BEACH & WATERWAY STATUS Demystifying & Solving The President’s Budget For FY 2006

1. BEACH & WATERWAY STATUSDemystifying & Solving The President’s Budget For FY 2006

2. THE FEDERAL BUDGET“rules of engagement” • FEDERAL FY–October 1st thru September 30th *FY 2006 = October 1, 2005 thru September 30, 2006* • PRESIDENT’S BUDGET– Released to Congress the first Monday in February (FY 2006 = February 7, 2005). *Establishes Budget Framework & Spending Priorities* Note: Provides Non-Discretionary AND Discretionary Funds *35-yr Trend – Mandatory Outlay as % of budget is climbing up* • DISCRETIONARY ALLOCATION DEBATED BY MEANS OF ~11 APPROPRIATION BILLS

3. DISCRETIONARY FUNDING“more rules of engagement” • ENERGY & WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROP. BILL Contains Federal Funds for the US Army Corps of Engineers, i.e., “Beach and Waterway Funding” • HOUSE & SENATE Appropriation Committee “Pool” 10 - 12 Appropriation Subcommittees • HOUSE / SENATE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE • BACK TO PRESIDENT BY OCTOBER 1st Continuing Resolutions & Omnibus Packages are the “Norm”

4. PRESIDENT’S FY 2006 BUDGET“macroscopic highlights” • $2,570,000,000,000 Proposal $451,000,000,000 military $389,000,000,000 non-military $840,000,000,000 discretionary total • Corps Budget = $4,500,000,000 (0.18% of total budget) (0.54% of discretionary) (1.17% of non-military) “Hold the Line Mindset”

5. PRESIDENT’S FY 2006 BUDGET“N.C. & Local Water Resource Highlights” • State AIWW = $860,000 total (Capability = ~$11 million) • Shallow Draft Inlets and Connecting Channels = $0.0 (Maintained by Corps dredging plants – Merritt, Fry, & Currituck) (Bogue, New River, New Topsail, Carolina Beach) & Lockwoods Folly Inlets (Exceptions have reasoning) • Deep Draft Harbors & Ports = $37,438,000 (Morehead City Harbor = $3,575,000 for Outer Harbor) (Wilmington Harbor = $19,900,000 const., $13,963,000 maintenance)

6. PRESIDENT’S FY 2006 BUDGET“N.C. & Local Water Resource Highlights” • Statewide Beach Nourishment/Shore Protection = $0.0 (Bogue Banks, Dare, Onslow, Pender, and Brunswick Counties) (All phases – construction, feasibility studies, etc.) • One Exception – Wrightsville Beach = $890,000 (Why? – Project with proven/implied cause & effect relationship) to navigation project. (Masonboro Inlet & Connecting Channels = $3,700,000)

7. DEEP DRAFT CHANNELS FUNDED– linkages to N.C. Ports equates to adequate maintenance dredging funds. • SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNELS NOT FUNDED– buoy systems almost removed in 4 out of 5 shallow waterway inlets in FY 2005 maintained by Corps. • BEACH NOURISHMENT NOT FUNDED– only exceptions lie where cause and effect linkages to navigation are established. Options to coalesce waterway dredging with beach nourishment are more difficult to conceptualize and implement as well. STATE & LOCAL WATER RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS “A Metaphor For National Trends”

8. N.C. WATERWAY STATUS “DOWNWARD TREND”

9. N.C. WATERWAY STATUS “APPROPRIATION CHICKEN ” CONCERN – who will fund and shore protection and waterway dredging in the future? SLIPPERY SLOPE – Do State & Local Governments want to “volunteer” funds for Federal Responsibilities? Federal channels maintained by Federal dredges. New permitting issues. New dredged material management issues. Funding issues.

10. BEACH & WATERWAY SOLUTIONS Parochial & Non-Parochial Approaches • Important to Act Locally for Congressional Adds OMB vs. Congress • ”If Giveth, then Taketh Away” Congress willlikely be placed in a spending box with a finite cap for theCorps of Engineers. • Take Big-Picture Viewpoint Up to Constituents to make Beach and Waterway Maintenance & Construction a National Priority. (non-parochial effort)

11. “WWW. PROTECT THE BEACH .COM”