Democrats and Republicans on both sides of Capitol Hill blasted President Obama's 2013 budget proposals for the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, assailing both proposals for spending too little on needed infrastructure and water-delivery projects.

"Candidly, I don't think these budgets provide adequate resources to fund ongoing work," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, during a review of both budgets yesterday afternoon.

At a hearing of the Reclamation budget yesterday morning in the House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, Republicans focused their criticism on the administration's environmental initiatives.

"There is some concern that you are sort of migrating to areas that have an environmental perspective," said Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.). "There is some concern that you have left your historical base where there are some acute infrastructure needs."

In the Senate, Republicans and Democrats were united in their opposition to the Army Corps proposal in particular, which they said shortchanged critical infrastructure and levee safety needs. The Obama administration has proposed $4.7 billion for the Army Corps in fiscal 2013, $271 million, or 5.4 percent, below this year's spending.

Feinstein echoed criticism of a lack of transparency raised in previous budget reviews for the Army Corps. She noted that 46 of the 95 construction projects listed a benefit-to-cost ratio, suggesting "that more than half of the projects proposed for funding utilize a much more intangible set of budget criteria."

"A skeptic might even say that these budget decisions are arbitrary or politically based," she said.

Several senators railed against the system for funding inland waterways used by the barge shipping industry. A lack of maintenance of locks, dams and navigation channels has created $8 billion in needs, according to industry.

Senators warned that the current system has left the Army Corps unprepared to make the strategic investments needed to ensure that the United States is ready to accept the increased flow of freighter traffic that is expected once enlargements to the Panama Canal are completed in 2014.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) urged to plan first and worry about money later. "Think first about what do we need to do -- what's our vision for the future -- then see if we can match money and procedures to the vision we have," he said.

Much of the dwindling money available for those repairs is being consumed by the the Olmstead Locks and Dam project. Originally estimated to cost $775 million when the project began in 1988, Olmstead was recently estimated to cost $3.1 billion and take another decade or longer to complete.

Alexander suggested that the project be funded separately from the rest of the system to free up cash for other needs. Assistant Secretary of the Army of Civil Works Jo Ellen Darcy said that was impossible unless Congress changed the law that dictates that such projects be funded from a specific trust fund.

"I think we'd have to look at the competing priorities in the system," Alexander said.

"The priorities have been talked about with the industry, as well," Darcy replied. "Unfortunately, it's a very expensive project."

Alexander asked about the funding for the Chickamauga Lock, a major lock in his district in need of work. After some back-and-forth, Maj. Gen. Merdith "Bo" Temple, acting chief of engineers for the Army Corps, conceded that its continued operation was in jeopardy.

"We don't anticipate that it would close within the next five years," Temple finally said, correcting an earlier statement that it could close at the end of 2013. "It could, but we don't anticipate that it will."

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) echoed criticism of the Army Corps budget proposal's size, which she said was inadequate to meet waterway investment needs.

"We're going to need a bigger budget -- there's absolutely no way around it," Landrieu said. "It simply does not have enough money to maintain or invest or build the structures that we have to build for an economy that will last. And that's just the simple truth."

Reclamation

House appropriators' criticism of the Reclamation proposal focused on environmental programs.

Frelinghuysen said because there was limited funding, he wanted the agency to focus on efforts that had economic benefits and would lead to job creation. He wondered aloud if infrastructure was a top priority for the bureau and said environmental projects were costly.

Some of the budget lines are $53.9 million for WaterSMART, $6.5 million for climate change risk assessments, and $128 million for the Central Valley Project, which includes ecosystem restoration.

Reclamation Commissioner Mike Connor replied that infrastructure is one of the top two priorities for the agency, the other being sustaining operations. The agency has requested $7.3 million for an aging infrastructure program.

"What you see as a transition to environmental restoration work, I look at as ... integral to our mission," he said.

Although the Senate committee focused almost entirely on the Army Corps' budget, Feinstein asked about dry conditions in the drought-prone Central Valley of California, noting that farmers were receiving 30 percent of their water allocations from Reclamation because of the shortage.

The minimum needed for a suitable harvest was 45 percent, Feinstein said she had been told. She asked if Reclamation would be able to get there.

"I don't know that we'll be able to get to 45 percent," Connor said. "We're certainly striving toward that goal, to get to 45 percent, through the allocation and additional water supplies."

He added: "It's going to be very tough this year."