DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Hon. JACOB K. JAVITS, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR JAVITS: This letter is in further reply to the letter that you and Senator Goodell addressed to the Chief of Engineers regarding policies on Federal participation in beach erosion control, hurricane flood protection, and inland flood control, in which you suggest that the Corps and the Congress consider one program of beach protection under which the Federal share would be a flat 70 percent. Your statement regarding beach protection projects that involve a combination of beach erosion control and hurricane flood protection is correct. That is, the cost-sharing is computed by an “averaging" or weighting of the shares under the separate policies for each type of project. The degree of Federal cost-sharing, however, varies for these types of projects, and is not necessarily 50 percent. Cost-sharing for beach erosion control, for instance, provides for Federal participation of 50 percent in the costs.of protection on non-Federal publicly owned or used shores and up to 70 percent for protection on State and other public shores and conservation areas. No Federal participation is provided for shores that are in private ownership and use, while Federal frontage is protected at full Federal cost. The policy for hurricane and tidal flood protection is derived from precedent set by projects authorized in the Flood Control Act of 1958. It is the policy of the Chief of Engineers to recommend that non-Federal interests assume no less than 30 percent of the first cost, including lands, easements, and rights-ofway. Multiple-purpose projects for hurricane flood protection and control of shore erosion are frequently proposed. For these, the costs allocated to each purpose are apportioned on the basis of the above policies. The cost-sharing for projects on the South Shore of Long Island, which occasioned your letter, is in accord with these principles but is complicated by a number of special circumstances, including presence of the authorized Fire Island National Seashore. The policy for Federal flood control on inland rivers stems from Section 3 of the Flood Control Act of 1936, as amended. For local protection projects, nonFederal entities are required to provide lands, easements, and rights-of-way. Flood control reservoirs are generally exempt from such requirements except in cases where the benefits are confined to a single locality and the project is in lieu of local protection works. Special local cooperation, usually as a cash contribution, may be recommended for flood protection projects that produce "windfall" benefits to a few beneficiaries, or that involve land drainage benefits. Generally speaking, under existing law and policy, local entities provide a large degree of cost-sharing for beach erosion and hurricane flood protection projects than for flood control projects. Concerning your request for views of the Corps of Engineers on legislation to amend cost-sharing for beach protection projects, existing Department procedures provide that an expression on the merits of proposed legislation is made by the Secretary of the Army in response to a request from a Congressional Committee having such legislation under consideration, and after coordination with the Bureau of the Budget. I shall be glad, however, to clarify and discuss the application of existing policies more fully with you, if you wish. I am writing a similar letter to Senator Goodell on this matter. R. H. GROVES, Colonel, Corps of Engineers, Acting Director of Civil Works. Lt. Gen. FREDERICK J. CLARKE, FEBRUARY 12, 1970. Chief, Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C. DEAR GENERAL CLARKE: By letter of June 17, 1969, (Ref: ENGCW-RL), in response to our inquiry of April 18, 1969, Brigadier General R. H. Groves, then Acting Director of Civil Works, Corps of Engineers, outlined the extent to which the Federal government participates under existing law in beach erosion control. hurricane flood protection, and inland flood control projects. His response has been most helpful and we appreciate all the assistance he has given us. May we respectfully request additional information describing in more detail the Federal participation in those projects which General Groves mentioned. Specifically: 1. How many single purpose beach erosion control projects, which affect the seashores of the United States and which provide for Federal participation of up to 50% of the costs of protection on non-federal publicly owned or used shores, per State, have been authorized and approved by the Corps and of these how many have been or are in the process of implementation since the adoption of present section 426(e)(b) of U.S.C. Title 