENTRAL DIVISION CONCERNED EMPLOYEES 

Mr. Hoffman. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here. I work for the Penn- 
sylvania Department of Environmental Resources, but I am here in 
a role as Chair, elected by the members of the Great Lakes Corn- 
mission. I have submitted written testimony and would ask that it 
be included in the record. 

Mr. BORSKI. Without objection, your prepared statement will ap- 
pear in the record. 

Mr. Hoffman. The Great Lakes Commission is extremely inter- 
ested as a regional organization — and I am trying to represent the 
entire region — in the Corps of Engineers' reorganization plan that 
you are considering here today. The Commission is an organization 
of the eight Great Lake States working for the region in economic 
development, resource management, and environmental quality. 

Our mission is founded in both State legislation as well as Fed- 
eral law to promote the orderly, integrated, and comprehensive de- 
velopment, use, and conservation of the water resources of the 
Great Lakes Basin. The Corps of Engineers plays a vital role in 
that mission accomplishment. They also participate in many of 
these same activities. We are concerned with the impact of reorga- 
nization on the region. We are concerned about the activities the 
Corps provides for us. 

We see three principal issues before this subcommittee as well as 
with the organization of the Corps. We are concerned with the loss 
of Basin-specific expertise. The engineering and the planning ex- 
pertise that is present now in the Basin would be lost from the 
Basin. We see a great de-emphasis on the Great Lakes Basin in 
this reorganization plan and we see some potential loss of our 
international commitments with our sister nation to the north. 

We would hope that this subcommittee, the full committee, and 
the Congress will work with the Corps to make appropriate 
changes to the plan. You have controls of the purse strings and it 
can be done that way. It is an opportunity to make the Corps bet- 
ter. 

We as an organization, the Great Lakes Commission, are not op- 
posed to reorganization. We feel that restructuring can be bene- 
ficial to our region as well as to the Nation. Certainly, consolida- 
tion of administrative support, those functions which can be done 
less expensively, should be undertaken to improve efficiency and 
save dollars in the long-run. We see some concerns with the organi- 
zation. We tried to express this through a letter to the Secretary 
of the Army shortly after the reorganization was announced. 

We suggested some comments and those are appended to my tes- 
timony. I would ask that those also be included in the record. 

The Commission certainly wants to see a continued support by 
the Corps in our region. We see a great deal of resource planning, 
coordination, environmental protection activities, and management 
of the resource as being vital roles the Corps provides for us. Clos- 
ing down the only division office in the Basin located in Chicago, 



49 

and downsizing all the districts in the Basin is going to have some 
significant impacts. 

Eliminating positions will take away expertise. People have de- 
veloped Great Lakes-specific expertise over the years. We cannot 
afford to have that lost. We see that potential loss by people either 
being relocated and performing other jobs or by individuals retiring 
or taking jobs out in the consultant community or working in pri- 
vate industry. 

We see this reorganization as having some impacts upon our re- 
lationship with Canada. There are a number of Great Lakes-relat- 
ed activities that we share with our Canadian brothers. Such as 
questions of Great Lakes water quality — how we protect that water 
resource that we have. The Lakes are the largest freshwater re- 
source in the world. It is 95 percent of our surface water resources 
here in the United States. We are a region of some 175,000 square 
miles. We have almost 4,000 miles of shoreline with vast, vast re- 
sources and vast, vast water that is too important to be relegated 
to second-class status under the proposed reorganization. 

A strong physical presence of the Corps is needed in the Great 
Lakes Basin. We need their expertise in the Great Lakes hydrology 
of the basin, navigation system engineering, planning, mainte- 
nance, design, and environmental remediation. You just heard from 
the previous panel about the problems in New York. Those prob- 
lems exist throughout the Basin. The Corps provides an ideal engi- 
neering source as well as other lines of expertise to take care of 
these problems. Having a strong Corps presence in the region gives 
us a lot of flexibility to deal with the problems we have. 

We see a need for Corps activities in dealing with the existing 
confined disposal facilities that have been created within the Great 
Lakes Basin. We see the Corps as having a vital role in executing 
a new lock at Sault Ste. Marie funding of which is being considered 
in a separate action. 

De-emphasis of the Corps in the Basin is a real problem for us. 
We see Corps functions being taken outside, not being given the 
emphasis that they would have. We see the Corps under the cur- 
rent plan of having a directorate of engineering and planning in 
the North Central Division in Cincinnati. We see that technical 
work being accomplished some place within the division, but not 
being given the emphasis that Great Lakes' concerns would dictate. 
We would see a lack of geographic proximity as being a real con- 
cern for us, that somebody in Cincinnati is more concerned with 
the Ohio River and the activities there than potentially the Great 
Lakes and the connecting channels. 

Division office closure, coupled with personnel moves is going to 
have very significant impacts in delaying or losing opportunities for 
constructing, managing, and maintaining existing projects. We see 
a loss of hundreds of positions along with that technical expertise. 
We see a loss of the water resources management capabilities, a 
loss of commercial navigation in the area, and international coordi- 
nation. 

We see professionals being moved from the three district offices 
and the division office. In the Division office alone, we lose 33 peo- 
ple within the Great Lakes planning and engineering functions. 
And lose 500 years of specialized Great Lakes expertise. The antici- 



50 

pated dollars that would be saved by this are not worth it as far 
as being able to continue to manage that resource. 

As I suggested earlier, we submitted a statement to the Sec- 
retary of Army in January as an organization containing several 
recommendations to mitigate this loss of expertise and loss of em- 
phasis on the Basin. We suggest that a Great Lakes planning and 
coordination office be established and that it be tasked to carry out 
the roles currently being done by the districts and the division of- 
fice in Chicago. 

We see the North Central Division as proposed by the Corps as 
being a huge geographic jurisdiction. It has 12 districts, more than 
any of the other proposed division offices. We see and suggest that 
one of the technical centers which the Corps is proposing must be 
located within the basin to provide that focal point on Great Lakes' 
resources and to provide some of the expertise needed to carry out 
Great Lakes' functions. We feel that this technical center, as well 
as the other offices, must be staffed with individuals who have 
Great Lakes' experience. 

Personnel reassignments are difficult to deal with. We are not 
opposed to reassignments and relocations. We see a need to analyze 
the work and analyze the personnel needed to accomplish the work 
within the basin. Eliminating Great Lakes' Regulation Section is 
going to produce problems in our relationship with Canada. The 
International Joint Commission is currently evaluating a study by 
a Study Board, which they completed in the March time frame. 
This Study Board looked at ways to better the Great Lakes' man- 
agement and how we can control that system so that we don't have 
problems with fluctuating lake levels. 

This is a function under the International Boundary Water Trea- 
ty of 1909. It is an IJC, International Joint Commission, function. 
But the Corps plays a vital role in this. Their expertise is vital to 
it. 

In summary, we have suggested a number of ways in which the 
Corps' reorganization plan could be mitigated. We would suggest 
that the subcommittee and the full committee look at this and 
work with the Corps in establishing this Great Lakes-specific func- 
tion and keep it within the Great Lakes. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I am available for 
comments or questions now or later. 

Mr. BORSKI. We will hold questions until the end of the panel. 

Mr. Gardner. 

Mr. Gardner. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of 
the committee. I respectfully request that my full statement be 
made a part of the record. 

Mr. BORSKI. Without objection, your prepared statement will ap- 
pear in the record. 

Mr. Gardner. My name is Frank Gardner. I am the vice presi- 
dent of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater 
Chicago, the world's largest wastewater treatment agency. 

On behalf of the district, I want to thank the subcommittee for 
this opportunity to present our views on the proposed reorganiza- 
tion of the Corps of Engineers and express our appreciation for the 
committee's support over the years of the district's pollution and 
flood control program, the tunnel, and reservoir project. 



51 

The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Chicago was es- 
tablished in 1889 and has the responsibility for sewage treatment, 
flood control, and storm water management in Cook County, Illi- 
nois. The district was established in response to an epidemic which 
had killed 90,000 people in 1885. It was created for the purpose of 
addressing the local sewage problems and by 1900 it had reversed 
the flow of the Chicago River to carry combined sewage away from 
Lake Michigan, the area's source of water supply. The district has 
been involved with major engineering feats ever since its inception. 

At this point, I would like to take the opportunity to share with 
the subcommittee our deep concern over the proposed Corps of En- 
gineers' reorganization plan announced by the Army Corps on No- 
vember 19, 1992. While we were pleased to hear that in January 
Secretary Aspin decided to delay implementation of the proposed 
Corps of Engineers' plan pending full consideration and review, I 
remain deeply concerned about the elements of the plan and in 
particular its impact on the critical water resource projects in Chi- 
cago. 

Absent the Secretary's delay as of the beginning of February, the 
first phase of the plan — the reduction of division offices from 11 to 
6 nationwide, including the closure of the North Central Division 
in Chicago — would have been initiated. There is no question that 
these changes would have a negative impact on our ability to ad- 
dress water resource problems in a timely fashion. Given the huge 
workload in the Chicago area — which includes the Water Reclama- 
tion District's urban flood control project, the Chicago Underflow 
Plan — I believe the Corps must be allowed to continue a strong and 
vital presence in our area. 

The need for these projects to move forward without delay has 
never been so apparent, as witnessed by recent events in Milwau- 
kee. A rainfall event flushed polluted water into Lake Michigan 
and contaminated their water supply. According to Milwaukee 
health commissioners' testimony two weeks ago before the House 
Health and Environment Subcommittee, up to 400,000 people were 
sickened from the parasites carried in the polluted water. The 
Corps of Engineers CUP plan is directed at preventing a similar 
event in this region. 

The impact of the reductions proposed under the plan for Chi- 
cago, in particular, are enormous and would devastate the progress 
we have made to date in addressing our water resource problems, 
particularly in the area of urban flood control. For example, under 
the plan beginning in fiscal year 1994, the Chicago district would 
have been slated to lose 103 jobs, a 61 percent loss to the district's 
current structure. While these numbers are dramatic, they do not 
begin to describe the true impact this loss will have on the critical 
flood control needs of our metropolitan area. 

Certainly, the most significant project now currently underway in 
the Chicago district is the Water Reclamation District's innovative 
McCook and Thornton Reservoir project of the CUP, the first ele- 
ment of which we are seeking fiscal year 1994 new start construc- 
tion funds in the upcoming Energy and Water Development Appro- 
priations Bill. The other critical project is the O'Hare Reservoir. 
This has been under construction and we will be seeking construc- 
tion funds for this project again this year. 



52 

Over 550,000 homes in the Chicago area are subject to flooding 
at any time, making timely completion of these projects absolutely 
critical for protection of our citizens from known flood damages. In 
terms of public health and safety, any threat or major disruption 
of this critical cost-shared effort, which is clearly posed by the 
delay resulting from this proposed plan, cannot be tolerated. 

To take the planning, design, and engineering expertise out of 
Chicago at this critical point for the CUP project while we have 
years of sophisticated design left would be devastating. We believe 
it is critical to the success of our program to complete these 
projects with the current experienced Corps staff who are on site 
and have a wealth of experience and knowledge about our prob- 
lems. This has been gained over the course of more than 10 years. 

Due to the widespread urban flooding problems and the Chicago 
district's long-term experience in developing innovative flood pro- 
tection resolutions, the district has become the acknowledged urban 
flood control experts in the Corps' national system. We simply can- 
not afford to lose them, and thus delay needed flood protection at 
this critical stage. 

In addition, it is patently unfair for local sponsors who cost-share 
projects to pay the costs of delay which result from such a hasty 
shift of staff from our area. We believe that any cost savings stem- 
ming from the reorganization will be far outstripped by the addi- 
tional costs of delay in having new staff attempt to handle these 
unique and complex problems. 

For example, the Chicago Corps district has approximately a $1.3 
billion construction program over the next 10 years. If this program 
is delayed even 6 months, which is clearly possible under reorga- 
nization due to wholesale shifting of staff, the costs of delay could 
be in the range of $25 million. It is unconscionable to shift any por- 
tion of this burden to local sponsors. 

While the Corps cites fewer traditional projects as a reason to 
scale down, the lifeblood of the Corps' work — flood control — is thriv- 
ing in our area. We believe that Chicago is well situated as a trans- 
portation center with our Corps district conveniently located in the 
Nation's transportation hub. We are uniquely qualified with key 
engineering schools near the Chicago Corps' facilities. We have a 
strong and active work force from which to secure continuing 
Corps' employment. All of these are critical in the proposed plan 
for determining what areas should retain technical expertise. 

It is my wholehearted recommendation that the Chicago district 
retain, if not increase, its highly qualified technical staff. Any ob- 
jective review of existing and future workload on the affected popu- 
lation will support this view. It is our hope that this recommenda- 
tion will be considered in a newly proposed realignment of the 
Corps. Such a plan, given proper congressional involvement and 
oversight, will appropriately correspond the key personnel to the 
identified needs and do so in a manner that treats taxpayers fairly. 

I thank you for your kind consideration of our views and I stand 
ready to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Leonard. 

Mr. Leonard. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of 
the subcommittee. 



53 

My name is Donald J. Leonard. I am the Chief of the Engineer- 
ing Division of the North Central Division, Corps of Engineers, lo- 
cated in Chicago, Illinois. It is an honor to appear before you on 
the Corps of Engineers' proposed reorganization plan. I am rep- 
resenting a group of colleagues from the North Central Division 
and myself. I am testifying because I strongly feel the proposed re- 
organization plan is inequitable to the Corps' employees in the ex- 
isting North Central Division, unworkable for our customers, and 
virtually ignores the Great Lakes. 

Most members of the Corps family recognize the need for reorga- 
nization in order to provide cost-effective, efficient services to the 
public we all serve. However, we agree with Secretary Aspin that 
we need an orderly process that ensures the fair treatment of all 
employees because without it we could destroy the very organiza- 
tion we are attempting to revitalize. 

As an example of the process used, consider how the division of- 
fices were selected. Based on the Corps' reorganization report, Deci- 
sion Path II, the Corps developed four criteria as follows: high cost 
of living; good engineering schools; quality higher education; and 
large or medium air transportation hubs. Chicago clearly rates 
higher than Cincinnati in engineering schools, higher education, 
and air transportation hub. In the remaining criteria, high cost of 
living, Cincinnati rated slightly higher than Chicago, although both 
sites are in high cost areas. One might assume that Chicago would 
be the selected site. This was not the case. By ignoring the criteria 
and not selecting Chicago and other clearly superior sites through- 
out the country, a strong demoralizing message is sent to all em- 
ployees Corps-wide. That message is: the Corps will do as it pleases 
despite what is equitable and best for the organization. 

We cannot understand how the proposed new North Central Di- 
vision in Cincinnati, or any other geographic location for that mat- 
ter, could possibly manage 12 districts which cover approximately 
one-third of the United States in all or part of 26 States having 150 
congressional districts and crosses three time zones — unless, of 
course, there is a hidden agenda, that being the future consolida- 
tion of district offices. To provide services to our myriad of cus- 
tomers to be served throughout this vast area requires an under- 
standing of the local conditions and the government operations. Re- 
sponses to emergencies would be drastically reduced. In short, the 
proposed 12-district North Central Division is not workable. 

The Great Lakes contains 95 percent of our Nation's fresh sur- 
face water and an extensive navigation system vital to the eco- 
nomic well-being of the upper Midwest. It is our Nation's fourth 
seacoast. They share 1,900 miles of border with Canada and are on 
the threshold of major environmental cleanup. Yet, the Corps of 
Engineers proposes to virtually remove all professional planning 
and engineering expertise from the Great Lakes. 

This loss of highly specialized expertise from Chicago, as well as 
Detroit and Buffalo, will have devastating impacts to the Great 
Lakes' programs and projects while the Corps slowly attempts to 
reestablish such expertise in Cincinnati and at the technical cen- 
ters. This would create tremendous economic losses and project 
delays for the region, the taxpayers and our cost-sharing partners. 



54 

Chicago is one of the 10 standard Federal regions in the country, 
estabhshed to increase efficiencies among Federal agencies and to 
be more responsive to State and local officials by providing a con- 
sistent and compatible field structure. As the entire Federal Gov- 
ernment gets downsized and more Federal cooperative planning ef- 
forts, such as our Great Lakes' work with EPA and Coastal Amer- 
ica are implemented, the need to be in a standard Federal region 
intensities. 

Additionally, division and district offices collocated in the same 
city, such as Chicago, allow consolidation of support functions such 
as logistics, information management, and resource management, 
which would provide additional savings. In fact, my division office 
is located in the same building with our Chicago District office. So 
there are many efficiencies that can be gained by this collocation. 

Chicago itself offers greater efficiency and reduced costs of doing 
business through economies of scale in goods and services procured 
and by being the Nation's number one air transportation hub. We 
should be reorganizing with the future in mind and not based on 
traditions of the past. 

The proposal to consolidate planning, engineering, and design 
functions at all technical centers was not well thought out. This 
proposal moves people away from direct contact with the customer. 
Planning, engineering, and design require constant and direct com- 
munication with the customers in order to develop projects that are 
acceptable to them. Project management, which will remain at all 
districts, is now an administrative, non-engineering function and if 
removed from planning and design it is likely to fail. Design and 
engineering are also separated from the construction management 
responsibility. This will lead to higher construction costs which will 
be passed onto our cost-sharing partners. 

The Corps should be strengthening its move into new fields such 
as environmental restoration and HTRW cleanup. These programs 
will require constant interactions with our customers and partners, 
both on a regional and local basis. There are few large projects re- 
maining to be done. We are moving toward small community action 
programs. Centralization is in direct conflict with our future needs. 

J^ I mentioned at the beginning of my statement, most of the 
Corps family recognizes the need to reorganize, but the process has 
to be fair to all employees, regionally balanced, and workable. We 
feel that there should be decentralization that is more delegation 
of authority to the field — ^you heard that earlier today. We also be- 
lieve there should be a consolidation of support services and a con- 
current reorganization of all Corps offices including the Washing- 
ton headquarters, the divisions, and all the field offices. 

I refute the statement that there has been no major reorganiza- 
tions in the Corps since 1942. I have enclosed a summary of the 
reorganizations that have taken place in the North Central Divi- 
sion alone since 1954. I use 1954 because that was the year the 
North Central Division office was formed. It was a consolidation of 
the former Great Lakes Division and the Upper Mississippi River 
Division offices. 

Finally, I would like to close, requesting that the additional infor- 
mation I have brought with me be made a part of the official 
record. It includes documentation that supports our positions. 



55 

Also in my material, I have included a conceptual framework for 
reorganization for your use. We feel that if this additional informa- 
tion had been used during the reorganization deliberations, an eq- 
uitable and workable plan could have resulted. The concerned em- 
ployees of the North Central Division and myself look forward to 
continuing many years of loyal service to the Corps of Engineers, 
the Midwest, Chicago, our customers, and our partners. It is in this 
spirit that I offer this statement. 

Thank you for your time and your consideration. 

Mr. BORSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Leonard. 

Let me first go to the gentleman from New Hampshire. 

Mr. Zeliff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It seems like the Corps has served your area well in the past and 
that you have worked very close. Is that a correct statement? 

Mr. Hoffman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Zeliff. Is that across the board pretty much? 

Mr. Gardner. I would like to add to that. 

The Corps has not only worked closely with the Water Reclama- 
tion District of Chicago, but the Water Reclamation District's tun- 
nel and reservoir project was the Corps' first involvement in an 
urban flooding problem and should serve as a model for the future 
for the nation in urban flooding work. 

The Corps has worked very closely with the district since the in- 
ception of this program. Our staffs worked together hand-in-hand 
on this kind of project. To remove the planning and design staff 
would have a devastating effect on the progress because we 
couldn't be sure the same people would be there doing the same 
work. Also, the people working on the project would not have the 
kind of first-hand familiarity with their work that certainly facili- 
tates the fine job they are doing now. 

Finally, there is what I call an incentive factor. Speaking paro- 
chially here, if you have the people who are working — if it is their 
basements that will flood, they will certainly bring their greatest 
creative energies and juices to the job. 

Mr. Zeliff. That's a good point. 

It sounds like you have worked very, very close. Was this reorga- 
nization a bombshell for all of you as well? 

Mr. Hoffman. It was not a bombshell, per se, because we knew 
that there was reorganization talk going on. The impact and the 
breadth of the reorganization proposal was a shock to most of us 
in the region. 

Mr. Zeliff. So you had no idea that it was coming to the extent 
that it did until it came? 

Mr. Hoffman. That is correct. 

Mr. Zeliff. Were you asked for input? Did you offer any ideas 
in the process as you became aware of the reorganization? 

Mr. Hoffman. As an organization, the Great Lzikes Commission 
was not consulted and we did not provide any input before. We did 
after the fact. 

Mr. Zeliff. How about individually in the process? You knew it 
was coming, so did you offer an3rthing on a private basis? 

Mr. Hoffman. I can't speak fully to that. I know that some of 
the States did have some awareness of activities and may have 



56 

consulted on their own. I am not fully cognizant as to who it may 
have been. 

Mr. Zeliff. Are there any opportunities at all for centralization 
or consolidation of functions in a centralized way? 

I agree pretty much with what you're saying, but if we're going 
to have to cut back and we have to have some savings, are there 
any areas where you feel we can accomplish that? 

Mr. Hoffman. From at least a Great Lakes Commission perspec- 
tive, there are a number of ways you can do it by centralizing the 
administration. We need to in some way keep the service down 
where it is delivered down at the local level. You can certainly con- 
solidate computer centers, billing centers, legal staff, et cetera. The 
Corps has consolidated many times in the past. 

Right now, in Pennsylvania we deal with four different Corps 
districts. The Baltimore district is charged with most of the real es- 
tate responsibilities for all those districts. So that kind of consolida- 
tion has taken place in the past. It allows you to shift the work- 
load, potentially. 

There is certainly a need to move the project delivery process 
from the conception through reconnaissance level studies though 
the Congressional appropriation process to actual construction. 
That has to be improved. That is a time consuming and a costly 
process. Consolidation could help there. 

Mr. Zeliff. In your testimony, you indicated that the proposed 
plan would call into question the ability of the United States to 
meet its commitments under international treaties and associated 
agreements pertaining to the Great Lakes. Maybe you could just 
comment further. Obviously, trade is very important to us. Maybe 
you can elaborate. 

Mr. Hoffman. I think the trade issue is one. I think the work 
we do within the region with our Canadian partners — and I think 
we have to look at them as Canadian partners — because we share 
that Great Lakes resource, is extremely important to the region 
and to the Nation. The Corps is an active partner in that relation- 
ship. The Corps is responsible for dredging of harbors. The Corps 
is responsible for many activities that take place such as the con- 
fined disposal facilities, which are part of the dredging to keep har- 
bors open. These are essential. The Corps can play a vital role in 
cleaning up. 

Previous panel members talked about the areas of concern on the 
Great Lakes. These areas need to be addressed in a solid, strong, 
engineering, design, and cleanup plan. The Corps can play a role 
in this. 

Mr. Zeliff. Thank you very much, I appreciate the testimony. 

Mr. BORSKI. The gentleman from Illinois? 

Mr. LiPlNSKl. Let me say first of all that I appreciate the testi- 
mony of all three of these witnesses. I think they have added a 
great deal to this hearing this morning. I obviously have a vested 
interest in this situation. I, too, have a basement that Mr. Gardner 
alluded to earlier. [Laughter.] 

I want to say that I agree with everything these gentlemen had 
to say. I think they have enlightened the members of this commit- 
tee. I think they have advanced their cause of keeping the office 
in the city of Chicago. 



57 

I have been involved in this for quite a long period of time work- 
ing to try to change this decision around and keep the office there 
in the city of Chicago. But I want to say here publicly today that 
the Water Reclamation District and the Corps of Engineers in the 
city of Chicago have really worked hand-in-glove for a long, long 
time developing programs and projects that have been advan- 
tageous to the Chicago community. 

But many of these programs that they have worked on have been 
taken as pilot programs and have been introduced in other areas 
of the country that have been beneficial to the citizens of that part 
of the country. I think it would be a terrible mistake from the 
standpoint of developing new techniques and new technology in re- 
gard to these areas. If we were to remove the Corps of Engineers 
from the city, it would break down a history and tradition that has 
not only been effective for the city but for this entire area of en- 
deavor. 

I hope that a decision is made where the Army Corps of Engi- 
neers will continue to operate in the city of Chicago so it will be 
able to not only help that region but cooperate with the Water Rec- 
lamation District because, Mr. Gardner, you know — and I am sure 
the other gentlemen know — there is a very unique arrangement be- 
tween the Water Reclamation District and the Corps of Engineers 
that has been beneficial to everyone. 

Once again, I thank you gentlemen for your testimony. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for really getting into this 
matter and getting it on the record. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. BORSKI. The Chair thanks the gentleman very much. 

We would like to thank our panelists for your contribution. It is 
very greatly appreciated. Thank you for coming here. This hearing 
is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:58 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to 
reconvene subject to the call of the Chair. 1 



PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 



Testimony of the Honorable Steve Bartlett, Mayor 

of the City of Dallas before the Subcommittee 

on Investigations and Oversight, House Public 

Works and Transportation Committee 

May 6, 19 93 

Good morning. My name is Steve Bartlett and I am the Mayor of the 
City of Dallas. I appreciate the opportunity to speak before this 
Subcommittee and, on behalf of the City Council of the City of 
Dallas, I want to share with you some reasons that the Dallas 
division office of the Corps should not be closed and its functions 
and personnel transferred to Vicksburg, Mississippi. I believe 
that the Corps and by extension the taxpayers of the United States 
as well as the agencies which use the Corps services would be well 
served to continue the Dallas division office under the 
reorganization and not close it and transfer its functions to 
Vicksburg. The City of Dallas would also benefit from the 
continuation of the Dallas division office. 

BASED ON THE CORPS' OWN DETERMINATIONS. THE DALLAS DIVISION OFFICE 
SHOULD REMAIN IN DALLAS AND ITS FUNCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE TRANSFERRED 
TO VICKSBURG 

First, let me give you some background on the Corps' 
evaluation criteria and the rating system applied to each criteria. 
Initially, the closure or relocation of any office was to be 
governed by eight criteria: 



(59) 



60 



1) Locating Division offices in cities with existing Corps 
offices; and 

2) Cost of Living; and 

3) Educational availability; and 

4) Transportation Hub Availability; and 

5) Number of Current Personnel; and 

6) Labor Availability; and 

7) Office Space Availability; and 

8) Central to Workload. 

These criteria were developed by the Field Advisory Committee which 
was made up of personnel assigned to Corps' district and division 
offices throughout the United States. In the evaluations leading 
to the proposed reorganization plan, the ultimate Corps' decision 
making group, which was located in Washington, used only the first 
five of the enumerated criteria and disregarded the last three. 
In evaluating each site, a particular criterion received either a 
2 for a high rating or a 1 for a low rating. The ratings assigned 
to the various criteria were then totalled for each site and the 
sites compared. With respect to criterion 1, the Corps considered 
only those sites which already had division or district offices. 

Using the five criteria and the rating system emplo ved bv the 
ultimate Corps decision making team in Washington, the Dal las site 
received an overall rating of 6; the Vicksburg sit e an overall 
rating of 4 . The Corps' own results dictate that a Dallas location 
is the better site for the division office than Vicksburg . Yet, the 
Dallas office has been slated for closure and its functions 



61 



transferred to Vicksburg . In the whole reorganization plan, this 
is the only instance where the site which received the higher 
rating was closed and its functions transferred to a site which 
received a lower rating. Without doubt, the results dictate that 
the Dallas division office remain in operation under the 
reorganization plan. 

In analyzing the criteria and ratings more closely, it becomes 
apparent that the relative advantage in favor of Dallas is greater 
than is revealed by the overall ratings obtained for Dallas and 
Vicksburg from the particular criteria ratings. A rating system 
which assigns only a 2 for a high rating and a 1 for a low rating 
can not reflect large relative advantages and disadvantages in the 
consideration of the site criteria. Using the most glaring and a 
very important example, Dallas received a 2 under the criteria of 
Transportation Hub Availability and Vicksburg a 1. Dallas is home 
to D/FW Airport which is a hub for two of the country's largest 
airlines. Through D/FW Airport, Dallas is readily accessible from 
all parts of the United States as well as the world. Also, Dallas 
is the headquarters of one of the premiere low cost air carriers 
which provides service at Dallas Love Field, just minutes from 
downtown Dallas. This carrier provides convenient service to and 
from most of the district offices interacting with the Dallas 
division office. There is just no comparison to Vicksburg. The 
nearest airport to Vicksburg is located in Jackson, 60 miles to the 
east. This airport is certainly not as convenient and does not 
enjoy anything approaching the level of service provided D/FW 



62 



Airport and Love Field. The difference between Dallas and 
Vicksburg in terms of this criteria is much greater than the rating 
of a 2 and 1 respectively reflect. 

An analysis of other criteria reveals similar disparities in 
favor of Dallas not made evident by the rating system. For 
instance, consider Educational Availability. The Dallas/Ft. Worth 
area is home to a number of higher education institutions, 
including Southern Methodist University, the University of Texas at 
Dallas, the University of Texas at Arlington, the University of 
North Texas, Texas Christian University, and numerous junior 
colleges. A number of these institutions offer technical course 
work and degrees. When comparing on the basis of this criterion, 
Dallas received a 2 and Vicksburg a 1. I am aware of no higher 
education institution in Vicksburg. 

Based on independent federal data used in the evaluation of 
the Cost of Living criteria, Dallas and Vicksburg rated equally. 

If the Labor Availability, Office Space Availability and 
Central to Workload criteria are considered, as recommended by the 
Field Advisory Committee, Dallas becomes an even more obvious 
choice. Dallas proper has a population of over one million; 
Vicksburg a little over 25,000. Obviously, the labor market is 
more dynamic in the location with such a massive population 
advantage. Dallas has an abundance of superior, modern office 
space which is available almost immediately throughout the city. 

Finally, with respect to Central to Workload, district offices 
in Little Rock, Albuquerque, Galveston, Fort Worth and Tulsa 



63 



currently interface with the Dallas division office. Dallas is 
geographically central to each of these district sites, with Fort 
Worth being only 30 miles away. As previously mentioned, Dallas is 
readily accessible from the more distant district offices on a low 
cost air carrier which provides convenient service throughout the 
business day. On the other hand, Vicksburg is not close to any of 
the district offices located in the current Southwest division. 
Indeed, Vicksburg is farther east than even the easternmost 
district offices in Galveston and Little Rock and is not nearly as 
accessible as the current Dallas division office. The proximity of 
the Dallas division office to the current district offices argues 
for retention of the Dallas division offices and against relocation 
to Vicksburg. 

In summary, from my standpoint, there is no significant reason 
supporting the closure of the Dallas division office and the 
transferring of its functions to Vicksburg. Rather, the Corps' own 
results and criteria dictate a contrary result; the need to retain 
Dallas as a division office for the Corps. Based on the evaluation 
of the five considered criteria developed for the site evaluation 
process by the Corps itself. Dallas is the preferred when compared 
against Vicksburg. The Dallas advantage is bolstered when the 
three criteria; Labor Availability. Office Space Availability and 
Central to Workload. which were discarded by the Corps' 
reorganization decision making team, are considered and included in 
the evaluation of the relative merit of the two sites. Finally, the 
Corps' rating system does not result in a valid comparisons between 



64 



sites. Assigning relative ratings of 2 and 1 does not account for 
significant differentials in various criteria with respect to 
compared sites. With respect to Dallas and Vicksburg, this is most 
evident when considering the Transportation Hub Availability 
criteria. Other criteria disparities in favor of Dallas are not 
reflected by such a rating system. If a rating system which 
accurately reflected the relative merit of two sites with respect 
to particular criteria were employed. I submit that the relative 
advantage of Dallas over Vicksburg would be even greater. 

THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF THE CORPS DIVISION OFFICE TO VICKSBURG 
UNDER THE REORGANIZATION PLAN 

Why did the Corps in its reorganization plan disregard its own 
results determined from its own criteria and select the Dallas 
division office for closure? I have been told that it is because 
the Mississippi River Commission ("the Commission") is located in 
Vicksburg. 

The Commission is established and operates under federal 
statute, 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 641-651. The duties of the Commission are 
set out in § 647 and basically encompass the surveying and 
development of plans and reports regarding various aspects of the 
Mississippi River such as flood control, promotion of trade and 
commerce and navigation facilitation. The Commission meets at 
those times established by the president of the Commission. 
Section 646 requires that Commission headquarters and general 



65 



offices be located at some city or town on the Mississippi River. 
The statute does not mandate that Vicksburg be the site. 

For several reasons, the proposed reorganization would not 
seem to require the closure and transfer of the Dallas division 
office to Vicksburg on account of the Commission. First of all, 
the reorganization does not change the duties and charge of the 
Commission; the duties of the Commission are the same before and 
after the reorganization. For many years, the Commission has 
functioned with a division office in Dallas. Therefore, it is 
difficult to understand why the Dallas division should be closed 
now. Does the Commission need additional staff to support its 
statutorily mandated and unchanged missions? The Vicksburg 
district office and the Waterways Experiment Station currently 
employ approximately 3000 people. It seems that this would be 
sufficient staff to support the Commission. This apparent 
sufficiency becomes more evident when viewed in the context of the 
impetus behind the overall reorganization. One factor influencing 
the reorganization is the projected diminished workload for the 
Corps in the future. If the projection of a reduced workload is 
accurate, then the current staffing in Vicksburg should be 
sufficient to handle Commission needs. 

From my standpoint, no significant reason exists for closing 
the Dallas division simply because the Commission is located in 
Vicksburg . 



66 



IMPACT ON THE CITY OF DALLAS 

The City of Dallas is interested in maintaining the Corps office in 

Dallas for several reasons. 

1) The Corps' Dallas division office provides over 200 jobs. 
The creation and retention of jobs is very important to the 
City. 

2) The Corps' offices are located in downtown Dallas. As 
with large cities throughout the country, Dallas has witnessed 
an exodus of quality jobs from the Central Business District 
to surrounding suburban communities. The City is working hard 
to stem and reverse this exodus. 

3) The Dallas division office plays a key role in flood 
control protection for the City of Dallas and the surrounding 
area. Dallas citizens have suffered for many years with 
severe flooding in portions of the City. Recently, the City, 
in coordination with the local division office, has begun to 
seriously address these problems. The local Corps division 
office brings a unique understanding and familiarity to the 
details, history and flooding in Dallas. This familiarity is 
particularly critical at this time when we are seeking to 
address these long neglected flood control needs. Transfer of 
the Dallas division office functions to Vicksburg necessarily 
means that Corps personnel will begin to develop solutions for 
this local problem from afar, without the benefit of this 
unique local familiarity and understanding. Although the day 

8 



67 



to day work is done by the district, the overall policy and 
supervision is performed by the Southwestern Division in 
Dallas. To give the Subcommittee members some measure of the 
significance of the flooding problems and the commitment of 
the City in addressing them, the City has embarked upon an 
ambitious flood control construction program. At present, up 
to $25 million of City funds (no federal dollars) have been 
spent, but this is only a start. The Corps is in the process 
of developing a comprehensive plan for the City's flood 
problems. We consider the Corps division office as a local 
partner in resolving these flood problems. To have this work 
managed from Vicksburg would certainly be less efficient. 

4) The local Dallas Corps office employs a high percentage of 
minority workers. The City Council is very committed to 
enlarging and providing job opportunities for minorities in 
Dallas . 

5) The Dallas division office hosts a number of technical 
symposium during a calendar year. Conference attendance has 
numbered up to 1500. This month, the Dallas division office 
will host a conference of up to 1500 attendees. Obviously, 
conferences such as this are important to the local economy 
and the City would like to see them continue. As an aside, I 
question whether a consolidated Vicksburg office could host a 
conference such as this. 



68 



ESTABLISHMENT OF TECHNICAL CENTERS 

Subcommittee staff suggested that I address at least a portion 
of my remarks to the proposed establishment of technical centers. 
Let me start by saying that as Mayor of the City of Dallas, I feel 
somewhat unqualified to speak about the organizational structure of 
an organization of which I am not a part. I do not want my 
comments on the technical center to detract from my main message 
against the closure of the Dallas division office. 

I understand that up to 15 technical centers have been 
proposed, in partial replacement of the functions currently 
undertaken by the various division offices. The technical centers 
would assume the planning, design and expertise functions currently 
performed by the various division offices. At first impression, 
the creation of an additional layer would not seem to achieve the 
reorganization goal of streamlining and making the Corps more 
efficient. On a much more personal level, it is my understanding 
that there is no assurance that those individuals employed at the 
proposed Corps offices will continue em.ployment once these 
technical centers would begin operation. Finally, it is my 
understanding that with the creation of the technical centers the 
billing practices will change. This change will result in 
additional expenses for local governments. Under the current 
regime, once a project is under review at the division level, 
charges to local governments cease. With the technical centers in 
place, local governments will pay for activities at the technical 
center level . 



10 



69 



SUMMARY 

As evidenced by the Corps' own criteria and results, it would not 
be in the best interest of the Corps and its efficient operations 
to relocate the Dallas division functions to Vicksburg. From a 
Corps standpoint, I am not aware of any benefit to the overall 
Corps operation and efficiency which would result from closing the 
Dallas division office. Instead, the Corps' own determinations, 
based on its developed criteria, mandate that Dallas is the better 
site for the division office than Vicksburg. The overall ratings 
reached by assigning either a 1 or a 2 to particular criteria does 
not reveal the significant advantage Dallas enjoys when compared to 
Vicksburg. The most glaring example is the transportation hub 
availability criteria where Dallas enjoys an overwhelming advantage 
over Vicksburg. Indeed, the cost of commuting to and from 
Vicksburg would be excessive in both time and dollars. Similar 
disparities in favor of Dallas are evident with other criteria 
considered by the Corps decision making team. When the additional 
criteria disregarded by the Corps reorganization decision makers 
are included, the Dallas site location benefits becomes even 
clearer. 

The negative impacts on Dallas and its citizens will be 
significant. The exodus of jobs from downtown will be perpetuated. 
A significant number of minority employees would be affected with 
no guarantee of finding another job. The familiarity with and 



11 



72-424 0-94-4 



70 



understanding of flooding problems unique to Dallas will be lost at 
a time when those problems are being addressed. 

It is in the best interests of the Corps and the delivery of 
services it provides and the City of Dallas that the division 
office should remain in Dallas under any reorganization plan. 



12 



71 



J MONTGOMCHV STREET 



BARBARA BOXER suite 240 

CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO ( 



United States ^cnatt 



2250 EAST 

SUITE 
EL SEGUNDO, 



HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING 

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET SUITE 112 

WASHINGTON, DC 20610-0505 

Testimony of Sen. Barbara Boxer of California 

before the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight 

House Public Works Committee 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Reorganization 

May 6, 1993 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak to your 
subcommittee today about the Corps of Engineers Reorganization of 
its Pacific divisions. Thank you as well for the opportunity to 
see many of my former colleagues from the House of 
Representatives . 

As you know, I am a member of the Senate counterpart to your 
full committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee and 
serve on its Water Resources, Transportation, Public Buildings 
and Economic Development Subcommittee with jurisdiction over the 
Corps of Engineers . We in the Senate are also very concerned 
about this ill-conceived "plan," -- a loose term in this context 
--to reorganize the field offices of the Corps of Engineers. 
This so-called plan is a political decision still in search of a 
rationale . 

First, let me say that I am pleased that Secretary of 
Defense Les Aspin agreed to stop the reorganization plan until he 
has a chance to review the program. I appreciate your 
subcommittee's interest in the issue and expect it will provide a 
useful record for the Defense Secretary to consider. 

The reorganization demands that the 11 division offices of 
the Corps of Engineers be consolidated to six by the end of the 
fiscal year 1993. The 1991 Base Realignment and Closure plan 
retained the South Pacific Division as a key element in the Corps 
structure. However, the Corps' plan consolidates the South 
Pacific Division in San Francisco and the North Pacific Division 
in Portland, Oregon as a new Western States Division, to be 
located in Portland. 

I understand that the Western States Division site selection 
decision was originally made in San Francisco's favor -- after a 
14 -month study by the Corps. But despite that effort, it was 
overturned just hours before the Corps announcement, after third 
parties intervened through Assistant Secretary Nancy Dorn. 
However, a decision based on the criteria developed by the Army 
itself for selection of a divisional headquarters site would 
clearly make San Francisco the winner. 

According to the Army's criteria, a divisional headquarters 
should be close to 1) a good engineering school, 2) quality 



72 



institutions of higher education and 3) "large to medium" air 
traffic hubs. The ability of San Francisco to meet all three 
requirements is obvious, but I will spell them out for the 
record. Within a few miles of the headquarters, we have the 
University of California at Berkeley, Stanford University and the 
University of California at Davis to name a few of the public 
institutions. Within a few miles are also three international 
airports: San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose. 

So what's the issue? it cannot be the amount of construction 
managed between the respective divisions. According to the Army, 
the North Pacific Division is expected to handle $37 million in 
projects by 1996. Meanwhile, the South Pacific Division will be 
in charge of nearly $400 million. The workload in the southern 
division is 10 times that of its counterpart. It seems completely 
inappropriate, senseless even, to move divisional supervision 
away from where the majority of dollars will be spent and where 
the greatest amount of work will be done. The decision would 
force the layoffs of 300 experienced, skilled workers from the 
South Pacific Division. 

So what's the issue? It cannot be the pay differential. I 
understand the Army is concerned about the current 8 percent pay 
differential which employees in San Francisco receive because of 
the higher cost of living in the Bay Area. But, may I point out, 
that the Pay Reform Act provisions are to be applied nationwide 
in 1993, and Portland employees expect to receive a pay 
differential that will bring the difference between the two down 
to only 2 to 3 percent. In regard to this "demerit," it should be 
noted that the cost of airfare to and from Portland is much 
higher than to and from San Francisco, and the increased travel 
costs will easily offset any projected pay differential savings. 
Also, in terms of management efficiency, the lack of frequent and 
convenient flights to and from Portland will result in travel 
time losses for division, and field office personnel. In fact, 
there are no real fiscal or management efficiency advantages 
associated with locating the Division in Portland rather than San 
Francisco. 

The South Pacific Division carries many important 
responsibilities for the state of California, including 
supervision of critical dredging operations which keep our key 
ports of commerce open, as well as playing a major role in 
disaster- -especially earthquake- -emergency response plans for the 
state. The likelihood of one or more major earthquakes in 
California within the next ten years is great, and I believe 
moving the divisional headquarters out of the state would greatly 
limit the Corps' ability to respond adequately to such a 
catastrophe. Removing the locus of decision-making for these 
important roles, as well as the personnel to staff these 
operations, would be a tremendous loss to our region. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I am particularly disturbed that the 
Corps management continues to operate as if the reorganization 



73 



plan is on track. According to the Corps staff who have contacted 
me, there has been a concerted effort to accomplish a de facto 
reorganization by reducing staffs at offices scheduled for 
closure or downsizing, absent any specific authorization to 
proceed with the full reorganization. 

In December, Rep. Pelosi, Sen. Feinstein and I filed a 
Freedom of Information Act request with the Corps of Engineers 
seeking documentation of the site selection committee's decision- 
making process to ascertain this missing rationale. I have 
recently received a number of documents in response. In addition, 
I have an analysis of the reorganization plan with suggested 
questions from the Committee to Save the South Pacific Division, 
comprising employees affected by the decision. 

I would like to share these documents with the subcommittee if it 
so wishes, and I have them here today. 

In conclusion, if there is to be a Corps reorganization -- 
which I would support if it achieves greater efficiency and real 
cost savings -- then these decisions must be made following a 
rational analysis of the workload and needs of the Corps offices. 



74 



STATEMENT BEFORE THE HOUSE PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION 
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT 

May 6, 1993 

Congressman Lane Eyans 

I am here today to explain to the subcommittee why I believe that 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reorganization plan would be 
detrimental to to the work underway at the Corps' Rock Island 
district office. As you know, the plan would consolidate planning 
and engineering functions at various technical centers. In the 
case of the Rock Island district, those functions would be moved 
to St. Paul, Minnesota. 

This change would come at a time when the Corps is receiving funds 
to begin major rehabilitation work on the locks and dams on the 
Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. Specifically, the President's 
FY 94 budget recommends $5,060,000 to begin rehabilitation work on 
Lock and Dam 13; $11,330,000 for Lock and Dam 15; and $5,200,000 
for four locks on the Illinois River. At the same time, the Rock 
Island district office is responsible for the operation and 
maintenance of 18 other lock and dam sites on the Mississippi and 
Illinois Rivers. 

In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is developing a 
major plan for increasing capacity on the Mississippi and Illinois 
River. These improvements would be made over the next 50 years. 
Seven of the 10 locks and dams that require major expansion are 
within the current Rock Island district. In fact. Rock Island is 
central to a majority of the lock and dam sites on the 
Mississippi. Since the Rock Island office is centrally located, 
travel is minimized and there is greater efficiency. 

It is also important to recognize that the Corps of Engineers owns 
the buildings it occupies in Rock Island. Only two other offices 
are in buildings owned by the Corps. Personnel turnover is low -- 
5% compared to a Corps-wide average of 10%. And, the Rock Island 
District office is only 15 minutes from the Quad City Airport 
which has regular connections to all major metropolitan areas. 

Throughout the 1980s, West Central Illinois suffered from a deep 
recession that devastated our agricultural and manufacturing 
sectors and squeezed local resources. Maintaining the Mississippi 
and Illinois Rivers as a means of transportation is essential to 
ensuring that we can achieve a full economic recovery. These 
transportation corridors are absolutely essential to the economic 
well-being of the region. We cannot neglect this resource. I 
believe that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plan as currently 
proposed would jeopardize the efficient operation and maintenance 
of this system. 



75 



For these reasons, I urge this subcommittee oppose this plan and 
recommend that the Rock Island office remain a full functioning 
district office. Thank you for the opportunity to speak before 
your subcommittee today. 



76 



Testimony of 

Congressman Thomas M. Foglietta 

Before the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

May 6, 1993 

I would like to thank my colleague and friend from 
Philadelphia, Chairman Bob Borski and the members of the 
Subcommittee for convening this hearing today. 

Over the years, I have testified on the importance of the 
Army corps' district office in Philadelphia and the devastating 
effect its loss would have on the Port of Philadelphia. Without 
the planning and engineering sections, this office will not be 
able to meet the needs of the Delaware Valley. From deep draft 
projects along the Delaware River to storm damage control along 
the New Jersey and Delaware coastlines, a fully staffed office is 
essential to the environmental and economic well-being of the 
Delaware Valley. 

Simply put, a majority of the money in the North Atlantic 
region is spent on projects in the Delaware Valley. That money 
should continue to be managed in the area. 

All of my colleagues who have testified before me and those 
who will follow me today make compelling arguments for why their 
offices should stay open. In the case of Philadelphia, there is 
one striking difference. 

Over the past five years, the federal government has done 
everything in its power to disinvest itself from the City of 
Philadelphia. The closings, restructurings, downsizings, 
reorganizations, — they all mean one thing — huge job loses in 
Philadelphia. I do not intend to stand for further federal 
disinvestment. 

In this same time frame, the City of Philadelphia has been 
targeted on all three defense base closure lists. All total 
Philadelphia can expect almost 50,000 direct and indirect 
civilian job losses. I cannot think of another Congressional 
district in the country that has suffered more job loses as a 
result of the base closure process. 

I think Chairman Borski and my colleagues from Southeastern 
Pennsylvania would agree — enough is enough. I don't care if 
we're talking about two jobs or two-thousand, this recommendation 
will not stand. Keep Philadelphia open and fully staffed. 

Thank you. 

g; corps . vi 



77 




Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago 

100 EAST ERIE STREET CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 6061 1 312/751-5600 



BChARO OF COUU&SIOMEns 

Thomas S Fuller 
Presjdent 
Frank E GarOner 
free President 
Nancy Drew srieehan 
Chairman. Cofnminee on F 
Joseph E Gardner 
Giona AlifTo Ma^ewsKi 
Kathleen Therese Meany 
Terrence J CTBrien 
Patriaa Young 
Harry "Bus" Yourell 



Frank E Gardner 

VicePresidenl 

3i2.'75tS6AB 



Statement of 



Frank E. Gardner 
Vice President 



Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago 
Regarding 

The Proposed Corps of Engineers Reorganization Plan 
May 6, 1993 



To: U. S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Public Works and Transportation 
Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigation 



Honorable Robert Borski 
Chairman 



*S 



78 



I am Frank E. Gardner, Vice President of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation 
District of Greater Chicago and on behalf of the Water Reclamation District, I 
want to thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to present our views on the 
proposed Reorganization of the Corps of Engineers and to express our 
appreciation for the Committee's support over the years of the District's water 
pollution and flood control program, the Tunnel and Reservoir Project. 

The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (MWRD) was established in 1889 
and has the responsibility for sewage treatment, flood control and storm water 
management in Cook County, Illinois. In fact, the District was established, in 
response to an epidemic which had killed 90,000 people in 1885, for the purpose 
of addressing the local sewage problems and by 1 900, had reversed the flow of 
the Chicago River to carry combined sewage away from Lake Michigan, the 
area's source of water supply. And so the District has been involved with major 
engineering feats since its inception. 

At this point, I would like to take the opportunity to share with the Subcommittee 
our deep concern over the proposed Corps of Engineers Reorganization plan 
announced by Army officials on November 19, 1992. While we were pleased to 
hear that in January Secretary Aspin decided to delay implementation of the 
proposed Corps of Engineers Reorganization plan pending full consideration and 
review, I remain deeply concerned about the elements of the plan and in 
particular, its impact on the critical water resources projects in Chicago. 

While I believe that the Corps' structure is outdated and needs retooling in order 
to provide better quality service and projects to its local sponsors, I believe the 
attempt made by the Corps in November was ill-conceived. Not only does the 
Corps need to reduce its overhead costs and focus key personnel where the 
needs are, but it should take this opportunity to provide better and timelier goods 
and services to its partners, the local cost-sharing sponsors across the county. 

I supported the decision of the Secretary to hold the plan pending full review 
because without this delay as of the beginning of February, the first phase of the 
plan, the reduction of Division offices from 1 1 to 6 nationwide, would have been 
initiated. If this plan would have proceeded, the Chicago Division would have 
been closed, shifting 184 jobs out of state to Cincinnati, Ohio. This was just the 
very first step in a process, which if left to proceed without critical review and 
changes, could have resulted in the relocation of 323 essential positions 
currently in Illinois. There is no question that these changes would have a 
negative impact on our ability to address water resources problems in a timely 
fashion. Given the huge workload in the Chicagoland area, which includes the 
Water Reclamation District's urban flood control project, the Chicagoland 
Underflow Plan, as a big portion of its efforts, I believe the Corps must be 
allowed to continue a strong and vital presence in our area. The need for these 



79 



projects to move forward without delay has never been so apparent. The lesson 
we can now draw upon took place only about three weeks ago in Milwaukee, an 
urban city on Lake Michigan about 90 miles north of Chicago. A rainfall event 
flushed polluted water into Lake Michigan and contaminated their water supply. 
According to Milwaukee health commissioners' testimony two weeks ago before 
the House Health & Environment Subcommittee, up to 400,000 people were 
sickened from the parasites carried in the polluted water. The Corps of 
Engineers' Chicago Underflow Plan is directed at preventing a similar event in 
this region. This underscores the need to accelerate the schedule of the on- 
going Corps of Engineers project. This reorganization plan is badly flawed and 
simply cannot accomplish the goals of streamlining the approvals for project 
implementation that it set out to achieve. 

The impact of these reductions proposed under the plan for Chicago, in 
particular, are enormous and would devastate the progress we have made to 
date in addressing our water resources problems, particularly in the area of 
urban flood control. For example, under the plan beginning in fiscal year 1994, 
the Chicago District would have been slated to lose 103 jobs, a 61% loss to the 
District's current structure. While these numbers are dramatic, they do not begin 
to describe the true impact this loss will have on the critical flood control needs of 
our metropolitan area. 

Certainly, the most significant project now currently underway In the Chicago 
District, is the Water Reclamation District's Innovative McCook and Thornton 
Reservoir Project of the Chicagoland Underflow Plan (CUP), the first element of 
which we are seeking FY 1994 new start construction funds for in the upcoming 
Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. This project represents an 
innovative pioneering effort by the Corps of Engineers. It is the first urban flood 
control project the Corps has undertaken and will serve as a model for the 
nation. The other critical project, which the District is also a sponsor for is the 
O'Hare Reservoir, which has been under construction and we will be seeking 
construction funds for this project again this year. Over 550,000 homes in the 
Chicago metropolitan area are subject to flooding at any time, making timely 
completion of these projects absolutely critical for protection of our citizens from 
know flood damages. In terms of public health and safety, and threat or major 
disruption of this critical cost-shared effort, which is clearly posed by the delay 
resulting from this proposed plan, cannot be tolerated. 

To take the planning, design and engineering expertise out of Chicago at this 
critical point for the CUP project while we have years of sophisticated design left 
would be devastating. We simply cannot afford to lose the Corps' exceptional 
design and engineering staffs who have worked closely with the Reclamation 
District as the local sponsor over many years, and have developed unique 
expertise in our area of need. 



80 



It is important to point out that the unique flooding expertise developed by the 
Chicago Corps District in workinn with the Water Reclamation District as local 
partner after 12 years of federal funding and effort has identified a clear federal 
interest. We believe it is critical to the success of our program to complete these 
projects with the current experiencod Corps staff, who are on-site and who have 
a wealth of experience and knowledge about our problems. Due to the 
widespread urban flooding problems and the Chicago District's long-term 
experience in developing innovative flood protection resolutions, the District has 
become the acknowledged urban flood control experts in the Corps' national 
system - we simply cannot afford to lose them, thus, delaying needed flood 
protection at this critical stage. In addition, it is patently unfair for local sponsors 
who cost-share projects to pay the costs of delay which result from such a hasty 
shift of staff out of the area. We 'relieve that any cost savings stemming from 
reorganization will be far outstripped by the additional costs of delay in having 
new staff attempt to handle t!ie unique and complex projects. For example, the 
Chicago Corps District has approximately a $1 .3 billion construction program 
over the next 1 years. If this program is delayed even six months which is 
clearly possible under reorganization due to wholesale shifting of staff, the costs 
of delay could be in the range of $25 million. It is unconscionable to shift any 
portion of this burden to local sponsors. 

While the Corps cites fewer tradi; onal projects as a reason to scale down, the 
lifeblood of the Corps' work - i\o^^'. control and navigation - are thriving in our 
state. We believe that Chicago is well-situated as a transportation hub with our 
Corps District conveniently located in the Nation's transportation hub. We are 
uniquely qualified with key engineering schools near the Corps' Chicago 
facilities, and we have a strong and active workforce from which to secure 
continuing Corps employment - all of which are critical criteria in the proposed 
plan for determining what areas should retain technical expertise. 

In addition, while the plan attemp's to address the ongoing Corps problems of 
overlapping review and constan! ^onnalysis of projects at all levels, I believe the 
plan falls short of its goal of streamlining the systems by failing to give the field 
commanders the authority to mp' o decisions that will stick for their projects. I 
am also concerned that the new Central Review Center at Corps Headquarters 
will simply act to continue the practice of conducting additional layers of technical 
review. Again, the effect of this wiii be to duplicate technical work done in the 
field and stops short of promotino projects for actual construction. 

It is my wholehearted recommendation that the Chicago District retain, if not 
increase its highly qualified techninal staff. Any objective review of existing and 
future workload and affected pop'iiation will support this view. It is our hope that 
this recommendation will be cons'dored in a newly proposed realignment of the 
Corps. Such a plan, given proper Congressional involvement and oversight, will 



81 



appropriately correspond the key : crsonne! to the identified needs and do so in 
a manner that treats taxpayers f. ' '. 

I thank you for your kind conside ''"n of our views and I stand ready to answer 
any questions you may have. 



82 



Testimony of: J. Wade Gilley, President 
Marshall University 
Huntington, West Virginia 



Before: Subcommittee on Investigations and 

Oversight Committee on Public Works 
and Transportation 
U. S. House of Representatives 

Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building 
10:00 a. m. May 6, 1993 

Subject: Proposed plan to move the planning and 

engineering functions from the Huntington 
District Office of the U. S. Corps of Engineers 



Mr. Chairman: 



I am pleased to appear before this committee today to 
comment on the proposed reorganization of the Corps of Engineers as 
it might impact Huntington, West Virginia and to bring you up to 
date on recent developments which I believe you should consider. 

First, let me say that the District Office in Huntington is 
important to the economy and quality of life in our community. The 
jobs associated with the Corps of Engineers are among the best in our 
community. They represent an important resource to the community 
and an economic asset that would be impossible to replace should the 
proposed reorganization go forward. 



83 
Page 2 

Having professional jobs in our community such as those 
represented by the Corps personnel is clearly a cornerstone for any 
future economic development strategy. A community such as 
Huntington requires an economic development strategy which is 
multifaceted. with several anchors. 

Id Huntington, the economic anchors are the Corps of Engineers; 
Health care, including several hospitals and the university's medical 
school; the university itself; petrochemicals and manufacturing. 

Petrochemicals, particularly refining, are under considerable 
pressure, which will be increased when the energy taxes included in 
the deficit reduction package come into play. 

Manufacturing operations, including companies such Annco 
Steel and International Nickel, are in difficult straits with increasing 
pressure from international competition. 

If the Huntington area is to build an economic strategy for the 
future, we must maintain the Corps of Engineers presence. On the 
other hand, there is no way that the government can save money by 
moving a major government installation from a high quality, low cost 
area to a more congested and higher cost area. So, my question is, 
why not leave the work that must be done somewhere in 
Huntington if it means saving the government money and providing 
our community with a base for building a new and competitive 
economic strategy? 



84 
Page 3 



Another question which has been raised during this review and 
discussion has been the need for the Corps to have access to 
engineering and technical education within a reasonable distance. I 
am disappointed that whoever conducted this study did not consult 
with the higher education community in the Huntington area. 

If they had consulted with us they would have learned that 
Marshall University and a sister institution, the West Virginia College 
of Graduate Studies, represent a major higher education center. 

As I understand the situation, the Corps office in Huntington 
requires graduate offerings to permit its employees to continue their 
education while working. The Corps recruits college graduates from 
all parts of the country and must be able to provide continuing 
education opportunities for these upwardly mobile professionals. 

Marshall University, in cooperation with the College of 
Graduate Studies, is in a strong position to meet this need. 

Marshall has 13,000 students, including some 3.000 graduate 
students, a wide range of graduate programc and a medical school. 
The West Virginia College of Graduate Studies. located just 35 miles 
east of Huntington by way of Interstate 64. has an additional 3,000 
graduate students and includes a fully ABET-accredited School of 
Engineering. In fact, the College of Graduate Studies presently is 
offering graduate level work at the Corps office in Huntington. 



85 



Page 4 

Science and Technology are flourishing at Marshall and we 
realized an impressive 19 percent increase in our College of Science 
enrollment last fall. Most importantly, we have just completed $30 
million worth of work on our science facilities, providing sute-of- 
the-art laboratories and classrooms second to none for programs in 
chemistry, biology, physics and geology. 

These facilities open many doors for the university to expand 
its technical education opportunities for the entire community, 
including the Corps of Engineers. 

Marshall is well equipped to offer Corps employees advanced 
degree work at convenient times and places in fields such as 
economics, biology, business administration, software 'development 
and the physical sciences. Further, with the College of Graduate 
Studies we can offer Master's degrees in Huntington — at the offices 
of the Corps or at Marshall University - in Engineering Management, 
Environmental Engineering, Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and 
other fields. 

Previously, these offerings and the related university resources 
had not been well focused but we are moving quickly to correct that 
deficiency. Simply stated, the two institutions - Marshall University 
and the West Virginia College of Graduate Studies -- have joined with 
private industry and the Corps of Engineers' Huntington office to 
organize a Geotechnical, Environmental and Applied Sciences Center. 



86 
Page 5 



This new Center will be the focal point for interaction between 
the Corps of Engineers and higher education in the decade ahead. 

The focus of this new center will be graduate education in the 
sciences and engineering; undergraduate scientific education in 
software engineering and software redevelopment: geology, 
engineering geology and geotechnical engineering as well as other 
pertinent areas; joint engineering and scientific research and 
development projects, and continuing education in a wide variety of 
fields. 

We are confident that Marshall and the College of Graduate 
Studies, working together and with the Corps of Engineers, can and 
will build a specialized technical capability required in the 21st 
Century. Already we have taken concrete steps to initiate this 
center: 

First, space for the center has been established in College of 
Science facilities at Marshall University. 

Second, we have allocated two positions to begin building a 
core faculty for graduate education in Environmental Engineering 
and Geotechnical Engineering. Two full-time faculty should be on 
board in January 1994 to complement existing faculty and wc intend 
to have a fully operational graduate center in place by that time. 



87 
Page 6 

Third, our software engineering department, in conjunction 
with a Huntington company — Strictly Business, Inc. — has 
contracted to undertake a major software reuse training program for 
the Corps of Engineers. Another national project in the area of 
software redevelopment training is under negotiation at this time. 

In short. Mr, Chairman, in Huntington, at Marshall and at the 
College of Graduate Studies there is currently the opportunity for 
employees of the Corps to pursue graduate degrees in many fields, 
including accredited Master's degree work in engineering. And a 
major new graduate/research center specifically designed to respond 
to the educational needs of Corps employees and to provide technical 
assistance to the Corps planning and engineering staff is ready to 
begin operation. 

This being the case, Mr. Chairman, it is difficult for me to 
understand how it is essential or cost effective to wipe out a major 
government facility in West Virginia, where much work remains to 
be done. I could understand if we were talking about a major 
downsizing of the Corps of Engineers, but that is not the case. 

Instead, we are talking about shuffling 15,000 career 
employees around, damaging their lives and, in the process, wrecking 
whole communities. As you can tell, I find the whole episode 
puzzling to say the least. 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear and offer 
my opinions. 



88 



TESTIMONY BEFORE 



THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT 
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION 



MAY 6, 1993 
WASHINGTON, D.C. 



STATEMENT BY: 

JOSEPH K. HOFFMAN 
GREAT LAKES COMMISSION 



89 



Good Morning. My name is Joseph Hoffman. I am the Assistant Director of the Bureau of Water 
Supply and Community Health for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. I am 
here today in my capacity as Chair of the Great Lakes Commission. I also serve as the head of 
Pennsylvania's delegation to the Commission. 

The Great Lakes Commission is an interstate compact agency representing the eight Great Lakes 
states. The Commission specializes in research, policy analysis and technical studies in the areas 
of regional economic development, resource management and environmental quality. Its mission, 
founded in state and federal law, is "to promote the orderly, integrated, and comprehensive 
development, use and conservation of the water resources of the Great Lakes Basin." 

I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee to discuss the proposed 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Reorganization Plan and particularly Commission concerns about the 
impact of the Plan on Corps Great Lakes Basin activities. 

In my testimony I will address what we believe are the likely consequences for the Great Lakes 
Basin if the Reorganization Plan is fully implemented without changes. The three principal issues 
are: 1) loss of Great Lakes-specific expertise; 2) de-emphasis of the Great Lakes Basin in the 
Reorganization Plan; and 3) reduced commitment to international obligations. 

It is our hope that Congress will carefully review the Reorganization Plan and work with the Corps 
and Department of Defense to make appropriate changes. Congress should assert itself on this 
matter as the holder of the purse strings and to maintain its investigations and oversight authority. 

For several years, the Great Lakes Commission has been following with great interest the Army 
Corps of Engineers internal restructuring process. We acknowledge that a goal of this evolving 
process has been to consolidate certain administrative and support functions to improve efficiency 
and ultimately save money. We also recognize that plans are not perfect blueprints, some may 
have flaws. Such is the case with the current Corps Reorganization Plan, introduced in November 
1992. In early January of this year, after due deliberation among the member states, the Great 
Lakes Commission developed a formal policy position on the Plan. The Great Lakes Commission is 
seriously concerned that elements of the Plan will compromise the current and potential role of the 
Corps as a partner in Great Lakes resource planning, coordination, environmental protection and 
related management activities. The Plan will close the Great Lakes Basin's only Division office 
(located in Chicago), downsize all three Basin District offices (at Chicago District, Detroit and 
Buffalo), eliminate hundreds of positions, and dismantle centers of highly specialized, much needed 
Great Lakes expertise. The ability of the federal government to meet United States commitments 
under international treaty and associated agreements pertaining to the Great Lakes will also be in 
question. 

The Commission believes steps must be taken to preserve and protect basic Great Lakes-specific 
functions. The Great Lakes represent the largest freshwater system in the world and contain 95 
percent of the surface freshwater in the United States. The Great Lakes Basin encompasses more 
than 173,000 square miles and 3,750 miles of mainland shoreline. These remarkable water bodies 
along with the vast watershed are too important to be relegated to second-class status under the 
Reorganization Plan. A strong physical presence of the Corps in the Great Lakes Basin is essential; 
critical expertise in Great Lakes hydraulics, hydrology, navigation system engineering, planning and 
maintenance and environmental remediation must be maintained as well as adequate flexibility in 
personnel and other Corps resources to accommodate the growing need and demand for Corps 
expertise. For example, new authority for Great Lakes environmental dredging coupled with 
expanding environmental management functions will not be fully utilized and water quality will 



90 



likely suffer as a result. Also plans for replacing existing confined disposal facilities and a new 
large lock at Sault Ste. Marie, Micfiigan could be jeopardized. 

The de-emphasis of the Great Lakes Basin in the Reorganization Plan is a serious problem. The 
transfer of critical Corps functions outside of the Basin, along with personnel reassignments which 
are planned, reduces Corps Great Lakes capabilities. Under the Reorganization Plan, a new 
Directorate of Engineering and Planning is to be established at the new North Central Division office 
in Cincinnati and Directorate staff will have overall responsibility for program and project execution 
of the technical work within the Division. All Great Lakes Basin planning and project design 
activities which the Directorate will oversee will be performed at District Technical Centers, none of 
which are to be located in the Basin. The lack of geographic proximity to the resource and the 
inevitable displacement of focus will jeopardize the efficient management of Great Lakes programs 
and projects. The Division office closure, coupled with fewer personnel dedicated to Great Lakes 
activities at the existing District offices and at the new Division office, will also limit Great Lakes 
Basin planning, design and engineering work, resulting in delays and lost opportunities. 

With this displacement of Basin focus will come the loss of Great Lakes-specific expertise. 
Relocation of key Great Lakes personnel to the new North Central Division is not assured, nor is the 
retention of such personnel in the downsized District offices. Hundreds of positions in the Great 
Lakes Basin will be eliminated and anticipated attrition will effectively dismantle internationally 
recognized centers of highly specialized Great Lakes expertise concerning water resources 
management, commercial navigation and international coordination. Under the Plan, the three 
Basin District offices will lose a total of 432 full-time equivalent positions. The elimination of all 
184 full time positions at the Division office in Chicago, except for two subject to transfer to 
Cincinnati, will eliminate hundreds of years of Great Lakes expertise. For example, among the 
professional planning and engineering ranks, the loss of only 33 people will eliminate 500 years of 
specialized Great Lakes experience. The anticipated savings from such downsizing will be far 
outweighed by the loss of irreplaceable expertise. 

The Commission has developed several recommendations aimed at mitigating the inevitable Basin 
de-emphasis that would result from full implementation of the current Reorganization Plan. We 
believe that the Corps of Engineers should maintain special Great Lakes expertise at the individual 
District level and establish and adequately staff a "Great Lakes Planning Coordinating Office" at the 
North Central Division office. Such a Great Lakes Basin-specific office will facilitate communication 
with Basin interests for on-going and future projects and will assure a degree of autonomy with 
respect to policy input and follow-through. This is particularly important for the North Central 
division office, wherever it might be located, given its huge geographic jurisdiction encompassing 
12 districts, substantially more than the other proposed Division offices. 

The Commission also believes that one of the 15 proposed "technical centers" must be located 
within the Basin to provide a focal point for Great Lakes expertise and activities. We note that the 
Reorganization Plan calls for 4 technical centers in a newly-constituted North Central Division and 
not one of these is within the Great Lakes Basin. As we understand, the technical centers are 
responsible for all of Corps planning, design and technical review functions as well as most real 
estate functions. We also believe that the planning and design functions for the multitude of Great 
Lakes issues and projects will be concentrated at one of the technical centers within the Division, 
further augmenting our case for one to be located in the Basin, staffed with existing Great Lakes- 
experienced personnel. 

Related to these Basin-specific concerns is the prospect of a reduced commitment to international 
obligations that come with the Northern border territory. Through personnel reassignment and 
work allocation, it is unlikely that critical coordination on U.S. -Canada projects and programs in the 



91 



Great Lakes Basin will be given the attention they require. For example, the elimination of the 
Great Lakes Regulation Section in the Chicago-based North Central Division will pose problems for 
continuity of functions in the new Division, where they will be merged with a Water Management 
Division. Prospective loss of Corps involvement in, and support of U.S. obligations under the 
International Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement are of 
great concern. 

In summary the Great Lakes Commission and its member states believe it is essential that the 
implementation of the Reorganization Plan must ensure: the retention of Great Lakes-specific 
expertise in the Basin and a continued strong physical presence for the Corps within the Great 
Lakes Basin including the establishment of a "technical center"; centralized Great Lakes expertise 
within each District office and a distinctive. Great Lakes-specific planning and coordination function 
within the North Central Division office; and adequate staffing at the Division and District level to 
accommodate the growing need for and breadth of the Corps presence in the Great Lakes Basin. 
Mr. Chairman I respectfully request that our two-page policy position on the Corps of Engineers 
Reorganization Plan be accepted for the record. This position statement contains more details on 
Great Lakes Basin activities of the Corps of Engineers and further identifies our related concerns. 

Thank you 



92 



GREAT LAKES COMMISSION POLICY POSITION- 
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REORGANIZATION PLAN 



SUMMARY POSITION 

The eight-state Great Lakes Commission has serious concerns about the recently released "U.S. Army Coros 
of Engineers Reorganization Plan." The Commission is concerned that elements of the Plan will compromise 
the current and potential role of the Corps as a partner in Great Lakes resource planning, coordination, 
environmental protection and related management activities. The Plan will close the Great Lakes Basin's oniy 
Division office, downsize all three District offices, eliminate nundreds of oositions, and dismantle centers of 
highly specialized, mucn-needed Great Lakes expertise. The aoility of the federal government to meet United 
States commitments under international treaty and associated agreements will be in Question. 

The Great Lakes Commission urges the U.S. Army Coros of Engineers to take the steps necessary to preserve 
and protect basic Great Lakes-specific functions. A strong pnvsical presence of the Corps in tlr* Great Lakes 
Basin is essential; critical expertise in Great Lakes hydraulics, nydroiogy, navigation system ertgineering, 
planning and maintenance and environmental remeaiation must be maintained as well as adequate flexioility in 
personnel and other Corps resources to accommooate tne growing neea and demand for Corps expertise. 

To this end, the Great Lakes Commission urges the Coros, unaer the broad framework of the Reorganization 
Plan, to: 1) establisn ana aoeauately staff a "Great Lakes Planning Coorcination Office" at the Division levei to 
preserve a strong Corns presence in critical Basin activities: 2! ensure that one of the 15 proposed "tecnnical 
centers" is located within the Basin to provide a focal point 'or Great Lakes expertise and activrjes: 31 
maintain special Great Lakes expertise at the individual District levei: and 41 take other actions as neeoed to 
maintain a strong partnership role with the Great Lakes Commission, tne International Joint Commission, and 
other relevant regional agencies, organizations ana programs as weil as. tne individual state executive offices. 

POSITION RATIONALE 

The position of the Great Lakes Commission is predicateo on three conseauences of the Reorganization Plan: 

1) Loss of Great Lakes-soecific Expertise. Personnel at the North Central Division and the Buinaio. Chicago, 
and Detroit District offices wno nave acquired soecial exoertise in Great Lakes water resources management, 
commercial navigation, and international coordination are not likelv to continue in their current responsioilities 
once the Reorganization Plan is fully implemented. Relocation ot xev Great Lakes personnel to tne new North 
Central Division is not assureo. nor is the retention of sucn oersonnel in the downsized Distriei offices. 
Hundreos of positions m the Great Lakes Basin will be eiiminatea, anq anticipated attrition wiii effectively 
dismantle internationally recognizeq centers of highly specialized Great Lakes exoertise. The anncioatea 
savings from such downsizing will be far outweigneo bv the loss of irreoiaceable expertise. 

2) De-emphasis of the Great Lakes Basin in the Reorganization Plan. The Great Lakes Basin is a preeminent 
watershed with one-fifth ot the world's fresn surface water, mucn of North America's industrraii base, and an 
international boundary. The transfer of critical Coros functions outside of the Basin, along witti oersonnel 
reassignment, reduces Coros Great Lakes capabilities. Under the Reorganization Plan, prinapak District 
planning, design ana engineering responsibilities are assignea to a new Directorate of Engineermg and Planning 
at the new North Central Division office in Cincinnati. Thereiore. the planning, design and engineering 
activities penaining to Great Lakes Basin proiects will be Directed from outside the Basin. The lack of 
geographic proximity to the resource and the inevitable disolacement of focus will jeooardize the efficient 
management of Great Lakes programs and protects. The Division office closure, coupled wrtn fewer personnel 
dedicated to Great Lakes activities at the existing District offices and the new Division office, will also limit 
Great Lakes Basin planning, design and engineering work, resulting in delays and lost opportunities. 

3) Reduced Commitment to International Obligations. Through personnel reassignment and work allocation, 
it is unlikely that critical cooraination on U.S.-Canaoa oroiects and orograms in the Great Lakes Basin will be 
given the attention they require. For example, the elimination of the Great Lakes Regulation Section in the 
Chicago-based North Central Division will pose problems for continuity of functions in the new Division, where 
they will be mergeo with a Water Management Division. Prospective loss of Corps involveraent in, and 



93 



suDDort of U.S. oDiigations unaer tne International Eounaary Waters Treaty or 1909 and the Great Lanes 
Water Quality Agreement are ot great concern. 

MAINTAINING ESSENTIAL SERVICES IN THE GREAT LAKES BASIN 

The eight memDer states of the Great Lakes Commission are united in tneir belief that the following vital 
Corps functions must Be maintained unaer the Reorganization Plan: 

• Full and substantive suoport of all binational Great Lakes programs ana initiatives where the active 
presence ana contribution of the U.S. federal government is a matter or legal obligation or statea policy. 
This includes ail terms or the International Bounoary Waters Treaty of 1909. the Convention on Great 
Lakes Fisheries il955i, and the U.S. -Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreements of 1972, 1978 ana 
1987. 

• Full and substantive suobort to all domestic Great Lakes programs and initiatives where the active presence 
and contribution of the Corps is a matter or legislative reauirement or statea policy. This incluaes active 
representation on the Great Lakes Commission as an observer, substantive support of its various tasK 
forces, ana all other teoerai agency functions as stipulated in P.L. 90-il9, the Great Lakes Basin Compact 
(1956). This aiso inciuoes support for the U.S. EPA Assessment ana Remediation of Contaminated 
Sediments (ARCS) program: enforcement actions involving seaiment remeoiation; and representation on 
the U.S. Policy Comm.ittee in support of U.S. commitments under tne Great Lakes Water Quality 
Agreement. 

• A continuing ro;e in ail areas of water resources management in the Great Lakes Basin, including 
representation on International Joint Commission Boards of Control, lake level monitoring, projections, 
analyses ana associateo public information functions; and a future technical support and implementation 
role in pursuina .'ecommenoatidns of the iJC Lase Levels Study Boaro. This must include emergency 
response in crisis conaitions as well as longer-term structural and nonstructural measures. 

• Adeauate expertise and staff resources oirectea at dredging and dreogeo material disposal reauirements in 
the Great LaKes Basin, mciuaing administration of the Great Lakes Confined Disposal Facility program. 

• Adeauate expertise ana staff resources to meet growing demands for Great Lakes environmental 
engineerina, including technical support to state governments and the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency in remediation or designated Areas of Concern and other toxic "hot spots. " 

• Maintenance of the Corps' established role in the construction, operation and maintenance of the Great 
Lakes navigation svsterti. This includes in-Basin expertise ana staff resources to pursue authorized proiects 
sucn as a new. large locx at Sault Ste. Mane. Micnigan. 

• Maintenance of centralized expertise and staff resources airected at 1) the compilation and analysis or 
Great Lakes aiversion and consumptive use data: and 2) the prospective formulation of a Water Resources 
Management P'ogram for tne Great LaKes Basin. 

To perform these and other vital Great LaKes functions, it is essential that the Reorganization Plan 
implementation ensure: tne retention of Great Lakes-soecific expertise m the Basin and a continued strong 
physical presence for tne Corps within the Great Laxes Basin including the establishment of a "technical 
Center"; centralized Great Lakes expertise within each District office and a distinctive. Great Lakes-specific 
planning and coordination function within the North Central Division office; and adequate staffing at the 
Division and District level to accommodate the growing need for and breadth of the Corps' presence in the 
Great Lakes Basin. 

Therefore, the Great LaKes Commission reauests tnat the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers take the necessary 
action; to ensure that these oasic Great Lakes reauirements are fully accommodated during implementation of 
the Reorganization Plan. The Corps is further urged to consider the specific organizational measures outlined 
in the "summary position ' presented above. 



94 



JOINT EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 

FOR THE 

IMPROVEMENT and DEVELOPMENT of the PHILADELPHIA PORT AREA 

ORGANIZED OCTOBER 17. 1388 

913 LAFAYETTE BUILDING 

PHIUVOELPHIA. PA 19106 

(215)925-1522 

PAUL LANE IVES. JR.. CJiairman Honorary Chairman: 

H. WILUS JACKSON 
WILLIAM A. HARRISON. Secretary-Treasurer 
LEWIS CACCESE. Consultant 
SCANLAN 4 SCANLAN. Counsel 
Consulting Crganizaiion: MARINERS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE 

IDENTIFYING REMARKS 

The Joint Executive Committee for the Improvement and Development of the 
Philadelphia Port Area is port-affairs spokesman for twenty-four Delaware 
Valley civic and trade associations whose names appear at the bottom of this 
letterhead page. Organized in 1883, this Committee has participated in and 
promoted all major navigation improvements to the Delaware, Schuylkill and 
Christina Rivers and to the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. The members pay 
no dues beyond the nominal amounts needed to cover the organization's 
administrative expenses, and its officers serve without compensation. 

Our Delaware River marine terminals in Camden, Gloucester, Pettys 
Island, and Salem in southern New Jersey, Morrisville, Philadelphia, and 
Chester in Pennsylvania, and Wilmington, Delaware; located in three states 
and identified collectively as the Ports of Philadelphia; handled 
approximately 73,790,000 million tons of international waterborne cargo 
during calendar year 1992. This commerce generated more than four billion 
dollars into the economy of the tri-state Delaware Valley region. 

Seven major oil refineries; the largest refinery complex on the east 
coast, are located along the Delaware River. These facilities lend strong 
support to both the economy and to national defense. "In 1992, waterborne 
commerce at the Ports of Philadelphia produced approximately $420 million for 
the Federal Government in Customs Receipts. 

TESTIMONY 

The Joint Executive Committee is of the strong view that the proposed 
restructuring of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which in the case of 
Philadelphia District would transfer its Planning and Engineering function to 
the Baltimore District, would have irreversible deleterious impacts on the 
Ports of Philadelphia but equally if not more so, on the entire tri-state 
Delaware Valley region's economy. 

The Philadelphia District's five-state area covers nearly 13,000 square 
miles of the Delaware River Basin, encompassing most of Delaware, eastern 
Pennsylvania, western and southern New Jersey, a portion of northeastern 
Maryland at the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal, and several counties in the 
western Catskill area of New York where the Delaware River rises. 

MEMBERS 

Cetaware Couniy Criamoer of Commwfce PENJGPOEL Council 

Delaware fliver ana Sav Auinoniv pniiaoeion.a Boaro or Peaiiors 

Ceiaware flivef Port Auinoi'iv Pnnaoeion.a Cjsioms Brokers A 
Delaware Vaiiev Pe<)ionai Planning Ccmmission ^-i^qni Porwarce 

Gieaier PMnaaeioma C^amoei oi C^rr.rrnrct, Pii[aoeion:a Peqioi 

intemaiionai Lonqsnoremen ^ -*ssoc:aoon P'lois Aisooanon • 

Manners Aovtsorv Ccm-piilee Port 01 PhiiaCeion'a 



Pan o( Wilmington 




Pert 01 Wiimirgton ManriTii 


"• Socetv 


Pcrts 0' P-^HaoeiQiia Mafi. 


me =*cn^o';e 


p^rts of P'-iiaoe'onia wanii 


me ice e^v 


Soum je'sev ^crr Ccrcora 


(■on 


'-artic CoQ 01 P^"raae'ori;j 




vessel Ov-oe** i Ciotatn* 


i Assocation 


Women % iniemanonai ''a< 


:e Assocauon 


wofin' '-aoe -issoc/aricn -31 


-►■■ijjGe'cnta, 



95 



Established in 1866, the District is responsible for the federal role in 
water resource management of the Delaware River Basin and for federal 
navigation projects in the Delaware, Schuylkill, Salem and Christina Rivers, 
the coast of New Jersey from Manasquan Inlet to Cape May and the coast of 
Delaware to Maryland. The Delaware River has three major sub-basins, the 
Schulykill, Lehigh and Lackawaxen in Pennsylvania. Other basin rivers 
include the Neversink, Cooper and Assumpink in New Jersey, the Brandywine in 
Pennsylvania, and the Christina in Delaware. Key cities include the state 
capitols of New Jersey (Trenton) and Delaware (Dover) , Philadelphia and the 
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton complex in Pennsylvania, Camden, New Jersey and 
Wilmington, Delaware. 

The Delaware River Basin (portions of New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey 
and Delaware) drains a relatively long, narrow basin in the northeastern 
United States, extending from the western slopes of the Catskill Mountains in 
New York some 410 miles south, to the mouth of Delaware Bay at the Atlantic 
Ocean between Cape May, New Jersey and Cape Henlopen, Delaware. The basin, 
exclusive of Delaware Bay, contains approximately 13,000 square miles. 

The basin's water resources supply 3.5 billion gallons of water daily 
for use in homes, offices, farms, factories, and for irrigation and other 
uses; steam electric-generating plants use an additional 3.4 billion gallons 
a day for cooling. Ports in the basin annually support the transport of more 
than 118-million tons of goods into and out of Delaware River ports, 
including Philadelphia, Wilmington, Delaware and Camden and Salem, New 
Jersey. Delaware River Basin waters also provide outdoor recreation for 
millions of people from its northernmost headwaters in the Catskill to the 
Atlantic. 

The Delaware River Basin is one of the most important industrial regions 
in the nation: its 8 million people have personal income totaling $80 
billion yearly. The coast of New Jersey and Delaware provide significant 
economic stimulus to both states in the form of tourism and commercial 
fisheries. The New Jersey coastal communities contribute almost $13.0 
billion to the state's economy and the commercial fishing industry is among 
the largest in the east coast. The District services this diverse densely 
populated and economically significant region. 

The District performs these major missions: 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION . Philadelphia District provides design, planning, 
contracting and construction management support to the Army's Fort Dix 
Training Center and McGuire Air Force Base, in New Jersey, for Military 
Construction projects. 

NAVIGATION . The Philadelphia District maintains the Federal Navigation 
Channels in the Delaware River. Permanent improvement began in 1855 with 
the Delaware River. Permanent improvement began in 1942 with the development 
of a ship channel from Philadelphia-to-the-Sea: Over the years the channel 
has been modified and is today 40 feet deep, with widths ranging from 400 to 
1200 feet. Another authorized channel (40 feet) is maintained from 
Philadelphia to Fairless Hills, PA. The channel then extends to Trenton at 
lesser depths. A six-mile stretch of the Schuylkill River is also a federal 
navigation project. More than 85 percent of the Atlantic Coast's crude oil 
imports come into Delaware River's seven refineries. The District also 
operates and manages the Corps of Engineer's ocean-going Hopper Dredge 



96 



McFARLAND, scheduling its activities in federal navigation channels along the 
entire Atlantic coast. 

The District is also responsible for the planning, design and 
construction of improvements to this navigation system. Currently, the 
District is preparing plans and specifications on two improvements to the New 
Jersey Intra-coastal Waterway; has completed the Design Memorandum on the 
deepening of the Salem River; designing a $300 million dollar project to 
deepen the channel from Philadelphia to the Sea to 45 feet and is beginning 
the process of analyzing the Christina River channel in Wilmington Harbor. 

COASTAL ENGINEERING . The District maintains coastal engineering expertise, 
and plans, designs and constructs federal coastal erosion and hurricane 
protection projects. 

Recently, the District has completed construction of three Coastal 
projects-Barnegat Inlet, Ocean City, NJ and Cape May, NJ. The District has 
four ongoing cost-shared feasibility studies (two with New Jersey and two 
with Delaware) and three studies in the reconnaissance phase. 

BASIN PLANNING . Philadelphia District maintains and develops the expertise 
essential to the planning, evaluation, design, construction and operation of 
projects, including multi-purpose dams and lakes, for the development of the 
Delaware River Basin water resources. 

Operation of five dams in eastern Pennsylvania provides flood control, 
water supply storage, water quality and recreation: 

BLUE MARSH LAKE — near Reading (Berks County) 

BELTZVILLE LAKE — near Lehighton (Carbon County) 

FRANCIS E. WALTER DAM — near White Haven (Luzerne County) 

PROMPTON DAM — near Honesdale (Wayne County) 

JADWIN DAM — near Honesdale; a "dry" dam without a standing reservoir 

The District also has constructed local flood control projects in 
Pennsylvania and New Jersey — at Allentown and Bethlehem on the Lehigh 
River, and at Mt. Holly, NJ on the Rancocas Creek; these projects are 
operated and maintained by local governments. 

The District has currently four projects in the final phases of our 
continuing authorities program which will be ready for construction within 
the next 12 months. We have three projects in the reconnaissance phase and 
expect to execute at least one feasibility agreement with the State of 
Pennsylvania this fiscal year. 

REGULATORY . A major responsibility is administration of the federal 
regulatory program under provisions of the River and Harbor Act, Clear Water 
Act, and the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act — which include 
regulatory jurisdiction over dredging, filling and construction activities in 
waters of the United States. The District's jurisdiction in these regulatory 
matters includes eastern Pennsylvania, Delaware, and northwestern and 
southern New Jersey — involving the coastal area from Manasquan to Cape May. 

EMERGENCY OPERATIONS . Under Public Law 84-99, the District has authority to 
assist state and local efforts in a broad range of flood-fighting activities 
and performs emergency repairs to federally authorized and constructed beach 



97 



erosion and hurricane protection projects damaged by floods or coastal 
storms. Further, Public Law 93-288 provides the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency the authority to task the Corps for assistance in national emergency 
situations. With the recent Coastal studies the District not only has 
supported efforts within its boundaries but has made expertise available to 
Florida in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew. 

SUPPORT TO OTHERS . The District provides engineering and construction 
management expertise to other Federal agencies on request, and since 1978 has 
assisted the Environmental Protection Agency in construction and administra- 
tion management of municipal wastewater treatment systems in Pennsylvania and 
Delaware. Additionally, the District has contained toxic and hazardous waste 
materials at New Jersey sites under the EPA SUPERFUND Program. 

The Philadelphia District Engineer is the Principal Advisor to the 
federal representative on the Delaware River Basin Commission — the 
commission being a federal interstate agency comprising representatives of 
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, New York, (and the Federal Government) 
with responsibility for water resources management and policy for the 
Delaware River Basin. 

The Corps of Engineers shares its expertise, experience and resources 
with local governments in many ways, including water resources planning 
assistance to states, flood plain management services, flood-fighting 
assistance and major disaster recovery and assistance in times of drought. 
Under Section 22, Water Resources Development Act of 1974, as amended, the 
Chief of Engineers is authorized to assist the states in planning for 
development, utilizatioin and conservation of water resources. The 
assistance can be applied to a broad range of needs including those in 
coastal zones, lake shores and drainage basins, and includes many situations 
not meeting the requirements of the Corps' individually authorized or 
Continuing Authorities programs. A letter of request from the state will 
initiate a Corps study of the problem. 

The District also assists the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the 
preparation of flood Insurance Studies and Hurricane Evacuation Plans. 

REORGANIZATION 

1. Proposed reorganization will reduce Philadelphia District by 162 jobs. 
The offices remaining will have no Planning, Engineering and Environ- 
mental expertise. They will consist of Operations, Construction and 

a token Programs and Project Management office. 

2. Problems with Proposed Plan. 

a) Since the middle 1960s the overhead costs outside the District 
offices have increased by a factor of 9 while the total Corps 
construction budget has essentially increased by less than 1/2. 
The reduction of direct spaces (Planning and Engineering) will 
further worsen the overhead cost problem. (Overhead is defined 
as Indirect Costs/Direct Costs.) 

b) Customer satisfaction was not considered as a selection variable. 
This ignores the partnership created by the Water Resources 



98 



Development Act of 1986 with significant cost-sharing by state 
and/or local governments. 

c) Will lead to the loss of local knowledge and expertise in the 
Planning, Engineering and Environmental areas and the loss of 
well established working relationships between the existing 
District offices and other federal and state agencies. 

d) It is a reorganization which focuses on the past and ignores 
any potential new directives that the new administration or 
Congress - that the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
and the Intermodal Impact Transportation Act has established. 

e) Creates management problems for local Districts as they no 
longer directly manage the funds, resources as priorities for 
conducting its work. 

f) Does not, in the specifics related to Philadelphia District, 
achieve its objectives. According to the Reorganization report 
issued by HQUSACE to support the BRAC plan the District was the 
6th most cost effective district nationwide. Philadelphia 
District costs of doing business are less than Baltimore and the 
majority of the other centers selected. 

The criteria used for selecting among reorganization options: 

1) Cost efficiency 

2) Flexibility enhancing 

3) Competence maintaining 

4) Management effectiveness 

Reasons for reorganization: 

I. Shrinking Workload/Fewer Traditional Projects 

II. Workload/Work Force Imbalance 

III. Loss of Technical Expertise 

IV. High Overhead Costs 

Where does Philadelphia District stand: 
A. Regarding Workload: 

1) The District currently has about fifty studies, projects 
or other civil works activities underway within the 
States of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and 
Maryland. 

2) Thirteen of these are being cost-shared by non-federal 
interests. 

3) The Philadelphia District has five cost-shared feasibil- 
ity studies underway - One more anticipated to be emerged 
shortly. 

4) The Philadelphia District has almost $8.0 million of 
Planning and Design work underway. 



99 



5) The Philadelphia District is currently providing design 
and construction management for about $30 million of 
Military construction. 

6) The Philadelphia District has work for others agreement 
with Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Environ- 
mental Protection Agency, the U.S. Coast Guard and the 
Defense Personnel Support Center and others. 

7) The Philadelphia District provides construction manage- 
ment to the U.S. EPA Construction Grants program and 
Superfund Cleanup program. 

8) The District's 10-year program forecasting future work 
shows a steady growth in Planning, Design and 
Construction over the period. 

1) The Philadelphia District workload clearly supports its 
workforce and would support additional employment; 
however., the District has chosen to utilize the large 
Architect Engineer community as a significant partner in 
coordinating its activities. Over the next 3 years the 
District will provide about $7,000,000 per year to local 
A/E firms for needed services. (This translates to about 
200 jobs per year in the A/E community.) 

2) Technical expertise - Any unusual technical requirements 
are provided by the A/E community. Being located in 
Philadelphia with its Universities and large A/E 
community eliminates the need for the hiring of unique 
technical expertise. 



Criteria Used: 



1) The District's management of projects is measured by cost 
growth and how much has the cost changed since its 
initial cost estimate is among the best in the Corps - 
the Division office which includes Philadelphia, has the 
lowest rate of cost growth of all Divisions. 

2) Management effectiveness - The District ranks 9th 
(lowest) for the cost of Supervision and Administration, 
4th (lowest) Engineering and Design, 6th (lowest) Engin- 
eering and Design cost change among all districts 
nationwide. 



