[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 135 (Thursday, September 26, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H11322-H11330]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 640 WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to
the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 640) to provide for the
conservation and development of water and related resources, to
authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for
improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other
purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
(For conference report and statement see proceedings of the House of
September 25, 1996, at page H11158.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Borski] each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster]
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, the conference report on S. 640, the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996, is a comprehensive authorization of
the water resources programs of the Army Corps of Engineers. It
represents 4 years of bipartisan effort to preserve and develop the
water infrastructure that is vital to the Nation's safety and economic
well-being.
First, let me thank and congratulate my colleagues on the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure for their vision and tireless
efforts in helping move this legislation. I want to give special thanks
to Committee Ranking Member Jim Oberstar, Subcommittee Chairman,
Sherwood Boehlert, and the Subcommittee Ranking Member Bob Borski.
Their leadership and contributions have been outstanding.
These Members, and ranking Republican on the committee Don Young,
also served with me as House conferees.
Mr. Speaker, in the 103d Congress, the House overwhelmingly passed
H.R. 4460, a bill that should have become the Water Resources
Development Act of 1994. Unfortunately, that bill did not become law,
and for the first time since 1986, Congress was unable to enact WRDA
legislation.
During the 104th Congress, we committed to restoring certainty to the
process and fulfilling or commitment to non-Federal project sponsors,
most of whom had already committed substantial funds to projects.
We conducted 4 days of hearings, receiving testimony from over 90
witnesses, including numerous Members of Congress, the administration,
project sponsors, national water resources and environmental
organizations, and State and local officials.
The bill we bring to the floor today truly represents a fair and
balanced proposal.
Mr. Speaker, S. 640 accomplishes three important objectives:
First, it reflects the committee's continued commitment to improving
the Nation's water infrastructure.
Second, it responds to policy initiatives to modernize Corps of
Engineers activities and to achieve programmatic reforms.
Third, and this is very important, it takes advantage of Corps
capabilities and recognizes evolving national priorities by expanding
and creating new authorities for protecting and enhancing the
environment.
In developing this bill, we and the Senate conferees have tried hard
to be responsive to Member's requests; however, in today's tight fiscal
climate, we simple had to establish and adhere to reasonable review
criteria, such as the cost-sharing rules established in 1986.
In fact, in the area of flood control, we have actually increased the
non-Federal share for future projects. In another area--dredging for
navigation projects--we have revised the rules to assure consistency
and fairness in selecting methods for the disposal of dredged material.
Mr. Speaker, a few remarks on section 586 of the conference report
are warranted. This section is intended to remove impediments to the
``privatizaation'' of wastewater infrastructure assets through leases
and concessions. The conferees included certain conditions and
limitations to address potential concerns about the exercise of this
new authority. This pilot program does not impose, nor is it intended
to impose, any conditions or limitations on leases, concessions, or
other approaches to privatizing infrastructure assets under other
authorities. The conferees encourage EPA to make use of this section
and other authorities to promote privatization of infrastructure assets
funded under the Clean Water Act, as well as the Safe Drinking Water
Act and other water infrastructure programs.
S. 640 is a strong bipartisan bill. It reflects a balanced,
responsible approach to developing water infrastructure, preserving and
enhancing the environment, and strengthening Federal-State-and-local
partnerships.
I want to commend my colleague, Senator John Chafee and the other
Senate conferees, as well as the Senate staff, on their diligence in
helping make S. 640 a reality.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, a monumental amount of effort has gone into the final
development of this bill. The staff of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee the staff have devoted over 80 hours of effort to this bill.
While it will be impossible to mention everyone who has made this bill
a success, I would like to mention several key members of our staff
that contributed to this fine legislation: Lee Forsgren, Ben Grumbles,
Donna Campbell, Ken Kopocis, Art Chan, Pam Keller and Mike Strachn from
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; and Dan Delich, Jo-
Ellen Darcy, Linda Jordan, and Ann Loomis of the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee. In addition, the role of the House and Senate
legislative counsel offices was instrumental in writing the
legislation. I especially want to recognize David Mendelsohn of House
legislative counsel and Janine Johnson of Senate legislative counsel
for their efforts. Finally, I want to acknowledge the technical support
provided by the Corps of Engineers. Mr. Jim Rausch provided timely,
expert advice on technical matters relating to Corps of Engineers
projects and policies and played a key role in conference discussions.
In addition, Milton Rider, Gary Campbell, John Anderson, Bill Schmitz,
Jeff Groska, Juanita Guin, Philomena Herasingh provided valuable
assistance. We owe these professionals our gratitude.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
(Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remark.)
Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my strong support for the conference
report on S. 640, the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, which
authorizes important infrastructure related projects throughout the
Nation.
First, I want to pay my compliments to Chairman Shuster and Chairman
Boehlert for the absolutely fair and bipartisan way in which this bill
was handled. WRDA 1996 has been a bipartisan process from start to
finish.
I also want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the
distinguished ranking member of the full committee, for his help on the
bill.
I also want to thank the staff of the Subcommittee on Water Resources
and Environment, especially Ken Kopocis of the Democratic staff, Mike
Strachn of the Republican staff and David
[[Page H11323]]
Smallen of my personal staff, for all their hard work in putting this
bill together.
S. 640 demonstrates the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's
continuing strong commitment to investment in the Nation's
infrastructure. S. 640 is infrastructure legislation that is badly
needed.
That need has been clearly shown by the dozens of requests we have
received from Members seeking authorization for port development,
inland waterway, flood control, beach erosion, and other types of
projects.