33 (1962); and what is the total cost, per State, of the projects implemented or presently being implemented, for each fiscal year? 2. How many single purpose beach erosion control projects, which affect the seashores of the United States and which provide for Federal participation of up to 70% of the costs of protection on State and other public shores and conservation areas, per State, have been authorized and approved by the Corps and of these how many have been or are in the process of implementation since the adoption of present section 426 (e) (b) (supra); and what is the total cost. per State, of the projects implemented or presently being implemented, for each fiscal year? 3. How many multiple-purpose projects for hurricane flood protection and beach erosion control, which affect the seashores of the United States and in which the Federal cost is computed by an "averaging" or weighting of the shares under the separate cost-sharing policies for each type of project, per State, have been authorized and approved by the Corps and of these how many have been or are in the process of implementation since the adoption of present section 426 (e)(b) (supra); and what is the total cost, per State, of the projects implemented or presently being implemented, for each fiscal year? What has been (is) the average percentage Federal commitment (shared costs) of these multiple purpose projects for each fiscal year since adoption of present section 426 (e)(b) (supra)? 4. With regard to Federal policy concerning flood control projects on inland rivers, General Groves states: "Generally speaking, under existing law and policy, local entities provide a larger degree of cost-sharing for beach erosion and hurricane flood protection projects than for flood control projects." With reference to this statement, what do you estimate has been (is) the average percentage Federal share of the costs of these inland flood control projects for each fiscal year since the adoption of present section 426 (e) (b) (supra)? Further, what specific items are the local entities required to provide as their contribution for the cost of (a) beach erosion and hurricane flood protection projects affecting the seashores of the U.S., and (b) flood control projects? We would appreciate receiving this information as quickly as possible. Thank you very much for your cooperation and assistance. With best wishes, Sincerely, I JACOB K. JAVITS. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Hon. JACOB K. JAVITS, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR JAVITS: This is in further reply to the letter signed jointly by you and Senator Goodell requesting information describing the Federal participation in beach erosion control, hurricane flood protection and inland flood control projects. In response to your request there are inclosed four tables listing the types of projects to which you refer. The information on these tables deviates slightly from that requested in your letter, principally in that you asked for the total cost, per State, per year, and the information furnished is on a per project 1 basis. Also, Table IV lists those inland local flood protection projects on which work is currently underway instead of all local flood protection on which work was performed since 1962. These changes were discussed in a meeting with Mr. Young of your office and Miss Alice Tetelman of Senator Goodell's office, and they agreed that the information presented on the inclosed tables is satisfactory for the purposes required. There are also inclosed the specific items local entities are generally required to provide as their contribution for the cost of beach erosion, hurricane flood potection and local flood control projects. Construction of a project is contingent upon assurances from local entities that they will provide the items of local cooperation specifically required in the project authorization. Sincerely yours, LEONARD EDELSTEIN, Colonel, Corps of Engineers, Assistant Director of Civil Works for TABLE I-ACTIVE AUTHORIZED CORPS OF ENGINEERS SINGLE PURPOSE BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROJECTS WITH FEDERAL PARTICIPATION UP TO 50 PERCENT These projects were authorized subsequent to/or modified by the 1962 Act. California: 3 projects all of which are partially complete. Total estimated Federal cost__ Total estimated non-Federal cost. Average percent of Federal participation____ $5, 172, 000 5, 319, 000 49.3 Connecticut: 2 projects, one of which is partially complete and the other has not been started. Total estimated Federal cost- Total estimated non-Federal cost_ Average percent of Federal participation____. $272, 000 1,402,000 16. 