100 



TESTIMONY OF BARBARA G. JONES 

DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AND PUBUC AFFAIRS 

OF THE DELAWARE RIVER PORT AUTHORITY 

SUB-COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION 

RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, ROOM 2167, 

THURSDAY, MAY 6, 1993 



Good mornlas Chairman Borski and members of the Sub^Committee on 
Investigations and Oversight. My name is Barbara G. Jones and I am the Director of 
Government and Public A^au^ for the Delaware River Port Authority (DRPA). It Is a 
pleasure to be here with you this morning to share the DRPA's position on the U. S. Army 
Corps of Engineers proposed reorganization plan. The DRPA is a bi-state agency made up 
of sixteen Commissioners from the State of New Jersey and the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania. We provide the m^or transportation links between Southeastern 
Pennsylvania and Southern New Jersey by maintaining four bridges, the Walt Whitman, 
Beiyamin Franklin, Commodore Barry and Betsy Ross, and the PATCO High Speed Rail 
Line. The DRPA is also charged with promoting and maintaining commerce on the 
Delaware River. Upon reviewing the Army Corps of Engineers proposed reorganization, 
the DRPA commissioners unanimously adopted the following resolution on December 16, 
1992: 

RESOLUTION 



WHEREAS: The United States Army intends to dramatically reduce the staffing and 
functional responsibilities of its Corps of Engineers office which serves the 
Ptiiladelphia and New Jersey region; and 



101 



WHEREAS: The office of the Corps of Engineers as it is currently staffed provides 
substantial aid in connection with Port projects, projects related to the 
Delaware River, projects which benefit this region by enhandng the flow of 
waterbome traffic through the Ports of Philadelphia; and 

WHEREAS: Among the other services provided by the Corps of Engineers are expert 
environmental advice and assistance, working to preserve the New Jersey 
coast in the aftermath of the recent major storm, and similar activities in 
both Pennsylvania and New Jersey ;and 

WHEREAS: Removing the environmental, planning and engineering functions from the 
Corps of Engineers office as is proposed by the United States Army would 
create severe economic danuge to the region served by the Delaware River 
Port Authority without creating any substantial cost savings to the Corps of 
Engineers given that the Philadelphia office of the Corps of Engineers is a 
lower cost office than that maintained in other areas; now therefore, It is 
hereby 

RESOLVED: That is the sense of the Commissioners of the Delaware River 

Port Authority that this Authority strongly opposes the 
proposal of the United States army to eliminate functional 
areas and reduce staffing at its Philadelphia Corps of Engineers 
office and the Commissioners of the Delaware River Port 
Authority urge the Congressional delegation from Pennsylvania 
and New Jersey to take all responsible steps to preserve this 
very valuable office for the benefit of this region. 

The region which encompasses Southeastern Pennsylvania, Southern New Jersey, and 

Delaware is known as the Delaware Valley. It is known as the Delaware Valley primarily 

because of the Delaware River. The Delaware River is one of the most vital economic 

gateways, not only to the Delaware Valley region but to the states of Pennsylvania, New 

Jersey and Delaware as well. In fact, the river could very well be compared to an artery. 

Just as an artery in a human carries the central life force that sustains life Itself, the 

Delaware River constitutes the economic sustenance of the Delaware Valley. 

Commerce on the Delaware river is responsible for 124,000 jobs in the region-3S,000 

of which are totally dependent on waterbome facilities. These 35,000 jobs generate annual 



72-424 0-94-5 



102 



3 
eanunes in excess of one billion dollars. Additionally, waterborne commerce generates in 
excess of fifty million dollars (50,000,000) annually in state and local taxes. These numbers 
illustrate the vital importance of the Delaware River to the economic well being of our 
region. If we were to continue the analogy of the Delaware River being the artery that 
sustains the economic life and growth of our region, it is then appropriate to liken the 
Corps of Engineers to the cardiologists that keep the artery flowing. 

The Delaware River each year requires substantial maintenance dredging to maintain 
appropriate depths and preserve the river as a vital economic link to the Delaware Valley. 
In fact, this year's appropriated amount is approximately thirteen million dollars 
($13,000,000) for dredging from Philadelphia to the Atlantic Ocean. The Philadelphia 
District Office of the Army Corps of Engineers plays a vital role in the planning and 
execution of dredging projects for the Delaware River. Their knowledge of our area is vast 
and their expertise is much needed. Likewise, the District Office has many studies and 
projects underway which would benefit the states of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and 
Delaware. The proposed reorganization would dramatically affect these projects and prove 
to be detrimental to the Delaware Valley, environmentally, technically and economically. 
It is estimated that the proposed reorganization would result in the loss of 
approxhnately one hundred surty two (162) jobs within the District Office itself and 
approximately two hundred (200) additional related jobs in the area. Such losses would 
have a devastating economic impact on our area. Approximately twenty million dollars 
($20,000,000) in salaries and other economic activity would be hi jeopardy, over one million 
dollars ($1,000,000) would be lost in state and local taxes annually. The Delaware Valley 



103 



4 
cannot endure that economic devastation. 

The proposed reorganization would also significantly impair the environmental well 
being of the Delaware Valley region. The loss of local engineering, planning and 
environmental expertise would endanger the progress achieved thus far by the Philadelphia 
Office. The Philadelphia Office is well aware of the conditions in our area. It has worked 
effectively to provide localized, cost effective and environmentally sensitive solutions to the 
problems faced by the Delaware Valley. Under the proposed reorganization we would lose 
the advantages of local knowledge and expertise. 

The Philadelphia District Office of the Army Corps of Engineers has done significant 
work in the protection of beaches and harbors In South Jersey. They recently concluded 
an erosion control project that saved the historic community of Cape May from severe 
damage during winter storms which pounded our shore line. They are also involved in 
other erosion control projects and programs designed to maiiitain inland waterways along 
the New Jersey coast. The proposed reorganization would result in a lack of availability 
of immediate localized support in emergency situations. 

Hie consolidation of planning, design and engineering expertise within technical 
center, as delineated in the proposed reorganization, will create technical disadvantages for 
the Delaware Valley. If the responsibilities of the Philadelphia Office are transferred to 
Baltimore or Boston, costs will increase and coordination problems will exist. There will 
be a natural tendency to focus on areas other than the Delaware Valley and the Delaware 
River. Our projects will no longer receive priority treatment and we will lose the ability 
to control resources allocated for projects in our area. 



104 



5 
Based upon all of the foregoing, tbe ORPA nrmly believes that the Philadelphia 

Regional Office of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers should be preserved. The functional 

responsibilities should be maintained and the Philadelphia Office should continue to provide 

planning, design, engineering and environmental expertise to the Delaware Valley. This 

office is useful, cost effective 

and vital to the economic interests of the Delaware Valley. Much like a cardiologist taking 

care of a heart patient, the Philadelphia Office is needed to maintain the economic health 

of the Delaware Valley and the Delaware River. 

The DRPA and other port entities m our area, including the South Jersey Port 
Corporation and the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority, have made significant 
investments in our port facilities recently in an effort to increase the amount of cargo that 
flows through our region. We have taken steps to improve tbe health of the Ports of 
Philadelphia. A diminished Corps presence in our area can only result in hindering the 
progress which we have begun. We respectfully urge this committee and other members 
of Congress to assist us in our port enhancement efforts by preserving one of our valuable 
assets, the Philadelphia District Office of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Hiank you for your consideration of our testimony. 



105 

TBSTIICOKY or 
h.G. KAUL 
DIRICTOR OF THE DIV1S10^ Ot WATER 
hEH YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF EKVIROKMENTAL CONSERVATION 

BSFOR£ THE 

COMKITTEE ON PUBLIC WOKAb AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF R2PRZSZNTXTI\TS 

MAY 6, 1993 



106 



KR. CRAXMUK, KFKBERS OT THE COKMITTXE, I AM N.C. KXUL, 
DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF WATER OT THE KEW YOWC STATE 
DEPAJ^TMKNT or EKVIR0N«EKTAL COKSERVATION . 1 APPRECIATE TOT 
OPPORTUHITY TO PRESENT TEBTIKOKY RZCARDTKG THE PROPOSED 
KEOR3A5IZATION Of THB CORTE OF XNOIKEWS. 

FIRST, LEI ME STATE THAT KEW Y0R3C 8TR0NGLV OPPOSES THE 
REORGANIZATION WHICH WAS AJOJOUUOKD IK MOVEHBER 1952. 

THIS RZORCAi^IZATION WOULD ELIMINATE THE CORPS' WORTH 
ATLANTIC DIVISION (NAD) OFFICE IN KEW YOKX CITX AND RELOCATE IT 
TO THE DOCTON AREA. THE TWO PRIMARY DISTRICTS THAT SERVE NEK 
YORX STATE (BUFFALO AND NEW YORK Cirf) WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY 
REDUCED IK SIZE AND KISSION. THESE DISTRICTS WOULD HAVE NO 
fiXPERXISE IN THE AREAS OF PLANNING , ENCIKEKRINC, REAL ESTATE 
EVALUATION, NOR IN DLALING WITH HAZARDOUS AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE 
OR OTHER ENVIROKMENTAL ISSUES. THEY KOUIi) CONSIST ONLY 0? A 
SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED OFFICE HANDLIKO CONSTWJCTIOK, OPERATIONS, 
PROJECT KANACLKENT AND SOME REGULATORY EXPERTISE. THE IKPACTS OF 
THE REORGANIZATION OK NEW YORK STATE ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

■OQNQKie IKPACTS: A TOTAL OF 141 JOBS WOULD BE LOST FROM 
DOWNGRADING THE rJFFALO DISTRICT OFFICE; AND A TOTAL OF 470 JOBS 
WOULD BE LOST IN NEW YORK CITY (207 PROK CLOSURE OF THS DZVIBZOH 
OFFICE, AXD 263 FROM DOWNGRADING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE). THE 



107 



TOTAL ESTIHATED WAGE LOSS WOULD BE ABOUT $25 KILLIOH ANNUALLY. 
IF ONE ADDS TO THIS THE LOSS OF SPOUSAL IHCOKZ; LOST INCOME AND 
PROPERTY TAXES; AND LOST OF EXFENDITURB5 IN THE STATE, THE TOTAL 
DIRECT F.CONOMIC IMPACT ANNUALLY ON NEW YORX fTATE WOULD BE ABOUT 
94) WILLION. 

THERE WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY $42 MILLION LOST IN CONSULTANT 
CONTRACTS ANNUALLY TO LOCAL ARCHITECT AND INCTNEERING FIRMS AS 
TKE CORPS PLANNINO AND DESIGN FUNCTIONS WOULD BE THANSFERBF.n TO 
ttOSTON. THE MULTIPLIER EFFECT DRIKCS THIS TOTAL LOSS TO ABOUT 
57 5 MILLION AKNUALLY. 

PBOfiftJUf TWPXCrfl: SEPARATING PROJECT MANAGERS FROM THE 
PLANNING AND DESIGN TEAKS WILL ADD DELAYS AND INCREASE PROJECT 
COSTS FOR THE STATE AND LOCAL QOVERNKENTS AS WELL AH FOR THE 
FEDERAL COVEENKENT. MORFOVER, BECAUSE ALL BNVIRONKSNTAL 
SPECIALISTS WILL BE TRANSFERKZD OUT OP DISTRICT OFFICES TO 
TECKNICAL CENTERS, COMPLICATED PERMIT DECISIONS WILL HAVE TO BZ 
REFERRED TO THESE CENTERS, AI>DIKC DBIAYS AND COSTS TO TIKE- 
SENSITIVE OPERATIONS. APPLICANTS FOR SOKE WBTLKNDS PERMITS ARE 
LIKELY TO BZ AFFECTED. CRITICALLY IMPORTANT PROJECTS TO NEW YORX 
STATE THAT MAY SUFFER INCLUDE: 



108 



fl&lJL2_X&Ufi: THE RIORGANIZMION COKPLTTELY lONORIS THE 
VNlftUEWESS AKD SPECIAL HBBDS OF HEW YORK STATE'S LOWIR CRZXT 
IAKE8, XND THI CRSXT LXKES IN GBKERAL. THE HEW HORTH CSKTRAL 
DIVISION VILL KNCOXPASS THE ARIA fcETWEZK KAS6ENA. KEV YORK, AND 

IDAHO. At>THOUaK IT WOUU> BX TUB IARCE8T OF THE REORGANIZED 
DIVISIONS, IT WOULD HAVE ONLY FOUR rUIJ>-FUNCT10N DISTRICT*, WITH 
NO TECHNICAL PRESENCE ANYWHERE IN THE CRKAT UiJ^S REGION. 
ELlftlNATING BUrrAlO'ff KHOINEERING rUNCTION WOULD MEAN THERE W0UIJ5 
BE NO SUCH OFFICE OK ANY OF THE GREAT LM^S, OR EVEN WITHIN TMK 
CRXAT LAKES DRAINAGE BOUNDARIES. PLANNINO, ENOINEERING, 
ENVIROIftlENTAL ANALYSIS, AND WtOULATIOW OF TWE OREAT LAKES WOULD 
BE DONE BY SOMEONE IN ST. PAUL, ORAhA, PITTSBUROH, OR L0UI8VILUS. 
THERE WOULD BE NO TECHNICAL CENTER IN THE GREAT LAKES AREA TO 
SERVT ITS UNIQUE HEEDS IN INTERNATIONAL LEVELS AND FLOW ISSUiiai 
ITS HEAVY CONCENTRATION OF HAZARDOUS, TOXIC AND RADIOLOGICAL 
WASTE HOT ePCTe> AKD ITS DISTINGUISHING CLIMATIC CONCERNS SUCH AS 
ANALYSIS AND KANAGEMENT OF HEAVY LAKE AND RIVER ICE CONDITIONS. 

EKlR^gNOHa t CORPS SPBClALieTe WITH THE TECHNICAL ABILITY 
AND LOCAL HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE WILL NO LONGER BE AVAILABLE TO 
GIVE PIANNING AND ENCINIERINC SUPPORT TO NEW YORX STATE DURING 
EMERGENCIES. DURING WIDESPREAD FLCODINS IN HVCII OF HEW YORK 
STATE DURING MARCH, APRIL, AND CONTINUING INTO MAY IN SOME AREAS, 
THE BUFFALO DISTRICT PROVIDED SIGNIFICANT ASSISTANCE IN 
FURNISHING FLOOD FIGHTING EXPtKTISB, iUPPLIM, MATERIALS" AMD 
EQUIPKTNT. THROUGH APRIL 1993, THE BUFFALO DISTRICT HAD DEVOTED 



109 



IN EXCESS OF 3700 PERSON HOURS TO hBBlSTMCZ IN FLOOD FICHTINO. 
DISTRICT STAFF DISTRIBUTED MORE TKAN ONE MILLION SANDBAOS, WANED 
PUXP8 AND FUKNISHTD OTHER FliOOD FlOttTINC KATERIAL8 TO LOCAL 
GOVERKMENTS IN NEW YORK. UNDER THE EMSRGENCY AUTHORITY OF PUBLIC 
LAW g*-99, T»re BUFFALO DISTRICT HAD EXPENDED $320,000 IN AN 
ATTEMPT TO PREVENT IKMINKNT FLOOD DAKACE. 

puniKC THE BRUTAL DECEMBER STORH OF LAST YEAR VHICH IMPACTED 
NEW YORK CITY AND LONG ISLAND, THE CORPS' NEW YORK CITY DISTRICT 
OFFICE DISPATCHED A TEAM OF 20 PEOPU! TO TKE HARDEST-HIT PARTS OF 
TKi. NEW yORJ METROPOLITAN AREA. CORPS STAFF ASSICNED TO THIS 
DUTY CAKE WITH FIRST-HAND JWOVfLEDOE OF THE AFFECTED AKJlA; THKY 
HAD SPECIFIC INFORMATION ON WHAT EXIBTIHO OTRUCTURES JtAD BEEN 
AFFECTED AND WEN WHAT NEW BTRUCfURES WERE ALREADY IN TUB 
PLANNING AND DESIGN STAGES. IN 8H0R1', THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS 
BASED ON THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF THE ARZA SAVED THE STATE TIRE AND 
RESOURCES IN RESPONDING TO THE EKKRCENCY. SUCH LOCAL 
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC WORKS EXPERTISE MIU. BE LOST FOR NEW 
YORK IT TKZ REORGANIZATION PROCEEDS. AND, WE SUSPECT THE LOSS OF 
NEARBY EMERGENCY SUPPORT WILL CONCERN OTHER STATES AS WELL. 

IfXW TCRE-KT W JIRSBY HAMOm PftlW Pr^nV>T. PBrXTBIM; THIS 
IMPORTANT PROCRMI HAS ASSISTED NOT ONLY IN RSMOVINO NAVIGATIONAL 
HAZARDS TO COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC IN THE HARBOR, BUT HAS ALSO ENABliD 
REVITALIZATION PROJECTS LIKE THE BOUTH STREET SEAPORT TO MOVE 
rORKARD BY RMOVIKG UNSIGHTLY WOODJH DECAY FROM THE WATBRTKONT. 



no 



IN RtCENT YEARS THE CORPS HX8 WOT KIN IKTERESTED IN PURSUING 
THIS PROGRAM AG0RXS8IVILY DESPITE DIRECTION rROK CONGRESS THAT IT 
PROCEED WITH ADDITIONAL PHASES WITH ALL DUB SPEED. IT WOULD K 
IHTERESTrwC TO HEAR WHAT THE CORPS PLANS FOR THE HARBOR DRIFT 
REMOVAL PROGRAM WHEN ITS PROJECT MANAGERS WILL REMAIN ON LOCATION 
IN NEW YORK CITY BUT THP PERSONNEL RESPONSIBLE FOR FUKDIHa 
DECISIONS/ PLANNING AND DESIGN ARE HODBED IN BOSTON. 

fcM&qrwQ o r thb mtw yqkk-ctw j«rbht axMOBt as you know, 
KR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS A CRITICAL TIKE FOR DREDGING ACTIVITIES IN 
THIS VITAL COMKERCIia PORT. HEW PROCEDURES FOR TESTING FOR THE 
PRESENCE OF CONTARINATED 8EDIREWT8 IN DREDOED MATERIAL BAS 
COMPLICXT^D ISSUANCE OF THE CORPS' DHtDCINO PERMITS AND HAY CAUSE 
HORE MATERIAL TO BE DISQUALIFIED FOR DIRECT' OCEAN DISPOSAL. AS 
YOU KNOW, NEW YORK HAS NO UPLAND SITES FOR COKTANINATtU DREDGE 
SPOIL DISPOSAL. NEW DISPOSAL TECHNIQUES AND ALTERNATIVE BITES 
KUST BE IDENTIFIED. UNIMPEDED OPERATION OF THE NEW YORK » NEW 
JERSEY HARBOR IS CRITICAL TO THE ECONOMY OF THE STATE AND THE 
REGION. WS WILL NEED A WELL-COORDINATED AND PROPERLY FUNDED 
PROGRAM OF ASSISTANCE FROM CORPS PUUiNINC AND ENVIRONMEKTAL 
SPECIALISTS, HONE OF WHOM ARE SLATED TO RZMAIN IN NEW YORK CITY. 



HI 



MORtOVKR, IT DOES HOT APPEAR THAT THE RE»R0W»I2ATIOM 
COWirWPIATEO PXSfiACS OF THE VkTt^ RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 
1992, UMDER WHICH CONCRX86 DIMCTED THAT CORPS EXPERTISE BE U»E. 
TO XODRESfi COKBIHED SEKER OVZRFX^OWS . IT IS HARD TO TXXSTME HOW 
THE CORPS WOULD, IT DIRECTED BY CONGRESS, PROPERLY ASSIST WITH 
PLAKNINU AND DESIGN OF BTJCH 8YSTEKS AB THOSE IN ONONDASA COUNTY 
AND NEW YORK CITY, IK THTSK PUHCTIOKS AXE HOUSED IN TECHNICAL 
CENTERS SCATTERED ACROSS THE COUNTRY WHILE THE PROJECT KANAOBR0 
ARE IN BUrrALO AND NEW YORK CITY. NEW YORX STATE HA3 A VERY 
6UBDTANTIAL PORTION OF CSO NEEDS NATIONWIDE. IE IT 18 TKE INTENT 
OF CONGRESS TO INVOLVE THE CORPS IN KORE WORE OF THIS HATUKh IN 
THI rUTURZ, THE REORGANIZATION MAY BE AK OBSTACLE TO COST- 
EFFECT J VB PROOWiKMINO. 

HR. CHAIRKAN, NEW YORX REC0MHEND6, FIRST, THAT THE EXISTING 
KEOROANIZATION BE WITHDRAWN. IF IT 18 THE JUDCKMZKT OF THE 
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE THAT AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN WILL BE DEVELOPED, 
STATES SHOULD BE CONSULTED IN THAT PROCESS. STATES ARE CLIENTS 
OF THE CORPS, AND THEif UNDERSTAND TKE WEAXNE56E6 AND eTKENOXKS OF 
THE CUWUCNT ALICNKZNT. WE CAN PROPOSE NEW STRUCTURES AND PROVIDE 
SOUND ADVICE ON THE IKPACTS - OOOD OR BAD - OF PROPOSALS UNDER 
CONSIDERATION. 

SBCONnT.y, THE SIZE AND NATURE OF THE CORPS MISSION IN NEW 
YORK JUSTIFIES A PORNIDARIJI CORPS PRESENCE IN NEW YORK CITY AND 
AT LEAST A TECHNICAL CENTER IN BUFFALO TO SERVE GREAT LAKE NEEDS, 



112 



WITH XLL PROJFCTS SERVING NW YORK »TAT£ KZZDS MANAGED BY CORPS 
BlkfT IV THB STATE. THE DSNSILY POPULATED AREA OF NEW YORK, KEM 
JERSEY AJID PEKMSYI.VJkHIA CONSTITUTE ONE OF XMi! LARGEST CIVIL WORKS 
MISCIONS OUTSIDE 07 CALIEORNIA. TKE CORPS AflSOTS THAT THE 
WISDOM OF IT6 PLAN 18 ITB ORGANIZATION AROUND DRAINAGE BASINS. 
YET IT IS ONLY LOGICAL THAT A DENSELY POPULATED AREA SCTVED ht 
ONK OP TKE IARGE8T AND MOST AOTIVS COKKERCIAL PORTS IN THE NATION 
WOULD CENBRATE SUMTANTIAL CIVIL WORKS NEED* AND REfiUIRK AN 
ACTIVE COWS PRESENCE TO DELIVER THOSE NEEDS, RECAR0LEB8 OF THE 
LOCATION OF TKE AREA WITHIN ITS DRAINAGE BASIN. 

SIMILARLY, A TECHNICAL CENTER IN BUFFALO IS REEDED TO SERVE 
NEW VORX'S OREAT LAKER WEEDS AND THOSE OF OTHER STATES. 
BUFFALO'S 0UAUPICATI0N6 TO SERVE AS A TECHNICAL CENTER INCLUDE 
ITS row AREA COSTS; THE K"JKBER OF LEADING UNIVERSITIES IN THE 
AREA, MAKY WITH HtCH TtCHNOLOCY SPECIALTIES; AND ITS PROXIKITY TO 
THE GREAT LAKES WHERE SO MUCH ENGIKEFRTNG AND ENVIRONMENTAL 
ANALYSIS 28 REQUIRED. THE BUFFALO StAFF IS INTIMATELY FAMILIAR 
WITH TllC RDOZON AND HAK riMT-HAKD IttJOWLEOOB OF TUB NATlTTiAI. AWn 
SOCIAL PROCESSES THAT AFFECT IT, SUCK AS THE UNI^Ul LAKE AND 
RIVER HYDROLOGY AND CLIKATE, AND THE LOCATION AND SEVERITY OF THE 
HAZARDOUS WA6TB MOT SPOTS AWD IA?*9H©Rfi SROSIOH AHD 
SEDIMENTATION. FINALLY, A TECHNICAL CENTER IN BUFFALO WOULD 
OVERCOKZ ONE OF THE WORST DEFICIENCIES OF THE EXISTING 
REORGANl 'NATION, WMICH IS TBZ NEED IT CREATBB FOK tXCESSXVE TRAVEL 



113 



tf.a. Saul, P.ft. 

Dirsotor 

Divialon of Hcitar 

New rork State I>ep*rtaent of Environ»«ntal Conservation 



N.G. Xaul is the director of the Division of Water, which is 
responsible for water quality and quantity. N.C. has been with 
the Departreent since 197S and hae> worked in Water Quality 
Planning Studies, Kon-point Source Pollution, Constructive Grants 
Prograns, and as an Executive Assistant to the Deputy Conissioner 
of the Office of Snvironwental Quality. Prior to thie assignaent, 
N.C. was the uirector of the uivision of Hazardous substanoes 
R«9ulation, which is reBponsible for programs dealing with 
hazardous waste, pesticides and radiation. He is a Professional 
Engineer with a Haeters Degree in rnvironinental Engineering. 



5/93 



114 



TESTIMOKT OF JOHN P. LaRUE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

PHILADELPHIA REGIONAL PORT AUTHORITY 

U.S. ROUSE OF REPRESEirrATIVES 

PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION SUB-COMMITTEE 

ON INVESTiaATIORS AND OVERSIGHT 

WEDNESDAY , MARCH 25, 1992 

GOOD MORNING. I'M JOHN P. LaRUE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE 

PHILADELPHIA REGIONAL PORT AUTHORITY WHICH IS AN INDEPENDENT STATE 

AUTHORITY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA RESPONSIBLE FOR THE 

MANAGEMENT, MAINTENANCE AND PROMOTION OF THE PORT OF PHILADELPHIA 

AND MARITIME FACILITIES IN BUCKS AND DELAWARE COUNTIES. 

I WELCOME THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ONCE AGAIN RE-STATE THE 

PHILADELPHIA PORT COMMUNITY'S COMPLETE SUPPORT OF THE PHILADELPHIA 

DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND TO STRONGLY URGE 

YOU NOT TO ALLOW ITS CLOSURE OR DRASTIC REDUCTION IN ANY 

REORGANIZATION PLAN. 

IN THE PAST, THE PHILADELPHIA PORT COMMUNITY BROUGHT TO THE 

ATTENTION OF CONGRESS AND THE ADMINISTRATION ITS REASONS FOR 

OPPOSING ANY CLOSING OR DOWNSIZING OF THE PHILADELPHIA OFFICE OR 

ITS MERGER WITH ANY OTHER OFFICE. WE IN PHILADELPHIA WERE GRATEFUL 

THAT YOU RESPONDED TO THOSE OBJECTIONS AND REMOVED CORPS 

REORGANIZATION FROM THE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE COMMISSION AND 

CAUSED THE TOPIC TO BE FULLY DISCUSSED IN CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS 

SUCH AS THIS. 

NOW THAT CONGRESS IS CONSIDERING THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY CORPS 

OF ENGINEERS, I URGE YOU TO REVISIT THOSE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE 

MANY INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS IN THE PHILADELPHIA AREA WHO 

RELY ON THE PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT OFFICE AND WHO WOULD BE ADVERSELY 

AFFECTED IF THE OFFICE WAS NOT THERE. 



115 



IN THE BRIEF TIME ALLOTTED ME, I WANT TO TELL TOU HOW CRITICAL 
THE PHILADELPHIA OFFICE IS TO THE OPERATION AND COMPETITIVENESS OF 
THE PORT OF PHILADELPHIA. 

APPROXIMATELY 3,000 VESSELS EACH YEAR CALL AT THE MARITIME 
FACILITIES LOCATED ON THE DELAWARE RIVER, WHICH AS A RESULT RANKS 
THE REGIONAL PORT SYSTEM AMONG THIS NATION'S LEADING PORTS FOR 
TOTAL CARGO HANDLED. FOR EXAMPLE, THE PORT IS THE TOP FRUIT 
IMPORTING PORT IN THE UNITED STATES AND TRANSPORTS 1.2 MILLION 
BARRELS OF IMPORTED CRUDE OIL ANNUALLY, FURTHER, THE DELAWARE RIVER 
IS 80 MILES LONG AND HAS ONE OF THE HIGHEST DREDGING COSTS IN THE 
NATION DUE TO THE HIGH SILT CONTENT OF THE RIVERBED. OUR ABILITY 
TO COMPETE WITH OTHER EAST COAST PORTS, WHICH HAVE LESS SILT AND 
A SHORTER DISTANCE TO THE SEA, RELIES ON SAFE AlID EFFICIENT VESSEL 
TRANSPORT. IN ORDER TO PROVIDE SUCH SERVICE AT THIS CURRENT LEVEL, 
MUCH LESS AN EXPANDED LEVEL, THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS OFFICE IN 
PHILADELPHIA MUST BE MAINTAINED. 

IT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT AN OFFICE IN A DISTANT LOCATION 
COULD EXECUTE DREDGING PROCEDURES IN A TIMELY MANNER TO PREVENT THE 
RIVER'S TRAFFIC FROM BEING DISRUPTED WHEN SANDBARS APPEAR. 
FURTHER, THESE SANDBARS, IF NOT ADDRESSED PROMPTLY, INCREASE THE 
RISK OF TANKER ACCIDENTS AND GROUNDING. THE PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT 
OFFICE IS ABLE TO RESPOND TO THESE PROBLEMS IN A TIMELY MANNER, 
GENERALLY LESS THAN 24 HOURS. 

THE PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT OFFICE ISA CENTRALLY LOCATED OFFICE 
FOR REGULATORY OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE AND PLANNING FOR THE 
DELAWARE VALLEY. THE PHILADELPHIA OFFICE HAS BEEN VERY HELPFUL IN 

- 2 - 



116 



PROCESSING AND ISSUING PERMITS FOR MANY PROJECTS. THE CORPS 
EMPLOYEES ARE LOCAL PEOPLE WHO ARE INTIMATELY FAMILIAR WITH THE 
AREA. THEY PARTICIPATE IN LOCAL, TECHNICAL AND PUBLIC MEETINGS 
WHICH ENABLES THEM TO ASSIST LOCAL DEVELOPMENT AND BE RESPONSIVE 
TO THE NEEDS OF PORT BUSINESS WHILE DISPLAYING A PROPER 
CONSIDERATION FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. 

FOR EXAMPLE, THE PHILADELPHIA REGIONAL PORT AUTHORITY RECENTLY 

EMBARKED ON A MAJOR CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM AT ITS PACKER AVENUE 

MARINE TERMINAL. THE NATURE OF THE PROGRAM REQUIRED THAT WE OBTAIN 

A NUMBER OF PERMITS FROM DIFFERENT FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES IN 

A SHORT PERIOD OP TIME. ONE OF THE PERMITS WAS A SECTION 10 PERMIT 

FOR THE INSTALLATION OF NEW CRANE RAIL FOUNDATION PILING. THE 

PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT OFFICE REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE PERMIT 

WITHIN THIRTY DAYS DUE TO THEIR INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROJECT 

AREA AND THE EFFICIENCY OF THE DISTRICT OFFICE. THIS APPROVAL 

ALLOWED THE PROJECT TO GO FORWARD AND MEET CONSTRUCTION DEADLINES. 

MY COLLEAGUE, MS. JONES OF THE DELAWARE RIVER PORT AUTHORITY 

WILL SPEAK TO THE ENORMOUSLY VALUABLE ROLE THE ARMY CORPS WILL PLAY 

IN THE PROPOSED DEEPENING OF THE DELAWARE RIVER CHANNEL TO 45 FEET, 

A PROJECT ESSENTIAL FOR THE FUTURE VIABILITY OF THE PORT. 

I HOPE YOUR COMMITTEE CONSIDERS THE ENORMOUS IMPACT 
REORGANIZATION OF THE PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT OFFICE WILL HAVE ON OUR 
REGIONAL ECONOMY. THE DISTRICT HAS APPROXIMATELY 50 STUDIES, 
PROJECTS, AND OTHER CIVIL WORKS ACTIVITIES UNDERWAY SERVING THE 
STATES OF NEW JERSEY, PENNSYLVANIA, DELAWARE, AND MARYLAND. TWELVE 
OF THESE EFFORTS ARE BEING CONDUCTED UNDER COST SHARING AGREEMENTS 

- 3 - 



117 



WITH LOCAL SPONSORS, WITH TWO MORE AGREEMENTS SCHEDULED TO BE 
EXECUTED IN THE NEAR FUTURE. OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS 
APPROXIMATELY $7,000,000 PER YEAR IN ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SERVICES 
WILL BE PROCURED BY THE DISTRICT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE EXECUTION 
OP THE CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM. THE IMPACT OF THE PLAN WILL CAUSE A 
REDUCTION OF 162 JOBS IN THE DISTRICT OFFICE AND APPROXIMATELY 200 
ADDITIONAL JOBS THAT WOULD BE SUPPORTED BY THE USE OF LOCAL 
ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING SERVICES. THE ESTIMATED DOLLAR IMPACT IN THE 
LOCAL ECONOMY WOULD BE ABOUT $21.0 MILLION PER YEAR IN SALARIES 
AND OVERALL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY. IN ADDITION THIS WILL LEAD TO OVER 
Sl.O MILLION PER YEAR LOST TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT TAXES. 
THE LOSS OF LOCAL ENGINEERING, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL EXPERTISE 
WILL SIGNIFICANTLY ALTER THE POTENTIAL FOR DEVELOPING LOCALIZED, 
COST EFFECTIVE, ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS. 

I WILL CONCLUDE WITH TWO POINTS. FIRST, I AM TROUBLED BY WHAT 
APPEARS TO BE YET ANOTHER STEP BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO 
DISADVANTAGE THE PORT OF PHILADELPHIA AND THE REGION IT SERVES. 
FOR YEARS THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY HAS BEEN ATTEMPTING TO 
DOWNSIZE THE CORP • S PHILADELPHIA OFFICE DESPITE POWERFUL EVIDENCE 
THAT TO DO SO WAS CONTRARY TO THE NATIONAL INTEREST. DESPITE THOSE 
ATTEMPTS THE PHILADELPHIA OFFICE HAS DONE A REMARKABLE JOB. IN 
FACT, THE ARMY'S OWN RE -ORGANIZATION STUDY RANKED THE PHILADELPHIA 
OFFICE SIXTH BEST IN THE NATION. IT ALSO RANKED HIGHER THAN 17 
OTHER DISTRICT OFFICES WHICH IT RECOMMENDED TO REMAIN OPEN, IN ITS 
1991 REORGANIZATION PROPOSAL, AS CONGRESSMAN WILLIAM HUGHES PUT IT 
IN A LETTER TO THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY "...THE ARMY DISREGARDED 

- 4 - 



118 



ITS OWN PIKDINGS IN TARGETING PHILADELPHIA FOR CLOSURE, OR ELSE 
EMPLOYED SOME OTHER UNDISCLOSED CRITERIA, SINCE ON THE MERITS IT 
IS CLEARLY ONE OF THE MOST EFFICIENT AND ESSENTIAL DISTRICT OFFICES 
IN THE COUNTRY." NOTHING HAS OCCURRED SINCE THEN TO ALTER THAT 
ASSESSMENT. IN FACT, THE PHILADELPHIA OFFICE HAS BEEN EVEN MORE 
EFFICIENT AND PRODUCTIVE. 

FINALLY, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WANT TO URGE YOU AND THIS COMMITTEE 
TO CONVEY TO THE ARMY THAT IT IS ESSENTIAL FOR IT TO MEET DIRECTLY 
WITH THOSE ORGANIZATIONS WHICH RELY ON THE PHILADELPHIA ARMY CORPS 
DISTRICT OFFICE, STARTING WITH THE MARITIME COMMUNITY. ANY 
REORGANIZATION OF OUR LOCAL OFFICE, SO CRUCIAL TO OUR REGION'S 
LIVELIHOOD SHOULD BE A COLLABORATIVE PROCESS. I ASSURE YOU THAT 
AN OBJECTIVE REVIEW WILL DEMONSTRATE CONCLUSIVELY THAT THE 
PHILADELPHIA OFFICE SHOULD REMAIN OPEN AND IN TACT SO IT CAN 
FULFILL ITS VITAL MISSION IN SERVICE TO ONE OF THIS COUNTRY'S MOST 
IMPORTANT GEOGRAPHIC AREAS. 

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUING SUPPORT. 

JPL:dc 
5/4/93 



- 5 



119 



SUMMARY OF STATEMENT BY MR. DONALD J. LEONARD, P.E., SPOKESPERSON 

FOR THE CONCERNED EMPLOYEES OF THE NORTH CENTRAL DIVISION 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT OF THE 

HOUSE PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE 



ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REORGANIZATION HEARING 
May 6, 1993 



Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Good morning, my name is Donald J Leonard. I am the Chief of the Engineering Division 
of the North Central Division (NCD), Corps of Engineers in Chicago, Illinois. It is an honor to 
appear before you on the Corps of Engineers' proposed November, '92 Reorganization Plan. I am 
representing a group of colleagues from the North Central Division and myself. My remarks reflect 
the collective experiences and expertise of my colleagues and my thirty plus years with the Corps. I 
might also add that I have known LTG Williams, the Chief of Engineers, since 1972, and have the 
highest regard for his integnt\' and sincenty, but his reorganization plan is flawed. I am testifying 
because I strongly believe the proposed reorganization plan is inequitable to the Corps employees in 
NCD, unworkable for our customers and virtually ignores the Great Lakes. 

At his Senate confirmation heanngs. Secretary of Defense Les Aspin said, "I am not 
convinced that the Army's proposed reorganization plan is the best way to go .... I am ... troubled by 
reports that political considerations may have played a role in determining which offices and units to 
close and which to stay open" He further stated that, " .... we need a fair, rational process for 
considering a reorganization of the Corps" 

Most members of the Corps family recognize the need for reorganization in order to provide 
cost-effective, efficient services to the public we all serve. However, we agree with Secretary Aspin 
that we need an orderly process that ensures the fair treatment of all employees because without it we 
could destroy the very organization we are attempting to revitalize! 

As an example of the process used, consider how the division offices were selected. Based 
on the Corps reorganization report, "Decision Path II," the Corps developed four criteria as follows. 
(1) high cost dements (i.e., cost of living); (2) good engineering schools; (3) quality higher education; 
and, (4) large or medium air traffic hubs. Chicago clearly rates higher than Cincinnati in 
engineering schools, higher education, and air traffic hub (i.e., first in the Nation). In the remaining 
criterion (high cost demerits) Cincinnati is slightly ahead of Chicago although both sites are high cost 
areas. One might assume that Chicago, would be the selected site. This was not the case! By 
ignoring the criteria and not selecting Chicago, and other clearly superior sites throughout the 
country, a strong demoralizing message is sent to all employees Corps-wide. That message is: the 
Corps will do as it pleases despite what is equitable and best for the organization, its employees, and 
the public it ser\es. Our key points on why Chicago should be the division office location are 
summarized on enclosure 1 

We can not understand how the "proposed" NCD in Cincinnati, or any other geographic 
location for that matter, could possibly manage twelve districts which cover approximately a third of 
the U.S. in all or part of 26 states having 150 Congressional Districts and crosses three time zones - 



120 



unless, however, there is a hidden agenda ... that is, the future consolidation of district offices. To 
provide services to our myriad of customers to be served throughout this vast area of three major 
watersheds (Mississippi River, Missouri River and the Great Lakes) requires an understanding of the 
local conditions and government operations. Responses to emergencies would slow dramatically. In 
short, the proposed 12-district North Central Division is not workable. Enclosure 2 summarizes the 
geographic/demographic facts on the proposed new NCD area. 

The Great Lakes contain 95% of our nation's fresh surface water and an extensive navigation 
system vital to the economic well being of the upper Midwest. They share 1,900 miles of border 
with Canada and are on the threshold of major environmental clean up. Yet, the Corps of Engineers 
proposes to virtually remove all professional planning and engineering expertise from the Great 
Lakes basin which is a continuing the trend of all NCD/Great Lakes reorganizations since 1954. This 
loss of highly specialized expertise from Chicago (as well as Detroit and Buffalo) will have 
devastating impacts to the Great Lakes programs and projects while the Corps slowly attempts to 
reestablish expertise in Cincinnati and at the Technical Centers. This would create tremendous 
economic losses and project delays for the region, the taxpayers and our cost-sharing partners. 

Chicago is one of the ten Standard Federal Regions in the country, established to increase 
efficiencies among Federal agencies and to be more responsive to state and local officials by 
providing a consistent and compatible field structure. As the entire Federal government gets 
downsized and more Federal cooperative planning efforts such as our Great Lakes work with EPA and 
Coastal America are implemented, the need to be in a Standard Federal Region intensifies. We 
envision significant needs in the region for our engineering services — e.g., environmental cleanup, 
habitat restoration, infrastructure, major rehabilitation, explosive ordnance waste cleanup, etc. — and 
we see this soon. Additionally, division and district offices co-located in the same city, such as 
Chicago, allow consolidation of support functions, such as logistics, information management, and 
resource management which would provide additional savings. In fact, my Division office and 
Chicago District office are located m the same building. Chicago itself offers greater efficiency and 
reduced cost of doing business through economies of scale in goods and services procured and by 
being the nation's air transportation hub. We should be reorganizing with the future in mind, and 
not based on traditions of the past 

The proposal to consolidate planning and design functions at technical centers was not well 
thought out. This proposal moves people away from direct contact with the customer. Planning and 
design require constant and direct communication with the customers in order to develop a product 
that is acceptable to our cost-sharing partners. Project management, which will remain at all districts, 
is now an administrative, non-engineering function and if removed from planning and design,, it is 
likely to fail. Design and engineering, are also separated from the construction management 
responsibility; this will lead to higher construction costs and will be passed on to our cost-sharing 
partners. 

We do not agree that "technical review", can be effectively accomplished at District level 
either in-house or through peer review", as outlined in the so-called "Genetti Report" or the "Report 
of the Division and District Organization Task Force," dated July 1992. My office thoroughly 
reviewed this report and provided extensive comments to HQUSACE in August 1992 (see listing of 
document below being submitted for the record). 

The Corps should be strengthening its move into new fields, such as environmental 
restoration and HTRW cleanup. These programs will require constant interactions with our customers 
and partners, both on a regional and local basis. Few large projects remain as we are moving 



121 



towards small community action programs. Centralization is in direct conflict with our future needs. 
Industry has discovered that large centrally controlled functions need to be replaced by small 
entrepreneurial units that are close to the customer. We must become a government that is decentral- 
ized away from Washington and close to our partners and the people we serve on the regional and 
local level. We look to your Committee on Public Works and Transportation and the Senate's 
Committee on Environment and Public Works to develop the future work efforts of the Corps. As 
Secretary Aspin noted at his confirmation hearings, " .... the current plan may not adequately take 
into account President Clinton's goals to revitalize the nation's physical infrastructure..." 

Although the reorganization is officially on hold, as directed by Secretary of Defense Les 
Aspin, the Divisions identified for closure are currently losing critical employees because of the 12 
April 1993 lifting of the district hinng freeze for GS-1 through 12 positions. This resumption of 
hiring could be a de facto reorganization. District vacancies in Chicago, estimated at 40, are required 
to be filled from the Department of Defense's Priority Placement Program. This program is available 
only for offices which are targeted for closure, such as my Division office. The departing division 
employees are guaranteed the same pay at a lower-graded distnct job, and in many instances, without 
moving. This tactic could start a stampede in NCD with many of our employees accepting 
lower-graded positions in our Chicago Distnct office and elsewhere. If this continues, it could 
severely hamper our operations. We ask your help in ensuring that the reorganization remain on hold 
by reinstituting the hinng freeze until Secretary Aspin and the Congress have a chance to evaluate 
and act on the current proposal. 

As I mentioned in the beginning of my statement, most of the Corps family recognizes the 
need to reorganize, but the process has to be fair to all Corps employees, regionally balanced and 
workable. We feel that there should be a decentralization, a consolidation of support services and a 
concurrent reorganization of all Corps offices - the Washington Headquarters, the Divisions and all 
the field offices. 

Finally, I will close, requesting that the additional information 1 have brought with me be 
made a part of the public record It includes news articles, letters and documentation' supporting our 
positions (both organizational structure and office location concerns) and a brief historical summary 
of reorganizations that have taken place in the North Central Division since 1954. Also included is a 
conceptual framework for reorganization for your use. We feel that if this information had been used 
during the reorganization deliberations, an equitable and workable plan could have resulted. The 
Concerned Employees of the North Central Division and myself look forward to continuing many 
years of loyal service to the Corps of Engineers, the Midwest, Chicago, our customers and partners. It 
is within this spint that 1 offer this statement. Thank you for your time and consideration. 



i These documents (which can be obtained from Concerned Employees of NCD, P.O. Box 618614, 
Chicago, IL 60661-8614) include 

o Newspaper articles and letters in support of the Chicago Division office. 

"NCD Engineering Division Comments on the Report of the Division and District Organization Task 
Force," August 14, 1992. 



122 



"Critique of Corps Reorganization Plan Document" "Decision Path 11" Used for Determining Site 
Locations," dated 23 February 1993, prepared by the Concerned Employees of NCD. 

"White Paper on Why a Corps of Engineers Division Office Should be in Chicago Illinois," October 
1992, prepared by the Concerned Employees of NCD. 

o "History of Reorganization in the North Central Division," April 30, 1993, prepared by the Concerned 
Employees of NCD. 

o "Conceptual Framework for Corps Reorganization," dated 9 March 1993, by Concerned Employees of 
NCD. 



123 



KEY POINTS FOR DIVISION HEADQUARTERS 

OFFICE LOCATION 

IN CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 

Federal Regional Center (One of 10 in U.S.)- 

Workforce Availability (largest in Midwest; diversity). 

Quality Higher Education (Nationally recognized schools - 
engineering and other professions) . 

National Air Transportation hub (No. 1 in the Nation) . 



Government Center (15 Federal agencies' regional HQ, 
and state, and local agencies) . 

International Center (3rd. in nation in foreign consulates and 
trade centers) . 

Goods and Services Center (the center for the Midwest) . 

Strategic geographical location (straddling two of the 
world's most renowned watersheds — Great Lakes and 
Mississippi) . 

Quality of life area (living standard, health, education, 
recreation, culture, transportation, etc. ) • 

Excellent office facilities (professional environment; 
expandable; conveniently located) . 

Efficiently co-located Division/District offices 
(combined support; closer coordination of work; cross- 
training) . 

Population center (conveniently located to serve most 
of people and infrastructure) . 



Enclosure 1 



124 



Geoarapn ic/ uemoarapnxc 

Fact Sheet 
on proposed new NCD area 

About 2000 miles east to west (Upper New York to Western 
Montana) ; and 1000 miles north to south (top of Lake Superior 
to lower Mississippi River) 

Responsibilities in all are parts of 26 States (NY, PA, WV, 

OH, KY, TN, IN, IL, MI, MO, KS, WI , MN, ND, NB, SD, CO, WY, 

MT, lA, MS, AL, GA, NC, VA, MD) and coordination with 5 

Provinces in Canada (QUE., ONT. , MANITOBA, SASK. , ALBERTA). 

A land and water area of 1,160,000 sq. mi. (incl. Great 
Lakes water surface) or about one-third of the total U.S. 
area (3,536,341 sq. mi.). 

Contains 3 of world's 25 principal rivers, Missouri, 
Mississippi, St. Lawrence (5800 miles of very large river 
systems) and the world's largest freshwater lake system. 
Great Lakes (95,000 sq. mi.; 11,000 miles coastline; 
5400 cu. miles of water volume — amounts to 95% of the U.S. 
fresh surface water supply) . 

Over 2500 miles of international border with Canada 
requiring potential travel to 11 major Canadian centers of 
government (Calgary, Regina, Winnepeg, International Falls, 
Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, Windsor, Toronto, Ottawa, 
Montreal and Quebec City) in 5 Provinces. 

Along with the 2 6 State Capitols, there are eOsout 150 
Congressional Districts (about 1/3 of Nation's total) nearly 
1400 county seats, and over 10,000 towns and cities, having 
a population of about 75 million (nearly 1/3 of nation's 
total . 

Contains 10 of the Nation's top 25 (about 40%) Large 
Metropolitan Areas: Chicago-Gary-Lake County; Detroit-Ann 
Arbor; Cleveland-Akron-Lorain; Minneapolis-St. Paul; 
St. Louis; Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley; Denver-Boulder; 
Cincinnati-Hamilton; Milwaukee-Racine; Kansas City — 
accounting for about 30 million people (nearly 40% of 
total population in new NCD area) . 

There are 3 time zones covering the area: Eastern, Central 
and Mountain. 

Contains 5 distinct climate zones: Highland (Mountain Zones 
in west) ; Steppe (plains states) ; Continental Moist (Midwest 
and Great Lakes) ; Subartic (Northern Great Lakes and lower 
St. Lawrence River) ; Subtropical Moist (southern States 
portion of our new NCD boundary) . 



Enclosure 2 



125 




cuhJSS 



Gore 



November 19, 1992 



Concerned Employees of NCD 
P.O. Box 618614 
Chicago, IL 60661-8614 

Dear 

Your input regarding the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is 
very much appreciated. As you know, a transition team 
has been formed to help Governor Clinton review 
pertinent information and to help him formulate — 
carefully and deliberately — policy and personnel 
decisions for a Clinton/Gore Administration. 

Your information has been forwarded to the transition 
team. On behalf of Governor Clinton, I want to thank 
you for your willingness to help in this enormous 
undertaking. 

Sincerely, 



^Cu^J^dcA ~U<a.JU^(lXJ^ 



Director of Correspondence 



National Camoatqn Meaaauarie''< 



lie MOCK. AfKansas 722Cj 

Dv :re Curton/Gore 92 CDmm.rt. 



Te.eonone i5Cll 372-1992 




126 



CJIT 01 Chicuo 
Ridiini M. Daln. Mnor 



IIovemDer 20, 1992 



Ciiv Hail. Room 1000 
:21 Nona LaSalle Sirm 
Chioio. lUisois 0O6O2 
(312) 7*M*11 rVoicti 
,3m 7U-2578 rTDD) 
,312) 744^550 IFAX) 



Concerned Employees of NCD 

P.O. Box 618614 

Chicago, Illinois 60661-8614 

Dear Mr. 

This is in response to your letter to Mayor Daley 
regarding the reorganization of the Army Corps of 
Engineers and the possible relocation of the Chicago 
NCD headguarters . 

Please be aware that the City of Chicago's Washington 
office is working very closely with the Illinois 
congressional delegation to keep this office in 
Chicago. We share your concerns and feel very 
strongly that the Division offices should remain here 
as the premier Midwest location. 

We anticipate that the efforts of our Chicago staff 
will net positive results. 

Thank you for writing and sharing your white paper 
with us. 



Sincerely, 



Valerie B. Jarrett 
Commissioner 




127 



CHICAGO SUN-TTMES 



EDITORIALS 

Keep Army Engineers 
Working in Chicago 

So. go abaad ud dam Fort Shehdao: wfaui tha Pentacoo said 
it iKMiid. wa laid w* undanuod bow « » « ii r «i e baa to ti^htan bii 
bait in touch tfm aa 

War* gxndbv* to tha 6th Army; wa laid wa're dodif our bit. 
Shottar Chamna Air Force Baia Dear Downatata Rantoui: we 
didn't object. 

But cripple the Chicafo operations of tha Army Corps of 
Eopnecn? 

Now Uu Pentacon baa gone too far. 

As part of a maaane reorxanization in the name of efficiency, 
the Corps says it plana to cloaa the Midweet Ohnaion office in 
Chicago and to cut the Chicago Oiatnct office by about two- 
thirds. 

Hurray for tha tllS mtliion savings the nationwide reomanixa- 
tion will leap. But woold it be loo much to wiab that all the cuts 
come only wbeta they make senae? 

What remama of the Midwest Division office, which is moatiy 
adminiatraliva. will be moved to SL Paul. Minn. And — who 
knows? — maybe sntnaona. if ha tried hard, could even maka the 
case that it's better to do the «'*'"■""■' «■■ ■» work there than hare, 
in tha nauoo's third largest aty. 

But tha ChkB(o Diitnct office is critieal to the iiisMiiiii Deep 
Tunnel flood canool pnqect. one of the lariwt prtqecta ever to 
fall under tha oorpa' s up e naiu n. 

District iiniiieeis have worked doeeiy with tha Metropolitan 
Water Rtdamaaaa District of Greater Chicago not only on th a t 
proied. bat alao with local ofBrisIs on other unponam mattan. 
. such as the downtown tannel flooding 

Niefaolaa J. Malaa. preaidant of the Water Redamatiaa District, 
and Frank Dalton. district general supeiuitaiiriant^ are correctly 

liiay point out that it took a donn yean to gat the corpe 
imolved in tha cooirol of urban floodinc and that sUcinc the 
carps' cspehilitiea bar* will alow even further tha efforta to keep 
dry the half miUiaa area besements that still flood every year. 

Tha two point out that Preeident-elect Clinton saya ha is 
intarcsiad in urban problama. So, good: here's one of great 
coaeequenoe to this urtian commumty that'll be e good teat of his 




HARRIS W FAWELL 



128 



Congress of ttjc Winittb States 

i^ouse of B^epresentatibes 

SCIENCE. SPACE. AND 

•ECMNOLOGY MaBtimBton. BC 20515-1313 

sxwoY November 24, 1992 

SELECT COMMrTTEE ON AGING 



Illinois 



Thank you for contacting me in support of additional funding 
for the Army Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 1993. I 
appreciate you sharing your views with me, and I apologize for 
the delay in my response. 

As you know, the fiscal year 1993 appropriation for general 
expenses of the Army Corps of Engineers was $142 million, exactly 
equal to the 1992 level. I understand your concern that this 
decision could possibly result in fewer new jobs at the North 
Central Division in Chicago. It is important to note, however, 
that this is a freeze in spending, not a reduction, which is 
aimed at reducing office overhead expenses, not jobs. If the 
Assistant Secretary for Civil Works, direct commanders, and other 
Corps officials adopt the suggestions made in the committee 
report, such as the use of interconnecting computer systems, I am 
confident that this funding freeze will cut office expenses 
without eliminating jobs. 

Vou also expressed opposition to the proposed elimination of 
the North Central Division in Chicago. I share your opposition 
to this proposal and am taking steps to preventits 
implementation. I and other members of the Illinois 
Congressional Delegation have cosigned three letters to Secretary 
of Defense Dick Cheney and the chairmen of the House and Senate 
Public Works Committees expressing our opposition to the proposed 
consolidation. In my view, this reorganization would seriously 
hamper the representation of Illinois and other midwestern states 
within the Corps. I expect the Corps will soon announce its 
decision on this issue, and I will consider all appropriate 
Congressional remedies if the Corps' action is harmful to 
Illinois. 

Again, thank you for contacting me. 




129 



Congress of t\}t IHniteb States 
Souse of EEprESEntatitocB 

CSashtngton. DC 20515-1313 



ELECT COMMITTEE ON AGING 



December 2, 1992 



Mr. 

Concerned Employees of NCD 

P.O. Box 61814 

Chicago, Illinois 60661-8614 

Dear Mr 



I have reviewed your petition of November 11, 1992 in which you 
and nine other Corps of Engineers staff persons express your 
apprehension regarding the imminent reorganization of Corps of 
Engineers division (regional) offices; you specifically urge that 
Chicago be retained as the Corps of Engineers Midwest division 
office. As you evidently expected, the Corps has now issued a 
public announcement confirming the reorganization. 

You may not be aware that, as far back as June of 1991, the 
entire Illinois congressional delegation, senators and members of 
congress, addressed urgent written requests to Secretary of 
Defense Richard Cheney and to Robert Roe, chairman of the House 
Public Works & Transportation Committee, describing in some 
detail the severe procedural burdens which would be imposed on 
Illinois and other midwestern states as a consequence of the 
proposed reorganization. Regrettably, up to this point, our 
efforts have not been persuasive and, as you are doubtlessly 
aware, some of the particulars of the reorganization have been 
publicly announced. 

I will continue to do whatever I reasonably can to convince the 
Department of Defense and my colleagues in the House of 
Representatives that any reorganization must retain for my 
constituents a viable system of access to the services provided 
by the Corps of Engineers. •■ 

Sincerely, /' 



Harris W. Fawelt 
Member of Congress 



HWF:ml 



130 




State of Illinois 

Office of the Governor 

Springfield 627oe 



December 3, 1992 



Mr. 

Concerned Employees of N.C.D. 

P.O. Box 618614 

Chicago, Illinois 60661 

Dear Mr. 

Thank you for writing to Governor Edgar about plans to move the NCD 
headquarters from Chicago to Cincinnati. I was asked to respond on the 
Governor s behalf. Since your name appears first on the list of your letter's 
signatories, I aun addressing our response to you and ask that you share it with 
your colleagues. 

We, too. are most concerned about the loss of Illinois jobs that would be caused 
by this closure. Illinois is entitled to its fair share of federal spending and we are 
particularly concerned about getting a greater share of defense spending. Governor 
Edgar's staff in Washington D.C. is working with our congressional delegation to 
determme whether the Administration or Congress can be persuaded to alter this 
plan in our favor. 

I will bring your letter to the attention of our Washington office so that it is 
aware of your interest. 

Thank you agsdn for writing to Governor Edgar. 

Sincere! 




a^ Raines W. Graham 
\ Splecial Assistant to the Governor 

JWG:sp 

cc: Terri Moreland 



Pmva on fitcict»6 Papef 



131 

Consress cf tlie (Hniteti i^iates 

U^onst of Eepreisentanties 

SHastjtnctim. '-Bil 20515 

Deccmoer 18, 1992 



The Honorable Mlchaei ^.W. SLone 
OfUce of the Secretary of the Army 
Peniagon. Room 3E718 
WashlnRton. DC 20310 

Dear Secretaiy Stone: 

We are 'writing ic express our deep caricem ever the proposed Corps of EngUieers 
Reorganization Plan announced by Army offldals on November 19. 1992. 

While elements cf this comprehensive plan may help ro at re arnhne this decentralized 
or^janlzatlon. certain major urban areas will iiulTer dramatically due to loss of condnuity in 
completing slgntflcanl cost-shared projects. Specifically, we arc concerned over the closing of 
ihe Chicago Dlviston oiQce and relocating these jobs to ClnctnnatL Given the tremendous 
workload In the region, which Includes the uitan flood control. IrUand waterway and Great 
Lakes expertise deveiop<^ In ClUcaflo. we believe the Corps must maintain a strong and viable 
presence. The relocation of 323 essential positions In Illinois will have a detrimental impact on 
our ability to address water resource problems In a timely fashion. It is the position of the 
Illinois Delegauon that this Corps reorganization proposal Is misguided and flawed. 

The impact of th<se reductions and loss of continuity wmild be devastating to our state. 
For example, beginning in fiscal year 1 994. the Chicago District is slated to lose 103 jobs, a 
81% loss to the District'^ current structure, and the Flock Island office will lose 220 Jobs. 26% 
of its current leveL Whle these numbera are dramatic, they do not begin to describe the true 
impact that this loss will have on ihe critical Qood control and navigation needs of our state. 
Among the key projects currently underway in the Chicago District, is the innovative MrCook 
and Thornton Reservotr Project of the Chicagoland Underflow Plan (CUP), the first element of 
which is in final design. Over 550.000 homcii in the Chicago metropolitan area are subject to 
flooding at any lime, making timely completicn of this project absolutely crttlcai for protecting 
our citizens &TJm known flood damages. In Krms of public health and safety, aity threat or 
major disruption to thla cniical cost-shared effort cannot be tolerated. 

To pull plannmg. design and engineering expertise out of Illinois at this critical point 
for the CUP project and other complex inland waterway navigation issues at Rock Island would 
be devastating. We simply cannot afford to Icse the Corps' exceptional design and engineeilng 
staffs who have worked closely with local sponsors over many years. Nor can we be subject to 
unacceptable delays m bringing our projects to construction on schedule by sending the 
workload elsewhere. The next years are critical for bringing the major Chicago flood control 
projects thnnigh Onal design and preconstrucUon activity to cunslnictlon. The loss of 
planning, design and engineering expertise m Chicago nnd the Quad Cities will dramatically 
undermine current dTorcs. casting a shadow on the lora I /federal partnership. 

Using the Corps' own reorganization criteria m an objective woy provides convincing 
evidence that these illinota Distncls should be maintained and even expanded. Chicago and 
Rock Island's worldoads have been increasing steadily over the last 10 years. It Is predicted 
that this trend wlU continue due to flood control needs and the rehabilitation of locks and 
dams. 



132 



The Honorable Mlchaei ? W. Slone 
December 18. 1392 
Page Two 



'VhUe the Coi-ps, ciies fewer tradlLlonal projects as a reason to scale down, ilie llfeblood 
of the Corps' worlc - llo<xl control ana navigation -- iirc thrtviiii^ in our state. We believe • -.at 
Illinois IS well-situated as a transponailon huiD with our Coq)s districts conveniently lot r.ed in 
the Nation's tranaponatum hub. We :ire uniquely qualUkd witn key engineering schools near 
the Corps' facilUles. and juc have a strong and active workiorce from whicrt to secure 
continuing Corps employment -- all oi' which sre critical cniena in the proposed plan ior 
determining what areas should retain technical expertise. 

It is important to 30int out that the unique ilcodlng expertise develoocd by the Chicago 
District and its local partners with our Corps District after I2 years of federal funding and 
eflbn baa idenilflcd a clejir federal interest. We belie\'c it is cr -leal to complete these projects 
with the current experienced staff. Due lo the widespread urban flooding problems and the 
Chicigc District's long-tcnn expencricc in deviilopiug luiiovailve iloou protection rcsoluuon. 
this District has become :he acknowledged urban flood control experts in the Corps' national 
system -- we sttnply cannot aifonl to lose ihcm. thus, delaying needed flood protection at this 
critical stage. In addition. It is patently unfair for local sponsors who cost-share projects to pay 
the costs of delay which insults from such a hasty shift of staff out of the area. We believe that 
any cost savings stemming from rcorganiyjilion will be far outstripped by the additional costs of 
delay m having new stall attempt to handle these unique and complex projects. For example. 
the Chicago District has approximately a $1.3 billion construction program over the next 10 
years. If this program is delayea even six months, which is clearly possible under 
reorganization due to wholesale sliiilliig of staJ. the costs of delay could be in the range of $2S 
million. II is unconadnnnble to shift any poruon of this burden to local eponsors. 

It is our wholehearted recommendation that these Districts retain. If not increase their 
highly qualified technical staff. y\ny objective ixvtew of existing and future workload and 
affected populaian will support this view. II \a our hope that this recommendation will be 
considered In a newly pre posed realignment of the Corps. Such a plan, given proper 
Congressional invohremeitt and oversight, will appropriately correspond the key personnel lo 
the Identified needs and do so in a manner thjit treaui taxpaye*^ <«-».. i 



f Congress!^ 



Sincerely, 




JL SIMON 
United States Senate 



ic key personnel lo 



DiJf ROSTENKOWSW '^ T RODERT H. MICHEL 



5STENKa 
Member of Congress 



jer of Congress 



SftDNEY R. ■yWTES /j 
/Member of Congraas/ J 



''^UU4^ 



'CARDIS3 COIXLNS 
Member of Congress 



(ik^^/ 




)HN EDWARD PORTER 
lember of Congress 



133 



The Honorable Mlchaei P.W. Stone 
December 18. 1392 
Page Three 



/ 



/ 



</ 



Iffil 




•7 '^ 



Member of C6n^FCss 



r/cULO ^Utt/TU i 



L2_ 



/ 



u. 



>>'w<^ 



RICHAFiD J. DUE^BIN 
Member of Congress 




Nl^POSHAKb ^^ 



72-424 0-94-6 



134 



Moynihan 
Aims to Stall 
CorpsPlan 



...WtsfainxtOB — A pUn to dunujAie 
-O 2.G00 )Dbs in the Anwf Gvpi of Enn- 
_ neen rav be pcstoooed indaimiciv pv 
< Sen. Daad Pstnci MojrmhaK D-NY, 
V^ ajpokesomtetbeMBtiarnidThuifr 
' d«y. w rtA»^A- j«3i ■ I 

^ . Mioyiiihiii.~dianii2l^dP ue^Sente 

V EnvDcnmait and Public Worts Com- 

V\ ninrr. tad be li iliiiwri iliii tbe 

oorpt exptam ifae plan It a pubbc betnnt 

teoutneiy rhwfalwi for Jan.- V^A 

Brian CoDnolly, Moymfaan'* praaaecre- 

toy. 

^ _/ 

^ rX^omioQy said Monoiihan caikd a pie- 
^ Uminary heanng Wednesday oo ioon 
^ nonce after leannoE that tbe plan would 
V eliniinaieDEariytaauof tbecorpcjobain 
C BuffalaN.Y. 

~ Tbe 30-imnnte heaim; Wednesday, 
^ Dubidiwainot tJit i iouih r rhfrtnlwl wis 
^ attended bv rwo oewspaper reponen 
y from upstate New York wno were noo- 
-> Tied by Moymhan't office, ConiKi^y 
;^ Mid. ^-.^ ^ 

U Alan Eoiofy, Wa _, 
r* dqit of tbe Watenowa ' 
^ lliDes, said Moynfan (eld oorpa i 
^ dais bs Senate ocanneewM not nod* 
fied of the '"'"ir""***'** pjit hWmpit 
WIS announced in Nowiwwn 

"Vo one ever cane brfoie this conh 
nittee to say wfaat you had m mmd." 
Moymban told Morcan R. Rces. deouty 
anstant secietaiy of the Anny. and Doo 

QufT. ■wronrratmn ptognm matHgrT. 

Rees told Moymhan that tbe oocps, 
*^h i H^linF''g'"'"'^'**'^^*"j^^* bsd 
not been reorganosd in ^ yeais, Eiuuiy 
rtponed. 

The iBiaiauuatian wooUnduoe tbe 

niimiipi rfi/Avigwst K»»j^p«y^^YYfrrfin 11 

to SIX. downgrading five divisMO bead- 
qtanen to dutiKt offioeL Omaha would 
br one of the dtiei dowapaded to 
district status. 

Bat Omaha would gain a new tectani- 
cal center under the ootps plan resulting 
in a net gam of S3 corps jobs m 
the reorganization. 

The ooips, m aiiiMaiimng the reorga- 
iBiaiinnpttn in Noventoer, smI it wooid 
save SI IS milliaa a vear by redndng 
corps personnel from MJOO to 3 1,700 in 
two years. 

Emory quoted Moynihan as saying be 
had "not the shghtest mtamon" of 

go into effect. 

Tbe senator said the way tbe corps has 
treated his coosmitee "would be a ooun- 
mntial offeose" in tbe Anny, Emory 



Laaid tfae>aarpi..wfaae not 
faoildiiig ■ mny dasas or hartwr f adb- 
tiea as k «Bce did. shoaid have pintv of 
new wcrlt wh^iftaidBMtBBi ttM UBi* 
MB takes office i8n.'20. 



135 



rt-- 



<ircar Lakes 
(a )m mission 



-e Arau« il 



. -^ Fcunn ii.. .-,-n Aroor. Micmsin 4sl0.1-l« 
Office ijiji tei-91."5 C "ux iJi."<) >ihj-4i 



(HAll 




:1SK?M K HnFFM«N 


vtci CHAim 


r»TmiCK It 


RALSTON 



fXEomvc cuMMinxc 

■■ KA.\K L. MJDKNA 
CbcaCB. IIIMOM 

S^ATIICK R HALSTON 

Oifaacr 

"Mmm Om. ol 



HIANft J. KKLUT 



HKMIT K HANKA 

Qui—. MHW.M 

THOMAS C .•OIUNO 

s>v von Suit ocet si 
kft**aanmM CufocmuM 
Mbaay. haw Toim 

'ntANCU BL'CHHOLZCa 

3<ncior 

Olun Oca. « Na 



NATNANUa. L ROamiON 




ExicunvK oiREcr 

•■(ICHAti. J ^QSAIILt. P:. 



^anuarv s. '393 

Honoraoia Micfiaei P W. Stone 
Sacrerarv oi tne Armv 
Thi Pentagon • Soom 3E718 
Waamngion. C.C. 20310 

Our Seaatarv Stone: 

tnt Graai Lakat Commisaion naa aerioua conearnt aooui the recently reiaaaea U.S. 
A/mv Coroa of Engineert Reergaruxation Plan. Our ergnt memoer statea IIL.IN, Ml, MN. 
NY. OH, PA, WD rsoognize tna Coroa' vital roi* as a oanner in Great Laua raaourca 
olaruiing, coorainatian, snvironmentai orouoQon ana ralataa manageinant actrvitiea. 
The atatea oaiiava tnat imoiamentation of the Reorgaruzaaon Plan, ea orasamrv 
coratmiteo. wui result in tna loas of mvaiuaola Great Lanes axoertise. comoromisa oast 
DragrasB. ana tna iimit tna region's aoiKTV to aodraaa critical emerging issuea nera m 
tn« Great Lsicas • ma world's graatesT suopty ot fresn surfaca waxar ana noma to a 
glebaitv significant wateroorne tranaponation synwn. 

The CORimiasion urgea you and otner Coroa of Enginaera off ioiala to eoruidar xr\» 
sttaened PoHcy Position aaoptea Oy unanifnaus and emnualaaae vote of our eight 
maniDer nstsa. wa aodraaa a«w*rai iaaues in tna posnien statement ar^d alM identify 
vital Great LaKas-apaorfie Corps functions tnat n«*d to da maintairwd. SpMtfleaUy, ws 
urge you to: 

• eatablish and sdaatiataiv ataff a 'Qraat Laku Planning Coordination Offlca" at 
tne Division level to presarva a atrong Corn prosanca in cntical Basin acovitles: 

• enaura tnat one of the 1 S orooosaa 'taennicat centers' is tocnad 
within tne Saain to orovida a focal point for Great Lakes expertise end 
aeovities: 

• msintain aoacial Greet Laliaa expartise at tne individual Olsuict level; ana 

• lasa otner actions as needed to maintain a strong pannersnio roia witn tna 
Graat Likea ComrTiitaion. tna International Joint Commission, ano otner 
relevant regional aganoea. organizationa and programa as wail as the individual 
stats axacuuve offlcaa. 

TTit attached policy position is btinq ssm to every memoer of the Great Lakas 
Congressional Oelegetion. 

Th« Great Lakaa Commiaeion wiU doaaly monitor the Rin's implamantation procass. 
Wa look forward to working yyith you and tha naw Congress during this intpomnt 
parted In the best interaeta of tha Qraat takaa Baain and the nation. 

I thann you for your conaidaratlon, and Invite you to eomset ma ei 717>B4l-7aoo or 
Or. Miohaei J. Oonanua. Commisaion Exaoutive Olractor, at 313-e08-913S. 



tliiM iM I9S3 by mitf ^HF**^!^^* /^iW^***''" 

cwvorr "faaraanrakr ^ ^ i2^ 



prtttntnt 4t\»t«fm§m. lat 
aad nnnnmiuim cfOu wmtr 
rrtourm of iht Gnat Lata 
Battm. ' 



Joaaph K. Hoffman 
Chair 



Asst. Sscretarv Nartey P. Oom 

Lt.a. Arthur E. WIIHama 

a.Q. Rusaaii L. Fuhrman 

a.G. Albert J. Ganent Jr. 

Sacretary of Oaf ansa lOesignaat Laa Aapm 



136 



GREAT 'l-AKES COMMISSION POLICY POSITION: 
J.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REORGANIZATION PLAN 



SUMMASv ecS!T!OM 



"■-i8 eignt-state Great LSKflt Ccmmission nas serious cor.cerns aooui ire recsntiv reieasea "J.S. ^rmv Corns 

z', E-qineer« fleorganizanon Plan, '^e Cc.Timission is concirnea mat e .>ments or t- -'an wi smoromise 

•.r:B current ana no'tentiai roie or tr^a Corns as a Darrner m Great Lanaa tf -,urco oianr. , coorc tion. 

snvironmentai orotection ana reiataa manaqament anivitiai. "'-e Plan V..11 ciosa tna ^ttn Lan. iatins oniv 

division ottice. oownaize an tnrea District ottlces, eiiminaw nunaraat or oosmont. ano aismanr .;emeri ot 
nigniv soaciaiizeo. rnucn-neaato Great LaKat exoamaa. The aoiiltv ot the fooerai govemmant to meet uniteo 
Staiea commnmenis unaer international treaty ano ataooaiaa agreements will be in ouaation. 

The Great Lakaa Commimon urgea tne U.S. Army Coros ot Engineera to tatce tne ttaot necessarv to oreaerve 
ana orotect oaaic Great Lakea-aoacitic tunctiona. A strong pnyaioai oraaanca ot the Corqi m tna Great Lanaa 
aaam is estantiai: cnucai expertiae in Great Lalies nyarauiica. hyoroiogv, navigation tviiem angmeanng. 
oianninq ano maintenance ano anvironmentat remeaiation must ba maintainea aa weil aa aoaauate flaxiDititv in 
personnel ana otner Coroa resources to accommoaata tne growing neeo ana aamana tor Coros exawnsa. 

■^0 tnis ana, trie Great Laku Commission urges tne Corps, under ma broaa framawont ot the Reorginuation 
Pien. to: \\ asiaoiian ana aaaauateiv itatt a "Great Lakes Planning Coorainanon Office' at tne Oivjaion levei to 
preserve e strong Coros oraaence in critical Basin acnvities: 21 ensure tn« one ot tne 1 5 prooosM "recnmcai 
centers ' is locataa witnin tna Basin to provide a tocai point for Great tuku exoertise ana activitiea: 3] 
maintain soeaal Greet Lakes exoertiae at tne indivioual Diamct levei: ana 4) take otner actions aa n e eoe fl to 
maintein a strong partnersrtio roie with tne Great Lakaa Commiaaion, tne Intarnttlonai Joint Commnaton. and 
otner relevant regional agenaaa. organizations and orograma as welt aa ttia Individual staxa executive otficea. 

pnsmON RATTQNALE 

The position ot the Great Lakes Commiaaion is oradleatad on threa canswuaneee of the Reorganisnien Plan: 

1 ) Loss at Greet Lakea-atfcute g»aertiae. Personnel at the North Central DIviaien and the Buffalo, Chicago, 
and Detroit District offlees who nave seauiraa special exoerasa in Great Lakes water resources management, 
commercial navigation, and international coordination are not llkelv to cominue in their current reaoontibilltiaa 
once tne fleorgenization Plan la tutiv implemented. Relocation of key Great Lakaa personnel to tna new Nortn 
Central Division is not asaurao. nor is tne retention ot sucn personnel in tne oownsizea Olitrict offleem. 
Hunareas ot positions in the Great Lakee Basin will be eiimlnetea. and antictDBted attrmon will effeetivelv 
aismantie internetionaily recognizea centers ot hightv specialixed Greet Lakes expertise. The anticionaa 
sevings from sucn downaiiing will be tar outweighed by tne loaa of irreplaceaoie expertise. 

2) n..«mnhi.»i. of the Great La kai Baiin in tn« B^om.nnenon Plan. The Great Lakaa Baain is a prawnment 
wetersneo witn one-fiftti of tne wona's tresn surface water. mucO of Nortn Amenea'a mdustnal beae. end an 
international boundaiv. The tranafer of critical Corps tunctiona outside ot the Beam, along with peraonnei 
reassignment, reducee Corps Gren Ukea capablUtlea. Under tne Reorganlzatien Plan, pnnoipal Olatrtet 
planning, design end engineenng responaibiiitiae ere eeeigncd to a new Otreotorata ot Engineering and Planning 
at the new Nortn Cemrei Division offtee in Cincinnati. Therefore, the planning, deaign and engineenne 
activinea pertaining to Greet Lakes Baain protects will be direated from ouulde the Basin. The lack of 
geographic prowmitv to the reeource and the Ineviuble dieplwamem of focus viwU jeoperdiza the effldMn 
menegemcnt of Greet Lekea erograme end projeeia. The Ohrieien offtee daeure. coupled with fewer personnel 
dedicated to Greet Lekee ecxn/lties st the existing Olatriot offices and the new Olvlaion office. wiH elee Umit 
Greet Lakaa Beain plannino. design snd engineering work. raeuMng in deieye end lost opportunitlee. 

3) R »jtie«d Commitment to intemationei Qhiia«tinn«. Through persoruMl reesslgnment and work aUoeetion, 
It le unlikely that crltieei coordination on U.S.-Canade protecte end program in the Greet Ukee Seein will be 
given the attention they require. For exemple, the ellminetion of the Greet Lakes Regulation Seoooit in the 
Chlcago-taaaed North Central Division will pose problems for continuity of funettona in the new Otvielen. where 
they will be merged with e Weur Menagemem Otviaion. Pfoapeeth/e loaa of Corps involvement in, and 



137 



uooort :• •_. = . csiiqations unaer tre 'rternationai oounoarv waters r-earv or '909 ana tre Gratt lskss 
■Vater G-4.itv Agreement are oi ?reat csncern. 

MAINTAINING =££gNTIAL SEPV'C^S :N ^-'^ G°.= AT LAKES BASIN 

"■-e eicrt "ramoar staisa oi tre Great Lanes Commission are uniteo in tneir oeiiet trat tne following vital 
ti.'OS TLP.Kions mjst oa maintainea unoer tre fieorganiiation Plan: 

• Pjii ana suostaniive suooort ot ail pinationai Great Laxat orograms ana initiatives wnere tna acuva 
:resenc8 ana ccntnoution or tne U.S. faoerai government ;s a maner or legal ODligation or statto ooiicv. 
~^U inciuoes an terms ot tna intarnauonai Bounoarv Watirt Treatv ot 1909. the Convention on Great 
^axaa fisnenes il955), ano tne u.S.-Canaaa Graai LaKaa Water Quajitv Agraamenti ot 1972. 1978 ana 
'987. 

• P'jII ano suDstantiva suooon to aii domestic Great LaKaa orograma ana initiatives wnere tne active greaenee 
ano contnoution ot the Coroa la a mattar ot legiaiatwe raauiremenr or statafl DOlicy. This inctuoaa active 
-eoresentation on tne Great Laua Cominission as an ooaerver. tuoatanttve suoDOn ot its vanoua taak 
'orcas. ana all otner feaerai agencv tunctiona as atmulatea in P.L. 30-419, the Great Ukes Beam Compaa 

: 1 9501. Thia aiao inaudaa auooort for tne U.S. EPA Aaaesament ana Kamadlation ot Contaminatad 
Safliments lARCSl oragram: antorcamant araona involving aeaimant remeeiatlon: ana reoreaantatlon on 
the U.S. Policv Commmee in support ot U.S. eommmnents unoer tne Qraat takea Weter Ouaiity 
Agreement. 

• A continuing rote in ail areaa ot water raaourcaa managament in tna Great Lalcaa Saain, inducting 
raoresentation on International Joint Commtsaion Boaroa ot Control, laka lavat monitonng, proisenona, 
anaivaea ana assooataa puDtic Intormaoon tuncoona: ano a tuture teennicai aupport ano implementation 
rota in pursuing reoommenaationa ot tna UC Lake Laveia Stuov Boara. ThIa muat ineiuda amargeney 
reaponae m criaia conditiona as well as ipnger*terni strucTurai ana nonatnictural meaauraa. 

e Adeauate expertite and ttatt reaoureea directed at dredging and dredged matanal diaoosai reduvamama in 
the Great Ukaa Saain. inetuding admtniatratian ai the Greet Lakae Confined Olaposai Fealitv program. 

• Adecuate exoertiae and atatt raaourcaa to meet growing demanda for Qraat l^kea envlronmemal 
angineenng, including teennicai support to atata govemmenta and tna U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agencv m remeataaon ot daaignateo Areaa ot Concern ana otner tone "tnot ipota.' 

• Maintenance ot the Corpa' estaplianad role m the constrvietion. ooeration and maintenance o( the Greet 
Lakea navigation syatem. This includes in-Baain axperrae end atatf reaouroea to puraua eutnprtzad pro|eota 
sucn as a new. large lock at Satiit Ste. Mane, Michigan. 

e Maintenance ot centralized exoerrae and staff resourcaa diractaa at 1 ) the compttation and analyaia of 
Great Laxes oiversion ana conaumotiva use aata: and 2) the proapacttve formulation of a Water Reeourcaa 
Management Program for the Great Lakes Baain. 

To perform theae and otner viul Greet Lakee functlona, it la eeeandal that the Raorgenliatlon Plan 
impiememation eneura: the retention of Great (.aiMa-apaaifie experttae in the Baain and a continued atrong 
phytieai presence for the Corpa within the Great Lakea Saain Including ttte eeuDUehment of e 'teehnieai 
Canter': cenuatized Great Lakea exparttaa within eaelt Olatrtet otflea and a dlatnetiva. Groat Lak ee epeai fl e 
planning ana coordination funotton within tne Nonn Centrit Olvieien offica: end edequata atafftng at tt» 
Division and Oiatnct levet to accommedate the growing need for end breedth ot the Corpa' praaenee in the 
Greet Lakea Baain. 

TTtarefore. tne Great Ukee Commtaaion raqueata tnet The U.S. Anny Corps of Englneere take the neoatsefy 
aeiiona to aniura tnat tnaae baaia Great Laxae raautremema ere fully eeeantmodated during impiemeniMon of 
the ReorgeniiaUon Pien. The Corpa la turttur urged to conelder tne apeotflo orgenlzatlonat meeeuree outlined 
in the "summery position* preaemed above. 



138 



Office of the President-elect 
and \ ice President-elect 



January 8, 19 9 3 



Mr. nd Friends 

Concerned Employees of NCD 

P.O. Box 618614 

Chicago, Illinois 60661-8614 

Dear Mr. '.id Friends: 

Thank you for writing to President-elect Bill Clinton asking for 
assistance. He has been deeply touched by the trust that the 
American people have placed in him. Both he and Vice President- 
elect Gore are strongly committed to resolving the difficult and 
often painful problems that we face as individuals and as a 
nation. 

During this transition period, we believe that the most 
appropriate, and ultimately most effective, course is to hold 
your request to be referred to the appropriate federal agency 
after Mr. Clinton assumes office. Your letter has been placed in 
a priority file. 

Thank you for your patience and for your confidence in President- 
elect Clinton. 

Sincerely, 



S. Lee Hudnail, Deputy Director 
Correspondence Department 
Presidential Transition Office 



1 120 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20270-0001 202-973-2600 



139 



^^ Ju^.^^ 



^-%r 

.'nternanonxi Joint C.ornmifiiiior "^^ \ 

January 19, 1993 



Brig«di*r Ganaral Stanley U. ^Sanuga 
Dlraoror of Civil Werk* 
U.S. Army corps ol' Enginoors 
20 KBsaaohus*tta Av«nu*, H.W. 
Waihington, D.C. 20314-1000 

Oaar Ganaral Cenacra: 

The Intarnatlonal Joint Connaission (IJC) haa had a long and 
advantageoua relationship with the civil Work* Directorate of the 
Corpa of Engineers. Tacshnical support provided by tha Corpe to 
the IJC has been cne of the priaairy nechanisae utilized by the 
onited scatea Govemaent to meet Ita commitments to Canada under 
the Boundary waters Treaty of L909 (copy attached) . in my view 
it has vorKed exrreaely well. 

We have recently been provided infomatlon regarding the 
Corpa 'a reorganization now in pregrcBs. I personally support 
your objectives of cost reduction, flexibility and increased 
efficiency. However, I wish to bring to your attention the 
reorganisation* o potential to adversely affect our relationship 
and the conduct of TJC responsibilities in tha Great LaXes - St. 
Lawrence River Basin. 

The IJC is a quasi- judicial, independent, international 
entity created by the Boundary waters Treaty (Treaty) to aesiat 
in the harmonious utilization and preservation of water resources 
by the Unltsd Statss and Canada. The practice of tha two 
governnenta has been for the IJC to maintain a small permanent 
staff with the major technical support being provided by domestic 
ageneiea. This hae encouraged the aatabllshaent of positive 
working relationships between agencies across the bcrder and 
facilitated the development of international consensus on 
important natural reeouroe issuaa along tha U.S. - Canadian 
border. Tho advantage for the Commission haa been to have 
available an extronely broad range of expertise to assist it in 
its decisionmaking prooeee and field operations. The Corps haa 
played a major role in theee aotlvltiee in virtually every 
trcmebeundary watershed along ovir northern border as shown on the 
asp inoludad in the Treaty docunant. 



WMhl>iglon«Otawii*W<ndB>r 
1290 23rd StMM NW. SutM 100. Wistttngtea, UjC. 20440 (2021 736-9000 



140 



our aaoociaiiion viz'n the Corps is alnoac exclusively in 
broad category oi water quantity where, the Treaty, among other 
things, requires appravsl by isjthar t^.• T'C or both F«derai 
GovernmBnta ifor "ha use, obstruction c^r diversion of boundary 
wetarc that at'foct the natural l&vel c>r £low cf water on the 
other side oS the boundary. The Great Lakes, their connecting 
rivers, and the :;t. Lawrence Rlvtr fron Lake Ontario to just 
below Msssena, iJav York, are considered boundary waters with the 
axoeption o£ LeOca Michigan. 

The Treaty iilso invites the two Covernnenta to request the 
ceoaaission to undertake najor investigations focusing generally 
on natural resource questions along the boundary. To respond to 
these requests, "he irc assembles an Internetlenal teem of 
experts to prepare a plan of study s.na undertake the approved 
tasks. Day-to-tlay study nanaqenent is assigned to a lead agency 
from each country. An ttxaini>le oi this is our International 
Levels Reference Study Board, Great L&kes - St. Lawrence River 
Beein; a $12 nillion effort underway for six years and scheduled 
for completion in April of this year. The Corps is the lead U.S. 
agency and the U.S. Board co-ohair is fron the North central 
Division. Sl&llorly, wbare the UC has a continuing 
rasponsibillty, an International board of experts, drawn fron the 
local area where possible, serves as our field operations and 
advisory am. Thsse boards carry out the necessary data 
collection, analyses, coordination and implementation to fulfill 
IJC responsibilities fron monitoring and reporting levels and 
flowe to regulating and apportioning water between tvo sovereign 
nations. Currently, we have 21 such organizations with 12 
actively directed exclusively to water quantity natters. Of 
these 12, the Corps has membership on 10 and is the U.S. co-obalr *^^ 
of seven, some of which are discussed below. The location, name 
and extremely condensed nission statement for the 10 boards with 
corps memberBhip is highlighted on the Treaty map. 

The Cerps-IJC interdependence on Great Lakee matters began 
in 1914 when Lt. Colonel Mason H. Patrick from the Corps' Detroit 
of floe testified in the UC's first major public hearing 
regarding the development of hydroeleotrlc pover at Sault Ste. 
Harie, Michigan and Ontario, and on the associated conmereial 
navigation and regulation of Lake Superior's levels and outflows. 
His testiaeny was essential in the deliberation that led to the 
ZJC's May 26, 1914, order of Approval (Order) authorising the 
development. That Order also created the Lake superior Board 
chaired by the Corps of Engineers (currently the NCD Commander) 
and a Canadian counterpart to, zunong other thinge, devise a plan 
for and diroot the regulation of the Lake ~ a function that will 
continue for the foreseoeble future. A similar but aomewhat 
larger Board, also oo^ohaired by the KCD Conaander, ie ^ 
reeponsible for the regulation of Lake Ontario. Functional 
sunnariee of these two Boarde are contained in the attached 



141 



documenc entiltleid, r^raat Lite ea •- Bt. r avnrencn River RneTulaciQn. 
AdditJonally, our Intornaclonnj. Niagara Hoard of Control is 
responslbla ;!or ueveral continuing activities in the Huffalo- 
Miagara Fallu v:.t;inity and is also co-cnaired by the HCD <^=- 
Coamander. ^rhe ::JC'8 responsibllltieft for Gceat La)ces water 
quantity aatters and in turn those cf its three Boards, are 
coaplex both teottnically and politically. This oonplcucity will 
continue to inoroase ae the value of reoreation, in stream uses 
and ecological concerns grove, along with the increaeing daaands 
by users for improvements in their operating conditions that 
requiree conetant expansion o£ our regulation capability. Ae a 
reeult, w« now find ourselvee operating mora frequently outside 
of the established regulation plane for Lakes Superior and 
Ontario, tn addition, our Qreat Lakee operations are moving 
closer to real-tiae regulation with its interlocked rveteorology, 
hydrology, and hydraulics. 

It nay be useful to note that the Greet Lakes are 
significantly dirfersnt from riverine systems. The Lakes are 
cascaded with only the uppermost and lowest ragulated. They 
respond relatively slowly to changes in preoipitatlon so that 
extreme high or low laka levels are measured in months or even 
years instead of days. The extensive sxirfacs areas allow large, 
damaging wind set-up (8 feet is not unconmon on Lake Erie) and 
wave run-up. Shoreline morphology is quits variable, in a quite 
different context, the Liike system also provides a unifying theme 
or foous for various social and political causes and behavior. 

Z hope this Isrief discussion and enclosed naterialii 
highlight some of the unique features of the Great Lakes as they 
relate to the work of both the corps and the IJC. Taken together ^. 
these features suggest that special care needs to be taken in '^ 
considering a reorganization of tne Corps' efforts in the Great 
Lakes Basin. 

In particular, I note the potential reduorlons and 
functional relocations of Hydraulic and Hydrology - Hater Control^ 
elements at the Detroit and Buffalo Districts. The existing 
first-hand, on-sito knowledge of theee elements has been 
invaluable to both the Corps and the IJC in responding to the 
multlplieity of conoerns from citizens and lawmakers. This is ^ 
even more important during periods of oriels when we are in daily i 
oontaot with corps personnel, evaluating conditions and making 
oritieal regulation deoisiene in a timely manner. A different, 
but no less important major aeset for our small organization is 
the outstanding oorporato memory that has always been avellable 
from the Corps' Sroat Lakoa offices and personnel. 

The IJC hae, over its history, received outstanding 
cooperation and axipport froa the Corps. Por our organization to ^ 
continue to fulfill its responsibdlitias and meet futtire demands, 
that support would have to continue undiminished. As both our 



142 



cnjanizatlonn move to imnrove th&Be activity pk nnrt «rtr4v.«- 
.""; "^l *''P»«=t^«^ion ^- r.hat .ur need for aGp^crfwJjfa^anr 
truat that you will take these cronsidtratlonG into accoSS anA 
that we will be able, in tne :!utcre as alwayn in the pasS ?a 
r.iy on your outstanding crgani2a.tion. : woSld be piS^e; to 
discuss with you any or theee matters at your conveSiS"; ^° 

sincerely yours, 

'^Gordon K. Durnil '" 
Chaiman 
United state© Section 



Attaahmants i 
Aa stated. 

cc: secretary or state 



143 



seyr by: 



i-ia-93 



^27 1- LSAED.Bt-LO-tYJ/rL%=- 



o_-jji;aoao4aa;»-it o^ 











>»^3'sfia||: lis 

» ~ an. Si it - 

2 5 



^ 




I'b -^ !3ia Ills a | 

^ O 









Its. a 




lis §iiS38 ^ 







Still llji 



o 

a 
o 



=1 

0)9 

&| 

SI 
OS 

3* 




ri- 



•^dlli ililSPl 

•^ Iili8i!il|rili 

5« -i^-IBlllll^UliS 



^1 rfcre^lii 



&1 



<D 



J 







^ ;s 8< itfi 

^^^ i^* ^•t^ ■ « • 






fiiiiltiiiltM ifiiiiii^ 




isiiiiliiPB filllll ?fiil!l 



IS 



iilili*«l 



lifM'i 



144 



-19-93 : 8^ 




^^5^^T. .. ... 8-a«3S35433i# nr 



t ttt barpfett' ■ ' ^ '»»««»c»Ti**,»N«« 

WM ao problem tor the mncfaams « Eutern 
-Jjmwe. Shopi tiiroughoac the maU moved ule 
toeooncome. 

Record is reached 
3 staffin g shortages 



nhmr_pjiroat.' 

now hold bfanty 
ted 60 ^CfCHU of 
3r aboot naooo 

^.-.;«, . 
moR aoaay-fer 

le nid. f rm mr* 
iaanicoonpieof 

ani WM RKhed 
el lAortaee* that 
»>• Atuirthon- 



ali 

Ion S 



*<» p wyiial Ihouuiidt of booki 
g^ ^bjwn i tiUwJtBJ . The litua- 

eo^ or ibe vnr. 

*Bt CHty 1993. iiU our boeki 
wiDMovt on ifadvei end it wlU 
ijM«Jf emntatu lo oar ehcuto- 

•Me," Ooudfley Mid. 
OOerdudMef ihtt booned cti>. 

'*"! » pwyu n more nateritii ftir 
»wM««n iwden nther tban 
•aolM^ Umitiiii cireuUtioB from 
»w» Uww •«k» end i eompui- 



Piofe the Gnat L.i« i<... !««•» ..TT^^Z!!! 



^"7 ' I I III! ■nan H. 
Moywbu. »to cba<nd« bear>- 



:• ^,"! "» <f-t Lake, beam »»**»« anT^SSiSSSSSf^ 

«JZ-' "^ •'"»*• Whede?. a Senate EflvJSw^rSdpJbllc 

?-H^'T*'~*' *"*' «*• <:«W Work* ConmuVMhada-i^i 

aod pretideoi of the JM-merabw *a€i t«t»iem 4now heWhSSl 

mwdy «HJbe moved, not taet. know now all thii wUl urnktwu 

Bw *«k on polhitioa in the but be^ uia torac io hSd rte 

BaatolUyerorthe*«trkveU eovirownemal S5niS«t=^ 

bL^.S'JSSL^'*'^™'*" WlweJer. wanwhilTSid:. 

HuaRodt office anymore — the "If we can nop AmaaSi m 

Ptannin, and the itudiea will be «9el *e tM^vntSt^S^^ 

Awi IB SLPanl, Minn.; Umi.. the woioniiMSt Wc^dTTdf 

v^Ky, Omaha. Neb.: or Htt.. PoUtoiroS^ ,,Sd*SmtiS 

rtT c-i 1 oneaifid to protca miiilaiy (com. 

MnJ^JfJ!!?^ lnteta«ioiial The Corp. expect* tha ehanca^ 

fcST^/Siy*?? ^'** i^""" ow to me an^iMiidflia 

S5S^l£?7'^Sr« *■•««* «»i- maiionayearandctnSojoS 

SSrfhSil" ^***** **" •» nailoow,dil«t it SSiStoif: 

N««h i-<5^. • "««n«<«l« «^ mtmitiea with ooipt o«^ 

hejdjuMHiuiancinnati. which whidt would loie «1 1 jST «S^- 

SmSS^Jft^'iSiir.'^^?^ dWl.lon.l heaAnijI^/rTn^* 

wiuimwch from Idaho to tha Sl York Oiy m weU « the BuAle 

S?^*?- <lowngiidin|. wiO be oBt STShSl 

the^iSSl.iS^i^?^'*"-* "«"»«^ million a^^iitoS- 

tpon»billtlet - mcludint the ed contracu parU? SSTof 

dia^wjnjhjp of three iBieniion. their neame* iSconw^SSTaiSl 

« Joint CommwBon comraitteea teehnial workeit. "»•«> 

lT«'!i^I^'?Alf^'^'^°" "'*•««' . CW>« «'niat« have put till! 

&o iihh!"**^' and Uke Iom to BuifiUo at $6 J mSion a 

S2.^^^"'.5 ""^S of water year in pa)^!). not coimtiniri^ 

rUt-TJl ^"^^ ■'• ^**«"* '<■• of •«'*«« economy. ' 

•^•^SSJ^^ _.. . The ecoDonuc impact iaunhfe. 

'J^i.^^^n.2T^^*^' ** » lle«We-" the unionlSSradSSr 

rfuSSL^^ '**!?«««*«>" «rf "The impaa U imraedlSX. 

ao a^ Jaca a a himUe. b« what about the flitBwT^ 



^j5S;?yiiiir$i2?XrS 

J^uee lU nnmber of diviaion 
peaoquaitcti from 11 to lU and 
wmn pUnninc on tha Uriar 



All of the new tachniettcenan. 
which would do ret«icii ai^ 
""■^ " «»r tha Un^n is ihe 



— *!*_ y "" t***^ 'peedi up'filk 
uil book leqneata from wcMa to 
day& ■ '""mm IS 

Cloadriqr aaid a new aehadule 
thai:wig.lMp tha Central i^niy 

aeomaay Suadaya in 19»i 
, . ' ■•*,•*« even more book* 

and tewQfftiJatlag thia year. 



tool eon^onm hM. __-^ which wou 

Nowak — a aaboNnmittaayhter "^.iKnefitMl ftonrdttktt ma* 
•hoaedomledSTSSSJad^ tf' ft'^'iSJL'^ '■*«• '«"^ 

Qnow.b«Kto«.p^_^« ?vJ!lga''dl5jr°^*°'^' 
"and* In the ben potiiioa to °««« Lake* obuiniM aln >lJ£f 
•y. *aid an aide lm «ttk. "He » new naiicilS MMnT^ "** 



145 



PHILIP M CRANE 



^AVS AND MFANS 
:0MMITTE5 




sutn 333 

■vMMti)(no« oc 3081W3 
32/32« 3'" 



aEPUeUCAN STUBY COMMITTEE 
!XCCUTTV1 COUUil itk 



Congrtss of \\\t linitd Staii-s 

fmsi nf 'E.qjrucnranDtfi 

WaBlangnm. Bt :cjn-:io» 



January 27, 139: 



The HonoriLble les Aspm 

Secretary 

Deparcjienc ct Defsnse 

Tlie Pentagon 

Washington, D.C. 20301 

Dear Mr. Secretar-^: 

Snclosed please fiad a letter wr::.tten by the Illinois delegation 
"0 the tranaiticn leam regarding the closing of the Army Corps of 
Engineers sites in Illinois. 

Several of my constituents worlcing in the Chicago Division office 
have contacted me rfith regard to the coat effectiveness of this 
closure. Many iitiportant projects are still underway in this 
division amd it would be detrimental and inefficient to cerminace 
the Chicago office before their completion. 

T Tiani f you in advance for your immediate attention to this matter. 



^®L. 



Philio M. Crane, M.C. 



PMC/sm 
enclosiire 



146 



PAUL SIMON COMMITTEES: 

-iNOlS .ABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES 

'^Cniicd Pieties ^enctie foreign relations 

•VASMINOTCN n c ;:sio BUDGET 

INDIAN AFFAIRS 

February 2, '993 



Concerned Employees of NCL 

Box 6186U 

Chicago, Illinois 60661 

Dear Friends: 

Thank you for taking the time to share your views on the Army 
Corps of Engineers reorganization plan. I share your concern. 

Given the changing mission of the Corps, it is clear that 
alterations need to be made. This shouldn't be done, however, at 
the expense of Illinois and its many important projects. I have 
sent letters opposing the plan to the Corps, and I am working 
with the Illinois congressional delegation to see that Corps 
projects throughout the state are not negatively affected. 

Please be assured that I share your concerns and tha- I will be 
working hard to protect Illinois and the integrity of the Corps. 

Thanks again for the benefit of your views. 

My best wishes. 



Paul flimon 
U. S. "senator 
PS/tlh 




«2 DIRKSEN BUILDING 230 S. DEARBORN 3 WEST OLD CAPITOL PLAZA 250 WEST CHERRY 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20510-1302 KLUCZYNSKI BLDG., 38TH FLOOR SUITE 1 ROOM 115-B 

202(224-2152 CHICAGO. IL S0e04 SPIINGFIELD. IL 82701 CARBONDALE. IL 6290 

TDD 202/224-5489 312/353-495} 217/492-4980 818/457-3853 
TOO: 312/788-0308 TOO: 217/544-7524 
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 



147 



SEMATEl... '" '_^ 
COALITION ^.^^ 



February 3, 13 9 3 



Great Lakes Task Force 

Task Force Co-Chairmen 

Dave Durcnbcrecr 
John H. Glenn, Jr. 

The nonorahlfl r.es Aspin 

Secretary 

Department of Oeisnse 

The Pentagon 

Washington, D.C. 20301 

Dear Secretary Aspin,: 

Recently, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers presented its 
reorganization plan which is intended to eliminate redundant 
Corps activities, improva efliciency, and save money. While wo 
welcome any and ail restructuring that promotes efficiency, we 
are concerned that this particular reorqrani j:ar.i on plan will have 
serious and nagat:.ve impacts on the Great Lakes . Though some of 
us have expressed concerns about other aspects of the Corps' 
plan, this letter is dovoted to ccncarna about r.ho pian'is effect 
on the Great Lakes) basin. 

The i-eorganir-ation plan recuces the number of division 
offices from il to 6 . In particular, the :Jorth Central Division 
office located in. Chicago will be closed and nioved to Cincinnati. 
Furthermore, the three Corps offices serving the Great Lakes 
(located in Chicago, Detroit ana Buffalo) will lose all planning 
and engineering staff, moat of thoir auppurt staff, and retain 
only minimal regulatory and project management functions. 

The plan will seriously hamper the Corps' ability to 
effectively develop and implement Great Lakes projects. In 
particular, the restructuring o£ division and district offices 
leaves the entire Great Lakes basin without a capable Corps 
office. The Great Lakes is a unique ecosystem with unique 
problcmo. Yet Great Lakes programs, under this plan, will be 
developed at division and technical centers that lie outside of 
the basin, by Corps staff likely to have less expertise or 
exposure to the Great Lakes. In addition, there will bo no 
significant center for planning or coordinating Great Lakes 
functions . 



148 



Page 2 
Secrerarv 



The Corps is cecoqnized frr Lz3 cutrir.g edge v7ork m zr.^ 
Grear lakes oasm. Among crher isaignir.entE , the Carps maintains 
navigarional cnannsls, supports iPA efforts to assess and 
rpTn*;diat(? contaminitea sodinonrs , and suppcrt:- i-ntcrnationai 
efforts to manage Lake level f l::ctuations . T'.ese effor-s v;ill 
lose continuity, and interagency cooparaticn v.'ill be comproraisGd 
with -the Corps' uaorgemization plan." 

We urge the Corps of Enginscsrs to rsvise itc •'.ization 
plan to ensura -hat there will ocj a strong and cor. :,rpr 
presence in tna Gnaat Lakes basin. >7s do 'not intena uo obstruct 
thR Corns' qn^t \ 3 or efforts i:i raorganization. W© siitioiy wiah to 
ensure that the Carps' plan will explicitly address the need for 
GrGat Lakes specific Corps expertise in the basin. 

The eight Greiit Lakes states , -hrough the Great Lakes 
Commission, have suggested several revisions to the Carps' 
reorganization plan, which we have attached for your review. We 
Look forward to your response to oiir request , and we look forward 
to working with you in this andoiivor. 



Sincerely, 



Carl Lovin 



^ 



Aliansc O'Amaco 




Herb Kohl 



Dan Coats 



Russell Feingcld ^ j 



Carol iMoaeiay Braun 



149 



" ■ ! ' .a si 



1 limrfU /"■' 



-SUOCCMMITTTIS 



I'l' UJ.U'J 1 5-cr.oj 



CDugreas of tlie 'HtiitEb i^tat^s -'"3.'^n^k:ir;;,5 








"'*/!T.'ife;trr''"°° /ii"^ Cnnsljinsroii, DC 205 15-0508 



Febrviciry 3 , 1993 



The Honorable Las Aspin 
Secretary cf Defense 
The Pentagon 
Washington, D.C. 20301 

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

We are writing to nvpress our daap rasorvations rogarding the 
Amy Corps of Engineers' Reorganization. We appreciate your 
quick action to postpone any i:apleinentation of the Reorganization 
pending a full .ind fair review by your Department. However, in 
your review, ve ask for the opportunity to present to the 
Department infcrniation that we possess shov/inq the flawed and 
ill-conceived nature of the reorganization plan. 

There are savaral principles g^iiding our opposition to the 
proposed Reorganization. First, the ratings matrix used by the 
Corps in choosing between Divisional locations appears to be 
arbitrary; many sites which were "winners" under the 1991 
reorganization plan were "losers" under the 1992 plan, and under 
the 1992 plan, there were many instances where the matrix 
produced a "tie," with little explanation given as to how a 
particular site i^as chosen over another. Second, the coat 
savings OBtinates used by the Corpa arc narrowly focused, and do 
not include the costs associated with personnel changes and 
relocation. Third, site selection did not appear to have any 
relevance to the mission of the Corps in providing engineering 
services and logistical support to Corps project sites. Many 
sites selected were located far away from major Corps projects, 
especially with regard to major waterways of commerce important 
to our nation's economy, that require a major Corps presence. 

Finally/ this Plan was presented for implementation after 
Congress had recessed, and without any opportunity for Members or 
the appropriate committees of jurisdiction to review and comment 
on the plan. Indeed, under the Corps timetable, the new 
Administration would have had no opportunity to review and 
conunent on a plan that would have drastically changed the 
character of the Corps of Engineers, we are not convinced that 
the current Racr-gani ration Plan con^^^-'-- "- -^^ 
and workload r.^ >-»-- - 



150 



Secretary Aspm 
rsbruary 2, L393 
Page Two 



Individual memcers will be contiaccir.g your office with specific 
rebuttals to thes rationale provided by the Corps for its current 
Reorganization PlLan. The dbovts principles, however, aeciti to De 
consistent to all. objections ~o the current Plan. 

Thank you for your time and attention no '-his iztportant matter. 
We look forward to the opportunity ~o work with your Department 
on the reorganization of thn Corps. 

Sincerely, 



NANCY PELOSI, M.C, 



*GARY ACKE^SiAN, M.C. /BARBARA £ 




BOB/^ljiEMENT, M.C. 




niANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S.S. 



RICHARD DURBIN, M.C. 



^<^^i^^ife^- ^.'. 



LANE EVANS., M.C. 



/za^^tco 




BARBARA BOXER, tJ-S-S./ 




BILL ^EMERSON, M.C. 
;ACK/ FIELDS, M.C. 




151 

Congress at ti)e (Hniteb ^tate^ 

^ovLit of 3kpr»entatibes 
OburtjtnBton. 9C 20515 



February 3, 1993 



The Honorable Les Aspin 
Secretary of Defense 
The Pentagon 
Washington, o.c. 20301 

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

We are writing to express our deep reservations regarding the 
Army corps of Engineers' Reorganization. We appreciate your 
quick action to postpone any implementation of the Reorganization 
pending a full and fair review by your Department. However, in 
your review, we asic for the opportunity to present to the 
Deparrment information that we possess showing the flawed and 
ill-conceived nature of the reoirganization plan. 

There are several principles guiding our opposition to the 
proposed Reorgaoiization. First, the ratings matrix used by the 
Corps in choosing between Divisional locations appears to be 
arbitrary; many sites which were "winners" under the 1991 
reorganization plan were "losers'* under the 1992 plan, and under 
the 1992 plan, there were many instances where the matrix 
produced a "tie," with little explanation given as to how a 
particular site was chosen over another. Second, the cost 
savings estimates used by the Corps are narrowly focused, and do 
not include the costs associated with personnel changes and 
relocation. Third, site selection did not appear to have any 
relevance to the mission of the Corps in providing engineering 
services and logistical support to Corps project sites. Many 
sites selected were located far away from ma^or Corps projects, 
especially with regard to na^or waterways of commerce important 
to our nation's economy, that require a major Corps presence. 

Finally, this Plan was presented for implementation after 
Congress had recessetd, and without any opport:inity for Members or 
the appropriate committees of jurisdiction to review and comment 
on the plan. Indeed, under the Corps timetable, the new 
Administration would have had no opportunity to review and 
comment on a plan that would have drastically changed the 
character of the Corps of Engineers. We are not convinced that 
the current Reorganization Plan conforms to the future mission 
and worlcload of the Corps. 



152 




THOMAS FOLEY, H.C. 



RICHARD GtPHARDT, M.C. 






vu 



JAQ^-KINGSTON , M.C. 



MARTIN FROST, M.C,--, 
LUIS GUTIERREZ, M.C. 

/aw /^J 

•tomTantos , mTcI 




DSAN MCH^NARI, M.C. 







HAROLD VOLKMER, M.C. 



153 



Secretary Aspm 
February 2, 1993 
Page Tvo 



Individual members will be contacrinq your office with specific 
rebuttals to the rationale provided by tne Corps for its current 
Reorganization Plan. The aoove principles, however, seem to be 
consistent to all objections to the current Plan. 

Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter. 
He iooJc forward to the opportunity to work with your Department 
on the reorganization of the corps. 

Sincerely, 




k/ljy^..^ 



BOB/CLEMENT, M.C. 



-f^'^^^t^^ 



/ / 



QIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S.S. 



^f^i ^-^ - 



RICHARD OURBIN, M.C. 



-^^^^^^^ ^^ 



LANE EVANS, M.C. 



l^a^su^7_ 








JACKlTlEUiS. k.c7 

11 



154 



y /_:.-,— Z. 



zixiG. k. yASHik;Tcs. .i.e. '^ ---i-^ ,hhejit, m.c. 

R0Bi3lT WISE, M.C. LYIW WOOLSEY , M.C.^* 

iZORGE MILLErIm.C. 





155 



rHE WHITE HOUSE 
WACHINOTON 



February 4, 1993 



D«ar Mr. Laadcr: 

ThanX you Cor your reo«nt letter concerning the 
proposed reorgtnl cation at the Amy Corp* of 
Engineers. As you know, thft Corpa iaplementB 
nilitary and civil vorki infraetructure projeote and 
serves as an important national civil engineering 
resource. 

I an well avars of the controversy surrounding 
the Amy'E proposed reorganization plan. Altheugn ve 
mat organiee tha corps so that it can beat aeat the 
ahalleages we will fac« in tha future, it is not 
clear to ae that the current plan neets this 
objective. 

secretary of Defense Las Aspin vill be reviswing 
tha Arvy's proposal in the months ahead to ensurs 
that tba corps of Sngineers is organised to help us 
aaet tha nilltary and sconoolc national security 
iapsratives of the future. In the inter ia, rest 
assured that the Amy*s cm, t ent reorganization plan 
is on hold. 

With best tfishss. 

Sincerely, 



TViA 



Ttia Honorable Richard A. Gephardt 
House of Reprasentativas 
Washington, D.c. aoBlE 



156 




IMORTHEAST-tVIIDWEST 
CONGRESSIONAL COALITION 

Great Lakes TasK Force 



Task Feres Coi^halra 
A/no Houqrmn 
Janma Obtnar 
rna Uoton 

"ebruary 5, 1993 

S«crarary of 2a£ens« Las Aspm 

Offic* ot the Secretary 
THe Pentagon 
Wasaingxon, u.C. 2S301 

Dear Sacretary Aspin: 

;iacBntly, ti:a U.S. Army Carps of Enqrin««ra prea«ntc Lts 
reorqaniza'Clon plan which, is intended to eliminate redun: t 

corps activities, isprove efficiency, and save money. Wt a w« 

weicome any and ail reetructuring that promotes efficiency, vt 
are concerned that this particular reorganization plem will ./e 
serious and negative impacts on the Great lAkmu. 

THe reorganization plan reduces the number of division 
offices from ll to 6. m particular, the North Central Division 
office located in Chicago will toe closed and moved to Cincinnati. 
Furthermore, the three corps offices serving the Great LaJces 
(located in Chicago, Detroit and Buffalo) will lose all planning 
and engineering staff, aost of therr support staff, and retain 
only minimal regulatory and project management functions. 

This plan will seriously hamper the Corps' aibilitiee to 
effectively develop and implement Great LaJces proiecta. In 
particular, the restructuring of division and district offices 
leaves the entire Great LaXes basin without a capable Corps 
office. The Great LaJces is a unique ecosystem with unique 
problems. Yet Great Lakes programs, under this plan, will be 
developed at division and technical centers that lie outside of 
the basin, by Corps staff likely to have less expertise or 
exposure to the Great Lalcee. Xa addition* there will be no 
significant center for planning or coordinating Great Lakes 
functions. 

The Corps is recognized for its cutting edge work in the 
Great Lakes basin. Among other assignments, the Corps '"■<ntii1nn 
navigational channels, supports EPA efforts to assess and 
remediate contaminated sediments, and supports international 
efforts to manage lake level fluctuations. IHese efforts will 
lose continuity, and interagency cooperation will be compronlsed 
with the corps* reorganization plan. 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVCS 
— —— — » aM Pore HeuM Otflea eutidln«, WSaMngten. OX. 30818 • (200 ; 



157 



"sbmair/ z. 1393 
=aoe : 



'-■q urce -.la csrps cf Znqir.eers cc rsvise :.r5 reorcanizaricr. 
:ian iz ensure that rhere will ie a strcng ana ccnpecenr Carps 
:resenca ir. r^.e Great L^kes casin. ve do not ir.tend ta cnsrrscr 
■-he cares' roais cr effarrs m reorcanizatian. w« sinpiy wish 
ta -nsure that the Carps' plan will explicitly address tie need 



-3r craat Lakes specific Carps experris* 



m 



:!ie basin. 



Tlie eight Great Laices states, through the Great LaJces 
raaaaission. have proposed several revisions to the Corps' 
reorganization plan, which wa have attached far your review. We 
.aoK farvard to your response to our request and wa look forward 
:o working with you -n this endeavor. 

Sincerely, 




William 0. Lipiriski 







Paul Gillaor 




^ — ^<rain«s ooerstar 



Williaa Fora 



Dale £. Klldee 




158 



"ebruary ; , .293 
raae : 



Bare stunax ' 



fiti^- 



y/ 



Thomas J. Ridge vX 



ianaa^jl. lavm 




l^il^-^ 



TW L 



I 



ff 



Maurice Hincaey 



/ Susan Moiinari 



M«i Reynoi&s 
CaraxsB coxilns 



159 



°AUL SIMON 

...\ais 



^Cniieb Pieties Genetic 



CQKWITTEES: 

LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES 

uUDICIARY 

FOREIGN RELATIONS 

BUDGET 

INDIAN AFFAIRS 



.-eoruarv 



Concerned Employees cf NCD 

3qx 6i36i4 

Chicaao, Illinois 60661-5614 



Dear Friends: 



ThanK you for taking the time to share your views on the Army 
Corps of Engineers' reorganization plan. I share your concern. 

Given the changing mission of the Corps, it is clear that 
alterations need to be made. This shouldn't be done, however, at 
the expense of Illinois and its many important projects. I have 
sent several letters opposing the plan to the Corps and to 
Secretary of Defense Les Aspin. I am also working with the 
Illinois congressional delegation to see that Corps projects 
throughout the state are not negatively affected. 

You may be aware that President Clinton recently sent a letter to 
Rep. Gephardt, indicating that Secretary Aspin would review the 
proposal. I think this will give both the Administration and 
Congress the time needed to consider this issue carefully and 
make changes in a fair and sensible manner. 

Again, thanks for your views. You can be assured that I share 
your concerns and that my staff and I will be working hard to 
protect Illinois and the integrity of the Corps. 

My Dest wishes. 




PS/tlh 
Enclosure 



limon 
S.*'Senator 



<a2 OIRKSEN BUILDJNG 

VASHINGTON DC. :0510-1302 

:02/22*-2152 

TOO 202;22*-5489 



230 S. DEARBORN 
HLUC2YNSKI BLOC. JSTH fLOOR 

CHICAGO, iL eoacM 

312;353-49S2 
TOD 312/780-0308 

PfltNTFn n.. 



3 WEST OLD CAPITOL PLAZA 

SUITE 1 

SPRINGFIELD. IL S2701 

217/492-4980 

TOO: 217/S44-7524 



250 WEST CHERRY 

ROOM nS-B 

CARBONDALE. IL 62901 

618/4S7-3S53 



160 



Hnitcd 5tatcs 5enatc 

WASHINGTON, DC 20510 

January 23, 1993 



The Honorable Les Aspin 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of Defense 

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

After review of the organizational changes proposed for the Army 
Corps of Engineers, we are very concerned about the probable 
negative impact on Illinois projects resulting from loss of 
technical expertise. It is our understanding that you will be 
reviewing the proposed changes in the near future and we are 
writing to request that you take our concerns into consideration. 

Illinois relies heavily on Lake Michigan, as well as the 
Mississippi, Illinois and Ohio rivers. These critical bodies of 
water require constant navigational, improvement, flood control 
projects, and shoreline protection enhancements. 

The Corps' proposal would remove all technical personnel from the 
three District Offices — Chicago, Rock Island and St. Louis — 
who are primarily responsible for Illinois projects. A critical 
responsibility of the personnel currently staffing these offices 
is navigational improvements along the Illinois and Mississippi 
rivers. These efforts are essential to agricultural shipments, 
to flood control projects that ensure the safety and health of 
the Chicago metropolitan area, and to the environmental 
protection of the Upper Mississippi river. Loss of the intrinsic 
technical expertise inherent in each District office will lead to 
delays, cost overruns, and less effective results. 

Again, we urge you to review this proposal with a critical eye. 
The Chicago, Rock Island and St. Louis offices each offer special 
expertise, which Illinois can ill afford to lose. We would be 
happy to work with you in developing a reorganization plan that 
will maJLntain the highest possible level of service to Illinois. 

'\ /. , Cordially, 



Senator Carol Moseley-Braun 



161 



CITY OF CHICAGO 



1993 Federal Legislative Agenda ^&ge 43 



In early 1993 the Q^* of Chicago Depanment of Enviionineiw wiU condua an inventorv of 
sites in the City that are suited for weUand rejtoranon and citation. The survey wiU allow 
the City to determine the most appropriate locations to proceed with restoranon and 
creation, and the process by which implementation can be most readily achieved. The 
survey will contribute to scientific research and educational efforts on the nanual history of 
the area, complement other ongoing land-planning activities, and faciliUte the preservation 
of habitats for native biota. The goal of the survey it to identify six s>tM loj weUand 
restoration and creation. The City plans to begin work on two sites in 1994 w ith an 
addidonal site started in each of the four foUowing years. Qt^i'rrtve: Secure appropriations 
to initiate restoration and creation of wetlands sites. 

XXIL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 



Army Cr\ m^ of Engineers; rhlcayo Offlff* . ' 

The Corps' operation in Chicago is of great importance to the Ciry for a variety or reasons, 
including flood control, shoreline protection, navigation, and site rcmcdianon. Corps is 
proposing a two phase reorganization plan that would have a devasuting impact on 
Chicago. The first phase, lo be implemented during FY93, calls for the closiffc of the 
North Central Division Office located in Chicago. The second phase proposes change* at 
the District OfTice level. The second phase includes the ellmlnanon of planmng and 
engineering acuvities at the distria level and the c re a tion of 15 Technical Centers, which 
would prtTvide planning and engineermg functions for all of the district otEoes. Under tms 
plan there would be no technical center in Chicago or in the State of TUinois.^The 
dismemberment of the planning and engineering fUnctians of the Chicago Disorict omce 
would scarter highly knowledgeable personnel throughout the United States. It is 
improbable that personnel working on projects now would be woridng on them after the 
reorganization, therefore the Intimate knowledge of the area by Corps would be Ioil It Is 
almost a certainty that Corps presence in Chicago would be minim a l ai best. As a result 
costs of transfer funcnons, leamine curves, and impacts of virtually "starting over on 
projects would add significantly to the costs of all projects. Local communinei and states 
would bear a substannal portion of the cost of the rcorganizarion. gfe/ecrtvg: Retain Corps 
Division Office in Chicago and the Distiia planning and engineering functions at the 
Chicago Distria OfBce. 



PI ANNmo 

. Fnv1r»nmmH.l W^^^H.rion (See TAXES and NATURAL RESOURCES) 

. niinoH and Mirhjgan r anal TTeHtQf* Torridort The Illinois and Michigan 
Canal Heritage Corridor was designated by Congress in 1984. It was the first 
"pannership Mrk" and now serves as a model for such parks throughout the country. 
"Ae Water Resources Development Act of 1992 authorized funding capital 
improveiiienu along the Illinois and Michigan CanaL QtlJecttveSi 

• Seoffc multi-year authorization for capital improvement projects imder the 
I Depanmem of Interior's constnicaon budget. 

• Secure aptroprianons in FY94 under both (he Department of Interior's coostnicnoQ 

budget and the United States Anny Corpf of Engineers' budget for certain capital 
impiovement projects. 

. T. aw* Michigan (See NATURAL RESOURCES) 



162 



MEL REYNOLDS 

:3MMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS _ 

121568 



-326 S 



Congress of tlje (Hniteb S>tates 

Souse of EtprESEntatitoes 

fflastimgton. SC 20515-1302 

March 5, 1993 



Dear 

Thank you for your recent letter expressing opposition to the 
Amy Corp of Engineers reorganization plan. I appreciate your 
thoughts and recognize your concerns. 

During the first six weeks in office, I joined other Memt^rs 
of Congress in writing repeated letters to Secretary of Defense 
Les Aspin to express our deep reservations regarding the 
reorganization plan. We have asked Secretary Aspin to take quick 
action to postpone any implementation of the plan pending a full 
and fair review. Moreover, we have sought the opportunity to 
present to the Department of Defense information showing the flawed 
and ill-conceived nature of the reorganization plan. 

Know that as this situation further develops I will keep ar 
thoughts in mind. 

Again, thank you for sharing your views with me, and I hope you 
will never hesitate to contact me whenever you believe I can be of 
service. 

Sincerely, 



sincerely, ^-^ 



Mel Reynolds 
Member of Congress 



HR:PGS 



PAUL SIMON 



163 



Bnitd States Senate 

WASHINGTON DC 20510-1302 

March 11, 1993 



Concerned Employees of NCD 
P.O. Box 618614 
Chicago, XL 60661-8614 

Dear Friends : 

ThanV you for taking the time to share your views on the Army 
Corps of Engineers' reorganization plan. I appreciate the 
evaluation paper enclosed with your letter. I share your 
concern. 

Given the changing mission of the Corps, it is clear that 
alterations need to be made. This shouldn't be done at the 
expense of Illinois and our many important projects. I have sent 
several letters opposing the plan to the Corps and to Secretary 
of Defense Les Aspin. I am also working with the Illinois 
congressional delegation to see that Corps projects throughout 
the state are not negatively affected. 

According to the Army, the reorganization plan that was announced 
last November is being reviewed by the new Administration. 
Implementation of the plan will not occur until it has been 
reviewed . 

I think this will give both the Administration and Congress the 
time needed to consider this issue carefully and make changes in 
a fair and sensible manner. 

Again, thanks for your views. You can be assured that I share 
your concerns and that my staff and I will be working hard to 
protect Illinois and the integrity of the Corps. 



My best wishes , 



Cordially, 



Paul bimon 



U. S. Senator 



PS./saf/jbs 



462 DiRKSfN BUILAINO 

Washimcton. OC 20510-1302 

202/224-2162 

TDD: 202/224-6469 



230 S. Deahsodh 

Kluczvmski Bldo.. 38t>4 Floor 

Chkaoo. IL 60604 

312/353-4962 

TDD: 312/786-0308 



3 WcsT Ou) CAnroL Plaza 

Sum 1 

SraiMOnELO. IL 62701 

217/492-4960 
TOD: 217/544-7524 



250 WfST Cherrt 

Room 1 1 5-8 

Camronoale. IL 62901 

618/467-3663 



.VILUAM O. LIPINSKI 



164 



dongrtss of the Bmral Stares 

iionsc of UfpranratiDcs 
lHaBtraignm, 9£ 20515 

Marcii 11. 1993 



The Honoiable Les AsDln 
Secretary of Defense 
Pentagon. Room 20301-1000 
Arilngion. VA 20310 



Dear Secietaiy 



The United States Aimy Corps of Engineers has proposed to eliminate Its Chicago 
District office and simultaneousiy move its North Central Dtvlslon regtonai headquarters from 
Chicago to cincinnaa. as a resident of Chicago and a ranking mcinii^i of the House 
Committee on I>ublic Woiics and TranspartaUOQ. I am deeply concemed about the effects of this 
reorgaxuzation plan on Corps projects in the Great Lakes region. 

The transfer of the Corps' District oSlce from Chicago to Cincinnati and the relocation of 
323 essential engineertng positions will undermine local eSorts to address water icsouice 
problems tn a timely and cost-effective (asfalon. 

For example, the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District's plarmrrt conatmcdon of the 
OUaie. McCoolc and Thornton Reservoirs, which wiU produce annual benefits of >7S Tmlllnn, 
would suffer huge cost overruns from delay caused by staff turnover. In adtlitinn. the proposed 
reorganization plan would have a detrimental impact on efforts to solve Chicago's flood contral 
problems. Since over 550.000 homes in the Chlngo metropolitan area are subject to fkKxUng. 
timely completion of these projects are absolutely critical for protecting cltlrms frara arirtitlnnal 
Qood damages. 

Chicago is world-renowned for quality 'srimTtflr institutions, top notch design and 
engmecring ^affs. and extensive transpartation fariHtifts. There is still much work necessary 
to complete flood control projects and rehabilitate locks and dams. The loss of p l a nn i n g, 
design and engmeering expertise in Chicago will devastate our current efforts and cast a 
shadow on the gristing local /federal partnership. 

It is my recommendation that the Noitfa Central Division headquarters rrmam m 
Chicago witb Its highly qualified technical stoSl I am canftdent that your objective review of the 
nd'ttmg and future workloads, and the great number of people negatively affected by the 
present Corps proposal, will support my view that the Chicago offlcea remam open and viable. I 
look forward to the completion of your ongoing review. 

Sincerely, 



icerefe /O 

WILLIAM O. UFINSKI 
Member of Congress 



WOL/cJfjlh 



nwrm ON MCTCUD rimn 



165 




DEPAFTTMENT OFTHE ARMY 

OFHCE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY 
WASHINGTON. DC 20310-0108 



12 f.'iR -333 




Honorable William O. Lipinski 
House of Representatives 
wasnington, D. c. 205i5 

Dear Congressman Lipinski: 

Thank you for your letters of January 26 and February 5, 1993, 
to the Honorable Les Aspin, Secretary of Defense, concerning the 
reorganization of the Army Corps of Engineers. 

President Clinton recently stated that he wants to ensure the 
Corps is organized to best meet the challenges the country will 
face in the future. The national engineering and construction 
capability of the Corps will be important in improving and 
maintaining the country's public works and military infrastructure. 

With this in mind, Secretary Aspin is reviewing the Corps 
reorganization plan announced last November to assess whether that 
plan meets the Administration's objectives. As part of his review. 
Secretary Aspin is considering the Corps current funding 
constraints and various management options for addressing them. In 
the interim, the current reorganization plan is on hold. 

The Administration is committed to working with Congress 
toward the goal of making the Corps a more efficient agency, while 
maintaining its technical expertise, in order to fulfill the 
responsibilities we bear toward the taxpayers of this country. 



Sincerely, 




;. C. 



G. Edward Dickey \ 

Acting Assistant Secretary oT the Army 

(Civil Works) 



72-424 0-94-7 



166 



City to Fight 
Cutbacks in 
Army Corps 
Of Engineers 

By Basil Talbott 

^asMnqion Bureau / Cnicago Sjn-rimes 

WASHINGTON— Mavor Da- 
ley's cmei loobvist in Waahui^ton 
declared Thursday the city wouid . 
try to block plana to reduce thej 
statf of the Chicago distnct office i 
of the Army Corps of Engineers, i 
The propoeed cut, which waa 
announced Thursday, is part of a 
nauonwide reorfamzation of the 
corps that aims at saving $115 
million annually jjy cutting 2,600 
jobs and consolidating offices. 

David Yudin, chief of Daley's 
office here, also questioned plana 
to close the corps' regional-divi- 
sion headquarters in Chicago and 
move it to Cincinnati, but didn't 
say the city would fight the move. 
A total of 184 Chicago positions 
would be lost. 

Rep. William 0. Lipinski (D- 
lU.) plans hearings by his House 
Public Works and Transportation 
Committee on the matter. 

Officials of the city and the 
Metropolitan Water Reclamation 
District contend the shift of staff 
from the Chicago district office 
would slow ongoing flood control 
projects and delay future public 
works projects. 

Under the reorganization, five 
of the corps' 11 divisions would be 
ebminated. with work transferred 
to restructured division headquar- 
ters. All 38 of the corps' district 
offices, which, report to division 
offices, would be retained, but 
some of their staffs would be con^ 
solidated. Five administrative cen- 
ters would be created to centralize 
support functions. -^' 

In announcing the plan,. Lt. 
Gen. Arthur E. Williams, com- 
mander of the. corps, didnt shed 
much light onlhe decision to- cut 
the Chicago dntrict staff by 61 
percent, in. 1994, moving 103 tech- 
nical staffers tjcr St Paul, Mfan 
andkeeping only 65 other employ, 
ees. WQIiama said only that it was 

"partly woiklo«L'^ '**C. 

. Ross Fredenburg, chief of public 
afiaiia for the North Centrml iKvi- 
sioo, said the . Chicagp . distiii^ 
"has a pretty hBiwjrrwo*lo«l fer- 
tile small area they cover." 

Among the district's taaka'we 
supervising completion of the 
Deep Tunnel flood cantzo] project, 
developing a plan to preserve the 
Leke Michigan shoreline, rebuild- 
ing Caamo Pier, m Jackson Park, 
and studying flooding in the Jef- 
frey Manor area reaching into the 
south Buhurba. 

7 in Des Plaines 



167 




Congressional 'Rtcori 

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 103 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION 



VoJ. 139 



WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, MARCH 1 1. 1993 



No. 30 



House of Representatives 



m. wink 0. uFKsa 

OriLUNOll 

Bi THE HOUSE or KSFRfSSNTAm-eS 
jTlurjdav. Morc/i U. ti93 
Mr. UPINSKI. Ur. SOMMr. I racognua ana 
aooon m* naM tor inciMMd •ffiowicy «nin- 
in m« Amry Corps 0) Enpr—w. Ufllonuuulv. 
n* oxpt' moa rtetn rwrganuiMn cun anii 
haw a s*v«r« mpaa on Chlc«go and tla cub* 
uios. This ic uniocapaBl* to "» tM I hop* 
<n* naw Sacmary a< Oalanaa taais ina lama 
my. 

m 1991 Oa eorp* ramwnandaa OOHig 
bnn via CHcago Otvitton and ownci oiacaa- 
Foiuwiaiv lor ffia panota ol Cttcmga. Can- 
gracm paatad «ag i iB »n n io pravanc mjtfi a 
radUaaa ' T~3 lf T*""" plan liom rar baing 
fflOMmamad. 

I COM nawar iratmanS »tiy via Graai 
Uka* ragm wat uiQMa out tar (uot dsama 
oonaoialaHn maaauaa. Atlar aa. «t noma to 
naany ZS paroant at tia Naaon'a poculaton. 
Oicaqo I* alto iliaiaijualr localad baiwaan 
cna Gtait Lakaa and mttmuMi waiarway*. 

Hon. 18 morms laiar, na corps ha* pra- 
jamad ua iMth xootar plan. Bat. instaad or 
Oaamg oMn Congrau ra nma. Tw ctxpa 
mad to raorganaa «rwa Conqrasa was m ao- 
loumnarw. ira awioar aa it tia corpa Wught 
«a tnuidrt'l noaca. 

Wai. wa old notca. Along oiVi oSiar Mam- 
bars ot N* Hous*. I ipar« 3 momna lanng 
ma corps, na Daotrvnani ol Oatanaa. and ffia 
atmnatrUon, boa Mt vtai I fiou«^ waa 
OTong wMi (n* imm ranrga ivaS on proposal. 

Appaianay, Sacnaiy el Oalanaa Atom nad 
baan Uttarang 10 our concama. Shryay aflar 
ma nauguraaon, n* pu al aMmam ol na la- 
organzaAon on hold. Tha Saoviary la praa- 
anoy i»viaa*ig gw plan (M wiH hepa<ul)y 
isaua a ragon m na naa laar mcnsia. 

I wa*d lual Hm IB laka tia opporukty to 
ranaxl SaeraMry A«in of ma naad to kaap 
ma corps acaaa In Oacago. I uimi^y aneour- 
aga tha Sa u a la ry to aanouaiy eensrtar ma «n- 
paa mat Ooam or raouckm a< ma Qiicago 
oAcas w«i naoa on proiacs ai ma Graai 
Lakasragnrv 

Tha ee>M afioiad net ba illomn to ralocaia 
or akminiti nunada ol |06a at m* CNcago 
ihaBuiMjiian lagajn. If mia hapoana, imoonant 
praiaca «Ml f)0( ba mertt o ia O amomtafy or 
aMoanOy. In aotttton. ma oosti Of rvcuing 
daiaya mi na«a to ba smtiad lo local pmiaa 



For axampM. ma Chicago distnet ha* a $t J 
billion oonatrucson prognm pHrmaO ovar ma 
n«a 10 yaara. Oalays ol avan 6 monma coUd 
Inoaaaa m* coat of IMs pro-am by naally 
S2S mMicn. \M<y Mwuld local nonaon m\a 
loca raatasns ba toread to sKxaoar na 
uima iiMiaan tnaneHI badan? 

CNcago aarvaa aa Amanoaa nnsponaacn 
huD vx> haa aom of ma finast aoucabonal 
and maiacal firllWii In ma aioni. Tha oty is 
nana e aom* of ma Nalon's pramar lacn- 
nem cantars and wilvarMiaa. TTm corpa naa 
no prouam iBcnnng mm ma laiga nursars 
of loeaty Irainad angmatn and scMnbstt. 

in addiion. CSilcago aarvaa as ma hema of 
ma D iwr m iiai aa l P ni ta ijo n Agancy's raffon 
S. It to waa knoam, mat m ma Kjbira. EPA and 
Iha cop* wm b* doing mora oork ogamar. II 
m* Gorpa doaa* M CNogo otfioaa locri aml- 
lonmann l pro)aea wl eannnfy b* laopvtf- 
izan 

I hooa mat Gaaraiary Aaom MM cMarva mat 
ovar ma oaa t*o daeada*, IM oorp* and CM> 
cage's MtuocialiMn Walar R a ti am aoen OislMl 
hava daiiaiepad a vary praduatM paraiaiMp. 
Togamar. may hava prooucad allaesv* aolu- 
Dona to our Nod oonm and vatar guaMy 
prouama. TNa pannarxnc a noa n dangar ol 
Baing daaasyad. 

Tlw Chicago maioooatan aiaa i:a ia nti o< 
ma dly and 51 naa my tubUM. Thar* ara 
ow a hiilaitiMrm homaa prattnty a«iact 
to Hooding « any «m*. I iMni It la lair n say 
mat m* FadanI Oovammam. mrougn ma 
coma, has an obtganon lo oraaa my dlaoia . 
Irem knowi lead dangars. N la alaa tiir e say 
that mis naar laurgafiittion plan crKSd aarv 
oudy mraattn piMlo hMan and lataty. 

Mr. Spaaaar. I mm> waU ft* is add tat I 
am daaefy etanan iad aMU fia eetg^ pro- 
poaai 10 lorea paraoaial raduEWna n ma CM- 
cago diMtton and iliaiii l dfioa^ Tha ntoca* 
ton ol 2S7 posSJuiM QUI d MnoM vMI fenpair 
ma corps' aMty la addraaa aaiar raaouioa 
problama in a tmaly fiMtilon. 

AOMV I woiad luai Mm 10 araouraga Sac- 
nrtary Aapm 10 aaanaia ma anpact of dodng 
ma CMcago oMoa*. If ma carp* raorgannaaon 



I aiaet am ba a kaal diiaiialiin of aood 
oonmi prdgrama m Cncago and as auoiavL 

Tha corpa la un^mat en naada t» ba daw>- 
opad By m ai w n aiia* of fia Oa p a i anant 
of Oafanaa, M iiMiri of Congiais, corpa am- 
(i t a iiiaa and aMian iiniiiiiiaP is mual ba 
conairilad mnughoui ma prooaaa. Onfy man 



168 



MEL REYNOLDS : !'4c.«no.hob 

:; OisT«iCT HUI.011 ;02l 225-0773 

;MMITTEE on WATS AND MEANS " --"' ' '°'°JI. 



3 121 568-; 
'926 S HI 



;-?.Tr."c., Congress of tlie (Hniicb s>tatES 

Souse of EtprEsentatities -,.^^2^Z 

C81957-! 

jaashinffion. 3C 20515-1302 
March 20, 199 3 

Concerned Employees of IICD 

P.O. Box 618614 

Chicago, Illinois 60661-8614 

Dear Friends: 

ThanJc you for your recent letter expressing opposition to the 
Army Corp of Engineers Reorganization Plan and the proposal to 
close the Corps Norm central Division Office (NCD) in Chicago. 
I appreciate your thoughts and recognize your concerns. 

I have joined other Members of Congress in writing repeated 
letters to Secretary of Defense Les Aspin, including the Northeast 
Midwest Congressional Coalition letter, to express our deep 
reservations regarding the reorganization plan. In response, the 
Department of the Army has informed me that Secretary Aspin is 
reviewing the Corps Reorganization Plan announced last November to 
assess whether that plan meets the Administration's objectives to 
improve and maintain the country's public works and military 
infrastructure. As part of his review. Secretary Aspin is 
considering the Corps current funding constraints and various 
management options for addressing them. In the interim, the 
current reorganization plan is on hold. 

Please note, however, that the Northeast-Midwest Congressional 
Coalition still seeks the opportunity to present to the Department 
of Defense information showing the flawed and ill-conceived nature 
of the reorganization plan. 

Again, thank you for sharing your views with me, and I hope you 
will never hesibate to contact me whenever you believe I can be of 
service. 



Sincerely^ 






Mel Reynolds 
Member of Congress 



169 



Tes-ci^cny cf Ccncresswoman Marcy -taprur 
"nerc\' ind Warer rreveiopment Apprcpriar.:.cns Subccnmittaa 
Marca 51, 1993 



Thanlc you, Mr. Chairman, for the opporrunity to resrify before the 
Sabccoffiirree . I am here co tesrify on items of inporrance to tlie 
Great LaJtes maririae and environmental community. I would first 
like to speak in suoport of a maritime priority of the Great Lakes 
community' inciudina the ports, the Great Lakes inter-Lake ca rrie rs, 
and related nanufactMring and agricultural interests. This group 
has proposed an action agenda for the Great Lakes maritime communiT 
vhich r have included vLth my testimony. I am pleased, to support 
them in their efforts. 

Industry ejcperts and the U.S. Army corps of Engineers agree that a 
new large lock is needed at Sault ("Soo") Ste. Marie, Michigan, to 
renlace two old , obsolete locks that have outgrown their usefulness 
A new large replacement lock was first authorized in the 1986 Water 
Resources Develooment Act and reauthorized in the 1990 bill. The 
■proposed lock is essential for efficient interlake movement of iror. 
ore' for the steel industry, eseport grain, and low-s\iifur coal. Thx 
major public investment requires a large non-federal cost share, on 
that no locality can afford for such a large project that has both 
regional and national benefits. At least eight states directly 
benefit from the operation of the St. Lawrence Seaway system and 
depend on the operation of the lock system. There is more interlak 
tonnage carried on the Great Lakes than through the Panama canal. 
The anticipated cost of a replacement lock at the Sault Ste. Marie 
is $400 million and rising. 

Please let me point out that all other inland river lock and dam 
construction facilities require no direct local cost sh are whereas 
the local share for deep draft improvements is 35%. For example, 
lock facilities along the Mississippi River benefit at least 11 
states directly and all other states who ship along the Mississippi 
River but no local cost share was required for this construction. 
With respect to the Soo Lock, there appears to be no feasible way t 
attract funding from one entity as improvements to the Soo Lock 
benefit the entire Great Lakes region. The fact that the fina n cin g 
procedure for deep draft locks is iin 'Pa^T- aT^t\ unduly burdensome 
compared with t&at for inland river locks, justifies reconsidaratio 
of its funding basis. I would request that th e Subcgmp'tttee make a 
federal connitment to this nro-ieet bv funding the initial "atgim an 
engineer ina for the eventual eonstrueti on of a new lock at Samt St 
Marie. 



170 



- ■->'Quld also lil-ce r^ hrinc: 13 your" 2.t:~sn'Ei.cn, .cams or ijaporcan 
-he N'orr^.easr-Midwesr ccncressionai C-aiizicn's Great LaJces Taa 
rcr::e. 7!ne Ccaiiricn 13 a bi-camsan csaii-cion clLat promotes 
andorses issues riac affect ■the nortiieast and :iidwest areas of 
ccuntrv*. -jnon- ihe Ccaiiricn's acccsEiiEnaents in tie past yea. 
"o challenge tr.e Cansus Bureau's attempt ic adjust population 
figures m ways that vouid have snif-tea hundreas of millions of 
rederal dollars cut of the Morriieast-Midwest region. The 
Coalition's Great laJces Task Force has been active in the past 
promotmg anprcpriaticns that will help the Great Lakes region- 
am happy to be able to personally testify on the importanca of 
Subcommittee with respect to^ funding for programs that affect t; 
Great Lakes. 

The Great Lakes are a vital commercial and recreational resourc: 
a fragile natural environment. 60% of U.S. agricultural commod: 
are produced and processed in this corridor and over one-ha.' _ c 
U.S. manufacturing base is within easv reach of this corrid- r. 
Great Lakes deserve a strong commitaant from the Army corps of 
Engineers. There are substantial n«eds for Army Corps activitii 
our region, including important infrastructure maintenance, 
navigational dredging, sediment management and support in manag: 
lake level fluctuations. An enhanced Corps commitment to these 
functions is critical to the economic viability and Gnvironm»nt: 
sustainability of the Great Lakes/ St. Lawrence Seaway system - ; 
system which annually generates $1.7 billion in private revenues 
supports an estimated 45,000 jobs. 

Yet, a look at the recent proposal for the Army Corps projects : 
the economic stimulus package reveals a continuing regional 
disparity which disadvantages the Great Lakes. Only 6% of the 
proposed .Vrav Corps stiaulus funding for "readv-ro-^Ta" oroiects 
desicmed for s roiects in the Great Lakes taasm. an area which 
contain s fully 95\ of our nation's surface fresh water. This ii 
comparison to the South and West regions which received 71% of 1 
Army Corps proposed funding. Unfortunately, t-hH^ sharp regional 
disparity is consistent with past funding levels for Army Corps 
proposed funding. In contrast to these funding levels for Corps 
projects in the Great Lakes, there are vast needs for enhanced c 
activities in oiir region, indiiding no shortage of ready-to-go I 
Corps projects in the Great Lakes. 

In the Great Lakes region, with so many sites containing 
contaminated sediaents, clatanap of thssa sediments means economi 
opportunities for our harbor ^rrmj jpip jf x^ s- The water Raaources 
Development bill of 1990 includes two important provisions which 
authorize the Army Corps to work on contaminated sediments. The 
Corps was authorized at gi million ney year to provide technical 
aJ-anning and engineering assistance to States and lo cal govemae 
ip the d»VeloPffient and JTnnlenieTrl^T-i o n of cle amm plana for 
cQnt;3in^nated sediments tar- areas of concern in the Great Lakes. 
Corps was also given snt» cific authority to dredaa ranfcaminated 



171 



/r. 



sedinenrs frsa •navigable varers, in cansii 1 t:ario n vith the/ \ ^ ^y 
Snvirormenral Prorecrion Aqencr/-. Tasrs for dredging are ro pe.^^ 

divided ggiiallv berween Tir.e local Tovem-mgnr an d the Corps; Sflngres. 

authorized SIO million annually for thi?: purpose m th e 1990 bill. 
neither provision has ever been funded. ' ■jrge ^ cmt Subcomnittee t 
trovide funding far these authorized initiatives. 

As you well know, late last year the Corps of Engineers announced a 
Plan to reorganize the Co rps in an attempt to streamline operations. 
It IS my understanding that Secretary of Defense Les Aspin has pur 
that reorganization effort on hold including the plans for Fiscal 
Year 1993 , of which funding has been appropriated. The Northeast- 
Kidwest Coalition's Great Lakes Task Force wrote to Secretary Aspin 
last month to protest th.is plam- I would like to go on record to 
express my concern about the realignment of the Corps that was 
announced in the fall of last year. 

The pending plan could have serious negative impacts on the Great 
Lakes. The first stage of the plan would close the division 
headquarters that serves the Great Lakes, and move it out of the 
basin. The second stage of tiie plan would remove staff out of the 
remaining three Great Lakes basin Corps offices, Chicago, Detroit 
and Buffalo, leaving those offices with only minimal regulatory and 
project management functions, where once they had engineering and 
planning capabilities. 

The shift of Corps expertise out of the Great Lakes would mean that 
the entire Great Lakes basin would be without a capable Corps 
presence. Programs for the Great Lakes would be developed at 
offices outside the basin by Corps personnel likely to have less 
expertise or exposxire to the Great Lakes. Considering the fact that 
the Great Lakes contain 18% of the world's fresh water, that the 
Great Lakes support an active shipping system, and that the Corps is 
responsible for overseeing a number of navigational auid 
environmental initiatives, I r&ouest that no further f-u nds be 
appropriated for the Corns reorganization unti l the plan is chanced 
to include a strong and competent Corns presence in the Great Lakes. 

I am concerned about regional disparity witii regard to Corps 
operations, and would like to see a stronger commitment from the 
Army corps to its Great Lakes activities which are so critical to 
the long term economic and environmental health of our region. I 
encourage the Subemrm -^ttee to consider the obi eetives of the Great 
Lakes Members of Canm-ag^ as it fopnulates ^pending priorities fqr 
the Fiscal Year 1994 Fner^gy and Water Devel nmnent Appropriations 

Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify 
today. 



172 



; r.-TCfi '^^ -w.- 



caCAGO_SUN-TlNCS 



JUiPfL giijgmaai^ji 



_JUESDAY. APRIL 13. 1993 — l#f^»- 



luai 
•jjev 
Qts. 
apiy 



ise 



What^s at Core of Engineers' Move? 



II the Armv Corps ol Eoeineers wants to create a 
new oifice that wui be in cnaree ot. amone otner 
thinss. Its Great Lakes water oroiects. wouian t it 
matte sense to at least put it somewnere in tne 
vicimtv 01 the Great Lakes? 

Nope, inaieaa of keepmE the aivision neaaouarters 
here, on the snores ol the iarcest eroup oi tresnwater 
lakes in the world, the corps wants to pacK it up and 
snip It off to — wnere ■'ise? — Cincinnati. 
Which is about as far away as vou can eet 
from the Great Lakes and still be in Ohio. 
Which is closer to the hills of Kentucky 
than to Lake Erie. 

The move is pan of a reorxanuatioo 
propoeed by the corpe during the Busn 
admuustrmuon't^ wening days that would 
eliminate five of the corpe' 11 divisions, 
iacluding Chicaios. We'd become part of 
a new division, includmg all or pans ol 26 
states, runnmf from upper New York to 
w eauiu Montana and from the top of 
Lake Supenor to tlie mid-South. Fm not 
sure what, map the corpe was looking at 
when It crafted its reorganizauon. but 
mine has Chicago a lot doeer to the center 
- of the rcgioii tiian Cinciiiiiati* and 200 miles cloeer to 
the shone of the Great Lake*. 

On.ita face, the move looks so moronic that one 
su^Mcla politirel tkuldugfery. I confess, ihn.ijh ] 
haven't found any evidance of it. which — and thia is 
the scary part — inriintee that someone in the corpe 
actually thoucht thia made sense. 

Now, thanka to a Freedom of Informauon requaet 
filed by concerned corpe employees, we can all savor 
the corpe' lofic A document called "Deaaion Path 
11" lists five explicit cntena for the move: The 
current site, coet of living, educauonal availability, 
transportation huh availability and number of cur- 
rent personnel. 

"Concerned" employees say the Chicago office is 

clearly superior to Cincinnati's, in such things as 
space, expandability, completeness of facilities and 
proffssionel anvuomnant. The employees regaid cost- 
of living aa a doe* call, unless yon mduda certain- 
eceoomiee of- Mala< sucli as reduced travel l e quii e- 
menta, wfaicb weigh baanty in favor of Chicago. And ' 
while the Cindmiati diviaiaa now has 26 nnce peopia 
than Chicago, whan you include the corpe' CUeago 
diatiict ofGca (which ia slated for ttafF rednctiaasK 
yoit have man af hct ad emph t y e es here. 

TImm poiata^ I'Mppoe*. era argnabi*. Bnt not so' 
the corpe' aauiaiahing f****Thititfn that Cincinnati 
acea out Chicago whan it cooaa to educational and 
ti aiiiiwiitatiiMi hob awulafaiiity, '^t, ■ c 

Ragaiding oagiDnmif ichooi*. Cindnnati haa th* 
Uiimmty of' flliw iiiiiali. Chicago haa the* pnsnkti 
'-Nonfawaetan U iil » «ait|, tfaa IlUnoi*- Ittatttste oT' 




:o the worldoad" 
ated cntenon. even 



Technoiocv ana L'niversitv oi Illinois. Chicago also 
oieans uo Cincinnati with otner scnoois on wnich the 
cortJS relies, inciuame law. manaeement ana pn\'sicai 
sciences. 

And Chicaeu. the iast I loov remai-'ea the 

nauons transoortation nub. ina aoly ovidiiuz 

quicker, cneaper ana more con*. .t co' sections. 

partictiiariv to states to be ^ b .e i.ew 

division. 

onously. "ceni.. 
was not an expiiduy 

thougn Cincinnau was picked "because of 
its KTcater proximity to the large civil 
worxs workload along tne inland waterway 
syitem. ' This is mysufying. as if nothing 
else was happening in the division, indud- 
ing the S1.3 billion in corps construcuon 
planned over the next 10 years )ust m the 
Chicago area. 

Chicago, in short, has plenty of advan- 
tage*, induding being iocateo m the same 
uty as the regional headquarters of the 
U.S. Environmenial -;tec' r. Agency 

and other federal bure«_ . • work 

doaaly with the corp*. i. ~>idnt 

stop the corpe m 1991 from propoaing . :^anixa- 
tapB that would have eliminated both tne diviaiaa 
and th* district offices m Chicago — until Congrcee 
stopped in. This tune, the Clinton admmisiration ha* 
put the corps' plana on hold pending further conaid- 
eratioa. 

Nearly everyone agree* that the corps, which 
haan't bees reorganind since 1942. needs to be 
updataa and streamlined But can we agree to do it 
in a way that make* seneeT 

Oenms Byrne u a member of the Chicago Sun- 
Timet editonai board. 




173 



PAUL SIMON COMMITTEES; 

^^'XOiS LABOR AND HUMAN RESOUK 

JUDICIARY 
FOREIGN RELATIONS 

^Cnticb Pieties ^enaie '"°°'^ 

JV\,n.t,t.KV '■tf/VU-I^V ^tf^V<I.M.»» INDIAN AFFAIRS 



April 13, 1993 



Concerned Employees Of NCD 

P.O. Box 618614 

Chicago, Illinois 60661-8614 

Dear Friend: 

Thank you for taking the time to share your views on the Army 
Corps of Engineers' reorganization plan. I share your concern. 

Given the changing mission of the Corps, it is clear that 
alterations need to be made. This shouldn't be done, however, at 
the expense of Illinois and its many important projects. I have 
sent several letters opposing the plan to the Corps and to 
Secretary of Defense Les Aspin. I am also working with the 
Illinois congressional delegation to see that Corps projects 
throughout the state are not negatively affected. 

According to the Department of the Army, the reorganization plan 
announced last November is being reviewed by the Clinton 
Administration, and implementation of the plan will not occur 
until this review is completed. I think this will give both the 
Administration and Congress the time needed to make fair and 
sensible decisions. 

Again, thanks for your views. You can be sure that my staff and 
I will be working hard to protect Illinois and the integrity of 
the Corps. 

My best wishes. 



Iimon 
_ . _ , 'Senator 
PS/tlh 




«J DIRKSEN BUILDING 230 S. DEARBORN 3 WEST OLD CAPITOL PLAZA 250 WEST CHERRY 

WASHINGTON DC. 20910-1302 KLUCZYNSKI BLDG.. 3STH FLOOR SUITE 1 ROOM I1S-B 

203/22<-2i:2 CHICAGO. IL eOe04 SPRINGFIELD. IL 03701 CARBONOALE. IL 02901 

TDD. 202J234-64<9 ' 312I393-4>S3 2171492-4960 011/457-3093 

TDD 312/706-O3OI TDQ 217/S44-7S24 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 



174 



JOHN EDWARD PORTER 



iPPHOPRIATlONS 



OREIGN OPEBATIONS 



legislative branch 
selECt committee on aging 




Congress of ti)t ®niteb States 

l^oust of Eeprcsentatities 
JHastjington, BC 20515-1310 



70Bt 9a0-O202 



CONGRESSIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS CAUCUS 



April 14, 1993 



?08l 392-0303 



Concerned Employees of NCD 
P.O. Box 618614 
Chicago, IL 60661-8614 

Dear Friends: 



I received your recent communications regarding the proposed 
reorganization of the Army Corps of Engineers. 

As you may know, I have cosigned several letters to various federal 
officials over the last two years expressing my opposition to the 
current reorganization plan. I support maintenance of a Chicago 
Division office and will continue to work with my fellow House Members, 
Senators, state and local officials and affected persons to prevent the 
current plan from being implemented. I appreciate very much having the 
input of the Concerned Employees of NCD. I hope you will continue to 
stay in touch with me on this issue. 

At this time, the reorganization remains on hold pending a review by tht 

Clinton Administration. Other information regarding the timetable of 

the review and other important issues remain unbailable at this time. 
I am continuing to monitor the situation closeli 



I appreciate the time you took 1 
and I hope you will always feel 
issues of concern to you coming 



contact me on 
free to communicit' 
before the Congr^s 

sincerely, 



jlm-Sdwtrfdx^rter 
>mber of Congress 



is important topic, 
with me on the 



JEP : j sg 




^IS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE OF RECYCLED FIBERS 



175 



Report of the Division 
and District Organization 
Task Force 



July 1992 



176 

REPORT OF THE DIVISION 

AND DISTRICT ORGANIZATION 

TASK FORCE 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



CEXPTER 1 - GENERAL 



1 . BACKGROUND 1 

2 . RECENT ACTIVITY 1 

3 . TASK FORCE CHARTER 2 

4 . TASK FORCE MEMBERS 2 



CHAPTEH 2 - STUDY APPROACH 



1 . GENERAL 5 

2 . STUDY OBJECTIVES 5 

3 . FUNCTIONAL ASSIGNMENTS 6 

4 . EVALUATION CRITERIA 7 

5 . FORMULATION OF INITIAL ALTERNATIVES 7 

6. INITIAL ALTERNATIVE SCREENING 10 

7 . SUMMARY 10 



CHAPTER 3 - WHAT IS A DISTRICT? 



1 . GENERAL 13 

2 . THE DISTRICT DEFINED 13 

3 . THE "OiM" DISTRICT 16 



CHAPTER 4 - ORGAMIZINQ SUPPORT ELEMENTS 



1 . GENERAL 19 

2 . INTEGRATING RELATED ELEMENTS 19 

3 . THE SUPPORT DIVISION CONCEPT 20 



CHAPTER 5 - PURE CONCEPTUAX. ALTERNATIVES 



1 . GENERAL 23 

2 . BASE CASE 23 



177 



ELIMINATE ALL DIVISION HEADQUARTERS 23 

REGIONALIZATION 3 

DECENTRALIZATION -6 

REALIGNMENT 41 



CHAPTER 6 - COMBIKATION ALTERNATIVES 



1 . GENERAL 49 

2. COMBINATION #1 - REALIGNMENT/REGIONALIZATION (Admin) / 
DECENTRALIZATION (Tech) 49 

3. COMBINATION #2 - REALIGNMENT/REGIONALIZATION 

(Tech & Admin) 54 

4. COMBINATION #3 - REALIGNMENT/REGIONALIZATION (Admin) .. 59 



CHAPTER 7 - HQU8ACE ORGANIZATION 

GENERAL 65 

2 . FUNCTIONS OF THE HEADQUARTERS 6 5 

3 . CURRENT HEADQUARTERS STRUCTURE 65 

4 . ALTERNATIVE HEADQUARTERS STRUCTURE 66 

CHAPTER 8 - MILCON/HTRW ASSIGNMENT 

1 . GENERAL 69 

2 . ASSIGNMENT OF MILITARY CONSTRUCTION • 69 

3 . ASSIGNMENT OF HTRW WORK 71 

4. SUMMARY 71 

CHAPTER 9 - PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS 



1. GENERAL 73 

2 . OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT 73 



CHAPTER 10 - NATIONAL CENTERS 



1 . GENERAL 77 

2 . SINGLE CENTER OPPORTUNITIES 77 



178 



LIST OF FIGURES 

FIGURE 1 SCREENING MATRIX 9 

FIGURE 2 INITIAL SCREENING 11 

FIGURE 3 MINIMUM DISTRICT ORGANIZATION 15 

FIGURE 4 DISTRICT ORGANIZATION WITH ELIMINATION 

OF DIVISION HEADQUARTERS 27 

FIGURE 5 DIVISION HEADQUARTERS ORGANIZATION WITH 

REGIONALIZATION 32 

FIGURE 6 DISTRICT ORGANIZATION WITH REGIONALIZATION 33 

FIGURE 7 DIVISION HEADQUARTERS ORGANIZATION WITH 

DECENTRALIZATION 38 

FIGURE 8 DISTRICT ORGANIZATION WITH DECENTRALIZATION 39 

FIGURE 9 DIVISION HEADQUARTERS ORGANIZATION WITH 

REALIGNMENT 43 

FIGURE 10 DISTRICT ORGANIZATION WITH DIVISION 

HEADQUARTERS REALIGNMENT 44 

FIGURE 11 DIVISION HEADQUARTERS ORGANIZATION /COMBO #1 

WITH REALIGNMENT/DECENTRALIZATION (TECH) / 

REGIONALIZATION (ADMIN) 51 

FIGURE 12 DISTRICT ORGANIZATION /COMBO #1 WITH DIVISION 

REALIGNMENT /DECENTRALIZATION (TECH) / 

REGIONALIZATION (ADMIN) 52 

FIGURE 13 DIVISION HEADQUARTERS ORGANIZATION /COMBO #2 

WITH REALIGNMENT/REGIONALIZATION(Tech & Admin) ,. 56 
FIGURE 14 DISTRICT ORGANIZATION /COMBO #2 WITH DIVISION 

REALIGNMENT/REGI0NALIZATION(Tech & Admin) 57 

FIGURE 15 DIVISION HEADQUARTERS ORGANIZATION/COMBO #3 

WITH REALIGNMENT/REGIONALIZATION (ADMIN) 61 

FIGURE 16 DISTRICT ORGANIZATION /COMBO #3 WITH DIVISION 

REALIGNMENT/REGIONALIZATION (ADMIN) 62 

FIGURE 17 HQUSACE - TOMORROW 67 



ABBREVIATIONS USED IN FIGURES 



BCA Board of Contract Appeals 

BERH Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors 

CERB Coastal Engineering Research Board 

CD Construction (division, directorate) 

CM Construction Management Division 

CO Construction/Operations (division, directorate) 

CT Contracting (office, division, directorate) 

CW Civil Works Division 

DD Deputy Commander 

DE Commander (division, district) 

DP Deputy District Engineer for Programs and Project 

Management 

DS Directorate of Support 

EA Executive Assistant 

ED Engineering (division, directorate 

EM Engineering Management Division 

EO Equal Employment Opportunity 

HIST Office of History 



179 



ABBREVIATIONS USE: N FIGURES ( CONT) 

HR Human Resources (office, division, directorate) 

IG Inspector General 

IM Information Management (office, division, directorate) 

IR Internal review Office 

ISMP Information Systems Modernization Plan 

LM Logistics management (office, division, directorate) 

MP Military Programs Division 

MRC Mississippi River commission 

DC Office of Counsel 

CM Operations Management Division 

OR Operations and Readiness division 

PARC Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting 

PA Public Affairs Office 

PD Planning (division, directorate) 

PLM Planning Management division 

PM Programs and Project Management (division, 

directorate) 

RD Research and Development Directorate 

RE Real Estate (division, directorate) 

REM Real Estate Management Division 

RM Resource Management (office, division, directorate) 

SADBU Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization Office 

SD Support Division 

SL Security and Law Enforcement Office 

SFO Support for Others 

SO Safety Office 

TD Technical Support Division 

TM Technical Management Directorate 

VE Value Engineering Office 



180 

CHAPTER 1 
GENERAL 



1 . BACKGROUND 

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) has 
provided quality water resources management and engineering 
services to the nation and its armed forces in a timely manner 
throughout its extensive and distinguished history. Over time 
it has structured itself to adequately respond to the country's 
infrastructure and emergency needs and to efficiently manage 
large geographic construction workloads. The current 
organizational structure reflects essentially the workload 
requirements of the Corps from the 1940s through the 1970s. 
Through the 1980s and 1990s, the workload of the Corps has 
declined and the geographic location of work has shifted. 
Coupled with the added management and cost implications of laws 
enacted in recent decades, these factors suggest the need for a 
thorough examination of means by which the Corps can continue to 
provide quality products and services while enhancing its 
stewardship of the public trust. 

2. RECENT ACTIVITY 

a. Congress directed the Corps, by Public Law 101-514, the 
Fiscal Year 1991 Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Act, to conduct a review of the organizational structure of the 
Corps. The result of this review was a report completed in 
January 1991, titled U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Reorganization 
Study Report which defined conceptual structural approaches to 
the organization of the Corps and identified factors and 
criteria for shaping an optimally efficient organizational 
structure. 

b. A followup in-depth study was then conducted using the 
process required by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act 
of 1990 (BRAC-91) , Public Law 101-510, to determine the 
comprehensive reorganization plan that would be consistent with 
the Corps vision for the future and would accomplish its mission 
into the 21st century and beyond. The study addressed all Corps 
divisions and district headquarters located within the 
continental United States and recommended realignment and 
consolidation which, it was believed, would enhance mission 
accomplishment, lower the cost of doing business, improve 
technical competence and provide the flexibility needed to 
operate more effectively. The resultant report (BRAC Plan) was 
submitted to the Secretary of Defense for inclusion in the 
Department of Defense (DOD) recommendations to the BRAC 
Commission. The Secretary concluded that the Civil Works 
missions of the Corps should not be included under the 
authorities for which BRAC-91 was submitted and therefore 
removed the report from the DOD recommendations. Although the 



181 



3RAC Commission subsequently reviewea the Corps BRAC plan, it 
was not included in the final plan approved by the Congress and 
signed by the President. 



3. 



TASK FORCE CHARTER 



Althougn authority to implement the BRAC Plan was not 
acnieved, the need to examine more efficient means of 
accomplishing the Corps mission remains. To this end, the 
present Task Force (TF) was chartered to develop more specific 
alternatives by which Corps districts and division headquarters 
might be structured within the parameters established by the 
January 1991 Engineer Reorganization Study Report (Bay ley 
Study) . The TF was charged with developing, in detail, and 
analyzing each alternative in the Bayley Study along with other 
alternatives of significance. It was within the TF charter to 
screen out alternatives which are very weak or unworkable. It 
was NOT within the TF charter to recommend district or division 
headquarters closures, exactly how many districts or divisions 
should comprise the Corps, staff size of any element or 
geographic locations of any Corps elements. 



4. 



TASK FORCE MEMBERS 



BG AL GENETTI 



COMMANDER 

OHIO RIVER DIVISION 



COL HAL ALVORD 



COMMANDER 
PITTSBURGH DISTRICT 



MR. WILLIAM C. ANGELONI 



CHIEF, PLANNING /ENGINEERING 
SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT 



MR. DWIGHT BERANEK 



CHIEF, POLICY AND ANALYSIS SECTION 
CEMP, HQUSACE 



MR. DEAN CALDWELL 



ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, PLANNING 
LOWER MISSISSIPPI VALLEY DIVISION 



MR. ED COHN 



DIRECTOR, PLANNING 
NORTH ATLANTIC DIVISION 



MR. JOE DUNCAN 



CHIEF, REAL ESTATE 
SEATTLE DISTRICT 



MR. DOYLE OWENS 



CHIEF, OPERATIONS 
OMAHA DISTRICT 



MR. BOB POST 



CHIEF, ENGINEERING 
ST. PAUL DISTRICT 



MR. GERALD SLUSHER 



DIRECTOR, HUMAN RESOURCES 
SOUTHWEST DIVISION 



182 



MR. JIM WITHAEGER PROGRAMS /PROJECT MANAGEMENT 

FORT WORTH DISTRICT 

MR. STAN WRENN DIRECTOR, RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

SOUTH ATLANTIC DIVISION 



.'•f 



183 

CHAPTER 2 
STUDY .\PPROACH 



1. GENERAL 

The initial charter of the TF was to determine the division 
headquarters structure that would enhance mission accomplishment 
while lowering the cost of doing business and would maintain or 
improve technical competence and flexibility. During the 
initial work efforts of the TF it became apparent that any 
division restructuring would have direct impacts on how the 
Corps headquarters and the districts would be structured. As a 
result of this conclusion, the charter of the TF was expanded to 
include the structure of Corps districts. Although the TF had 
access, for reference purposes only, to all recent studies 
addressing possible reorganization of all or parts of the Corps, 
it was not constrained by the conclusions of any previous works. 
Because the Congress, the Army leadership and the Corps 
leadership had accepted the Bay ley Study, and because this 
report outlined the predominant conceptual approaches to 
reorganization, the six concepts outlined in the report were 
adopted as a starting point by the present task force. 

2. STUDY OBJECTIVES 

The TF was provided with four objectives defining why the 
Corps should reorganize. Two additional objectives were 
developed which the TF believed to be equally important to any 
Corps reorganization. The TF assigned no priority order to 
these objectives in the belief that the focus of any 
reorganization must be to gain as much enhancement as possible 
in as many objective areas as possible. The objective areas 
are: 

a. Management Efficiency Maximum utilization of resources to 

accomplish timely completion of 
work efforts. 

b. Flexibility The ability to adapt to new 

missions and fluctuating workloads 
while maintaining an effective 
national emergency response 
capability. 

c. Competency The resources and experience to 

complete a task with the maximum 
quality. 

d. Cost The savings accomplished with the 

reduction of layering and overhead, 
or the refinement of 
processes/ functions. 



184 



e. Cusromer Service The cosr, quality and timeliness of 

producrs and services to be 
delivered to external customers 
(cost sharing partners, military 
customers, the general public, 
etc.) and internal customers (other 
Corps elements) . 

f. Regional Interface Coordination and cooperation with 

other Federal and State agencies, 
major Army Commands and 
geographically regionalized 
interests. 



3. FUNCTIONAL ASSIGNMENTS 

A major TF effort in formulating and evaluating alternative 
structures was the identification of functions at division 
headquarters and district levels. Identification of major 
functions currently performed at both levels was first 
accomplished by the Field Advisory Committee (FAC) and provided 
to the TF. Through evaluation, the TF arrived at relatively 
concise and workable functional listings. The district function 
Support for Others is defined more broadly than the established 
Corps definition. Under the TF definition, this category would 
include such programs as homeowners Assistance Program, Military 
Leasing, work done for military and other customers by real 
estate, contracting, human resources or other district elements, 
etc. The functions used by the TF were: 

a. Division Headquarters Functions 

(1) Policy/program oversight 

(2) Technical review 

(3) Emergency management 

(4) Regulatory 

(5) Resource allocation 

(6) Programming /testimony 

(7) Water control 

(8) Centralized functions 

(9) Regional interface 

(10) District guidance and support 

b. District Functions 

(1) Plan 

(2) Design 

( 3 ) Construct 

(4) Operate 

(5) Maintain 

(6) Regulate 

(7) Emergency management 

(8) Mobilization 

(9) Support for others 



185 



4. EVALUATION CRITERIA 

The TF developed a listing of impact, assessment factors to 
be used in evaluating the impacts that each organizational 
alternative would have on Corps headquarters, division and 
district operations. The impact assessment factors, again in no 
priority order, are: 



a. Management efficiency 

b. Flexibility 

c. Competence 

d. Costs/ savings 

e. Customer Service 

(1) External customers 

(2) Internal customers 

f. Regional perspective 

g. Product quality 
h. Processes 

i. Staffing 

j . Command/ control relationships 

k. Impacts on the headquarters 

1. General officer (GO) /Senior executive service (SES) 

support ability /progress ion 
m. Miscellaneous advantages /disadvantages 

5. FORMULATION OF INITIAL ALTERNATIVES 

a. A matrix approach was used to define possible 
reorganization alternatives and to provide a framework for 
screening and evaluation. The horizontal set of the matrix 
consists of the six conceptual alternatives outlined in the 
January 1991 Engineer Reorganization Study Report as follows: 

(1) The Base Case - The organizational structure 
remains the same without realignment or restructuring. 
Prospective future changes would be incremental, determined on 
an as-needed basis by future funding levels (which may fluctuate 
significantly within individual field offices and/or 
headquarters) and by unknown or unresourced future missions. 

(2) Realignment - Military, Civil, and Regulatory 
boundaries would be realigned to better balance workloads. The 
results could be fewer, more robust offices responsible for 
mission execution. The purpose of this alternative would be to 
ensure that all field offices which result from realignment are 
fully justified by workload and mission, and are capable of 
performing assigned missions at lower cost. 

(3) Regionalization - Consolidate technical and 
support activities at division headquarters or other regional 
locations within or across divisions and reduce the functions 
performed at districts. District offices would continue to 
perform locality driven functions such as local liaison, 
construction, operations and regulatory programs. Headquarters 
would continue to execute its policy function while the regional 



186 



offices would assume grearer operational responsibilities for 
niission execution. 

(4) Decentralization - The operational aspects of both 
technical and support functions would be placed at the district 
level. Some functions and/or processes might be eliminated from 
the Corps Headquarters. Division headquarters would provide 
regional guidance and staff support, with no operating 
responsibilities. 

(5) Elimination of All Division Offices - All division 
headquarters would be removed from the Corps structure. 
Districts would assume all operational responsibilities for 
mission execution and would report directly to Corps 
headquarters. Functions currently accomplished at the division 
level would be eliminated or reassigned to Corps headquarters or 
districts. 

(6) The Combination option - Combination options could 
be created with the assembly of the most desirable and 
compatible features from the above alternatives. 

b. The vertical set of the matrix consists of possible 
reorganization outcomes at the division level. Possible 
outcomes could be no change to current division organization, no 
divisions at all or some combination of the same number, fewer 
or more divisions each of which might be larger, smaller or the 
same size as current divisions. The terms larger and smaller 
encompass both staff size and geographic areas of 
responsibility. For example, one outcome would be fewer 
divisions but each being larger in size. This option is 
reflected as #6 in the screening matrix at Figure 1. 

c. Although the vertical set was developed before the TF 
charter was expanded to include districts, a reexamination of 
its utility when district review is added yielded consensus that 
it remained applicable as a screening vehicle- 



187 



lU 
CC 

D 

g 
u. 



F 
Combination 






i 
1 






1 




1 
i 


: 


j 

i 

1 


E 

Elimination 
of Div. Off. 






1 


i 












1 


D 
Decentralization 






















C 

Regionalization 






















B 
Realignment 






















(D 0) 
CD U 






















.> / 

am / 

CD S / N 

</ 55 c 
/ -a O 

/ S > 

/ o2 


0) 

a 

c 

03 

O 

o 

Z 


<u 

c 
o 

z 

CM 


0) a3 

E E? 

CO _i 

to 


E " 
(0 E 
CO CO 


a> ca 

U. CO 


s ? 

O (0 
U. -J 


Ie 

IL CO 


00 


£ 1 


5 

2 CO 

o 



188 



INITIAL ALTERKATIVE SCREENING 

a. An initial round of screening was accomplished to 
iiminate those potential horizontal and vertical matches which 
re clearly not attainable. For example, the base case (no 
nange to current structure) will not match with any basic 
iternative labeled B through F in Figure 1. It would also be 
mpossible to achieve realignment with no change in the number 
r size of division headquarters, regionalization with fewer 
ivision headquarters of the same size, or a number of other 
otential matches. Nonmatches eliminated in this manner are 
esignated with a Not Applicable (N/A) symbol in Figure 2 - 
NITIAL SCREENING. 

b. A second round of screening was then conducted to 
eliminate potential matches which are physically possible, or 
ippeared on first examination to yield some promise, but which 
Dn further examination were determined to be incompatible with 
-.he stated objectives of the study. For example, with a pure 
-ealignment of divisions, fewer division headquarters of current 
ar smaller staff size (5B, 7B) could not realistically be 
jxpected to accomplish current functions with expanded workload. 
The same holds true for division headquarters under the pure 
regionalization model (5C, 7C) . Those alternatives which 
::onsidered a larger number of divisions than are currently in 
rhe Corps structure (8B-F, 9B-F, lOB-F) would offset potential 
-ost savings or increase costs and provide little, if any, 
opportunity to achieve enhanced flexibility or competency. The 
potential matches eliminated in this second round of screening 
are annotated with an X in Figure 2. 

c. No further discussion is provided herein regarding the 
options eliminated in the initial screening rounds. Sufficient 
detailed examination was accomplished to satisfy the TF that the 
options eliminated in this process should be considered no 
further . 



7. SUMMARY 

At the conclusion of initial screening, ten viable 
potential matches remained. These are identified by shading in 
Figure 2. These remaining options, which are examined in detail 
in succeeding chapters, are: 

a. Base Case (Al) . No change to existing structure or 
assignment of functions. 

b. Elimination of All Division Headquarters (E2) . 

c. Regionalization. The consolidation of technical 
functions, support functions, or both, within a 
division area of responsibility. Two possibilities 
exist: 



10 



189 



CVJ 
LU 
CC 
D 
CD 
u. 



F 
Combination 


<l 
zi 


<l 

zi 

1 


Ol 

COI 
10 1 

CT3 1 
0) 1 

Ei 
mi 

031 


ni 

1/5 1 
CD 1 
031 

El 


3! 
Q-l 

i 
1 


<n 

c 
o 

ra 

n 
E 
o 
O 


Ql 

di 
m'i 

'o 


XI 

! 


X| 

i 


XI 


E 

Elimination 
Of Div. Off. 


< 

z 




< 

z 


< 

z 


< 

Z 


< 

z 


< 

Z 


< 
Z 


< 

z 


< 

z 


D 
Decentralization 


< 
z 


< 

z 


i 

<l 
zt 


< 

z 


< 

z 


X 


<l 

zl 


< 

z 


1 

X| 


C 
Regionalization 


< 
z 


< 
z 




X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


B 

Realignment 


< 
z 


< 
z 


< 

z 


< 
z 


X 




X 


X 


X 


xi 


0) <o 

< J) <n 

(0 CO 

m u 




< 
z 


< 

z 


< 
z 


< 
z 


< 

z 


< 
z 


< 
z 


< 

z 


< 

z 


<u / 
.9 ™ / 

U) c / 

Z QJ /<U 
OQ S / N 

</ o) 5 

/ o2 


c 

CO 

O 

o 

Z 


c 
o 

z 

CM 


E e 
<o w 
CO -I 

CO 


E « 
« E 
CO CO 


$ E 
(U re 
U. CO 


0) <u 
$ ? 
<u re 
U 1 


w 53 

fa ^ 

% re 
I E 

U. CO 


1.55 

00 


2 1 


5 
2 re 
2 CO 

o 



11 



190 



(1) Same number of division headquarrers as currently 
exist, within current geographic boundaries and 
each with larger staffs (C3). This is the "by 
definition" option. 

(2) Fewer division headquarters than currently exist, 
each with larger staffs and expanded geographic 
boundaries (C6) . This is, in essence, a 
combination option since the creation of fewer 
division headquarters incorporates a realignment. 

d. Decentralization. The "powering down" of functions to 
the lowest workable level. Two possibilities exist: 

(1) Same number of division headquarters as currently 
exist, within current geographic boundaries and 
each with smaller staffs (D4) . This is the "by 
definition" option. 

(2) Fewer division headquarters than currently exist, 
each with smaller staffs and expanded geographic 
boundaries (D7) . This is, in essence, a 
combination option since the creation of fewer 
division headquarters incorporates a realignment. 

e. Realignment (B6) . Realignment of division boundaries 
such that each remaining division would command and 
control a larger number of districts. By definition, 
this option would result in fewer divisions, each of 
which would likely have a larger staff and expanded 
area of responsibility. 

f. Combination options (F5,F6,F7). The selection of 
combination options is addressed in succeeding 
chapters . 



12 



191 

CHAPTER 3 
WHAT IS A DISTRICT? 



1 . GENERAL 

a. If the Corps was being organized for the first time 
today, it could undoubtedly approach organizing itself using a 
zero-based strategy. It would have no history, no political 
constituencies , no loyal and experienced workforce with which to 
be concerned and no preconceived ideas grown in centuries of 
tradition and beneficial service to the nation. For these very 
reasons, the Corps is not afforded the luxury of addressing 
reorganization using such an approach. 

b. As one delves ever more deeply into the Corps' organiza- 
tion, it becomes apparent that its current structure evolved 
neither frivolously nor unrelated to need. The history of every 
element of the Corps can be traced to a precise or perceived 
need which arose at some point in its history. Like any 
organization, and federal agencies in particluar, elements, once 
created, tend to expand their mission and grow their staffs. As 
the need decreases and disappears, the organization remains, 
seeking new justification for its continued existence. 
Typically, this phenomenon results in the creation of work which 
is not necessarily required. 

c. Accepting the preceding discussion, it becomes paramount 
to any examination of the Corps' organization to first determine 
where the Corps ' work is accomplished and identify the minimum 
requirements at that level. 



2. THE DISTRICT DEFINED 

a. The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) 
[ASA(CW)] has defined the district as "the Corps' face to the 
nation." Although this definition accurately reflects where the 
Corps' work is currently accomplished, it draws no conclusions 
as to where work should be accomplished, how districts should be 
configured or how many districts should comprise the Corps. 
Determining how many districts should comprise the Corps is not 
central to a conceptual examination and is not pursued herein. 
The development of conceptual and combination alternatives later 
in this report addresses where work might be accomplished. The 
question remaining then is how districts should be configured. 

b. Some of the Corps' face to the nation is embodied in 
those personnel who provide day-to-day operation and maintenance 
of Corps facilities: lock and dam operators, park rangers, 
equipment mechanics, repair parties, hydropower operators, etc. 
Some of the face is also provided by regulatory personnel, 
emergency managers and the staffs of area, resident and project 
offices. Many would probably stop at this point, believing the 

13 



192 



face ro be fully drawn. This would be an unfortunate and woeful 
inisunaersranding of how the Corps does business at the field 
level and the root of its success over the decades, 

c. In reality, every element of a district is in frequent, 
if not daily, contact with the general public, cost-sharing 
partners, local and state officials, other federal agencies and 
other customers. Although Washington's attention tenc to focus 
on large multimillion dollar projects, these are gen illy not 
the measures by which the American public judge the -jrps nor 
the base for the Corps' longstanding political support. The 
Corps is more broadly recognized and appreciated for providing 
the solutions to myriad smaller problems such as local flooding, 
streambank erosion, local navigation, shoreline erosion, etc. 
Understanding that Corps people are local people and that 
distance from a problem often generates insensitivity to it, 
capable district organizations, in numbers somewhat close to the 
current structure, are necessary to the continued health, 
viability and effectiveness of the Corps. Drastic change to this 
face will eventually drive customers and partners to seek 
assistance elsewhere, taking their base of political support 
with them. 

d. The minimum district is that field organization which 
is responsible for managing the nine functions identified as 
district functions. This definition does not require that all 
work inherent in the nine functions be performed at the district 
but it does require that cost-sharing partners , customers and 
the public which the Corps serves see the district as their sole 
contact for these purposes. Organization of the minimum district 
is reflected at Figure 3 . Elements deemed essential to the 
minimum district are: 

(1) Programs and Project Management (PPM) . 

(a) There are generally two basic arguments for 
implementing PPM in the Corps. One maintains that it was 
internally necessary to provide a life-cycle approach to project 
development with emphasis on the handoff of products from one 
district element to another. The other maintains that PPM's 
importance lies in its providing a single point of contact to 
the customer. The truth is that its criticality encompasses both 
arguments. If the sole purpose for PPM were handoff management, 
there would be no need for it. If the sole purpose were customer 
contact, it must exist at the district. In combination, then, it 
must also exist at the district. 

(b) The customers and partners with whom 
districts deal on projects are the same customers and partners 
with whom they constantly deal on a wide variety of other 
matters. To place PPM at any other level of the Corps is to 
return customers to the days of multiple points of contact. The 
most efficient and effective arrangement of project managers and 
technical elements is colocation. However, in executing their 
project management plans (PMP) , project managers today must 
manage and coordinate a wide variety of activities with elements 

14 



193 



O 

< 

< 
(D 
CE 
O 

O 

oc 

I- 
co 

Q 

1. 

Z 



0-1 



< 



Q 



Q 
Q 



C/3 




^ 




15 



194 



lich lie outside district control. These include divisions, 
3USACE, OASA(CW) , OASA(ILE) laboratories, contractors, and 
Dnsultants, among many others. 

(c) Equally critical is understanding that 
roiect management occurs only at districts. With the possible 
cception of divisions, no other element of the Corps should 
aar a title which includes the term "project management." 
Ithough other elements assist project management through policy 
aview and problem resolution, they do not perform it. 

(2) Construction Management. Exercise of the 
onstruction function includes area, resident and project 
ffices and whatever small control element is required at the 
istrict office to supervise their operations. 

(3) Technical Support. Whether or not technical 
ctivities are regionalized, some technical capability is 
equired at the district to support day-to-day activities, 
econnaissance studies and the Continuing Authorities Program 
CAP) . Just the operation of Corps facilities generates 
echnical needs which are relatively small, but operationally 

-ignif leant, and frequently require site visits. Obtaining such 
iupport from regional technical centers (RTC) would be 
nefficient and ineffective. Experience indicates that if such 
jupport is not built into the district, it will be grown over 
:ime, usually within the Operations Division. 

(4) Operations. Included in this area are the 
operation and maintenance of Corps' facilities, regulatory 
nanagement, emergency management and mobilization support. 

(5) Administration and Support. Again regardless of 
:he existence of regional support centers (RSC) , the district 
requires some minimum capability to support itself and to meet 
;he myriad requirements of law, policy and regulations. 



3. THE "OSM" DISTRICT 

a. A concept often discussed is that of the "O&M" 
district, referring to a district which perforins only the 
operation and maintenance of Corps facilities. The regulatory 
function is frequently included in this concept but all other 
functions are purposely excluded. Without doubt, it is possible 
to create O&M districts. Before instituting such organizations, 
however, the Corps must have a clear understanding of what it is 
creating and why it would want to do so. 

b. Conceptually, management of the O&M functions can be 
centralized or regionalized as readily as any other function. 
Beyond span of control, there is no unique aspect to O&M (that 
does not also exist for the other district functions) which 
mandates local management. Should all functions other^ than O&M 
be removed from the district, what remains is an area office. If 



16 



195 



efficiency and cost are primary concerns, the remaining 
organization would be titled an area office and assigned to a 
larger organization. Titling this organization a district 
automatically incurs costs and overhead which are avoided with 
an area office. With the exception of some site specific issues, 
O&M districts would have to refer virtually every question, 
public contact or request for assistance to the division 
headquarters for resolution. 

c. The only remaining rationale for retaining O&M 
districts as herein described is political. This too carries 
some risk. While the announcement of retaining O&M districts may 
initially allay Congressional concerns, the loss or movement of 
a considerable number of jobs will soon have constitutents in 
contact with their elected officials. Thus, conversion to O&M 
districts could have essentially the same effect as district 
closures and generate considerable political resistance. Too, a 
decision to implement O&M districts Corps-wide could, by 
definition, eliminate some districts. Some districts have little 
or no O&M mission. 



17- 



196 

CHAPTER 4 
ORGANIZING SUPPORT ELEMENTS 



1 . GENERAL 

a. A review of organization diagrams of HQUSACE, division 
headquarters and districts reflects a large nvunber of disparate 
elements all reporting directly to the commander. Omitting 
boards and commissions, the HQUSACE diagram shows nineteen 
separate elements reporting directly to the Chief of Engineers. 
The average number at districts is eighteen. This suggests that 
any structural review should include an examination of effective 
and efficient alternatives to this type organization. 

b. The development of conceptual and combination 
alternatives in later chapters addresses technical organization. 
Because support elements contribute less directly to Corps 
products and services, there are alternatives to their 
organization which will work under any restructuring approach. 
It is important to examine these alternatives now for, at worst, 
the Corps may have only one opportunity to reorganize; at best, 
it may be advisable to avoid numerous reorganizations over 
multiple years. 

c. The ideas put forth in this chapter are not essential 
to any major Corps restructuring. Nor does this discussion imply 
that support elements are less important than technical 
elements. All elements are critical to successful mission 
accomplishment. 



2. INTEGRATING RELATED ELEMENTS 

a. Five offices which bear close resemblance to other 
elements currently stand alone. The programs which these offices 
oversee required command attention and emphasis at their 
inception so as to ensure successful institutionalization. These 
programs are no less critical today than they were at inception, 
but they have been institutionalized. It is possible, therefore, 
to consider integrating these offices into the larger support 
elements with which they are programmatically aligned. The 
offices are: 

(1) Value engineering (VE) . VE has already been 
integrated into engineering directorates at most division 
headquarters. This integration can be accomplished with equal 
effectiveness at the district level. 

(2) Safety. The safety office (SO) can be 
effectively integrated into construction, operations or a 
combined construction/operations (CONOPS) division at the 
district and into the CONOPS directorate at division. Such 

19 



197 



integration should have no impact on safety performance since 

the success of the Corps' safety program rests principally with 

commanders, managers and supervisors. The SO can serve district 

needs with equal effectiveness as a part of one of these 

operational elements. 

(3) Internal review (IR). The IR, or audit, office 
can be effectively integrated into the resource management 
office. This marriage may raise concerns since IR is required to 
perform annual audits on some aspects of resource management. 
These audits are conducted for the commander and would continue 
to be so. Fears that a resource manager may attempt to shape 
audit results says little for the Corps' ability to recruit and 
select ethical professionals. 