3 Florida: 6 projects, 3 of which has work underway, the Federal participation is a low percent due to large amount of beach in private ownership. Massachusetts: 5 projects, 2 completed one of which is in the FY 1971 Budget Average percent of Federal participation_. TABLE I.-ACTIVE AUTHORIZED CORPS OF ENGINEERS SINGLE PURPOSE BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROJECTS WITH FEDERAL PARTICIPATION OF TO 50 PERCENT— Continued New Hampshire. 2 propects, one was completed in 1965 and the other is not started. Total estimated Federal cost.... Total estimate non-Federal cost-- Average percent of Federal participation_-_ $215,000 281,600 43. 4 New Jersey: 10 propects, three of which are partially completed and seven are not started. Total estimated Federal cost__. Total estimated non-Federal cost____ Average percent of Federal participation_-_ Puerto Rico: 1 project partially complete. Total estimated Federal cost__ Total estimated non-Federal cost Average percent of Federal participation_-_ Rhode Island: 1 Budgeted project, work not yet started. Total estimated Federal cost.. Total estimated non-Federal cost___ Average percent of Federal participation‒‒‒‒ Virginia: 1 project for 25 year beach replenishment work underway. Total estimated Federal cost-- Total estimated non-Federal cost- Average percent of Federal participation.... Total of the above 36 projects. Total estimated Federal cost. $25, 211, 000 39, 315, 000 39.1 $254,000 1,546, 000 14.1 $293,000 997, 000 22.7 $1, 350, 000 1,370,000 49.6 $38, 829, 100 65, 945, 100 37.0 TABLE II.-ACTIVE AUTHORIZED, CORPS OF ENGINEERS SINGLE PURPOSE BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROJECTS WITH FEDERAL PARTICIPATION OF 51 TO 70 PERCENT These projects were authorized subsequent to/or modified by the 1962 Act. California: 3 projects-one complete and 2 partially complete. Federal participation is 54.0 to 66.7 percent. Total estimated Federal Cost-. Average percent of Federal participation___. $6,862, 000 3,998,000 63. 2 Florida: 4 projects-1 partially complete and 3 not started. Federal participation is 51.5 to 70 percent depending on lands in private ownership. Total estimated Federal cost. Total estimated non-Federal cost___. Average percent of Federal participation----. $3,345,000 2,453, 000 57.6 Hawaii: 2 projects-1 complete with State awaiting Federal reimbursement and the other is not started. Federal participation is 60 and 65.5 percent. Total estimated Federal cost--- Total estimated non-Federal cost- Average percent of Federal participation--- $2,742,000 1,478, 000 65.0 Illinois: 3 not started projects. Federal participation is 60 percent in one proj TABLE II.-ACTIVE AUTHORIZED, CORPS OF ENGINEERS SINGLE PURPOSE BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROJECTS WITH FEDERAL PARTICIPATION OF 51 TO 70 PERCENT— Continued Massachusetts: 4 projects-1 currently underway and 3 not started. Federal participation 53.3 to 70 percent. Total estimated Federal cost-. Total estimated non-Federal cost___ Average percent of Federal participation_‒‒‒ $1,443, 000 851, 000 62.9 New Hampshire: 1 project completed in 1963 with Federal participation of 70 percent. Total estimated Federal cost__ Total estimated non-Federal cost. Average percent of Federal participation_‒‒‒ New Jersey: 1 project not started. Federal participation is 56 percent. Total estimated non-Federal cost__ $65,000 28, 000 70.0 $166, 000 129,000 56. 3 New York: 3 projects-1 is partially complete and 2 have not started. Federal participation is 54 percent on one project due to work completed prior to the 1962 Act being at 33% percent and the remaining work being 70 percent. The other two projects have Federal participation at 70 percent. Total estimated Federal cost__ Total estimated non-Federal cost___ Average percent of Federal participation__-- $2,072, 000 979, 000 67.9 North Carolina: 2 projects-one partially complete and one not started. Federal participation is 66.2 percent and 100 percent due to the project being solely for the purpose of protecting Federal lands i.e.: National Seashore. Total estimated Federal cost--. Total estimated non-Federal cost.. Average percent of Federal participation____ $8,074, 000 446, 000 94.8 Ohio 2 projects not started. Federal participation on one is 70 percent and on the other is 60 percent. In the latter, local interests are required to relocate an existing storm sewer. Total estimated Federal cost Total estimated non-Federal cost.. $2,562, 000 1, 158, 000 Average percent of Federal participation___ 68.9 Pennsylvania: 1 project a modification to the completed original project. These modifications are partially complete. The average percent of Federal participation is 52, however, all remaining work will be at 70 percent. South Carolina: 1 partially completed project with Federal participation at 70 percent. |