(4) Equal employment opportunity (EO) . The EO office 
can be effectively integrated into the human resources office at 
all levels. This combination will facilitate the closer and 
more effective coordination of EO with such personnel activities 
as recruiting, selection, training, etc. 

(5) Public affairs (PA). PA is the management of 
information. The marriage of information management and PA is a 
natural one. PA currently relies heavily on many elements of the 
information management organization in providing its services 
and products. 

b. The suggestion that these combinations be pursued is 
likely to encounter strong resistance. Arguments will be put 
forth that these programs are those of the commander and can 
only be successfully executed if direct access to the commander 
is maintained. In reality, few, if any, of the staff principals 
involved in oversight of these programs report directly to 
commanders today. Despite organization charts, most report to, 
and are rated by, deputy commanders. This has not degraded the 
importance of, or command attention to, these programs. 
Commanders will continue to devote appropriate time and 
attention to all critical aspects of the mission, regardless of 
the lines on a diagram, just as they do now. 



3. THE SUPPORT DIVISION CONCEPT 

a. There are also opportunities to gain management 
efficiencies in the organization of resource management, human 
resources, information management, logistics management, counsel 
and contracting. The principal approach to maximizing these 
opportunities is the formation of a Support Division (at 
districts) or Directorate (at divisions and HQUSACE) which would 
provide management of these elements. Arguments supporting the 
creation of such an organization are as follows: 

(1) It would reduce the commander's span of control 
and more accurately reflect current operational practice. Most 
of the principals responsible for providing these services are 
currently supervised and rated by deputy commance^-s. 

20 



72-424 0-94-8 



198 



:2) It vouid concribure no retaining focus on the 
□asic products and services which rhe Corps provides and assist 
administrarive and support elements m understanding their roles 
and contributions relative to these products and services. In 
other words, it would help foster a corporate approach to 
mission accomplishment. 

(3) It would provide continuity to the management of 
administrative and support elements in the organization. Current 
Corps practice relies on commanders (who rotate each 2 to 3 
years) and deputies (who rotate each 3 to 4 years) to provide 
effective integrated management of these elements. This concept 
would allow for civilian professionals to provide more 
continuous integrated management over longer periods. 

(4) It would provide an opportunity to better 
coordinate and balance the myriad requirements embodied in the 
administrative and support areas. 

(5) It would provide flexibility in achieving 
organizational goals and objectives in the administrative and 
support areas. 

(6) It would broaden the perspectives of 
administrative and support personnel thereby contributing to 
enhanced competency. 

(7) It would provide more high grade opportunities 
for which minorities, women, and persons with disabilities can 
equitably compete. 

(8) It is an effective management approach which is 
finding ever broader application in the private sector. 

b. There are considerations which would mitigate against 
the formation of support divisions and directorates. These must 
be examined, as well. Principal concerns which argue against the 
concept are as follows: 

(1) There are costs associated with implementation. 
The most measurable and immediate will be the labor and space 
costs of creating new managerial and clerical positions. It is 
possible that these costs may be offset or overcome as 
management efficiencies are gained in other aspects of the 
administrative and support areas. 

(2) If the concept is not instituted with commitment 
and optimism, Corps professionals who provide these critical 
services may perceive a loss of importance or prestige in the 
fabric of the organization. Degraded morale could ensue. 

(3) Strong resistance will be encountered. Arguments 
similar to those reflected in paragraph 2.b., above, will apply. 



. 21 



199 



(4) There will be difficulty rating some positions, 
like Counsel, that provide direct advice to the commander on 
specific or unique issues. There is no doubt that such unique 
situations will exist. However, there are very effective ways to 
handle these. The commander can oprovide input to the rating 
official and/or serve as the Reviewing/ Approving Official. 

(5) It will be difficult to find qualified individ- 
uals to manage such a disparate group of functions. This may be 
true initially, although the transition should be no more 
difficult than that which each new commander and deputy must 
negotiate. In the longer term, the Corps will benefit for the 
same reasons given in paragraph a. (3), above. 



22 



200 

CHAPTERS 
PURE CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES 



1 . GENERAL 



a. The remaining options reflected in Figure 2 at lA, 2E, 
3C, 4D and 6B are, by definition, pure conceptual alternatives 
and could be implemented in their purest form. It is therefore 
necessary to more fully develop and assess these options in pure 
form. Such is accomplished in this chapter. 



b. It is recognized that, developed in this manner, any or 
all of these pure options may contain aspects which would not be 
acceptable due to resulting inefficiencies or disadvantages. 
Had the options not been examined in this fashion, however, it 
would be impossible to determine which aspects offer potential 
for eventual adoption and which aspects should be avoided in the 
later identification of combination options. With the exception 
of the Base Case, each option is developed within the conceptual 
definition, to include organizational diagrams, functions are 
reassigned as necessary and the option is measured against the 
impact assessment factors. 

2. BASE CASE. 

The Base Case option yields little or no change from the 
Corps' current division and district structure. Both divisions 
and districts would continue to perform current functions 
essentially as they do now. Any efficiencies gained within this 
option would be achieved through process changes, regional 
operational changes effected by division commanders or in 
reaction to direct funding reductions or further workload 
shifts. Process changes do offer significant potential for 
gaining increased efficiencies and are addressed in Chapter 9. 
Traditionally, federal agencies, in fact, most organizations, 
find comfort in existing structure and operational processes 
and, with the exception of expansion, resist changes to either. 
If the Congressional approach to General Expense (GE) funding 
for FY 93 is a valid indication, acceptance of the No Change 
option likely places the Corps at risk of having to react to a 
series of resource reductions. History again reflects that such 
reactionary exercises do not necessarily produce effective or 
efficient results. 

3. ELIMINATE ALL DIVISION HEADQUARTERS 

a. Division Functions. The elimination of division 
headquarters would require that division functions be shifted to 
appropriate levels or discontinued. The most effective 
disposition of division functions is as follows: 



23 



201 



(1) Policy/program oversight . Shift ro HQUSACE. 
Cannor be performed at districr level. 

(2) Technical review . Shift to districts. Technical 
review of all planning, engineering, real estate and project 
management products can be effectively accomplished at district 
level either in-house or through peer review (one district 
performs technical review on the products of another) . 
Districts already accomplish this function for technical 
products produced by architect engineer (A-E) and other 
contractors. Effective and efficient accomplishment of this 
function at HQUSACE is not likely; a significant increase in HQ 
staff would be required, the review would occur too far from 
where the work is performed and timeliness would likely be lost. 
Placement of this function at the district level provides 
potential for gaining time in the review process. 

(3) Emergency Management . Accomplished totally at 
district level. This will add to district requirements the 
regional and national coordination currently accomplished at 
division level during an emergency response. Under current 
operations, the district which is responding to an emergency in 
its area is able to focus on the response effort while the 
division solicits needed support from outside the district, 
coordinates related efforts, monitors and reports. 

(4) Regulatory . Accomplished totally at district 
level. In divisions where regulatory authority is retained at 
the district, this function is essentially advisory at the 
division level and little change will ensue. In divisions where 
some decision authorities have been elevated to the division 
commander, these authorities would be returned to the district. 
A greater impact may occur at HQUSACE, which would now provide 
the only avenue of appeal for members of the public who are 
dissatisfied with regulatory decisions. 



(5) Resource allocation . Accomplished totally at 



HQUSACE. 



(6) Programming / testimony . Accomplished totally at 
HQUSACE. Attempting to schedule every district engineer for 
Congressional testimony would be resource-intensive and 
virtually unmanageable. HQUSACE and the Assistant Secretaries 
of the Army [ASA(CW) , ASA(ILE) ] already provide testimony to the 
appropriate committees. If the project-specific testimony 
currently provided by division engineers to the one committee is 
deemed essential, it could be provided by means of Congressional 
inserts. Considering the time and resources devoted to 
preparation of division engineers for Congressional testimony, 
elimination of this testimony may, in itself, offer 
unanticipated efficiencies. 

(7) Water control . Accomplished totally at district 
level. Currently, in some divisions water control (reservoir 
regulation and flow control) is accomplished centrally at 
division headquarters while in others water control is 

24 



202 



essenriaiiy accompiisned at districr level with monitoring and 
oversiqnt accompiished at. the division. In either case the 
division function is critical in that it provides the capability 
to manage unique conditions (floods, droughts, etc.) across a 
complete water system such as the Mississippi River and 
Tributaries (MRT) or Ohio River system. In some cases, such as 
MRT, a requirement for system-wide management is based in law. 
Without division headquarters, day-to-day water control could be 
placed totally at district level but a system-wide control 
mechanism would still be required. Although more awkward, a 
district could be designated as "lead district" for system-wide 
water control within each system when conditions necessitate. 
Corresponding changes in existing laws would be required. On 
analysis, centralized management at HQUSACE of all inland and 
coastal waterways in the nation is not a workable option. 

(8) Centralized functions . The current Corps 
structure finds a wide variety of consolidations from division 
to division. Most of these are administrative and support 
activities, such as Finance and Accounting (F&A) or Human 
Resources, but there are some technical consolidations, as well. 
Management of these activities would be shifted to district 
level; these capabilities could be distributed to each district 
or some districts could support others. A single Corps-wide F&A 
center is technically and operationally workable. 

(9) Regional interface . Although not directly 
measurable, this is high among the most critical functions 
performed by divisions and cannot be effectively accomplished at 
districts or HQUSACE. The Corps provides essentially homogenous 
products and services nationwide, grounded in common laws, 
policies and programs. However, interest and concern at how 
these occur vary widely from region to region across the nation. 
The application of law, programs and Corps policies to regional 
interests, concerns and requirements occurs at divisions. 
Activities include establishing common direction for multiple 
districts which operate within one state or over one waterway 
system, single point of contact coordination with regional 
offices of other federal agencies and military commands, etc. 

(10) District guidance and support . This function 
includes the wide variety and multitude of daily operational 
contacts between divisions and districts wherein divisions 
assist districts in resolving problems, clarifying issues, 
interpreting local guidance, etc. Because divisions provide the 
transition between policy and implementation, this function 
cannot be effectively or efficiently accomplished at HQUSACE. 

b. District Functions. The elimination of division 
headquarters would create some changes in the accomplishment of 
district functions. Under this option, the status of district 
functional accomplishment would be as follows: 

(1) Plan . The technical review of planning products 
would be added to those planning functions already accomplished 
at district level. 

25 



203 



(2) Design . Technical review would be added to the 
uncnons already performed at the district. 

(3) Construct . No change. 

(4) Operate . No change. 

(5) Maintain . No change. 

(6) Regulate . For those districts where no decision 
authorities have been elevated to the division commander, there 
vould be no operational change. Some districts would have to 
resume authorities which currently reside at division level. 
■Jnder current structure, regulatory complaints and appeals are 
.landled quickly and informally. With HQUSACE as the sole 
absorber of complaints and appeals, districts will likely expend 
Tiore resources in the response and resolution process. 

(7) Emergency management . Unchanged except that, in 
n emergency response situation, districts would assume the 

added coordination burden currently borne by divisions. 

(8) Mobilization . No change. 

(9) Support for others . No change. 

c. Structure. Because division headquarters would no 
longer exist under this option, no organization diagram is 
provided. The manner in which districts might be organized is 
reflected at Figure 4. 

d. Impact assessment. 

(1) Management efficiency . The elimination of a 
complete layer of review, reporting and management controls can 
result in enhanced management efficiency. This gain could be 
lost, however, if the elimination of divisions were to be offset 
at HQUSACE with added control structure and/or processes. 

(2) Flexibility . Flexibility is unlikely to be either 
gained or lost under this option. This is a critical 
consideration only if one assumes that inadequate flexibility 
currently exists. Considerable flexibility now exists at 
district level in the form of A-E and other consultant services. 
Many districts make excellent use of open-ended contracts which 
allow them to absorb unanticipated or short-term work. 

(3) Competence . The competency of Corps personnel is 
likely to be neither degraded nor enhanced under this option. 
This is a critical consideration only if one assumes that the 
current competency of the Corps is lacking. Despite complaints 
regarding cost and timeliness, the high quality of Corps 
products and services is broadly recognized. Coupled with the 
Corps' continued leadership in navigation and flood control, and 
it's developing leadership in environmental matters, this 
reputation may indicate that competence is not a major issue. 

26 



204 



oil 
3=1 



ai 



ra 



o. 



3 



CO 

oc 

LU 

I- 



11 
§S 

o u. 

o 

K z 

O Q 

cc < 

CO 1 

Q'uj 

X 



C/51 



-Q 




27 



205 



it may be losr under this option is the sharing of good i .^s 
1 new technologies wnich is often generated at the divis^_.i. 
IS could be accomplished by other means, such as functional 
vsletters . 

(4) Costs/savings . Clearly, the elimination option 
ovides consideraole potential for cost savings. Significant 
3ts would be incurred in effecting division eliminations; once 
upleted, however, virtually all costs associated with 
intaming the current division structure would be avoided, 
pending on how the technical review function is managed at the 
stricts, there could be some increases in direct project 
sts. 

(5) Customer service . 

(a) External customers . With the loss of a 
}mplete layer of the Corps organization, customers and partners 
.11 perceive, at least initially, that their service has been 
ihanced. If the Corps remains committed to enhanced customer 
irvice, significant time and cost savings could be realized. 
:", however, new control structure and/or processes are created 
3 offset the elimination of divisions, enhanced customer 
jrvice may be lost. Customers and partners who deal primarily 
-th division headquarters, such as multi-district states and 
le regional offices of other federal agencies or military 
ammands, will perceive the loss of customer service. There are 
3 effective alternatives for dealing with these customers and 
artners . 

(b) Internal customers . If the support and 
achnical services currently consolidated at divisions are 
aturned to districts, internal customers (primarily district 
srsonnel) will perceive that their service has been enhanced. 
f these services are returned to districts unaccompanied by 
ufficient resources to accomplish them, the perception will be 
hort-lived and internal service will be degraded. The downward 
low of information could be enhanced and this too would be seen 
s enhanced internal service. Some activities, such as materials 
esting, would be accomplished by contract, thus affording 
istricts more direct and timely control. 

(6) Regional perspective . This critical function 
:annot be effectively replaced. Although "lead districts" could 
)e designated for the various regions, they lack the necessary 

esources, rank or command authority. Under this option, the 
lembership and staff of such bodies as the Mississippi River 
:ommission (MRC) , International Joint Commission (IJC) and Board 
if Engineers for Rivers and Harbors (BERH) must be addressed. 

(7) Product quality . In that divisions add value to 
:he programming and budget processes , degradation in these 
products may be expected. Deviation in the quality of other 
iistrict products, if any, would likely be slight and of short 
iuration. 



28 



206 



(8) Processes . All processes in which divisions arc 
currently involved, particularly review, approval and reporting, 
could be significantly simplified and streamlined under the 
elimination option. This again assumes the avoidance of micro- 
management or added control structure at HQUSACE and/or 
OASA(CW) . 

(9) Staffing . The elimination option will require 
notably reduced staffing. Both manyears and numbers of personnel 
will be affected. The path which divisions now provide for 
civilian career progression and professional development will be 
lost. The shifting of functions to HQUSACE and districts may 
require some added staffing at those levels. 

(10) Command and control relationship s- This 
alternative significantly increases the span of control of the 
Corps headquarters; it is unlikely that HQUSACE, as currently 
organized, could provide effective command and control. ?. 
workable mechanism would have to be developed to minimize or 
avoid the impacts of duplicative or uncoordinated guidance. If 
not devised with exceptional caution, this mechanism could 
negate gains in other areas. Inspector General support to 
districts would be provided by HQUSACE. 

(11) Impacts on the headquarters . The greatest impact 
on the Corps headquarters would be command and control. Regional 
interests, concerns and requirements will continue and HQUSACE 
will require a means of dealing with these. The pool of 
experienced Corps personnel who have developed broader 
perspectives, and from which Corps headquarters traditionally 
recruits, will disappear. It is also likely that HQUSACE will 
become much more deeply involved in operational issues, 
particularly project-specific problems. 

(12) GO/SES supportabilitv /progress ion . This 
alternative can be supported with general officers (GO) and 
senior executives (SES) at expected future numbers. It would 
virtually eliminate traditional career paths for GO/SES within 
the Corps. An SES career path from district to HQUSACE will 
work; the broadening of perspectives will occur at HQUASCE 
rather than divisions. A more severe and irreplaceable breeik 
occurs in the career progression of Corps general officers. The 
elimination of divisions wipes out the majority of Corps of 
Engineers one-star GO requirements; over time, the promotion 
pyramid for Corps GO will become inverted and the two-star GO 
requirements of the Corps will become unsupportable. Under the 
elimination option, membership in such bodies as BERK and MRC 
must be addressed. 

(13) Other. The elimination of division headquarters 
reduces the number of positions and locations to which the Corps 
can recruit to achieve greater cultural balance and ethnic 
diversity. This could inhibit the success of the Corps • Equal 
Employment and Affirmative Action programs. It is also the 



29 



207 



aption whicn will demand the greatesr Corps commirmenT: to risk 
.Tianagement and under wnich the Corps will experience the loss of 
the greatest number of seasoned Corps professionals. 

4 . REGIONALIZATION 

a. Division Functions. The pure regionalization model is 
developed assuming the same numiaer of divisions as currently 
exist. Understanding that the ultimate form of regionalization 
IS the disappearance of districts as they are now known and the 
creation of ten "megadistricts" (now known as divisions) , one 
must first determine what constitutes a district and why 
districts would be retained in the Corps structure. Given these 
determinations, reflected in Chapter 4, the most effective 
disposition of division functions under the pure regionalization 
alternative is as follows: 

(1) Policy/program oversight . No change. 

(2) Technical review . No change. 

(3) Emergency Management . Regionalize. All planning 
for, and response to, natural disasters would occur at division 
Emergency Management centers . 

(4) Regulatory . No change. 

(5) Resource allocation . No change. 

(6) Programming/testimony . No change. 

(7) Water control . Reservoir regulation and flow 
control would be accomplished for the division area from a 
consolidated water control center. No capability to perform 
these functions would be retained at the district level. 

(8) Centralized functions . Most planning, engineering 
and real estate activities would be accomplished at regionalized 
centers. All human resources, internal review, contract audit, 
security, law enforcement, safety and value engineering support 
would be provided from the division. Many of the support 
activities of Counsel, Resource Management and Information 
Management would also be centralized. Specific activities to be 
regionalized are reflected in more detail at Figure 5. 

(9) Regional interface . No change. 

(10) District guidance and support . No change. 

b. District Functions. A high degree of regionalization 
drives considerable change in how districts accomplish their 
missions. The status of district functional accomplishment under 
the pure regionalization model is as follows: 



30 



208 



'1) Plan . The responsibility for, and managemenr of, 
planning products would reside at the district under the purview 
of Project Management. All technical aspects of the development 
of planning products would be accomplished at a (RTC) . 

(2) Design . Most design would be accomplished at a 



(3) Construct . No change. 

(4) Operate . No cnange. 

(5) Maintain . No change. 

(6) Regulate . No change. 

(7) Emergency management . Planning and conduct of 
emergency management would occur at a regional center. 

(8) Mobilization . Planning and conduct of 
mobilization support would occur at a regional center. 

(9) Support for others . The management of most 
activities in this category would be accomplished by a project 
manager at the district with technical support provided by the 
RTC. Some programs, such as military leasing or Homeowners 
Assistance Program (HAP) could be managed completely from the 
RTC. 

c. Structure. The manner in which divisions and districts 
might be organized under regionalization is reflected at Figures 
5 and 6 respectively. 

d. Impact assessment. 

(1) Management efficiency . The management of 
technical efforts, consolidated at RTCs, could become more 
efficient while the job of the project manager is likely to 
become more difficult. Assuming current processes to remain 
intact, there is little probability that significant management 
efficiencies will be gained with this alternative. 

(2) Flexibility . RTCs would be formed from the core 
of the technical workforces which exist at district level today. 
It can be reasonably assumed that the number of spaces assigned 
to a RTC will be less than the sum of the spaces which currently 
reside at the districts. The workload transferred to the RTC 
would be the same workload currently accomplished at the 
districts. If workload increases and delays in the new or 
current work are to be avoided, the RTC will increase staff or 
seek A-E or other consultant services. If workload decreases, 
the RTC will do more work in-house These means of accomodating 
workload variation already exist throughout the Corps. Some 
flexibility may be gained by the combination of fractions of 
unutilized manyears in some disciplines or the capability to 
share work among RTCs. Too, RTCs will overcome the 

31 



209 



z:. 
2 

a 

Z: 
< 

§1 

I" 5 
5i 

^1 

< 5 

X 
Z. 

o 
w. 

a 




32 



210 



z 
o 

ii 

O C3 



(0 




211 



lesser flexibility of districrs whose sraff size is too small to 
readily accomodate large worKload variations. Some flexibility 
gains may also be gleaned in the consolidation of administrative 
and support services. 

(3) Competence . Gains in competency through 
regionalization are likely to be most significant in those 
technical disciplines which exist in small numbers in many 
districts today. Examples might be electrical and mechanical 
engineers or architects. Where very small numbers exist there 
may be little or no capability for mentoring or timely 
development within the discipline. Greater numbers at a RTC 
could provide these. RTCs could also apply broader 
standardization of designs and other activities which might be 
viewed as enhanced competency. Opportunities for enhanced 
competency may be greater in the consolidation of administrative 
and support services. Large regional support centers (RSC) may 
offer an opportunity to develop and retain skills which 
currently experience high turnover due to relatively low grades 
and external opportunities. Examples would be voucher examiners, 
personnel specialists, etc. 

(4) Costs /savings . Once implemented, regionalization 
would yield considerable savings as a result of reduced staff. 
The creation and staffing of RTCs would generate significant 
short term costs. 

(5) Customer service . 

(a) External customers . Although the project 
manager remains in close proximity to the customer, the 
distancing of technical activities may be viewed as degraded 
service, particularly if the distancing results in delays or 
increased costs. A staunch commitment to timeliness and cost 
control could negate such customer perceptions. 

(b) Internal customers . Internal customers 
(district personnel) are likely to perceive a loss in service. 
Internal services and support could be provided at lower cost 
and with improvements due to economies of scale. As proven in 
the Corps' centralized pay operations, a commitment to reponsive 
and quality service can allay such perceptions. Similar quality 
support may be achieved in the technical areas, although project 
managers and others who must coordinate more detached support 
are likely to remain unconvinced. Regardless of commitment, one 
must understand the impact of distance on level of service for 
distance equals time and the loss of opportunity for face-to- 
face coordination. Some loss in both of these areas cannot be 
avoided under regionalization. 

(6) Regional perspective . No change. 

(7) Product quality . The Corps' products are not 
developed by people who spend all their time behind a drafting 
table or CADD unit. Much of the quality results from frequent 
site visits and coordination with customers, both external and 

34 



212 



Corps personnel who will operate completed projects. The 
frequency of these activites will decline with the advent of 
RTCs and some would argue that the consequent quality of the 
product will be less. 

(8) Processes . The creation of regional centers will 
force changes in current Corps processes, such as review, 
approval, reporting and budgeting. Although considerable 
turbulence will be encountered in the transition, workable 
alternatives will evolve over time. 

(9) Staffing . Manyear and personnel savings will be 
realized with the elimination of staff. This alternative has the 
potential for extensive personnel turbulence and the loss of a 
large number of seasoned Corps personnel. Whereas the workforce 
entry point for technical personnel is currently at the 
district, regionalization would shift the entry point to the 
RTC. The few technical personnel remaining in the district would 
have to be experienced generalists. Because promotion and 
development opportunities will exist largely at the RTCs, 
recruiting to district positions may become very difficult. 
Difficulty may also be encountered in recruiting sufficient 
interns to meet the needs at the fewer RTC locations. 

(10) Command and control relationships . The external 
spans of control of HQUSACE and the division headquarters would 
remain essentially unchanged. Internally, organizational 
management at the divisions will become more complex while that 
at the districts will be less complex. 

(11) Impacts on the headquarters . Regionalization 
will have little impact on the Corps headquarters. 

(12) GO/SES supportabilitv/ progress ion . The career 
paths and progression for GO and SES within the Corps would 
remain unchanged. With expected future authorizations for these 
grades, the pure regionalization model cannot be supported with 
sufficient GO or SES. Should a high degree of regionalization 
drive district commander grades to the lieutenant colonel level, 
the pool of command-experienced colonels from which the Corps' 
GO will be drawn will shrink significantly. 

(13) Other . Regionalization generates the greatest 
loss of seasoned Corps journeymen professionals. This option 
also diminishes the Corps' opportunity to enhance cultural 
balance and ethnic diversity through the application of its EO 
and AA programs. 

e. Location of technical and/or support centers. The 

supervision and location of RTCs and RSCs can be accomplished in 
a variety of ways. They could -be mandated by HQUSACE or left to 
the discretion of the division commander. Allowing division 
commanders latitude in this regard affords the best opportunity 
for addressing unique regional concerns. Each option will 
require considerable examination within each division. The 
options are: 

35 



213 



'1) At division or separate location, under division 
control. This selection is likely to provide balanced supporr to 
districts and maximize management efficiencies. It will create 
maximum personnel turbulence and incur the greatest costs. 

(2) At a district location, under division control. 
This selection maintains balanced support but with less cost and 
personnel turbulence. 

(3) At a distict location, under the control of a 
district commander. This selection will incur less cost than 
locating at division or a separate site. Perceptions of less 
balanced support may surface. 

(4) Fragmented to all districts in the division. 
This is the least desirable option. There would be little or no 
implementation cost. There would also be little or no savings 
and little, if any, gain in efficiency, effectiveness or 
flexibility. 

5. DECENTRALIZATION 

a. Division Functions. Understanding that the most 
extreme application of decentralization is the elimination of 
divisions, this conceptual model is developed assuming no change 
in the number of divisions. A critical assumption is that 
HQUSACE and division headquarters perform only policy and staff 
functions and program management as opposed to project manage- 
ment. The most effective disposition of division functions in 
the decentralization model is as follows: 

(1) Policy/program oversight . No change. 

(2) Technical review . Accomplished totally at 
districts. Rationale is the same as for elimination of 
divisions. A critical assumption inherent in this model is the 
elimination of technical review at all levels above division. 
Thus the continued need for the Washington Level Review Center 
(WLRC) must be addressed. The continued operation of WLRC as it 
currently functions will drive the continuation of technical 
review at all levels between it and districts and the potential 
gains of powering down this function will not be realized. 

(3) Emergency Management . Accomplished totally at 
district level. Analysis mirrors that for elimination of 
divisions. 

(4) Regulatory . Accomplished totally at district 
level. In some divisions, this would require returning some 
authorities to the districts. 

(5) Resource allocation . No change. 

(6) Programming/ testimony . No change. 



36 



214 



(7) Water conrrol . Accomplished totally at district 
level. In some divisions this would necessitate a change in 
current operations. A monitoring capability would be retained at 
the division so as to coordinate system-wide requirements. 
Addressal of existing laws in some regions would be required. 

(8) Centralized functions . The current Corps 
structure finds a wide variety of consolidations from division 
to division. Analysis mirrors that for elimination of 
divisions. 

(9) Regional interface . No change. 

(10) District guidance and support . Diminished with 
the reduction in staff. 

b. District Functions. The decentralization model 
generates some changes in how districts accomplish functions. 
Disposition of district functions under this alternative is as 
follows: 

(1) Plan . The technical review of planning products 
would be added to those planning functions already accomplished 
at district level. 

(2) Design . Technical review would be added to the 
functions already performed at the district. 

(3) Construct . No change. Quality control/quality 
assurance (QC/QA) activities would be performed only at the 
district level. 

(4) Operate . No change. 

(5) Maintain. No change. 

(6) Regulate . Some districts would have to resume 
authorities which currently reside at division level. 

(7) Emergencv management . Essentially unchanged. 

(8) Mobilization . No change. 

(9) Support for others . No change. 

c. Structure. The manner in which divisions and districts 
might be organized under decentralization is reflected at 
Figures 7 and 8 respectively. Although numbers of spaces have 
not been assigned, by definition, the number of personnel 
assigned to division headquarters will decrease while the number 
of personnel assigned to districts may increase slightly. 



37 



215 



O 

3 

Z: 

< 

CD 

og 

CO P 
< 2 

^ UJ 

Z. 

o 

CO 

> 

Q 



< 




^ 



Q 
Q 



a. 




38 



216 



O ^ 



M < 

< < 
Of 



g 






< 




Q 








!0| 






a. 



Q 



1^ 



39 



217 



d. Impact assessment. 

(1) Management: efficiency . Through the elimination of 
one or more layers, considerable management efficiencies can be 
gained in those functions which are decentralized. 

(2) Flexibility . Mo change. Analysis mirrors that for 
eliminarion of divisions. 

(3) Competence . Little, if any, long term change from 
current posture. Analysis mirrors that for elimination of 
divisions. Some competence which will be lost is that found in 
senior grade (GS13 thru 15) nonsupervisory reviewers at levels 
above district. Since similar grades cannot be justified at the 
district level, journeyman professionals who seek continued 
nonsupervisory advancement may migrate out of the Corps. 

(4) Costs/savings . Since direct funded spaces above 
district level would be reduced, savings in the GE and OMA 
appropriations would accrue. There is also potential for 
reducing billbacks. Depending again on how expanded functions at 
the district are instituted and managed, there could be an 
increase in costs billed to projects. As in the elimination 
model, these could be minimized or avoided. 

(5) Customer service . 

(a) External customers . As with the elimination 
option, if decentralization is pursued with total commitment, 
customers will perceive and realize enhanced service. 

(b) Internal customers . Same impact and analysis 
as for elimination of divisions. 

(6) Regional perspective . No change. 

(7) Product quality . Same impact and analysis as for 
elimination of divisions. 

(8) Processes . There will be no change in processes 
which are unaffected by decentralization, such as budgeting and 
reporting. Technical processes would be simplified considerably, 
with corresponding savings in time and cost. 

(9) Staffing . Moderate savings will be realized with 
the elimination of spaces at division and higher levels. 

(10) Command and control relationships . While this 
alternative would not change the overall span of control or 
command relationships within the Corps, the span of control 
within division headquarters would be simplified. As with the 
elimination option, savings and efficiencies gleaned from 
decentralization will be highly dependent on the Corps' 
commitment to accept a greater degree of risk management. 



40 



218 



(11) Impacts on the headquarters . The elimination of 
technical review at HQUSACE provides the opportunity for more 
timely and focused policy review and the savings associated with 
reduced staff. Streamlining in a variety of peripheral 
associated processes could also be achieved. 

(12) GO/SES supportabilitv /progression . The career 
paths and progression for GO and SES within the Corps would 
remain unchanged. Expected future authorizations for Corps GO 
and SES will not meet Corps requirements for this model if the 
current number of divisions is retained in the structure. 

(13) Other . Decentralization will generate the loss 
of a relatively small number of seasoned Corps professionals. 
However, it does offer the best opportunity to accept losses 
through attrition rather than reduction in force (RIF) . 

6 . REALIGNMENT 

a. Division Functions. Realignment assumes the redrawing 
of division boundaries and the retention of current Corps 
processes and practices. By definition, this alternative yields 
fewer division headquarters, each commanding more districts. The 
most extreme application of realignment is the elimination of 
divisions. Understanding that the impacts of realigning 
divisions may differ for different numbers of divisions, impact 
assessment is addressed for two ranges: five to seven divisions 
and two to four divisions. The disposition of division functions 
under realignment is as follows: 

(1) Policv/proqram oversight . No change. 

(2) Technical review . No change. 

(3) E^ergencv Management . No change. 

(4) Regulatorv . No change. 

(5) Resource allocation . No change. 

(6) Programming/ testimony . No change. 

(7) Water control . No change. 

(8) Centralized functions . No change. 

(9) Regional interface . No change. 

(10) District guidance and support . No change. 

b. District Functions. The disposition of district 
functions with the realignment of divisions, is as follows: 

(1) Plan . No change. 

(2) Design. No change. 

41 



219 

(3) Construcr . No change. 

(4) Operate . No change. 

(5) Maintain . No change. 

(6) Regulate. No change. 

(7) Emergency management . No change. 

(8) Mobilization . No change. 

(9) Support for others . No change. 

c. Stmcttire. The manner in which divisions and districts 
might be organized under division realignment is reflected at 
Figures 9 and 10 respectively. Because all else remains 
unchanged, there is little variation from current organization. 

d. Impact assessment. 

(1) Management efficiency . Given fewer divisions with 
which to deal, some slight improvement will be seen at the Corps 
headquarters. Since all other processes and practices remain 
unchanged, no additional management efficiencies will be 
realized. 

(2) Flexibilitv . In order to effectively supervise 
more districts, remaining divisions will undoubtedly require 
more staff. This slight increase in staff size may provide some 
added flexibility at division level. In the larger context of 
flexibility, however, few changes will be noted. 

(3) Competence . As with flexibility, a slight 
increase in division staffs may result in opportunities for 
enhanced mentoring, professional development and sharing good 
ideas. Realignment also offers the opportunity to expand 
standardization over larger areas. 

(4) Costs/savings . Savings would accrue in direct 
proportion to the number of divisions removed from the Corps 
structure. Closing division offices will bear considerable cost; 
once implemented, however, all costs currently associated with 
these offices will be avoided. Costs incurred by the remaining 
divisions will increase in proportion to any increase in staff 
size. 

(5) Customer service . 

(a) External customers . Little change in 
customer service is likely to occur or be perceived if remaining 
divisions number from five to seven. The retention of two to 
four divisions increases the risk of degrading customer service, 
particularly if divisions are not provided with adequate 
resources to effectively supervise a much larger number of 
districts. 

42 



220 



O 

< 

o 
o 

CO 

CC: 
lii 

J— 

< 

o 

Q 

a 



o 

CO 

> 

Q 






Q 



O 



Q 
Q 












Q 
U 

1 1 







43 



221 



!aii 


'si 


2! 


'-=^1 


^ui 


'F- 


2:; 


cc\ 


-11 




^1 


U 


■ 1 
! 1 


1 

1 











2;-. 

^ UJ 
2 CD 

< i 

OiS 
QC = 

Oo 
1^ 



a 






lOI 



lui 



Q 



Q 
Q 





44 



222 



b) .nternai cusroners . Same lapacr and analysis 
as for ex-cernai cusromers. 

(6) Regional perspective . With five to seven 
divisions, it is likely that necessary regional perspective can 
be accomodatea. With two to four divisions, regional perspective 
raay ce severely degraded or lost altogether. 

(7) Product quality . The quality of Corps products 
can likely be niaintained with five to seven divisions. 
Reductions beyond this level, from two to four, without 
investing in adequate division resources, could result in 
reduced product quality exacerbated by increases in time and 
cost. 

(8) Processes . Processes themselves remain 
unchanged with this option. HQUSACE will find it easier to 
manage processes with fewer divisions. Division process 
management will become more complex, particularly as the number 
of divisions declines. In the two to four range, division 
commander Congressional testimony may become unmanageable, 
budgeting and programming could become more difficult and 
considerable time could be lost in routine reporting and 
staffing processes. The retention of two to four divisions will 
require greater commitment to risk management and avoidance of 
the tendency to micromanage, 

(9) Staffing . Corps manyear and personnel 
requirements will decline in direct proportion to the number of 
divisions retained in the structure. 

(10) Command and control relationships . With any 
lesser number of divisions, HQUSACE span of control is reduced. 
In the five to seven range, divisions incur an increased but 
manageable span of control. In the two to four range, division 
span of control exceeds accepted management ratios and related 
inefficiencies can be expected. 

(11) Impacts on the headquarters . Beyond command and 
control considerations, there will be few impacts on the Corps 
headquarters. 

(12) GO/SES support abilitv/ progress ion . The retention 
of any number of divisions maintains traditional career paths 
for GO and SES within the Corps although the progression pyramid 
becomes narrower at the base. Corps requirements for GO under 
this option are probably supportable; supportability of SES 
requirements is more questionable. In the two to four range. 
Corps requirements for both GO and SES can likely be met with 
reduced future authorizations. As with the elimination option, 
realignment in the low range may not provide sufficient Corps 
one-star GO to feed two-star requirements. BERH membership would 
also have to be addressed at this range. 



45 



223 



(13) Other . The Corps' ability to enhance cultural 
-ance and ethnic diversity will decline as the number of 
/isions decreases. Similarly, loss of seasoned Corps 
3fessionals will increase as the number of divisions is 
iuced. 

e. Reaiignment of districts. 

The realignment of districts is an option which may also be 
nsidered. As with divisions, this would entail the redrawing 
district boundaries. By definition this would result in 
wer districts remaining in the Corps structure. A decision to 
align districts could be taken independent of, or in 
mbination with, other alternatives. For the purposes of this 
alysis it is considered independently and no change in current 
rps processes and practices is assumed. There is no change in 
ere functions are accomplished; the functions of a realigned 
strict are absorbed into those of another. The assessment of 
pacts is as follows: 

(1) Management efficiency . Management efficiencies 
-11 be achieved where a relatively small program and workload 
in be easily incorporated into those of a neighboring district. 
lere is a point of diminishing return which would be exceeded 
-th a large number of district realignments. 

(2) Flexibility . Gains in flexibility may be achieved 
1 low density disciplines or where less flexible organizations 
re realigned. 

(3) Competence . Impacts in this area will be similar 
3 those of the regionalization option, but on a much smaller 
::ale. 

(4) Costs/savings . Earlier studies have determined 
lat the average annual savings achieved in realigning districts 
3 relatively small; approximately $1 million per year per 
istrict. There are transition costs associated with district 
ealignments; these would increase relative to the nvunber of 
ealignments. 

(5) Customer service . 

(a) External customers . Customers, partners and 
he general public in a realigned geographic area will perceive 

loss of service. The perception will become reality if the 
bsorbing district does not provide equal attention and 
esponsiveness to these customers and partners. 

(b) Internal customers . Field personnel 
emaining in the realigned area will perceive a loss of service, 
.voidance of real loss of service will require a strong 
;ommitment to these personnel by the absorbing district. 

(6) Regional perspective . There is likely to be no 
:hange over the larger region (division area) ; there could be 

• 46 



224 



some cnanae in perspective regarding needs or concerns within 
rhe realigned geograpnic area. 

(7) Product quality . Increased distance from project 
and study areas could impact site specific considerations in 
planning, engineering, and operations products and services. 

(8) Processes . Processes would remain the same. Some 
localized disruption could result in the realigned area while 
the transition is effected. 

(9) Staffing . Fewer manyears and personnel would be 
required; staff needs will decline in direct proportion to the 
number of districts realigned. Personnel turbulence will 
increase as more districts realign. 

(10) Command and control relationships . A reduced 
division span of control would result. 

(11) Impacts on the headquarters . None. 

(12) GO/SES supportabilitv/ progress ion . No Change. 
The realignment of a large number of districts will eventually 
reduce the pool of command-experienced colonels from which Corps 
GO will be drawn. 

(13) Other . 

(a) To the majority of the Corps workforce, and 
those outside the Corps who know it well, district realignments 
represent the greatest and most threatening aspect of change. 
Because change is more acceptable when it does not threaten 
security and when it follows earlier successful change, 
realignment of districts will be more difficult to accomplish 
than any other reorganizational alternative. 

(b) As discussed in Chapter 3, districts provide 
the base of political support which the Corps enjoys. The 
disturbance created in that political base when district 
realignments are proposed has been recently experienced. It is 
likely that district realignments will continue to encounter 
strong political resistance. 



47- "fg 



225 

CHAPTER 6 
COMBINATION ALTERNATIVES 



1. GENERAL 

Three combination options are addressed in this chapter. 
These options were developed by assembling, in various 
configurations, the most positive aspects of the conceptual 
models. 



2. COMBINATION #1 - REALIGNMENT/REGIONALIZATION (Admin) / 
DECENTRALIZATION (Tech) 

a. Construction of the option. Principal components of 
this alternative include realignment of divisions, 
decentralization of technical functions and regionalization of 
administrative and support activities. Critical assumptions 
include the elimination of the technical review function and 
construction QC/QA activities at all levels above district, 
adoption of the process improvements addressed in Chapter 9 and 
the assignment of MILCON/HTRW work to all districts. 

b. Division Functions. The most effective disposition of 
division functions is as follows: 

(1) Policv/proqram oversight . No change. 

(2) Technical review . Accomplished totally at 
districts. 

(3) Emergency Management . Accomplished totally at 
district level. A monitoring and coordinating capability is 
retained at the division. 

(4) Regulatory . Accomplished totally at district 
level. Some districts would resume authorities currently 
residing with the division commander. No monitoring capability 
is retained at the division. 

(5) Resource allocation . No change. 

(6) Programming / testimony . No change. However, 
ASA(CW) and HQUSACE would work with appropriate Congressional 
committees to eliminate the requirement for division commander 
testimony. 

(7) Water control . Accomplished totally at district 
level. A monitoring and coordinating capability is retained at 
the division. Laws mandating unique circumstances such as MRT 
may need to be addressed. 



a^ 49 



226 



(8) Centralized funcrions . Functions or activities to 
accomplished in regional centers are reflected at Figure 10. 

(9) Regional interface . No change. 

(10) District guidance and support . No change. 

c. District Functions. Under Combination , the 
sposition of district functions is as follows: 

(1) Plan . The technical review of planning products 
aid be added to those planning functions already accomplished 

district level. 

(2) Design . Technical review would be added to the 
notions already performed at the district. 

(3) Construct . No change. A key assumption is the 
imination of QC/QA at levels above district. 

(4) Operate . No change. 

(5) Maintain . No change. 

(6) Regulate . Accomplished totally at district 
:vel. Some districts would resume authorities which currently 
iside at division level. No capability remains at division. 

(7) Emergency management . No change. 

(8) Mobilization . No change. 

(9) Support for others . No change. 

d. Structure. The manner in which divisions and districts 
ight be organized under Combination #1 is reflected at Figures 
1 and 12 respectively. 

e. Impact assessment. 

(1) Management efficiency . Significant gains achieved 
ith elimination of layered review and approvals and adoption of 
rocess improvements . 

(2) Flexibilitv . Slight, if any, improvement to be 
ained in technical areas. Some gains may be achieved in the 
upport areas. 

(3) Competence . Slight, if any, increase in technical 
reas. Some gains may be achieved in the support areas. 

(4) Costs/savings . Considerable direct savings in GE 
nd OMA funds with realignment of divisions; these savings grow 
ith fewer divisions. Additional savings result from 
ecentralization of technical review and adoption of process 
mprovements. Depending on how technical review is incorporated 

50 



227 



=*fe =; 




o i 




CD "o 




gi- 




O o 




O P 




5C < 




2-N 




O^ 




5° 




Sa 




25 




< € 




a «j 




5^2 




O o 






Q 


CO 5 

DC ^J 


LU < 




H c 




DC != 




< 5 




D o 




OS 




Q P 




< i?, 




lii ^ 




X 1 




S^^ 




Qs 




CO cc 




>? 




Q5 






U T T T T r T 



y 



Si 
fl-l 




Oil 



O 



51 



228 



< 

,.N 



IS 

> ill 
3 f 




ICUl 

!Q| 



Q'r- 



T T T T T 



< 



IE 

C < 



c ^ 

i ^ 

Z. o 



Q 






-H 



Ul 



— ,0 



Q 
Q 







52 



229 



at the district level, there could be some increase in direct 
project costs; these can ioe rninimized and unseen by the 
customer. There will be one-time costs associated with division 
realignments; these will grow in direct proportion to the number 
of realignments. 

(5) Customer service . 

(a) External customers . Customers, partners and 
the general public will perceive and realize enhanced service. 

(b) Internal customers . Internal customers will 
perceive a loss of service in the support areas, at least 
initially. Economies of scale, automation and some enhancements 
in flexibility and competence offer opportunities for improve- 
ments. 

(5) Regional perspective . No change if five to seven 
divisions retained. Degradation may occur if only two to four 
divisions are retained. 

(7) Product quality . With the retention of five to 
seven divisions, degradation of product quality, if any, is 
likely to be slight and of short duration. With the retention of 
only two to four divisions, programs and budgets could be 
affected. 

(8) Processes . The decentralization of technical 
activities and adoption of process improvements will 
significantly enhance Corps processes. With more support 
activities being accomplished at RSCs, reports from districts 
may also be simplified and reduced. 

(9) Staffing . Staffing requirements will be reduced 
at all levels in direct proportion to the number of division 
realignments. Realignments and support consolidations will 
result in moderate losses of seasoned Corps professionals; these 
losses will increase in direct proportion to the number of 
division realignments. 

(10) Command and control relationships . There will be 
no change in command relationships. HQUSACE span of control will 
be reduced. Division spans of control will be increased; assvun- 
ing no realignment of districts, they will remain manageable in 
the five to seven range but could become difficult in the two to 
four range. 

(11) Impacts on the headquarters . Broad opportunities 
exist for achieving significantly enhanced efficiency, effect- 
iveness and streamlining through elimination of technical review 
and reduced micromanagement. 

(12) GO/SES supportabilitv /progression . The GO 
requirements of a five to seven division structure can be met; 
SES requirements may be more difficult to fill. Adequate career 
ladders for both are maintained with this number of divisions. 

53 



72-424 0-94-9 



230 



;h the GO and SES needs of a two to four division structure 
-1 be met. Although career ladders for both are maintained, the 
dI of one-star GO may eventually shrink to a point which will 
; support Corps two-star needs. Membership of BERH must also 
addressed in this range. 

(13) Other . With reduced staff size and fewer 
cations to whicn to recruit, the Corps' ability to achieve 
eater cultural balance and ethnic diversity may be impacted. 

COMBINATION #2 - REALIGNMENT/REGIONALIZATION (Tech 6 Admin) 

a. Construction of the option. Principal components of 
is alternative include realignment of divisions and regionali- 

,tion of technical, administrative and support activities. This 
jtion does not automatically assume the adoption of process 
iprovements . 

b. Division Functions. The most effective disposition of 
.vision functions Combination #2 is as follows: 

(1) Policy/program oversight . No change. 

(2) Technical review . No change. 

(3) Emergencv Management . Regionalize. 

(4) Regulatorv . No change. 

(5) Resource allocation . No change. 

(6) Programming / test imonv . No change. 

(7) Water control . Regionalized. 

(8) Centralized functions . Most planning, engineering 
nd real estate activities would be accomplished at regionalized 
enters. All human resources, internal review, contract audit, 
ecurity, law enforcement, safety and value engineering support 
ould be provided from the division. Many of the support 
ctivities of Counsel, Resource Management and Information 
'.anagement would also be centralized. Specific activities to be 

egionalized are reflected in more detail at Figure 13. 

(9) Regional interface . No change. 

(10) District guidance and support . No change. 

c. District Functions. The disposition of district 
functions under Combination #2 is as follows: 

(1) Plan . Managed at the district level with 
regional technical support provided. 

(2) Design . Managed at the district level with 
regional technical support provided. 

54 



231 



3) Construcr . Mo change. 

(4) Operare . No change. 

(5) Maintain . No change. 

(6) Regulate . No change. 

(7) Emergency management . Regionalize. 

(8) Mobilization . Regionalize. 

(9) Support for others . The management of most 
activities in this category would be accomplished by a project 
manager at the district with technical support provided by the 
RTC. Some programs, such as military leasing or Homeowners 
Assistance Program (HAP) could be managed completely from the 
RTC. 

d. Structure. The manner in which divisions and districts 
might be organized under Combination #2 is reflected at Figures 
13 and 14 respectively. 

e. Impact assessment. 

(1) Management efficiency . The management of 
technical efforts, consolidated at RTCs, could become more 
efficient while the job of the project manager is likely to 
become more difficult. Assuming current processes to remain 
intact, there is little probability that significant management 
efficiencies will be gained with this alternative. 

(2) Flexibilitv . Some flexibility may be gained by 
the combination of fractions of unutilized manyears in some 
disciplines or the capability to share work among RTCs. Too, 
RTCs will overcome the lesser flexibility of districts whose 
staff size is too small to readily accomodate large workload 
fluctuations. Some flexibility gains may be gleaned in the 
consolidation of administrative and support services. 

(3) Competence . Gains in competency are likely to be 
most significant in those technical disciplines which exist in 
small numbers in many districts today. Greater numbers at a RTC 
could provide opportunities for increased mentoring and 
professional development. RTCs could also apply broader 
standardization of designs and other activities which might be 
viewed as increased competency. Opportunities for enhanced 
competency may also exist in the consolidation of administrative 
and support services. Large regional support centers (RSC) may 
offer an opportunity to develop and retain skills which 
currently experience high turnover due to relatively low grades 
and external opportunities. 

(4) Costs /savings . The creation and staffing of RTCs, 
along with division realignments, will generate significant 



55 



232 







o := 




T T T 



Q 



n 



Q 
Q 




Q 






56 



233 





-^ 2 E-t ^ 'U 

T V T V V 



CM < 




% oO 




o| 




m ^ 




2 z 




O g 




O *i 




"^ N 




Z =i 




Oi 




l~Q 




3s 


tu 


Z P 


Q 


^ UJ 




CD s 




CC 2 




o§ 




< 




h- UJ 




O '^ 




— Z 




DC o 




1- ^ 




0) > 








Q O 






234 



snorr term costs. Once inipiemenred , this alternative would yield 
consideraDle savings. 

(5) Customer service . 

(a) External customers . Although the project 
manager remains in close proximity to the customer, the 
distancing of technical activities may be viewed as degraded 
service, particularly if the distancing results in delays or 
increased costs. A staunch commitment to timeliness and cost 
control could negate such customer perceptions. Assuming the 
continuation of current Corps practices and processes, there may 
be little change in service to external customers. 

(b) Internal customers . Internal customers are 
likely to perceive a loss in service. Internal services and 
support could be provided at lower cost and with improvements 
due to economies of scale. A commitment to reponsive and quality 
service can allay such perceptions. Similar quality support may 
be achieved in the technical areas, although project managers 
and others who must coordinate more detached support are likely 
to remain unconvinced. The impacts of distance on level of 
service and lost opportunities for face-to-face coordination 
cannot be avoided under this alternative. 

(6) Regional perspective . The retention of five to 
seven divisions will yield no change, with two to four 
divisions, some degradation may occur. 

(7) Product quality . Reduced frequency of site visits 
and less direct coordination with customers which will accompany 
the advent of RTCs may impact product quality. These impacts 
could be exacerbated with only two to four divisions in the 
structure. 

(8) Processes . The creation of regional centers will 
force changes in current Corps processes, such as review, 
approval, reporting and budgeting. Although considerable 
turbulence will be encountered in the transition, workable 
alternatives will evolve over time. 

(9) Staffing . Manyear and personnel savings will be 
realized with the elimination of staff which results from both 
regionalization and realignment. This comJaination option creates 
the most extensive personnel turbulence and the greatest loss of 
seasoned Corps personnel, to include journeyman professionals. 
Because promotion and development opportunities will exist 
largely at the RTCs, recruiting to technical positions in the 
districts (journeyman and generalist) may become very difficult. 
Difficulty may also be encountered in recruiting sufficient 
interns to meet the needs at the fewer RTC locations. 

(10) Command and control relationships . Command 
relationships throughout the Corps will remain essentially 
unchanged. With fewer divisions, HQUSACE span of control will 
decrease. Assuming no district realignments, division external 

58 



235 



spans of conrrol will increase; rhese will be acceptable in the 
five to seven range out may become difficult m the two to four 
range. Internally, organizational management at the divisions 
will become more complex while that at the districts will be 
less complex. 

(11) Impacts on the headquarters . Beyond span of 
control, this alternative generates no impacts on the Corps 
headquarters . 

(12) GO/SES supportabilitv/ progress ion . The GO 
requirements of a five to seven division structure can be met; 
SES requirements may be more difficult to fill. Adequate career 
ladders for both are maintained with this number of divisions. 
Both the GO and SES needs of a two to four division structure 
can be met. Although career ladders for both are maintained, the 
pool of one-star GO may eventually shrink to a point which will 
not support Corps two-star needs. Membership of BERH must also 
be addressed in this range. Should a high degree of regional- 
ization drive district commander grades to the lieutenant 
colonel level, the pool of command-experienced colonels from 
which the Corps' GO will be drawn will shrink significantly. 

(13) Other . This alternative diminishes the Corps' 
opportunity to enhance cultural balance and ethnic diversity 
through the application of its EO and AA programs. Fewer 
divisions will magnify this impact. 

4. COMBINATION #3 - REALI6NMENT/REGI0NALIZATI0N (Admin) 

a. Construction of the option. Principal components of 
this alternative include realignment of divisions, decentral- 
ization of technical functions and regionalization of admini- 
strative and support activities. The primary difference between 
this option and Combination #1 is the retention of the technical 
review function at the division, i.e., one level of review. 
Critical assumptions include the elimination of technical review 
above division level, the elimination of construction QC/QA 
activities above district level and the adoption of process 
improvements . 

b. Division Functions. The most effective disposition of 
division functions is as follows: 

(1) Policy/program oversight . No change. 

(2) Technical review . No change. 

(3) Emergency Management . Accomplished totally at 
district level. A monitoring and coordinating capability is 
retained at the division. 

(4) Regulatorv . Accomplished totally at district 
level. Some districts would resume authorities currently 
residing with the division commander. No monitoring capability 
is retained at the division. 

59 



236 



(5) Resource allocarion . No change. 

(6) Programming /testimony . No change. However, 
ASA(CW) and HQUSACE would work, with appropriate Congressional 
commirtees to eliminate the requirement for division commander 
testimony. 

(7) Water control . Accomplished totally at district 
level. A monitoring and coordinating capability is retained at 
the division. Laws mandating unique circumstances such as MRT 
may need to be addressed. 

(8) Centralized functions . Functions or activities to 
be accomplished in regional centers are reflected at Figure 15. 

(9) Regional interface . No change. 

(10) District guidance and support . No change. 

c. District Functions. Under Combination #1, the 
disposition of district functions is as follows: 

(1) Plan . The technical review of planning products 
would be added to those planning functions already accomplished 
at district level. 

(2) Design . Technical review would be added to the 
functions already performed at the district. 

(3) Construct . No change. A key assumption is the 
elimination of QC/QA at levels above district. 

(4) Operate . No change. 

(5) Maintain . No change. 

(6) Regulate . Accomplished totally at district 
level. Some districts would resume authorities which currently 
reside at division level. No capability remains at division. 

(7) Emergency management . No change. 

(8) Mobilization . No change. 

(9) Support for others . No change. 

d. Structure. The manner in which divisions and districts 
might be organized under Combination #3 is reflected at Figures 
15 and 15 respectively. 

e. Impact assessment. 

(1) Management efficiency . Significant gains achieved 
with elimination of layered review and approvals (but less than 
Combination #1) and adoption of process improvements. 

60 



237 



CO 

O 
CO 

O 




as 



< 
o 
cc 
o 

CO 

GC 
UJ 

I- 

< 

o 

Q 

< 
lU 

X 

z 
o 

CO 

> 

Q 



o 
u 






o 



Q 
Q 




238 



CO E 

=**! E 

o< 
^^ 

o < 

O Q 

^ HI 

< s 

O < 




< 






^ 






Q 
U 



9g 

CC CO 

en o 



Q 
Q 



OS 






Q 



62 



239 



(2) Flexibility . Slight, if any, improvement to be 
gained in technical areas. Some gains may be achieved in the 
support areas. 

(3) Competence . Slight, if any, increase in technical 
areas. Some gains may be achieved in the support areas. 

(4) Costs/savings . Considerable direct savings in GE 
and OMA funds with realignment of divisions; these savings grow 
with fewer divisions. Additional savings result from decentrali- 
zation of technical review (but less than Combination #1) and 
adoption of process improvements. Depending on how technical 
review is incorporated at the district level, there could be 
some increase in direct project costs; these can be minimized 
and unseen by the customer. There will be one-time costs 
associated with division realignments; these will grow in direct 
proportion to the number of realignments. 

(5) Customer service . 

(a) External customers . Customers, partners and 
the general public will perceive and realize enhanced service. 

(b) Internal customers . Internal customers will 
perceive a loss of service in the support areas, at least 
initially. Economies of scale, automation and some enhancements 
in flexibility and competence offer opportunities for improve- 
ments . 

(6) Regional perspective . No change if five to seven 
divisions retained. Degradation may occur if only two to four 
divisions are retained. 

(7) Product quality . With the retention of five to 
seven divisions, little, if any, degradation of product quality 
is likely to occur. With the retention of only two to four 
divisions, technical products, programs and budgets could be 
affected. 

(8) Processes . The decentralization of technical 
activities and adoption of process improvements will 
significantly enhance Corps processes. With more support 
activities being accomplished at RSCs, reports from districts 
may also be simplified and reduced. 

(9) Staffing . Staffing requirements will be reduced 
at all levels in direct proportion to the number of division 
realignments. Realignments and support consolidations will 
result in moderate losses of seasoned Corps professionals; these 
losses will increase in direct proportion to the nvimber of 
division realignments. 

(10) Command and control relationships . There will be 
no change in command relationships. HQUSACE span of control will 
be reduced. Division spans of control will be increased; 
assuming no realignment of districts, they will remain 

63 



240 



manageable in the five to seven range but could become difficult 
in the two to four range. 

(11) Impacts on the headquarters . Broad opportunities 
exist for achieving significantly enhanced efficiency, effect- 
iveness and streamlining through elimination of technical review 
and reduced micromanagement. 

(12) GO / SES support abi 1 itv / progress ion . The GO 
requirements of a five to seven division structure can be met; 
SES requirements may be more difficult to fill. Adequate career 
ladders for both are maintained with this number of divisions. 
Both the GO and SES needs of a two to four division structure 
can be met. Although career ladders for both are maintained, the 
pool of one-star GO may eventually shrink to a point which will 
not support Corps two-star needs. Membership of BERH must also 
be addressed in this range. 

(13) Other . With reduced staff size and fewer 
locations to which to recruit, the Corps' ability to achieve 
greater cultural balance and ethnic diversity may be impacted. 



64 



241 

CHAPTER? 
HQUSACE ORGANIZATION 



1. GENERAL 

a. Attempting to effect real, effective and lasting 
change in the bottom portions of an organization without a 
corresponding and equally strong commitment to change at the top 
dooms the attempt to failure. The analysis of alternative 
division and district structures and functions leads one 
logically to a similar analysis of the Corps headquarters. 

b. As a result of anticipated GE and OMA funding levels 
for FY 93 and beyond, HQUSACE must affect some change internal 
to the headquarters and some which affects at least division 
headquarters. Implemented wisely, it can set the tone and 
commitment for the change which must occur throughout the 
remainder of the Corps. 

c. This chapter addresses a structural approach to 
affecting change within HQUSACE. Process approaches are 
addressed in Chapter 9 . 

2. FUKCTIONS OF THE HEADQUARTERS 

Just as divisions and districts are defined by, and 
organized to accomplish, specific functions, so too is the 
headquarters. An effective organization cannot be constructed 
without an understanding of its functions. Stated in most basic 
terms, the functions of the Corps headquarters are: 

a. Policy oversight. 

b. Executive direction and management. 

c. Program development and management. 

d. Legislative coordination. 
3. CURREKT HEADQUARTERS STRUCTURE 

a. The current structure of the headquarters reflects an 
early intent to organize programmatically. Given the functions 
it serves, a programmatic structure is prudent. However, the 
current structure also reflects that commitment to the early 
intent was not fully prosecuted. The result is a mix of 
programmatic, functional and special focus elements. 

b. In large measure, the current structure of the 
headquarters has ownership of current Corps processes and 
practices. Retention of the current organization will drive 
retention of existing procedures and practices; even if some are 

65 



242 



eiiminared in the shorr term, they will be regrown m the long 
term. Consequently, no effective or lasting change will occur in 
the Corps as long as the current structure is maintained. 

4 . ALTERNATIVE HEADQUARTERS STRUCTURE 

An alternative structure for the headquarters is offered at 
Figure 17. Kf=^' aspects and considerations to this organization 
are as folic : 

a. The organization embodies a manageable and efficient 
internal span of control. 

b. The organization invites balanced input as pertains to 
the products and services which the Corps provides. 

c. The Programs Management Directorate provides clear 
focus on the major program functions of the headquarters. This 
directorate would accomplish program development and management, 
legislative coordination, oversight for policy established by 
ASA(CW) and ASA(ILE) and some aspects of executive direction and 
management. HQUSACE Project Review Boards would be conducted by 
this directorate. This organization would be particularly 
appropriate to the decentralization of the MILCON and HTRW 
missions as discussed in Chapter 8. 

d. The Technical Management Directorate serves the needs 
of the Corps in providing the leaders which the technical 
"stovepipes" seek without duplication of structure or effort. 
This directorate would provide executive direction and 
management as pertains to technical matters, establish policy 
guidance (as opposed to detailed implementation guidance) in 
technical matters and accomplish some aspects of policy 
oversight. 

e. The organization of support elements addressed in 
Chapter 4 can be applied with equal effectiveness in the 
headquarters. The Directorate of Administrative Support serves 
the needs of the Corps in providing the leaders which the 
administrative and support "stovepipes" seek. This directorate 
would provide executive direction and management in 
administrative and support matters, establish policy guidance 
(as opposed to detailed implementation guidance) in 
administrative and support matters and accomplish some aspects 
of policy oversight. 

f. A single office should have sole responsibility for 
the issuance of all documents and correspondence, regardless of 
source, from the headquarters. The Information Management 
Division of the Directorate of Administrative Support may be a 
likely candidate. 

g. A single office should have sole responsibility for 
the development of environmental policy and guidance. The 
Engineering Division of the Technical Management Directorate may 
be a likely candidate. 

66 



243 





cr 


o 


< QC 




UJ 


0. 


O Ol 


^1 

Ol 


CQ 


^ 


CQ O 








DC 








DC 








O 








2 








o 








1- 








UJ 






L 


o 






u. 


< 






tu 


Ui 






X 


13 






u 


o 








I 










244 



h. Remembering rhar the key funcrions of the headquarters 
are or a policy and program nature, and that work will grow to 
meet the staff and time available, minimalization should be a 
design criteria for every element of the organization. 

i. No element in the headquarters should bear a title 
which includes the term "Project Management." 



68 



245 

CHAPTERS 
MILCON/HTRW ASSIGNMENT 



1. GENERAL 

Current Corps practice is to assign military construction 
(MILCON) and hazardous, toxic and radiologic waste (HTRW) 
missions only to selected districts. In the MILCON arean, such 
assignment is thought to enhance cost control and customer 
service. In the HTRW area, such assignment is thought to be 
necessary due to the complex nature of the work. As the Corps 
contemplates alterations to its structure, it is appropriate, 
even necessary, to reexamine how MILCON and HTRW might best be 
assigned. 

2. ASSIGNMENT OF MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

a. Arcmments for continued centralization . 

(1) With the downsizing of the military services, and 
after the BRAC process is complete, there will be fewer active 
military bases requiring MILCON support. 

(2) The MILCON mission requires a dedicated staff 
with a sense of urgency which differs significantly from that 
required for civil works. 

(3) Centralized MILCON can capture cost savings 
resulting from economies of scale. 

(4) Not all districts possess the charging discipline 
or funds control integrity required to successfully manage 
MILCON . 

(5) MILCON requires close supervision by HQUSACE. 
This is more easily accomplished with fewer districts being 
given the MILCON mission. 

(6) Some military customers prefer a single Corps 
element do all their work. 

b. Arguments for decentralization . 

(1) In addition to active Army and Air Force com- 
mands, the Corps' military customers include the reserve com- 
ponents of these services. By virtue of size alone, the reserve 
components will provide a greater proportion of the future 
MILCON workload. Both the Reserve and Guard, who are demanding 
greater service and responsiveness, now have the option of get- 
ting MILCON support outside the Corps. Responsiveness to both 
active ahd reserve components could be enhanced if more 
districts provided MILCON support. Several reserve component 

69 



246 



reserve component, commands have already requested that support 
be provided by geograpnicaily closer districts. At a time when 
the Corps' MILCON mission is being challenged in the Defense 
Management Review process, such a shift may be wise. 

(2) The trend appears to be toward smaller, less 
complex future military projects. Thus districts providing 
MILCON will require smaller, less specialized staffs. More, if 
not most, existing districts already possess the skills required 
to successfully manage these essentially maintenance and 
rehabilitation type jobs. 

(3) Military customers demand a considerable amount 
of the district commander's time. In districts with large 
military workloads, this impact is considerable. If more 
district commanders were responsible for MILCON, all district 
commanders could more equitably allot time and attention to both 
the civil works and military missions. 

(4) Centralized F&A operations, which divisions have 
already adopted to varying degrees, can effectively and 
economically accomplish the necessary accounting for multiple 
district MILCON assignment. CEFMS and PROMIS, which offer even 
greater potential for enhanced cost control , will further 
support multiple district MILCON assignments. 

(5) The staffs of Directors of Engineering and 
Housing (DEH) and Base Engineers (BE) continue to decline in 
size and capability as the military services absorb funding cuts 
and reduced manpower. The DEHs and BEs are turning more and more 
to the Corps for expanded services. Increasing the number of 
districts which would provide the expanded support is a means of 
accomodating this demand without significant staffing up. 

(6) With all districts assigned the MILCON mission, 
the MILCON and civil works boundaries of divisions and districts 
draw much closer together (ideally coincide) and become more 
understandable to the many agencies and customers with whom the 
Corps deals. 

(7) Districts which are currently assigned both 
missions enjoy a synergy in technical areas and a flexibility 
for absorbing workload fluctuations which are not available to 
districts with only a civil works mission. MILCON assignment to 
all districts would allow these desirable impacts to be gained 
throughout the Corps. 

(8) The trend to more reimbursable type work 
heightens customer desire for a closer, more responsive support 
provider. This trend also reduces the need for unique 
accounting. 

(9) The added diversity of work can provide broadened 
opportunities for the professional development of technical 
personnel in all districts of the Corps. 



70 



247 



3. ASSIGNMENT OF HTRW WORK 

a. Arguments for continued centralization . 

(1) A Corps HTRW design center, which boasts 
considerable expertise, has already been established. 

(2) Some HTRW problems are so complex that the design 
solution requires highly specialized skills. The Corps cannot 
afford to build this capability in every district. 

b. Arguments for decentralization . 

(1) Although some HTRW problems are highly complex 
and require sophisticated design solutions, the large majority 
are considerably less complicated than generally perceived. 
Most, if not all, districts already possess the engineering and 
construction capabilities to manage most HTRW projects. A 
relatively small Corps HTRW design center could be maintained 
for problems requiring highly sophisticated design solutions. 

(2) Environmental work, to include HTRW, is growing 
rapidly. This growth will soon surpass the Corps' ability to 
keep pace. The required involvement of a Corps or division 
center in most HTRW issues will add unnecessary time and cost to 
these projects. 

(3) One of the most complicated aspects of HTRW 
projects is knowledge and conformance with federal and state 
laws and policies, local government ordinances, etc. Districts, 
as a result of constructing and operating current projects, are 
already familiar with the state and local requirements, as well 
as the federal laws. 

(4) Also as a result of constructing and operating 
current projects, districts have beeen required to become 
knowledgeable of the technical aspects of HTRW issues involved 
in these projects. Most, if not all, districts have had the 
foresight to ensure the HTRW training of technical personnel. 

(5) A growing number of potential projects in the 
Support for Others arena include environmental/HTRW issues. The 
added cost and time generated by a requirement for mandatory 
consultation with a Corps or division center may drive potential 
SFO customers to seek support elsewhere. 

4. SUMMARY 

Arguments traditionally used to support centralized 
assignment of MILCON and HTRW should be more closely examined. 
There are strong and effective arguments for aligning the Corps 
for the future by providing essentially uniform capabilities 
throughout the Corps organization. Flexibility can be given to 
division commanders for managing costs and specific assignments 
within division boundaries. 



ii-nly 



248 

CHAPTER 9 
PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS 



1 . GENERAL 



a. Neither process nor structure exists independent of 
the other. This is particularly true in the Corps, where process 
is closely knitted to structure. Although process examination 
was not within the stated charter of the TF, it became evident 
in the course of analysis that some process change will 
automatically accompany structural change. Other processes were 
identified which beg examination for future utility. 

b. Some management experts will suggest that structural 
and process changes should not be implemented simultaneously; 
this theory surmises that simultaneous implementation precludes 
identification of those changes which achieved the desired 
results. If the Corps had the luxury of addressing change in a 
laboratory environment, this theory could be applied. However, 
the Corps is not afforded this luxury and must ever remember 
that change is more acceptable when it is planned than when it 
is experimental. Consequently, the processes identified in the 
next paragraph must be seriously considered for implementation 
in conjunction with structural change. 

2. OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT 

Processes, practices and considerations offered as 
opportunities to improve and support organizational change are: 

a. Manpower allocation. The allocation of Full Time 
Equivalents (FTE) is an artificial process which consumes 
considerable effort, time and cost, often generating management 
actions which are disruptive to both workload and workforce. The 
goal of the Corps should be managing workforce to budget. Any 
discipline which the system may require should be provided by 
division headquarters on a case-by-case basis. 

b. Mandatory centers of expertise (MCX) . MCX result from 
two phenomena: the assumption of new and complex work or a 
desire to maintain an organization which is no longer justified 
by workload. The former are often needed to develop parameters 
for new work. Such MCX should be established with sunset dates 
and a clear objective which defines completion of the 
transition. Without such foresight these centers will become the 
latter. The latter are already inefficient and beg elimination. 
A disciplined review of MCX, to include laboratories, data 
collection organizations, study centers, etc., should be 
accomplished. 

c. o&M budgeting and allocation. The current process was 
designed essentially to improve the Corps' annual obligation and 
expenditure rates in the O&M appropriation. It accomplished 
these objectives, but is extremely labor-intensive, has not kept 

H^ 73 



249 



pace with latest fiscal procedures and often impacts ability to 
achieve goals m other areas, such as small and disadvantaged 
business (8a) programs. This process should be reviewed with an 
eye to conforming to the Annual Operating Budget (AOB) process. 

d. Project reporting. The current procedure of reporting 
all projects in the project management system consumes excess: "e 
time and resources and invites micrcmanagement. Districts sho d 
be required to report (in Project Executive Summaries (PES)) .:o 
divisions only those pro;jects requiring assistance or issue 
resolution above district level. Similarly, divisions should be 
required to report to HQUSACE (in PES) only those projects 
requiring assistance or issue resolution above division level. 
Such a process would save time, both in reporting and the 
conduct of PRBs, and avoid the creation of issues where none 
previously existed. 

e. Standard organizations. Headquarters guidance on the 
organization of divisions and districts currently exists in ER" 
10-1-3 . This guidance is extremely broad and its application 
appears to be somewhat undisciplined. The result is a wide range 
of dissimilar organizations throughout the Corps which defy 
standardization and often encompass considerable inefficiencies. 
A disciplined system which defines standardization to the branch 
level at districts is achievable, manageable and promising of 
considerable savings and efficiencies. 

f . Centralized accounts (billbacks) . The current 
billback process begs discipline. At a time when districts are 
striving for effective fiscal management and accountability, 
billbacks, into which they have no input and over which they 
have no control, are received three to five months into the 
budget year. Such a process defies AOBs. A disciplined system 
which has zero billbacks as a goal and which provides bills 
several months before the start of the budget year is clearly 
required. 

g. Classification guidelines. Untold effort is expended 
at districts in attempting to achieve equitable grade levels for 
many positions which are unique to the Corps. This results, in 
part, from the lack or obsolescence of realistic classification 
guidelines. Current guidelines, developed in conjunction with 
the Office of Personnel Management (0PM) , will allow more 
equitable grade determination, effective system discipline and 
the avoidance of considerable effort. 

h. Policy and guidance changes. Changes in policy and 
guidance which affect the requirements for technical products 
are often implemented without "grandfathering" considerations 
for those products which are already in the review and approval 
process. This frequently requires products in process to be 
returned to the source for conformance with the new guidance, 
often several times. The results are extensive delays and 
additional costs which frustrate originators, generate 
unanticipated costs to partners and contribute to the oft-stated 



74 



250 



belief that "the Corps cakes too long and is too expensive." 
Every policy and guidance change snouid include adequate 
grandfathering . 

i. Civil Works approval authorities. Local Cooperation 
Agreements (LCA) and Feasibility Study Cost. Sharing Agreements 
(FSCSA) , although essenrially boilerplate formats, require 
OASA(CW) approval, often several times (draft and final). Some 
require ASA(CW) execution. This process generates extensive and 
costly review, comment and requiremenrs to revise at every level 
of the Corps; ever growing requirements for accompanying or 
preapproved technical documents exacerbate the impacts. 
Generally, the authority for approving and executing these 
agreements should reside with the district commander. It is 
understood that ASA(CW) maintains interest in projects with 
significant dollar value or unique political considerations. 
Criteria to define such projects could be easily developed. 

j. Career management screening processes ( SKAP/ ACCESS ) . 
These systems, with associated panels and ratings, consume 
considerable time and generate considerable costs. Too, they 
require considerable dedicated manpower at HQUSACE. Allowing all 
screening to be accomplished at the selecting level is a not 
unreasonable alternative; it can be accomplished in this manner 
as easily, rapidly and effectively with considerably lesB cost. 

k. Meeting and conference management. Innumerable annual 
meetings and conferences, generally functionally oriented, are 
held across the Corps. Typically, the dates for such events are 
not established sufficiently in advance to consider in budget 
development. Some of these are necessary, some are beneficial 
but less critical and the frequency of others could be extended 
considerably with no impact on Corps efficiency or 
effectiveness. A process for meeting management which provides 
fiscal year meeting schedules early in the previous fiscal year 
would yield significant cost savings and avoid disruption in 
workload planning. 

1. Quick reaction warranty capability. In both civil 
works and military programs, completed projects sometimes fail 
to operate as required. In some instances, the capability or 
funding to immediately correct the problem does not exist; 
before corrective action can be taken, exhaustive and time- 
consuming reviews for possible design deficiency, A-E liability, 
etc., are required. The customer cares not where the fault lies; 
he/she simply wants an operable facility. If the Corps is to be 
truly committed to customer service, a capability for immediate 
correction of such occurrences is required. 

m. Macromanagement versus micromanagement. A plethora of 
Engineer Regulations (ER) and guidance or policy letters detail 
what is to be done and how it will be done. Some of these are an 
attempt to establish standards; others are an attempt to 
preclude identified problems from recurring. These detailed 
requirements become hurdles which must be negotiated in the 
review and approval process, often generating increased costs 

75 



251 



and time without adding value to the product. Some serve as a 
substitute for leadership involvement in problem resolution, 
iidance from HQUSACE should be policy oriented, refrain from 
aetailed "how to" direction, and be organized and published in 
such a manner as to be easily referenced. To this end, a "scrub" 
of existing ER and guidance letters, with an eye to eliminating 
as much unneeded direction as possible, would be appropriate. 



76 



252 

CHAPTER 10 
NATIONAL CENTERS 



1 . GENERAL 



Workload in some traditional areas has declined signifi- 
cantly and workload in some new areas may not reach a level 
which would justify Corps-wide capabilities. Both circumstances 
may justify, in fact invite, the retention of only one corps 
center for each of a number of activities. Such activities are 
considered here. 

2. SINGLE CENTER OPPORTUNITIES 

a. Centralized payroll 

In 1966 the Corps consolidated payroll activities into 
two centrally located sites within the Missouri River Division, 
with Kansas City processing payrolls for all Corps divisions in 
the southern half of the nation and Omaha accommodating the 
northern half. This operation has been efficient and effective. 
At a minimum, the current organization should be continued; 
closer examination might be given to the advisability of 
creating a single payroll center. 

b. Corps national finance center 

(1) Given the current downsizing in DOD, the initial 
approach of capitalization of all DOD Finance and Accounting 
Resources by DFAS defined in DMRD 910 and the temporary deferral 
received by USAGE, the establishment of one Corps Finance and 
Accounting Center might be pursued. 

(2) It is imperative that local commanders, who are 
allocated funds, be assured of retaining managerial accounting 
capability and provided timely, quality responsive service in 
all finance and accounting activities. Paramount to holding a 
commander accountable and responsible for funds is the ability 
to support the unique requirements peculiar to that appropria- 
tion. Since the Corps is the only DOD agency having responsi- 
bility for the civil works appropriations it follows that it is 
the most knowledgeable in accounting for those funds. These 
appropriations have certain features that are unique, i.e. cost 
sharing, hydro-power accounting, asset capitalization and 
income, and require a comprehensive detailed cost accounting 
system unparalleled in other DOD appropriations. 

(3) The establishment of one finance and accounting 
center for the Corps appears to be the best opportunity for 
retaining the required capability. Establishment of one center 
would be an indication of intent to provide the service by the 
most economical means, an expression of good faith by the Corps, 



77 



253 



id maybe the only chance to ensure district/division commanders 
aceive appropriate financial advice, administrarion, support 
or civil works appropriations. 

c. Chemical demilitarization center 

In accordance with plans developed in the 1970 's and 
ongressional direction in the DOD Authorization Act of 1986, 
he army will develop, design, construct and operate multiple 
ighly specialized disposal facilities to accomplish the 
-cologically safe disposal of chemical munitions. Full scale 
lemilitarization will be accomplished at eight disposal systems 
.ocated at selected continental United States (CONUS) sites and 
;t Johnson Atoll in the Pacific. The limited geographic 
ipplication of this program, coupled with sophisticated design 
ind operational requirements, fully justifies the centralized 
management of the Chemical Demilitarization Program. 

d. Hydropower design center 

Workload in designing federal hydropower facilities has 
declined. Much of the work now involves rehabilitation or major 
maintenance items. Given administration policy and the growth 
Df non-federal hydropower projects, the retention of a single 
nydropower design center is warranted. 

e. Hospital design center 

The design and construction of military hospitals is a 
relatively low density activity which mandates certain 
specialized skills. Given these parameters, serious 
consideration should be given to designating a single center for 
the design of such facilities. The responsibility for 
construction management of such projects could be retained by 
the geographic district with support from the design center. 

f . Sophisticated HTRW design 

Although most HTRW work can be accomplished in 
districts, there will be some cases where sheer magnitude or 
technical complexity will demand highly specialized skills. A 
single center which maintains such capabilities is warranted and 
desirable. Criteria should be developed which would specify the 
projects or issues in which the involvement of this center would 
be required. 



78 



254 



DECISION PATH II 
INTRODUCTION 

After more than two years of conrinuai Corps of Engineers 
studies and efforts to prepare an effecrive field reorganization 
plan for the Corps of Engineers ( see Appendix ? ) , a group of 
senior Corps and Army officials met in a series of workshops at 
the Pentagon to create such a plan. These meetings began late in 
August 1992 and exrended into late October. 

To create a complete plan, the participants in these 
workshops had to consider and make recommendations in the 
following seven major areas: 

A. The review and definition of major conceptual 
alternatives . 

B. The review and definition of criteria on which to base 
selection of a preferred conceptual alternative. 

C. Selection of a preferred conceptual alternative through 
the use of a computerized decision support system to facilitate 
making and recording the selection. 

E. Decisions on the numbers of divisions, the nature and 
location of division boundaries, and the numbers of district 
engineering centers. 

F. The definition and approval of the criteria and rating 
systems to be used for office site selection. 

G. The selection of Division Headquarters office locations. 
H. The selection of District Engineering Center locations 
I. The selection of Admin Center locations 

J. The selection of Centers of Expertise locations. 

SELECTING A MAJOR ALTERNATIVE 

The initial work in defining major reorganization 
alternatives was performed by the Bay ley Task Force in 1990. 
This group created a set of 6 major alternatives which served as 
the building blocks for all future alternative development. 
These 6 alternatives were: 

1. Base Case 

2. Realignment 

3. Regionallzation 

4. Decentralization 

5. Elimination of Divisions 

6 . Combination 

The Bayley Task Force also identified 3 fundamental criteria 
against which to judge any major alternative, to which one 
further criterion was presented in congressional testimony by the 
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. These 4 
fundamental criteria are: 



255 



Cosr Efficiency 
Flexibility Enhancing 
Competence Maintaining 
Management Efficiency 

THE SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVE 
The workshop participants were thoroughly briefed on the 
various Bayley alternatives as developed by the Genetti Task 
Force (plus the 3 combination alternatives it developed), and 
several variations of the Genetti Task Force combination 
alternatives as modified by HQUSACE. After discussions extending 
over several days, all participants agreed that the Genetti 
Combination Alternatives and the HQUSACE alternatives were 
superior to the Base Case ( considered wholly unacceptable ) as 
well as the other "pure" Bayley alternatives. 

Two of the 3 Genetti Combination Alternatives (#1 & #3) 
called for maintaining all current technical functions in all 
existing districts. Because the workshop participants believed 
it was essential to consolidate and strengthen at least the 
Corps's planning and engineering functions into fewer locations, 
these two Combination Alternatives were also removed from fxirther 
consideration . 

The other Genetti Combination Alternative ( #2 ) was a full 
Regionallzation option. Although the Genetti Report was not 
explicit on this point, most readers of the report inferred that 
this Combination Alternative assumed that all existing 10 CONUS 
Divisions would be kept open. Because of this, the workshop 
participants removed Genetti Combination Alternative #2 from 
further consideration in favor of HQ Combination #1 (which was 
essentially the Genetti Combination Alternative #2 with an 
assumed number of 5-6 Divisions rather than 10). 

Thus, the workshop participants selected 3 combination 
alternatives for detailed final consideration. These 3 major 
combination alternatives selected for detailed rating were 
referred to in the workshops as : 1 ) Headquarters Combination #3 , 
2 ) Headquarters Option 3 , and 3 ) Elimination of Divisions with 
Robust/Operating Districts. Figure ? Is a schematic 
representation of these three final alternatives. 



256 






iVMCMia il Gtir MUMI 



'" ""it©' 



»1 «2 



AC MMREI 



•«ayi 






amiie 

.wy 



tiaa'BBCIB* GAll^ kOC 






257 



'-REE -SACE HEADQUARTE=.S 
IGiGNAL I :aT ION iLTERNAT I VfW-i 

HI. HQJSACE ' X»«n 

UTERNAIIVES -. ^^ 

;e»lign to :-6 oiv i/Artviw^ ^ , j i -,r 



(NO SPT FUNCTIONS 

:;giqnai izEn 




DIVISION 
FUU FUMCTIOD 




36 



I0BU3TI 

0I3T I loist 

' — OPERATING 
DISTRICT 

orciATiONi 

lEGUlATOIT 
NO mUHIlT 



n 



REGIONAL 
CENTER 
tr\t 

ruiiaiiis 
EMCiaiEliaG 

CMItlUCIION 
CM1IACTIHS 
lEAl ESTATE 
Mil HUT 



DISTRICT 
18-U TIIH 
Al li 
FUICIIONI, 

met NiiiHTir 




258 



The workshop participants rated the three final conceptual 
alternatives against the 4 fundamental criteria wnich had been 
puDlicly announced and presented in testimony to the Congress 
early in 1992. These criteria were: 1) Management 
Effectiveness, 2) Cost Efficiency, 3) Flexibility Enhancing, and 
4) Competence Maintaining. See Figure ? for the detailed 
definitions of these criteria, as approved by the workshop 
participants . 



259 

SELECTION CRITERIA 
(REORGANIZATION PRINCIPLES) 



CRITERIA/PRINCIPLE 
COST EFFECTIVENESS 



COMPETENCY ENHANCING 



FLEXIBILITY ENHANCING 



MANAGEMENT 

EFFECTIVENESS 



INDICATORS 

Overhead cosrs 
Span of control 
Duplication of effort 
Speed of product delivery 
Product cost 

Size of work units 
Variety of related work 
Opportunities to train 
Established/vital career paths 
Available pool of candidates 

Size of work force 

Variety of work 

Opportunities to train 

Clear & adaptable work processes 

Enough work to retain a 

skilled & experienced staff 

Number of organizational layers 

Conaistency of policy 

Speed of upward & downward conuno 

Product quality 

Individual accountability 



260 



Headquarrers Combmarion 43 was a variation of the Bayiey 
Regionaiizarion Option. Its main components inciuded: 1) a 
reduction xn the numoer of Divisions to 5-6, 2) the creation of 
10-12 Regional Centers performing nearly ail technical and 
administrative functions under the direction of a Division, and 

3) The establishment of all districts as operations and 
regulatory districts. 

Headquarters Option 3 was an alternative whose main 
components included: 1) a reduction in the number of Divisions 
to 5-6, 2) the creation of 12-15 District Engineering Centers 
performing all planning and engineering functions, 3) the 
maintenance of all operations, regulatory, program/project 
management, and construction functions in all existing districts, 

4) the elimination of all technical and policy review at division 
offices by transferring division technical review responsibility 
and positions to district engineering centers and by transferring 
division policy review responsibility and positions to the 
Washington Level Review Center, and 5) the creation of 5-6 
administrative centers. 

The Elimination of Divisions (with Robust/Operating 
Districts) alternative was a variation of the Bayiey "Elimination 
of Divisions" option. Its main components included: 1) The 
elimination of all Division offices, 2) The creation of 12-15 
Robust Districts performing all technical and administrative 
functions, 3) The maintenance of operations and regulatory 
functions in all existing districts, and 4) The transfer of all 
technical and operational division functions and positions to the 
Robust Districts, and the transfer of all policy and meunagement 
functions and positions to the Washington Headquarters level. 

These 3 major alternatives were rated against the 4 
fundamental criteria of Cost Efficiency, Flexibility Enhancing, 
Competence Maintaining, and Management Efficiency. The rating 
was performed using a microcomputer decision analysis package, 
called "Expert Choice". Expert Choice allowed the group to 
interactively create consensus judgments of the relative merits 
of each of the 3 major alternatives as measured against each 
fundamental criterion and presented a summary of all the 
judgments against all four criteria. The results of the ratings 
displayed by the Expert Choice decision model are shown in 
Figures 1-3. 



261 



zssc 



SEP2 
GOAL 
L 1.000 




-HQ3 

L 0.444 
-HQl 

L 0.140 
-ELIM DIV 

L 0.417 



-HQ3 

L 0.315 
-HQl 

L 0.243 
-ELIM DIV 

L 0.443 



■HQ3 

L 0.393 
-HQl 

L 0.281 
-ELIM DIV 

L 0.326 



-HQ3 

L 0.335 
-HQl 

L 0.383 
-ELIM DIV 

L 0.282 



COMPETEN 

COST RED 

ELIM DIV 

FLEXIBLT 

missions 

HQl 

HQ3 

MNGT EFF 

Consistency 



Competence Maintaining and Enhancing 

Cost Control & Reduction 

Eliminate Divisions with Robust/Ops Districts 

Efficient adaptability to changes in workload & 

HQ Combination #3 

Headquarters Option 3 

Red of Org or Funct Layers, Improv Proc Time, Pol 



LOCAL PRIORITY: PRIORITY RELATIVE TO PARENT 
Figure 1. 



72-424 0-94-10 



262 



ESSC 

SEP2 
Sorted Details for Sorted Synthesis of Leaf Nodes with respect 

LEVEL 4 



to GOAL 










LEVEL 1 




LEVEL 2 


LEVEL 3 


LEVEL 5 










MNGT EFF 


= 0. 


,250 
HQ3 




=0.111 






ELIM 


DIV 


=0.104 






HQl 




=0.035 


COST RED 


= 0. 


.250 










ELIM 


DIV 


=0.111 






HQ3 




=0.079 






HQl 




=0.051 


FLEXIBLT 


=0. 


.250 
HQ3 




=0.098 






ELIM 


DIV 


=0.081 






HQl 




-0.070 


COMPETEN 


-0, 


.250 
HQl 
HQ3 




-0.096 
-0.084 






ELIM 


DIV 


=0.070 

Figure 2. 



10 



263 

:ssc 

SEP2 
Sorted Synrhesis of Leaf Nodes with respect to GOAL 
OVERALL IHCONSISTENCY INDEX = 0.00 



HQ3 0.372 



ELIM DIV 0.367 



HQl 0.262 
1.000 



ELIM DIV Eliminate Divisions with Robust/Ops Districts 

HQl HQ Combination #3 

HQ3 Headquarters Option 3 



Figure 3. 



11 



264 



The outpur from the model, as displayed, divides rhe scores 
for differenr alternatives from a total possible score of 1.0. 
Splitting t.his total score of 1.0 among t.he three rated 
alternatives; t.he Headquarters Option number 3 {at 0.372) ranked 
slightly higher than Elimination of Divisions (at 0.367), and 
considerably higher than Headquarters Combination # 3 ( at 0.262). 

After reviewing the results of their ratings, and further 
discussion, the workshop participants selected their highest 
ranked alternative. Headquarters Option 3 (Design 
Districts/Operating Districts) as their recommended field 
structure for the Corps of Engineers. 



DIVISION BOUNDARIES, NUMBERS OF DIVISIONS, 
NUMBERS OF ENGINEERING CENTERS 



AND 



The workshop participants considered the possibility of 
creating common Division and District boundaries for both 
Military Programs and Civil Works Programs, but decided the 
nature of the two programs, and their customers, was too 
different to create a set of common boundaries suitable for both. 
It was agreed, however, that all future Division HQs would 
perform both military and civil work functions. 

The number of Divisions was selected based on the projected 
size of the future Corps workload, the amount of funding 
available for Division offices through the DMA and GE accounts, 
and the geographic dispersion of workload. Workshop participants 
then reviewed a variety of alternatives with 4-5 divisions. This 
review was conducted on a real-time interactive basis using 
"Mapinfo", a microcomputer software package. This allowed the 
participants to rapidly try out different combinations of 
division boundaries and see the comparative workload balances, as 
well as geographic relationships. The final boundaries which 
were selected are shown in Figures x and y. 



These boundaries 
maintain 5 Divisions and 
Division Headquarters 
offices In the new field 
structure . The 
boundaries selected were 
the best compromise 
between creating an 
approximately level 
total workload 
( Including Civil Works, 
Military Programs, and 
Environmental work ) , and 
preserving logical 
groupings ( particularly 
for the Civil Works 




265 



niLlTF=RY DIVISIONS 3-0 D3STPICTS 



crograms with their dependence on physical geography). 

The selecred Civil WorKS divisional boundaries combined: 
Firsr, the current NPD and SPD (plus Albuquerque District from 
3WD); Second, the currem: LMV (minus St. Louis District) + the 
current SWD (minus Albuquerque District); Third, the current MRD, 
NCD, and ORD (plus St. Louis District from LMV); Fourth, the 
current NED and NAD (minus Norfolk District); and Fifth, the 
current SAD (plus Norfolk District from NAD) (See FJ.aure 4. 
Minor adjustments were made to Military Programs dlv. ; ...nal 
boundaries in order to better align both sets of toundarxes ; See 
Figure 5 ) . 

The recommended 
conceptual alternative 
called for restructuring 
and retaining all existing 
Districts, as well as 
creating District 
Engineering Centers. Based 
on input from the Military 
Programs and Civil Works 
directorates from HQUSACE 
on the amount of workload 
necessary to support 
healthy planning and 
engineering elements ( for 
Civil Works ) and design 
elements ( for Military 
Programs ) , numbers of 
District Engineering 
Centers ranging from 12 to 
16 were considered. After 
reviewing levels of 
personnel strengths and 
geographic coverage, it was 

decided to create 15 such Engineering Centers nationwide (for 
Civil Works), with at least two in each of the new Divisions. 
Because of the differing nature and amount of military programs 
work, it was decided to create only 10 such Military Engineering 
Centers (with two in each of the new Divisions), all of which 
would be collocated with one of the Civil Works District 
Engineering Centers. 

SITE SELECTION CRITERIA 




The workshop participants approved the explicit use of 5 of 
the 8 major site selection criteria which had been 
proposed/recommended by the Field Advisory Committee. These 5 
explicit criteria were: 

1. Ciirrent Corps Office Site 

2. Cost of Living 

3. Educational Availability 



13 



266 



4. Transporration Hub availability 

5. Nunmer of Currenr Personnel 

The three criteria which were not explicitly used were: 

1. Labor Availability 

2. Office Space Availability 

3 . Central to WorKload 

It proved impossible to find a way to compare locations 
quantitatively, with an accurate and common database for either 
labor availability or office space availability. For different 
reasons, the criterion of "Central to Workload" was too difficult 
to apply because the boundaries are almost infinitely variable, 
and because the proposed work process allows the assignment of 
work to different Engineering Centers- Nevertrheless , the 
"Central to Workload" criterion was used in a very few cases, 
where geographic considerations seemed to require it. 

The 5 criteria which were explicitly used, were entered into 
a master matrix ( see Figure ? ) which employed the criteria in the 
following ways: 

1 ) The only sites which were considered for either division 
or district functions were those which already had division or 
district offices. Thus criterion 1 was used as the basic 
starting point for future office site selections. 

2) The Cost of Living criterion was used by giving all 
sites which were officially designated high-cost areas for 
Federal salary purposes a Cost of Living rating of 1, those sites 
which were not high-cost were given a Cost of Living rating of 2 
in the master selection matrix. 

3 ) The Educational Availability criterion was used by 
reviewing the quantitative ratings for 4-year engineering 
colleges provided in the Gourman Report, with the overall ratings 
for 4-year college programs also used for corroborative purposes 

( These ratings are shown as Figure 5 ) . All colleges which met 
the engineering program criteria of 3.5 or higher, also met the 
overall 4-year college program criteria of being 3.5 or higher. 
Essentially, all sites within 75 miles of a college with an 
engineering program rating higher than 3.5 (on a scale of 1 to 5) 
were given an Educational Availability rating of 2, the others 
were given an Educational Availability rating of 1. These 
ratings are from The Gourman Report. A Rating of Undergraduate 
Programs in American & Intl. Universities . 7th ED rev. 1989, 
National Education Statistics, Los Angeles, by Dr. Jack Gouman. 

Educational Availability Ratings 



Off. 
ID 


City 


CoUege Rated 


Engineering 
Rating 


Overall 4-yr 
Rating 


Above 3.6 
Eng. Rating 



14 



267 





LWK 


"/icksbura. ^acKson St Univ \ Not Ratea 2.86 j No t 






LMM 1 Memonis ' MemDnis St Univ 2.86 1 2.81 1 No i 




1 

1 


LMN 1 New Orleans 1 Tulane Univ | 1 3.95 | •! 45 | Yes i 






LMS 


St. Louis 1 Wasmnaton Univ | ■I.SS | 4 44 | Yes 1 






LMV 


Vicksburg, 
Div 


Jacxson St Univ 


Not Rated 


2.86 


No i 






MRD Omarta. Div Univ of Nebraska. Uncoin 


3.56 4.07 


Yes 1 






MRK 


Kansas City 


Univ of Kansas. Lawrence 


4.26 


4.33 


Yes I 






MRO 


Omaha. Dist Univ of Nebraska. Lincoln 


3.56 


4.07 


Yes 1 






NAB 


Baltimore 


John Hopkins Univ 


4.45 


4.72 


Yes 1 




NAD 


New York, 
Div 


Columbia Univ 


4.62 


4.8 


Yes 1 






NAN 


New Yoilj. 
Dist 


Columoia Univ 


4.62 


4.8 


Yes j 






NAO 


Norfolk 


Old Dominion Unrv 


2.73 


3.35 


No 






NAP 


Philadelphia 


Drexel Univ 


3.91 


3.98 


Yes 






NCB 


Buffak) 


St Univ of NY. Buffak) 


4.27 


4.66 


Yes 






NCC 


Chkago, 
Dist 


Northwestem Univ 


4.7 


4.82 


Yes 






NCD 


Chkago. Div Northwestem Univ 


4.7 


4.82 


Yes 






NCE 


Detroit 


Univ of Michigan 


4.79 


3.83 


Yes 






NCR 


Rock Island 


(Univ of Iowa) 


4.25 


4.65 


Yes 






NCS 


SL Paul 


Un of Minn. Twin Cities 


4.77 


4.79 


Yes 






NED 


Wattham 


M.l.T. 




4.9 


4.85 


Yes 






NPA 


Anchorage 


U of Alaska. Anchorage 


2.15 


3.49 


No 






NPD 


Porttand.Div 


Portland St Univ 


2.52 


3.29 


No 






NPP 


Portland. 
Dist 


Portland St Univ 


2.52 


3.29 


No 






NPS 


Seattle 


Univ of Washington 


4.47 


4.7 


Yes 






NPW 


Walla WaUa 


Walla Walla Coll/Whitman 
CoU 


2.36 


3.18 


No 





15 



268 



Off. i 

ID ! 


City 


College Ratea 


E.iqineenng j 
Rating | 


Overall 4-yr | 
Rating | 


Above 3.5 
Eng. Rating 


ORD i 


Cinannati ! 


Univ of Cincinnati 


4.19 1 


3.92 1 


Yes 


ORH 1 


Huntington 


MarsnaJl Umiv 


Not Rateo | 


3.18 1 


No 


ORL 


Louisviile 


Univ of KentucKY 


3.81 


3.96 


Yes 


ORN 


Nashville 


VanflerOilt Univ 


3.78 


4.57 


Yes 


ORP 


Pittsburgn 


Carnegie- Mellon Unrv 


4,73 


461 


Yes 


POD 


Honolulu 


Univ of Hawii 


3.84 


3.85 


Yes 1 


SAC 


Charleston 


The CiUdei 


2.8 


3.29 


No 1 


SAD 


Atlanta 


Ga Inst of Tech 


4.65 


4.54 


Yes 1 


SAJ 


Jacksonville 


Univ of Flonda 


4.33 


401 


Yes 


SAM 


Mobile 


Univ of S. Alabama. Mobile 


2.67 


3.69 


No 


SAS 


Savannah 


Armstrong St 


Not Rated 


2.95 


-*! 


SAW 


Wilmington 


Univ of NO at Wilmington 


Not Rated 


3.46 


No 


SPD 


SanFran- 
cisoo, Oiv 


Univ of Ca. Berkeley 


4.89 


4.9 


Yes 


SPK 


Sacramento 


Univ of Calif. Davis 


4.34 


4.64 


Yes 


SPL 


Los Angeles 


CalTech 




4.88 


4.84 


Yes 


SPN 


San Fran- 
cisco. Oist 


Univ of Ca, Beri<eley 


4.89 


4.9 


Yes 


SWA 


Albuguerque 


Univ of NM 




3.79 


3.86 


Yes 


SWD 


Dallas 


SMU 




3.67 


3.96 


Yes 


SWF 


Fort Worth 


SMU 




3.67 


3.96 


Yes 


SWG 


Gatveston 


Univ of Houston 


4.23 


3.67 


Yes 


SWL 


Little R(X:k 


Univ of Arkansas.LitUe Rock 


Not Rated 


3.53 


NO 


swr 


Tulsa 


Univ of Tulsa 


3.89 


3.72 


Yes 


HND 


Huntsviile 


Univ of Alabama, Huntsviile 


3.15 


3.59 


No 



16 



269 



4 ) The Transporration Hub criterion was used by raking the 
Federal Aviation Administration's classification of airports into 
Non-Hubs. Small Hubs, Medium Hubs, and Large Hubs (see Figure 6). 
All sites with airports classified as Medium or Large Hubs were 
given a higher Transportation Hub rating than those with Small 
Hubs or Non-Hubs. This data is from : Federal Air Traffic 
Activity. FY 91 . US Department of Transportation, Federal 
Aviation Administration, Washington, DC, 1992. 



17 



270 



TransDorrarion Hub Ratings 



1 Office ID 


Citv Name | 


FAA Category i 




LMK 


Vicksburq. Dist | 


Small Hub 




LMM 


Memonis 


Medium Hub 




LMN 


New Orleans 


Large Hub j 




LWS 


SL Lx)uis 


Large Hub 




LMV 


Vicksburg.Div 


Small Hub 




MRO 


Omaha. Div 


Medium Hub 




MRK 


Kansas City 


Large Hub 




MRO 


Omaha. Dist 


Medium Hub 




NAB 


Baltimore 


Medium Hub 




h4AD 


New York. Div 


Large Hub 




NAN 


New York. Dist 


Large Hub 


NAO 


Norfolk 


Medium Hub 




NAP 


Philadelphia 


Large Hub 




NCB 


Buffak) 


Medium Hub 


NCC 


Chicago, Dist 


Large Hub 


NCD 


Chicago, Div 


Large Hub 


NCE 


Detroit 


Large Hub 


1 NCR 


Rock Island 


Small Hub | 


NCS 


SL Paul 


Large Hub \ 



18 



271 





Office iD 1 


Citv Name 1 


FAA Category | 




Office iD 1 


Citv Name 1 


FAA Cateqory 




NED 


Wattham 


Large Hub 




NPA 


Anchoraae 


Medium Hub 




NPD 


Portland. Div 


Medium Hub 




NPP 


Portland. Dist 


Medium Hub 




NPS 


Seattle 


Large Hub H 




NPW 


Walla Walla 


Non Hub 1 




ORD 


Cincinnati 


Medium Hub 




ORH 


Huntington 


Non. Hub 




ORL 


Louisville 


Medium Hub 




CRN 


Nashville 


Medium Hub 




ORP 


Pittsburgh 


Large Hub 




POD 


Honolulu 


Large Hub 




SAC 


Charleston 


Small Hub 




SAD 


Atlanta 


Large Hub 




SAJ 


Jacksonville 


Medium Hub | 




SAM 


Mobile 


Small Hub 1 




SAS 


Savannaih 


Small Hub | 




SAW 


Wilmington 


Non. Hub 




SPD 


San Francisco. Div 


Large Hub 




SPK 


Sacramento (shanng San Franasco hub) 


Large Hub 




SPL 


Los Angeles 


Large Hub 




SPN 


San Francisco. Dist 


Large Hub 




SWA 


Albuquerque 


Medium Hub 




SWD 


Dallas 


Large Hub 




SWF 


Fort Worth 


Large Hub 




SWG 


Galveston (sharing Houston hub) 


Large Hub 




SWL 


UtteRock 


SmaUHub 




swr 


Tulsa 


Medium Hub 



19 



272 



5 ) For site seiecTion decisions involving districr 
functions, the numoer of currenr personnel was used as a final 
deciding point after the other criteria were used to rank 
available sites. The data for the number of personnel was taken 
from an HQ data call managed by the Directorate of Resource 
Management in the fall of 1991. This listed all Corps personnel 
by 10 "technical" and 14 "administrative and advisory" functions. 
The specific numbers used were the FY 91 End Strength / FY 92 
Beginning Strength "personnel on board", summed from the three 
functions of Planning, Engineering, and Program/ Project 
Management . 

These functions were selected as the best representation of 
numbers of personnel from the larger district technical functions 
which were under consideration for transfer or consolidation. 
The numbers of current personnel were not used as a final rating 
criterion for Division Headquarters site selection because 
Division functions were changing so dramatically that decisions 
based on technical function strength in the "before" condition 
would not be very relevant to the "after" condition. 

DIVISION OFFICE SITE SELECTION 

The above criteria were used to rank all of the existing 
Division offices within each of the new Division boundaries (See 
Figure 8). 

— In the NE Division, Boston ranked above New York and was 
selected as a future Division Headquarters location. 

— In the SE Division, only one existing Division office was 
within the boiuidaries of the new division, so it was selected as 
a future Division Headquarters location. 

— In the West Coast Division, Portland ranked above San 
Francisco and was selected as a future Division Headquarters 
location. 

In the North Central Division, all 3 of the existing 
Division office locations (Cincinnati, Chicago, and Omaha) ranked 
equally. Of these 3, Cincinnati was selected by the workshop 
participants as a future Division Headquartrers location primarily 
because of Its greater proximity to the large Civil Works 
workload along the inland waterway system. 

In the South Central Division, although Dallas ranked higher 
than Vlcksburg, Vlcksburg was chosen because of the unique legal 
requlrenen-ts for the Mississippi River Commission, with Its own 
separate appropriations and Its legislative requirement for the 
President of the Commission to be the Division Engineer 
responsible for the Lower Mississippi River. In addition to 
these legal considerations, the ongoing Civil Works mission of 
the Corps In this region Is centered along the waterways of the 
Mississippi River. For all of these reasons, Vlcksburg was 
selected as a future Division Headquarters. This was the only 



20 



273 



case in which a division site seiecrion was made which did not 
correspond to the explicit site selection criteria. 



21 



274 



Division Location Ratings 



City 


Division 


PIn.Eng.Ppm 




High Cost 


Trans. 
Hub 


Educ/ 
Unrv 


Sum 


1 














Waltham* 


1 167 




2 


2 


2 


6 


New York 


1 


59 




1 


2 


2 


5 


















Atlanta*(M) 


2 


63 




2 


2 


2 


6 


















Dalla«*(M> 


3 


79 




2 


2 


2 


6 


Vickstiurg 


3 


87 




2 


1 1 


4 


















Portiand*(M) 


4 


161 




2 


2 


1 


5 


San Francisco 


4 


79 




1 


2 


2 


5 


















Omaha 


5 


129 




2 


2 


2 


6 


Clncinnati*(M) 


5 


86 




2 


2 


2 


6 


Chicago 


5 


59.6 




2 


2 


2 


^ 



22 



275 



District Engineering Center Site Selection Criteria 
Using the aoove criteria, all of the existing district 
offices were ranked within the boundaries of the new Divisions 
( See Figure xx ) . - 



*For these purposes, the New England Division, an operating 
division which performs both division and district functions, was 
also coxinted as a district. 

23 



276 



Figure X. Location Ratings for District Engineonng Centers 



■ 


City 


Sum of 

3 

Scores 


Fed 
High 
Cost 


Transpor 
-tation 

Hub 


Education 
Availabil- 
ity 


# of Plng+ 
Eng+PPM 
Personnel 


Rank in 
Div^ 




















Baltimora*<M) 


6 


2 


2 


2 


257 


1 


Waltham*<M> 


6 


2 


2 


2 


167 


2 


Philadetphia 


6 


2 


2 


2 


117 


3 


New York 


5 


1 


2 


2 


141 


' 


- 










1 


Jacksonvill** 


6 


2 


2 


2 


253 1 j 


Norfolk^OM) 


5 


2 


2 




160 


2 




MobU«*(M) 


4 


2 


1 




464 


3 




Savannah 


4 


2 


1 




263 


4 






Wilmington 


4 


2 


1 




125 


5 






Chafleston 


4 


2 


1 




78 


6 












- 












New Ortaana* 


6 


2 


2 


2 


486 


1 






R Worth*(M) 


6 


2 


2 


2 


370 


2 






Tulsa*(M) 


6 


2 


2 


2 


305 


3 1 




Galveston 


6 


2 


2 


2 


121 


4 1 




Memphis 


5 


2 


2 


1 


198 


5 






Vtcksburg 


4 


2 


1 


1 


363 


6 




Little Rock 


' 


2 


1 


1 


171 


7 



Sllthla aaoh OlTlaloa. loeatloB raila4 by saor* In 2iid celiaB. (aqual to aua of r>Uii«a for •) 
ra«or*l high con leeaclca (2 1« not. 1 If hi«h eoo«l. b) Trm«port«tloo hub. (2 If largo or oodlM olr bub. 
1 If aaail or aoi-ta*). oad e) Idueaclon «*ollabilltr. (2 If eolloflo Is rotod 3.S or bottor in Oouibm 
rankla«a for mrln— ring. 1 If ratod loMr). 

rer tloa. looatloaa thon rankad by lu^r* of porMaool la tha 3 tocbaleal fuaecleno of rioMlag. 
■uglBoonag. mat f r og i — /rrejoet tuaagoaont 



24 



277 



1 City 


Sum 


High 
Cost 


Trans. 
Hub 


Educ/ 
Univ 


# of Plnq+ 
Eng+PPM 
Personnel 


Rank in 
Div" 




Sacnm*(M) 


6 


2 


2 


2 


495 


- 




S«attle*(M) 


6 


2 


2 


2 


234 


2 


Albuauerque 


6 


2 


2 


2 


144 


3 


Los Ancr(M> 


5 


1 


2 


2 


316 


4 


Portland 


5 


2 


2 


1 


190 


5 


San Francasco 


5 


1 


2 


2 


77 


6 1 


Walla Walla 


4 


2 


1 


1 


154 


7 
















Omaha*(M> 


6 


2 


2 


2 


600 


1 


Kansas City 


6 


2 


2 


2 


334 


2 


touisvtlls* 


6 


2 


2 


1 


290 


3 




SL Paul* 


6 


2 


2 


2 


245 


4 




SL Louis 


6 


2 


2 


2 


219 


5 




Nashville 


6 


2 


2 


2 


179 


6 




Pittsburgh* 


6 


2 


2 


2 


177 


7 




Detroit 


6 


2 


2 


2 


117 


8 




Chicago 


6 


2 


2 


2 


101 


9 




Buffalo 


6 


2 


2 


2 


99 


10 


Rock Island 


5 


2 


1 


2 


157 


11 


Huntington 


4 


2 


1 


1 


252 


12 



'within «»eh Dlvtalea. leea«laa rinlwil br ■sera la 2ad coluan. (aqiwl to ma of ratings for •> 
Podaral hl«b ee«« looatlon (2 If net. 1 If high coatl. b) Tranapertatlca hub. (2 It larg* or nadlUB air hub. 
1 If aaall or nea-hubl. and c) tdueatloa ATaXlablllty, (2 If collaga la ratad 3.S or battar In Onuraaa 
raBtdags for CnglaaanBg, 1 if ratad loaar). 

Por tlaa. loeatloaa than raakad br nuabara of parsoonel la tha 3 taebaleal fuaetlena of Plaanlag. 
fnglnaarlag. and Prograa/Projact Hanagaaaat 



25 



278 



CIVIL WORKS ENGINEERING CENTERS 

Within the NE Division, Baltimore and Boston (Walthani) 
ranked highest and were selected as District Engineering Centers. 

Within the SE Division, Jacksonville, Norfolk, and Mobile 
ranked highest and were selected as District Engineering Centers. 

Within the South Central Division, New Orleans, Fort Worth, 
and Tulsa ranked highest and were selected as District 
Engineering Centers. 

Within the West Coast Division, Sacramento, Seattle, and 
Albuquerque were the 3 highest ranking locations, with Los 
Angeles ranking 4th. Sacramento and Seattle were selected as 
District Engineering Centers. Because almost all of the Civil 
Works workload for far Southwest is centered near Los Angeles 
itself, it was decided to locate the District Engineering Center 
for that area in Los Angeles rather than 500 miles to the east in 
Albuquerque. This was one of three cases in which a District 
Engineering Center site selection was made which did not 
correspond with the explicit site selection criteria. 

Within the (new) North Central Division, Omaha and Kansas 
City wez« the two highest ranking locations. Because they are 
located within 100 miles of each other, in the far western 
regions of the new Division, and axe far from the major Civil 
Works workload in the new Division, only one of these could be 
selected as a District Engineering Center. Omaha was selected 
because it was the highest ranking of the two. The two next 
highest ranking locations were Louisville and St. Paul, and those 
two were selected as District Engineering Centers. St. Louis was 
the next highest ranking location, followed by Nashville and 
Pittsburgh ( in a statistical tie ) . For geographic reasons , 
Pittsburgh was selected as the 4th District Engineering center in 
the (new) North Central Division. 

Military District Engineering Centers 
It was determined that the projected Military Programs 
workload would only support 10 military District Engineering 
Centers, 2 in each new Division, which would be collocated with 
the Civil Works District Engineering Centers. The locations of 
these future Military District Engineering Centers thus were 
determined by the same criteria as those for Civil Works Dis Lmt 
Engineering Centers, plus certain military workload 
considerations . 

In the North East Division, there are only two Civil Works 
District Engineering Centers. Thus, both of them (Baltimore and 
Boston) were selected as military engineering centers. 

In the SE Division, only 2 of the 3 Civil Works District 
Engineering Centers now perform military work (Norfolk and 
Mobile). Because of this, those 2 were selected as Military 

26 



279 



District Engineering Centers. 

In the South Central Division, only 2 of the 3 Civil Works 
Engineering Centers now perform military work (Ft. Worth and 
Tulsa). Because of this, those 2 were selected as Military 
District Engineering Centers. 

In the West Coast Division, only 2 of the 3 Civil Works 
District Engineering Centers now perform the full spectrum of 
military work (Sacramento and Seattle). Because of this, those 2 
were selected as Military District Engineering Centers. 

In the (new) North Central Division, only 2 of the 4 Civil 
Works District Engineering Centers now perform military work 
(Louisville and Omaha). Because of this, those 2 were selected 
as military engineering centers. 

Admin Center Selection Process 

The workshop participants decided that there should be one 
administrative center per division, primarily performing Human 
Resources, Audit, Information Management, and Resource Management 
functions. The explicit site selection criteria used was similar 
to that for choosing other consolidated offices, i.e., 1) Cost of 
Living, 2) Education availability, and 3) Transportation Hub 
availability. For most divisions, this leaves several locations 
available for selection within each division. The final 
decisions were based on the various management Judgments 
explained below. 

The proposed Northeast Division contains 4 headquarters 
locations available for consideration as an admin center: 
Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. Three of these 
are tied with the highest ratings for the above 3 factors: 
Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. Because Baltimore is 
already the current site of a consolidated human resources 
center, Baltimore was selected as the site of the Northeast 
Division administrative center. 

The proposed Southeast Division contains 7 headquarters 
locations available for consideration as an administrative 
center: Atlanta, Norfolk, Wilmington, Charleston, Savannah, 
Jacksonville, and Mobile. Two of these, Atlanta and 
Jacksonville, are tied with the highest ratings for the above 3 
factors. Because of Atlanta's more central location and its 
status as the Southeast's major air hub, Atlanta was selected as 
the site of the Southeast Division administrative center. 

The proposed South Central Division contains 8 headquarters 
locations available for consideration as an administrative 
center: Dallas, Vicksburg, Memphis, Little Rock, New Orleans, 
Tulsa, Galveston, and Ft. Worth. Four of these are tied with the 
highest ratings for the above 3 factors: Dallas, New Orleans, 
Tulsa, and Ft. Worth. Because Ft. Worth is already the current 
site of a consolidated human resources center, and because of its 

27 



280 



status as the region's ma] or air hub, rt. Worth was selected as 
the site of the South Central Division administrative center. 

The proposed Western Division contains 7 headquarters 
locations available for consideration as an admin center: 
Albuquerque, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco, Portland, 
Walla Walla, and Seattle. Three of these are tied with the 
highest ratings for the above 3 factors: Sacramento, Seattle, and 
Albuquerque. Because Sacramento is already the current site of a 
consolidated human resources center, Sacramento was selected as 
the site of the Western Division administrative center. 

The proposed North Central Division contains 13 headquarters 
locations available for consideration as an administrative 
center: Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Huntington, Louisville, 
Nashville, Buffalo, Detroit, Chicago, St. Paul, Rock Island, St. 
Louis, Kansas City, and Omaha. Eleven of these are tied with the 
highest ratings for the above 3 factors: Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, 
Louisville, Nashville, Buffalo, Detroit, Chicago, St. Paul, St. 
Louis, Kansas City, and Omaha. Of these eleven, six have 
airports designated as large hubs: Pittsburgh, Detroit, Chicago, 
St. Paul, Kansas City, and St. Louis. Kansas City has the 
largest current Human Resources staff of the six, so Kansas City 
was selected as the site of the North Central Division 
administrative center. 

Centers of Expertise 



28 



281 



23 Feb 1993 

CRITIQUE OF CORPS REORGANIZATION PLAN DOCUMENT 
"DECISION PATH II" USED FOR DETERMINING SITE LOCATIONS 

On December 14, 1992, the Concerned Employees of NCD, 
requested, in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, the 
decision docviment used for selecting the sites of the new division 
offices. On February 8, 199 3, 8 weeks later, we received a docu- 
ment entitled, "Decision Path II" (End. 1). Decision Path II 
recommendations ignore its own criteria in recommending Cincinnati 
over Chicago, as the new North Central Division office and, thus, 
the report is flawed. 

We are using as the primary basis of our analysis, a document 
entitled, "White Paper on Why a Corps of Engineers Division Office 
Should Be in Chicago, Illinois" dated October 1992 (End. 2). All 
references used in this analysis are listed in End. 9. 

The decision process in the "Decision Path II" document lacks 
substantial depth of analysis and is fraught with inconsistencies 
and arbitrariness. In particular, on pages 13 and 14, the document 
lists the five explicit criteria used as: 1. Current Corps Office 
Site; 2. Cost of Living; 3. Educational Availability; 4. Transpor- 
tation Hub Availability; and, 5. Number of Current Personnel. 
Those criteria not explicitly used are: 1. Labor Availability; 2. 
Office Space Availability; and, 3. Central to Workload . Concerning 
the last criterion, it was stated that, "Central to Workload" was 
too difficult to apply because the boundaries are almost infinitely 
variable, and the proposed work processing allows the assignment of 
work to different Engineering Centers. "Nevertheless, the "Central 
to Workload" criterion was used in a very few cases, where geo- 
graphic considerations seemed to require it." 

The main reason, in fact the only reason, that Cincinnati was 
picked over Chicago was "because of its greater proximity to the 
large Civil Works workload along the inland waterway system" (see 
page 20) . The document also attempts to justify why Vicksburg, 
Mississippi was chosen over Dallas, Texas. It notes that it is 
because of the "unique legal requirement" connected with the Mis- 
sissippi River Commission. It then states, "This (Vicksburg selec- 
tion) was the only case in which a division site selection was made 
which did not correspond to the explicit site selection criteria." 
This is not correct! Cincinnati was chosen without regard to the 
explicit site selection criteria indicated. 

In objectively evaluating the five explicit criteria for 
Chicago vs. Cincinnati, the following analysis would result: 



282 



1. Current Corps Office Site 

Cincinnati and Chicago both have Corps Division offices which 
superficially makes them equal. However, there are other inherent 
aspects which clearly favor Chicago. For example, Chicago District 
is co-located in the same building, additional economies can be 
realized by combining support facilities (libraries, logistical 
support, etc.) Other points include: 1) expandability; 2) full 
complement of facilities (e.g., large conference room; 
fitness/training rooms) ; 3) opportunity to share 
cost/ facilities/support with other federal agencies (a federal 
regional center objective) ; 4) ideally situated in city for conven- 
ient/affordable services; 5) good security system for facility; 
and, 6) professional environment. 

2. Cost of Living 

It is not totally clear what is intended by the cost of living 
criteria. Chicago has a slightly higher cost of living, but it 
does not cost the government... only the employee. There is a 
sufficient labor pool in the area so employee retention is not a 
major consideration. The salaries and grade structures are basi- 
cally the same in the Chicago and Cincinnati offices. Therefore, 
this is not a consideration. However, there are economies of scale 
that favor Chicago as follows: cost-sharing (Division/District) of 
accommodations/ facilities and support; reduced transportation costs 
(e.g., lower airfares/better connections, less time required, and 
less requirement for travel when located in a regional center of 
government operations) ; and reduced^cost of supplies/ equipment/ 
services due to economies of scale in Chicago. Besides, if cost of 
living were such a key factor, why does the Corps Headquarters 
office remain in Washington, D.C.? It remains in Washington D.C., 
because it is the Nation's center of government. Similarly, Chicago 
is the regional government center of the North Central United 
States. Therefore, the regional Corps office should remain in 
Chicago. 

3. Educational Availability 

This criterion indicates Chicago is significantly above Cin- 
cinnati even if only one University (Northwestern) was used as a 
comparison to the University of Cincinnati for its engineering 
schools. However, Chicago has two other major engineering schools 
— Illinois Institute of Technology and University of Illinois - 
Chicago. Yet, the decision paper rated Chicago and Cincinnati as 
equal. This is incorrect and arbitrary. In addition, one should 
also consider the educational availadsility needs of the other major 
professions of the Corps — law, economics, physical, biological, 
cultural and social sciences, computer science, finance, accovint- 
ing, and administration. Many great universities in Chicago offer 
these curricula including the University of Chicago, Loyola, 
DePaul, John Marshall Law School, etc. There is absolutely no 



283 



comparison. Chicago's institutions of higher education exceed, by 
far, those of Cincinnati. 

4. Transportation Hub Availability 

Chicago is the nation's central transportation hub — air, 
rail, highway and waterway. To rate Chicago and Cincinnati as 
equals is completely indefensible and wrong. If Cincinnati is 
ultimately selected there will be substantial added costs of con- 
ducting business because of: significantly higher airfares; time 
inefficiencies due to fewer flights/connections; and, increased 
travel to the Federal regional center of business. It is incon- 
ceivable that Chicago and Cincinnati could be considered as equals 
for this criterion. Further, it is beyond comprehension how this 
could be construed as inconsequential, particularly, as related to 
efficiency of operation and cost of doing business. 

5. Nnptytai; of Current Personnel 

It is noted that Cincinnati has in its Engineering, Planning 
and Program and Project Management about 26 more people than the 
NCD office in Chicago. However, if you consider the total number 
of potentially affected people in the Chicago District (101) as 
well as NCD, the total becomes about 161 in Chicago versus cibout 86 
in Cincinnati. This adds to a greater overall reorganization cost 
(more PCS moves) disruption and inefficiencies. This appears to be 
a moot point, since it is stated (page 20) that "The nvunbers of 
current personnel were not used as a final rating criterion for 
division headquarters site selection." 

Consider now the three criteria which were "not explicitly used " : 

1. Labor Availability 

Chicago has one of the largest labor forces in the nation (3.2 
million) , by far the largest in the midwest. In addition, during 
1991, the midwest led the nation in job growth, and Chicago placed 
6th in new jobs created among the top 20 U.S. metropolitan areas 
rated. The primary professional talent the Corps is concerned with 
is the global engineering, scientific, and construction capability 
residing in the Chicago area. There are 130 consulting engineering 
firms; it has the midwest's largest percent of engineers and scien- 
tists; there are several excellent engineering/scientific educa- 
tional institutions and research facilities; and, there are numer- 
ous professional engineering, architectural, and scientific socie- 
ties. The combined synergism of the engineering and scientific 
communities makes Chicago a world-renowned center of technology. 
This is possible because of the partnering and networking eunong all 
the technical communities — government engineering organizations, 
consulting engineering firms, educational institutions, private 
research facilities, and professional societies. There is no 
question that Chicago's current and future leibor availability is 



284 



excellent. Also, the Chicago District is a source of trained, 
experienced personnel for Division positions (without relocation 
expense — again, cost-effective) . 

2. Office Space Availability 

Office space availability in the downtown Chicago area 
abounds. Recently, both the staffs of the NCD Division and the 
Chicago District (which are efficiently co-located in the same 
excellent office building) spent considerable time and effort in 
searching, analyzing and deciding on the best overall location and 
facility accommodations. Our current office is strategically 
located for efficient business coordination and transportation. It 
offers superb office facilities in a professional environment. 
These facilities efficiently accommodate our existing workforce and 
could readily accommodate the expanded, merged operations resulting 
from reorganization. The NCD Division headquarters office in 
Chicago is one of the most efficient and professionally suited 
Corps Division Office facilities in the country. 

3. Central to Workload 

It was noted on page 14 that this criterion "was too difficult 
to apply ...Nevertheless., was used in a very few cases where 
geographic considerations seemed to require it." This was the only 
criterion which was used to distinguish between Chicago, Omeiha, and 
Cincinnati Division office site locations. In all other criteria 
it stated, "...all 3 of the existing Division office locations 
(Cincinnati, Chicago and Omaha) ranked equally. Of these 3, Cin- 
cinnati was selected primarily because of its greater proximi- 
ty to the large Civil Works workload along the inland waterway 
system." We believe it is obvious from the foregoing analysis that 
the three locations are not equal and Chicago is superior. 

Nonetheless, in considering this criterion, key questions are 
what type of workload, with whom, where, and when? We are reorgan- 
izing for the 21st Century and what that will bring, not for to- 
day's conventional planned workload. 

Support to other Federal agencies is a major future mission of 
the Corps, and promises to be much greater in the future, particu- 
larly in environmental engineering. The customers in this mission 
are regional offices of Federal agencies. Chicago is the home to 
about 15 Federal agency regional offices (including OSHA's National 
Training Institute) , some of which we currently work for. A par- 
tial list of these regional Federal agencies in Chicago are as 
follows: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Region 5 and Great Lakes 

National Program Office) (USEPA) 
U.S. Department of Interior (USDI) 
Housing & Urban Development (HUD) 



285 



Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 
Department of Commerce, Economic Development 

Administration (DOC-EDA) 
Federal Aviation Administratin (FAA) 
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 
Department of Energy (DOE) 
General Services Administration (GSA) 
Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) 

A Corps division headquarters office co-located with these 
agencies in Chicago is central to this important, and growing work- 
load. There would be additional costs for the Federal and state 
agencies if Cincinnati is the new NCD. 

NOD (Chicago) is currently supporting USEPA-GLNPO and Region V 
in the Lakewide Monitoring Program (LaMPs) for the Great Lakes. 
LaMPs is a 10-12 year study to determine contaminated loadings on 
the Great Lakes. NCD is supporting the LaMPs program initially 
through database development, database management, GIS and model 
development. After the study is complete, NCD will support EPA 
with remediation efforts worth tens of millions of dollars. 

NCD (Chicago) is also supporting USEPA-GLNPO in the Green Bay 
Mass Balance Study (1993-1994). 

NCD (Chicago) is proposing to assist USEPA, Region 5 in de- 
veloping a pilot study for the Environmental Monitoring and Assess- 
ment Program (EMAP) program. The EMAP program is a several hundred 
million dollar program. 

Over the next 15-2 5 years, the current NCD (Chicago) , MRD and 
St. Louis District will have tens of billions of dollars in work- 
load (CG, GI, O&M (DERP and OEW) , SFO, etc.). Examples include: 
St. Lawrence River L&D Rehab - $100 's millions; Soo Control Dams 
and Hydropower Rehab - $100 's of millions; Mississippi River L&D 
Rehab - $100 's of millions; Great Lakes Shoreline Geographic Infor- 
mation System (GIS) Mapping of Flooding and Erosion - $10 's of 
millions; O&M (ongoing) for NCD, MRD and St. Louis existing 
projects - $100 's of millions; Hazardous/Toxic/Radiologic Waste 
which includes the Defense Environmental Restoration Program poten- 
tially - $100 's of millions; Support for Others - $100 's of mil- 
lions; and Infrastructure for the Nation - $10 's of billions. 

It is assumed that ORD will have a comparable amount of work. 
However, Chicago is the most centrally and conveniently (Nation's 
transportation hxib) located (see map End 3) and the most efficient 
and cost-effective means of handling the entire area of the new 
NCD. Chicago is more centrally/ suitably located in the proposed 
NCD region as related to: geography; population density; political 
areas; time zones; transportation connections; the major water- 
courses; Federal agency regional center; workforce availability; 



286 



engineering/scientific technological center; major educational 
institutions; major governmental center; ethnic and cultural diver- 
sity center; economic production (GNP) ; and center for major trade, 
distribution, and services. This all translates into increased 
efficiencies and reduced cost of doing business. Simply, as one 
example, the airfare costs from Chicago to the 12 District offices 
is approximately 60 percent of the cost from Cincinnati (End. 4). 

Accessibility , is the key for the Corps to adequately 
handle/ accommodate projects for the large, populous, important, and 
diverse region of the new NCD (see End. 5) . Accessability is 
essential to accomplish the most cost-effective and time-efficient 
work. Chicago is the premier (not medixim or mediocre) transporta- 
tion hub (see Ends. 3, 4 & 6) . Chicago's location in the heart of 
the Nation, minimizes air travel distances, time, and cost to any 
place in the country. Chicago with the nation's busiest airport, 
O'Hare, has more than one arrival or departure every minute 
(800,000 incoming and outgoing flights each year). Flexibility in 
scheduling is maximized, while time and cost are minimized. The 
centralized location of Chicago as the Nation's transportation hub 
permits the lowest overall transportation costs, and fewest number 
of executive flying hours (which translates to better service and 
cost savings), among the Nation's ten largest cities. Enclosure 6 
shows that the airfares from Chicago to the 26 State capitals and 
11 Canadian centers of Government, served by the proposed NCD are 
about 70 percent of the cost from Cincinnati. There are also more 
flights including more non-stop flights by more airlines from 
Chicago than Cincinnati. There are more flights from Chicago to 
the 150 Congressional Districts, the- nearly 1,400 counties, and the 
more than 10,000 cities (all potential customers) than Cincinnati 
(see End. 6). It is noted that Chicago is closer/more central to 
60% of the Congressional Districts, counties, cities, Canadian 
centers of Government, and population density as compared to Cin- 
cinnati. In addition, Chicago is closer and/or more centrally 
located to: 80% of the land and water area; 70% of the top 25 Large 
Metropolitan Areas (see Ends 7 & 8) ; the world's largest fresh- 
water lake system; the 3 Time Zones; and, the 5 Climate Zones. In 
addition, Chicago is closer to over 60% of the District offices and 
is more central to and has better accessibility to all the Dis- 
tricts — more flights and lower airfares (End 4) . 

Accessibility is also key for coordination with the other 
Federal agency regional offices — which is going to become in- 
creasingly important as the Government consolidates and shares 
expertise and services. Chicago is the designated Standard Federal 
Region in the midwest, north central area (reference 0MB April 1974 
Memo, Subject: Standard Federal Regions) . Cincinnati is not a 
standard Federal region. Chicago has more than 50 Federal agencies 
with more than 15 Federal regional headquarters offices like NCD 
(Chicago) . In addition, Chicago is an international government 
center of operations with nearly 50 foreign consulates and trade 
centers (3rd only to Washington, D.C. and New York). 



287 



Accessibility will continue to be a factor into the 21st 
century for which the Corps is reorganizing. Chicago is a world 
center of Government, business, commerce, trade, culture, transpor- 
tation, education, technology, services, ethnic and cultural diver- 
sity. It will continue to provide better capability for a Govern- 
ment agency regional headquarters office for more cost-effectively 
and efficiently serving the north central region of our Nation. 
For example, Chicago will have a third major airport facility; 
also, high-speed rail and MAG-LEV service hubs will likely become 
available first in a major rail center like Chicago; additionally 
communications technology will develop first and be more prevalent 
as a center of communications in Chicago than other parts of the 
midwest's north central region. 

We cannot be certain where the workload will be in the 21st 
century. Therefore, we must reorganize and locate our regional 
headquarters for maximum flexibility and accessibility to provide 
service to all of our regional area in the most cost-effective and 
time-efficient manner we can. This could best be done by retaining 
the midwest north central regional headquarters in Chicago — the 
current Standard Federal Region and a world center of commerce, 
business, trade, services, government, transportation, technology, 
education, culture, and ethnic and cultural diversity. 

Chicago is the City that works. 



288 

"DECISION PATH II" 
(separately bound) 



End 1 



289 



"WHITE PAPER" 

on 

Why a Corps of Engineers Division Office 

Should Be in Chicago, Illinois" 



(separately bound) 



End 2 



290 








^->--^ 



'^^. 



End 3 



291 



CONTRACT AIR FARES 
ROUNDTRIP COSTS TO EACH DISTRICT IN THE NEW NCD 



DISTRICTS DIVISION 



CHICAGO 

$324 nonstop 
-0- 

9 6 nonstop 
152 nonstop 

142 nonstop 
214 nonstop 

84 nonstop 
520 connect in Pitts, 
206 nonstop 
150 nonstop 
2 20 nonstop 

90 nonstop 



1. 

2. 
3. 
4. 


Buffalo 
Chicago 
Detroit 
Rock Island 


5. 
6. 


St. Paul 
Omaha 


7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 


Kansas City 

Huntington 

Louisville 

Nashville 

Pittsburgh 

St. Louis 



TOTAL 



$2,198 



CINCINNATI 


$180 


nonstop 


230 


nonstop 


182 


nonstop 


382 


connect in 




Chicago 


408 


nonstop 


444 


connect in 




Chicago 


408 


nonstop 


430 


nonstop 


118 


nonstop 


300 


nonstop 


194 


nonstop 


328 


nonstop 



$3,604* 



*AIR FARES ARE APPROXIMATELY 40 PERCENT LESS FROM CHICAGO. 

NOTE: Air fares to the Headquarters Office in Washington, D.C. are 
essentially the same for Chicago and Cincinnati. 

NCD (Chicago) spends about $300K/year on travel. This would in- 
crease by approximately $300K if the new NCD is located in Cin- 
cinnati. Adding in MRD, and ORD travel, we would guess that this 
could triple to a $300K/year advantage for Chicago over Cincinnati. 
Also, greater cost advantages would likely be gained as a result of 
additional customer service travel in the expanded new NCD regional 
area (as considered in End. 6). 



End. 4 



292 



Geographic/Demographic 

Fact Sheet 
on proposed new NCD area 



About 2000 miles east to west (Upper New York to Western 
Montana) ; and 1000 miles north to south (top of Lake Superior 
to lower Mississippi River) 

Responsibilities in all are parts of 26 States (NY, PA, WV, 
OH, KY, TN, IN, IL, MI, MO, KS , WI , MN, ND, NB, SD, CO, WY, 
MT, lA, MS, AL, GA, NC, VA, MD) and coordination with 5 
Provinces in Canada (QUE., ONT. , MANITOBA, SASK. , ALBERTA). 

A land and water area of 1,160,000 sq. mi. (incl. Great 
Lakes water surface) or about one-third of the total U.S. 
area (3,536,341 sq. mi.). 

Contains 3 of world's 2 5 principal rivers, Missouri, 
Mississippi, St. Lawrence (5800 miles of very large river 
systems) and the world's largest freshwater lake system. 
Great Lakes (95,000 sq. mi.; 11,000 miles coastline; 
5400 cu. miles of water volume — cunounts to 95% of the U.S. 
fresh surface water supply) . 

Over 2500 miles of international border with Canada 
requiring potential travel to II major Canadian centers of 
government (Calgary, Regina, Winnepeg, International Falls, 
Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie,. ^Windsor, Toronto, Ottawa, 
Montreal and Quebec City) in 5 Provinces. 

Along with the 26 State Capitols, there are about 150 
Congressional Districts (about 1/3 of Nation's total) nearly 
1400 county seats, and over 10,000 towns and cities, having 
a population of about 75 million (nearly 1/3 of nation's 
total . 

Contains 10 of the Nation's top 25 (about 40%) Large 
Metropolitan Areas: Chicago-Gary-Lake County; Detroit-Ann 
Arbor; Cleveland-AJcron-Lorain; Minneapolis-St. Paul; 
St. Louis; Pittsburgh- Beaver Valley; Denver-Boulder; 
Cincinnati-Hamilton; Milwaukee-Racine; Kansas City — 
accounting for about 30 million people (nearly 40% of 
total population in new NCD area) . 

There are 3 time zones covering the area: Eastern, Central 
and Mountain. 

Contains 5 distinct climate zones: Highland (Mountain Zones 
in west) ; Steppe (plains states) ; Continental Moist (Midwest 
and Great Lakes) ; Subartic (Northern Great Lakes and lower 
St. Lawrence River) ; Subtropical Moist (southern States 
portion of our new NCD boundary) . 

End 5 



293 



COMPARISON OF ROUNDTRIP AIRFARES 

FROM CHICAGO AND CINCINNATI TO THE 

2 6-STATE CAPITOLS AND 11 CANADIAN 

GOVERNMENT CENTERS 

IN THE PROPSED NCD AREA 

FROM: FROM: 



CHICAGO 



TO: STATE CAPITALS 

Albany, NY 
Harrisburg, PA 
Charleston, WV 
Columbus , OH 
Frankfort, KY 
Nashville, TN 
Indianapolis, IN 
Springfield, IL 
Lansing, MI 
Jefferson City, MO 
Topeka , KS 
Madison, WI 
St. Paul, MN 
Bismark, ND 
Lincoln, NB 
Pierre, SD 
Denver , CO 
Cheyenne , WY 
Helena, MT 
DesMoines, lA 
Jackson , MS 
Montgomery , AL 
Atlanta, GA 
Raleigh, NC 
Richmond , VA 
Annapolis, MD 



TO: Inteimational Government Centers 



$276 


nonstop 


308 


nonstop 


402 


nonstop 


220 


nonstop 


328 




150 


nonstop 


140 


nonstop 


178 


nonstop 


212 


nonstop 


144 


nonstop 


292 




168 


nonstop 


176 


nonstop 


602 




360 


nonstop 


740 




236 


nonstop 


238 


nonstop 


940 




235 


nonstop 


284 


_ 


284 


nonstop 


304 


nonstop 


302 


nonstop 


446 


nonstop 


290 




t Centers 



Ottawa , Ontario 
Toronto, Ontario 
Montreal , Quebec 
Quebec , Quebec 
Calgary, Alberta 
Regina , Saskatchewan 
Winnipeg, Manitoba 
Windsor, Ontario/ Detroit MI 
Thunder Bay, Ontario 
Sault Ste. Marie 

Ontario/Sault St. 

Marie, MI 
Ft. Frances, Ontario 

Int'l Falls, MN 



$588 (via NY) 
280 nonstop 
440 
594 
653 
594 
456 
96 
495 



495 



nonstop 



495 



CINCINNATI 


$246 




228 : 


nonstop 


460 




240 


nonstop 


340 




308 


nonstop 


272 


nonstop 


384 




230 




362 




520 




520 




408 


nonstop 


780 




640 




900 




362 


nonstop 


920 




1,120 




646 




534 


nonstop 


456 




436 




434 


nonstop 


540 




436 




$686 


(via NY) 


377 




586 


(via NY) 


594 




693 




798 




574 




182 




554 




554 




554 





$18,874 



TOTAL $13,441 

(30% less cost) 
Note Also that there are more non-stop flights from Chicago to the 
destinations indicated. 

End 6 



72-424 0-94-12 



294 



Ul 1 


3 JJ in U rH Q,-H 




IJ W 3 -^ (0 U-1 


ns 1 


>.uia)Xi<w-HCD' 


<U 4-1 1 


C-Hr^eX>'DC 


JJ -H 1 


(0 U IJ 3 C £ -H -H 


m a 1 


jaUlOrtH]MT3>-i 


■P nj 1 


rHiojrouroca 


to O 1 


"truuti-ZMUi 



g C 01 
•H O 4J 
4J U 01 



c — 



td O. >— 



■H o.: 



TJ 


10 


^^ 


41 


(U 




JJ 


l-l 


•rt 


nj 


ig 


e 


e 






•^ 


T1 




•p 


c 


IT 


01 


n) 


01 


U ,J 





iJ rH -H 
01 (0 U 
(U 4J ~~ 
0)-H O 

o a D< 

r-l 10 £ 

u o o 



ti o ij 4) o a) 



cr 01 



01 

73 -H 

3UC c uicumrc'-i 

O E -P C O O 

tioiiuc zoiD'c— iga 
ij>>.<i) — j^-pioiujrio 

4)C<U--i01OOCrt-HOC 

(u^ojdisinopuj- 



>. 10 O ra IJ rH <U 

'r^(U4J^oia.ioo^ 

01 u-i -rt 0) — 1 E O 

c IP u a-a • 01 c 
(0 <U O (0 P — I •-> 



iniriTr-it-r-OfMeot^ nCTvcotHniHcit-iiNvo ^rti-ii-itHr-i 






inincoCT^r^nvoinTco 



\o vo r» I 

O r-l O . 



"* f^ 03 

o o rg 



ininr^fnrjcoonoN^ o^r^^ooooo\^oif> coocoo^ocm 
^ocomrto>r^(TtOf^ rgfH^o\[^o>*Hcoor^ nvom*Hr^co 

^<NOa\I^OCOtncOVO C0n^C\C000rHVOO00 O^Ot-t^mr^ 



ooooooininoo 
oouioinot^c^ino 



X X »< X X X X 



oooooooooo 
inonmoonconin 

IMV0>O(MnrifHr-lrMV0 



o o irro o o 



X X X X X X 



XXX xxxxxxxxxx 



•-I IS 
3 *» 
10 u 

u] a 



kj t4 

01 10 
T3 t^ 
C.H 

3 M 



vj « 

ja 

01 a 

"O 3 

so 



o o 

U 9 
• Oil 

U E-i O 
3 

Q -a 

10 

- s •» 

C 10 

JJ rt 
JJ JJ 10 
(T>0 41 

c u 
•-I I JJ 

s: c 

01 (0 o 

<o vj s: 

S lU 











JJ JJ JJ 


c 










C 


c 


c 


10 




w 






4) 


4) OS 




TT 






U 


B 








tH 








B 


<k 


^ 


«0 








JJ 


u 


a 


o> 


<M 


1 






C 


41 rH 


• 










4) 


> 


M 


a 


1 


10 


in 




B 





10 






JJ KO 


IT) 


C U b. 


c 


01 


U n CO 


U 






B 


1-^ 


•H 


^ 


N 


41 --t 


I-* 


■W 





IJ t-4 




> 


10 


10 3 


JJ *J 




O 


o 


c 


c 






01 


1 


f-t 


o 





o 


•« 


a-rt 












B 


10 Q 


09 


1 


^ JJ JJ 


fl 


u 




9) 




10 


10 


10 3e 




iH 




01 


c 


c 


B 


• 


4) 


* 


JJ 


41 





u 


iji: 


JJ 


OIC-H 


•rt 


41 


4) 


U 


10 


c 


3 JJ JJ JJ jJ JJ 


JJ 


o 


0-H 


(0 


c 


c 


10 


WCJCJOZWMJi 



295 



standard Metro Statistical Areas in the Proposed NCD 
(Rank, Population, Proximity to Chicago/Cincinnati) 



Std. Metro Stat is. 
Rank Area 



Population Closer Proximity 



(millions) 

3 Chicago-Gary-Lake 8 . 07 
County (IL,IN,WI) 

6 Detroit-Ann Arbor 4 . 7 
MI 

13 Cleveland-Akron- 2.8 
Lorain, OH 

16 Minneapolis-St.Paul 2.5 
MN, WI 

17 St. Louis, MO, XL 2.4 

19 Pittsburgh-Beaver 2 . 2 
Valley, PA 

22 Denver-Boulder, 1.8 
CO 

23 Cincinnati-Hamilton 1.7 
OH, KY, IN 

24 Milwaukee-Racine, 1.6 
WI 

25 Kansas City, 1.56 
MO, KS 



Chicago 



Cincinnati 



Ten (i.e., 40%) of the nation's top 25 Large Metropolitan Areas are 
located in the new NCD area and seven (i.e., 70%) of the ten are 
geographically closer to Chicago than to Cincinnati. In addition, 
the proposed NCD has all or a major portion of three of the world's 
25 principal rivers, Missouri, Mississippi, and St. Lawrence Riv- 
ers, as well as for the world's largest freshwater lake system, the 
Great Lakes. 



End 8 



296 



Reference List 



1. "Decision Path II" Document, Corps Reorganization Plan, Novem- 
ber 1992. 

2. "White Paper on Why a Corps of Engineers Division Office 
Should Be In Chicago Illinois", Concerned Employees of NCD, 
October 1992. 

3. The 1993 Information Please Almanac, 46th Edition, Houghton 
Mifflin Co., Boston, 1993. 

4. Road Atlas, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, 1980. 

5. U.S. House of Representatives . World Book Encyclopedia, Chica- 
go, IL, 1985. 

6. Climate . World Book Encyclopedia, Chicago, IL, 1985. 

7. "50 State Capitols", Dexter Press, West Nyack, NY, 1973. 

8. Memorandum; Subject: Standard Federal Regions, Office of Man- 
agement and Budget, April 1974. 

9. OAG Official Traveler, September 1992. 



End. 9 



297 



March 9, 1993 



Conceptual 
Corps of Engineers 
Reorganiza-cion Plan 

The November '92 Corps reorganization plan is another failed 
attempt to provide a robust organization which meets the needs of 
the nation. VTRDA '92 provides Congressional insight and direction 
for the Corps to meet the needs of the nations decaying infrastruc- 
ture and environmental mandates. Infrastructure concerns were 
identified for water supply, combined sewer outflows and new waste 
water reuse technologies. Additional infrastructure concerns re- 
cently identified include upgrading the railroads and its technology 
such as the high speed magnetic levitation, ]ust to mention a few. 

The need to reorganize the Corps of Engineers is recognized and 
supported throughout the Corps family. However, reorganization 
should not jeopardize the very existence of the agency its attempt- 
ing to revitalize. Reorganization that jeopardizes up to 70% of the 
staffs in the 5 closed Divisions and 21 reduced District offices is 
irresponsible. Shifting significant numbers of highly skilled 
scientists and engineers from the Division to lower graded District 
technical centers is a recipe for failure. Who will select an 
agency that stifles career opportunities .... particularly for 
experienced professionals which are in short supply (scientists and 
engineers) ? 

The Corps reorganization needs to be formulated by )cnowledge- 
able people outside of the Corps of Engineers and the Department or 
Defense to include: Congress, locals, cost sharing partners, Corps 
employees and the public (taxpayer) at large. The Corps needs to 
streamline the review process to meet the needs of the regional and 
local levels to include elimination of the Washington Level Review 
Center. We must get the ASA(CW) office out of the management and 
report review business. We must re-think the project management 
concept to insure our best and brightest are formulating and design- 
ing the projects and not tracking dollars and maintaining schedules. 
We must insure that we can retain and attract highly skilled and 
competent employees which will serve the nation now and into the 
21st century- It is within these tenants that we propose a concep- 
tual plan for reorganization of the Corps. 



298 



Zoncepruai 

Corps of Engineers 
Reoraanizarion Plan 



HQUSACE 



o Decentralize and reduce personnel by 30 - 50% 
o Policy development and guidance only 
o Mission Development./ Future Initiatives 
o Overall Budget development, including testimony 
o Congressional liaison 

o only review projects requiring congressional 
authorization, and then only to insure the 
recommendations recognize the intent of the 
legislation 



DIVISIONS 



o Six or seven existing offices co-located with 

federal regional centers (reduction of 3 - 4 0%) 
o Oversee policy implementation of Districts 
o major transportation hub 

o Span of control of 5 to 7 Districts maximum 
o final authority on all report reviews and approval 

of all schedules and cost estimates 
o availability of trained labor pool 
o retain specialize- expertise/areas of concern 

(i.e. Great Lakes) 
o consolidate District/Division support functions 

such as Human Resources, Resource Management, 

Audits etc. , into select offices within regional 

centers . 
o combine duplicative workforces (i.e. budget 

personnel from programs office and operations, etc.) 
o assign projects to the Districts based upon expertise, 

workload, and best service to the public, not 

watersheds 



DISTRICTS 



o retain all offices and functions 

o implement project planning, design and construction 
o combine duplicative workforces (i.e., environmental 
personnel from regulatory and planning; budget 
personnel from programs office and operations, etc.) 



DEVELOP LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES AND APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

o water supply 
o combined sewer outflows 
o new water reuse technologies 
o modernization of railroads 
o environmental engineering (i.e., clean-up, 
remediation) , etc. 



299 



WHY 



WHITE PAPER 
ON 
A CORPS OF ENGINEERS DIVISION OFFICE 
SHOULD BE IN CHICAGO ILLINOIS 




OCTOBER 1992 



300 



WHITE PAPER 

ON 

WHY A CORPS OF ENGINEERS DIVISION OFFICE SHOULD BE 

IN CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

Table of Contents i 

Preface iii 

Executive Summary iv 

I. Introduction 1 

II. Current NCD Organization 1 

III. Corps' 21st Century Chicago Division Office 3 

A. Future Work 3 

B. BRAC Site Selection Criteria 4 

1. Quality of Life 4 

a. Cost of Living 5 

b. Job Center 7 

c. Health Care 7 

d. Transportation 8 

e. Recreation & Entertainment 9 

f. Education 10 

g. Climate 12 

h. Culture and Arts Center 13 

i. Services 14 

j . Financial Center 15 

k. Parks/Forests/Open Space 15 

2. Transportation Hub 16 

3. Federal Regional Center 17 

i 



301 



TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) 

Page 

4. Collocation with Other Military, Major Corps 
Offices and Projects 18 

5. Availability of Trained Labor 19 

6. Proximity to State Government and a Governmental 
Center 20 

7. Cost of Doing Business 21 

8. Operational Efficiency/Flexibility 23 

IV. Conclusion 24 

APPENDICES 

A. The North Central Division (NCD) A-1 

Regional Headquarters 

B. The North Central Division (NCD) and USEPA B-1 

Region 5 Association 

C. Federal Agencies/Regional Centers C-1 

in Chicago 

D. Council of Great Lakes Governors Fact Sheet .... D-1 

E. A-E Consulting Firms in the Chicago Area E-1 

F. Engineering-Architect-Scientific Professional . . . F-1 
Organizations in Chicago 

G. Illinois/ Chicago Center for Technology Transfer . . G-1 
H. References H-1 



302 



Preface 

The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (Corps of 
Engineers) has testified in the FY93 appropriation hearing that 
she intends to reorganize the Corps of Engineers (COE) . The 
Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development in the FY93 
Appropriation Bill, for the Corps of Engineers, describes its 
intentions to reorganize the COE in FY93. 

This white paper is intended to describe the current and 
anticipated future work efforts of the North Central Division and 
to apply, to our Chicago location, the reorganization site selec- 
tion criteria that the Chief of Engineers used in the previous 
reorganization plan (BRAC Plan) of 1991. The BRAC plan has been 
discarded and the Chief of Engineers has a new study team prepar- 
ing a new proposal. Based on a draft report we previously had 
reviewed and commented on (see References 3 5 and 36) , the likely 
results will be to reduce the number of division offices. This 
effort apparently will be completed very soon. It will be used 
by an executive committee headed by the new Chief of Engineers. 
A report will be submitted for the approval of the Secretaries of 
Defense and the Army about October-November 1992. 

This white paper, highlighting the advantages of having a 
Corps Division office to remain in Chicago, has been prepared by 
a volunteer group of concerned employees of the North Central 
Division. The efforts in preparing this information have been 
accomplished on our own time. We believe that a midwest Corps of 
Engineers Division Office should remain in Chicago. 



303 



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Corps of Engineers is going to reorganize its division 
offices. This paper documents why Chicago is the most logical 
site for the midwest region division office. We have used, as 
the basis of our analysis, the 1991 BRAC Corps-wide reorganiza- 
tion study criteria as applied to Chicago. Because of the vast 
amount of pertinent information gathered, the paper contains this 
Executive Summary, the main body and several appendices (provid- 
ing significant details on key aspects of this matter) . The main 
body of the paper is quite robust. Some background information 
has been summarized for describing both the Chicago site and the 
current NCD organization. Finally, we get to the heart of the 
matter, and that is, Chicago is the premier world class city 
which should be retained as the location of the Corps of Engi- 
neers midwest division office. The key reasons are: 

QUALITY OP LIFE: 

- Excellent for the professional workforce. 

Employment is the largest in the midwest and sixth 
largest in employment growth in the country. 

- Health care ranks third in the nation and it has the 
nation's largest medical center complex. 

- Commuter transportation is the most efficient, 
effective, and affordable system in the nation. 

Recreation and entertainment is as diverse and 
cosmopolitan as any in the nation. 

o Numerous parks, golf courses, forest 

preserves, nature centers, beaches, lakes 
and rivers. 

o Chicago shoppers have some of the finest 
stores in the nation. 

o Chicago fronts on 29 miles of beautiful Lake 
Michigan shoreline. 

o Recreational boating is second only to 
Michigan in the midwest. 

- Education is ranked third in the nation. 

o Chicago includes some of the nation's finest 
technological academies and universities. 

o Library system is outstanding — University of 
Illinois is the third largest in the nation 
for a public university; constructing nation's 



304 



most sophisticated high-tech engineering 
library; and, Harold Washington Center in 
Chicago is the largest public library 
building. 

Culture and the Arts are ranked third in the 
nation. 

o Chicago has cosmopolitan sophistication with 
midwestern country charm. 

o Chicago Architecture dominates American 
design; three of the world's five tallest 
buildings reside here; and it is the home of 
Frank Lloyd Wright. 

Services and Infrastructure in Chicago are second 
to none in the nation. 

o Best transportation system in the nation. 

o The largest modern wastewater treatment 
facility in the nation. 

o One of the nation's largest public water 
supply systems. 

o One of the nation's largest and most 

unique urban flood control and pollution 
prevention project. 

o The longest system of lakeshore public 
infrastructure (e.g., parks, beaches, 
boating) 

- Financial powerhouse of the nation's midsection. 

o Chicago's investment markets are second only 
to New York. 

o Several of the nation's largest banks. 

TRANSPORTATION HUB: 

Chicago is the transportation hub of the nation — 
air, rail, highways, and waterways. 

O'Hare is the nation's busiest airport. 

Ilinois has the largest waterway system in the 
nation (more tonnage than the Panama Canal) . 

- Chicago is an international port. 



305 



Illinois has more miles of interstate highway than 
all but two other states in the nation. 

Chicago has the largest railroad gateway in the 
nation. 

Illinois has 25 railroads providing service to every 
part of the United States. 

O FEDERAL REGIONAL CENTER: 

- The Standard Federal Region 5 is located in Chicago. 

- Fifty Federal agencies, 15 of which are major 
regional centers, including NCD, are located in 
Chicago. 

Federal workers total 3 0,000 in Chicago and 50,000 
in Illinois. 

O COLLOCATION WITH OTHERS: 

Chicago is collocated with several significant 
military. Corps of Engineers offices, laboratories, 
and major projects, involving investments of tens of 
billions of dollars. 

O AVAILABILITY OF TRAINED LABOR: 

Chicago is a world-renowned engineering and 
scientific community. 

- Illinois has the largest percent of engineers and 
scientists in the midwest (4.3 percent of the U.S. 
total) . 

O GOVERNMENTAL CENTER OF OPERATIONS: 

- Includes International, Federal, state, county, and 
city. 

- Governor of Illinois maintains an office in Chicago. 

- The Council of Great Lakes Governors has its head- 
quarters office in Chicago. 

- The Center for the Great Lakes (a bi-national public 
and private organization) is headquartered in 
Chicago. 

- Illinois ranks third in the nation in the nunher of 
foreign consulates and trade offices. 



306 



COST-OF-DOING-BUSINESS ADVANTAGES: 

Collocation and combined support between the Divi- 
sion and Chicago District would provide significant 
economy. 

- The centralized location of Chicago provides for 
efficient and economical travel; greater choice of 
flights, lowest overall costs and fewest flying 
hours, compared to the nation's ten largest cities. 

Chicago is the retail, wholesale and distribution 
center for the midwest. 

- One-third of the GNP is produced within a 3 00-mile 
radius of Chicago. 

Illinois can supply almost any sub-assembly or fin- 
ished product needed. 

Chicago ranks third in retail sales made. 

Illinois is a major player in international markets. 

- Illinois exports rank third in the nation in agri- 
culture; seventh in manufactured exports; and sixth 
in total exports. 

O OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY/FLEXIBILITY: 

Maximum economy in travel cost, time and 
flexibility. 

Advantages in cost and time from the economies of 
scale of Chicago being the midwest's retail, whole- 
sale, and distribution center. 

Current modern professional office facility ideally 
and strategically located for business communica- 
tions, coordination, and transportation. 

- Federal agency regional center, governmental center, 
and international center for the midwest. 

Engineering/scientific technological center of the 
midwest — educational institutions, A-E consulting 
firms, contractors, public agencies, research facil- 
ities, and professional societies. 

Chicago, being a major Federal regional center for the mid- 
west, and a world-renowned technical engineering and scientific 
community, is a natural, logical location to continue a Corps of 
Engineers division office. It is geographically centrally locat 



307 



ed to continue to handle the entire Great Lakes system, Souris- 
Red-Rainy Rivers basin, Upper Mississippi River basin, plus 
additional boundary expansion, including the middle Mississippi 
River basin area, and Ohio River basin area. Essayons. 



308 



WHITE PAPER 

ON 

WHY A CORPS OF ENGINEERS DIVISION OFFICE SHOULD BE 

IN CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 

I . Introduction 

In 1673, Louis Joliet and Father Jacques Marquette recog- 
nized the vital importance that this location (now known as 
Chicago) was destined to play in history — the water gateway to 
the interior of the New World. About 2 00 years later, Chicago 
became the site of one of the greatest civil and environmental 
engineering accomplishments of the world — it was recognized as 
one of the seven wonders of American engineering by ASCE. The 
project involved cutting through the continental divide to turn a 
river (Chicago River) in its course. This resulted in protecting 
against disease and death due to the polluted water; mastering 
storm and flood; and, linking (ultimately) the Atlantic Ocean and 
the Gulf of Mexico, via the Great Lakes system, the Illinois and 
the Mississippi Rivers. 

Today, Chicago remains at the crossroads of the North Ameri- 
can continent, being centrally located between the two world 
famous resources that the North Central Division (NCD) develops 
and protects — the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes system. 

As in the past, the future of the Chicago area still rests 
on gift and legacy — the gift of nature's bountiful resources 
and the human legacy of technical skill, energy, foresight and 
resolution by which men, for themselves, their posterity, and the 
nation, built upon these great resources. 

It is these unique natural and human resources that make 
Chicago the heart of America. A city of contrasts, Chicago is a 
world-class city with many surrounding, small communities known 
for their midwestern values and friendliness. The area combines 
to provide a major center for global business operations and a 
high quality of living area for the major professional engineer- 
ing and scientific community that resides here. 

II. Current NCD Organization 

The North Central Division is an active, aggressive command 
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers staffed with professionals 
who are committed to leading the way into the 21st century toward 
better partnerships, improving the environment, global engineer- 
ing, and total quality management (see Appendix A for details) . 

A. Division Area 

North Central Division covers the watershed areas of the 
Great Lakes, the Upper Mississippi River, and the Souris-Red- 
Rainy Rivers. This includes all or parts of twelve states from 



309 



North Dakota to New York and contains 95 congressional districts 
as well as 1,900 miles of Canadian border. Our region is home to 
95 percent of the nation's surface fresh water supply, where 
about 22 percent of the nation's income and 21% of the production 
are generated; also, it is where 20 percent of the U.S. popula- 
tion is served. There are 290 million tons of cargo transported 
yearly on NCD's waterways. We are one of twelve divisions of the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers answering directly to our n^.tional 
headquarters in Washington, D.C. 

B. Major Products 

We plan, design, construct, operate, and maintain projects 
dealing with navigation, flood control, beach erosion control and 
environmental restoration. We also provide disaster assistance to 
the nation and significant support to the International Joint 
Commission. In addition, we regulate shoreline construction as 
well as the filling of wetland areas. 

C. Field Offices 

NCD, which is commanded by a brigadier general (one star) , 
has five subordinate districts, located in Buffalo, New York; 
Detroit, Michigan; Chicago, Illinois; Rock Island, Illinois; and, 
St. Paul, Minnesota. Each district also has several field of- 
fices. Four of these five districts are commanded by colonels, 
while Chicago District is commanded by a lieutenant colonel. 

D. Members 

Work Years: We have 2,850 team members in the division and 
5 districts; some 200 are at our division headquarters. We 
employ team members from a wide variety of career fields. In the 
division office, the professional categories include 47 engi- 
neers; 17 environmental scientists; and, 28 financial managers. 

E. Workload in FY92 

General Investigations $ 17 million 

Construction General $ 97 million 

Operations and Maintenance $198 million 

Other $ 56 million 

TOTAL $368 million 

F. Division-wide Issues 



Corps of Engineers BRAC Reorganization . The Reorganization 
Plan announced in the spring of 1991, involved NCD more than any 
other division. According to that plan, four of five districts 
and the division headquarters would close. Detroit and Chicago 
District offices would be absorbed into Buffalo District, and 
Rock Island and St. Paul District offices would become part of 
St. Louis District. The Division headquarters would move to 



310 



Cincinnati, Ohio. As a result, members throughout the division 
and its districts watched the actions of the Base Closure Commis- 
sion, the Administration, and Congress carefully through the 
summer and fall of 1991. In late November 1991, Congress passed 
legislation stopping implementation of that Reorganization Plan. 
Corps reorganization studies have not stopped. Most NCD members 
see the need for restructuring the Corps in accordance with its 
workload, but are understandably concerned that NCD may take more 
than its fair share of the hurt. 

III. Corps' 21st Century Chicago Division Office 

As a world economic and business center, Chicago is cur- 
rently the premier business location and will continue to be for 
future global business, for both private and public businesses. 
The Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce lists over 1,200 major busi- 
nesses, many of which are Fortune 500 — whose headguarters or 
regional centers are in Chicago. Illinois is headguarters to 46 
of the Fortune 500 companies — second only to New York. Also, 
Chicago is a Federal agency regional center as well as a govern- 
mental center (international, national, state, and local). 

A. Future Work 

In addition to similar ongoing work as described above in 
II. B. , major future work efforts will be support for others 
(SFO) and environmental engineering. We anticipate significant 
SFO work in our north central region of the country. In FY92, 
NCD had about $18 million of work effort, of which $10 million 
was for FEMA on the Great Chicago Flood. The primary near- future 
work for NCD is in environmental engineering — this will include 
DERP (currently a $10 million program) as well as SFO environmen- 
tal restoration work for other Federal agencies. NCD has been 
positioning itself and developing its expertise in these areas. 

As a Federal agency regional center and international gov- 
ernment and business center, Chicago provides an excellent oppor- 
tunity to coordinate and carry out SFO work. Major Federal agen- 
cies with significant problems and the need for engineering 
expertise, have been given significant budgets (billions of 
dollars) to solve their problems. These agencies include the 
Department of Energy (DOE) and U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (USEPA) , both of which have regional centers in Chicago. 
Other key Federal agencies for which there is a good potential 
for SFO work include: FHMA (Agriculture) , GSA, FAA, FEMA, State 
Department, HUD, BIA, NASA, and FHWA. Chicagoland is a Federal 
regional center for most of these agencies. It also has 47 
foreign consulates, 3rd in the nation, behind only Washington, DC 
and New York City. This also positions us for coordinating 
international SFO work for other countries. An example of the 
type and magnitude of SFO work we can cultivate and assist our 
nation in is seen through a consideration of a continuing, superb 
working relationship between the USEPA Region 5 (including the 



311 



Great Lakes National Programs Office (GLNPO) ) and the North Cen- 
tral Division (see Appendix B) . 

B. BRAC Site Selection Criteria 

The reorganization site selection criteria that the 
Chief of Engineers used in the BRAC plan are used here to evalu- 
ate Chicago as a most logical location for a Midwest Corps of 
Engineers division office. 

1. Quality of Life 

The Chicago area quality of life for the professional 
workforce is considered excellent. One of the basis for this is 
the fact that the Places Rated Book s.^ows Chicago has excellent 
ratings in 6 of 9 key factors (jobs; health care and environment; 
transportation; education; the arts; and, recreation) . 

The lower the cumulative score, the better the rating, as shown 
by the following table. 

Factors: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) 



Chicago: 269 18 326 3 7 


3 


3 


16 


211 


851 


18 


Cincinnati: 214 75 138 108 63 


34 


41 


56 


95 


820 


14 


(1) 


Cost of Living 














(2) 


Jobs 














(3) 


Crime 














(4) 


Health Care & Environment 














(5) 


Transportation 














(6) 


Education 














(7) 


The Arts 














(8) 


Recreation 














(9) 


Climate 














(10) 


Cumulative Score 














(11) 


Overall Rank 















The Cost of Living and Crime is shown to be higher in Chicago 
than in Cincinnati. However, the Cost of Living and Crime rates 
are lower in many of the suburbs than in either the City of 
Chicago or in Cincinnati. The suburbs are easily accessible, 
since they are served by the excellent transportation system 
which allows you to get into and out of the City of Chicago with 
safe, affordable mass transit. There are over one hundred quali- 
ty suburbs, many of which have lower cost of living and less 
chance of encounter with crime. 

The climate is somewhat more varied in the Chicago area than the 
Cincinnati area. Chicago is less humid and cooler than the 
Cincinnati area. It is noted that the cost of air conditioning 
is more expensive than the cost of heating; therefore, the Chica- 
go area cost of living would be reduced as well for this category 
(i.e., an advantage as related to climate). 



312 



Even without the corrections, as stated above, the raw scores of 
Chicago(851) and Cincinnati (820) are very close, and with correc- 
tions due to the suburbs lower crime rate and more economical 
cost of living, e.g., housing, food, education, etc., the cumula- 
tive score of the Chicago area would be considerably less than 
the Cincinnati area. Therefore, with this adjusted cost of 
living consideration, lower crime in the suburbs, as well as the 
much better ratings for health care and environment, transporta- 
tion, education, recreation, jobs, and the arts, it would point 
to the Chicago area as a very high quality of living area. 



(a) Cost of Living 



Consider the breakdown of cost of living comparison 
between Chicago and Cincinnati as shown in the following table: 



Chicago, XL 

Typical Household 
Income: $52,841 
State and Local 
Taxes: $3,230 
Housing Cost Indexes 

Median Price: 108 

Utilities: 134 

Property Taxes: 14 6 
Miscellaneous Living 

Cost Indexes 

College Tuition: 123 

Food: 103 

Health Care: 123 

Transportation: 109 
Places Rated Score: 10,780 
Places Rated Rank: 2 69 



Cincinnati, OH-KT-IN 

Typical Household 
Income: $46,7 38 
State and Local 
Taxes: $2,117 
' Housing Cost Indexes 
Median Price: 80 
Utilities: 112 
Property Taxes: 74 
Miscellaneous Living 
Cost Indexes 
College Tuition: 149 
Food: 103 
Health Care: 106 
Transportation: 105 
Places Rated Score: 9,400 
Places Rated Rank: 214 



It reveals that those in the miscellaneous category (college, 
food, health care, and transportation) are generally a wash. The 
main difference appears to be in taxes and housing costs. Here 
again, depending on where in the Chicago Metro area one chooses 
to live, there appears to be a wide diversity to choose from. 

Also, based on tax information from other sources, it would 
appear that, at best, the overall taxes may be the same, if not a 
little cheaper in Illinois - Chicago area — see the following 
table (sources are Greater Cincinnati Community Profile, World 
Book Encyclopedia and personal tax experience) : 



Taxes 

State Income 



Illinois-Chicago Area 
3% 



Ohio-Cincinnati Area 
4-5% 



Sales Tax 



6.25 - 8.75% 

(but only 2% on food & drugs) 



5% 



313 



County Income None 1% 

City Income None 2% 

Property Tax 6.7 per $100 5.4 - 6.5 per $100 

Concerning the housing costs, another source of data and compari- 
son analysis are made between Chicago metro area and the Cincin- 
nati area. 

The American Chamber of Commerce Research Association's 
(ACCRA) Cost of Living Index for the first quarter of 1 ■92 shows 
a composite index for the following areas: 

Chicago, Illinois, PMSA 124.0 

Schaumburg, Illinois 

Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana PMSA 106.7 
Cincinnati, Ohio 

Reference 26 (see Appendix H) shows indexes for break- 
downs of various categories that make up the composite index. 
Housing represents the greatest reason why the Chicago area's 
index is higher than the Cincinnati area. Comparing housing 
indexes, they are as follows: 

Cincinnati 112.6 

Chicago 164.5 

This is about a 47 percent difference between the two 
cities, but this difference does not have to be that great, be- 
cause the real estate values vary markedly throughout the metro- 
politan area, even between adjacent municipalities in the Chicago 
area. 

The 1991 Chicago House Hunt Book, "Living in Greater 
Chicago", published by the Chicago Sun-Times, lists average home 
values. The average home value is $158,000 in Bloomingdale com- 
pared to $114,000 in Lombard and $103,600 in Villa Park, right 
next door. The same reference compares income needed to buy the 
average house. For Bloomingdale, it lists $51,400, and for 
Lombard and Villa Park, it lists $37,000 and $34,000, respective- 
ly. The quality of living in Lombard and Villa Park are very 
much equal to that in Bloomingdale, and the commute distance and 
excellent means of transportation to downtown Chicago are about 
the same. It is noted that the purchase of a house in the Chica- 
go area remains a good investment, which can be recouped along 
with a good rate of return when sold. The Chicago area was rated 
#1 (among 100 major metro areas) in maintaining its real estate 
values, as reported in a recent U.S. News & World Report survey. 
This is because the Chicago area is a viable quality of life area 
that supports a stable job base through its infrastructure and 
other amenities it offers. 



314 



Under the 1990 Pay Reform Law, locality-based general 
schedule pay is designed to virtually close local pay gaps over 
nine years. It is to be paid on top of basic annual raises 
linked to national pay and benefit trends. The Bureau of Labor 
Statistics currently is doing detailed salary surveys in 28 major 
cities, including Chicago. The law requires the White House to 
announce by the end of this year the pay zone boundaries and the 
amount of the first year's raises. Raises should be starting in 
1994. With this occurring, the higher cost-of-living for Chicago 
area should become much less of a factor for Corps personnel 
considering relocating to Chicago. 



(b) 



Job Center 



Chicago, due to its large population and its being a 
regional center, has one of the largest skilled and unskilled 
labor forces in the nation. Currently, total employment is about 
3.2 million, by far the largest in the midwest, and one of the 
largest in the country. Traditionally, Chicago has served as the 
heart of the midwest economy. A recent study indicates that 
metropolitan Chicago actually created more jobs between 1983 and 
1987 than any other area, except Los Angeles. The key is that 
Chicago is adjusting to the economic realities of the service- 
intensive 1990 's. There are also developments on the small 
business front. According to Dun and Bradstreet, new business 
incorporations climbed 40% in Chicago between 1980 and 1985. 

A recent U.S. Department of Labor statistics analysis 
showed that, during 1991, while the rest of the nation was mired 
in recession, the midwest led the nation in job growth, and 
Chicago placed 6th in new jobs created among the top 2 U.S. 
Metropolitan areas rated. 



This is extremely important considering the majority of 
the families depend on two incomes, it would be much easier for 
the spouse of a transferred Corps employee to find a new 
job/career in an area with a large job base (the midwest's larg- 
est by far) that is also growing. This, in effect, could account 
for one of the largest cost of living factors, depending, of 
course, on the contribution of the non-Corps employee's spouse to 
the family's 2 -salary income — probably, on average, it is 
estimated to be from 20 to 50%. Also, if the spouse is a private 
sector employee, their salary for a new job in Chicago would be, 
on average, about 15 to 2 5% greater than other midwest metropoli- 
tan areas — thus, helping offset the somewhat higher housing 
costs. In addition, if the spouse is a Federal government em- 
ployee, their chances of finding a comparable Federal job in 
Chicago are much greater, since it is a Federal agency regional 
center. 



315 



(c) Health Care 

Chicago is home of the American Medical Association and 
the American Dental Association. Chicago ranks 3rd in the nation 
in Health Care and Environment (Places Rated Almanac) ; it main- 
tains numerous health care facilities and about 226 doctors for 
every 100,000 residents. There are also numerous practicing 
specialists in Chicago. It is considered a bright area in the 
future of Chicago. 

The University of Illinois Medical Center in Chicago is 
the nation's largest teaching hospital/health sei-vices complex. 
Illinois has two public medical schools at 5 sites and six pri- 
vate medical schools. Four of the largest healthcare products 
manufacturers in the United States are headquartered in Illinois, 
along with more than 3 50 medical technology-related products 
manufacturers (most of these facilities are located in Chicago) . 
Illinois is also a leading producer of dental and surgical equip- 
ment. The state benefits from the expertise developed at four 
dental schools. 

There are 242 hospitals in Illinois (85 of these with 

about 30,000 beds are in Chicago), and more than 900 nursing 

homes. More than 35,000 physicians and surgeons and more than 
9,400 dentists are licensed to practice in Illinois. 

Illinois was the first state, and is one of only two 
states in the nation, with a trauma center network to provide 
immediate specialized treatment to the seriously injured. 

High quality health care, as just described above, has 
got to be one of the premier quality of life factors to be con- 
sidered in any site location for a Corps of Engineers midwest 
division office — maintaining good health and sustaining life 
are paramount. 

(d) Transportation 

Going from here to there . . . anywhere ... is easy in 
Chicago. Planes zoom into O'Hare and Midway Airports and Meigs 
Field. Metra trains from the suburbs zip into downtown Chicago. 
The subway runs under the city and the El track encircles Chica- 
go's Loop. The CTA trains also provide fast, efficient and very 
affordable (only $1.50 one way), transportation to and from 
O'Hare International Airport and the Chicago Loop. The CTA buses 
bustle through city streets. The PACE buses service suburban 
train stations, shopping malls, main streets, and work corridors. 
The PACE buses stop in many apartment communities and shuttles 
suburban residents to the train depots. Commuter ferry boats 
skim along the Chicago River from downtown train stations to near 
north side businesses. Expressways circle the city and extend to 
the farthest suburban limits. The expressways also provide an 
effective means of, not only commuting to jobs throughout the 
metropolitan area, but also of getting back and forth between the 



316 



suburban area and O'Hare and Midway Airports by means of the 
fast, efficient and affordable airport limousine services exist- 
ing throughout the area. The CTA, Metra, and PACE systems offer 
commuters special savings and services through various ticket and 
passport packages. Metra train lines include the Chicago and 
Northwestern (North, West and Northwest trains) , Norfolk South- 
ern, Metra Electric, Milwaukee District (North and West trains). 
Rock Island, Burlington Northern, Heritage, and Route #835. A 
sample of suburb-to-downtown Chicago times are: 

Wheaton - 41 minutes 
Arlington Heights - 37 minutes 
Oak Lawn - 41 minutes 
Richton Park - 45 minutes 
Schaumburg - 42 minutes 
Oak Forest - 41 minutes 
Naperville - 34 minutes 
Downers Grove - 27 minutes 

Metra is safe, comfortable, and economical, with an 
on-time performance record that is second to none. It serves 
many communities in the city and suburbs including as far away as 
Wisconsin and Indiana. Nearly 600,000 people use these mass 
transit systems to get to work each day. A majority of the com- 
muters still rely on the large and effective expressway system. 
As an example of how well the Chicago transportation system 
works, it is noted that on the day of the Great Chicago Loop 
Flood on April 13, 1992, nearly 1,000,000 people were orderly, 
safely, and efficiently evacuated within a matter of hours. 

(e) Recreation and Entertainment 

Chicagoans live in urbane downtown settings, unigue 
city neighborhoods, and picturesgue suburban towns. Chicagoans 
relax in a panoramic playground of recreation and entertainment. 
Chicagoans enjoy music. They appreciate every note — from the 
classical sounds of Orchestra Hall, Civic Opera House and ballet, 
to the country songs of sell-out concerts. They applaud blues, 
dixieland, folk and rock bands. This includes the famous on-going 
seasonal open-air concerts at Grant Park, Ravinia, Poplar Creek 
and World Music Theater among other special events like the Taste 
of Chicago and the Lake Front Air Se Water Show. 

Chicago theaters spotlight original performances and 
import Broadway and London shows. Chicagoland's theatrical scene 
is enhanced by community productions. Further, it is becoming a 
major on-site location for Hollywood movie-making. 

Stars shine at Adler Planetarium. Fish show-off at 
Shedd Aquarium, augmented by the new $45 million Oceanarium addi- 
tion (recipient of ISPE 1992 Outstanding Engineering Achievement) 
which overlooks scenic Lake Michigan. Art takes center stage at 
the Art Institute, the Museum of Contemporary Art and private 
galleries. The Field Museum of Natural History and the Museum of 



317 



Science and Industry educate and entertain. Exotic animals star 
at Lincoln Park and Brookfield Zoos. Other museums throughout 
Chicagoland highlight unique collections. 

Chicagoans cheer other animals — the Bulls (2-time World 
Champions), Cubs, and Bears. They soar with the Black Hawks and 
swing with the White Sox. Hundreds of local clubs add to Chica- 
go's sports fervor. 

Nightlife shines in the city that never sleeps and 
sparkles in suburban settings. Rave review restaurants, neigh- 
borhood pubs, slick bistros, ethnic dining rooms and outdoor 
cafes entice Chicagoans and visitors. The Magnificent Mile of 
Michigan Avenue (lined by some of the nation's finest stores), 
downtown department stores, major suburban malls and local bou- 
tiques tempt shoppers. 

For children and adults alike, there are well over 100 
quality living communities which offer a high quality of life. 
They have an abundance of swimming pools, clubhouses, tennis 
courts, health clubs, picnic tables, volleyball pits, bicycle and 
jogging trails all of which encourage family fun-times. The 
large number of quality communities has an abundance of afford- 
able housing to fit most any pocketbook. Chicago and the suburbs 
offer a panorama of recreational opportunities with parks, golf 
courses, forest preserves and park land, as well as museums, 
entertainment centers, theme parks, recreational and nature cen- 
ters . The needs of parents with young children are met with day 
care facilities, public and private schools, park district pro- 
grams, YMCA, and Scouting. 

Chicago fronts on 29 miles of beautiful Lake Michigan 
shoreline. Such a location invites boaters, wind-surfers, walk- 
ers, sunbathers, swimmers, fishermen, and spectacular sunrises. 
Recreational boating is a major force in Illinois (2nd only to 
Michigan in the number of marinas in the midwest — 135) and 
Chicago. North Point Marina, just north of Chicago, is the 
largest (designed for over 1,700 units) on Lake Michigan and one 
of the largest on the entire Great Lakes. The Chicago River 
winds through the city and smaller lakes and rivers ebb through 
outlying towns. City and suburban parks spread grass-green 
welcome mats. Chicagoland golf courses host local duffers and 
national matches. Chicagoland contains almost one-third of the 
600 golf courses in Illinois. More than a few were designed by 
giants of the game. And more of them - more than in any other 
state - have earned a place on Golf Digest's top 2 5 public 
courses list. Chicagoland courses, such as Medinah, Butler, Cog 
Hill and others have hosted major national golf matches. 

(f) Education 

Illinois elementary and secondary school systems are 
among the finest in the United States. Illinois ranked seventh 
in 1988 in total state and local government expenditures for 



10 



318 



public elementary and secondary education. The comprehensive 
curriculum includes gifted, special and bilingual education, as 
well as a strong emphasis on academic study. The Illinois Math 
and Science Academy, located in metro Chicago, is a public resi- 
dential high school for our most talented math and science stu- 
dents. In contrast, to meet the needs of the less fortunate, 
there are almost 50 programs designed for employment and training 
services for everyone from the youth to the elderly. Each year, 
about 50 percent of the state's 108,000 public high school grad- 
uates seek specialized education at colleges and universities. 
Approximately 45 percent of Illinois public high school graduates 
complete vocational training programs. 

The Illinois education system includes 678 high 
schools, 50 community colleges, 30 area vocational centers, and 
more than 430 approved private, business, vocational, and self- 
improvement schools. There are 189 public and private institu- 
tions of higher education that include such nationally-recognized 
schools as the University of Chicago, Northwestern University, 
the University of Illinois, Loyola, DePaul and Illinois Institute 
of Technology. Total enrollment in Illinois public and private 
educational institutions, beyond the 12th grade, was over 732,000 
in 1990. 

Illinois ranks fourth nationally in the number of doc- 
torates awarded in scientific and engineering disciplines. Dur- 
ing the 1987-1988 academic year, doctorate-granting Illinois 
institutions conferred 768 Doctorate and 2,370 Masters degrees in 
the fields of computer and information sciences, engineering, 
life sciences, mathematics, and physical sciences. 

Education outside of the classroom is enhanced by the 
research facilities available. Illinois ranks seventh among the 
states in total number of industrial research labs. Over 31 
percent (195) of Illinois industrial research labs are located in 
the City of Chicago. The surrounding communities of Des Plaines, 
Oak Brook, and Skokie are also popular locations. Chicagoland's 
DuPage County's "Research Row" is reported to be the fastest 
growing private research area in the nation. These facilities, 
plus the federally supported labs of Fermilab and Argonne, cou- 
pled with the significant research facilities at the University 
of Chicago, University of Illinois, Northwestern University, and 
the Illinois Institute of Technology, provide an ideal environ- 
ment for engineering and scientific research related needs. 
Additionally, the federal government maintains/supports many 
research facilities in Illinois as follows: 

Advanced Environmental Control Technology Center 
Argonne National Laboratory 

Armament Research Development and Engineering Center 
Army Engineer Construction Engineering Research Lab 
Army Industrial Engineering Activity 

Department of Rehabilitation Research and Development 
Center 



11 



319 



Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory 
Industrial Waste Elimination Research Center 
Manufacturing Technology Information Analysis Center 
National Center for Supercomputing Applications 
Northern Regional Research Center 
Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant Office 
Midwestern Climate Center 

Education and research in Chicagoland is supported by 
one of the country's bes library systems. The University of 
Illinois contains more c an five million volumes and more than 
three million other reference documents, making it the nation's 
third largest at a public university. Also, it is currently 
constructing one of the most sophisticated and e:.tensive high- 
tech engineering libraries in the nation. Its collections are 
available to others (including the Corps' NCD office) by means of 
a computerized circulation network. Other impressive Chicagoland 
library collections include those of Northern Illinois Universi- 
ty, University of Chicago, Northwestern University, and the 
Chicago Public Library system. In fact, the Harold Washington 
Center in the Loop is the nation's largest public library build- 
ing. 

The taxpayers have generously supported higher educa- 
tion. Therefore, education remains the single largest component 
of the state budget. The diverse educational opportunities 
available in Chicagoland provide broad access to higher education 
for all citizens and a variety of vocational and academic pro- 
grams at both public and private institutions. 

(g) Climate 

Chicago is predominantly continental, with warm to hot 
summers and mild to cold winters. The climate of the downtown 
city area is modified by the lake, with summer temperatures near 
the shore often 10 degrees cooler than elsewhere. Summer hot 
spells - an uncomfortable combination of high temperature and 
humidity - may last for several days, then end abruptly with a 
shift of winds to the north or northwest. They are often accom- 
panied by thunderstorms. The normal heating season lasts from 
October to early June. The air conditioning season lasts from 
mid-June to early September. For those individuals who like 
changeable seasons, it is ideal. The annual snowfall is 30 
inches, and the annual rainfall is 34 inches. The average month- 
ly temperature ranges from 24 degrees Fahrenheit in December, to 
a high of 7 5 degrees Fahrenheit in July. 

The principal assets of the Illinois climate are its 
adequate, but seldom excessive, rainfall and the lack of severe 
extremes. A similar climate prevails throughout the heavily 
populated and productive section of the United States which 
extends from the upper Mississippi Valley eastward to the middle 
Atlantic states. The daily and seasonal variability promotes 
health and vigor. 

12 



320 



Because prevailing winds are westerly and storm systems 
move from the same direction, the influence of Lake Michigan on 
Illinois' weather is not large. However, there is some modera- 
tion effect on the near-shore area of Chicago and other communi- 
ties, where approximately one-half of the state population lives. 
When the wind blows from the Lake toward the shore, which it does 
for approximately one-fourth of the time during spring and sum- 
mer, and for about one-eighth of the time during fall and winter, 
the result is a moderation of temperature. In addition to the 
general occurrence of onshore winds, there is the local "sea 
breeze" effect on summer afternoons which is usually observable 
in a narrow strip near the lakeshore. 

(h) Culture and Arts Center 

Cosmopolitan sophistication combines with midwestern 
country charm in Chicago and Illinois. Illinois is one of the 
nation's most cosmopolitan states. Chicago, for example, has the 
largest Polish population outside Warsaw, and one of the largest 
Greek populations outside Athens and Slonika. Many Illinois 
cities have maintained the color and traditions of their early 
ethnic settlers and host annual festivals and other celebrations. 

Chicago has more than 5,000 restaurants representing 
the cuisine of nearly every nation on earth. There are more than 
17,000 eating and drinking establishments in the state. Cities 
and towns throughout Illinois play host to hundreds of thousands 
of diners at annual Pumpkin, Sweet Corn, Apple, Beef, Pork, 
Popcorn, and Deer Festivals. 

Almost everyone of the state's 102 counties has an 

annual fair in the finest old-time tradition; and, the Illinois 

State Fair in Springfield is the largest agricultural exhibition 
in the world. 

Many of Chicago's boulevards rival those of Rome and 
Paris, and plush international fashion salons, discriminating 
retail establishments and fine hotels and restaurants make up the 
City's Magnificent Mile along the world-famous Michigan Avenue. 

The finest retail firms in the nation are represented 
at shopping malls in most major Illinois communities; and, small 
shops in the smaller communities offer local handiwork and pro- 
duce. There is a total of more than 60,000 retail establishments 
in Illinois, and the state ranks sixth nationally in annual 
retail sales. 

Chicago's architecture dominates American design. 
Architects and engineers travel from around the world to study 
how graduates of the Chicago School shaped today's spectacular 
and innovative Windy City skyline. 

Most major Illinois cities maintain symphony orchestras 
13 



321 



and community theater groups, and Chicago boasts the internation- 
ally-respected Chicago Symphony Orchestra and Lyric Opera. The 
City's acoustically-perfect, 5,000 seat Auditorium Theatre plays 
host to the Bolshoi Ballet and the latest folk, classical, coun- 
try and rock musicians. 

The Art Institute of Chicago's renowned collection of 
works by French Impressionists is only a small part of the Insti- 
tute's treasures which include works by Van Gogh, Rembrandt, Goya 
and da Vinci, to cite a few. 

Chicago is also home to the 3,000 square-foot Chagall 
mosaic Four Seasons; a 50-foot-high steel Picasso sculpture: 
Calder's 50-ton stabile Flamingo; and, Moore's Nuclear Energy 
sculpture marking the site of the world's first controlled atomic 
chain reaction. 

Chicago theatre includes Shakespeare, Japanese Kabuki, 
drama and musicals and a number of local theater groups which 
have launched the careers of nationally-acclaimed writers and 
performers. The Goodman, the Shubert, the Chicago, the famous 
Auditorium Theaters to cite a few, are centers of performance 
that continue to attract people from all over the world. 

This factor is not only important for enhancing the 
quality of life of our individual families, it is also a key 
factor in doing business — operational efficiency and flexibili- 
ty. The reason is that it helps to develop and maintain ethnic 
and cultural diversity that is considered important in the future 
workforce and very important in carrying out global business in 
the 21st century. 

(i) Services 

The Chicago metropolitan area's services and infra- 
structure supports a high quality of life in all aspects. These 
include: abundance of energy, quality water, storm and sanitary 
facilities, transportation, communications, financial/investment 
centers, health care (about 125 hospitals), spiritual needs, 
education (95 institutions of higher learning) , recreation/enter- 
tainment, social, nutrition/ fitness, public safety/security, and 
business. This high quality lifestyle community and center of 
business, commerce, education, culture, and the arts was not 
developed "overnight" nor by happenstance; it was rather by well 
thought out planning, commitment, team work, financing, and 
talent. 

Chicago is the transportation hub of the nation — air, 
rail, highway, waterways, and soon to be MAG-LEV high speed 
transportation system. It is unsurpassed both from an intermo- 
dal, as well as a commuter transportation standpoint. It is 
undoubtedly, the best overall commuter transportation system in 
the nation, serving all area communities at a very affordable 
cost. It is both an international port for lake and sea-going 



14 



322 



vessels as well as a river barge navigation community requiring a 
large and complex system of developed and maintained channels, 
locks & dams, docks, harbors, ports and other marine infrastruc- 
ture. 

Chicago is a national communications center, having 
developed one of the best systems of telecommunications, telecon- 
ferencing, cellular, satellite, cable, and computer networking in 
the country. This currently provides for (and will, even more so 
in the future) a more efficient and flexible means of doing 
business especially in the 21st century. 

(j) Financial Center 

Chicago has been and will remain the financial power- 
house of the nation's midsection. The city is home to the Mid- 
west Stock Exchange (second largest securities exchange in the 
U.S. after NYSE), the 7th Federal Reserve Bank, and the Chicago 
Board of Trade (CBT) . The CBT, founded in 1848, is the oldest 
exchange in the United States. The Chicago Mercantile Exchange 
is the busiest market for perishable goods. Between the CBT and 
the Mercantile Exchange over 7 0% of all futures are traded 
through Chicago. 

In addition, there are a number of major banking insti- 
tutions in Illinois and Chicago. Its status as a financial 
center continues to grow each year. Illinois has more than 1,150 
banks — these national and state banking facilities control 
nearly 6% of the total bank assets in the United States. Chicago 
is home to the 5 largest banks in Illinois — First National Bank 
of Chicago; Continental Illinois National Bank; Harris Trust and 
Savings; The Northern Trust Company; and American National. Four 
of the largest banks rank 12th, 17th, 4 9th and 57th in the For- 
tune Service 500 list of the 100 largest commercial banks in the 
U.S. There are also 69 international banks that have established 
branches or representative offices in Chicago. 

The financial facilities provide the strength and 
diversity required to provide billions of dollars in capital 
needed to finance industrial and commercial development projects. 
This is very important from a quality of life standpoint. It 
allows adequate and readily available capital for infrastructure, 
housing and business developments. Also, it makes readily avail- 
able and affordable (reasonable interest rates) loans for mort- 
gages, home equity, personal or business. This could be a sig- 
nificant factor also in the cost of living — i.e., available 
loan dollars at rates possibly below the national average. 
Additionally, it can provide greater opportunities for a family 
in making savings/ investments, i.e., for education, business 
opportunities and/or retirement. 



15 



323 



(k) Parks/Forests/Open Space 

Chicago's slogan, "Urbus in Horto" or City in a Garden, 
is more than a slogan, it's a fact. Chicago has 572 parks which 
cover a total area of more than 7,300 acres. Many of these are 
connected by tree-lined boulevards that lace through the residen- 
tial areas. The county forest preserves in the city add another 
3,500 acres of recreation while the surrounding communities have 
more than 62,000 acres of forested and recreational parkland. 
There are over 140 golf courses throughout metropolitan Chicago 
and virtually every community has an athletic field for every 
sport imaginable. The winter sport enthusiasts will find six 
areas which feature tobogganing ramps among the myriad of ice 
skating rinks and cross country and downhill ski areas. 

Chicago's incomparable lakefront includes 16 beaches, 9 
yacht clubs, and 13 boat launching sites, and is the center of 
many special events such as the Chicago to Mackinac Island sail- 
boat racing event. Outside Chicago, the state has more than 
282,000 acres of lakes and ponds and more than 430 rivers which 
feature 2,000 miles of navigable canoe routes. 

2. Transportation Hub 

Illinois and, particularly, Chicago is America's trans- 
portation center. This role as a transport hub grows in signifi- 
cance every time the price of fuel climbs. A modern, interna- 
tional transportation system provides direct and efficient routes 
to all parts of the U. S. and the world (including international 
ports, since the Great Lakes is the nation's "fourth seacoast") . 
This also provides for significantly reduced travel and transpor- 
tation costs for businesses. Its truck, rail and airline facili- 
ties are some of the greatest in the world. 

Being the transportation hub of the nation, Chicago and 
Illinois play a major role in the nation's and world's business 
because of its superb highway, air, waterborne, and rail trans- 
portation systems (including a future high-speed rail system). 

Illinois transportation system includes 137,500 miles 
of highways and nearly 2,000 miles of interstates (third largest 
in the nation). Illinois lies at the heart of the nation's 
interstate highway system. Three coast-to-coast interstates 
(1-80, 1-90, and 1-70) pass through Illinois. Major east/west 
and north/south interchanges are located at more than a dozen 
locations, from the Quad-Cities area in northwestern Illinois to 
Mount Vernon in the southeast. Additionally, the state is served 
by 1-55, 1-57, 1-94, 1-39, 1-88, 1-72, 1-74, 1-64, and 1-24. All 
totaled, 1,939 miles of interstate (more miles than all but two 
other states) provide direct highway access to every point in the 
nation. An additional 27,411 miles of highways make these inter- 
state routes accessible from every region of the state. 



16 



324 



Chicago has the largest railroad gateway in the nation. 
Using the gateways, Illinois' 25 railroads provide service to 
every part of the United States. National railroads serving 
Illinois include Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe; Burlington North- 
ern; Chicago Central & Pacific; Chicago & Northwestern; Consoli- 
dated Rail Corporation; CSX Transportation, Inc.; Grand Trunk 
Western; Illinois Central; Norfolk & Southern; Soo Line; and, 
Union Pacific. Approximately 55 percent of Illinois' communities 
have rail service, compared to 3 5 percent nationally. 

Illinois has kept pace with twentieth century transpor- 
tation demands and is also a center for air transport. There are 
approximately 1,100 airports, landing areas and heliports in 
Illinois. Virtually every Illinois city with a population over 
3 0,000 is served by a business jet airport or commercial airline. 
More than 57.6 million travelers pass through Chicago's O'Hare 
International Airport each year (the nation's busiest). 

Illinois has the largest waterway system in the nation, 
with 900 miles inland from the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers to 
the Great Lakes (fourth seacoast) with ocean vessels traveling 
the St. Lawrence Seaway to international seaports, including 
Chicago. Its waterways handle more cargo than the Panama Canal. 

Illinois' history as a center for industry and trade 
was due in large part to the 1,110 miles of navigable waters 
which border or pass through the state. Providing Illinois with 
a direct link to the Atlantic Ocean (via the Great Lakes and the 
St. Lawrence Seaway) and the Gulf of Mexico, the waterways and 
port facilities are taking on renewed emphasis as part of 
Illinois' transportation system. 

The Port of Chicago, with major docks on the Lake 
Michigan shoreline and extending six miles inland along the 
Calumet River, offers shippers unloading and loading facilities 
at approximately 75 terminals. About twenty-five of these teinni- 
nals handle ocean and lake vessels, while the rest service 
barges. These berths, elevators and cargo storage facilities can 
handle steel shipments as well as liquid bulk and dry bulk car- 
goes. The Iroquois Landing Lakefront Terminal, with 225,000 
square feet of storage space and 90 acres of paved land, is the 
newest containerized shipping facility on the Great Lakes. 
Operated by the Illinois International District, the Lake Michi- 
gan port is served by four railroads and has direct access to 
Interstates 90 and 94. 

3. Federal Regional Center 

There are nearly 50 Federal agencies in Chicago, with 
15 having regional centers including the North Central Division, 
Corps of Engineers in Chicago (see Appendix C) . In fact, Chicago 
is the center for the Standard Federal Region 5. It is also a 
Great Lakes regional center for binational groups and the Council 
of Great Lakes Governors (see Appendix D) . There are nearly 



17 



325 



3 0,000 Federal workers in Chicago and over 50,000 in Illinois — 
which is the region's most populous state (6th in the nation with 
11.5 million people). 

This is significant from the standpoint of the effi- 
ciency and flexibility of doing business with Federal and other 
regional agencies, which is considered the Corps of Engineers 
third major mission — Support for Others. A major player that 
NOD closely associates with now (and will continue in the future) 
is the USEPA Region 5 and the Great Lakes National Program Office 
(see Appendix B) . Also, this regional center is important for a 
Federal government employee (including Corps employees), i.e., as 
related to career advancement and higher potential grade levels. 
Transferring spouses of Corps employees (transferred due to 
reorganization) who are Federal government workers, would have a 
greater opportunity for finding a comparable or higher level job. 
This is a very significant cost of living factor for 2-income 
families, which are a majority today. 

4. Collocation with Other Military, Major Corps 
Offices and Projects 

Chicago is co-located with several other military and 
Corps offices, labs, and projects. These include: the Corps of 
Engineers' Chicago District; nearby Corps of Engineers Construc- 
tion Engineering Research Lab (Champaign, Urbana) ; Fort Sheridan; 
Great Lakes Naval Base; Glenview Naval Air Base; the 416th Engi- 
neer Command; and, the Illinois Air National Guard at O'Hare 
International Airport. 

The Chicago metropolitan area includes part of the Lake 
Michigan drainage basin and portions of the Mississippi River 
basin tributaries. The Illinois River is formed by the conflu- 
ence of the Kankakee and Des Plaines Rivers just 40 miles south- 
west of Chicago, This unique geographic location provides Lake 
Michigan deep-draft harbors and international ports (via the St. 
Lawrence Seaway) in Chicago's lakefront area, along with barge 
traffic connecting to the Mississippi River (and hence the Gulf 
of Mexico) via the Illinois Waterway. 

The key projects we are collocated with include: 
locks, (Chicago and O'Brien and Lockport Locks and Dams), water- 
ways, diversions, harbors, recreation facilities, urban 
water/wastewater projects and flood control (e.g. , Chicago Under- 
flow Plan tunnels and reservoirs) and coastal projects. These 
are located on Lake Michigan, Illinois Waterway, Calumet - Sag 
and Sanitary Ship Canal Projects, and the Chicago and Des Plaines 
Rivers. Many of these projects are of national impori:ance and 
involve Federal, state and local investments of tens of billions 
of dollars. 

Previous Chicagoans reversed the flow of the Chicago 
and Calumet Rivers and, by intercepting certain drainage areas 
along the lakeshore, added about 67 3 square miles of area from 

18 



72-424 0-94-11 



326 



the Lake Michigan watershed to the Illinois River watershed. The 
Illinois Waterway and Great Lakes navigation projects are adja- 
cent to the Chicagoland area. The Chicago River and O'Brien 
Locks control the water between the Great Lakes and ultimately 
the Mississippi River (and the Gulf of Mexico) for commercial/- 
recreational navigation. This also involves a major water man- 
agement responsibility assigned by the U. s. Supreme Court to the 
Corps of Engineers, involving measuring, monitoring, and account- 
ing procedures for the water diversion from Lake Michigan at 
Chicago. The Illinois Waterway 9-foot Navigation Project for 
Lake Michigan to Lockport, Illinois, Lock and Dam is about 36 
miles long. It is controlled at the south end by the Thomas J. 
O'Brien Lock and Dam located near the Lake Calumet area. The 
Chicagoland Deep Tunnel Project required Corps-designed and 
constructed reservoirs to contain flood waters. O'Hare Reservoir 
is under construction now, and McCook Reservoir, a $1 to 2 bil- 
lion project, is in the final design phase with a construction 
start expected in FY94. Thornton Reservoir will be constructed 
thereafter. Also, consideration is being given to hydropower 
facilities collocated with nearby Corps of Engineers' locks and 
dams projects (i.e., Starved Rock Lock and Dam.) 

The 416th Engineer Command (ENCOM) has its headquarters 
located at 4454 West Cermak Road, Chicago, Illinois. This unit 
is the highest level engineer reserve unit in the U.S. Army. 
There is only one other comparable level reserve unit, the 412th 
Engineer Command, which is located in Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

The 416th has two main missions which correspond to the 
two portions of the ENCOM. The ENCOM' s primary mission is to 
provide theater level engineer support to coordinate engineer 
activities during partial or full mobilization. Their area of 
emphasis is southeast and southwest Asia. Their unit includes 
approximately 250 personnel. 

The other mission of the 416th is facility engineering. 
To accomplish this other mission, another organization, the 416 
Facility Engineer TDA was created. The "TDA" headquarters is co- 
located with the Engineer Command in Chicago, Illinois. The 
purpose of this unit is to maintain and enhance the quality of 
the U.S. Army Reserve facilities. 

5. Availability of Trained Labor 

The primary professional talent we are concerned with 
is the global engineering, scientific, and construction capabili- 
ty within the Chicago area. There are 130 consulting engineering 
firms — many of them world-renowned (see Appendix E) . It is the 
combined synergism of the engineering and scientific community 
that makes it a world-renowned center of technological opera- 
tions. This is possible because of the partnering and networking 
among all the technical communities — educational institutions, 
private consulting firms, public organizations, research facili- 
ties, and professional societies. 



19 



327 



Chicago has long been noted for its engineering and 
scientific achievements: the significant feat of connecting Lake 
Michigan and the Illinois River; Manhattan Project; Coal and 
Freight Tunnel System; world's tallest office buildings; Fermi 
Accelerator Lab; Chicago Underflow System; the longest system of 
lakeshore infrastructure (public beaches, park, recreation, boat- 
ing facilities) ; and, others. It continues to be a world leader 
in the engineering and scientific arena: DuPage County's high 
tech corridor research facilities; major technical high schools, 
colleges, and universities; about 13 engineering consulting 
firms; major public engineering organizations (Federal, State, 
County, and City) ; and numerous professional engineering, archi- 
tectural and scientific societies (see Appendix F) for fostering 
professional development, ethics, partnering, training, and 
leadership. Thus, Chicago has irrefutably earned the reputation 
as a world-renowned technical engineering and scientific communi- 
ty and is poised and ready to provide global engineering and 
scientific leadership to help solve our nation's and the world's 
problems into the 21st century and beyond (see Appendix G) . 

6. Proximity to State Government and a Governmental 
Center 

This criteria relates to the proximity of Chicago to 
state level governmental organizations as well as being a govern- 
mental center. An office of the Illinois Governor is located in 
the Loop's State of Illinois Building. The States of Wisconsin, 
Michigan, and Indiana, maintain trade/tourism offices in Chicago. 

The Council of Great Lakes Governors is a major organi- 
zation with which NCD coordinates. It was formed in 1983 by the 
8 Great Lakes States ' Governors to provide a vehicle for the 
stewardship of the Great Lakes and regional economy (see Appendix 
D) . This organization is closely affiliated with the Chicago 
based Center for the Great Lakes with which NCD also coordinates. 
The Center is a binational (U.S. and Canada) public and private 
organization formed in 1982. Its purpose is to promote the 
enhancement of the Great Lakes regional environment, quality of 
life and economy. 

Chicago, as the heart of the nation, is serviced by a 
network of transportation and communication systems linking the 
rest of the country and the world. As such, it is no surprise 
that Chicago is a major governmental center. It is the center 
for the Standard Federal Region 5 area. There are nearly 50 
Federal agencies in Chicago including the Corps of Engineers. 
These 50 Federal agencies (15 of which are regional centers) 
employ 30,000 workers in Chicago, while the State of Illinois 
population of Federal workers is over 50,000. 

Chicago is also home to the Illinois Federal congres- 
sional offices, the State of Illinois Building office center, 
county and city offices. Also, about 65 countries staff consul- 



20 



328 



ates and trade offices in Chicago, employing hundreds of people 
who promote commerce worth billions of dollars to the midwest 
every year. Since its beginning in 1855, Chicago's diplomatic 
corps has developed into a virtual United Nations of government 
diplomats and trade-minded technocrats with the latest marketing 
reports. There are 47 of these foreign consulates listed in the 
table that follows. 



FOREIGN CONSULATES IN ILLINOIS 



Argentina 

Australia 

Austria 

Belgium 

Canada 

Chile 

China 

Columbia 

Costa Rica 

Denmark 

Dominican Republic 

Ecuador 



Egypt 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Guatemala 

Haiti 

Hungary 

India 

Indonesia 

Ireland 

Israel 



Italy 

Japan 

Liberia 

Luxembourg 

Mexico 

Monaco 

The Netherlands 

Paraguay 

Peru 

Philippines 

Poland 

Portugal 



Senegal 

South Africa 

Spain 

Sri Lanka 

Sweden 

Switzerland 

Thailand 

Turkey 

Uruguay 

Venezuela 

Yugoslavia 



There is no question that this points to the rapidly 
growing global business operations, and the fact that Chicago is 
the midwest region's center of operations. Government business 
is also trending to global operations, and will require a center 
for international coordination. 

7. Cost of Doing Business 

Retaining a division office in Chicago could provide 
for a very efficient and effective cost of doing business because 
of the collocation with Chicago District. There are a number of 
logistic and support type activities that can be combined to 
provide a lower cost of doing business. The economics of the 
division/district sharing facilities is a definite plus. The 
sharing of conference rooms and other office facilities, in addi- 
tion to sharing certain support functions, are certainly worth- 
while. 

As previously discussed, Chicago is a world class 
transportation center, which certainly allows the maximum economy 
for travel to districts, project areas, Canadian international 
activities and HQUSACE in Washington, DC. There are maximum 
benefits possible for air travel both in convenience of flight 
(fewer stops, connections and flight hours) , as well as lowest 
possible airfares. 

Because its location is in the heart of the nation, 
Chicago minimizes air travel distances. With more than one 
arrival or departure at O'Hare every minute (800,000 incoming and 
outgoing flights each year) , flexibility in scheduling is maxi- 



21 



329 



mized. The centralized location of Chicago permits the lowest 
overall transportation costs, and fewest number of executive 
flying hours, among the nation's ten largest cities. For exam- 
ple, a comparison of air flight costs for Chicago vs. Cincinnati 
for seven key cities to which NCD personnel frequently travel, 
shows that Chicago is 40 percent cheaper (see table below) . 



ROUND-TRIP AIR FARES 
TO FROM 



Chicago 


Cincinnati 


$ 352 


$ 


292 


96 




182 


322 




182 


174 




400 


260 




420 


94 




322 


460 




660 



Washington, D.C. 
Detroit, MI 
Buffalo, NY 
St. Paul, MN 
Rock Island, IL 
St. Louis, MO 

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 

TOTAL $1,758 $2,473 (40% higher cost) 

There are "cost of doing business" advantages in Chica- 
go due to the economies of scale related to the cost of goods, 
services and supplies, as well as the timeliness of delivery and 
service of such. This results from the fact that Chicago is the 
retail, wholesale and distribution center for the midwest region. 

Illinois, located in the heart of the midwest, is 
serviced by a network of transportation and communication systems 
linking the rest of the country - and the world - to its re- 
sources. It is the nation's industrial center. 

Two-thirds of all the goods and services produced 
nationwide are produced within 500 miles of Illinois' borders. 
This market proximity allows industry to ship or receive finished 
goods, semi-finished products or resources without incurring high 
transport costs or time delays. 

Illinois is at the center of the nation; it has the 
largest industrial market in the midwest. Nearly one-third of 
the total gross national product (GNP) is produced within a 300- 
mile radius of Chicago. With everything from bolts to bulldozers 
produced in Illinois, the state can supply almost any sub-assem- 
bly or finished product needed. 

The strength of the marketplace is reflected by a Sales 
and Marketing Management survey of industrial purchasing power 
which lists Cook County as number two in the nation in terms of 
value of manufacturing shipments. Illinois ranks fifth among all 
states - third among the Great Lakes States - in value of manu- 
facturing shipments. 



22 



330 



Illinois is also located in the center of one of the 
most dynamic retail markets in the country. Illinois ranks sixth 
among the states in percent of national retail sales (4.6 per- 
cent). Chicago, where 2.6 percent of all U.S. retail sales are 
made, is the third ranking MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area) in 
this category. Additionally, more than 17 percent of all U.S. 
retail sales, over $259 billion in 1987, are made in Illinois and 
its bordering states. 

International markets play a major role in the Illinois 
economy. The state placed third in the nation in agricultural 
exports; sixth in total exports; and, seventh in manufactured 
exports. 

Based on the foregoing discussion, there should be no 
doubt that Chicago offers definite economies of scale to doing 
business, resulting in cost advantages and operational efficien- 
cies. 

8. Operational Efficiency/Flexibility 

Chicago is a world class transportation center, and 
this allows for the maximum economy for travel to districts, 
project areas, international activities areas and our headquar- 
ters in Washington, D.C. There are maximum benefits possible for 
air travel, both in convenience of flights as well as lowest 
possible air fares. For supplies, equipment and services, there 
are also cost and timeliness advantages due to the fact that 
Chicago is the midwest regional retail, wholesale and distribu- 
tion center. 

Our current office is strategically located for busi- 
ness coordination and transportation, and offers superb office 
accommodations which efficiently and effectively fit our "lean 
and mean" workforce, but could readily fit the expanded merged 
operations resulting from reorganization. Our projected workload 
is expected to greatly increase to satisfy the expected engineer- 
ing and scientific needs of other Federal agencies, including 
international work activities, in the coming decades. As a 
Federal agency regional center, governmental center and interna- 
tional government consulate center for the midwest region, Chica- 
go superbly satisfies the need for carrying on anticipated future 
business missions, e.g., support for others (SFO) . Also, to 
efficiently and effectively carry out our operations, we require 
the engineering, scientific, and construction capability that 
exists within the Chicago metro area. It is the combined synergy 
of this engineering and scientific community which makes Chicago 
a world-renowned center of operations. This is possible because 
of the partnering and networking among all the technical communi- 
ty available — educational institutions, private consulting 
firms, contractors, public organizations, research facilities and 
professional societies. Chicago has undeniably earned the repu- 
tation as a world-renowned technical engineering and scientific 
community, which can provide global engineering and scientific 



23 



331 



leadership, to help solve our nation's and the world's problems, 
into the 21st century. 

IV. Conclusion 

Chicago is the heart of mid America. Being centrally 
located, it enhances the long-term efficiency of the Corps of 
Engineers operations. Chicago is a culturally diverse world-wide 
important city, which offers an unsurpassed quality of life. 
Chicago is Big City, USA, with a neighborly flavor. Over 7.8 
million people call Chicagoland home. Chicago is the city that 
works . 

Chicago, being a major Federal regional center for the 
midwest, and world-renowned technical engineering and scientific 
community, is a natural logical location to continue a Corps of 
Engineers division office. It is geographically, centrally 
located to continue to handle the entire Great Lakes, the 
Souris-Red-Rainy Rivers basin, the Upper Mississippi River basin, 
plus additional boundary expansion to include the Middle Missis- 
sippi River basin area and the Ohio River basin area. Essayons. 



24 



332 



APPENDIX A 

The North Central Division (NCD) Regional Headquarters 

This is a look at NCD's mission as it exists today. We are 
here to plan, design, construct, operate and maintain navigation- 
al systems, flood control measures, restore fish and wildlife 
habitat and provide disaster assistance, primarily to the Upper 
Mississippi River, the Great Lakes and the Souris-Red-Rainy River 
basins. We also regulate shoreline construction as well as the 
filling of wetland areas and provide technical support to the 
International Joint Commission for overseeing the boundary waters 
we share with Canada. 

Region of Responsibility 

Our region of responsibility provides plentiful opportunities 
for us to perform NCD's important missions. As civil works 
responsibilities are apportioned within the Corps by river, lake, 
and coastal basins, rather than state boundaries, we are respon- 
sible for an area that contains three major drainage basins: the 
Great Lakes, the Upper Mississippi River, and the Souris-Red 
Rainy Rivers basins. This area includes all or parts of twelve 
states, ninety-five congressional districts, and over 1,900 miles 
of international border. It is home to 95 percent of the na- 
tion's surface fresh water supply, where 22 percent of the na- 
tion's income and 21 percent of its production is generated, and 
where we serve 20 percent of the U.S. population. 290 million 
tons of cargo is transported every year on NCD waterways. 

Organizational Structure 

Reviewing our organizational structure shows how we are 
organized to accomplish our mission in this important region. 
First our command relationships are explained and then our NCD 
structure. We are both a lake and river division with 10,000 
miles of shoreline. 

We are one of twelve divisions, answering directly to U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers headquarters in Washington, D.C. We have 
six operating staff, ten support staff, and five field commands 
within the NCD. 

Programs and Project Management, planning, engineering and 
construction/ operations, direct our projects from concept through 
engineering design, and construction to operation and mainte- 
nance. Our real estate staff obtains the land for our projects 
and oversees the execution of local cooperation agreements. Our 
resource management and emergency management offices complete our 
operations staff. 

We have support staffs to provide the administrative func- 
tions that keep the division operating smoothly. Some of these 
form the basis for centralization of district support functions. 

A-1 



333 



Much of the effort of the NCD Headquarters is devoted to 
partnering with international, Federal, state, and regional enti- 
ties. 

Resources 

Turning now to the resources of our division, our primary 
resources are our team members and the funds we receive. We have 
approximately 2,850 team members to do the division's work. Of 
that number, approximately 2 00 (with student hires) work at the 
NCD Division Headquarters office in Chicago. Almost half our 
division office workforce is professional or technical. The 
division office employs team members from a wide variety of 
career fields, including engineering (47), environmental sciences 
(17), and financial management (28). 

As for our monetary resources, we have averaged about $350 
million annually, in recent years, to perform our mission. Our 
FY92 funding was $368 million. The funding comes from the U.S. 
Federal budget as decided by the Administration and Congress. We 
receive our funding in four broad categories: General Investiga- 
tions, Construction General, Operations and Maintenance, and 
Other Funds. 

A review of the current workload demonstrates the kinds of 
work we do. We will highlight examples of our workload in each 
of the major appropriation categories. 

General Investigations 

Our FY92 General Investigations program funding was $17 mil- 
lion for surveys and preconstruction engineering and design, 
which represents 5 percent of our total work. Studies include 
investigating flooding problems in metropolitan Milwaukee, navi- 
gation improvements on the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois 
Waterway, flood control along the Des Plaines River in suburban 
Chicago, a flood control reservoir at McCook, Illinois as part of 
the Deep Tunnel Project, and flood control at Ft. Wayne, Indiana. 

In FY92 NCD completed all 8 scheduled recon studies ahead of 
schedule with an average completion time of 11 months. 

Construction General 

Our FY92 Construction General program funding was $97 mil- 
lion, which represents 2 6 percent of our total work. The proj- 
ects include three flood control reservoirs along the North 
Branch Chicago River, another three reservoirs to supplement the 
Deep Tunnel Project in Chicago, a shore protection project at 
Presque Isle near Erie, Pennsylvania, a flood control project in 
Rochester, Minnesota, and an international flood control project 
along the Souris River, in Canada and North Dakota. We also have 
flood control projects along Bassett Creek in Minneapolis, MN, 
and along the Sheyenne River in Fargo, North Dakota. 



A-2 



334 



Through the Conimand Management Review (CMR) process we re- 
ported on 7 PED projects with only one (Portage, WI) increasing 
in schedule or cost during FY92. We also reported on 17 con- 
struction projects with none increasing in cost or schedule 
during FY92. 

NCD has also been a leader in execution of LCA's. As report- 
ed in the CMR, since 1985, NCD has completed 41 LCA's and 14 
MOA's (EM? Program) for a total of 55 of the 177 completed na- 
tionwide. 

One of our high priority efforts is the unique Upper 
Mississippi River System Environmental Management Program. This 
involves the rehabilitating of important fish and wildlife habi- 
tat, along with the implementing of long-term monitoring of 
important resources in the five states bordering the Upper Mis- 
sissippi River. We are also involved in environmental restora- 
tion in several other ways. For instance, our Weaver Bottoms 
Environmental Project in Pool 5 of the Upper Mississippi River, 
was awarded the Chief of Engineers ' highest environmental award 
in 1989, the Award of Excellence. The project used previously 
dredged material to re-close side channels and build waterfowl 
islands. This will reduce future maintenance costs due to less 
sedimentation in the navigation channel and increase capacity at 
the site for economical future disposal of dredged material. 
Other NCD environmental efforts in Defense Environmental Restora- 
tion Program cleaning up of formerly used defense sites and a 
construction role in EPA's Superfund and Construction Grants 
Programs . 

Operations-Maintenance 

Our FY92 budget included $198 million for project operations, 
maintenance and rehabilitation efforts, which was 54 percent of 
the total work. This 54 percent deals with operating, maintain- 
ing, and rehabilitating 72 commercial shipping channels and har- 
bors, 42 commercial locks, and approximately 900 miles of naviga- 
ble waterways on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. In addi- 
tion, we operate 16 reservoirs, primarily for flood control, and 
manage over 250,000 acres of land and 680,000 acres of water, 
primarily for recreational purposes. In all, we have over 10,000 
miles of shoreline to oversee. 

A major component of our operations and maintenance workload 
is the work we do to maintain our channels and harbors. Much 
dredging and structural repair is necessary to keep our naviga- 
tion systems operating. In FY92, we had $20 million for dredging 
and $29 million for structures. We dredge about 4 million cubic 
yards of material every year. Much of the material from Great 
Lakes Harbors is not polluted so it can be deposited in the open 
lake. Turning to the diked disposal projects, on the Great 
Lakes, we must confine polluted material dredged from some har- 
bors and channels. Under the Diked Disposal Program, 27 disposal 
sites have been completed. New disposal facilities projects are 

A-3 



335 



now being designed and will be constructed when necessary. 

The next category is locks and dams. Locks and dams on the 
Great Lakes, Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway are essen- 
tial for commercial navigation. We had $102 million in FY92 for 
operations and maintenance of our locks and dams, primarily on 
the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway. We have 
substantial major rehabilitation work to accomplish. Our naviga- 
tion structures are old, some having been originally constructed 
in the 19th century. Consequently, we have underway a large- 
scale major multi-year rehabilitation program, totaling $458 
million. 

International Activities/Emergency Management /Mobilization Master 
Planning 

Turning now to our separately funded workload areas, our long 
common border with Canada creates unique responsibilities for us 
with the International Joint Commission. The Division Commander 
serves as Chairman of the U.S. Section on three IJC Boards of 
Control dealing with the levels and flows of the Great Lakes. 

The International Lake Superior Board regulates control works 
of the St. Mary's River at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, and 
Ontario, Canada. The Niagara Board is responsible for preserving 
the scenic beauty of Niagara Falls while providing for hydropower 
generation. The St. Lawrence River Board regulates outflows of 
that river, which affects water levels for Lake Ontario and 
downstream and navigation, hydropower and other interests on the 
St. Lawrence River. A fourth board, the IJC Great Lakes Levels 
Reference Study Board, is examining the effects of fluctuating 
water levels throughout the Great Lakes system. 

A different dimension of the Corps' mission involves regula- 
tion of navigable waters. We must evaluate requests to build 
structures or to discharge materials into the nation's waterways 
and wetlands. 

We have a number of emergency authorities and have provided 
assistance in many disasters. In April and May 1992, we headed 
the plugging and draining operations that were necessary after 
the Chicago River leaked into the city's vast underground freight 
tunnel system. The waters had filled the tunnels and then the 
sub-basements of many Loop buildings, forcing their closure. The 
waters also forced the closure of two subway lines and threatened 
to close a major expressway. An estimated $1 billion in damage 
was caused before we drained the water. 

To be prepared for future natural emergencies, each of our 
districts has prepared vulnerability assessments, to measure 
their readiness to respond to various natural disasters. Under- 
lying all the activities is a fundamental mission of the Corps: 
namely, supporting the Army and mobilizing the nation during a 
national emergency. To this end, we have a mobilization plan and 



A-4 



336 



we participate in periodic command post exercises to maintain our 
readiness to aid in a mobilization. 

In addition, NCD is the coordinating headquarters for the 
Corps-wide Mobilization Master Planning for Army Materiel Command 
Production Facilities and Military Traffic Management Command 
Transportation Facilities. 

Because we care for our people, we have a number of "people- 
oriented" programs ongoing in the division. We have an active 
Army Communities of Excellence Program, (ACOE) that is upgrading 
several services which are important to our team members. The 
theme of our 1992-93 ACOE submission is Total Quality Management 
(TQM) , which we feel reflects our philosophy at NCD. 

Whoever the customer or whatever the activity, we do our best 
to provide a quality product. We are proud of what we do and are 
honored to be the ones making the Corps vision a reality in the 
important midwest region of the nation. 



A-5 



337 



APPENDIX B 

The North Central Division (NCD) and USEPA Region 5 Association 

Region 5 of the USEPA is responsible for the administration 
and regulation of most Federal environmental programs within the 
States of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and 
Minnesota. The Region's geographic area is almost entirely with- 
in the North Central Division, and includes a majority of the 
Great Lakes and Upper Mississippi River basins in the U.S. This 
area also includes some of the most environmentally progressive 
states and local communities in the country. Region 5 adminis- 
ters several regulatory programs with which the Corps is routine- 
ly involved, including NEPA, Clean Water Act, RCRA, TSCA, and 
CERCLA (Super fund) . 

The Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) is responsi- 
ble for the coordination of all USEPA activities within the Great 
Lakes basin. This includes coordination with the three EPA 
Regions which have regulatory authority in the basin (Regions 2, 
3, and 5) and coordination with Canada and the Provinces of 
Ontario and Quebec. Most of the Congressionally directed studies 
and programs specifically authorized for the Great Lakes are 
managed by GLNPO. 

The offices of USEPA Region 5 and GLNPO are both located in 
downtown Chicago, in close proximity to NCD. This proximity, and 
the working relationships established with the EPA staff and 
management have produced a number of benefits for the Corps of 
Engineers. These include a number of cooperative efforts to 
solve shared problems and improve the environment. For example, 
in 1986 there was significant public and agency concern about the 
long-term environmental effects of Corps' confined disposal 
facilities (CDFs) for polluted dredged materials. NCD and Region 
5 established a CDF work group that developed joint studies to 
address these concerns. In 1990, NCD and Region 5 began joint 
development of a regional testing manual for dredged materials. 
In 1991, NCD joined Region 5 in a resolution for Ecosystems 
Management. NCD is currently working with GLNPO and Region 5 on 
the development of Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs) for Lake 
Michigan and Lake Superior. 

The working relationship with EPA has expanded to include 
significant amounts of reimbursable support. The Construction 
Grants program for sewage treatment facilities work, obtained by 
NCD through Region 5, represented about 25 percent of the entire 
national program. With the decentralization of Corps support to 
the EPA Superfund program, the opportunities for increased de- 
sign, as well as construction oversight support, will grow. The 
states within Region 5 contain a higher proportion of the Nation- 
al Priorities List (NPL) sites in the nation. 



B-1 



338 



NCD is also providing support to GLNPO for the Assessment and 
Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) program. Over $4 
million of support has been provided to this program since 1988. 
In 1990, NCD initiated support to the Region 5 enforcement initi- 
ative, which further utilizes the Corps' expertise with the man- 
agement of contaminated sediments. Currently, NCD is coordinat- 
ing with Region 5 on other reimbursable support activities, 
including modeling and data base management in support of the 
Lake Michigan LaMP development. 

The working relationships between NCD and EPA Region 5 and 
GLNPO are significantly enhanced by the ability of our staffs to 
coordinate face-to-face, in scheduled and unscheduled meetings. 
It is unlikely that this close working relationship would be 
maintained if our offices were in remote locations. Reimbursable 
support to EPA for environmental engineering services is likely 
to become a larger mission of the Corps. The NCD has extraordi- 
nary relationships with EPA Region 5 and GLNPO, which could only 
be damaged by a relocation of the NCD Division office. 



B-2 



339 



Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Federal Executive Board 

Federal Home Loan Bank Board of Chicago 

Federal Job Information Center 

Federal Labor Relations Authority 

Federal Trade Commission 

General Services Administration — Regional Office-V 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

Health and Human Services — Region V 

Housing and Urban Development — Region V 

Information Agency 

Voice of America, Midwest Bureau 
Department of the Interior 

Office of Environmental Affairs 
Interstate Commerce Commission 

Office of Compliance/Consumer Assistance 
Department of Justice 
Anti-trust Division 
U.S. Attorney 

Office of Inspector General 
Bureau of Prisons 
Community Relations Service 
Drug Enforcement Administration 
Immigration Review 

Immigration and Naturalization Services 
U.S. Marshal's Office 
U.S. Trustee's Office 
Department of Labor — Region V 

Merit Systems Protection Board — Regional Office 
National Credit Union Administration — Region IV 
National Labor Relations Board — Region 13 
National M'^diation Board/National Railroad Adj . Board 
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation 
Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission 
Peace Corps 

Office of Personnel Management — Chicago Region 
Securities & Exchange Commission — Chicago Region 
Small Business Administration — Chicago Regional/District 
Department of State 

Council of State Government 
Diplomatic Security Service 
Passport Agency 
Department of Transportation 

FAA — Chicago Airway Facilities Sector 
FAA — DuPage Flight Standards District Office 
FAA — Midway Sector Field Units 
Federal Railroad Administration 
Office of Inspector General 
United States Coast Guard 
Urban Mass Transportation Administration 
Department of the Treasury 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 
Comptroller of Currency, District Office 



C-2 



340 



APPENDIX C 

Federal Agencies/Regional Centers in Chicago 

ACTION — Region V 
Department of Agriculture 

Marketing Services 

Animal/Plant Health Inspection 

Food & Nutrition Service 

Food Safety & Inspection Service 

Office of General Counsel 

Office of the Inspector General 

Audit 

Investigations 
Central Intelligence Agency 
Department of Commerce 

Bureau of Export Administration 

Census Bureau 

Economic Development Administration 

International Trade Administration 

Minority Business Development Agency 

National Weather Service 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission 
Congress — United States 

Senatorial Offices (2) 

Congressional Offices (12) 
Consumer Products Safety Commission 
Courts of the United States 

U.S. Bankruptcy Judges 

U.S. Court of Appeals — 7th Circuit 

U.S. District Court 

Federal Defender 

Federal Protective Service 

Judicial Council 

U.S. Probation & Parole Office 
Department of Defense 

U.S. Air Force — Office of Public Affairs 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
North Central Division 
Chicago District 

Defense Contract Audit Agency 

Defense Investigative Service 

Marine Corps — Recruiting Station 

Office of Naval Research 
Department of Education — Office of Secretary's Regional Rep. 
Environmental Protection Agency — Region V 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

Chicago District Office 

Office of U.S. Trustee 
Federal Communications Commission 

Field Operations Bureau 

Regional Office 

District Office 



C-1 



341 



Customs Service — Regional Commissions, District 
Financial Management Service — Regional 
Office of Inspector General 

Internal Revenue Service — Regional, District 
U.S. Secret Service 
U.S. Tax Court 
Veterans Administration — Regional Office 



C-3 



342 



APPENDIX D 
COUNCIL OF GREAT LAKES GOVERNORS FACT SHEET 



The Environmental Stewardship by the Governors of the Great Lakes 
States 

Background 

The Council is the personal organization of the eight governors of 
the Great Lakes states. The Council was formed in 1983 to provide 
a vehicle for the governors' stewardship of the Lakes and the re- 
gional economy. 

Through the Council, the governors created the nation's first 
public regional environmental endowment, the $100 million Great 
Lakes Protection Fund, and exercise direct responsibility for the 
preservation of the quantity and quality of the Lakes. 

Direction of Diversion Policy 

Under federal law, each governor must approve all requests for 
out-of -basin diversions. Through a process establishment by the 
Great Lakes Charter in 1985, the Council coordinates the consulta- 
tion process through which the governors and premiers review diver- 
sion process. This effort is being led by Michigan Governor John 
Engler. 

Providing a Catalyst to Pollution Prevention 

In April of 1991, the governors and EPA administrator William 
Reilly committed to make the Great Lakes region a "world laborato- 
ry" for prevention-based environmentalism. 

Under this initiative, the governors have undertaken the following: 

Created the nation's first award for total quality envi- 
ronmental management. Through the Council of Great Lakes 
Industries, over 200 businesses, including Dow, 3M equivalent 
of the Baldrige award. The goal is to harness the revolution 
in total quality management to improve environmental quality. 

Launched industry-wide prevention strategies. Under the 
leadership of Governor Engler, the Big 3 auto producers have 
agreed to develop an industry-wide prevention strategy. 
Together with suppliers, the firms have identified 5 target 
substances for reduction and will develop a cooperative pre- 
vention program that begins with a joint training program this 
fall. 



D-1 



343 



Creating a Regional Regulatory Framework 

One of the first actions undertaken by the Council was a commitment 
by the governors to not compete for jobs on the basis of environ- 
mental standards. 

In order to create a regional framework for environmental regula- 
tions, the governors have committed to harmonizing water and air 
regulations. Through the Council, the States and provinces reached 
agreement on common standards for new air permits. In September 
1991 the Governors commissioned a study by DRI/McGraw-Hill to ana- 
lyze the most effective strategy for harmonizing water quality 
standards. 

Protecting the Great Lakes from the Threat of Spills 

In May 1992, the governors and representatives of the eight major 
oil companies that operate in the Great Lakes basin began a cooper- 
ative to protect the Lakes from oil spills. The joint program 
includes a collaborative effort to identify response needs and 
create a basin-wide prevention program. 



D-2 



344 

APPENDIX E 

A-E CONSULTING FIRMS IN THE CHICAGO AREA 

ARLINGTON HEIGHTS 

Ritzel/York - Surveyors Engineers 

Paul A. Spies & Associates 
AURORA 

Bucher, Willis & Ratliff 

Crawford, Murphy & Tilly, Inc. (Branch) 
Walter E. Deuchler Associates, Inc. 

Edward H. Fauth & Associates 
BUFFALO GROVE 

Northwestern Engineering Consultants 
CHICAGO 

ASC American Surveying Consultants (Branch) 

Alvord, Burdick & Howson 

Avila St Associates, Inc. 

B+A Engineers, Ltd. 

Baker Engineering, Inc. 

Barrientos & Associates, Inc. 

BASCOR, Inc. 

Beling Consultants, Inc. (Branch) 

Alfred Bennesch & Company 

Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. 

Michael Best & Associates, Inc. 

Robert G. Burkhardt & Associates, Inc. 

CRSS Of Illinois, Inc. 

Camp, Dresser & McKee 

Homer L. Chastain & Associates (Branch) 

Christian-Roge & Associates Inc. 

Clorba Group, Inc. 

Clark Dietz, Inc. (Branch) 

Melvis Cobea & Associates, Inc. 

Bert Cohn Associates, Inc. 

Collins Engineers, Inc. 

Conscer, Townsend & Associates 

Donohue Associates, Inc. 

Envirodnye Engineers, Inc. 

Environmental Science & Engineering (Branch) 

Epsteia Civil Engineering 

Robert J. Freund Consulting Engineers 

Gumze-Korobkin-Cakger, Inc. 

Gassman Engineers, Inc. 

Getty, White & Mason Structural Engineers 

Graef, Ansualt, Schloemer & Associates 

Greeley and Hasses 

HDR Engineering, Inc. 

Harza Engineering Company 

Harza Environmental Services 

Hazelet & Erdal, Inc. 

Howard Needles Tammen & Bergendoff 

E-1 



345 



CHICAGO (cont'd) 

Klein & Hoffman, Inc. 

H.W. Lochner, Inc. 

McDonough Associates Inc. 

Mid-America Engineers, Inc. 

Midwest Consulting Engineers, Inc. 

H.S. Nackman & Associates, Inc. 

Denes Nagy Associates, Ltd. 

PRO Environmental Managemnt, Inc. 

John Pantizis & Associates 

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas 

Peco & Associates, Inc. 

Rubinos & Mesia Engineers, Inc. 

STV/Seelye, Stevenson, Value & Knecht 

Sundoval Engineers, Inc. (Branch) 

Sargent & Lundy 

Soodan and Associates, Inc. 

Stanley Consultants 

Sherwin Stenn Engineers, INC (Div. of Hurst-Roeche 

Engineers, Inc) 

TRH Engineering 

Teag & Associates, Inc. 

Tensey Pavoal Sssociates, Inc. 

Tornrose, Campbell & Associates 

Wolfson Engineering 

Zimmer Consultants, Inc. 
CRYSTAL LAKE 

Baxter & Woodman, Inc. 
DEERFIELD 

Stuart K. Jacobson & Associates 

Lee Rose & Associates 
DES PLAINES 

Paul Weir Company 
ELGIN 

Civil Design Group, Inc. 

Hampton, Leaziai & Reawick, Inc. 

Everett Scheflow Engineers, P.O. 

Walker Parking Consultants/Engineers 
ELMHURST 

Gage-Babcock & Associates, Inc. 

Claude H. Hurley Company 
EVANSTON 

CH2M Hill, Inc. 
GENEVA 

Rempe-Sharpe & Associates, Inc. 
GLEN ELLYN 

Environmental Science & Engineering. 

Patrick Engineering, Inc. 
HARVEY 

George J. Chalebicki & Associates 

E-2 



346 



ITASCA 

Civiltech Engineering, Inc. 
Cowhey Gudmundson Leder, Ltd. 
JOLIET 

Beling Consultants, Inc. (Branch) 
Norman D. Claassen Engineers-Land Surveyors 
Robert E. Hamilton Consulting Engineers, P.C, 
Reiter & Associates, Inc. 
Strand Associates, Inc. 
Willett, Hofmann & Associates (Branch) 
LAGRANGE 

Huff & Huff, Inc. 
LAKE FOREST 

Bleck Engineering Company 
David Liu & Associates 
LAKE VILLA 

Jorgensen & Associates 
LEMONT 

Donald G. Eddy Company 
LIBERTYVILLE 

Pearson, Brown & Associates 
Rezek, Henry, Meisenheimer & Gende (Branch 
office of Henry, Meisenheimer & Gende) 
LINCOLNSHIRE 

Charles W. Greengard & Associates, Inc. 
LOCKPORT 

Baird & Company 
LOMBARD 

Alvord, Burdick & Howson (Branch) 
Brooks & Choporis, Inc. 
MCHENRY 

Beam Engineering Company 
Smith Engineering Consultants, P.C 
MOUNT PROSPECT 

The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc. 
Peter R. Olesen & Associates, Inc. 
Shive-Hattery Engineers And Architects, Inc. 
NAPERVILLE 

Eldredge Engineering Associates, Inc. 
Rynear & Son, Inc. 
OAK BROOK 

Bollinger, Lach & Associates, Inc. 
SDI Consultants, Ltd. 
WVP Corporation (Branch) 
OAKBROOK TERRACE 

Harding, Lawson Associates 
PARK RIDGE 

Ralph Burks Associates, Inc. 
ROLLING MEADOWS 

National Engineering Technology Corporation 



E-3 



347 



ROSELLE 

Pavia-Marting & Company 

Wilbur Smith Associates 
ROSEMONT 

Christopher B. Burke Engineers, Ltd. 
ST. CHARLES 

Russell and Associates 
SCHAUMBURG 

Donohue & Associates, Inc. 

Triton Consulting Engineers, Ltd. 
SKOKIE 

Barry A. Goldberg & Co. 
VERNON HILLS 

Donald Manhard Associates, Inc. 

Roy F. Weston, Inc. 
WESTMONT 

Engineers International, Inc. 
WHEATON 

Webster, McGrath & Ahlberg, Ltd. 
Wheeling 

Seton Engineering Company 
WINFIELD 

Morris Engineering, Inc. 



E-4 



348 



APPENDIX F 

Engineering-Architect- Scientific 

Professional Organizations 

in Chicago 

1. American Society of Civil Engineers (Chicago Chapter) 

2. National Society of Professional Engineers 

a. Illinois Society of Professional Engineers 

(1) Chicago Chapter 

(2) Dukane Chapter 

(3) Joliet Chapter 

(4) Lake County Chapter 

(5) North Suburban Chapter 

(6) South Creek Chapter 

(7) South Suburban Chapter 

3. Western Society of Engineers 

4 . Society of Women Engineers 

5. Society of American Military Engineers 
a. Great Lakes Region 

(1) Chicago Post 

(2) Great Lakes Post 

6. American Society of Structural Engineers 

7. American Institute of Chemical Engineers/ Chicago 

8. Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers/Chicago 

9. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Condition- 
ing Engineers/Chicago 

10. American Society of Landscape Architects/Chicago 

11. American Society of Safety Engineers 

12. Institute of Industrial Engineers/Chicago 

13. Society of Fire Protection Engineers/Chicago 

14. American Nuclear Society 

15. American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum 
Engineers Chicago 

16. Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers 

17 . American Water Works Foundation/ Chicago 

18. Society of American Registered Architects 

19. American Institute of Architects 

20. Association of Information Systems Professional 

21. Association for Women in Science 

22. Chicago Computer Society 

23. Chicago High Tech Association 

24. Society of Architectural Administrators 

25. Society of Manufacturing Engineers 



F-1 



349 



APPENDIX G 

Illinois/Chicago Center for Technology Transfer 

For many years, Illinois has recognized its responsibility to 
aid not only in the rate of technological development, but also in 
the transfer of that technology to the business sector. For exiun- 
ple, Dr. Enrico Fermi did his pioneering work on atomic energy at 
the University of Chicago. The high-speed digital computer was 
developed at the University of Illinois; a recent study for the Na- 
tional Research Council ranked the University of Illinois* computer 
sciences program as the best in the nation. 

To encourage continued technological advances, the Illinois 
legislature has enacted laws that provide grants or loans to link 
research activities in universities with businesses which can bring 
them into the marketplace. These programs provide rental space for 
new businesses, start businesses, develop new or modify existing 
technology, upgrade equipment, and train personnel. 

Technoloav Advancement and Development Ret 

Passed in 1989, the goal of this act is to find, develop, and 
commercialize Illinois-based technology for world markets. The 
act contains technology challenge grants, investment, venture capi- 
tal, modernization assessment, retooling, and development corpora- 
tion programs to encourage new products. 

Governor's Science Advisory Committee 

Created in 1989, this committee consists of scientific and 
educational leaders who make recommendations on investments to the 
state. The committee is headed by the science and technology 
advisor to the governor and is located in Chicago. 

Based in Washington, D.C, the Institute for Illinois is a 
bipartisan, nonprofit organization seeking federal, state, and 
private initiatives to strengthen the state ' s science and technolo- 
gy base. Started in 1986, the institute uses these initiatives to 
accelerate the transfer of technology to commercial products and 
services. Its activities complement the Governor's Science Adviso- 
ry Committee. 

Technology Center Program 

This program fosters R&D in advanced technologies that lead to 
new products to be marketed or manufactured by the state's busi- 
nesses. Started in 1984, the program links academic talents in 
research and engineering with the entrepreneurial skills of small 
businesses. 



G-1 



350 



Illinois Coalition 

The not-for-profit coalition convenes business and government 
leaders, academicians, and scientists to consider high-tech re- 
search projects. 

Chicago High-Tech Association 

Organized by the City of Chicago in 1984, this association is 
dedicated to the translation of high-technology- into entrepreneuri- 
al products. It offers networking and seminar: on such topics as 
developing export businesses and financing new ventures in specific 
technologies. 

Illinois' strong state and local commitment to science and its 
developments is another reason the Land of Lincoln is home to 
more then 600 industrial research laboratories. The list includes 
such names as Bell Telephone, Amoco, Nalco Chemical, General Elec- 
tric, the U.S Army Corps of Engineers' Construction Engineering 
Research Laboratory, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermi- 
lab) , and many others. 

Fermilab employs more than 1,000 scientists and technicians 
from around the globe and is the nation's largest high-energy phys- 
ics research center. Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy, 
the Argonne ational Laboratory employs more than 2,000 scientists 
and technicians in the development of new methods for efficient 
energy use and energy conservation. 

Technology Commercialization Program 

The Illinois Technology Commercialization Program, started in, 
1984, fosters research and development in advanced technologies, 
leading to new products which could be manufactured or marketed by 
Illinois businesses. The emphasis on the program is the linkage of 
the technological resources and expertise in the academic sectors 
with the research, engineering and commercialization needs of small 
business. 

The major goals of the Technology Commercialization Grant-in- 
Aid Program are to more fully develop small businesses in the 
industrial and service sectors of the Illinois economy and to 
foster an expanded university role in such development. The pro- 
gram has resulted in the formation, retention, and expansion of 
small and growing businesses throughout Illinois. Under this 
program, developing businesses may obtain work space and a business 
address. 

Inventors Council 

The Council was incorporated in 1983 as a non-profit corpora- 
tion. It accelerates technology transfer from inventors to manu- 
facturers by providing liaison activities which help inventors 
license inventions to manufacturers. 



G-2 



351 



The Illinois Math and Science Academy 

The Illinois Math and Science Academy, located in Aurora, is a 
public residential high school for talented math and science stu- 
dents and was opened in the fall of 1985. The school will not 
exclude students based on ability to pay. The admission process is 
competitive with enrollment at 502 in 1989-90 academic year. 

Technological resources are decentralized across the curricu- 
lum and available wherever needed. They are linked to the super- 
computer at Cornell University and to the University of Illinois 
and include The Plato system, which is a computerized tutoring 
system developed at the University of Illinois. 

The school was awarded first place in the national supercom- 
puting contest in 1989. 

Illinois Manufacturing Technology Alliance Act 

This law was enacted to promote the use of modern commercially 
available technologies by existing small and medium sized Illinois 
manufacturers . 

Illinois Space Institute 

The Institute, created in 1987, is composed of all interested 
institutions in Illinois involved in space related activities, 
including universities, laboratories, and private enterprise. The 
Institute is devoted to coordinating, promoting, and supporting 
space related research and development on university campuses and 
in industrial and federal laboratories throughout the state. 

Science and Technology Advisor to the Governor 

This office was created within the Executive Office of the 
Governor in 1989 to advise the Governor on science and technology, 
productivity, competitiveness and economic development. The advi- 
sor is to work in conjunction with the Illinois Coalition to advise 
the Governor on state policies important to science and technology. 
Dr. Leon Lederman was appointed as the state's first advisor. 

Institute for Illinois 

The Institute was started in 1986 as a Washington, DC, bipar- 
tisan, non-profit organization designed to foster ptiblic/private 
cooperative initiatives for building a sustainable competitive 
advantage for Illinois. It seeks federal, state, and private 
initiatives to strengthen the state's science and technological 
base and accelerate the transfer of technology to commercial 
products and services. 



G-3 



352 



Illinois Research and Development Paries 

Chicago Technology Park 

312 Administration Office Bldg 

1737 W. Polk Street 

Chicago, IL 60612 

Contact: Nina Klarich, Director 

(312) 996-7018 

Affiliation: University of Illinois at Chicago 

Evanston/University Research Park 

Evanston Inventure 

Evanston, IL 60201 

Contact: Ronald Kysiak, (708) 864-9334 

Affiliation: Northwestern University 

Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute 

10 W. 3 5th Street 

Chicago, IL 60616 

Contact: Morton J. Klein 

(312) 567-4000 

Affiliation: Illinois Institute of Technology 

It is noted from the above that Illinois and Chicago are truly 
a renowned technological center. Also, this is seen from the fact 
that Illinois has the largest percentage of engineering and scien- 
tists in the midwest area as indicated in the following table: 

Percent of U.S. Total of Scientists and Engineers by Selected 
States 

Illinois 4 . 3% 

Michigan 3 . 8% 

Minnesota 1 . 8% 

Indiana 1 .7% 

Wisconsin 1.6% 



G-4 



353 



APPENDIX H 
References 

1. Metropolitan Chicago Major Employees Directory, Chicagoland 
Chamber of Commerce, 1990-1991 (over 1,200 businesses in the 8- 
county metropolitan Chicago area) 

2. ACEC Directory Annual, by American Consulting Council. 

3. ASCE Directory/ by American Society of Civil Engineers, 
Annual . 

4. Engineering News-Record Directory of Contractors, McGraw- 
Hill, Biennial. 

5. Chicago Official Visitors' Guide, Chicago Convention and 
Tourism Bureau, Summer, 1992. 

6. Where Chicago, Where Magazines International, Toronto, 
Ontario, May 1990. 

7. Grant Park Music Festival 1992 Season Brochure, Grant Park 
Concerts Society. 

8. Chicago, The World on the Lake Brochure, City of Chicago, 
Office of Tourism, 1991. 

9. Relcon Apartment Directory Quarterly, Apartment Relocation 
Council . 

10. Chicago Map & Guide, Chicago Convention & Tourism Bureau, 
1989. 

11. Illinois Road Tours — Illinois Don't Miss It — Brochure, 
Illinois Tourism Information Center, 1992. 

12. Crossroads, Our Corporate Community, Special Section, Sun 
Pviblications, April 1992. 

13. State and Metropolitan Area Data Book 1991, U.S. Department 
of Commerce. 

14. Chicagoland 's Community Guide, A Guide to Quality Living 
Areas in Metro Chicago. 

15. Places Rated Almanac by Boyer & Savageau, Prentice Hall, New 
York, 1989. 

16. Living in Greater Chicago, The Chicago House Hunt Book, 
Chicago Sun-Times, 1991. 

17. Federal Regional Executive Directory, Carroll Pviblishing 
Company, 1992. 



H-1 



354 



18. Energy and Water Development Appropriation Bill, 1993, 
Senate, 102nd Congress, 2d Session, Report 102-344, 1992. 

19. Illinois, Department of Commerce and Community Affairs, 
Springfield, Illinois, 1990. 

20. Illinois Facts, Illinois Department of Commerce and 
Community Affairs, Springfield, Illinois, 1990. 

21. Consumer Price Index Sheet, Chicago-Gary-Lake County, 
Illinois-Indiana, Wisconsin, June 1992. 

22. The Helm, Happenings and Educational Activities Around Lake 
Michigan, Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant Program, Vol. 9, No. 1, 
1992. 

23. Metro Brochure, Metropolitan Rail, Chicago, 1992. 

24. The Illinois Department of Transportation, State of Illi- 
nois, by Richard J. Seely, P.E., The Illinois Engineer, ISPE, 
December 1991/January 1992. 

25. Federal Employees News Digest Newsletter, Federal Employees 
News Digest, Inc., Vol. 41, No. 50, July 1992. 

26. ACCRA Cost of Living Index, First Quarter 1992. 

27. How To Get A Job In Chicago, by Camden & Schwartz, Surrey 
Books, Chicago, Illinois, 1991. 

28. The Seventh Wonder, The Metropolitan Sanitary District of 
Greater Chicago, Chicago, IL, 1959. 

29. Greater Cincinnati Northern Kentucky & Southeastern Indiana 
Community Profiles, West Shel Realtors. 

30. The World Book Encyclopedia, World Book, Inc. Chicago, 1985. 

31. The Greater Chicago Job Bank 1992, Bob Adams, Inc., Hol- 
brook, MA, 1992. 

32. Midwest Led Nation's Job Growth Last Year, National Business 
Employment Weekly, Wall Street Journal, New York, NY, April 24- 
30, 1992. 

33. Fact Sheet: The Environmental Stewardship by the Governors 
of the Great Lakes States, Council of Great Lakes Governors, 
Chicago, IL, 1992. 

34. Diplomats In Chicago Talk Trade, Chicago Tribune, Section 7, 
Page 5, Sunday, October 11, 1992. 

35. Report of the Division and District Organization Task Force, 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, July 1992. 



H-2 



355 



36. NCD Engineering Division Comments on the Report of the 
Division and District Organization Task Force, North Central 
Division, Chicago, IL, August 1992. 

37. 1992-1993 Army Communities of Excellence (ACOE) , U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers, North Central Division, September 1992. 

38. The Nation's Top 100 Housing Markets, U.S. News & World 
Report, V112, p. 85 (9), April 6, 1992. 

39. Marine Life Support System Helps Oceanarium Earn Its Salt, 
by Donald K. Doherty, The Illinois Engineer, ISPE, June/July 
1992. 

40. State Funds A High-Tech New Library, Chicago Tribune, Sec- 
tion 2, Page 4, Sunday, October 18, 1992. 



H-3 



356 



History of Reorganizations in the North Central Division 

The North Central Division with its headquarters in Chicago, Illi- 
nois was created in September 1954 as a result of the consolida- 
tion of the Upper Mississippi River Valley Division with its head- 
quarters in St. Louis, Missouri., and the Great Lakes Division 
with its headquarters in Chicago, Illinois. The Great Lakes 
Division headquarters had been previously moved from Cleveland, 
Ohio in early 1942 to be in a more central location for the war 
effort. There have been five reorganizations within the North 
Central Division since 1954, with a continual trend toward de- 
emphasizing a Corps presence and capability in the Great Lakes 
basin. These reorganizations were as follows: 

1. May, 1955 — the Milwaukee and Duluth districts were down- 
graded to area offices with Duluth being assigned to the St. 
Paul District and Milwaukee assigned to the Chicago District. 

2. 1970 — reorganization of division and district boundaries 
with respect to military design and construction function. 
The North Central Division became a civil works division 
without military design and construction responsibilities. 

3. October, 1970 — the Lake Survey District was closed and 
most of its duties transferred to NOAA. 

4. December, 1977 — the boundaries of the Detroit, St. Paul, 
and Buffalo districts were realigned to reduce the number of 
districts the individual states had to deal with on coastal 
issues . 

5. November, 1979 — The boundaries of the Chicago, St. Paul, 
Rock Island and Detroit districts were modified to implement 
an organizational concept of "river districts" and "lake dis- 
tricts". The Chicago district was practically eliminated, 
being reduced to 6 counties in Illinois and 2 in Indiana, and 
basically serving only the metropolitan Chicago area. The 
St. Paul District responsibilities within the Great Lakes 
Basin were transferred to the Detroit District. 



357 



March 9, 1993 



Conceprual 
Corps of Engineers 
Reorganizarion Plan 

The November '92 Corps reorganization plan is another failed 
attempt to provide a robust organization which meets the needs of 
the nation. WRDA '92 provides Congressional insight and direction 
for the Corps to meet the needs of the nations decaying infrastruc- 
ture and environmental mandates. Infrastructure concerns were 
identified for water supply, combined sewer outflows and new waste 
water reuse technologies. Additional infrastructure concerns re- 
cently identified include upgrading the railroads and its technology 
such as the high speed magnetic levitation, just to mention a few. 

The need to reorganize the Corps of Engineers is recognized and 
supported throughout the Corps family. However, reorganization 
should not jeopardize the very existence of the agency its attempt- 
ing to revitalize. Reorganization that jeopardizes up to 70% of the 
staffs in the 5 closed Divisions and 21 reduced District offices is 
irresponsible. Shifting significant numbers of highly skilled 
scientists and engineers from the Division to lower graded District 
technical centers is a recipe for failure. Who will select an 
agency that stifles career opportunities .... particularly for 
experienced professionals which are in short supply (scientists and 
engineers) ? 

The Corps reorganization needs to be formulated by knowledge- 
able people outside of the Corps of Engineers and the Department of 
Defense to include: Congress, locals, cost sharing partners, Corps 
employees and the public (taxpayer) at large. The Corps needs to 
streamline the review process to meet the needs of the regional and 
local levels to include elimination of the Washington Level Review 
Center. We must get the ASA(CW) office out of the management and 
report review business. We must re-think the project management 
concept to insure our best and brightest are formulating and design- 
ing the projects and not tracking dollars and maintaining schedules. 
We must insure that we can retain and attract highly skilled and 
competent employees which will serve the nation now and into the 
21st century. It is within these tenants that we propose a concep- 
tual pl2m for reorganization of the Corps. 



72-424 0-94-13 



358 



Concepruax 
Corps of Engineers 
Reoraanizarion Plan 



HQUSACE 



o Decentralize and reduce personnel by 30 - 50% 
o Policy deveiopmenr and guidance only 
o Mission Development/Future Initiatives 
o Overall Budget development, including testimony 
o Congressional liaison 

o only review projects requiring congressional 
authorization, and then only to insure the 
recommendations recognize the intent of the 
legislation 



DIVISIONS 



o Six or seven existing offices co-located with 

federal regional centers (reduction of 3 - 4 0%) 
o Oversee policy implementation of Districts 
o major transportation hub 

o Span of control of 5 to 7 Districts maximum 
o final authority on all report reviews and approval 

of all schedules and cost estimates 
o availability of trained labor pool 
o retain specialize expertise/areas of concern 

(i.e. Great Lakes) 
o consolidate District/Division support functions 

such as Human Resources, Resource Management, 

Audits etc. , into select offices within regional 

centers . 
o combine duplicative workforces (i.e. budget 

personnel from programs office and operations, etc.) 
o assign projects to the Districts based upon expertise, 

workload, and best service to the public, not 

watersheds 

DISTRICTS 

o retain all offices and functions 

o implement project planning, design and construction 
o combine duplicative workforces (i.e., environmental 
personnel from regulatory and planning; budget 
personnel from programs office and operations, etc.) 

DEVELOP LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES AND APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

o water supply 
o combined sewer outflows 
o new water reuse technologies 
o modernization of railroads 
o environmental engineering (i.e., clean-up, 
remediation) , etc. 



359 



HONORABLE JACK QUINN 

Testimony before the Subcommittee on Investigation and Oversight 

Hearing on the Reorganization of the United States Army Corps of Engineers 

Thursday, May 6, 1993 



Thank you Mr. Chairman and Mr. Inhofe: 

I come before you this afternoon to express my opposition to the proposed 
plan to reorganize the United States Army Corps of Engineers, as well as to propose 
ways to minimize the adverse effects of the reorganization plan. 

My opposition to the plan stems from several areas: The reorganization plan 
ignores the fundamental problems with the internal structure of the Corps of 
Engineers, focusing instead on the physical location of Corps facilities; consequently, 
the reorganization plan ignores the unique and dire needs of the Great Lakes basin, 
and it ignores the detrimental economic impact that would result in the state of New 
York and the City of Buffalo. 

Mr. Chairman, I agree that improvements to the organization of the Corps of 
Engineers must be made in order to improve efficiency and realize cost savings. But 
I believe we must first streamline the bureaucracy before making more drastic changes 
that will put the Great Lakes at risk. 

For instance, let's first look at eliminating needless and overlapping 
bureaucratic levels within the Corps -- including the five-layer civil works review 
process. 

The reorganization plan eliminates 2,700 jobs and relocates another 4,900 other 
people -- mostly the field workers we need more of. We cannot improve efficiency 
by firing the people who actually get the work done in the field. We cannot improve 
efficiency by moving the people with expertise on the Great Lakes to offices in other 



360 



parts of the country. 

What is needed is total quality management -- not the proposed reorganization 
plan that completely ignores the top-heavy bureaucracy within the Corps of Engineers. 

I realize that there must be sacrifice, but we cannot and must not sacrifice the 
future of the Great Lakes - and we should not sacrifice the jobs of hundreds of 
people - and these are the field workers we need more of -- hundreds of jobs in 
Buffalo and around New York for no legitimate reason. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Great Lakes are our nation's most precious 
natural resource. They comprise the largest fresh water system in the world. As a 
transportation route and a source of energy, the Great Lakes are vital to the economy 
of a vast portion of this nation. As a source of drinking water and a habitat for 
animals and plants, the Great Lakes are also an integral part of that region's ecology 
as well. Millions of people depend on the Great Lakes for their livelihoods and their 
lives. 

However, under the reorganization plan, the economic and ecological value of 
the Great Lakes would be jeopardized. The plan would create a new North Central 
Division -- the NCD. It would be the largest new division both in terms of sheer 
geography, and in the number of districts subdivided within the NCD. The NCD 
would stretch from the Alleghany Mountains in Pennsylvania to the Rocky Mountains 
in Montana -- and would include virtually ail of the Great Lakes basin. 

The NCD would be subdivided into twelve regional districts, and four of those 
would include technical centers -- but not one of the technical centers would be 
located on the Great Lakes. 

The entire North Central Division would be left with the lowest percentage of 
technical centers -- lower than any of the other new districts in the country - and the 



361 



Great Lakes would be left with nothing. 

The failure to retain the specialized engineering and planning functions 
provided by the Corps will result in an immeasurable loss of expertise on navigation 
systems, remediation of contaminated sediments, and lake level regulation within the 
Great Lakes basin -- and will risk the economy and environment throughout the 
region. 

I firmly believe, Mr. Chairman, that the new North Central District needs 
another technical center - and we need it on the Great Lakes. 

And I propose, Mr. Chairman, that the ideal location for this additional tech 
center is in Buffalo, New York. 

Locating the Great Lakes technical center in Buffalo would help offset some of 
the other losses that New York and Buffalo will otherwise suffer as a result of the 
reorganization. 

New York State would lose 600 Corps jobs and an estimated $42 million in 
private contracts related to Corps' services and projects. Buffalo will lose 141 jobs. 

I ask you to remember that in the original reorganization study conducted 
under the Base Closure and Reorganization Act and in the BRAC Commission's 
recommendations made in 1991, Buffalo would have gained 900 jobs - instead we are 
losing 141. 

This is not the only reason I base my recommendation to locate the tech 
center in Buffalo, though, Mr. Chairman. 

Buffalo is the eastern doorway to the Great Lakes and affords proximity and 
access to the entire basin. Buffalo offers excellent resources to the Corps. In fact, 
the Buffalo branch has already been working with resources in the local educational, 
engineering and business communities to help improve the system of identifying, 



362 



delineating and protecting wetlands. And Buffalo offers a lower cost-of-living than 
other metropolitan areas around the Great Lakes, making it a more affordable place 
to live for Corps staff. 

As I have said, Mr. Chairman, the proposed reorganization plan ignores some 
fundamental needs - it ignores the need to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of 
the Corps of Engineers, and it ignores the need to protect the economic and 
ecological value of the Great Lakes. 

I urge the Army Corps of Engineers to consider the recommendation I have 
made today before this subcommittee, along with Governor Cuomo's office to locate a 
Great Lakes technical Center in Buffalo, New York. Our recommendation will help 
ensure that the Great Lakes do not suffer and that the local economy does not suffer 
from reorganization. 

Without objection, Mr. Chairman, I would like to include with my testimony 
resolutions passed by the Common Council of the City of Buffalo and the Erie 
County Legislature. 

I thank the Chairman and the Committee for their time and attention. 



363 



- STATE OF NEW YOR^'" '''^' 

LEGISUTURE OP ERIE COUNTlf 
ajEWC"s OFncE 

BuiTALO. N. Y., JillllLi! 19_!i. 

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: 

3 ^Kprffag CflprlifD, rhoroftheZNO Session ol iht L»ai%hiurt ol Ent Coumy. 

htid in the County Hall, m iht City of Buffalo, on tht TWENTY-SEVENTH 

doyol January A.D . 19 '3 a Resolution wos 

adopted, of which tht lollowina is a true coov 

RESOLUTION SUBMITTED BV 
LEGISLATOR DUSZA AND ET AL 

WHEREAS, recently, a local U.S. Army Corps Engineer said that 
"the people who are going to be stewards of the Great Lakes are no 
longer going to be people who live in the Great Lakes area," and 

WHEREAS, a new plan will trim the Buffalo Corps of Engineers 
office almost in half and cut 141 jobs, sending all its planning 
and technical experts to other offices, and 

WHEREAS, such work on problems of pollution In the Buffalo 
River or the water levels of Lake Erie will not be done in the 
Black Rock office any more but in St. Paul, Louisville, Omaha or 
Pittsburg, and 

WHEREAS, Senator Daniel Hoynihan, whose Senate committee has 
jurisdiction over the Corps, can block funding for this proposed 
mov«« and well he should, and 

WHEREAS, New York State is projected to lose some $78 million 
per year in lost payroll and lost fees for architectural and 
engineering firms awarded contract because of their nearness to 
Corps offices and technical workers as well as over 600 jobs, and 

WH£RCAS, the loss to Buffalo alone will be some $6.3 million 
a year in payroll, not counting the ripple effect on the local 
economy such a loss would inevitably create, and 

WHEREAS, some 141 local employees will lose their jobs and the 
close ties- to the city's academic community will be severed, ties 
that have provided dozens of jobs for local science and engineering 
graduates, and 




WHEREAS, such a plan, if carried out as proposed, would be 
greatly detrimental to Buffalo and the local economy already facing 
hard times due to the recession. 



364 



STATE OF NEW YORK 

LEGISUTURE OP ERIE COUNTY 
CLERX-S OmCE 

Buffalo. N. Y.,Jii:iiiU1 19 " 

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: 

3 Jirrfbp CSPrtifn. rhoror f>it 2nd Session ©/ fh« legis/ofure ©/ £n« county. 
htld -n the County Hall, m the C>ty of BulJah. on Iht TWENTY -SEVENTH 
doyol January AD . 19 93 o Re»o/u/ion o-os 

odopitd. ol u/hich the /o/'ou/mg is a (rut copy. 
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 

RESOLVED, that the Erie County Legislature does hereby 90 on 
record in opposition to the Army Corps of Engineers plan to move 
the Great Lakes planning centers from New York a/id locate them in 
the midwest, and be it further 

RESOLVED, that this Body is deeply concerned over the negative 
economic impact such a move would have on New York State and the 
Western New York area specifically, and be it further 

RESOLVED, that this Body requests New York Senator Moynihan to 
re*-examin« this proposed move by the Army Corps of Engineers and do 
what he can to change such plans so that the planning centers can 
remain in New York State and so that Buffalo can also retain its 
local planning office, and be it further 

RESOLVED, that such a plan comes from the Bush administration 
and the Clinton administration should take a hard look at it before 
it is carried out to completion, and be it further 

RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be sent to 
Governor Mario Cuomo; Senators Moynihan and D'Amato; the entire 
Congressional delegation from Western New York and the entire state 
delegation from Western New York as well as County Executive Gorski 
and Mayor James Griffin of Buffalo for their review. 

FISCAL IMPACT: None for Resolution 
REFERENCE: Int. 2-9 
AS AMENDED. 



ATTEST 



^— • 



CItrk of Mf Ugifl^ti"* V Srit Camly 
REFERt.NCF.: - 



365 
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 

CITY HALL 



BUFFALO February 19, 19 93 

To Whom It May Concern: 

3 ^rrrbi) (Crrlifij. That at a Session of the Common Council of the City of Buffalo, held 

in the City Hall, on the 16th day of February 

\q 93 a resolution was adopte d . of which the following is a true copy: 



No. 14» 
By: Messra. Amos, Ball, Peria, Arthur, Zuchlawskl 

Propoaad Rsorganliallon o( Uia Corps ot Englnaara 
WHEREAS: The Federal GovernmanI inlands to 

reorganize the Corps ol Engineers lo centralize and consolidale lis 
lunctions:and 

WHEREAS: The reorganization plans lor the Bullalo area 

include the translernng ol Engineering and Planning lunct/ons Irom 
District Centers to Technical Canlers 300 to 1 .500 rmles away, and 

WHEREAS: The proposed reorganization plan include the 

eliminaUon ol 141 posiUons In the Bullalo area resulting in 
apprOKlmalely $€ million ($6,000,000) In lost Federal (payroll) 
money: and 

WHEREAS: Tholossollho 141 jobs compcledwrlh the loss 

0( spousal income ol J2 millran ($2,000,000) and an additional loss 
ol 3S% ol Engineering work which is conuacted out to area 
Architect/Engineering firm, the magnitude ol this move could cost 
this area$10 to $12 million In per year, and 

WHEREAS The losses in lederal monies and lax 

revenues compiled wiUi the economic impact on local business and 
unemployment could cost the area over $30 million ($30 000 000) 
and 

WHEREAS Monetary losses would bo compounded by 

cuts In sen/ices because the new Technical Centers lack the 
expenise in designing projects lor the Great Ukes and Cttle 
conHdence exists in the kJea that Wteen (15) Technical Centers 
couW provide the same services thai thirty eight (38) DisUk:t 
Centers can; and 

NOW. THEREFORE BEIT RESOLVED THAT: 

This Common Council requests the Federal 
GovernmanI lo reconsider its position lor reorganizing the Corps ol 
Engineers Dislricl Centers because ol the potential lossolservtees 
lo the Great lakes and the Bullalo area walenrvays and because it 
will add 10 Ihe economic despair ihatalready exists In the area, and 
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: 

The City Clerk lonrvard a cerllned copy ol this resolution 
lo United Stales Senator Daniel P Moynihan and Senator Allonse 
M D Amalo and Ihe Western New York delegalion to the United 
States House ol Representatives. 
ADOPTED. 



Citj Clerk. 



COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON AGING 

COMMITTEE ON 

PUBLIC WOHKS AND 

TRANSPORTATION 



366 



Congress of the Bnited States 

ilousE of "RfprtstntatiDes 
Washington, B£ 20515-1802 



WASHINGTON OrHCl 



STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN BOB WISE 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

BEFORE 

THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT 

OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION 



MAY 6, 1993 



Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to 
testify before the Committee today. I believe this Subcommittee 
is serving a critical function in thoroughly reviewing the 
proposed reorganization plan for the Army Corps of Engineers. I 
am aware that the Subcommittee will be receiving a considerable 
amount of testimony on this subject so I will keep my remarks 
brief and to the point. 

The Army Corps of Engineers plays a vital role in building 
and maintaining the infrastructure in my congressional district 
and I strongly believe the proposed Corps reorganization plan 
would fundamentally hamper the Corps' ability to achieve its 
mission in my district. Looking closely at the reorganization 
proposal I can see how many areas currently served by Corps will 
bi severely prejudiced by massive reductions in force. The area 
served by the Corps' Huntington District in West Virginia is one 
such example and the effect of the proposed reorganization plan on 
Huntington illustrates clearly how the proposed plan is seriously 
flawed. 

The proposed reorganization contemplates a reduction of more 
than 350 staff from the Huntington District. The Huntington 
office currently maintains the second most active Army Corps 
district in the nation in terms of new construction activity, with 
numerous mammoth navigation projects planned and underway. I 
believe the proposed cuts from the Huntington office are 
unwarranted in view of all the activity in that district. 

A massive staff reduction in the Huntington office would have 
a devastating effect on the planned and ongoing Corps projects in 
the Ohio River Valley, projects which are essential for promoting 
safety and increased commerce along the inland waterways in that 
region. ,1 understand that the staff in the Huntington District 
has a national reputation for the excellent quality of its work, 
so the proposed staff cuts would not only leave the Huntington 
District without competent and efficient technical support but 
could also generally disrupt Corps of Engineers activities in the 
region and throughout the nation. 



367 



statement of Congressman Bob Wise (cont.) 
May 6, 1993 
page 2 

The direct connection between infrastructure investment and 
economic growth is well-known by now and any changes which might 
reduce or hamper the Corps' ability to perform its essential 
functions would likewise hamper economic growth. In addition, 
most of those affected by the proposed plan in the Huntington 
office are professional engineers, scientists or highly-skilled 
technicians and the loss of so many highly-skilled jobs from 
Huntington would deal a serious blow to the local economy. 

Without a doubt, there is a need to realign the Army Corps of 
Engineers in the face of budgetary constraints and changing 
military priorities. It is important for the Corps to redefine 
its mission and to work toward using its limited resources more 
efficiently. However, a close look at the current proposed 
reorganization plan reveals that just the opposite would happen. 
Under the current proposal I foresee greater problems in the 
coordination of activities between Corps district offices and 
greater waste of time, energy and money in conducting its varied 
activities. 

The manner in which the Corps used its selection criteria to 
choose the larger "technical centers" among the district offices 
was crude and inconsistent. For example, although the "central to 
workload" criterion was used as a tie-breaker to enlarge the St. 
Louis District office, the same criterion was completely ignored 
by moving hundreds of staff from Huntington to Pittsburgh, where 
the Huntington office is so much closer to the major workload in 
that region. It makes no sense that Huntington was rated dead 
last among the 12 districts in the proposed North Central Division 
where Huntington now supports the largest civil works mission in 
the Division. 

Another "tie-breaking" criterion, the consideration of the 
number of technical personnel, was also completely ignored in the 
case of the Huntington office. Although the Huntington District 
currently has almost 80 more technical personnel than the 
Pittsburgh District, the Pittsburgh District was chosen as one of 
the four technical centers in the new North Central District. In 
view of the heavy workload in the Huntington District, this 
element of the reorganization plan makes no sense. 

I understand that one of the criteria used for the Corps' 
decision to slash the workforce in Huntington was the lack of a 
"hub" airport in the vicinity. I am troubled by this because 
plans for a major regional airport in the Huntington-Charleston- 
Parkersburg area are already underway and I have worked hard to 
help move that project along. It is distressing to note that the 
Corps, of Engineers did not take this into account when formulating 
its reorganization plan. In any event, the Huntington District 
seems to have been unaffected by the lack of a "hub" airport in 
the past, so I question the importance of that criterion in the 
first place. This is another illustration of how the current plan 
to reorganize the Corps of Engineers is seriously defective. 



368 



statement of Congressman Bob Wise (cont.) 
May 6, 1993 
page 3 

Two years ago a different reorganization plan was presented 
by the Army Corps of Engineers. Under that plan a number of 
district offices were to be closed, including the Pittsburgh 
District. I cannot understand how the earlier proposal aimed to 
close the Pittsburgh office and the current proposal now seeks to 
double the size of the Pittsburgh office, -taking its additional 
personnel from the Huntington office. Overall, it seems as if the 
selection criteria in the current proposal were used conveniently 
to justify desires to increase the size and importance of some 
offices and to slash the workforce in other offices. In cases 
where the selection criteria did not fit the desired objectives 
they were simply ignored. 

In general, I believe the consolidation of planning, design 
and review functions in a small number of district offices will 
not only result in the loss of local knowledge and expertise but 
will cause unnecessary delays and coordination problems between 
district offices. I am already seeing this happen in my 
congressional district, where the Huntington District office is 
responsible for two very large Superfund hazardous waste sites, 
Inexusable delays have already taken place because of crossed 
signals and differences of opinion between district offices as to 
how the hazardous waste should be removed and treated. Where the 
Huntington District must depend on the Nashville or Omaha offices 
for direction, the resulting delays and coordination problems not 
only cause a waste of time and money but also exacerbate the 
serious threat to the health of the affected communities and to 
the environment from the presence of highly toxic materials. 

The Corps of Engineers believes its reorganization would 
allow it to expand its role in such non-traditional areas as 
hazardous waste cleanup and disaster relief. However, what I have 
witnessed in my congressional district thus far indicates that the 
Corps cannot perform those functions competently, much less expand 
those functions, where management from remote offices increases 
costs and delays response times. I believe decentralization of 
the planning, design and review functions would serve the Corps 
more effectively, allowing for more efficient use of resources in 
each office for the projects handled by each office. 

I am most concerned about the apparent attempt to reorganize 
the Corps through the back door. There are reports from around 
the country, including from the Huntington District office, that 
the Corps is acting pursuant to the Executive Order calling for a 
four percent reduction in the federal workforce and attempting to 
implement a de facto reorganization. Plans have been developed, 
although currently on hold, which include staffing and workload 
assignments and funding allocations which closely follow the 
details of the reorganization plan which this Committee is 
reviewing today. 



369 



statement of Congressman Bob Wise (cont.) 
May 6, 1993 
page 4 

For example, the Ohio River Division has targeted the 
Huntington District office to absorb almost 50 percent of the 
total cuts in the Ohio River Division as part of the four percent 
reduction in overall workforce. By aligning the district office 
staffs in accordance with the proposed reorganization plan, which 
is on hold, the Corps is circuitously attempting to implement the 
reorganization through other means. I am aware that this 
back-door reorganization is taking place in many places in Corps 
offices throughout the nation. This greatly concerns me and I 
want to ensure that no reductions in staff take place in any Corps 
district office until the reorganization plan is thoroughly 
reviewed and revised. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the chance to express my 
views in this important matter. I look forward to working on this 
Subcommittee to see that the reorganization of the Army Corps of 
Engineers is rational and effective, allowing for the Corps to 
respond to changing circumstances without hampering its ambitious 
mission. 



370 



ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 



SUBMITTED BY THE OFFICE OF REP. BOB CLEMENT (D-TN) 

Significant Effaces of Closing 
the Nashville District 

The loss of the Nashville District Corps of Engineers would affect many 
facets of the everyday public as well as businesses and agencies that deal 
with the Corps of Engineers. The Nashville District affects the majority 
of Tennessee, northern Alabama, southern Kentucky, and parts of Georgia, 
Mississippi, North Carolina, and Virgina. Some of che services lost as a 
result of closing Che Nashville District are listed below: 

1. The public would lose easy and ready access to the Corps. The 
Nashville District interacts closely with the public concerning flooding, 
regulatory programs, natural resources, mapping, and many other items. 

2. The middle Tennessee area would lose a center for Federal employment 
information. 

3. The Architect-Engineer community would lose several hundred thousand 
dollars per year in engineering service contracts. 

4. Suppliers in the area would lose millions of dollars per year In supply 
and equipment contracts. 

5 The Nashville and middle Tennessee area would suffer a loss of over 600 
highly- skilled professional employees. A loss of 350 working spouses would 
also be experienced. 

6. The area would suffer from the loss of $26,000,000 gross salary plus 
another $15,000,000 in spousal income. 

7. The area would suffer from the loss of tax income and spending power 
that the above-mentioned salaries represent. 

8. The southeast region would lose an agency with an aggressive program 
for hiring minority and small businesses. 

9. The public would eventually see a deterioration of vital services along 
the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers. 

10. The public would experience a downgrading of boat ramps, campgrounds, 
and recreation areas due to reduced priority and funding. 

11. The navigation Industry would experience a deterioration of service 
from lock closures and maintenance down time. 

12. The public would lose many of the natural resource programs sponsored 
by Che Nashville District at the major projects. 

13. Local public schools would lose sponsorship by Che Nashville District 
and the personal support that district employees give to the schools. 

lU. Local colleges would lose a hiring agency for student aids and 
students on cooperative education. 



371 



15. The region would lose a leader In environmental protection and 
maincainenanca . 

16. Response time to natural disasters would be greatly hindered by the 
Increased travel and remote locations. 

17. The public will experience added cose and frustration by having to 
call long distance to discuss their concerns. 

18 The local region would not only lose In the present sense, but it 
would also lose all opportunities for future work and programs that could 
benefit the area. 



372 

statement of Congresswoman Barbara-Rose Collins May 6, 1993 
15th District, Michigan 

MR. CHAIRMAN. I THANK YOU FOR HOLDING THIS 
HEARING ON THE REORGANIZATION OF THE ARMY CORPS 
OF ENGINEERS. 

AS WE RECOGNIZE THE CHANGING ROLE OF THE ARMY 
CORPS AND CONSIDER ITS REORGANIZATION WE MUST 
CAREFULLY ASSESS THE IMPACT THAT THIS 
REORGANIZATION WOULD HAVE ON THE VARIOUS 
REGIONS OF THE U.S. AND ON THE ABILITY OF THE CORPS 
TO CARRY OUT ITS MISSION. 

I LOOK FORWARD TODAY TO AN OPEN DISCUSSION OF 
THE CRITERL\ USED BY THE CORPS. FOR EXAMPLE, 
WHEN DECIDING ON A TECHNICAL CENTER SITE FOR THE 
NORTH CENTRAL DIVISION, THE CORPS SEEMS TO HAVE 
IGNORED ITS OWN CRITERIA, INCLUDING ITS TIE-BREAKER 
AND HAS SKIPPED OVER SAINT LOUIS AND NASHVILLE 



373 

FOR GEOGRAPHIC REASONS. 

I WOULD CONTEND THAT IF THE CORPS WOULD LIKE TO 
CONSIDER GEOGRAPHY IN THE NORTH CENTRAL 
DIVISION, THEY SHOULD CONSIDER THAT NONE OF THE 
SITES SELECTED TO BE TECHNICAL CENTERS ARE ALONG 
THE GREAT LAKES. ALTHOUGH DETROIT WAS AMONG 
THE CITIES THAT SCORED THE HIGHEST ON THE CORPS' 
ORIGINAL THREE CRITERL\, AND IS ALONG A MAJOR 
WATERWAY, IT DID NOT QUALIFY. 

I LOOK FORWARD TO AN EXAMINATION OF THE CORPS' 
ORIGINAL CRITERIA AND ITS TIE-BREAKING CRITERL\ AND 
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM TODAY'S 
WITNESSES. 



374 



- ZxJf^c 



Bnitd States Senate 

WASHINGTONXrc 20510-0504 



STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIANNE FEIN9TEIN 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT 

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION 

MAY 6, 1993 

Mr. Chairman, and other members of the committee, thank you 
for allowing me this opportunity to testify. I would like to 
take this opportunity to express my great concern over the 
proposed reorganization of the United States Army Corps of 
Engineers. It is my sincere belief that the process leading to 
the decision to close the South Pacific Division of the Army 
Corps of Engineers, located in San Francisco, is severely flawed, 
and I thank Secretary Aspin for his decision to delay the 
reorganization for further review. I would also like to thank 
Chairman Borski and his subcommittee for their efforts to explore 
this issue further. 

I maintain that the entire reorganization should be reviewed 
and that the South Pacific Division should remain in San 
Francisco as a vital piece of the Corps structure. 

The Army Corps of Engineers has a proud history and 
throughout this country has played a critical role in the 
construction and maintenance of our nation's infrastructure, as 
well as a role in emergency response. Though I support efforts 
to review the Corps' current structure, any efforts to reorganize 
should be based on maintaining the Corps' high standard of 
service to the communities which it serves. I do not believe 
that the current plan for reorganization that was announced on 
November 19, 1992, achieves that goal. The current 
reorganization demands that the 11 division offices of the Army 
Corps of Engineers be consolidated to 6 by the end of fiscal year 
1993. 

It is important to note that in the 1991 Defense Base 
Closure and Realignment Commission report the South Pacific 
Division located in San Francisco was retained as a key element 
of the Corps's structure. The announced reorganization 
consolidates the South Pacific Division in San Francisco with the 
North Pacific Division in Portland, Oregon into a new Western 
Division to be located in Portland. I believe that this decision 
and the process by which it was reached demands reconsideration. 

The South Pacific Division carries many important 
responsibilities for California, including supervision of 
critical dredging operations which keep our key ports of commerce 



375 



open, as well as playing a major role in disaster- -especially 
earthquake- -emergency response plans for the state. The 
likelihood of one or more major earthquakes in California within 
the next ten years is great, and we believe moving the divisional 
headquarters out the state would greatly limit the Corps' ability 
to respond adequately to such a catastrophe. Removing the locus 
of decision-making for these important roles, a well as manpower 
to staff these operations, would be a tremendous loss to our 
region. 

The Army based their decision to realign divisions on a 
number of criteria, primarily the proximity to transportation 
hubs and educational facilities {engineering schools in 
particular) , as well as the cost of living and the number of 
current personnel. Lesser criteria included the availability of 
labor, and the division's proximity to its workload. 

Let me express why I believe this decision is flawed: 

1) The Army's evaluation of education availability, and 
its awarding of points is arbitrary and imbalanced. In the 
Army's evaluation of engineering schools, Portland State 
University, located in Portland, Oregon did not even meet the 
Army's minimum rating of 3.5 (on a scale of 1 to 5) . The 
University of California at Berkeley, located a short distance 
from San Francisco's South Pacific Division received a 4.89, the 
second highest rating of any school evaluated. In addition. 
South Pacific Division's proximity to Stanford University, one of 
the nation's top universities, was not even considered, though it 
falls well within the 75 mile radius the Army required. Yet, in 
the Army's evaluation, Portland was ranked with an overall 
Educational Availability point value of 1, while San Francisco 
received a 2. As you can see, this awarding of points appears 
arbitrary and imbalanced. 

2) The evaluation of transportation hubs is also flawed. 
On the Army's Transportation Hub Availability point scale, both 
San Francisco and Portland were rated equally (both given a 
rating of 2), though the Army listed Portland's transportation 
hub as "medium", while San Francisco is "large." South Pacific 
Division is well within a 75 mile radius of three international 
airports (San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose) , yet is ranked 
equally with an area whose transportation hub is merely of 
"medium" size. 

3) The number of personnel located at each site is 
comparable. Portland currently has more personnel than San 
Francisco (285 to 198) . Following the proposed reorganization 
though, Portland's divisional work force will be reduced to 229, 

a staff that would not be significantly larger than South Pacific 
Division's current staff. 

4) The concern over cost of living in San Francisco has 
been overstated. Currently, federal employees in San Francisco 



376 



receive an 8 percent pay differential to compensate for the high 
cost of living. This differential should be significantly 
reduced when the Federal Employee Pay Comparability Act is 
implemented nationwide beginning in 1994. Though the exact 
numbers are not yet available, the difference may eventually be 
reduced to 2 or 3 percent. 

5) Greater emphasis should have been placed on a division's 
proximity to its workload. Projected federal appropriations 
targets for general construction managed by the South Pacific 
Division, according to the Army, will reach nearly $400 million 
by 1996, while the projected outlay for North Pacific Division is 
expected to be just under $40 million. South Pacific Division's 
workload is expected to reach a level 10 times that of North 
Pacific Division! It seems inappropriate to move divisional 
supervision away from where the majority of dollars will be 
spent, and from where the greatest amount of work will be done. 

I believe that it is the intention of the Army to maintain 
the high level of service provided by the Army Corps of Engineers 
during and after the reorganization. I do not believe though 
that the current plan for reorganization will be able to achieve 
that intent. By the Army's own criteria, I believe that South 
Pacific Division should remain an important part of the Corps' 
structure and continue to serve the state of California and the 
Western States. 



377 



STATEMENT BY THE HONORABLE WILLIAM J. HUGHES, M.C., 
HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT, 
MAY 6, 1993 



Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am William J. Hughes, 
Member of Congress, representing New Jersey's Second Congressional 
District. I appreciate the opportunity to testify in opposition to 
the proposal by the Department of the Army to dramatically downsize 
the operations of the Philadelphia District office of the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers. 

At the outset, I would like to make it clear that I am not 
opposed to the concept of reorganizing the Army Corps, to increase 
efficiency and cost-effectiveness. In this difficult fiscal 
climate, no federal agency should be exempt from review. I 
appreciate your Subcommittee's efforts to develop a responsible 
reorganization plan, and look forward to working with you in 
support of such an effort. 

Unfortunately, the reorganization plan which was proposed by 
the last Administration does not meet either of these standards, 
particularly as it relates to the Philadelphia District office. 
Under this plan, the planning and engineering functions would be 
transferred out of Philadelphia to new technical centers which 
would be established in Baltimore and Boston. 

As a result, the many needs along the New Jersey and Delaware 
coastlines, and throughout the Delaware Valley region, would have 
to be served from a much greater distance. This would be 
disruptive to both the Army Corps and the many communities and 
industries it serves. 

For example, my District in southern New Jersey encompasses 
some 180 miles of coastline along the Atlantic Ocean and Delaware 
Bay, and includes some of the finest beaches, fishing and 
shellfishing areas on the east coast. 

These resources are the mainstay of the multi-billion dollar 
tourism, recreational boating and fishing industries in New Jersey. 
They provide tens of thousands of jobs and generate hundreds of 
millions of dollars in tax revenues throughout our region. We 
depend on the Army Corps for assistance in maintaining and 
protecting these valuable resources. 

Just as importantly, the beaches provide our last line of 
defense against the forces of nature. Indeed, had it not been for 
the protective beaches constructed by the Army Corps in Cape May 
and Ocean City, damages may well have been catastrophic during the 
recent winter storms . 



378 



-2- 



At the present time, there are three major navigation and 
beach erosion control projects in my District in the planning 
stages at the Philadelphia District office. There are also a 
number of maintenance dredging activities planned or underway 
along the Intracoastal Waterway and various Inlets along the 
Jersey shore. 

If the planning and engineering functions are transferred 
from Philadelphia to new technical centers in other cities, the 
continuity of these projects could be disrupted, leading to 
delays and added costs. 

In addition to navigation and beach restoration, the Army 
Corps provides other vital services to our region as well, 
including maintenance of the Delaware River channel and harbors, 
flood control, water supply and water quality, cleanup of toxic 
waste sites, enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat, and a host 
of permitting activities. 

Again, I am greatly concerned that these services--which are 
crucial to the economy of our region--could not possibly be 
provided in a timely and effective manner through new technical 
centers which lack the proximity to our area and the familiarity 
with our needs. 

I would also like to call your Subcommittee's attention to 
the reorganization study which was prepared by the Military Base 
Closure and Realignment Commission in 1991. That study found 
that Philadelphia was the sixth most efficient District office in 
the nation. 

I am concerned that the latest reorganization proposal did 
not take these findings into account, and did not accurately 
reflect the long and productive history of the Philadelphia 
District office. Even more importantly, I am convinced that the 
proposal did not give full or fair consideration to the 
tremendous economic impact we would suffer if the Philadelphia 
office is downsized. 

I would urge the Subcommittee to reject this proposal, and 
to develop an alternative reorganization plan that will indeed 
increase the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the Army Corps. 
I look forward to working with the Subcommittee in this regard. 

# # # 



379 



JAMES A. LEACH 




CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES 

May 11, 1993 



The Honorable Robert A. Borski 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight 

H2-586 Ford HOB 

Washington, D.C. 20515-6259 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

I am writing to invite your attention to a report prepared by the 
Quad-City Economic Development Group which documents the 
considerable questions raised by the decision to reduce the planning 
and engineering staffs at the Rock Island District of the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers and to consolidate many of these positions in a 
technical center in St. Paul, Minnesota. A copy of the report is 
enclosed. 

At issue is whether the Corps' own stated criteria in formulating 
the plan was adequately applied to the Rock Island District. With 
regard to workload, for example: 

* While the Corps cites fewer traditional projects. Rock 
Island has awarded $30 million in construction annually for 
flood control and navigation work for the past 20 years. In 
FY93, the District will award over $50 million in such 
payments ; 

* Further, Rock Island's workload has been increasing annually 
for the past 10 years with predictions for more work in the 
next decade in the rehabilitation of the lock and dam system; 

* Finally, the Corps cites geographic proximity to workload 
as an important consideration, and Rock Island is clearly the 
most prudent location given that seven of the 10 top navigation 
locks in the nation that require major expansion are within the 
Rock Island District. Moreover, Rock Island is the study 
manager for a $23,000,000 feasibility study for new locks, 
potentially the largest Corps project ever undertaken; 

The Rock Island District should, in fact, be expanded to become the 
technical center for flood control and navigation planning and 
engineering on the upper Mississippi. 



2186 Ratburh House Offict E 
Washington. DC 20515-1501 
(202) 225-6576 
Fbx (202) 226-1278 



209 West Fourth Street 


102 S Clinton 505 


308 10TH Street S E 


Davenport. lA 52801-1307 


IOWA City. IA 52240-4025 




(319)326-1B<1 


(319)361-0789 


(319)363-4773 


F.R (319)326-5464 


Fax (319) 351-5789 


Fa« (319) 363-5008 



380 



Page 2 

The Honorable Robert A. Borski 

May 11, 1993 



I hope the findings contained in this report will be taken into 
consideration as plans for reorganizing the Corps go forward. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

Sincerely, 





A. Leach 
Merirti^ of Congress 



JL:bhh 
enclosure 



381 



KEEP THE PEOPLE 
WHERE THE WORK IS 



QUAD CITIES' LOWER COST 
RESPONSE TO 1992 
U.S. ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS 
REORGANIZATION PLAN 



382 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 



Executive Summary 1 

Reorganization: Coq)S Reasons Vs. Rock Island District Characteristics 2 

Corps Site Selection Criteria Vs. Rock Island District Facts 5 

Impacts of Corps Proposal 13 

Recommendations 15 

Comparison: BRAC 91 Plan Vs. 1992 Corps Plan 16 



383 
EXECUTIYE SUMMARY 



The decision to reduce the planning and engineering staffs at the Rock Island District of the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and consolidate many of those positions in a technical center 
in St. Paul, MiN: 

• Moves planners and engineers away from where current and future work is to be 
performed. 

• Vacates space already owned by the government and creates the need to 
lease substantially higher cost space in an area where living costs are higher. 

• Threatens the loss of 70 per cent of a staff fully familiar with the Mississippi River 
system where much of the future's work is to take place. 

• Runs counter to the reasons given for reorganizing the Corps. 

• Contradicts and misapplies the criteria given by the Corps for detenmining its treatment 
of current district offices in the reorganization. 

• Threatens impacts which are negative to the Corps' short term and long term interests in 
terms both of costs and operating effectiveness. 

• Creates, because of the size of the Quad Cities compared to the St. Paul region, 
disportionate negative economic impacts on the community. 

Using the Corps' own rationale and criteria, the Rock Island District should be designated as 
a technical center rather than its planning and engineering capacities eliminated. 



384 



CORPS REASONS TO REORGANIZE COMPARED TO ROCK ISLAND 
DISTRICT CHARACTERISTICS 



Reason to Reorganize 
Co^ps-^v^de 

Fewer traditional projects 



Shrinking Workload 



Rock Island District 

Traditional projects are assumed to be the flood control 
and navigation projects. For the past 20 years Rock 
Island District has awarded approximately $30,000,000 in 
construction annually for navigation and flood control 
work. In Pf 93 the District will award over $50,000,000 
in major rehab of locks and dams and local flood 
protection projects. This upward trend continues for the 
next several years. 

Rock Island District currently serves as study manager for 
a 3 District, $23,000,000 study to determine the 
feasibihty of building new locks ($500-700m each). This 
is potentially the largest project the Corps of Engineers 
has ever undertaken. The feasibility study begins in FY 
93 and will take approximately 6 years to complete. 

The Inland Waterway Needs Assessment of 1990 shows 
that 7 of the 10 top navigation locks in the entire nation 
that require major expansion are witiiin the current Rock 
Island District. 

1. Port Allen (New Orleans Dist) 

2. Lock 25 (St. Louis Dist) 

3. Lock 24 (St. Louis Dist) 

4. Lock 22 (Rock Island Dist) 

5. Lock 21 (Rock Island Dist) 

6. Lock 20 (Rock Island Dist) 

7. Lock 17 (Rock Island Dist) 

8. Lock 18 (Rock Island Dist) 

9. Lock 16 (Rock Island Dist) 

10. Lock 15 (Rock Island Dist) 

Contrary to a shrinking workload, the Rock Island 
District workload has been increasing every year for the 
past 10 years. Corps Headquarters' predictions are that 
the District's workload will continue to increase for the 



-2- 



385 



w 




0) 




V- 




D 




in 




ro 




a 




E 




>^ 


^_, 




D. 


■> 


(U 


•^ 


o 


o 


c 


3 


o 


TJ 


o 


o 


^~ 


V- 


ro 


Q. 




">. 


c. 


O 


OJ 


c 

(11 


O 



o 
(J 





u n 




-•^ E 


= " vi 






-q 






-— o 






— .2 O O 






K ' 




V 

c 

.a 


— = 5 

o 2-2 




° «J o 


o c S t; 
2&SS 

■ — O -3 O 
k. I. o to 


, 




1 




o c S 




:^ S s 


.^ y S S 






c 




"a 


.S^"E 




.£-u S 


.- O 'O O 






^o 




3 


•is ^ 




^ o o 


•= O '^ o 






:! 








3 .i: c 


3 ii — — 






'-^ 






2 55 o 




E -o ^ c 


E o q -^ 






■5 






— VI O 

:= 8£ 




'.a n -s O 






x 












1 






I 










u 
u u 


v 






«3 






a w 




2 ^-g.H 


1 5-S 


! 




5 






w O 




a c " <« ^- 


^ o o 


u 




*- 






^11 

.2 3 3 


U 


ivest po: 
reakevc 
or fring 
(labor 

UrilllOUt 


rmancc o 
amount 
labor to k 
oof total 


u 

'■3 

C 

-3 


u 

u 

e 


o 
o 






a T " 


_c 


o ^ -9 o ^ 


C 


^ 


1 




1 

"5 


direct costs. R 
fringe plus tecli 
ilivc& advisory 


3 
O 

1 


mpctitivcncss: I 
f direct labor to 
rect costs plus la 
Ratio of all dire 
s to direct labor 


erall cost pcrfo 
Determines the 
dollar of direct 
3n solvent. Rati 


n 
o 

s 

c 


3 

g 
1 

O 
U 


c 




■a 


.£ *- 
5-" E 


"o 

-3 

O 

J3 


3 f -5 . S 
«— -p — o 3 
O = fl tJ — . 

3 y > S: -3 


-o .2 5;! 

3 •- S e? 


u 

3^ 


o 
u 


•c 

a 






F, U "3 






u 


•o 








n o o « s 

■^ ra ti = O 


S S p 
2 o c := 


u 
o 

'■5 


o 


c 

1 


3 




„ 






u 








B 






















n 












o 






^ 






"c. 






e 


t 


i 


-3 
.•S 
b 




s 1 ^ 


"s 






.2 


e 

3 



^ — 



386 



SITE SELECTION CRITERIA FOR REORGANIZED CORPS OF 
ENGINEERS DISTRICT OFFICES 



Criteria 



Rock Island District Factors 



Current Corps office site 



Cost of Living 



Rock Island District is 126 years old. It was the first 
District on the Upper Mississippi River. Of all Corps 
Civil Works Districts it was ranked in the upper third in 
size, according to FY 1990 workload data. 

Housing and other costs in the Quad City area are 
significantly lower than the national average and well 
below St. Paul. With lower cost of Living, employee's 
net income increases. 



ACCRA Cost of Living Index 

COMPOSITE NATIONAL AVERAGE 
Quad Cities 95.5% 

St. Paul 107.2% 



100% 



HOUSING NATIONAL AVERAGE 
Quad Cities 96.5% 

St. Paul 117.7% 



100% 



Education Availability/ 
Quality of Workforce 



Transportation Hub Availability 



Within one hour drive of the Rock Island Island District 
office there is access to the University of Iowa. Several 
colleges and smaller universities, and the Quad City 
Graduate Center, a consortium of 10 major universities 
and colleges, are located in the Quad Cities. 

It is noted that the state of Iowa educational system has 
ranked as No. 1 or No. 2 within the nation for quality 
education as measured by ACT and SAT scores for the 
past several years. 

It takes only 15 minutes to get from the District office to 
the Quad City Airport There are regular connections to 
all major metropolitan areas. Flying time to two major 
hubs and subsequenUy direct flights to most locations is 
only 30-45 minutes. The Quad City Airport was recendy 



387 



doing all engineering and planning work for the Upper 
Mississippi River System, work that is currently handled 
by St. Paul. Rock Island and St. Louis Districts. One 
technical support center in Rock Island for the planning 
and engineering support work would eliminate the need 
to establish one in St. Paul now and one in Sl Louis, if 
and when the navigation expansion projects are initiated 
as currently recommended in the reorganization proposal. 

Logic dictates that technical center should be in a central 
location within the area being served. 

The importance of keeping workers close to the work is 
cited several times in the Corps' own analysis, but this 
key factor is. not adequately taken into account in the 
analysis leading to the Corps' proposal. 

The following charts make the Rock Island District's 
locational advantage abundantly clear. 



PROPOSED UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER DISTRICT 



^^^~x^^ ' r^ i^ 



St. Paul Rock Island St. Louis 

Number of Lock Sites Within 1 Day Round Trip 



-7- 



388 




389 



m 

> 

E 

E 
a 

(7) 

(0 

Si 



IOC 

jD. 
3 




72-424 0-94-14 



390 



POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF IMPLEME>mNG REORGANIZATION OF 
CORPS OF ENGINEERS DISTRICTS AS PRESENTLY PROPOSED 

1. The loss of 70% of the engineering and planning expertise from 23 of the existing Corps 
Districts wiU be very costly. The 70% is based on the assumption made in the reorganization 
proposal that only 30% of the impacted employees will relocate to the new office location. 
This loss of institutional knowledge and technical expertise will take years to replace and 
represents a significant lost investment for the United States. It takes more than $200,000 to 
train a new engineer. It is noted that the BRAC plan proposed the elimination of engineering 
and planning functions at only 14 offices compared to the present proposal for 23 Districts to 
lose the engineering and planning function which may not comply with the intent of Congress 
on not closing Districts. 

2. President Elect Clinton has indicated his desire to stimulate the economy through 
infrastructure improvements. The Corps has historically played a key role in awarding 
additional construction contracts through Jobs BiU type programs. If the proposed 
reorganization plan is implemented, the Corps will be unable for the next 3 to 4 years to have 
the stability to take on this extra effort 

3. As long as the threat of reorganization hangs over the heads of Corps of Engineers 
employees, there will be employees leaving Federal service, high levels of family stress, 
hiring freezes, and inability to attract high quality new employees. According to the Corps 
reorganization plan, it is assumed 48% of the impacted positions will result in a reduction in 
force (RIF). A REP typically affects 3 employees for each employee that loses his job. Thus, 
48% of the 6500 impacted District employees will acmally subject 9000 Corps employees to 
the impacts of a reduction in force. (Reference Appendix E of the Corps Reorganization 
Plan.) One of the commitments of the proposed reorganization is to "provide an organization 
change that is transparent to our customers and partners." The severe impact to the Corps 
technical staff will certainly jeopardize this goal. 

4. Sufficient time is needed for public comment and review of the Environmental 
Assessment and Community Impact Statement prepared by the Mobile District for the 
proposed 1992 reorganization plan. 

5. Prior to implementation of the plan, an investigation should be made on calculations 
regarding pay back period and implementation costs. It appears the potential savings to 
locate Corps offices at alternate locations where new office construction would not have to 
take place was not addressed. The Corps has been reducing the size of its personnel by up to 
1% for the past several years. The proposed 2600 (7.5%) job reduction appears to include the 
existing annual reduction. If this is the case, the reported savings and pay back calculations 
may be overstated. 



391 



RECOMMENDATIONS 

1. Congress should not appropriate funds for implementing the reorganizing the District 
offices of the Corps of Engineers as proposed in the 1992 plan. 

2 Obtain public input on the proposed reorganization plan. The importance of field input 
and pubUc comment was very apparent in 1979 when Coips Headquarters announced plans to 
close the Rock Island District. After further study it was determined the District should not 
be closed but expanded to include the 8 locks and dams on the Illinois Waterv/ay. a 40% 
increase in geographical area. 

3 Preserve the Rock Island District as a fuU functioning District. The efficiency of one 
technical center at Rock Island surpasses that of implementing two technical centers as 
proposed The Rock Island District has none of the symptoms the Corps has identified for 
reorganizing. It passes all the tests for determining which Districts should remain as a fuU 
functioning District It is centrally located on the Upper Mississippi River system and offe^ 
significant savings to the taxpayer due to low office costs, high efficiency and lower cost of 
Uving for the employees. This is not the time to break the 126 year tradiuon for the Rock 
Island District. 



-15- 



392 



COMPARISON BETWEEN THE BRAC 91 PLAN AND THE 1992 
REORGA>fIZATION PLAN 

The 1992 reorganization plan is essentially the same plan as the Corps submitted to the Base 
Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) in 1991. That plan was rejected by Congress. 

The following table compares the BRAC 91 Plan for reorganizing the Corps and the 1992 
Reorganization Plan. It is noted that foUowing the Corps' attempt to reorganize as a part of 
BRAC, Congress directed through the FY 93 Energy and Water Resources Development 
Appropriations Act that Divisions be reorganized starting in Pf 93 but Districts should not be 
closed. The 1992 Reorganization Plan proposed 4 technical support centers be located in the 
new North Central Division located in Cincinnati. These 4 centers would do the engineering 
and planning support for 12 existing Districts. The technical support centers would be located 
in St. Paul, Louisville, Omaha and Pittsburgh. An administrative center for the North Central 
Division is proposed to be located in Kansas City and would handle Human Relations, 
Resource Management and Information Management functions. 

The proposed plan contains two technical centers for the Upper Mississippi River, one located 
at St. Paul and one at St. Louis as described on page 17 of the Reorganization Plan, 
"Technical Center Locations. 

NOTE: A navigation planning cell would be located at the St. Louis District even though the 
District is not initially designated to have a technical center. The navigation planning cell 
should serve as the small nucleus of a future technical center when and if the significant 
projected navigation workload develops along the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers." 

St. Louis would also be designated as a mandatory center of expertise for Inland Navigation 
Planning and Engineering. 



BRAC 91 Plan 

38 Planning and Engineering 
functions at District 
offices are consolidated 
into 22 District offices. 

Operations functions stay 
in existing locations as 
area offices. 



1992 Reorganization Plan 

38 Engineering and Planning 
functions at District offices 
are consolidated into 15 full 
functioning Districts. 

Operations functions stay in 
existing locations as part of 
streamlined District offices. 



Rock Island District loses 
264 personnel (200 to St. 
Louis, 64 to Adminisu-ative 
Center of Cincinnati) 



Rock Island Distiict loses 220 
personnel (some to St. Paul, 
some to Admin Center in Kansas 
City) 



-16- 



393 



TESTIMONY SUBMITTED TO 
THE U S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION C 0^1 T^^^^^^^ 
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT 



THE HONORABLE ROBERT A. BORSKI 
CHAIRMAN 



HEARING ON THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REORGANIZATION 



MAY 6, 1993 



BY 
THE HONORABLE CAROL MOSELEY-BRAUN OF ILLINOIS 



394 



MR, CHAIRMAN AND DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE INVESTIGATIONS AND 
OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE: 



As the Department of Defense continues its review of the 
proposed Army Corps of Engineers Reorganization Plan, I would 
like to take this opportunity to highlight the problems the plan 
creates for Illinois. 

There is no question that it is time to reorganize the Army 
Corps of Engineers . The Corps headquarters announced a number of 
reasons why reorganization is necessary, such as disproportionate 
staffing levels to workloads, shrinking assignments, and high 
overhead costs. While these are compelling reasons to 
reorganize, this plan, as it pertains to Illinois, does not meet 
these objectives. In fact, given the expanse of the inland 
waterway system in my state, the plan leaves Illinois with a 
serious dearth of skilled personnel at a time when the magnitude 
of waterway issues requires the increased attention of the Corps. 



395 



This plan fails to recognize that one of the most extensive 
networks of navigable waterways in the United States is in 
Illinois. Lake Michigan, and the Illinois, Ohio and Mississippi 
rivers require constant navigational improvement, flood control 
maintenance and shoreline protection enhancement. It is 
unlikely that personnel working from technical centers outside 
the region will have the exposure or be as familiar with Illinois 
water resource issues. Given the immense range and unique 
characteristics of these projects, the reorganization plan ought 
to recommend that the level of expertise in Illinois Corps 
offices be reinforced. 

There are four Corps offices which provide important service 
to Illinois: The North Central Division office in Chicago, and 
the District offices in Chicago, Rock Island, and St. Louis. 
Under the current plan, the Division office will be closed and 
its functions reassigned to Cincinnati, Ohio. Planning, 
engineering and design functions located at the District offices 
will be reassigned to technical and administrative centers 
located far from the projects to be managed. In total, Illinois 
will be losing 798 specialists. No other geographic area is so 
adversely affected. 



396 



Centrally located in the Great Lakes Region, Chicago Corps 
offices perform about $350 million in work annually on 10,000 
miles of Great Lakes shoreland and 900 miles of navigable 
waterways on the Mississippi River. The Chicago North Central 
Division office will lose 184 positions to a city located 
hundreds of miles away from the shores of the Great Lakes . This 
action leaves the Great Lakes region without any viable Corps 
office. The plan also proposes transferring two-thirds of the 
planning, engineering and design staff in the Chicago District 
office. With the significance of water resource issues in the 
region, and the years it has taken personnel to develop flood 
control specialization, Chicago - and certainly the Great Lakes 
basin - should be the logical place to keep a Corps presence, 
rather than a logical place to lose one. 

To the west of Chicago, the Rock Island District has 
responsibility for navigational planning and the Environmental 
Management Plan for the Illinois River and much of the 
Mississippi. This District also oversees the nation's oldest and 
most deteriorating lock and dam system along the Upper 
Mississippi River. A plan that proposes to pull 220 skilled 
personnel from the Rock Island District at this time is a plan 
that ignores the urgency of upgrading of this aging navigation 
system. 



397 



The shortcomings of this reorganization plan are further 
underscored by the removal of 295 personnel from the St. Louis 
District Office. St. Louis, located at the convergence of three 
major rivers, is the second largest inland port in the United 
States. Nearly half of the nation's waterway commerce travels 
through these waterways . Economic reasons alone are enough to 
demand a strong Corps presence for maintaining favorable 
conditions for navigation. The importance of keeping this 
highly qualified staff may be best illustrated by the first Corps 
reorganization plan of 1991, which proposed that the staff of the 
St. Louis District be significantly increased. 

This reorganization proposal also comes at a time when the 
workload in Illinois couldn't be greater. Projects such as the 
Chicago Underflow Plan, a network of water control tunnels and 
overflow storage reservoirs, protects 550,000 Chicago area homes 
from flood dangers. The Chicago Shoreline Protection Project has 
personnel working against the clock to repair deteriorating 
shoreline revetments protecting downtown Chicago. The workload 
of the Rock Island District, which grew noticeably over the last 
decade, also is anticipated to increase with activities 
associated with the rehabilitation of the aging lock and dam 
system along the Mississippi. The St. Louis District also faces 
ongoing issues, including siltation problems at the Tri-City Port 
District and the St, Louis Harbor, operations of the Mel Price 



398 



Lock and Dam, deteriorating levees protecting private property, 
upgrading locks and dams, and increasing recreational activities. 
These are only a few of the dozens of construction, operations 
and maintenance projects underway, but any delay resulting from 
the massive staff losses proposed by the reorganization plan will 
have serious consequences at a time when project workloads in 
Illinois are increasing. 

The costs and delays which will likely occur from new 
personnel handling unfamiliar waterway issues are certain to 
outweigh any cost savings achieved by the reorganization plan. 
In order to have a sensible reorganization of the Corps, we must 
put the people where the work is. I urge the Army Corps of 
Engineers to develop a reorganization plan that meets Illinois' 
needs, that recognizes the scope and extent of the inland 
waterway systems in Illinois, and that reflects an understanding 
of the importance of these systems to my state. 



399 



STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI 
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT 
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS 
MAY 6, 1993 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for your attention to concerns regarding the 
proposed corps of engineers reorganization plan. 

As you know, under the proposed Reorganization the Corps has 
directed that the South Pacific Division (SPD) and the North 
Pacific Division (NPD) be consolidated into a new Western 
division located in Portland, Oregon, diminishing the functions 
of the San Francisco District. These two proposed changes would 
cost the San Francisco Bay Area over 300 civilian jobs and, more 
importantly, adversely affect the Corps' mission throughout the 
State of California. 

Mr. Chairman, much of the information I have obtained 
regarding the proposed plan, through Freedom of Information 
requests and Committee requests, seriously questions the validity 
of the decision-making concerning the SPD closure and Western 
Division realignment. 

From documents I have obtained, it appears that the current 
reorganization began in late August, 1992. Prior work by a Corps 
Field Advisory Committee recommended that the Corps utilize eight 
(8) criteria for selection of Divisional consolidation. Under 
the 1991 plan, which was conducted more openly and at greater 
length, San Francisco was the outright winner for the 
consolidated division. In 1992, under the accelerated timetable 
and with little public notice, and while using only four (4) of 
the eight selection criteria, San Francisco still tied Portland 
for site selection for the Western Division. 

In a letter written by then-Assistant Secretary Nancy Dorn, 
she stated that the justification for selecting Portland over San 
Francisco was based on "minimizing the impact on Corps 
employees," because "there are approximately 50 percent more 



400 



Page 2 

people working at the North Pacific Division." (Dorn Letter, page 
1) Yet, internal Corps documents, specifically, "Decision Path 
II," state that number of current personnel were not to be used 
as a final rating criteria for Division site selection because of 
fluctuations in technical strength based on Corps needs. 

Indeed, this caution is borne out by current Corps 
Divisional strength reports, which show that "on-board" personnel 
at the SPD (San Francisco) is 238, and at the NPD (Portland) is 
224. Further, other documents show that SPD strength may be 
significantly higher. Thus, even using the Corps' faulty 
criteria (which we do not endorse) , at this time San Francisco 
would prevail over Portland in terms of minimizing the impact on 
Corps employees. 

If other Decision Path II tie-breaking criteria are used, 
San Francisco would also prevail. The Corps' selection of 
Cincinnati as a new Divisional site may be instructive. In a 
three-way tie between Cincinnati, Chicago, and Omaha, the Corps 
selected Cincinnati because of its proximity to the large civil 
works workload." (Decision Path, page 20). Utilizing this 
criteria, San Francisco is clearly far closer to the workload 
than Portland. As I have shown in previous correspondence, the 
dollar value of the workload in California versus Oregon is 10 
times greater for California. Indeed, a "center of work" 
analysis would place the center just south of San Francisco for 
the entire realigned Division. 

Therefore, the use of personnel impact is not only invalid, 
it is contrary to the stated need for closer supervision of major 
Corps projects, the vast majority of which are located in 
California. 

Mr. Chairman, there are also serious questions regarding the 
Corps' cost criteria projected for the consolidation. Corps 
salary data provided to us shows that SPD has the second lowest 
effective salary rate among traditional Corps Division, and the 
NPD has the third highest, even factoring in 8% locality pay in 
the SPD. Further, SPD overhead is within the norm, while NPD is 
among the highest overhead divisions. Finally, the add-on costs 
of locating personnel in Portland, such as the cost and 
convenience of air transportation to and from Corps projects, 
would be significantly higher in Portland than in San Francisco. 

Therefore, I question whether there is any validity behind 
the Corps' projected cost "savings" for the relocation to 
Portland. A closer study might reveal just the opposite — that 
the real savings in personnel, overhead, and other costs would be 
found in locating the Division closer to the center of work — 
California. 



401 



Page 3 



The lack of any serious attempt at fulfilling the 
requirement of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is 
very evident in the Corps' own documents. As stated earlier, the 
timeline for preparation of the current Reorganization was 
extremely abbreviated; documents obtained show that the Corps 
asked for waivers based only on the assumption that the 
realignment was civil works oriented; the impact on socio- 
economic considerations was not evaluated. Accordingly, there 
was no noticed comment period for the public, local government, 
and elected officials to express their opinions. Instead, the 
Corps states that they ran a "computer model" to estimate 
socioeconomic impacts. (Dorn letter, page 2) 

Mr. Chairman, these are serious deficiencies. The entire 
Corps planning process may be susceptible to legal challenge on 
the single issue of noncompliance with NEPA. This apparent 
vulnerability argues for a more thorough NEPA review process that 
allows for input from affected communities. 

Finally, Assistant Secretary Dorn assured me, in a single 
sentence, that "[e]mergency response . . . will continue at the 
same high level of quality." That statement offers little 
comfort to a state that comprises over 10% of the nations' 
population and which offers significant infrastructure challenges 
should a major temblor strike. Locating key personnel hundreds 
of miles away from California, when communication, power, and 
other infrastructure may be seriously compromised, makes no sense 
when the stated goal of emergency response is to achieve swift 
control of a potentially dangerous and deteriorating situation. 
The Regional Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
has expressed serious concerns about the proposed reorganization 
and its impact on emergency response in California. Most 
alarming, a January 6, 1993 memo from the Corps concedes that 
under the proposed reorganization, the new Western Division will 
be "unready" to assume SPD's emergency response role. 

The stated goal of emergency response is to be ready now, 
not some indeterminate time in the future. The fact that FEMA, 
Red Cross, and Corps personnel were located in San Francisco 
after the Loma Prieta earthquake greatly enhanced the response 
time to the temblor. This synergy of agencies was instrumental 
in rebuilding critical infrastructure, such as the Bay Bridge. 
It is unacceptable that the realignment will, according to the 
Corps' own documents, seriously compromise Corps participation in 
disaster response efforts. 

Nevertheless, the Corps is preparing for your review several 
contingency plans and fiscal projections to show that, at this 
point, there is no other choice but to proceed with the 
reorganization plan. 



402 



Page 4 



I understand, for example, that the Corps is recommending 
that the Headquarters reorganization go forward pending your 
review. While on its face the Corps argues that this would be a 
relatively noncontroversial move, in reality it has immense 
consequences for Corps projects in the West. The reorganization 
would remove authority and responsibility for Corps projects from 
the Districts, which are working on projects in close 
coordination with local authorities, and place the point of 
contact and review in Washington, D.C.. 

Thus, for an ongoing Corps project such as San Francisco Bay 
dredging, much decision-making would be removed off-site. 
Currently, Congress has appropriated funds for several years for 
a specific multi-agency review process called the Long Term 
Management Strategy (LTMS) , which directs the Corps to coordinate 
federal, state, local, and other interested parties to develop a 
plan for disposal of dredged materials in an environmentally 
responsible manner. The loss of the South Pacific Division 
support, coupled with the loss of decision-making at the District 
level, could jeopardize the LTMS, which is slated to present a 
plan in late 1994. In addition, interim solutions for disposal 
of current dredge spoils for simple maintenance purposes have 
required the Corps to work closely with agencies to facilitate 
spoils removal, and, again, removal of authority could seriously 
hamper these ongoing efforts. 

According to information I have received, this scenario 
would be implemented by removing Planning and Design elements 
from every Division office, and assigning those functions to the 
Washington office. The removal of Planning and design expertise 
from the Divisions is one of the major dysfunctional aspects of 
the Reorganizational plan, for it removes the regional knowledge 
and authority base necessary for providing even the most basic 
services to Corps customers. 

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would strenuously oppose the 
proposed Headquarters reorganization until the entire 
Reorganization plan is reviewed by your office. Indeed, as 
mentioned before, if the goals of Reorganization are to cut 
costs, make the Corps more efficient, and deliver quality 
services to Corps customers, relocating the centers of authority, 
whether in Portland or Washington, D.C., is directly contrary to 
these goals. 

I also understand that the Corps is preparing an argument 
stating that the their FY93 budget was predicated on the 
reorganization and, thus, unless they are allowed to proceed they 
will experience a funding shortfall. Indeed, Corps personnel are 



403 



Page 5 

telling all Corps employees that they face furloughs up to 24 
days unless the Corps is allowed to proceed. For the South 
Pacific Division specifically. Corps spokespersons have stated 
that the entire Division will lose funding for the last quarter 
of FY93 and be closed de facto as a result. 

Indeed, Corps officials are attempting to outplace employees 
at the South Pacific Division by insisting that reorganization 
will proceed and, therefore, employees should leave as soon as 
possible to maximize their re-employment prospects. This is 
causing a serious deterioration of morale, not to mention 
creating a situation where a manpower shortage may be 
deliberately created by such efforts at outplacement. 

I believe this argument seeks to place an unreasonable 
condition on your Department's review. Certainly, the threat of 
closure is real under the Corps' present budgeting targets. 
However, the Corps can easily remedy this situation through 
alternative budgeting and reprogramming, if necessary. I do not 
believe that this perceived threat should be dispositive of the 
real issue at hand: whether the flawed reorganization plan is in 
the best interests of the Corps and of this country. 

While I support the goals of Reorganization, it must be done 
responsibly. Considerations of improved service, efficiency, 
impact on Corps missions such as disaster response, cost 
containment, and cost reductions are real and must be addressed 
by the Corps. The proposed Reorganization, insofar as the impact 
on the South Pacific Division is concerned, meets none of these 
goals. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this important 
hearing. I appreciate the opportunity to submit my statement 
before the subcommittee today. 



404 



Testimony of the Honorable John Edward Porter 

Before the House Public Works and Transportation 

Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight 



May 6, 1993 



405 



Mr. Chairman, Congressman Inhofe and members of the Subcommittee, I would like to 
thank you for granting me this opportunity to submit testimony to the Public Works and 
Transportation Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. I appreciate the fact that the 
Subcommittee holding this hearing on the reorganization plan of the Army Corps of 
Engineers. 

Mr. Chairman, I represent the roughly 600,000 people of the Tenth Congressional District of 
Illinois. My district includes a number of Chicago's north and northwest suburbs and urban 
and rural areas in northern Illinois. It runs along the shore of Lake Michigan between the 
Village of Wilmette and the Illinois- Wisconsin state borders and includes several large rivers 
and a number of harbors. As such, my constituents have great need for efficient and 
effective Army Corps services, including those in the areas of flood control, harbor 
maintenance and environmental clean up. They depend on the Corps' Chicago Division and 
District offices for those services. Indeed, the Corps' Chicago offices and the services they 
provide play a vital role in maintaining and improving the environment and economy of the 
Chicago area and other nearby Midwestern states. 

I am glad the Clinton Administration has decided to put the reorganization of the Corps on 
hold pending further review. As you both know, the Corps announced its reorganization 
plan after the 102nd Congress adjourned and prior to the start of the 103rd Congress. This 
was a questionable time at which to announce the plan given its importance. While the need 
for reorganization is well recognized, valid concerns have been raised about how well the 
Corps has explained the process that led to adoption of the current reorganization plan as 
well as about how objectively it applied the criteria it used in developing the plan. I hope 
today's hearing will help answer these concerns. 

I am disappointed with the Corps' decision to remove its Division office from Chicago 
because of the importance of Chicago Army Corps operations. Chicago is, and would 
continue to be, an ideal location at which to base the Corps' Midwestern operations. The 
city is the transportation hub of the nation, is home to several exceptional scientific and 
technical universities and boasts numerous talented engineering professionals. The city's 
location on Lake Michigan and near several major rivers such as the Mississippi makes it a 
particularly appropriate location given the need for flood control, beach erosion, harbor 
maintenance and other Army Corps services. In addition, Chicago is home to the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency's Region Five headquarters. Having both of these 
important agencies based in the same city helps engender an effective working relationship 
between them. 

The Corps' Chicago District has responsibility for a $1.3 billion construction program over 
the next ten years. If this program is delayed — an outcome clearly possible under the 
proposed reorganization, due to a wholesale shifting of staff -- the costs of delay could be in 
the range of $25 million. It would be unfair to expect local sources to pay for these costs. 
Moreover, I am concerned about the extent to which the Corps would be able to effectively 
oversee projects in Illinois if it closed its Chicago Division office and moved its operations to 
Cincinnati. 



406 



The Honorable John Edward Porter 
Army Corps Reorganization Testimony 
Page Two 

Mr. Chairman, I hope the Subcommittee will continue to review this issue and help those of 
us affected by the reorganization plan to find an equitable solution to this problem. Thank 
you for granting me this opportunity to testify. 



407 



STATEKEHT OF SENATOR PAUL SIMON 

BEFORE THE HOUSE PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION COMKITTEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT R ^'TVESTIGATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

MAY 11. 1993 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate having this opportunity to express my 
concern with the proposed Army Corps of Engineers' Reorganization 
Plan. 

After reviewing the organizational changes proposed for the Army 
Corps of Engineers, I am very concerned about the negative impact 
these changes will have on Illinois projects, due to the loss of 
technical expertise. I hope that as the Committee reviews the 
proposed changes, my specific concerns for Illinois will be taken 
into consideration. 

Illinois relies heavily on Lake Michiga: , as well as the 
Mississippi, Illinois and Ohio rivers. These critical bodies of 
water require constant navigational upkeep, flood control 
management, and shoreline protection enhancements. 

The Corps' proposal would close the Chicago Division office and 
remove all technical personnel from the three District Offices — 
Chicago, Rock Island and St. Louis — which have primary 
oversight of Illinois projects. A crit cal responsibility of the 



408 



personnel currently staffing these offices is navigational 
improvements along the Illinois and Mississippi rivers. These 
efforts are essential to agricultural r,i ipments, to flood control 
projects that ensure the safety and health of the Chicago 
metropolitan area, and to the environmental protection of the 
upper Mississippi river. Loss of the technical expertise 
inherent in each District office will lead to delays, cost 
overruns, and less effective results. 

I urge you to review this proposal with a critical eye. The 
Chicago, Rock Island and St. Louis offices each offer special 
expertise, which Illinois cannot afford to lose. My staff and I 
would be happy to work with you in developing a reorganization 
plan that will maintain the highest possible level of service to 
Illinois . 

At his Senate confirmation hearing, Secretary Les Aspin said: 
" . . .we need a fair, rational process for considering a 
reorganization of the Corps...". I wholeheartedly agree. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate my apprsciation to you and to 
the Comi^ttee for allowing me the oppor-lunity to voice my 
concerns with this proposal. 



409 



CHARLES E SCHUMER 



Congress of the lanited States 

iloust of lilEprEBnitariDEB 
Washington, ©£ 20515-3210 



WHIPATLARGE 



May 13, 1993 

Robert A. Borski 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight 

Committee on Public Works and Transportation 

H2-586 Ford HOB 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

I would like to take the opportunity to submit the following 
information for your consideration and for the record in connection 
with the recent hearings held by your subcommittee on the proposed 
reorganization of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. 

I am particularly concerned about the proposed move of the Army 
Corps North Atlantic Division Headquarters from New York City to 
Boston and the reallocation of several duties currently under the 
auspices of the New York District Office. 

The proposed Army Corps reorganization will cause the New York 
District and North Atlantic Division Offices to lose 470 employees, 
a total amounting to 61% of its staff. Although I understand the 
need to reconsider Army Corps operations in light of ongoing defense 
budget cuts, it is critical that any consolidations be determined by 
consideration of the effects on the areas served by the Corps 
Offices. A reorganization which results in a drastic reduction of 
the critical services provided by the Corps to a major metropolitan 
area such as New York City will be unlikely to result in long term 
efficiency. 

I am particularly concerned about the loss of staffing in the 
New York offices in the aftermath of the recent storm that caused 
hundreds of millions of dollars in damage to New York City and its 
coastline. The Army Corps is playing a critical role in the repair 
and rebuilding efforts that are being undertaken to recover from the 
effects of the storm and to provide long term protection from future 
storms and resulting shore erosion. Reducing the New York offices' 
ability to apply its unique expertise to our region is likely to 
lead to disastrous consequences. 

The following listing of relevant issues summarizes why I 
believe this reorganization to be misguided. 



MINTED ON RECYCLI 



410 



-- Effect of loss of Corp experts who know the NYC area at a time 
when the shorefront is recovering from the December 
northeaster and at a time that projects are in the pipeline 
to repair the damage done by the storm. 

-- Effect of long distance coordination with NY State officials. 
For example NY State DEC officials are prohibited from 
traveling out of state. 

-- Loss of emergency response capability in country's most 
densely populated region. 

-- Move doesn't make sense when Corp's own reorganization 
location criteria are considered: 

a) near quality schools 

b) near engineering schools 

c) major airports 

d) labor availability 

e) office space 

f ) central to workload distribution (FY93 Civil 

Works budget for Corps in NY District $103 
million, for Boston $40 million) 

g) number of current personnel (North Atlantic 

Division in NY has 207 division level spaces, 
New England Division in Boston has 13 
division level spaces - it makes no sense to 
move 207 spaces to Boston rather than 13 to 
New York) . 

e) cost of living - although there is an 8% 
locality pay differentiation for federal 
employees in NY, this is only a short term 
difference because locality pay is likely to 
change . 

I have taken the liberty of attaching further information 
for your review and hope the subcommittee will find it useful. I am 
also enclosing a letter from the New York State House and Senate 
delegation on this issue. Thank you for your consideration. 



Sincerel 




^lARLES E. SCHUMER 
Member of Congress 




411 



THE NEW YORK STATE 
CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION 




Jinuaxy 39, 1993 

Tha Honorable L«s Aspin 
Secrstary of Defanee 
Tha Pant agon 
Washington/ DC 20310 

Dear Mr. Secrataryi 

Tha Kew Yor)c Stata Delegation would like to expraas our 
atrong concern about tha proposal to raorganiza tha U.S. Army 
Corpa o£ Engineera. Undar that plan, th« North Atlantic Division 
Offica in Naw York City would ba cloaad, and diatrlct officag in 
both Naw York and Buffalo would aee savara staff reductions, 
raaulting in tha loss of more than 500 poaitions statewide. 

We believe that a nationwide reorganization of tha Corps 
should await your office's thorough review, especially 
considering President Clinton's clear desire to reyitallze our 
Nation a infrastructure. The Corps should play a valuable role in 
rebuilding and restoring roads, bridges and other important 
elements of our country's physical infrastructure. 

Secondly, as Representatives of a stata severely affected by 
a recent storm, we are concerned about the Corps moving many of 
its personnel to another area of the country. As we are sura you 
)cnov, the Northeaster that struck Long Island and much of the New 
York metropolitan area on December 10th damaged and destroyed 
roads, harbors, and shorelines, all of which the Corps is uniq;ualy 
qualified to help rebuild. A substantial reduction In the Corps' 
personnel in the New York area could hamper this and future repair 
work. 

Furthermore, we are concerned about the economic impact of 
the plan on the state, especially in Western New York. Under the 
bi-partisan Base Relocation and Closure Commission (BRACC) plan, 
the Buffalo District Office would have been expanded to over 900 
*ui^iu/wB. i.i:w utiw reorganization pian, however, would force 
almost half the personnel in the Buffalo District Office to lose 
their jobs, y.oraover, transfer of engineering and related 
technical functions from Buffalo, as proposed by the Corps, would 
eliminate technical expertise from anywhere on the Great Lakes. 

Finally, we think that it is important to note that some of 
the anticipated oayroll savings from moving employees out of the 
New York metropolitan area may be overestimated. Although 
Federal workers in and around New York City receive pay 



412 



p«g« 2 



adjustment* for living in a high-vag« are*, all regions of the 
country are now being surveyed to determine pay disperitiec 
between Federal and non-rtderal worker*. Beginning in 1994, 
Federal worker* living in other areas with wage di*paritie« will 
receive locality adjustment* in addition to General Schedule 
increases, as they now do in the Mew York osetropolitan area. 
Since available evidence indicates that Boston i* in an area with 
significant pay disparities, it is virtually certain that 
employees stationed there will be entitled to locality adjustment* 
beginning in 1994, thus diminishing to a significant extent the 
Corp*' anticipated savings. 

For all of these reasons, we urge that the Corpa b« 
instructed to suspend and reevaluate the proposed reorganization. 
Thank you for your attention to this important matter. 

Let us also take thi* opportunity to congratulate you on your 
appointment a* Secretary. We are confident that you will serve 
with both skill and honor. 



Sincerely, 



rinan 




lerman, Secretary 



cnafles Schumer, Treasurer "' 



Sherwood Boehlert 
Eliot Engel 
Floyd Flake 
Benjamin Gilman 
Maurice Hinchey 
George Hochbrueckner 
Amo Houghton 
Peter King 
John LaFalce 
Rick Lazio 
David Levy 
Mita Lowey 
John McHugh 
Michael McNulty 



Carolyn Maloney 
Thomas Manton 
Susan Kolinari 
Jerrold Hadler 
Major Owens 
Bill Paxon 
Jack Quinn 
Jose Serrano 
Louise Slaughter 
Gerald Solomon 
Edolphus Towns 
James Walsh 
Nydia Velazquez 



413 



REORGANIZATION FACT SHEET 
Impacts on New York 

1. The proposed reorganization will eliminate the North 
Atlantic Division (NAD) office in New York City and relocate 
it to the Boston area. The two primary Districts which 
service New York State, Buffalo District and New York 
District (NYD) will be significantly reduced in size and 
mission. These Districts will have no planning, engineering, 
environmental or real estate expertise, but will consist of a 
token project management office and construction and 
operations offices. 

2. Direct Impacts. 

a. Federal Jobs. Buffalo will lose 141 jobs and New 
York will lose 470, 207 from NAD and 263 from NYD. Estimated 
wages lost would be §25 million annually. VHien combined with 
lost spousal income, lost income and property taxes, and lost 
money spent in the state, the total annual impact will be 
over $45 million. 

b. Private-sector Jobs. Both Districts currently 
utilize the local A/E community extensively. The corabined 
loss of this group would be over §42 million per' year in 
contracts which would now be administered at technical 
centers anywhere in the country. The total annual loss, 
counting all factors, will exceed §75 million. 

c. Construction. In addition, there are approximately 
§4.5 billion in potential construction encompassed in the 
various studies and projects being designed by the Districts 
and A/E community. The transfer of design to technical 
centers unfamiliar with the projects will result in 
inevitable delays in schedule and increases in cost. This, 
coupled with diminished personal commitment, could result in 
a lops of this construction and all the benefits associated 
with it for the state of New York, 

3. Programmatic Impacts. 

a. Loss of Expertise. There will be a loss of senior 
staff at the Districts and Division, many of whom have over 
20 years of experience in addressinij the water resources 
neeas of the State. Their stature in the Corps of Engineers,- 
institutional knowledge, and innovative solutions have 
resulted in the advancement of studies and projects which 
would otherwise not be funded. This expertise on local 
issues is not likely to be duplicated by the proposed 
reorganization. 

b. Local Coordination. Distancing of the work from the 
local area will increase coordination problems, travel costs 
and eliminate the close coordination that takes place in all 
aspects of current work. New York's ability to manage its 
interface with the Corps will be significantly reduced 
because of distance. In fact, routine coordination will be 
very difficult because the New York State Department of 
Environmental Conservation, the state's agent for dealing 



414 



with the Corps, is currently prohibited from travelling 
outsid* the state boundary. 

c. Disruption of Program. New York State encompasses 
lacustrine, riverine/estuarine, and oceanic environments of 
national significance. Priorities in place in the existing 
Districts to systematically address this wide range of water- 
related issues could be altered because the residual 
Districts would no longer control priorities, monies and/or 
resources of technical centers. In fact there will be no 
corps of Engineers planning, environmental or engineering 
personnel available on site with the local expertise 
necessary to help the state manage its resources. 

d. Environmental Concerns. The reorganization would 
increase the difficulty for state environmental agencies to 
coordinate with Corps environmental centers as local 
environmental expertise is eliminated. There would also be 
an increased potential for difficulties regarding the 
disposal of dredged material. 

e. Emergency Situations. Localized planning and 
engineering support to New York during emergency periods will 
no longer be available. 



415 



FACT SHEET #2 
NEW YORK DISTRICT 
NEW YORK v» BOSTON 

Th« Corps of Engineer* has proposed elimination of its 
engineering and related planning wieaions in New York City 
in favor of Boston. This proposal will cost the City of New 
York 407 jobs (see p. F-5, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
Reorganization Plan). This loss to New York is unnecessary. 

The Corps violated its own criteria for realigning 
district offices. These criteria were (p. CIO, 
Reorganization Plan) : 

1. Quality higher education 

2. Excellent engineering schools 

3. Large or medium size air traffic hub 

4. Labor availability 

5. Office space availability 

6. Central to workload/ geographic distribution 

7. Number of current personnel 

8. Cost of living. 

Obviously, the New York area has quality higher 
education, both public and private, such as New York 
University, Rutgers, Stony Brook and Hofstra. It has many 
outstanding nationally and regionally prominent engineering 
schools, including Princeton, New Jersey Institute of 
Technology, Columbia and the Polytechnic Institute of New 
York. It has three major airports— Kennedy, LaGuardia and 
Newark — and a good mass transit system. 

New York City clearly has highly-qualified labor 
available. There is an abundance of office space available. 
In fact, two Federal office buildings are being constructed 
by the General Services Administration adjacent to the 
District office. 

The Corps failed to consider the fact that the Corps 
regional workload is centered in the New York area, not 
Boston. For example, the total rY92 Civil Works budget for 
New York District was $103 million and for Boston (NED) it 
was $44 million. In FY93, the trend continued with the New 
York District Civil Works Budget at $115 million and the 
Boston (NED) budget at $40 million. 

During the recent storm in December 1992, the New York 
District planning and engineering staff were able to respond 
to project areas almost immediately, something not possible 
from Boston. 



416 



Currently, Boston District (NED) is staffed with 563 
personnel and New York District with 568. with the workload 
concentrated in New York District, it makes no sense to 
transfer planning and engineering spaces from New York to 
Boston. 

The cost of living is higher in Boston than in New York 
for lower Incone families and about the same for intermediate 
income families. 

The Corps does have an 8% locality pay differentiation 
in New York, as do all federal agencies. This 
differentiation is needed for recruitment and retention of 
highly qualified personnel was fully supported by the 
Secretary of the Army. The differential has resulted in the 
turnover rate dropping from 30% to 5%. 

The pay raise initiative was designed to keep jobs in 
our hard hit urban areas with minority population and high 
unemployment. The Department of Defense supported that 
Initiative. Therefore, it is incredible that it should be 
used as a criterion. 

Furthermore, upon implementation of the Federal Pay 
Reform Act in 1994, there will be pay parity between New York 
City, Boston and all other areas. Therefore, using this 
current short-term differential as criteria is irrelevant. 



417 



3) What formulation criteria vera used - what is tha 
without project condition? what ia the leaat-coat 
alternative? What are the benefits? 

6. ZutUEl 

a. Kew Kiasions. WRDA 92 authorizes the COE to 
undertake a wide range of new miasiona. It appears that the 
entire reorganization is a retrenchment strategy with little 
acknowledgement of the Congressional Committees' desires as 
presented in WRDA 92. An obvious question arises about the 
Corps ability to Implement WRDA 92 givan reorganization. 

b. Regional Program. Currently, there is a large and 
expanding program in the states of NY, NJ & PA serviced 
primarily by the NY and Philadelphia Districts. If not 
giving up on this work, the reorganization will greatly 
impair the program in this region. 

c. Non-Pro jeot aervioes. Several programs currently 
managed by District Planning Divisions will be all but 
abandoned because of the reorganization. Floodplain 
management services and Planning Assistance to States are 
location-specific. In addition, these programs, and the 
support for others program are fostered by local awareness 
and responsiveness. 

7. ft frand^na^^^ Si urban Areas 

a. Based on the information presented in the 
reorganization plan as well as 1990 U.S. Census figures, it 
appears that EEO goals and objectives will be severely 
impacted by the proposed reorganization. For example, the 
figures indicate 56.8% of New York City population to be 
minority-based, as compared to 22% for the Boston area and 
15.1% for Fort Devens. Due to competitive area decisions and 
limited positions available, it is highly probable that 
current minority employees will be disproportionately 
affected. 

b. In light of recent urban tensions caused mainly by 
economic pressure on our cities, this reorganization is not 
sending a proper message to the American people. Ninety 
percent of Corps employees in the New York area rely on mass 
transportation to get to and from the office. A move to a 
location not serviced by mass transit would affect a great 
percentage of employees who do not have a drivers license, 
much less an automobile. 




418 



DELAWARE RIVER PORT AUTHORITY 

OF 
PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY 

BRIDGE PLAZA 
CAMDEN NEW JERSEY 08101 



HARRY J KENNEDY. JR 
MANAGER GOVERNMENT RELATIONS 

May 18, 1993 



The Honorable Robert A. Borski 
2161 Rayburn House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515-3303 

Dear Congressman Borski: 

In testimony given before your sub-committee on Investigations 
and Oversight on May 6, 1993, the written testimony submitted by 
Barbara Jones referenced a resolution passed by the Delaware River 
Port Authority. That resolution pointed out that the Philadelphia 
District Office of the Corps of Engineers is a lower cost office 
than district offices in other areas. Your question asked for 
substantiation of that fact. The cost multiplier that is utilized 
by the Corps, which is the cost of direct labor as well as other 
factors involved in providing services, comes to a multiplier in 
the Philadelphia district of 2.35. The nearest district office, 
Baltimore, has a cost multiplier of 2.45. Both district offices are 
well below the target amount of 2.65 which is the Corps target 
amount . 

It is also interesting to note that the Base Closure 
Realignment Committee also recorded the Philadelphia District 
Office as the sixth most cost effective district in the entire 
nation. These facts would suggest that, in addition to providing 
excellent service to the Philadelphia region, the district office 
also provides very cost effective service. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

Sincerely, 



HJKrdlh 




419 



Sohin of JHateton 



^^YQI^ INCORPORATED I8«-MINOO COUNTY COUNCIL MEMBERS 

Johnny Fullen MatCWan, WV 25678 D^"'' Srn.th 

Edward Nenni 
RECORDER Phone 304/426^tt)92 Deborah Moore 

WiUiam F Slewan P.O. Box 306 Robert K. Allara 

Jeanette Collins 

May 5, 1993 

Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight 
U.S. House of Representatives 
Committee on Public Works and Transportation 
Suite 2165 Rayburn House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Subcommittee Members: 

As Mayor of the Town of Matewan, West Virginia since 1987, I 
maintain very close contact with the United States Army Corps of 
Engineers, Huntington District. Currently, the Corps is building 
a Flood Protection Wall around the central business district of 
Matewan as well as undertaking general flood reduction projects in 
Matewan and throughout the Tug Valley under Section 202 of the 
Energy and Water Development Act of Public Law 96-367. 

Maintaining close contact with the Corps is essential in a 
project of this magnitude. The Huntington District provides ready 
access to those individuals making design decisions concerning the 
future of Matewan, as those decisions have extremely significant 
impacts on the town it is important that the decision makers be in 
close proximity to the site. If anything, greater involvement and 
sensitivity to the town by the Corp would be desireable. 

The proximity of the Huntington District to the Tug Valley has 
been an invaluable asset to the Flood Protection Program Section 
202. I feel that it is of the utmost importance to maintain the 
Huntington District at the current level and capacity. Consoli- 
dating and transferring function elsewhere in the system, in my 
opinion, would only serve to isolate the Corps even more from 
serving the public. 

Thank you for this opportunity to submit my comments to the 
Sub-committee on Investigations and Oversight. 



rely, 

Fullen 




JWF\ad 



420 



MARITIME ADVISORY COUNCIL OF NEW JERSEY 

New Jersey Department of Commerce & Economic Development 

CN 823, Trenton, New Jersey 08625 
609-292-0700 



May 28. 1993 



John L. Buzzi, Ph.D., P.E., Chairman 
Joseph T. Grossi, Executive Director 



TTie Honorable Robert Borsk, M.C., Chairman 
House Public Works and 

Transportation Committee 
Investigations and Oversight 

Subcommittees 

Ford House Office Building, Room H2-586 
Washington D.C. 20515 



Dear Chairman Borsk: 

RE: U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

REORGANIZATION HEARING. MAY 6. 1993 
LETTER FOR THE RECORD 

The Maritime Advisory Council of New Jersey wishes to take this occasion to express our 
opposition to the proposed reorganization of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Offices. This 
reorganization will have a serious negative impact upon New Jersey's entire civil works 
program. 

This Council, established in 1983, comprises a membership of organizations representing port, 
harbor pilot, government, business, labor, towboat and barge, and other maritime interests in 
the State of New Jersey and from our neighboring states of Delaware, New York and 
Pennsylvania. The purpose of the Council is to advise the New Jersey Department of Commerce 
and Economic Development on maritime and civil works matters affecting the State of New 
Jersey and to emphasize that industry 's impact on our State and the regional economy. 



MAHITIME ADVISORY COUNCIL AFFILIATE ORGANIZATIONS 

BRIDGETON MUNICIPAL PORT AUTHORITY 

DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY AUTHORITY 

DELAWARE RIVER PORT AUTHORITY 

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS 

JOINT EXEC. COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE DELAWARE 

MARINE TRADES ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY 

MARITIME ASSOCIATION OF THE PORT OF NEW YORK/NEW JERSEY 

NEW JERSEY ALLIANCE FOR ACTION 

NEW JERSEY CHAPTER - NATIONAL DREDGING ASSOCIATION 

NEW JERSEY MARINE SCIENCES CONSORTIUM 

NEW JERSEY STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

NEW JERSEY STATE COMMISSIONERS OF PILOTAGE 

PENJERDEL COUNCIL 

PERTH AMBOY WATERFRONT COMMITTEE 

PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY 

PORTS OF PHILADELPHIA MARITIME EXCHANGE 

SOUTH JERSEY PORT CORPORATION 

THE PILOT'S ASSOCIATION FOR THE BAY AND RIVER DELAWARE 

TOWBOAT & HARBOR CARRIERS ASSOC, OF NEW YORK/NEW JERSEY 

UNITED NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY SANDY HOOK PILOTS ASSOCIATION 



421 



The Honorable Robert Borsk 
May 28, 1993 
Page Two 



In addition to the negative economic impacts which will result from this reorganization, which 
include the loss of 632 Corps jobs and 650 industry-wide architect /engineer positions, the total 
direct impact to the area will be $41 million in wage losses and an overall adverse impact of 
approximately $75 million annually. These economic impacts are further exacerbated by the 
programmatic impacts which will result. The loss of senior staff, planning, engineering and 
environmental expertise, and the systematic approach to solving New Jersey 's shore protection, 
flood control, water supply and ruivigation problems will also be seriously compromised. 

The Maritime Advisory Council believes that the proposed reorganization of the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers, which would reduce the New York and Philadelphia District Offices and 
eliminate the North Atlantic Division Office in New York, would cause economic damage and 
reduce vital Corps services to New Jersey. 

On behalf of the Maritime Advisory Council, the civic, trade, port, labor and maritime interests 
which we represent, and myself, we urge that you oppose the implementation of this proposed 
reorganization plan, and any appropriations necessary to implemeru this change, prior to 
Congressional oversight and adequate discussion of the plan's merits and flaws with those who 
will be impacted. V/e trust you will continue to intervene in this effort to keep the Corps 
functions at the New York and Philadelphia Offices, and thank you for this opportunity to 
present our position. 



Sincerely, 

John L. Buzzi, P.E., Ph.D. 
Chairman 



nj 



72-424 0-94-15 



422 



Testiaony Regarding the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
Regorganization Plan 

In recent years our conmunity has faced the possibility of a 
major U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers reorganization taking place. 

I am confident such an effort to streamline the Corps' 
operation is necessary and warranted and I connend the Corps 
leadership Cor their recognition of this need. 

However, it is evident that the proposed plan if implemented, 
will have a disproportionately harsh economic impact upon our 
region as compared to other cities where districts are now in 
place. 

The reduction of nearly 400 workers from this community would 
be devastating to our region in comparison to larger cities where 
the same loss would be small when taken against the population. 

This District is one of the largest civil works Districts 
within the Corps. I could comment upon the historical accomplish- 
ments of this District but I know they are well documented. 

The scope of the Corps' future mission is now being discussed 
as it relates to the changes one cam foresee as opposed to the 
mission they have fulfilled. 

I reject the argument that a Corps district with such a 

sterling record of work and expertise will be unable or ill 

prepared to step into the next century and the next set of 
challenges. 

Indeed, it is my belief that the abundance of current projects 
within their District will provide such a workload for many years 
that moving those workers essential to their completion elsewhere 
holds no benefit in efficiency or in any cost savings. 

In fact, many arguments can be made that such a plan would be 
costly from many standpoints including travel, per diem costs and 
the higher wages they would need to live in these higher-cost 
areas. 

It might be said many of us are practicing "Not in my back 
yard" politics. However, whether that is the case or not, any plan 
that takes nearly 400 productive workers from a city of 54,000 
including a loss of average incomes over $18,000 per year in a 
state that is 49th in personal income and where the state's 
unemployment rate has been one of the highest in the nation for 
many years show, either an incomplete analysis on the part of the 
plan's drafters or perhaps, a blatant disregard for this community. 

Reorganization is wise and prudent for many organizations 
including the Corps, however it is unwise during tenuous economic 



423 



times to devastate an already hard-pressed economy in our region 
and add these jobs to other areas where the economic gain will be 
negligible. This is especially brought home to us when we know 
that our workers and this community can adapt to serve any capacity 
necessary in the Corps* future missions. We have done so with 
distinction for the Corps in their past mission and will do so if 
given that opportunity in the future. 

Many national leaders, including these within this 
administration have called for an economic revitalization that is 
based upon an increase in infrastructure and civil works programs 
nationwide. I applaud this commitment to the improvement of our 
nation's neglected and aging facilities. 

However, Z ask the Corps and this body not to rob Peter to pay 
Paul in this reorganization. Economic Revitalization must begin in 
the Huntingtons of this country. They have the greatest and most 
urgent need. The logic of taking 400 workers from our community at 
a cost estimated to exceed $40 million annually just to ship those 
same workers back in from another city to help revitalize our 
economy with infrastructure projects is highly questionable. As 
for the rather nebulous reasoning that says this community cannot 
meet the needs for any future Corps mission I ask "why not?" I 
fail to see any reasoning put forth so far in this plan that 
warrants the devastation that our economy will face. We can meet 
any challenge for the future mission of the Corps. 

Thank you for allowing me this opportuijijty to present these 
arguments. ^ 7 / 

^ //'(^^ 
Matt Miller 
Board of Directors Member 
Huntington Regional Chamber of Commerce 
522 9th Street 
Huntington, WV 25701 




424 



WATERWAYS 
ASSOCIATIOKOF 
PinSBURGHj gg 

^^^^^^y Pn Rn» B1 • MrKppsnnrt PA 1Fii;^4 



P.O. Box 81 • McKeesport, PA 15134 
(412) 751-9445 



May 5, 1993 



Hon. Robert Borski , Chairman, 
Investigative and Oversight Subcommittee, 
House Public Works & Transportation Committee, 
585 Ford Building, 
Washington, D. C. - 20515. 

Dear Mr . Borski : 

I am writing to you at the suggestion of Charles 
Ziegier, Esq. to make part of your committee's record the 
view of the Waterways Associatiion of Pittsburgh regarding 
the Corps of Army Engineers Reorganization. 

Last year, we opposed the proposed plan of reorganization 
which was set aside by the Congress. 

The later study, the one you are considering now, is one 
we do support and urge its adoption. 

We had many questions regarding the BRAC report, most of 
which have been taken care of in the new study. 

One maior concern was the layers of bureaucracy and "red 
tape" which exists; especially with regard to getting projects 
approved and moving ahead. This has been taken care of by 
cutting down the number of Corps Divisions from 10 to 5 and 
by giving the Divisions the ability to move projects more 
quickl y . 

The new plan promises quicker action on project reports 
with fewer and shorter delays. This will result in saving 
not only time but of money. 

The addition of Technical Centers will make the entire 
project procedure more competitive and less expensive. 

Over a period of time, the cost of operating the Corps 
will be lowered since there is a provision for phasing out 
personnel through attrition. The removal of these 2600 
positions will bring about a saving of $215 million annually 
after the plan has been fully implemented. 



425 



- 2 



Significantly, the savings should not affect performance 
for the jobs in the field - at locks and dams, flood control 
facilities, at recreational sites, with the environmental 
people, etc, - are not being done away with. The attrition 
takes place at Headquarters, in the Divisions and at the 
District level . 

But the provision for the Technical Centers and the 
realignment of responsibilities at the office levels will 
make for a leaner, more efficient management. 

Certainly some oxen are going to be gored at a political 
level, but as the President and Congress have both indicated 
there has to be some lowering of the cost of government, 
especially within the Defense Department. This new Corps 
Reorganization plan provides a head start in the process. 

We hope the Sub-Committee will support the reorganization 
plan as submitted for it does the job we all looked for when 
the BRAC plan was so vigorously opposed insofar as Corps 
reorganization is concerned. 

The Waterways Association of Pittsburgh represents the 
"customers" of the Corps in Western Pennsylvania, Northern 
West Virginia and Eastern Ohio; all part of the Port of 
Pittsburgh. The Port of Pittsburg is the largest inland port 
in the country based on tonnage. 

Our members are the river transportation companies and 
their customers who use the river for the shipment and 
receiving of goods. 

We work closely with the Corps and we know the valuable 
services they provide, not only here, but throughout the 
inland river system. 

Very truly yours, 

Arthur Parker, 

Executive Vice-President, 



426 




OFFICE Of THE MAYOR 
P. 0. BOX 1517 ■ PHONE (304) 235-1510 



Ue have had an excellent working relationship uith the Corps 
in the Huntington office. Their ability to respond to problems 
immediat6^'9nd efficiently minimized the impacts of construction 
activities in Uilliamson. During the construction of the 
Central Business District flooduall, a major concern to the 
dountoun businesses uas the disruption of traffic and access, 
especially during the placemmt of the interceptor lines in 
City streets. The impacts could haue been devestatinq , 
particularly during Christmas, The Huntington.'Diatrict took'.our 
concerns to heart and uorked out a plan uith the contractor to 
minimize those impacts and still completed the project over a 
year ahead of schedule. 

Ue think the approach thn Army has taken to become more 
responsiue and efficient in the work they perform has totally 
missed the area uhere these goals could be achieved. It has 
been our experience that during the revieu and approval 
processes for the project by the Huntington District's higher 
authority, frivilous and non-productive comments, additional 
work, and guidance was given the District. It put the District 
in an unenviable position to try to rationalize uith us the 
benefit of the additional uork they had to do, but they did it 
admirably. Houever, ue have observed that it appears the main 
function of tha revieu and approval process is to evaluate a 
project to try and kill it — not to try to make it uork. The 
majority of the additional uork accomplished by the District 
did not change the project, it just caused delays and some 
higher bureaucrat thought they had done their job by making a 
comment and requiring the District to jump through hoops. 

One suggestion ue uould have to allou the Corps to become more 
responsive and efficient is to allou more decisions to be made 
at the District level and eliminate the constant and repetitive 
reviews, especially at the Uashington level. Those rsvieus 
aluays add cost and time to a project. Uhere our projects'are 
basically 1D0X Tederal co&t, the only impacts ue suffered were 
delays in getting the project complete. A cost shared project 
uas just approved in another part of our County a4id these 
delays cost the County and taxpayers more mor>ey — and the 
project did not change from the original plan first submitted 
by the Huntington District four years ago. 

Another recommendation is that uhan Congreaa authorizes and 
funds a project (and in our case, directed the Corps to design 
and build a project), lets get on uith it and build the project. 
No more discussions should occur to determine the authority. 
Federal interest and other items that have already been determined 
uhen Congress authorized the project. 




427 



OFFICE OF THE HATCH 
P. BOX 1S17 • PHONE 1304) 23S-1S10 



MM 6. KAPOUfUUS 



During the formulation and dQvelopment of the nonstructurai 
programs for the Uilliamson , fHatauan and Mingo County areas, 
continual policy and procedural reuisions uere necessary to 
adapt to the dynamics of the programs themseluss as usll as 
the field conditions uithin the project area. The effectiue 
and efficient formulation of these programs and projects uere 
the product of day-to-day coordination uith the planning, 
engineering, real estate and project management staff in the 
Huntington District office uho are committed to this project. 
I am certain that had these expertises uithin the Corps been 
located at some other office outside the stats or region, us 
uould not be experiencing the progress ue have made to date 
in this area uith regard to flood control. 

Change orders, design changes, unknoun conditions, difficult 
relocations and a myriad of other activities required almost 
daily "hands on" efforts by the Huntington District engineering 
professionals. Had this team of professionals not been close 
at hand, you can be assured that our projects uould have bean 
more costly, untimely and inefficient. 

I think that I can safely say that the Huntington District 
ha« formulated and implemented a plan for flood damage 
reduction in the Tug Fork and Levisa Fork basins that is second 
to none in the history of the Corps, both in terms of magnitude 
and uniqueness. As you knou, such efforts do not just happen 
by themselves. It takes joint commitment and perseverance from 
both the Corps and the non-Fedaral sponsors to bring these 
projects to fruition. Commitment of this type does not come 
from official government regulations, memos or directives 
but it comes from the heart of the people involved. This 
common commitment is solidified through shared heritage, shared 
values, shared experiences and shared concerns. The majority 
of the people uho are uorking on these projects in the District 
office participated in the afermath of the cleanup of the 
April 1977 flood uhich was the stimulus for our efforts here 
today. Let me assure you that ue don't have to explain our 
problems to the staff of the Huntington District; thay knou 
our problems and concerns because they have uitnessed and 
experienced these same problems and concerns uith us. I 
believe that the Corps has a byline that says something to the 
effect, "Customer care, a uay of doing business". This is uhat 
ue have experienced uith the Huntington District and this is 
uhat has gotten us to the milestone ue are at today uith regard 
to flood control in Southern Uest Virginia. 



U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGESFEERS PROPOSED 
REORGANIZATION PLAN 



TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1993 

House of Representatives, 
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, 
Committee on Public Works and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:30 p.m., in room 
2253, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert A. Borski (chair- 
man of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. Borski. The subcommittee will come to order. The sub- 
committee this afternoon will continue hearing testimony on the 
proposed reorganization of the Army Corps of Engineers. 

On Thursday we heard from a long list of people who objected 
to the plan that has been proposed. Today we will hear from the 
people who created that plan as well as others. 

Let me emphasize again that the purpose of our hearings is to 
use the reorganization process to promote the restructuring of the 
Corps, to meet the challenges of the 1990s and the 21st century. 

We want to find the best possible structure for the Corps' excep- 
tional engineering talents while at the same time meeting our 
mandate from the American people for a more efficient cost-con- 
scious government. 

For more than a century and a half, the Corps has done an out- 
standing job of building the infrastructure of our Nation. Those 
contributions should and must continue in the years ahead. 

We now recognize the Ranking Minority Member of the sub- 
committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma. 

Mr. Inhofe. Thank you. 

I do have a statement that I would like to submit for the record. 
I was not here last week when we had the hearings and I am one 
of those who feels that this current proposal is a far superior one 
than the first plan. 

In the last three days, I had the opportunity to view on a first- 
hand basis the very fine work of the Corps of Engineers in control- 
ling a flood situation in Tulsa, Oklahoma. In fact, it got down to 
the point. General, where it was going to be within inches of being 
a disastrous flood or one that we could survive. 

The Corps of Engineers made a determination that they would 
release 100,000 cubic feet per second and if it had been slightly 
more than that, it would have been a devastating flood, but we sur- 
vived it. When the dam was built several years ago the Corps said 
they could give us this level of precision, and of course they dem- 
onstrated clearly that they are capable of doing that. And I think 

(429) 



430 

this is an excellent example of the precision engineering and why 
Tulsa was selected as a proposed site for a technical center. 

There are however, some disturbing aspects of this plan that I 
want to explore. For instance, one of the written testimonies that 
came in, someone was quoted as saying the main function for the 
review and approval process is to evaluate a project to try to kill 
it and not to try to make it work, and I can testify to this firsthand. 

For the last four years, we have been talking about what to do 
with the Montgomery Point Lock and Dam. This is a lock and dam 
where it comes from the Mississippi into the Arkansas River. It 
was in the original plans back in 1944. 

When the waterway was completed, that was left off and as a re- 
sult of this we now have a situation where the shippers don't have 
enough confidence that we are going to be able to keep it open 365 
days out the year to be able to effectively use it. 

We had an original investment in that waterway of $1.5 billion. 
That is up to now over $4 billion. I look at that as an investment 
we want to protect. 

So I think we need to move on a lot of these things and not study 
these things to death. And hopefully we can proceed on and adopt 
a plan. 

Mr. Chairman, I applaud you for holding this hearing. 

[Mr. Inhofe's prepared statement follows:] 

Statement of Hon. James M. Inhof 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Although I was unable to attend the hearing last week 
on the proposed Corps of Engineers reorganization plan, I understand that several 
of the same concerns were expressed by all the witnesses. First, input from Corps 
partners was not asked for. Secondly Corps selection criteria for division and tech- 
nical center sites was not followed. Third, Geographic regions, such as the Great 
Lakes, are not sufficiently represented. Finally, geographic boundaries of new divi- 
sions tend to ignore unique regional concerns. I look forward to discussing these and 
other concerns with the corps. 

On balance, I believe this current proposal is far superior to the first plan. In the 
last three days, I have had the opportunity to view first hand the superior technical 
capabilities of the Txilsa Corps of Engineers Office. As you may have heard, Texas 
and Oklahoma have been on the receiving end of tornados and torrential rains. 
However, due to the technical expertise of the Tulsa Corps office, Tvdsa has not ex- 
perienced severe flooding which would normally accompany this type of weather. 
The Corps successfully controlled the release of discharge from Keystone Lake to 
110,000 cubic feet per second which brought the discharge within inches of a disas- 
trous flood. 

This excellent example of precision engineering is a clear illustration of why Tulsa 
was selected as a proposed site for a technical center. When keystone lake was built, 
I remember the Corps telling us that there would come a time when they would 
be able to control the lake in such a way so as to protect Tulsa. This goal has been 
achieved and it is due solely to the outstanding skill and knowledge of the Tulsa 
office. 

However, there are several disturbing aspects of the proposed plan that I hope 
our witness will address. For instance, it has been suggested that the "main func- 
tion of the review and approval process is to evaluate a project to try and kill it — 
not to try to make it work." Mr. Chairman, I can testify to this first hand. Over 
the last four years, I have been working with local sponsors and the Corps on a 
project on the McClellan-Kerr navigation system. The project, a lock and dam at 
Montgomery Point, was initially planned when the McClellan-Kerr navigation sys- 
tem was authorized in 1944. However, at the time of construction, the Montgomery 
Point Lock and Dam was not included. Since that time, the waterway has changed 
dramatically. The unanticipated low water levels and high sediment build-up at the 
confluence of the Mississippi River has resulted in an average of 42 days per year 
when navigation on the system is restricted. 



431 

Not surprisingly, the confidence of the shippers on the McClellan-Kerr has been 
eroded which has resulted in a steady decline of tonnage shipped. The Federal Gov- 
ernment has already invested $1.2 biUion in the McClellan-Kerr and since construc- 
tion there has been additional public and private investments of $3.5 billion. 

Although, the local Corps engineers support the project and believe it is necessary 
to preserve and protect the Federal Government's investment, the Washington head- 
quarters has consistently delayed the project by requiring additional study. The 
longer we delay this project, the cost will increase and the confidence of the system 
will decrease. This will result in a negative cost/benefit ratio which will mean the 
economic justification for the project will not be there. Consequently, the public and 
private investment along the waterway will suffer and jobs will be lost. 

As I understand the pending proposal, one layer of review has been eUminated. 
However, projects will still go through review in Washington. I fully support a vigor- 
ous review process and believe that Washington has an important role to play m 
the review process, but a process that is designed to kill projects by requiring non- 
sensical studies does not serve anyone well. . 

Again, thank you Mr. Chairman and I look forward to a productive and inform- 
ative hearing. 

Mr. BORSKI. The Chair would recognize the gentleman from West 
Virginia, Mr. Wise. 

Mr. Wise. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. 

Mr. BORSKI. The gentleman from New York. 

Mr. QuiNN. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. 

Dr. Dickey, we thank you for testifying today. I have been active 
in the issue of Corps reorganization even before I became a Mem- 
ber of Congress in January. In fact, I testified last week with a rep- 
resentative from New York Governor Mario Cuomo's office and 
have written Secretary Aspin expressing my opposition to the pro- 
posed plan. 

I have offered proposals to minimize the adverse economic and 
environmental impacts of the reorganization and I will be happy to 
make those available to you or Secretary Aspin. I believe there is 
a flaw, primarily with this plan. The Corps is top heavy. 

The proposed plan laid out before us focuses on cutting in the 
field where Corps resources are most needed. Consequently, the re- 
organization plan fails to significantly cut or restructure the bu- 
reaucracy here in Washington, DC. 

In proposing large field cuts, which for me specifically means in 
Buffalo, New York, the plan does not address the needs of the 
Great Lakes Basin and further ignores the harsh economic impact 
upon our local communities, like the City of Buffalo. 

I have proposed establishing an additional technical center to be 
located in Buffalo. A tech center in Buffalo would offset the losses 
both in New York State and in the City of Buffalo that the results 
of the reorganization would impose. The proposal would ensure 
that the Great Lakes do not suffer and the local economy does not 
suffer as well. 

I look forward to the testimony and questions further on. 

[The statement of Mr. Quinn follows:] 

Opening Statement of Hon. Jack Quinn 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. Dr. 
Dickey, thank you for being here today. I have been very active in this whole issue 
of corps reorganization even prior to becoming a Member of Congress. ^ 

I testified last week with a representative from Governor Mario Cuomo's office, 
and have written to Secretary Aspin expressing my opposition to this plan. In addi- 
tion, I have offered my own proposals to minimize to some of the adverse environ- 



432 

mental and economic impacts of reorganization. I would be happy to make that 
available to you and Secretary Aspin for your consideration. 

Dr. Dickey, I believe the reorganization plan is flawed. It ignores one of the fun- 
damental problems with the corps— it's top heavy. The proposed plan laid out before 
us focuses on cutting in the field — where corps resources are needed most. Con- 
sequently, the reorganization plan fails to significantly restructure or cut the bu- 
reaucracy here in Washington. 

In proposing large field cuts, and for me specificallv in Buffalo, this plan does not 
address the unique and dire needs of the Great Lakes basin, and further ignores 
the harsh economic impact upon the local communities, Uke the City of Buffalo. 

I have proposed estabUshing an additional technical center in Buffalo. A tech cen- 
ter in Buffalo would offset some of the losses that New York and Buffalo will suffer 
as a result of reorganization. My proposal will help ensure that the Great Lakes do 
not suffer, and that our local economy does not suffer as a result of the reorganiza- 
tion. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BORSKI. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Penn- 
sylvania, Mr. Blackwell. 

Mr. Blackwell. Thank you. 

I would like to express my appreciation, Mr. Chairman, for all 
of your hard work and persistence on this serious issue. Last 
Thursday I voiced my concerns over several troubling aspects of 
this plan for the reorganization of the Army Corps of Engineers. 

I expressed dismay over the fact that the Port of Philadelphia 
would be devastated if they were to lose the Corps' vital assistance 
in maintaining an extremely hazardous shipping channel. 

Just as representatives from the port testified last week, I would 
stress that if the port suffers, the entire Delaware Valley suffers. 
In particular, a busy port is essential for the economic well being 
of a countless number of minorities and women in the region and 
disadvantaged residents in the City of Philadelphia. 

I was hardly surprised when we received testimony from our dis- 
tinguished colleagues last week from around the nation. Concern 
for this misguided proposal is echoed from every part of the coun- 
try. A distinct pattern of questions emerged from each of our wit- 
nesses, all of whom are concerned with the common flaws in the 
reorganization plan. 

I am confident, Mr. Chairman, as we receive testimony from our 
witnesses today, we will have a better picture of what the Corps 
actually intended to accomplish with the plan they announced last 
November. I am certain that they did not deliberately calculate a 
proposal so flawed and shortsighted that it caused confusion and 
concern from representatives all over the Nation. 

I would once again like to stress that reorganization just for the 
sake of reorganization is useless and will not be tolerated. I look 
forward to working with our witnesses today to ensure that the 
grave concerns voiced in this room last week will be taken into con- 
sideration when any new plan for reorganization is considered. But 
I would also like to make it crystal clear that this plan, as it cur- 
rently stands, is unacceptable to the Port of Philadelphia. 

Whether we look at it portion by portion or the entire proposal, 
the message is clear. It is flawed and should not stand. 

I would like to voice the concerns of my colleagues by stating 
that congressional consent and approval is essential before any 
plan for reorganization goes forward. 

Once again, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the all 
the hard work on this hearings. 



433 

Mr. BORSKI. The gentleman from California, Mr. Baker. 

Mr. Baker. Thank you very much. 

Briefly, we have discovered now that the evil empire is gone that 
the military means jobs. No one wants to go out of business. The 
Corps doesn't want to go out of business. They are not in favor of 
closing their bases any more than any other people are in favor of 
closing military bases. However, we are going to have to close fa- 
cilities if we are going to become more efficient. We simply must 
have some plan for reorganization just as General Motors did and 
just as IBM has done, and every other sector in this economy. 

We are going to have to have a plan, too. 

I don't like losing San Francisco. It is not in my district, but we 
need a Corps presence in the Bay area because of the wetlands and 
waterways that we have there, but I am not going to hold my 
breath until I turn blue. 

If someone else has a presence that we can access that will be 
sufficient. I sympathize with your duties, Doctor. I know how dif- 
ficult it is to make good budget sense and carry out an ever ex- 
panding mission at the same time. It is not just military, but devel- 
opment in endangered species and wetlands and we would all love 
to have a Corps influence in our district because we have constitu- 
ents that have these problems. So I am happy that we are holding 
these hearings. 

I know how difficult it is for each one of us that have a Corps 
presence to keep that presence at the same time making sure that 
we are leaner and meaner so that the public will once again be on 
the side of government instead of including us as the enemies. 

Mr. BORSKl. The gentleman from West Virginia. 

Mr. Rahall. I have no statement. 

Mr. BORSKI. The gentlewoman from Texas. 

Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I, too, appreciate the work that has gone into the preparation for 
the committee and appreciate the efforts gone into the reorganiza- 
tion plan. However, I do have some problems. So I look forward to 
hearing from Dr. Dickey and General Williams. 

I appreciate you being here, and I hope that you can understand 
and appreciate the serious concerns held by a large portion of this 
committee. 

At a minimum, the testimony on Thursday conclusively showed 
that they have a lot of questions to answer. I also believe that the 
testimony on Thursday explicitly revealed major flaws and inac- 
curacies in the Corps' reorganization plan. These speak to the un- 
clear way in which the process was carried out. 

Undoubtedly what the Corps should have or could have done is 
to develop straightforward, articulate criteria and followed their 
own standards in arriving at their decisions. They should have per- 
haps checked with this committee and other congressional commit- 
tees for review if nothing else but out of courtesy. But above all, 
it would have helped if they had followed their own criteria. 

Such a process would have ensured that the final decisions would 
be at least reasonable. Had a clear-cut procedure been followed, we 
could argue over perhaps slight misjudgments or subjective deci- 
sions, but the process would have been anchored in accuracy. But 



434 

none of that happened, thus we are here today seeking clarifica- 
tions. 

Although Dallas, Texas rated higher than Vicksburg, Mississippi 
in determining the proposed South Central Division Site, the Corps 
overturned this decision because of a supposed statutory require- 
ment concerning the Mississippi River Commission. 

A quote directly from the November 1992 report says, and I 
quote, "Although Dallas was rated higher, Vicksburg was selected 
because of the legal requirement that the Mississippi River Com- 
mission be located on the Mississippi River and headed by the Divi- 
sion Engineer responsible for the lower Mississippi River." 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am not an 
attorney, but I looked at volume 33 of the U.S. Code, Section 646 
and could not locate this requirement. I asked my staff to look at 
the code and they couldn't find where the code stated what the 
Corps concluded. So we contacted an attorney with the Congres- 
sional Research Service to get an impartial legal opinion. 

Mr. Chairman, this is no small matter. This portion of the legal 
code was used by itself to justify the relocation from Dallas of the 
future Army Corps of Engineers Division Office. 

On Thursday, I believe we established why Dallas is a much bet- 
ter site for the Corps, especially when you consider all of the relat- 
ed criteria set forth by the Corps themselves. 

The Congressional Research Service was very prompt and profes- 
sional in getting me their report. 

Mr. Chairman, at this point I request consent to have the entire 
opinion by the American Law Division of the Congressional Re- 
search Service entered into the record. 

Mr. BORSKI. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information received follows:! 




435 



\^XV>^ Congressional Research Service • The Library of Congress • Washington, D.C. 20540-7000 

May 8, 1993 



TO 

FROM 
SUBJECT 



Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson 
Attention: Doug Mink 

American Law Division 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Reorganization: The 
Mississippi River Commission and Division Office Site 
Selection. 



You have requested that we provide our legal opinion concerning the Army 
Corps of Engineers' Reorganization Plan selection of Vicksburg as the Division 
office site for the South Central Division. The Plan refers to two reasons for 
the selection of the Vicksburg site; first, because of the legal requirement that 
the Mississippi River Commission (MRC) be located on the Mississippi River and 
headed by the Division Engineer responsible for the lower Mississippi River, and 
second, due to the Corps ongoing civil works mission in the region being 
centered on the Mississippi River. Your request specifically concerns the first 
of these two reasons; our analysis is accordingly focused on that single issue. 
In addition, on May 10, 1993 you forwarded us a brief issue paper concerning 
the Vicksburg site selection. The Corps' issue paper refers to Vicksburg being 
chosen "because of the unique legal situation surrounding the MRC," and 
contains a background paragraph citing 33 U.S.C. § 646 and referring to 33 
U.S.C. § 642, 642a. 

We conclude that the statutory language does not require that the South 
Central Division be located on the Mississippi River. In reaching that 
conclusion, we have reviewed and analyzed the present organizational structure 
of the Corps, the reorganization plan, and the MRC statutory requirements. 
There do not appear to be any relevant Corps regulations' that impact on this 
analysis. 



' See generally, 33 C.F. R. Chapter II. Although not relevant to this 

analysis, note that 33 C.F.R. S 209.50 sets forth regulations concerning public 
observations of MRC meetings. 



436 



CRS-2 



I. CORPS STRUCTURE AND REORGANIZATION PLAN 

The organizational structure of the Civil Works program includes Divisions 
and Districts. The Divisions have jurisdiction over specified geographic areas; 
each is comprised of a number of Districts. The Divisions 

(a) Administer the mission of the Chief of Engineers involving civil works 
planning, engineering, construction, operation and maintenance of facilities 
and related real estate matters. 

(b) Command and supervise districts assigned to their control. This 
supervisory responsibility includes review and approval of the major plans 
and programs of the districts, implementation of plans and policies of the 
Chief of Engineers and review and control of district operations." 

As the principal planning and project implementation offices of the Corps, 
the Districts 

(a) Prepare water resource studies in response to specific congressional 
resolutions. 

(b) Conduct engineering design and operations and maintenance studies. 

(c) Construct civil works facilities. 

(d) Operate and maintain major water resource projects. 

(e) Administer the laws for the protection and preservation of the navigable 
waters of the United States. 

(f) Acquire, manage and dispose of real estate in connection with civil 
works functions and assigned military functions.' 

The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 1991 directed 
the Corps to submit a report on potential field organization structures."^ The 



^ U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS DIGEST OF WATER RESOURCES POLICIES 

AND AUTHORITIES 4-2. c(l). (EP 1165-2-1 February, 1989) 

^ Id. at 4-2.c(2). 

■* 1991 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 

101-514, Title I. 

". . . . Provided, That the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief 
of Engineers, is directed to complete the conceptual study of potential field 
organization structures. . . . 



437 



CRS-3 



The history of this provision goes back to the 1990 Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 101-101. See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 
235, 101st Cong., 1st Sess 16 (1989): "The conferees agree with the language 
contained in the Senate report directing the Chief of Engineers to initiate a 
conceptual study of potential Corps of Engineers field organization structures. 
The conferees emphasize that this study is to be conceptual in nature only, and 
shall not recommend specific geographic changes to the existing organization 
nor shall the Corps make any such changes during fiscal year 1990. Any 
proposals made for changes in the Corps organizational structure shall be 
submitted to the appropriate Committees of Congress for review." See also S. 
Rep. No. 83, 101st Cong., 1st Sess 56 (1989): (".... Accordingly, the Chief of 
Engineers is directed to initiate a broad based conceptual study of potential field 
organization structures that would respond to the following: (1) alternative 
structures which would. reduce the program costs without adversely impacting 
the quality of service; (2) identification of factors and criteria for shaping an 
optimally efficient organizational structure; (3) identification of existing 
constraints which would interfere with the Corps implementation of an 
improved field structure; and (4) those factors, criteria, constraints, and 
alternative structures which must be considered and addressed to best position 
the Corps of Engineers to address this Nation's future engineering and 
environmental challenges. The Committee again cautions the Chief of 
Engineers that this study is to be conceptual in nature only, and shall not 
suggest or recommend specific geographic changes to the existing organization 
nor shall the Corps make any such changes during the current fiscal year. After 
completion of the study, it is the hope and expectation that the appropriate 
congressional oversight committees will then work closely with the Army to 
decide on specific reorganization proposals.") The 1992 and 1993 Energy and 
Water Development Acts also contained provisions of interest. See 1992 Energy 
and Water Development Act, Pub. L. No. 102-104, Title I, § 110 ("None of the 
funds appropriated in this Act or any prior Act shall be used to close any Corps 
of Engineers Division or District headquarters office.") See also S. Rep. No. 80, 
102d Cong., 1st Sess. 58 (1991): ("The Committee adopted an amendment 
providing bill language under title I, general provisions, which is self- 
explanatory, as follows: Section 105. None of the funds in this act may be used 
to recommend closure or realignment of any U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil 
works office, or by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to terminate, merge, or 
substantially reduce the work force of any such office prior to the enactment by 
Congress of legislation authorizing such a policy.") See 1993 Energy and Water 
Development Act, Pub. L. No. 102-377, Title I. ("Funds are provided for. . . , 
except that such funds shall not be used to close any district office of the Corps 
of Engineers. To further a more efficient headquarters and division office 
structure, the Secretary may transfer not to exceed $7,000,000 from other 

appropriations under this title ). See also S. Rep. No. 344, 102d Cong., 2d 

Sess 58 (1992): (". . . . This one-time special authority is designed to facilitate 
the transition to a smaller, more efficient Civil Works work force that will yield 
greater savings in future years. In addition, this provision prohibits the use of 
funds herein appropriated for activities to close U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
district offices."). You may also be interested in the following questions and 



438 



CRS-4 



Corps intention was to pursue further studies and possible reorganization under 
procedures prescribed by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 
(BRAC). However, the Secretary of Defense felt that the Corps dual mission - 
civil and military - and differing committee jurisdictions argued in favor of 
separate freestanding legislation with respect to the Corp.'' In early 1992, the 
Corps began planning to restructure and published a reorganization plan.^ 

Presently, there are eleven Civil Works Divisions (Ohio River, 
Southwestern, Missouri River, North Pacific, South Atlantic, Lower Mississippi 
Valley, South Pacific, North Central, New England, North Atlantic and Pacific 
Ocean,). The proposed 1992 Reorganization plan calls for reducing the 11 Civil 
Works Divisions to six (Northeast, Southeast, West Coast, North Central, South 
Central, and Pacific Ocean).'' The new boundaries are as follows: 



answers concerning organizational structure contained in the FY 1993 Energy 
and Water Development Appropriations Hearings: 

Senator JOHNSTON. In the absence of authorizing legislation, how do you 
plan to use the $5.0 million included in your 1993 budget request for 
reorganization activities? 

Ms. DORN. The $5.0 million in the GE account would be utilized to 
proceed initially with reorganization of the division headquarters offices. In the 
absence of specific authorizing language on reorganization, we could proceed 
using our existing management authorities. 

Senator JOHNSTON. If Congressional authorization committees do not 
address this problem, how would you bring about the needed organizational 
changes? What options are available if Congress does not act on this issue? 

Ms. DORN. We presently have existing management authorities which 
would allow for some reorganization and realignment of the organization. 
However, let me hasten to add that we understand the necessity of developing 
a plan acceptable to the Congress. Implementation of any reorganization plan 
will require congressional support through the appropriations process. 

See Energy and Water Development Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1993: 
Hearings on H.R. 5373 Before a Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations 
Committee, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 414 (1992). 

•^ See Energy and Water Development Appropriations for Fiscal Year 

1992: Hearings on H.R. 2427 Before a Subcommittee of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. 170, 177 (1991). 

^ US. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REORGANIZATION PLAN 

■^ The Corps intends to retain all current District offices. Of the five 

Divisions recommended for closing, four (all but Dallas) have District offices. 



439 



CRS-5 



1st Division (North East Division): current New England Division and 
North Atlantic Division (minus Norfolk District); 

2d Division (South East Division): current South Atlantic Division (plus 
Norfolk District); 

3d Division (South Central Division): current Southwestern Division 
(minus Albuquerque District) and Lower Mississippi Valley Division (minus 
St. Louis District);* 

4th Division (Western Division): current North Pacific Division and South 
Pacific Division (plus Albuquerque District); 

5th Division (North Central Division): current Missouri River Division, 
North Central Division, and Ohio River Division (plus St. Louis District); 

6th Division: current Pacific Ocean Division retained (not included in 
Reorganization Plan consolidation at this time). 

II. THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION (MRC) 

As you are aware, 33 U.S.C. § 645 states in part 

The headquarters and general offices of said commission shall be located at 
some city or town on the Mississippi River, to be designated by the 
Secretary of the Army, .... 

In addition, 33 U.S.C. § 642 states that the President shall appoint seven 
commissioners with the advice and consent of the Senate -- "three of whom shall 
be selected from the Engineer Corps of the Army, . . ." The President "shall 
designate one of the commissioners appointed from the Engineer Corps of the 



The Reorganization Plan, at p. iii, states: "There will be no change in the 
District offices this year, other than the migration of some technical review 
positions out of Division offices. District-specific changes will begin in FY 94." 
The Plan also adds a new District headquarters in the Boston area -- thereby 
increasing the total number of Districts from 38 to 39. In addition, the Plan 
creates 15 Technical Centers and provides each of the five consolidated Divisions 
with Administrative Support Centers -- each located at an existing Division 
office. The 1993 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act(EWDA) 
prohibited the use of funds to close any District offices. Interestingly, the 1992 
EWDA prohibited the use of funds to close any Division or District offices. The 
legislative history of prior EWDAs indicates Congress' intent for the Corp to 
initiate a conceptual study with organizational structure proposals submitted 
to Congress for review and the enactment of authorizing legislation. 

* The reorganized 3d Division has seven Districts: Fort Worth, 

Galveston, Little Rock, Memphis, New Orleans, Tulsa, and Vicksburg. 



440 



CRS-6 



Army to be president of the commission." Upon retirement, the President of the 
MRC will receive the rank, pay, and allowances of a retired Major General.^ 

The statutory mission of the MRC is to "take into consideration and to 
mature such plan or plans and estimates as will correct, permanently locate, and 
deepen the channel and protect the banks of the Mississippi River; improve and 
give safety and ease to the navigation thereof; prevent destructive floods; 
promote and facilitate commerce, trade, and the postal service; . . . .'° 

The original jurisdiction of the MRC was for the improvement of the 
Mississippi River from the Head of the Passes near its mouth to its head- 
waters." The MRC's jurisdiction was extended to include "that part of the 
Arkansas River between its mouth and the intersection thereof with the division 
line between Lincoln and Jefferson Counties, . . ."'^ The "harbor at Vicksburg, 
Mississippi, and the Ohio River from its mouth to the mouth of the Cache 
River," were also transferred to the jurisdiction of the MRC.''' Funds 
appropriated by Congress for improving the Mississippi River between Head of 
Passes and the mouth of the Ohio River (allotted to levees) can be expended 
within the limits of the extended jurisdiction.'^ In addition Sec. 301 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (WRDA) extended the jurisdiction of 
the Commission to include: (1) Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana; and (2) the area 
bounded by the East Atchafalaya Basin Protection Levee, the Mississippi River 
Levee, and Bayou Lafourche and extending from Morganza, Louisiana, to the 
Gulf of Mexico, insofar as such area is affected by the flood waters of the 
Mississippi River. The MRC's boundary extends from Cairo, 111, to the river's 
mouth. '^ The Corps holds out the MRC's jurisdiction as 

.... the Mississippi River and its tributaries and outlets in its alluvial 
valley, so far as they are affected by Mississippi River backwater, between 
Head of Passes (mile 0), and Cape Girardeau, MO (1,006 miles AHP'^- 



^ 33 U.S.C. § 642a. See also 33 U.S.C. § 702h stating that the President 

of the Commission shall be the executive officer and shall have the title, rank, 
pay, and allowances of Brigadier General while actually assigned to such duty. 

"^ 33 U.S.C. § 647. 

" See 33 U.S.C.A. § 641 Historical Note. 

'2 33 U.S.C. § 648 

'3 33 U.S.C. § 649. 

'" 33 U.S.C. §§ 648, 650. 

'^ Supra note 1 at 4-2.d(3). 

'^ AHP refers to river mileage and is an abbreviation for Above Head of 
Passes. 



441 



CRS-7 



Lower Mississippi mileage terminates at mile 954 AHP) and Baton Rouge, 
LA (234 miles AHP); and for stabilization of the lower 7 miles of the right 
bank of the Ohio River, to former mouth of Cache River. It is also charged 
with prosecution of certain flood control works on the Mississippi River and 
tributaries, as far as they are affected by back-water, between Cape 
Girardeau, MO, and Rock Island, IL (1,437 miles AHP), and with 
prosecution of improvements on designated tributaries and outlets below 
Cape Girardeau for flood control, navigation, major drainage, and related 
water uses.'^ 

The New Orleans, Vicksburg, and Memphis Districts conduct the operations 
of the MRC below Cape Girardeau. In addition, the St. Louis and Rock Island 
Districts report directly to the Commission on matters concerning levee 
construction under § 6 of the Flood Control Act of 1928.'* The MRC and its 
work are funded separately from other Civil Works projects under "Mississippi 
River and Tributaries." 

in. CONCLUSION 

Although there is a statutory requirement for the MRC to be located on 
the Mississippi River, there does not appear to be any statutory or regulatory 
requirement for the Division Office site to be the same as the MRC site. In 
addition, the geographic jurisdiction of the South Central Division is clearly 
greater than that of the MRC.'^ From a strictly legal perspective,^" 
application of the statutory requirement (33 U.S.C. § 646) does not result in the 
legal conclusion that Dallas could not be selected as the Division office site for 
the South Central Division. There does not appear to be any legal barrier to the 
South Central Division office being located anywhere within that Division, so 
long as the MRC maintains headquarters and offices at some city or town on the 
Mississippi River. Although there may be practical reasons for locating the 
MRC at a Division Office site, there is no legal requirement to do so. 

Insofar as the requirement that the MRC be headed by the Division 
Engineer responsible for the Lower Mississippi, we find no statutory or 
regulatory requirement for the "Division Engineer responsible for the lower 



'■^ See ANNUAL REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY ON CIVIL WORKS 

ACTIVITIES FOR FY 1991 at 41-1 

'« Id. 

'^ As stated earlier in this memorandum, the reorganized 3d Division 
consists of seven Districts; three of those districts conduct the operations of the 
MRC in the Division as well as two additional districts outside the Division. 

^" Policy and fiscal considerations are outside the scope of this 
memorandum. 



442 



CRS-8 



Mississippi River^'" to head the MRC. Although the President may choose to 
designate that person as a Commissioner and President of the Commission, it 
is not a statutory mandate; the President may designate any one of the three 
Army Corps appointees as President of the Commission. Under the 
Reorganization, the new 3d Division (South Central Division) will consist of 
both the current Lower Mississippi Valley Division (minus St. Louis District) 
and the current Southwestern Division (minus Albuquerque District). 
Presumably, there will no longer be a Lower Mississippi Valley Division 
Engineer but a South Central Division Engineer with broader geographic 
jurisdiction.^^ 

You have also inquired why Atlanta had no competition for selection as a 
Division office while the other sites competed with at least one other site. The 
answer to that question appears to based on the Corps Reorganization Plan 
recommendation to close five Division office sites (Chicago, Dallas, New York, 
Omaha, and San Francisco). In restructuring its consolidated Divisions, the 
Corps selected five existing Division office sites -- Boston, Atlanta, Cincinnati, 
Vicksburg, and Portland -- as the five Division headquarters. Four of the five 
consolidated Divisions contained more than one Division site; the Corps 
developed site selection criteria to choose between these sites. ^'^ 



^' This quote is taken from the Corps justification for Division office site 
selections. We assume that reference to the "Division Engineer responsible for 
the lower Mississippi River" is intended to mean the Lower Mississippi Valley 
Division Engineer. 

^^ 33 U.S.C. § 646 requires the headquarters and general offices of the 
MRC to be located at some city or town on the Mississippi River. Meetings of 
the MRC must be held at the headquarters except for those held on Government 
boats during semiannual inspection trips. However, there is no statutory 
requirement that the President of the Commission be permanently located at 
such headquarters. 

^^ In the 2d Division, Atlanta was the only Division office. In the 1st 
Division, BostonAValtham scored 6 and New York 5. In the 4th and 5th 
Divisions, each of the sites tied with their competition; selection was made by 
weighing criteria or applying additional criteria. Portland and San Francisco 
were tied in the 4th Division; the Corps selected Portland based on giving the 
cost of living criterion greater weight than the engineering school criterion. 
Omaha, Cincinnati, and Chicago were tied in the 5th Division; the Corps 
selected Cincinnati based primarily on its proximity to large civil works 
workload. These additional factors, however, were considered in instances in 
which sites "tied," in the 3d Division, Dallas had 2 more points than Vicksburg. 



443 



CRS-9 



If we can offer you any additional assistance, please feel free to contact me 
at 707-2433. 




Ellen M. Laz4«j 
Legislative Attorney 



444 

Ms. Johnson of Texas. In short, this legal opinion finds abso- 
lutely nothing in the law that remotely required that the division 
headquarters be located adjacent to the Mississippi River. Because 
there was still the possibility that perhaps I, my staff, and the at- 
torneys may have overlooked something, we went ahead and con- 
tacted the Corps to see if we could gain their understanding of this 
supposed legal requirement. But the Corps had no information sup- 
porting their conclusion concerning the Mississippi River Commis- 
sion. 

In fact, after they issued their report, they apparently received 
so many internal questions regarding their misstatement about the 
Mississippi River Commission that they were forced to issue a 
statement clarifying what they meant to say. This alleged clarifica- 
tion, which is also addressed by the CRS legal opinion, is not based 
on the reality of what the Corps' legal requirements are. 

Despite what the Corps claims and as the legal documentation 
I have submitted supports, the jurisdiction of the division offices is 
much broader than the Mississippi River Commission. Therefore, 
there is no good reason to require that the division office be located 
adjacent to the Mississippi River Commission, and there is cer- 
tainly no legal requirement to do so. 

Mr. Chairman, I hope that the gentlemen before us have had an 
opportunity to review the statements of the members of this com- 
mittee and of the witnesses that appeared before us this past 
Thursday. If they had truly heard the concerns and the analyses 
presented on Thursday, I believe that they are here today to edu- 
cate us on their rationale for their recommendations. There must 
be something we have all missed, because they are here apparently 
in strong defense of the process used and the conclusions reflected 
in the plan. 

Clearly it has been pointed out that as far as all the areas in 
which they mention as criteria, Dallas is far superior in every one 
of them. I look forward to a question period. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BORSKI. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman. 

The gentleman from New Hampshire. 

Mr. Zeliff. In the interest of time, I ask unanimous content to 
enter my full statement in the record. 

I must say that in New Hampshire, we have enjoyed a good rela- 
tionship with the Corps and look forward to that continuing. 
Downsizing is not an easy process. 

[The statement of Mr. Zelifi" follows:] 

Statement of Hon. William H. Zeliff, Jr. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for caUing the Subcommittee together for this 
second day of hearings on the proposed reorganization plan for the Army Corps of 
Engineers. I am eager to hear the testimony of the Acting Assistant Secretary of 
the Army for Civil Works, G. Edward Dickey, and Lt. General Arthur Williams, 
Commander, US Army Corps of Engineers on the background and details of the 
plan. 

Mr. Chairman, we heard compelling testimony last week regarding the problems 
associated with the Corps' latest effort at downsizing, and yet there was general 
agreement that such downsizing is both needed and warranted. 

I believe there is no questioning the fact that we need to adjust the force structure 
of the Corps to meet our changing military and civilian needs. I hope that as we 
do so, however, we consider every possible opportunity to limit the economic impact 
of this plan and other Department of Defense downsizing initiatives. 



445 

The Corps used a number of criteria in shaping its reorganization plan and deter- 
mining site selection. We will no doubt hear an in-depth discussion of these in the 
testimony being presented today. 

However, I would like to offer a suggestion in the context of the criteria used for 
site selection: the proximity of recently closed military bases. As you know, the wave 
of base closures that has swept across the country has left a wake of economic hard- 
ship in its path. The Corps, through the reorganization plan, could help to mitigate 
the economic damage caused by the closures to some degree by examining the fea- 
sibility of using former bases as sites for new Corps facilities. 

In my own district, the former Air Force base at Pease would in my view offer 
a prime location for a new Corps of Engineers facility. The other site selection cri- 
teria used by the Corps are sensible and should be met, but I also believe that it 
is entirely reasonable to consider the proximity of a recently closed base when seek- 
ing to locate a new facility. 

I would like to pursue this question with you further later in the hearing. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BoRSKi. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Barcia. 

Mr. Barcia. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to express my gratitude to you, Mr. Chairman, for 
holding these hearings and giving the members of this committee 
the opportunity to look at this very important issue. 

I would like to thank our witnesses. Secretary Dickey and Lieu- 
tenant General Williams, for joining us to answer our questions 
and also the previous gentleman's remarks in saying that I too 
have enjoyed a long and I think a very good working relationship 
with the Corps of Engineers having been a state legislator from the 
thumb region of Michigan for the past 16 years and currently in 
the Fifth Congressional District representing between 600 and 700 
miles of Great Lakes shoreline on Lake Huron. 

I would like to begin my statement by saying our hearing notes 
for today stated that this hearing would focus on four major issues: 
the rationale for reorganization; the process used for developing of 
the plan; the criteria upon which the closings and downsizing were 
based; and fourthly, the plan's impact on the Corps' ability to meet 
its mission, to do the job which the Congress has authorized and 
funded it to do. 

Coincidentally, Mr. Chairman, this happens to correspond di- 
rectly with the areas that cause me serious concern about the reor- 
ganization plan. 

On the plus side, let me say that I agree with the basic commit- 
ment to fiscal responsibility which gave rise to this reorganization 
plan and even downsizing of the Army Corps of Engineers. In this 
time when we are trying to make government run smoothly with 
the smallest amount of resources, we all must be willing to sac- 
rifice. 

Mr. Chairman, because the Great Lakes are such a significant 
and unique resource, I question the rationale behind placing the 
Great Lakes region between the same North Central Division of 
the Corps as portions of Montana, Kentucky, and Nebraska. 

While it would seem that the other divisions of the country 
would have at least some corresponding interest, I am hard pressed 
to find any similarity between the needs of such cities as Saginaw, 
Tawas and Bay City, Michigan and the Cities of Great Falls, Mon- 
tana, Louisville Kentucky, Omaha Nebraska, and Pittsburgh, 
Pennsylvania. 

My second concern refers to the process of Corps reorganization. 



446 

Although I was not here last year Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the 
Congress was involved enough in the process of developing the 
plan. Since the Congress has legislatively instructed the Corps not 
to close down any district offices, can we believe that the process 
was true to congressional intent when this plan guts every Great 
Lakes basin office? 

Further, I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague, the gentle- 
woman from Michigan who has criticized this plan for not having 
a regional approach. It is my understanding that the three Great 
Lakes Basin Offices, Chicago, Detroit and Buffalo, will lose signifi- 
cant responsibilities and will only retain simple regulatory and 
management functions. This will consist of mere oversight of pro- 
grams which have been designed by other Corps offices. Of these 
other offices, the nearest technical centers are well beyond the 
Great Lakes boundary. 

I question the criteria upon which the closings and downsizing 
were based. There are serious misgivings regarding the accuracy of 
cost estimates in the reorganization, which I assume was one of the 
criteria used. 

It has become clear that our Federal agencies must work closely 
together if they are to manage our natural resources in a cost-effec- 
tive manner. I question whether it will be cost effective not to have 
anyone within the Great Lakes Basin with the ability to design 
projects for or review environmental impact on the Great Lakes. 

I wonder if the Great Lakes Basin was even considered when the 
Corps designed the new North Central Division. I cannot identify 
in the plan whether there will be one office in this Nation which 
would have the capability to serve as a central point for Great 
Lakes issues. 

This leads me to our last major issue for today's hearing which 
is directly related to the other three. Given the questionable ration- 
ale, process, and criteria for this reorganization plan, I wonder how 
the Corps can continue to meet its mission for the Great Lakes 
when it seems that its functions such as infrastructure mainte- 
nance, navigational dredging, sediment management and support 
in managing lake level fluctuations will be totally decentralized. 

Mr. Chairman, the viability of our Great Lakes appropriately re- 
ferred to as our fourth sea coast is one of this Nation's most signifi- 
cant responsibilities. They represent the largest fresh water system 
in the world and 95 percent of our Nation's surface fresh water. 
This is an extremely vital system, but is a fragile environmental 
and recreational resource which supports diverse plant and animal 
life. 

The lakes support thousands, perhaps millions of jobs and sup- 
port more tonnage in interlake shipments than the Panama Canal. 
The Great Lakes region supports the production and processing of 
60 percent of U.S. agricultural commodities and over half the Na- 
tion's manufacturing base. 

I cannot see, Mr. Chairman, how we can have competent man- 
agement of the Corps' mission in our region under the current reor- 
ganization plan and I will oppose it until such presence can be 
guaranteed. 

I would like to thank you for your indulgence and letting me 
share that opening statement. 



447 

[The statement of Mr. Barcia follows:] 

Statement of Congressman James A. Barcia 

I would like to thank you once again Mr. Chairman, for holding these hearings 
and giving members of the committee the opportunity to look at this very important 
issue. I would also like to thank ovir witnesses, Secretary Dickey, and Lt. General 
Williams for joining us to answer our questions. 

Our hearing notice for today stated that this hearing would focus on four major 
issues: (1) The rationale for reorganization, (2) The process used for developing the 
plan, (3) The criteria upon which the closings and downsizings were based, and, (4) 
The plan's impact on the Corps' ability to meet its mission, to do the job which the 
Congress has authorized and funded it to do. Coincidentally, Mr. Chairman, these 
happen to correspond directly with the areas that cause me serious concern about 
the reorganization. 

On the plus side, let me say that I agree with the basic commitment to fiscal re- 
sponsibility which gave rise to a reorganization, and even downsizing, of the Army 
Corps of Engineers. In this time when we are trying to make Government run 
smoothly with the smallest possible amount of resources, we all must be willing to 
sacrifice. 

Mr. Chairman, because the Great Lakes are such a significant and unique re- 
source, I question the rationale behind placing the Great Lakes region within the 
same North Central Division of the Corps as portions of Montana, Kentucky and 
Nebraska. While it would seem that the other divisions of the country would have 
at least some corresponding interests, I am hard pressed to find any similarity be- 
tween the needs of such cities as Saginaw, Tawas and Bay City, Michigan, and the 
cities of Great Falls, Montana, Louisville, Kentucky, Omaha, Nebraska and Pitts- 
burgh, Pennsylvania. 

My second concern refers to the process of Corps reorganization. Although I was 
not here last year, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Congress was involved enough 
in the process of developing the plan. Since the Congress has legislatively instructed 
the Corps not to close down any district offices, can we believe that the process was 
true to congressional intent when this plan guts every Great Lakes Basin office. 

Further, I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague, the gentlewoman from Michi- 
gan, who has criticized this plan for not having a regional approach. It is my under- 
standing that the three Great Lakes Basin offices, Chicago, Detroit and Buffalo, will 
lose significant responsibilities, and will only retain simple regulatory and oper- 
ational management functions. This will consist of mere oversight of programs 
which have been designed by other Corps offices. Of these other offices, the nearest 
technical centers are well beyond the Great Lakes Basin boundary. 

Third, I join other members in questioning the criteria upon which the closings 
and downsizings were based. There are serious misgivings regarding the accuracy 
of cost estimates in the reorganization, which I assume was one of the criteria used. 
It has become clear that our Federal agencies must work closely together if they 
are to manage our natural resources in a cost effective manner. I question whether 
it will be cost effective not to have anyone within the Great Lakes Basin with the 
ability to design projects for, or review environmental impact on, the Great Lakes. 
I wonder if the Great Lakes Basin was even considered when the Corps designed 
the new North Central Division. I can not identify in the plan whether there will 
be one office in this nation which would have the capability to serve as a central 
point for Great Lakes issues. 

This leads me to our last major issue for today's hearing, which is directly related 
to the other three. Given the questionable rationale, process and criteria for this re- 
organization plan, I wonder how the Corps can continue to meet its mission for the 
Great Lakes when it seems that its ftinctions such as infrastructure maintenance, 
navigational dredging, sediment management, and support in managing lake level 
fluctuations will b^ totally decentralized. 

Mr. Chairman, the viability of our Great Lakes, appropriately referred to as our 
fourth sea coast, is one of this Nation's most significant responsibilities. They rep- 
resent the largest fresh water system in the world and 95 percent of our Nation's 
surface fresh water. This is an extremely vital system, but is a fragile environ- 
mental and recreational resource which supports diverse plant and animal Ufe. 

The Lakes support thousands, perhaps millions of jobs, and support more tonnage 
in interlake shipments than the Panama Canal. The Great Lakes region supports 
the production and processing of 60 percent of U.S. agricultural commodities and 
over half of the Nation's manufacturing base. I cannot see, Mr. Chairman, how we 
can have competent management of the Corps' mission in our region under the cur- 



448 

rent reorganization plan, and I will oppose it until such a presence can be guaran- 
teed. 

Mr. BORSKI. Do other Members desire recognition? 

The gentleman from Texas? 

Mr. Laughlin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Williams, as you can hear from these opening state- 
ments, there is a lot of concern and as I am a member of this full 
committee, I hope that at the conclusion of these hearings, that we 
do see either a reorganized plan or a support for this plan. We will 
see support and logic justifying the location of particular offices 
and someone with your background and the staff that you have, we 
will be able to see that, but it doesn't make sense to Members to 
have substantial Corps work in a area of our country and an office 
be located several hundred miles away, whether it is in the same 
State or a different State. 

I am hopeful, as a member of the committee, that we will see 
that the Corps is understanding the mission and the work that has 
to be done by the Corps offices will have some proximity to the 
work that has to be done. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BORSKI. On our first panel, we will welcome Dr. G. Edward 
Dickey, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army, and Lieutenant 
General Arthur E. Williams, Commander of the U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers. 

Before I swear you in, General Williams, let me particularly 
thank you. I understand that you had to rearrange your schedule 
on several different occasions to be with us today and we appre- 
ciate you having done so. 

Let me ask you please to rise and raise your right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. BORSKI. Dr. Dickey. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. G. EDWARD DICKEY, ACTING ASSISTANT 
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS, AND LT. GEN. 
ARTHUR E. WILLIAMS, COMMANDER, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF 
ENGINEERS 

Dr. Dickey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members 
of the committee. 

I am pleased to be here to discuss the proposed reorganization 
plan of the Corps of Engineers that was announced last November. 
In accordance with your invitation, I will address the current sta- 
tus of and the reasons for the Corps' proposed reorganization. I will 
then summarize the events leading up to the proposed reorganiza- 
tion plan, and the process and criteria that were used to develop 
the plan. 

General Williams will address specifically the contents of the re- 
organization plan and the other issues identified in your letter. 

With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I will go quickly through 
my statement, but I would ask that it be included in the record; 
the Corps' reorganization plan itself 

Mr. BORSKI. Without objection. 

Let me remind you, if I may, that your entire statements will be 
part of the record and you may proceed in any manner in which 
you feel comfortable. 



449 

Dr. Dickey. The proposed reorganization of the Corps of Engi- 
neers is on hold at the direction of the President until the Sec- 
retary of Defense has reviewed the plan. In putting the plan on 
hold, the President acknowledged the Corps as an important na- 
tional civil engineers resource that must be organized to meet the 
Nation's future challenges. 

On March 15, in response to a question from a member of the 
Base Realignment and Closure Commission, Secretary of Defense 
Les Aspin stated that he recognized the need to realign the Corps 
and that he intended to develop a proposal over the next couple of 
months. 

In the interim, the Corps is operating under a freeze on the hir- 
ing of permanent civil works employees in order to stay within its 
current funding levels and personnel ceilings. Consistent with the 
current status of the reorganization plan, the fiscal year 1994 
budget, which I testified to last week, contains no funds for reorga- 
nization. 

Let me turn briefly to the question for the need for the Corps to 
reorganize. It is something that has been recognized for many 
years. It stems from a long time decline in the number of new civil 
works projects. For example, since 1962, the Corps' engineering 
construction work load has declined by nearly 40 percent in con- 
stant dollars. 

Now in recent years, the Civil Works program has been rel- 
atively constant in real terms. So it has really been from the civil 
works perspective a number of years that reorganization has been 
required. 

Moreover, it is important to reduce the costs of managing the 
Corps and particularly the costs of overhead that are charged to 
project sponsors. This has been a particular issue since 1986. 

Thirdly we have severe work load imbalances among districts 
that result in very large variations in project overhead costs and 
finally we have very large fluctuations. When you have just a few 
projects in each district, you have the work load fluctuating enor- 
mously as you go through the planning, construction, and then 
operational status, and that creates a tremendous management 
problem for individual districts in terms of hiring and training and 
providing meaningful work for a skilled professional work force, 
which I think we all would agree characterize the Corps of Engi- 
neers. 

I would also point out to improve the way the government works 
is an important element of the President's long-term economic plan 
as described in the Vision of the Change for America. 

The President has taken a number of direct actions to reduce the 
size and cost of government. He has issued specifically two Execu- 
tive Orders that will have significant impact on the Corps as well 
as other agencies. 

Executive Order 12839 requires the Federal civilian work force 
to be reduced by 100,000 by the end of fiscal year 1995 with at 
least 10 percent of that reduction coming from the ranks of man- 
agement. 

Executive Order 12837 requires the government to reduce the 
administrative cost by at least 14 percent over the next four years. 



450 

Implementation of these two Executive Orders will require the 
Corps to reduce its current work force by about 1,100 full-time 
equivalent work years by the end of 1995 and to reduce adminis- 
trative costs by some $27 million by the end of 1997. Such reduc- 
tions can be made either in a random fashion, such as not filling 
vacancies as they occur, or using a managed approach to achieve 
the reductions. 

I think that we would all agree that the latter approach, i.e., 
managed reductions, is the better one. 

Let me turn briefly just to the history of the recent reorganiza- 
tion efforts. Back in 1989, the Congress in the reports accompany- 
ing the Energy and Water Appropriations Act, noted the need for 
the Corps to develop a plan. 

The fiscal year 1991 Energy and Water Development Appropria- 
tions Act directed the Corps to conduct a broad-based conceptual 
study of potential field organizational structure and identify factors 
and criteria for shaping an efficient organization. 

Reflecting the concern of Congress about the very issue which we 
will focus on today, and that is the site selection, the Congress was 
very clear in this report that it asked to be developed that it not 
address geography but conceptual organizations and that was re- 
ported in the Bayley Report and was provided to Congress. 

In transmitting that report, the Army informed the concerned 
committees which included, of course, the Authorization and Appro- 
priations Committees, the follow-on effort would be included in the 
BRAC process. Those of you who have been around know that the 
Bayley Report was indeed the basis of the BRAC recommendations, 
which ultimately, although the Congress accepted the BRAC pas- 
sage, subsequent legislation removed the Corps part of that pro- 
posal from the BRAC authority. 

So the BRAC, the so-called BRAC plan, went off the screen, and 
yet we learned a lot from that plan which carried over in this most 
recent effort. 

Indeed, the Corps embarked on the development of a plan and 
that is discussed briefly in my statement. I won't dwell on that, but 
I would point out that the President's budget for fiscal year 1993 
requested funding to initiate implementation of Corps head- 
quarters and division reorganization. 

In her testimony in early 1992 before both the House and Senate 
Appropriations Subcommittees on Energy and Water Development, 
the former Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Nancy 
P. Dom, emphasized the pressing need to reorganize the Corps and 
in her March 11, 1992, testimony before the Subcommittee on 
Water Resources of the House Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation, Assistant Secretary Dom further addressed the 
need for restructuring the Corps and outlined the principles to 
guide reorganization. 

Those principles were to increase cost-effectiveness, enhance 
technical expertise, enhance flexibility, and finally to improve man- 
agement effectiveness. 

The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for fiscal 
year 1993 reduced the Corps' general expenses request to the 1992 
appropriated level. Congress did this — that is reduced the general 
expense funding level over the President — ^below the President's re- 



451 

quest, in an effort to hold constant the government-wide salary ac- 
counts. And as a result of that, the funding, which the Corps has 
now for fiscal year 1993, is not at a level to support the 1992 level. 
As a consequence of that, we have had to make adjustments in 
the level of our staffing in headquarters by some 7 percent this 
year. We have reduced the staff. 

But moreover, going back to the Appropriations Act, the Con- 
gress anticipated that the Corps would be implementing a reorga- 
nization plan during fiscal year 1993 by providing authority to 
transfer funds from other appropriation accounts to finance head- 
quarters and division reorganization. 

It did, however, also preclude the expenditure of any 1993 money 
to close any district office. The suggestions, recommendations, and 
analyses that resulted from prior studies were reviewed and con- 
sidered at length in a series of reorganization meetings that the 
Corps held with the Army secretariat that culminated in the devel- 
opment of our plan in the fall of 1992, and that is the plan which 
was announced in November of 1992 and the plan which is now on 
hold. 

In developing that plan, a number of organizational structures 
were considered without reference to the geographic location of the 
organized offices and functions. And again the alternatives were 
based on how well they addressed the criteria that Secretary Dorn 
outlined. 

Once a recommended plan was adopted, it was considered to be 
important that it be implemented expeditiously because the fund- 
ing was again not available in fiscal year 1993 to support the then 
on-board staff of the headquarters. 

But, of course, in November as the plan was finished up, it was 
clear that the administration was going to change and, therefore, 
implementation of the plan, which originally was intended to be 
implemented in the fall of 1992, was put off until February to allow 
the new administration an opportunity to review that proposed 
plan. 

I might also point out that when the plan was announced, it was 
envisioned that reorganization would begin in 1993, and then fund- 
ing for completion of the headquarters and division part of the re- 
organization would follow on and then ultimately funding of dis- 
trict reorganization would also be budgeted in future years. 

The proposed plan was anticipated to result in a stronger Army 
Corps of Engineers reflecting the structural efficiency made pos- 
sible by today's communications technology and organized with 
flexibility necessary to accommodate change without sacrificing 
quality. 

As to the impact of this proposed plan on Corps' interactions 
with its customers, the public, and other Federal and State agen- 
cies, these customers were to benefit from a more responsive, more 
efficient Corps that would provide services at lower costs. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. General Williams 
will make his and then we will address your questions. 

Mr. BORSKI. General Williams. 

General Williams. Mr. Chairman, and members of the sub- 
committee, I am Lieutenant General Arthur Williams, Chief of the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I am pleased to be here today to 



452 

provide testimony on the proposed Corps reorganization plan 
which, as Dr. Dickey said, was announced in November of 1992. 

As Chief of Engineers I have overall responsibility for the execu- 
tion of all the Corps' civil works which includes the regulatory pro- 
gram, planning, construction, operating and maintaining our Na- 
tion's water resources projects which are authorized by Congress 
and I have the overall responsibility for the engineering and con- 
struction — military construction program for the Army and 80 per- 
cent of the Air Force design and construction program. 

Our annual program for all of these missions is currently about 
$11 billion. Of that $11 billion, about $4 billion is related to civil 
works. About $6.5 billion is for the Military Construction program, 
which is outlined, and $0.5 billion is reimbursable work that we do 
for other Federal agencies. 

To make the best use of the tax dollars we spend, we need an 
efficient and flexible organization. The present 1940 vintage struc- 
ture of the Corps is not what we need today or in the future. 
Mr. Chairman, I strongly believe the Corps must reorganize. 
As a result of the process that Dr. Dickey has just described, the 
reorganization plan was developed. The November 1992, proposed 
plan recognizes that by making use of modern communication tech- 
nology and other techniques, we can create a smaller and more effi- 
cient Corps without sacrificing the quality of our products. 

The new organization would retain a strong technical work force 
and could be operated with lower overhead costs and could allow 
for faster reviews and approvals. It would have the flexibility to re- 
spond to changing work loads and missions well into the 21st cen- 
tury. 

The proposed plan calls for closing some division offices and re- 
ducing functions at some districts, but all existing 38 districts re- 
main open. Certain aspects of how we do business would also 
change. 

I would like to make a few brief remarks about our site selection 
criteria. Once we decided on the general structure of the new orga- 
nization, that is fewer divisions and consolidation of some technical 
functions plus consolidation of some administrative functions, we 
went about an orderly process of selecting which cities could host 
the offices in the reorganized Corps. 

Among the first proposals adopted by the workshop participants 
was that all sites must be existing divisional office sites and that 
all sites to be considered for technical centers must be existing dis- 
trict sites. 

We then ranked the eligible cities within the boundaries for each 
new division to identify the optimum location for the division office. 
Cities were ranked on three primary criteria. One, the cost of doing 
business in each site, the availability of higher quality — the avail- 
ability of quality higher education in each area, and the ease of 
transportation to and from each current office site. 

In two cases where cities within a reorganized division were 
ranked equally based on the three primary criteria, the workshop 
participants selected the site which in their judgment was the best. 
The same three ranking criteria were used in identifying locations 
for the fifteen technical centers. In cases where districts within the 
same reorganized division were tied based on the three primary cri- 



453 

teria, the approximate number of technical personnel at the district 
offices was used as a tie-breaking criteria. 

Additionally, there were other instances where judgment modi- 
fied conclusions that would have been reached based on strict ad- 
herence to the criteria. 

Our proposed plan would close five current division offices. Those 
are in Chicago, Dallas, New York, Omaha and San Francisco. The 
geographic responsibilities now discharged by those offices would 
be consolidated with current division offices located in Atlanta, the 
Boston area, Cincinnati, Portland and Vicksburg. 

The Corps would also consolidate planning, engineering, and real 
estate fianctions into technical centers co-located with some of our 
districts. There would be fifteen technical centers that would per- 
form civil works functions. Ten of those fifteen would also serve as 
technical centers for military construction programs. 

I have enclosed a map that shows the location of these technical 
centers and the division offices. 

The proposed plan would create five consolidated administrative 
centers. These centers could carry out personnel and information 
management functions. They would be staffed primarily with per- 
sonnel from district offices, although division personnel would also 
contribute to their staffing. 

The locations of these centers are illustrated on the map that I 
have included for the record. 

To assure continued flexibility to handle new missions and 
evolved work load related to domestic infrastructure, all of the cur- 
rent district office would retain responsibility for the project man- 
agement and the construction. 

In addition, all the districts would retain their district engineer 
who is the decision maker. They retain all their ongoing project op- 
erations. They retain all their regulatory responsibilities. There are 
no field or project offices affected, such as our reservoir and locks 
and dams sites. They would not be affected, nor would any of our 
construction offices be affected, nor would any of our emergency op- 
eration offices be affected. 

Concurrently with the reorganization, we would execute a major 
change in the way the Corps does business. Projects would con- 
tinue to be managed from their current districts, but the technical 
work would be done at one of the technical centers. All project re- 
view responsibilities would be removed from the Division offices, 
thereby eliminating one level of review. 

Technical review would be performed at the district level through 
peer review at a different technical center. Policy review would be 
performed only at the Washington level at a consolidated and 
newly created central review center. 

Currently the policy review is performed at both divisions and 
our headquarters, and thus we have two layers of policy review. 

The funding made available to the Corps in the fiscal year 1993 
appropriations, as well as the personnel ceilings established by the 
administration, mandate the Corps to make personnel reductions. 
With the proposed reorganization plan, these reductions could be 
made in a manner that leaves an organization that is fully capable 
of meeting its current and future missions, has a greater depth of 



72-424 0-94-16 



454 

expertise nationwide, and one that has greater flexibility in re- 
sponding to its fluctuating work load. 

The proposed plan is estimated to save the equivalent of 2,600 
full-time positions compared to our fiscal year 1991 staffing levels. 
Of these, about 2,000 are civil funded. Once in place, the proposed 
plan would reduce the Corps cost by an estimated $115 million an- 
nually compared to the fiscal year 1991 level. 

This included savings of $94 million annually in civil funds. 

I emphasize that this proposed reorganization plan is divided 
into two phases. The headquarters and division phase we have 
called phase one, for which partial funding was appropriated by the 
Congress in our fiscal year 1993 appropriation; and the district 
phase, which we have called phase two, for which no funds have 
been requested or appropriated. 

We have always intended to consult with Congress prior to im- 
plementing the district phase. 

Reorganization of only the Corps headquarters and division, or 
phase one as we call it, could achieve significant annual savings by 
increasing productivity and decreasing overhead. This phase could 
be implemented independently from the district phase, or phase 
two as we call it. 

Two important aspects of any reorganization plan are its impacts 
on employees and its customers. Extra efforts have been made, and 
will continue to be made, to ensure that every aiTected Corps em- 
ployee is treated fairly under the civil service and army personnel 
rules and is aware of employment rights and options. 

We have already produced and distributed two publications to 
each Corps member, one pamphlet entitled "Why Reorganize" was 
mailed to all 40,000 civilian employees to their home address. We 
also produced a booklet entitled "You, the Corps, and the Future: 
Employment Options Under Reorganization." That pamphlet, 
which I have copies of, was also made available to every Corps em- 
ployee. 

Our customers would benefit after reorganization from a more ef- 
ficient and flexible Corps. Customers would continue to deal with 
the district offices they currently use to discuss the planning, the 
construction, the operation of a project or to inquire about the 
dredge and fill permits. 

In summary, we have a plan that meets the criteria and objec- 
tives we set. We are working with Secretary Aspin's staff to gain 
approval of our proposed plan. It positions the Corps for its current 
mission and allows flexibility to better address new missions, 
should they evolve. This will be a more efficient Corps that better 
utilizes the tax dollars appropriated to us. 

We can accomplish this reorganization without adversely impact- 
ing our service to the customers and with minimum impact on the 
lives of our current employees. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement and I will try my 
best to answer your questions. 

Mr. BORSKI. Thank you, sir. 

One of the issues that has arisen in the reorganization debate is 
what the proper relationship should be between headquarters and 
field offices. Could you each please briefly describe your experience 
in headquarters and the field for the record? 



455 

Dr. Dickey. Let me start. 

Mr. Chairman, basically, the function of the headquarters from 
the Secretary's Office is to promulgate the policy which the Sec- 
retary's Office, of course, is responsible for developing, to enforce 
that policy, if you will, through the review process and also to per- 
form the management functions in terms of the allocation of both 
personnel and financial resources and to ensure that the districts 
who are, of course, the executors of the mission, they are the ones 
that actually do the planning, that do the design, that do the con- 
struction and indeed where the Corps continues to operate, to 
prioritize projects to ensure that all of those things are carried out 
in accordance with the regulations and laws which govern the ad- 
ministration of civil works program. 

Mr. BORSKI. Dr. Dickey, if I may, what I am trying to find out 
is your experience in the field and in headquarters. Do you have 
particular experience in the field as well as headquarters? 

Dr. Dickey. I have never been any place but the Secretary's Of- 
fice. 

General Williams. Yes, sir, let me start to answer your last 
question with regards to my personal experience. 

I have been in the Army 30 years; the first half of my career with 
Army Troop Engineer Units, the last 15 years with the Army Corps 
of Engineers, the command that we are addressing today. I have 
been in two districts. 

I have commanded one of the districts. I have commanded two 
of the divisions. I have had four different jobs in the headquarters' 
Civil Works-Military programs. I have been the Director of Civil 
Works and of course my current job. I have had some experience 
at district, division, and headquarters level. 

In regards to the responsibilities or the functions of the three lev- 
els of management — headquarters, division, and district offices — I 
would start out by saying that we look at ourselves as centralizing 
policy and decentralizing execution. 

Policy emanates at the headquarters and the Washington level. 
Resources are allocated at the headquarters to the Divisions, the 
Divisions then looks at the work load, reallocates those resources 
and brings together a program from a regional perspective and pro- 
vides the command and control of the districts and the districts are 
the people that execute. 

The districts are the people that do the design, and the construc- 
tion and the operation of our projects and the districts are the peo- 
ple that we look to to interface with our customers and the Amer- 
ican public. 

Mr. BORSKI. Thank you. General. 

General, some critics have dubbed the reorganization plan a bot- 
tom-up plan, because very few personnel at headquarters level 
would be affected by reorganization. Why are so many positions 
eliminated in the field when so few are eliminated at head- 
quarters? 

General Williams. I don't think that that is a correct statement, 
sir, based on the numbers that I have. In the reorganization plan, 
about 10 percent reduction in general expense funding occurs at 
the Headquarters, whereas if you look at the entire Corps of Engi- 
neers and the reorganization plan and the general expense funding, 



456 

that is a separate funding that takes care of people at the division 
headquarters, deaUng with civil works; and at the Headquarters, 
it is about 7 percent. 

If you also look at the headquarters. Corps of Engineers, in re- 
gards to reduction in people that have occurred in the recent years, 
there have been several initiatives that have impacted the head- 
quarters starting with 1988. We have gone through a Department 
of the Army Vanguard initiative that looked at the headquarters. 
We have gone through the defense management review decisions 
that have impacted the headquarters. We have taken actions with- 
in our own authorities to reduce the headquarters. 

So if you look at the number of people that were on board in 
1988 versus the 1992 time frame, there are about 600, almost 700 
people that have been reduced in the headquarters. So let me see 
if I can provide some additional comments for you. It is a very im- 
portant point, a very important point, because I don't think that it 
is understood clearly. 

Dr. Dickey talked about the amount of funds that were appro- 
priated to the Corps in 1993 for our general expense account, or 
GE, as we call it. Those funds pay for people at headquarters and 
the division offices that are involved with civil works programs. 
The general expense manpower decreases due to GE funds' de- 
creasing. If you tally that up for fiscal years 1992, 1993 and 1994, 
to include the cuts we are going to have to take, there is a total 
reduction of 142 full-time equivalent spaces. Of those, 53 (or 40 
percent) are from the headquarters, but the headquarters only rep- 
resents 32 percent of the GE spaces. To be more specific in regards 
to headquarters manpower level reductions between fiscal year 
1988 and today, the staffing level in the Washington Metropolitan 
area has dropped from 2,709 to 2,035, a decrease of 674 spaces. 
This occurred for those reasons that I gave before, for the Defense 
Management Review decisions, Army Vanguard management re- 
view decisions, and the other reorganizations that we have taken. 

Mr. BORSKI. General, I guess you are talking about what has 
happened over the last several years, and I am curious about the 
plan itself. Does it not make headquarters stronger and the divi- 
sions and localities weak? 

General Williams. No, sir, I think that is a misunderstanding. 
Let me clarify that if I might. 

I think the misunderstanding comes from standing up, if you 
will, a new element called the Central Review Center, which does 
not currently exist now. What does exist now is we have people 
within the headquarters that deal with policy review. We also have 
people in each of our division headquarters that deal with policy 
review. 

What we are proposing is to eliminate a level of policy review, 
rather than have one at the headquarters and one at each of our 
division headquarters. So if you take all the spaces that are cur- 
rently in policy review in our headquarters and our divisions right 
now, it totals up to currently 172 spaces. And what we are propos- 
ing is to consolidate those 172 spaces into a new organization 
called the Central Review Center that would only have 58 spaces. 
So there is a savings of 114 spaces. 



457 

Mr. BORSKI. And I guess my question is, could you reverse that 
process and reduce the number in the headquarters and increase 
the number in the field? 

General Williams. Well, sir, the 

Mr. BORSKI. Yes. I am sorry. 

General Williams. One of the problems that was discussed dur- 
ing this whole process of looking at changes and work processes for 
the Corps, was trying to take things that are done in different loca- 
tions and centralize things so you can reduce the number of spaces, 
gain some efficiencies and gain some effectiveness by making sure 
you have consistency in your policy. And that is the whole thrust 
behind this. Instead of having a policy that emanates from the 
headquarters, it currently gets disseminated, gets interpreted dif- 
ferently in each of our division offices. 

Mr. BORSKI. All right. My time has expired for now. 

Let me turn to the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe. 

Mr. Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would certainly defer 
to Mr. Mineta 

The Chair. Go ahead; I will follow. 

Mr. Inhofe [continuing]. Or Mr. Shuster. Let me just bring out 
a couple of things. 

First of all, I appreciate the presentation, and I was not able to 
be in town when we initially were talking about some of these 
things, but I am very interested. Of the many accomplishments of 
this hearing, one will be to remind us over again that all politics 
is local. First of all, this is on Secretary Aspin's desk; is that cor- 
rect? 

Dr. Dickey. Yes. 

Mr. Inhofe. Do you have any indication when you will get some 
kind of response from the Secretary? 

Dr. Dickey. No, I do not. 

Mr. Inhofe. If he is favorable to this plan, then it will go 
through, unless there is congressional action to the contrary; is 
that correct? 

Dr. Dickey. No, that is not really the case, in the sense that 
there is no money to implement it other than $7 million in 1993 
money, which would be available to, if not fully but partially, im- 
plement the division and headquarters part of it. 

But in terms of the district part of it, that would require addi- 
tional appropriations and, in fact, be funded in a different mecha- 
nism than the headquarters and division part of reorganization. 

So, in fact, a decision to proceed would really be a decision to 
take certain steps associated with what General Williams referred 
to as Phase I, which was the division and headquarters part of the 
reorganization; and then we would look to the Congress in future 
years to make available the necessary funds to allow any district 
reorganization to take place. 

Mr. Inhofe. All right. You had mentioned in your testimony that 
you have two approaches you can take, one would be a random ap- 
proach and one would be a managed approach. It appears that a 
random approach might be where we end up — I mean, just as an 
opinion that I am expressing, even though I am supportive of your 
reorganization plan; I think you have done fine work. But I also see 
some opposition out there. 



458 

Is there any way to measure the end result of a managed ap- 
proach as opposed to a random approach, which I would assume 
would be through attrition and just leaving everything alone and 
stirring the pot as little as possible? 

Dr. Dickey. General Williams was talking about the elimination 
of the layer of policy review at division level there. That represents 
a process change. There are some other process changes in the re- 
organization. The one thing about a random approach is, it doesn't 
allow you to implement those process changes, which are in addi- 
tion to, if you will, the changes in the number of units — ^you know, 
the number of divisions, the number of technical centers and so 
forth. That produces a certain kind of savings, which of course we 
wouldn't be able to realize either. 

So the random approach would deny us two important sources of 
real efficiency. One is consolidation and the other is process 
change. And without those, you may meet the funding targets or 
the personnel targets, but you don't get the payoff in terms of in- 
creased productivity and so forth that you get with reorganization. 
Now, I don't know how to quantify that. 

Mr. Inhofe. It would be difficult to quantify. I think a state- 
ment, though, that a random approach might be politically more 
expedient, certainly is not going to be as efficient as managed ap- 
proach. 

I think you have done a very fine job. 

Mr. BORSKI. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

The gentleman from California, distinguished Chair of the full 
committee, Mr. Mineta. 

The Chair. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I wasn't going 
to do this, but maybe I am going to have to reiterate or to reread 
my statement from the original day of the hearing. And I hope 
Members of the committee, as well as the audience, would not 
mind my doing this. Because what I have heard here doesn't reas- 
sure me. 

The proposed Corps reorganization announced last November 
naturally raises significant concerns for the Members of this com- 
mittee. Some division offices will be closed; some district offices will 
have dramatic stafi" reductions, with staff positions moved to other 
cities. We all recognize that the Corps' work load is shrinking and 
the Corps needs to reduce its staff to match its reduced responsibil- 
ities. My only concern is to make sure that the reorganization is 
done in a way that preserves the maximum effectiveness of the 
Corps in serving its missions, and that it is fair to all concerned. 
To do that, I need to get answers to several questions. 

First, I want to make sure that the basic concept of the reorga- 
nization makes sense. In particular, is it appropriate to streamline 
the Corps' field offices without streamlining its headquarters stafi? 

Second, I want to make sure that the Corps used the right cri- 
teria to select which division offices would remain open and which 
district offices would retain their technical staffs. For example, 
should the Corps have taken into account how close potential divi- 
sion offiices are to the work load for that division? 

Third, I want to make sure that the Corps applied its criteria ap- 
propriately. We would all agree that having access to good air 
transportation is important, but should an airport that FAA classi- 



459 

fies as a medium hub be considered just as good as one that it clas- 
sifies as a large hub? 

Fourth, I want to make sure that the criteria were applied con- 
sistently. In cases where the rather simplistic scoring system pro- 
duced ties, why were different tie breakers used in different divi- 
sions? 

Now, I think we would all agree that the Corps needs to be 
streamlined and that there needs to be a rational plan for doing 
that. Frankly, after hearing both Dr. Dickey and General Williams, 
I am not sure that we have met even the four tests that Dr. Dickey 
referred to in then Assistant Secretary Nancy Dom's criteria. First 
of all, in order to do an3rthing, whether it is in the Congress or in 
the executive agency, there has to be credibility. 

Now, Dr. Dickey, just as everybody else, we are all sworn to up- 
hold the law; isn't that correct? 

Dr. Dickey. Right. 

The Chair. Sometimes, even with the law in place, the response 
of the civil works sector of the Secretary of the Army has been "it 
is not our policy." At that point do you not think that policy has 
been superseded by law? 

Dr. Dickey. The issue that you are raising, Mr. Chairman, is an 
important one, and it really deals with the prerogatives of the exec- 
utive branch to budget. And I am well aware of the particular case 
I am sure you have in mind. 

We recognize that Congress authorizes and indeed directs the 
Secretary to do many, many things, and in varying degrees speci- 
fies the terms under which those are to take place. On the other 
hand, the Secretary of the Army and indeed the President, in as- 
sembling the annual budget submissions, has to make choices with 
regard to priorities and so forth. And indeed the President does 
have the prerogative with regard to the things which he is willing 
to budget for. 

The Chair. But once the Appropriations Committee directs the 
Secretary of the Army to implement something specific, and the 
President signs that into law, can you still say, well, it is against 
Corps policy? 

Dr. Dickey. I would say indeed, Mr. Chairman, I do not think 
you will find any case of where we have failed to follow appropria- 
tions law. 

The Chair. And, of course, you would refer to the Santa Clara 
County Water District program? 

Dr. Dickey. Yes. 

The Chair. What about in the 1992 Water Resources Act, where 
Congress directed the Corps to take measures to stop the release 
of drift and debris from the Blue Stone Lake project in West Vir- 
ginia, yet the Corps has determined that it will not take such 
steps? 

Dr. Dickey. Mr. Chairman, we have not decided that. The Con- 
gress again authorized us to do that — indeed, directed, as you 
say — and we are finishing a report that addresses that issue. I be- 
lieve it costs about a million dollars a year to do that. If we were 
to proceed with that, we would, of course, be requesting money for 
the funding of that, and Congress may or may not provide that 
funding. 



460 

And, again, to do anything in the government you need two 
things: You need authorization and appropriations. 

The Chair. Another example, the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open 
Space District purchased former Almaden Air Force Station at fair 
market value in 1986 and has been in contact with the Corps since 
then to explore clean-up of the site so it can be made accessible to 
the public. On December 2nd, 1991, the site was determined eligi- 
ble for the Defense Environmental Restoration program. 

In February of 1992, the Corps announced that the project had 
been funded and the Corps requested entry permits to begin the 
next phase of the project. Those permits were issued, but for some 
unfathomable reason, the Corps stopped all work on the project. It 
seems that funding for this project was withdrawn and diverted to 
another project without any explanation being provided. 

The Open Space District is still unable to find out exactly what 
is going on. The Corps' Sacramento office recently reiterated noth- 
ing more than the project was funded in February of 1992 and that 
a team from Sacramento would be in contact to coordinate the 
project. To date, no time schedule has been established and no sub- 
stantive answers have been provided. 

Dr. Dickey, is this the standard procedure for the Corps when 
working with local interests? 

And it seems to me — I mean, I have just got a few examples, and 
I can go through the kinds of examples. I have one here from Con- 
gresswoman Kaptur; I have got all kinds of examples where the 
Corps has not implemented public law on the basis that it is not 
Corps policy. 

Now, here you come in with a reorganization. Everyone admits, 
work load is going down; there are some district offices and divi- 
sions that are having more work to do than others, and then we 
don't see the kind of — again, what I would call rationale or even 
fairness. 

I look at it, for instance, in terms of reduction-in-force, what hap- 
pens to an affirmative action program — last hired, women and mi- 
norities? What happens in this kind of a program where you have 
a reduction-in-force? 

First of all, I don't see the Corps with, from what I can gather, 
a very good program or a good result in terms of affirmative action; 
but even in terms of tight budgets, it makes it even tougher. And 
so, frankly, from my perspective, there is really very little credibil- 
ity when the Corps comes with a plan and says, this is what we 
are going to do. 

And I can go through, you know — I just have another letter from 
the FEMA Director in Region IX in California, and again here the 
Director of FEMA writes concerning the Corps' reorganization plan, 
indicating that the Portland Division office, is an unready posture 
rating and that that would extend until at least 1996, even under 
the proposed plan. 

The memo further indicated that the proposed Western Division 
office, with its planned staffing, would be unable to perform many 
of the duties associated with emergency preparedness which are 
routinely performed by the current South Pacific Division 
headquartered in San Francisco. The announced deficiencies in- 
cluded, one, the inability to conduct planning initiatives or exer- 



461 

cises necessary for preparedness, the inability to provide command 
and control by a full capable Corps Division emergency operation 
center with staffing capability for sustained around-the-clock oper- 
ation, and the inability to coordinate with FEMA and military com- 
mands except through Corps District. 

Now, it seems to me that here, as you have indicated in your tes- 
timony, because of the forthcoming change in administration — now, 
that happened on the 3rd of November, as I recall, and yet the 
Corps released their report on the 19th of November, knowing al- 
ready that there is going to be a change in the administration as 
a result of the election on the 3rd of November. My question is, 
why then having to — why at that point did you try to rush it 
through? And as far as I am concerned, in your statement you try 
to doctor it up by quoting from Executive Order 12839 and Execu- 
tive Order 12837. But what were the dates on those Executive or- 
ders? 

Dr. Dickey. Well, those, of course, were in February. 

The Chair. Yes, so you can't use those then to justify 

Dr. Dickey. I was not intending to do that. 

The Chair [continuing]. Your reorganization effort, are you? 

Dr. Dickey. I am not trying to do that. I am trying to say the 
Corps, in announcing the event in November, was in recognition of 
the fact that the Congress had not provided sufficient funding in 
fiscal year 1993 to maintain the then level of staffing. And as a 
consequence, we have had a RIF action in the Corps headquarters 
to reduce the staff without the benefit of having the opportunity to 
go to a more rational structure. 

We also had to use $5 million, which is set aside for reorganiza- 
tion, to pay salaries this fiscal year, because we haven't been able 
to go ahead. 

So the desire of the administration in November to proceed is 
driven, as I said, by the funding context in which it was operating. 

The Chair. Were a lot of those employees allowed to transfer to 
other divisions within the 

Dr. Dickey. Yes, places were found for those people. 

The Chair. For all the employees? 

Dr. Dickey. Yes. 

The Chair. Now, that is for headquarters. What about for divi- 
sions, as well as for districts; will they — will all of the employees 
be offered other positions? 

Dr. Dickey. If we were to proceed with the reorganization, the 
one signal certainly that we have gotten with regard to the new ad- 
ministration is that, as we see other reorganization efforts in the 
Department of Defense, the administration has made it clear that 
one takes advantage of all of the opportunities which Congress has 
provided to offer voluntary programs of separation, whether it be 
retirement or voluntary resignations, as alternatives to forced re- 
ductions. 

I would also point out that the Corps, in anticipation of a reorga- 
nization, has done, I think, a commendable effort in putting to- 
gether a brochure and an information system and a priority place- 
ment process to provide maximum opportunity for affected Corps 
employees to find jobs elsewhere. 



462 

The Chair. Did you say all the employees have been placed 
somewhere else? 

Dr. Dickey. Yes, the ones to date. But of course there have been 
very few people that have been RIFed recently. 

We are not implementing reorganization. The adjustments that 
have been made are quite minor. But I am saying that is the inten- 
tion of the Corps, indeed the intention of the Department of De- 
fense, to minimize the impacts on personnel affected by reorganiza- 
tion by offering them maximum opportunity to take advantage of 
early retirement programs or to find other jobs within the Federal 
establishment. 

Now, whether or not that is successful — and indeed, to take ad- 
vantage of those opportunities, often one has to move; and for one 
reason or another, many people are not willing to do that. 

The Chair. Now, I take it that — or do you — I shouldn't assume 
anything, frankly, I guess. What happens with women and minori- 
ties? 

Dr. Dickey. Well, they of course are within the system, are treat- 
ed as any other employee. 

The Chair. And the system is based on seniority? 

Dr. Dickey. Yes. 

General Williams. If you are going to a RIF situation; is that 
when you are talking about. Congressman? 

The Chair. Right. 

General Williams. Then there are prescribed rules you go 
through, and it is primarily based on seniority. 

The Chair. The — well, I guess part of this whole issue, too, is 
when you have local agencies that are now going to have to — who 
have been dealing with some relatively close office, are now going 
to have to be traveling long distances, like, I think, Santa Clara 
Valley Water District having to go to Portland to deal with some 
of the very issues they have been dealing with San Francisco or 
Sacramento, in some instances. 

General Williams. Mr. Congressman, may I address that, 
please? 

I think there may be some misunderstanding in regards to what 
the divisions and the districts do, and under the reorganization 
plan, where our customers would still get their services provided. 
And if I might use a district, for example, let me use Sacramento 
since that is the one that I am the most familiar with since I com- 
manded that one. 

At all the districts, under the reorganization plan, you still have 
the district commander, who is the decision-maker. And that is one 
of the key things that everybody insisted upon that we have when 
we went through the plan that we put together, under the BRAC 
process. 

The Chair. A decision-maker on what? 

General Williams. He is the decision-maker for pulling together 
all of the programs within his district — the contracting, the con- 
struction, so forth. So the things that get done today in the dis- 
tricts will still remain, under the reorganization, such as you still 
have the district engineer — he still has all his project managers 
that he has today, who are the developers who meet with the com- 
munity to put together the plans, track the projects, tell you the 



463 

status and so forth. Nothing changes there, and there are engi- 
neers and planners who are the project managers. 

You still have all the construction organization, who is respon- 
sible for all the construction, to include whether it is buildings or 
the operations people who are responsible for all of the dredging, 
whether it be maintenance dredging or new dredging. You still 
have all of the regulatory people, who handle all the permits and 
the 404 program and all those things associated with the regu- 
latory program. 

You still have all of the emergency management people, who re- 
spond to any of the emergency managements that we have in the 
district. You still have some administration people. 

You still have within all those elements that I have just de- 
scribed all of the experts that deal with the day-to-day decisions 
that have to be made on projects in dealing with our customers and 
so forth. You still have within the construction operation office en- 
gineers, who have to do the day-to-day quick-type-small types of 
fixes. 

What we are proposing is that you take the engineers and plan- 
ners who are not involved with the day-to-day operation, and you 
consolidate them into larger groups we call "technical centers" for 
the sake of this discussion, and those people are co-located together 
so you have a larger nucleus that will provide the kind of com- 
petence and the expertise that are called upon and be flexible 
enough to handle increases in not only the size of a work load, but 
the breadth or scope of missions that would come your way. 

Districts do that today. Not all of their engineers and planners 
are located within the district. For example, 50 percent of the plan- 
ning and design done for civil works projects are not done in the 
districts. They are done by contractors, architect-engineers, that 
are spread across the entire country. They compete for the projects. 
The district reviews the people that want to compete, they select 
the contractor; the contractor meets wherever he has to meet to in- 
clude with local people. Sometimes it is on site, sometimes it is in 
the district office or wherever, and they do whatever they have to 
do. 

Those architect-engineers then go back, in some cases all the way 
across the country to their home offices, and they get together as 
they need to. 

Meanwhile, on a day-to-day basis, all of the people that are cur- 
rently in the district that are working with the local community 
are still there. 

The Chair. Well, if you outline it as you have, and use that tem- 
plate, then. Dr. Dickey, why is it then for Santa Clara Water Dis- 
trict we still don't have the design, the sign-off, I believe, on the 
general design memorandum and that we are still hung up? And 
that starts with the public law that was signed by President Bush 
when he directed the Secretary of the Army to go ahead and imple- 
ment the general design memorandum. We are still hung up in 
that project in Santa Clara County. 

General Williams was able to describe it beautifully, but some- 
where there is a big difference in the distance between the cup and 
the lip, between what General Williams has outlined as to how it 
is supposed to work and how it, in fact, is working right now. 



464 

I probably spend more time on that Guadalupe project, an inordi- 
nate amount of time. I have had to call on Congressman Bevill, the 
Energy and Water Appropriation Subcommittee; and I don't know 
whether you are purposely doing it to get at me, or what it is, but 
it — in any event, it is not only that, but I have letters from other 
Members of Congress about their projects, about why things get 
held up. 

If the template is so good, as outlined by General Williams, then 
I wonder why is it then this committee gets so many letters about 
the inadequacy of the Corps of Engineers to do their job? 

Dr. Dickey. Mr. Chairman, let me just speak first of all to the 
Santa Clara issue. I am unaware that we have any problem with 
that project at all. I will check into that immediately, but I thought 
that issue was long past and the local cooperation agreement was 
signed. 

The Chair. Well, it should have been done because of law, but 
you remember that conversation when I said, it is now public law; 
and the response I got from you was, it is against Corps policy. And 
I had to remind you and Nancy Dom that you can take Corps pol- 
icy and shove it in your ear. This is now public law. And I had to 
remind her that the person who signed her appointment to her job 
was the person who signed that legislation into public law. So that 
is why I asked you. 

You are sworn to uphold the law; not Corps policy, the law. 

Dr. Dickey. And again, the issues are whether the President is 
going to budget for one of these projects or not. Each one of those 
letters, I believe, is the reflection of a disappointment 

The Chair. Budget. Budget can fly. Is not an appropriations a 
little higher in authority than budget? 

Dr. Dickey. Yes, it is, sir. 

The Chair. Well, then what is the reference to budget? It is not 
a question of whether the President requests it in his budget. What 
I have reiterated to you is the energy and water appropriations bill 
that gets signed into law. So it has no reference to Corps policy, 
it has no reference to the President's budget; it is a question of 
whether or not you, in doing your job, are upholding the law. 

Dr. Dickey. And I would assert, sir, that we in each case act in 
full accordance with the law. 

The Chair. But I have got to also remind you I think that was 
after a little bit of browbeating. 

Dr. Dickey. I thought we reached a happy compromise. We ac- 
commodated both concerns. 

The Chair. Well, I would appreciate your checking into the 
present status of it. From what I can gather from the City of San 
Jose and Santa Clara Water District, that is not the case when I 
look at my correspondence I get as Chair of the House Committee 
on Public Works and Transportation from my colleagues. General 
Williams outlined it very well, but that, in practice, is not what has 
happened. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BORSKl. I thank the gentleman. 

General Williams, let me ask a quick follow-up question if I may. 
One question we have is whether the commander of districts will 
continue to be colonels or will they be downgraded to majors. 



465 

General Williams. I didn't catch the last part, or whether they 
will be downgi'aded to what? 

Mr. BORSKI. To majors, the district commanders. 

General Williams. The intention right now within current Corps 
organization, forget the proposed reorganization, most of our dis- 
tricts are commanded by colonels, 06 commanders. Some of our dis- 
tricts are commanded by lieutenant colonels. Under the proposed 
reorganization, I would suppose that we are going to have colonels 
and lieutenant colonels. And it will be driven by the availability of 
both of those grades within the Department of Army. 

Mr. BORSKI. Okay. Thank you, sir. 

Let me now recognize the distinguished gentleman from Penn- 
sylvania, Ranking Member of the committee, Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am very 
glad to have you here today. 

I understand, with declining budgets, there has got to be reorga- 
nization, and I support reorganization. One of my concerns is that 
if the reductions come, that headquarters take a substantial por- 
tion of that. And I worry that, under the plan, that may not be the 
case. 

Did I understand you correctly to say that you could proceed 
with your reorganization as far as headquarters was concerned, but 
it would require a future appropriation to proceed with the district 
reorganization? 

Dr. Dickey. We could proceed to a limited degree with the head- 
quarters and division reorganization; that is right. 

Mr. Shuster. How much money would be saved by proceeding 
with headquarters and division, and how much money would be 
saved by getting a future appropriation and proceeding at the dis- 
trict? 

Dr. Dickey. Our estimate was $50 million annually. 

Mr. Shuster. Fifty million? 

Dr. Dickey. Annually. 

Mr. Shuster. From headquarters and division? 

Dr. Dickey. Yes. 

Mr. Shuster. And what cost is associated with doing that? As 
I understand, your overall reorganization was — the cost, one-time 
cost would be about $215 million, but you would have an annual 
savings of $115 million. 

General Williams. Sir, let me be more specific to try to under- 
stand; this gets very complicated. 

In the proposed plan, if carried all the way to conclusion, we 
would cut about 2,600 spaces; and we would save about $115 mil- 
lion annually, and we would have a one-time cost of $200^1 forgot 
the exact number now; $215 million, I believe was the figure. 

If you only do the Phase I, which is the headquarters and the 
division headquarters, there is an approximate cost of about $33 
million, and there would be about 1,100 positions that would be cut 
from those divisions; and some of those 1,100 positions would be 
eliminated, about 250 would be eliminated, and the remainder 
would move to other organizations where we would consolidate 
things. 

So for the money that you are saving as a result of cutting 250 
spaces, there is an annual savings there of about $14 million. 



466 

Mr. Shuster. So it is going to cost you $33 million to save — one- 
time cost, to save $14 million? 

General Williams. The payback is less than three years. 

Mr. Shuster. Right. If you can do that without legislation, why 
aren't you doing it? 

Dr. Dickey. We are waiting for the Secretary of Defense to com- 
plete his review and approve the plan. 

Mr. Shuster. So you would plan to proceed if it is approved 
then? 

General Williams. Right, and we were proceeding in the 1993 
budget. The 1993 budget and the funds that were allocated to us 
were directed to start the reorganization of the headquarters and 
the division headquarters. 

Mr. Shuster. All right. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BORSKI. The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from 
West Virginia, Mr. Wise. 

Mr. Wise. Thank you. I thank the Chair, and I greatly thank 
him for calling these hearings, which a number of us had re- 
quested, this essential discussion. 

I, of course, Dr. Dickey, General Williams, am concerned about 
the Huntington District, but I think since I have got the Gallipolis 
Locks under construction; the Winfield Locks hopefully under con- 
struction at some point; the Marmet Locks to be authorized, but 
real estate and other discussions taking place; and two major haz- 
ardous waste clean-up sites — three environmental problems in my 
district that I know about right now, two of them are Corps of En- 
gineers. And so the Huntington District, of course, on top of having 
a number of employees living in my district — is essential. 

Dr. Dickey, General, I am going to, in the interest of time, make 
some statements; and if I am wrong — I am trying to get them into 
the record — if I am wrong, I would appreciate you stopping me 
right there, so that the record is correct. 

Am I correct that in developing criteria for selecting the location 
of the new civil works technical centers, that it was a field advisory 
committee composed of district and division employees that helped 
develop the selection criteria? 

General Williams. That is correct. 

Mr. Wise. Am I correct. General, that this field advisory commit- 
tee, though, did not actually participate in deciding which criteria 
would be used and what weight each criterion would be given? 

General Williams. That is correct. 

Mr. Wise. And who did make those final decisions? 

General Williams. Let me just back up so you fully understand 
it. 

The field advisory committee, which was composed of about 50 
senior civilians, one from each of our districts and one from each 
of our divisions, composed the field advisory committee. One of the 
recommendations that they made to us were eight criteria selec- 
tions, which I can go into, and those criteria selections were used 
or reviewed by the decision-making group. 

Five of the eight were used and three were not, which I can go 
into. 

Mr. Wise. But am I correct 



467 

General Williams. And I believe the other part of your question 
was who was the decision 

Mr. Wise. Yes, once the field advisory committee, this group from 
each of the districts and divisions, recommended selection criteria, 
who actually decided which would be used and what weight each 
would be given? 

General Williams. That was done by the smaller decision-mak- 
ing group of which Dr. Dickey and I were part. 

Mr. Wise. Okay. What kind of open process was that? Was that 
subject to anybody's comment? Did the field advisory committee 
have any input into that? 

General Williams. The field advisory committee was chaired by 
Mr. Don Cluff, our senior executive civilian, who was our project 
manager for the reorganization plan. He was the one that chaired 
all those meetings, and so he was the one present at our decision- 
making process, and he presented all those to us. 

We asked questions of Mr. Cluff in regards to the details and the 
backup of each of those criteria, what they really meant. And from 
there, we had an open discussion from the decision team to decide 
which of the criteria we wanted to use. Also it was an open discus- 
sion in regards to the weight that we used for each of the criteria 
that we selected. 

Mr. Wise. Open in what regard? 

General Williams. Eight people, eight or nine people sitting 
around the table discussing it openly and deciding, trying to come 
to a consensus as to what the weight ought to be. 

Mr. Wise. But those criteria were not submitted to Congress; 
they were not reviewed outside that group in any way, were they? 

General Williams. No, they were not, no. 

Mr. Wise. Okay. Am I correct that the Corps' noncontracting 
budget for the labor — or that labor costs are about 75 percent of 
the Corps' noncontracting budget? 

General Williams. I don't know the answer to that question, sir. 

We will try to provide that for the record. 

Mr. Wise. I am going to — that is, some of the information we re- 
ceived is that, but I would like to see if that bears out with you. 

[The information received from General Williams follows:] 

With regard to the Corps Civil Works activities, non-contracted work is about $1.9 
billion annually of which $1 bilhon is payroll (labor). Therefore, about 53% of non- 
contracted budget is labor. 

Mr. Wise. And the next question then is asking what percentage 
of the Corps' noncontracting budget would constitute transpor- 
tation and training costs? And I received a figure of roughly 2 per- 
cent. Would that be correct, in the ballpark? 

General Williams. I don't have that figure, but we will provide 
that for you, sir. 

[The information received from General Williams follows:] 

Administrative costs for the Corps of Engineers are about 5% of the non-con- 
tracted budget. The Corps estimates that transportation and training are less than 
1% of the total budget. 

Mr. Wise. Well, it is making my chain of questioning a little dif- 
ficult here, because my next question then, if we are even any- 
where in the ballpark — can we stipulate that labor costs would 



468 

probably be a much larger part of the noncontracting budget for 
the Corps than transportation or training? 

General Williams. Sure. 

Mr. Wise. Okay. Then where labor costs constitute the vast ma- 
jority of the Corps' budget, why is it that transportation and train- 
ing criteria were weighted so heavily? 

General Williams. Let's see if I can approach that differently. 
And I need to go back in time for a moment. 

The reorganization plan that was put together under the BRAC 
process did not get approved for a variety of reasons. We used that 
experience to learn some lessons. Part of the lessons was to go out 
and form the committee — the field advisory committee representing 
the entire Corps — to find out what their concerns were in regards 
to the types of criteria that someone in the decision-making process 
at the headquarters ought to take into consideration. That field ad- 
visory committee, representing each of their respective districts, 
came back with a list of criteria that we talked about and felt very 
strongly that the employees that they represented felt very strong- 
ly about the criteria that they recommended to us. 

And one of those criteria was in regards to the availability of 
what they called the transportation hub or the airport that we 
have been talking about. And another one of the criteria was cost 
of living. Another criterion was the availability of higher education, 
particularly higher education in engineering schools, but also other 
higher education for all the employees. And another concern cri- 
teria that they had was to take into consideration the number of 
people currently located in the existing organizations. 

Aiid so they were the ones representing what was coming up 
from the bottom, representing what is important to the people out 
there who are doing, executing our programs. 

Mr. Wise. Then when we get down to savings, labor constitutes 
a high cost and the cost of living is an obvious consideration, and 
yet transportation and training get a much higher weight than 
what they proportionately are of the budget, which I find interest- 
ing. 

Let me get on to centrality of work load, because this gets to the 
heart of one of my concerns. The centrality to work load criterion 
seemed, at least in the case of the Huntington District, to have ei- 
ther been discounted or omitted from consideration. For example, 
in the Huntington District, which supports the second largest civil 
works mission in the Nation, it is my understanding, and within 
the new North Central Division which would support the largest 
civil works mission, yet it was ranked dead-last among the 12 cities 
in this new division. 

I also add to that the fact that the Huntington District has been 
assisting the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protec- 
tion tremendously with the Clean Water Act, Section 202, the con- 
struction grants program, in addition to the other work that I men- 
tioned. 

Doesn't this cast serious doubts on these selection criteria? I just 
find it — I find it incredible that the district that has the largest 
civil works mission in the new division and has, according to the 
statistics we have seen, the second-largest civil works mission in 
the Nation, is the one that takes the hit. 



469 

General Williams. Let me try to address several parts of your 
question. 

Number one, Huntington District is a great district. It has per- 
formed extremely well 

Mr. Wise. We want to keep it that way. 

General Williams. Yes, sir — performed extremely well in the 
past, is performing well and will continue to perform well. The 
problem that we had with looking at strictly work load, is that 
work load is misleading. 

If I tally up all of our districts, for example, their total work load, 
Huntington District, as far as all the work load and equating or 
orienting all of our districts, Huntington District would be about 
18th of the 37 districts that we have, if you just look at work load. 

Mr. Wise. Do you have that in an analysis that we could have 
for the record? 

General Williams. Right, I will provide the data used for the re- 
organization plan, for the record. 

[The information received from General Williams follows:] 



470 



Annualized Workload Projections by District 





TOTAL 


DISTRICTS 


WORKLOAD 


Vicksburg 


$158,517 


Memphis 


$141,852 


New Orleans 


$246,321 


St. Louis 


$91,530 


Kansas City 


$262,431 


Omaha 


$406,015 


Baltimore 


$447,264 


New York 


$261,025 


Norfolk 


$200,204 


Philadelphia 


$207,064 


Buffalo 


$37,847 


Chicago 


$41,447 


Detroit 


$75,463 


Rock island 


$131,253 


St. Paul 


$67,139 


New England 


$107,586 


Alaska 


$117,213 


Portland 


$249,009 


Seattle 


$92,098 


Walla Walla 


$100,011 


Huntington 


$158,005 


Louisville 


$375,427 


Nashville 


$95,658 


Pittsburgh 


$137,467 


Charleston 


$51,222 


Jacksonville 


$147,312 


Mobile 


$423,331 


Savannah 


$395,451 


Wilmington 


$95,016 


Sacramento 


$459,518 


Los Angeles 


$392,293 


San Francisco 


$75,741 


Albuquerque 


$87,017 


Fort Worth 


$442,740 


Galveston 


$168,114 


Little Rock 


$131,273 


Tulsa 


$238,534 



'Annualized projections of workload used during reorganization 
planning for division workload balancing. In thousands of dollar 



471 

General Williams. Work load is very misleading. You need to get 
inside and look at the work load. If you say, the Huntington Dis- 
trict, for example, right now has, say, about $150 million annual 
work load, I would say that most of that work load is being per- 
formed on a construction site — for example, on the construction of 
Gallipolis Locks and Dam. That is a construction office, and all 
those people that do construction, and all the dollars associated 
with that do not leave the district after reorganization. 

If there is dredging in the district, all the dollars associated with 
the dredging are under the operations or construction-operations 
office, and that element stays in the district. 

The element that is associated with all that work load that deals 
with design is what will be reduced; and that is a very small dollar 
amount that is associated with the design effort, a very small per- 
centage. 

Mr. Wise. But yet a significant work load is occurring. My time 
is running short, so I have to ask you two questions, but I want 
to leave you an example and then I am going to ask the question 
on whether — going around the bam to get to the same result. But 
I think it goes to what you are pointing out. 

You were aware of the environmental problems at the Winfield 
Locks. And this is why I get concerned about this problem reorga- 
nization taking place. At a February 24th, 1993, Huntington, West 
Virginia symposium, the Army distributed a work plan including 
the dates that draft documents would be available to the public, 
specified review periods and when construction was started. We 
were also promised risk analyses and assessments relating to the 
particular components of construction. 

Now, interestingly enough, as the months have passed — this is, 
as you know, personally, a very emotional, controversial topic; Dr. 
Dickey and you. General, both have been directly involved in this. 
As the months have passed, we have been provided with copies of 
all construction plans and specs on schedule, those that are written 
in Huntington. However, the corresponding risk analysis and as- 
sessment — most of which have been contracted to consultants, 
mostly in Atlanta through the Nashville District — have been con- 
sistently late, if received at all. 

My concern is that we have got problems with — we have got an 
umbrella committee, we have State agencies that have to sign off 
on construction plans and specs, and yet we can't get the basic 
analysis that needs to be performed for that. 

I am going to save this overall topic for another day, which I 
hope we have, but my concern is that — how on earth can I expect 
better coordination with my constituents and the State agencies, 
when the personnel that handle these things are moved several 
hundred miles away? 

Now, I know you want to answer it and I want you to answer 
it, but I have got to ask this question before we go; and so I will 
be happy if you want to submit that in writing. 

[The information received from General Williams follows:] 

With or without carrying through the proposed reorganization at the district level, 
many of the same people currently coordinating with local interests, the project 
managers, would still be in Huntington, as in all the other districts. Congressman 
Wise properly notes with regard to the Winfield project that the plans and specs, 
performed in-house at Huntington, have proceeded on schedule while the contracted 



472 

work, done in other cities, has been delayed. This delay is related more to the dif- 
ficulty of the analyses being performed by the contractors than to their location, or 
to the location of the Corps office contracting with them. We do not believe imple- 
menting the proposed reorganization would retard project progress. 

Mr. Wise. Executive Order 12839, February 10th, 1993, called 
for a 4 percent reduction in the program work force over the next 
three fiscal years. The Ohio River Division targeted a reduction in 
its FTEs, Full-Time Equivalent personnel, as follows: Cincinnati 
Division, one; Pittsburgh Division, 12; Louisville Division, 16; 
Nashville Division, 36, which is 28 percent of all the cuts; Hunting- 
ton District, 60, which took 47 percent of the cuts. 

To me, the reorganization is on hold. That has been stated. The 
Secretary of Defense is reviewing it. Others have indicated that 
they don't think it is going anywhere, but the implementation of 
this order seems like a circuitous attempt, back door if you will, to 
align the district office staffs with the proposed reorganization 
plan, which is supposed to be on hold. 

Could you comment on that? 

General Williams. Yes, sir, I can. It is 

Mr. Wise. Mr. Chairman, I will stay if you all want to go, and 
then I will be glad to recess it. 

Mr. BoRSKi. Why don't we do just that? We will take a very brief 
recess at the conclusion of Mr. Wise. 

Mr. Wise. You all go on if you want. I will just recess. Only one 
of us should have to be late for the vote. 

General Williams. Mr. Chairman, do you want me to 

Mr. BORSKI. Yes, please. 

General Williams. Okay. It is true that we are under Executive 
order to cut personnel like other agencies are. And we have, in fact, 
analyzed at our headquarters the cuts and divided those up to each 
of our divisions. Those cuts that we divided up to the divisions 
were based upon a ten-year projection for civil works and a five- 
year projection for military programs. Based on that work load for 
each of our divisions, we took the percentage cut that each of those 
divisions would have to take. 

We then gave those cuts out to the divisions, in this case the 
Ohio River Division. The Ohio River Division, in turn, has looked 
at the districts within its division. The division has looked at the 
work load for each one of those districts and taken a proportional 
share of the cuts. 

So it is based upon work load. And in the case of a reorganiza- 
tion, what you are going to find is that, if you do not reorganize, 
that is how you have to operate; it will be work load driven or mar- 
ket driven, if you will. 

And so what you may have in the particular case of the Hunting- 
ton District, which is the case in several districts that we have 
within the Corps, is that they currently have on board more people 
than can be justified with the work load you have; and now you 
are finding a situation where we are trying to bring it back in bal- 
ance. 

Mr. Wise. Just, I appreciate — once again, I understand it went 
to the — you assigned those cuts to the division, the Ohio River Di- 
vision, but I have got to presume that the Huntington District — 
as a new district in the new division, I have got to assume the 



473 

Huntington District has the largest civil works load, it has the en- 
vironmental clean-up in both McClintic and Winfield, which are 
Superfund sites technically, plus the additional work it has been 
doing, and yet you say that it takes a proportional share of the 
cuts. Forty-seven percent of the cuts for the entire division are not 
proportional for that work load. Dr. Dickey. 

Dr. Dickey. I have recently spent more time on this issue than 
I would like to, within the last 24 hours particularly, and let me 
just say that the work load, the manpower allocations done by the 
division, were based on their computer model which is based on 
work load. In implementing that and issuing the final guidance 
there, they modified the results slightly to reduce the effect of the 
strict application of the computer model. So it is based on work 
load. 

I would be happy to sit down with you separately and go through 
that. 

But indeed, that is the work load driven model. 

Mr. Wise. Well, we are looking forward to going through that. 
With two of the seven approved inland waterway projects under 
construction in that district alone, I think that we had better go 
back and look at the software. 

I would just like to say, what is the status of that? Is this also 
on hold, this FTE reduction? 

Dr. Dickey. The FTE reduction is projected for 1994 and 1995. 
We do these twice a year, and it is to give the district offices guid- 
ance as to what the direction of their program is in terms of their 
manpower. 

Mr. Wise. Okay. We will be back and revisiting this, Dr. Dickey. 

General, thank you. 

At this point, by all the authority herein vested, I declare this 
in recess until somebody comes back. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. BORSKI. The subcommittee will reconvene. The Chair recog- 
nizes the gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr. Zeliff. 

Mr. Zeliff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Looking over your five 
criteria here and some of the testimony that has gone before us, 
how much effort was there to take a look at work load? Admittedly 
there is a 40 percent reduction in work load since 1962, but what 
about existing work load and the establishment of where the dis- 
trict offices should be located? 

Dr. Dickey. Well, one of the problems using work load is to 
project it. We don't have a very good projection of our work load 
at all. General, maybe you could address this as well. The longest 
projection we have is for the civil program because the planning 
process is so long, but in terms of the other things we do, civil is 
only $4 billion out of a total of $11 billion program. There is a lot 
more uncertainty in the other stuff. 

General Williams. We do have data on work loads. As I indi- 
cated earlier in my statement, in our civil works mission, we try 
to project out the best we can for 10 years. The farther out you get, 
the figures become questionable. And our military construction pro- 
gram in our database, we have a database of five years into the fu- 
ture. So those work load data were available by districts. 



474 

We used it in the previous plan which we did under the base re- 
alignment and closure. We found that the work load really was not 
something that we were using as a criteria for the decision-making 
process. We felt that the field advisory committee, the rec- 
ommendations that they made with regards to the criteria, I would 
have to go back and refresh my memory on what all of them 
were — ^but I don't recall that the work load per se was one of the 
criteria. 

Mr. Zeliff. So it wasn't necessarily designed to be areas of re- 
sponsibility or circles of responsibility based on work load? 

General Williams. No, because as I tried to explain earlier, the 
work load can be misleading. You need to go in and understand 
what the work load is. A couple of examples, if I might; the dredg- 
ing that you do has a dollar associated with it which associates to 
work load. All of that under the proposed reorganization is still 
done at the districts so that work load doesn't go away to some 
other technical center and so forth. 

The construction of new projects, such as I was mentioning, the 
dollars associated with that work load still remain with the district 
as of today and in the proposed reorganization. All of the dollars 
associated with operating and maintaining our permanent projects 
such as locks and dams and reservoirs and recreation areas and so 
forth, all of that stays with the current district. 

So the things that have dollars associated with them as work 
loads that in some cases would go somewhere else would be those 
design dollars, which are a very small portion of what is work load. 
So if you just tally up all the dollars associated with different work 
loads, it can be misleading and you really don't get a true picture 
of what it is that you are trying to pull together as far as an orga- 
nization to accomplish the mission, at least that was our judgment. 

Mr. Zeliff. In your field advisory committee — and in hearing 
some of the testimony here, did you go outside of that group in 
your own group? Did you talk to people that you have been work- 
ing with over time in various groups relative to the reorganization, 
getting any input from the outside as well? Or was it pretty much 
a sort of a tight-knit closed decision process? 

General Williams. The final decision process, the decision was 
made by a small group of people. But I can go into that if you de- 
sire. The gathering of information was a very open process. It start- 
ed, for example, of being directed by Congress to prepare a report, 
which we gave to Congress on the 4th of January of 1991, and it 
said, here is at least six different types of organizational structures 
that one could consider and these are the three criteria that we 
would probably use to evaluate these alternatives. 

So that was the first piece of information that was public infor- 
mation that people could respond to and we did get input from 
that. 

The second way we got information was when we prepared our 
reorganization process under the BRAC process and that process 
required that you not have an open process until you made the de- 
cision, then it became public. As soon as it became public, that plan 
then produced a lot of input from a variety of sources, both internal 
and external to the Corps and that was put into the memory bank, 
if you would. 



475 

The field advisory committee was an organization that rep- 
resented 50 people from senior management throughout our dis- 
tricts and divisions and they had access to not only people within 
the Corps, but other outside access, professional societies, people 
they worked with and so forth. So they had opportunities to ex- 
press concern and so forth. 

We testified before the House and Senate authorization commit- 
tees and the House and Senate Appropriations Committees this 
past year to outline where we were going and the criteria that we 
were going to use. Subsequent to that, people gave us feedback in 
more ways than one; either verbal, telephone calls, writing, meet- 
ings with various people, some staff members that we presented 
briefings to and we got feedback from that. 

We also used a hotline and an organization which we called the 
reorganization office in my headquarters that was composed of peo- 
ple from the field, both district and division, that represented those 
people. We got hotline calls from people both inside and outside the 
Corps. We also used senior advisory groups within the Corps at dif- 
ferent levels to provide feedback. 

We tasked a separate committee, a task force headed up by Brig- 
adier General Albert J. Genetti, and he had about 10 or 12 people 
on it that came from various districts and divisions. That task force 
was recommended by the field advisory committee. The field advi- 
sory committee suggested a task force, the field advisory committee 
suggested what the scope of work would be for the Genetti task 
force. And the field advisory committee recommended several other 
things. 

So there was a combination of all of those that allowed input. 
What we did not do is take the prepared plan with the specifics, 
the plan that we now know as the reorganization plan, and prior 
to going public on the 19th of November, make it public; whether 
it be in congressional committees, within the Corps of Engineers or 
anyone else. To do that, I think, is unrealistic. 

Mr. Zeliff. I would agree. Let me just ask you this, then: In 
looking at your mission, again recognizing that there is a major re- 
duction in work load since 1962, 40 percent, did you look at areas 
of opportunity such as Superfund? I have worked with Superfund 
now up in New Hampshire. And basically with EPA and a lot of 
the money and a lot of the resources of EPA are going to outside 
vendors, and I have said right along that we should be using the 
Corps to a far greater extent than we are. 

Did you — was some of this considered? I know you deal with 
some Superfund sites, particularly DOD and places like that where 
you have base closures. But how much effort was put into expand- 
ing the mission rather than just cutting back the Corps? 

General Williams. We did look at missions such as the one you 
suggested in regards to environmental cleanup. For several years 
now we have been involved with environmental cleanup, whether 
it be working on a reimbursable basis for the Environmental Pro- 
tection Agency or the Department of Energy or in charge of the De- 
fense Environmental Restoration Program for active installations 
or formerly used defense sites, the Corps has the responsibility for 
the Department of Defense in those cleanups. 



476 

Currently, we do about $300 million a year of design and reme- 
dial cleanup for EPA. 

Mr. Zeliff. $300 million is a very small percentage of the total 
potential out there. 

General WILLIAMS. Right. And we do about $60 million of envi- 
ronmental design and cleanup for the Department of Energy and 
we are involved with about $800 million of environmental cleanup 
for Defense. So it is a very substantial effort that the Corps is in- 
volved in. 

We have continued to build up our expertise in that area. We 
have done a good job in those areas. Our customers have told us 
that. The Corps thinks that — and I concur — that we have a very 
talented group. We have a lot of capability to take on additional 
work load if the EPA or Department of Energy or others decide to 
use the Corps. 

Mr. Zeliff. Mr. Chairman, on the way back you and I talked. It 
may be best that we reserve this — a lot of the questioning for an- 
other hearing, but what I see, and I am a businessman from New 
Hampshire and I see it everyday down here, here we do a major 
cutback in the Corps in terms of dollars and your mission and ev- 
erything else and, on the other side, we watch the EPA go out and 
hire a lot of the stuff that you guys can be doing on the private 
sector and that is okay too. 

And I agree, my experience with the Corps has been it is an out- 
standing resource of the Federal Government. And you know, it 
just seems to me that we have a resource that we should be ex- 
panding before we cut back to levels that would eventually put you 
in a situation where you are not doing the job that you are ulti- 
mately able to do. 

It just seems to me that we ought to evaluate some of that in 
terms of increasing the mission. 

Mr. Wise. Would the gentleman yield? 

General Williams. Sir, we would welcome an increase in that 
mission. I am in the process of trying to get Mrs. Browner to talk 
about the Corps' capability and to discuss our services to date for 
the EPA. The reorganization plan that is on the table does not de- 
crease the people that are currently associated with the environ- 
mental design and restoration. 

In fact, the plan's intent is to develop organizations that will 
have the capability and the flexibility to respond to increased work 
load in whatever mission you may have. 

Mr. Wise. Would the gentleman yield for a follow-up? 

Mr. Zeliff. Sure. 

Mr. Wise. You mentioned work load and we have been talking 
about that; you said work load could not be measured just by dol- 
lars, I think is the gist that I got. Construction, work load, a lot 
of dollars, maybe you don't have as much work would be the as- 
sumption, then Dr. Dickey, you had said to my last question on the 
FTE reduction that you worked off of a computer program using a 
work load. 

Is that the same criteria that you used in the reorganization? 

Dr. Dickey. The computer model looks at the categories of work. 
It addresses the problem that General Williams indicated. It looks 



477 

at labor-intensive kinds of activities. Design versus construction, 
and so forth. 

Mr. Wise. Would that computer program have been used in the 
reorganization as well in making the basic decisions in measuring 
the work load? 

Dr. Dickey. We didn't make our decisions in the reorganization 
based on work load. 

Mr. Wise. You did or did not? 

Dr. Dickey. Did not. 

Mr. Zeliff. Can I add one fast comment and finish it up? As you 
look for new areas to relocate to, and I think of your move to Bos- 
ton and the expansion of Boston facilities, I would encourage you 
to include in your outreach in looking for the ideal area, university 
support, transportation support. Pease, the first base to close in the 
Base Closure Act in New Hampshire, would be a good idea. 

Mr. BORSKI. The gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Rahall. 

Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Dickey, General Wil- 
liams, you did not do an economic environmental evaluation study 
prior to announcing this