The committee has done its absolute best to meet all of those needs
within the limits imposed by budget constraints and the restrictions on
the role of the Army Corps of Engineers.
We have also recognized that the failure of the last Congress to pass
a Water Resources Development Act in 1994 left us with a lot to do this
year. Harbor deepening, inland waterway improvements, and flood control
are vital cornerstones of our Nation's economic vitality.
The ports of America are the doors that link our Nation to billions
of dollars of international trade. In Philadelphia, our port supports
50,000 jobs--making a vital contribution to our regional economy. The
11,000 mile inland waterway system provides crucial transportation for
bulk farm products, coal, and other materials. It is absolutely
essential that we continue to provide funding for these important port
and inland waterway projects. Ports and inland waterways must be
maintained and improved as significant parts of our Nation's intermodal
transportation system.
S. 640 also continues the expansion of the mission of the Corps of
Engineers to include improvement of the environment. While the
expansion in this bill is not as great as I would have liked, it is a
step in the right direction.
We should be aggressive in using the talents and abilities of the
Corps of Engineers to meet our huge environmental infrastructure needs.
In flood control, this bill makes important changes that I support.
We have proposed to increase the requirements for mitigation planning
before structural flood control projects are built.
An upgraded mitigation program will save us money from start to
finish. We will be able to reduce the cost of project construction and
it is likely that we will reduce disaster relief costs.
We are also increasing the non-Federal cost sharing for flood control
projects from the current minimum of 25 to 35 percent.
This small increase is a simple recognition of our Federal budget
situation. We have dwindling resources available for these essential
programs.
An increase in the local share will help spread Federal dollars to
more projects and will help focus resources on more worthy projects.
The administration proposed a 50-percent non-Federal share which
would have done even more to spread scarce Federal dollars.
With restrictions on discretionary spending becoming tighter each
year, the 50-percent cost sharing is something we should consider in
the future.
I cannot emphasize too strongly that the Corps of Engineers program
of infrastructure improvement for ports, inland waterways, and flood
control will be subject to more and more budget cuts every year.
We are on a path to reduce funds for these important infrastructure
improvements and I question whether that is the right direction for our
country.
We are using a shortsighted approach that will ultimately mean
reduced economic growth and less job creation.
I hope that at sometime in the future--sooner rather than later--we
will reverse our current path and seek ways to increase our
infrastructure investment.
We must work together on a bipartisan basis to ensure that, while we
are getting our Federal fiscal house in order, programs to invest in
critical infrastructure needs are protected.
I hope to work with Chairman Shuster, Chairman Boehlert, and ranking
member Oberstar in that effort in the same bipartisan manner in which
we drafted the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
I urge support for this conference report.
{time} 1615
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], chairman of the
subcommittee.
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, before anything, I would like to
compliment the chairman and the ranking member, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Oberstar], and the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], for the outstanding cooperation that
was evident.
It was music to my ears to hear the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Borski] talk about the fairness and bipartisan nature of the process.
We pride ourselves on that in the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, and we intend to continue in that vein.
Mr. Speaker, this conference report is a major step forward in
developing and preserving the Nation's water resources. Almost one-
quarter of the bill's costs are for projects and activities that are
solely or primarily for protection and restoration of the environment.
This is a conservative estimate.
Let me give the Members some examples of major environmental
provisions in this measure. There is a requirement for flood plain
management plans for flood control projects. There is broadening of
existing authority to modify Corps projects to benefit the environment.
We broaden the scope of existing environmental dredging. We create
new aquatic ecosystem restoration programs. There are several
provisions to address contaminated river and harbor sediments,
including the Great Lakes and the New York-New Jersey Harbor.
We do great work in terms of the Chesapeake Bay habitat Restoration
Program and the salmon recovery in the Pacific Northwest. There is a
major program to restore the Florida Everglades, and we also do some
significant restoration work in the New York City Watershed.
I think the Members get the point. This is the greenest Water
Resources Development Act in the history of this body. I proudly
identify with it. It is not just me and those of us on the committee
that are saying good things about this bill. Let me share with the
Members a few excerpts from a letter authored by representatives of
American Rivers, the Environmental Defense Fund, the National Wildlife
Federation, the Sierra Club, and the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund.
They say,
We believe that the conference report . . . makes
significant improvements over earlier versions and includes
important provisions which reform national flood control
policies and expand the U.S. Corps of Engineers environmental
restoration programs.
Conference members have required that cost-benefit and
environmental studies be completed for authorized projects
. . . What good work that is. . . . deleted a provision that
would support Missouri River navigation at the expense of
recreation, and reduced the federal cost of the bill to $3.8
billion.
It goes on to say more very complimentary things about this bill, and
concludes,
H.R. 3592/S. 640 includes reform of our nation's flood
control policies, restores Florida's Everglades and expands
the Corps' growing environmental restoration program. We are
glad to see positive improvements in the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 and look forward to working with you
to continue these reforms.
This is a letter that was addressed to me, to the chairmen, to the
gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Oberstar, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster, everybody, the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
Chairman Borski. We are all chairmen in this instance, because we have
worked so hard to make this a reality.
Let me close by saying no bill of this magnitude gets to the floor of
this House with such unanimous endorsement without the hard work of
people like Mike Strachn, Ken Kopocis, and Jeff More, and all the
people on the staff who did such good work. I urge strong support for
the measure.
[[Page H11324]]
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. I rise in strong support of H.R. 3592, the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996. I would like to thank the chairman
of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Shuster, and
the ranking member, Mr. Oberstar, for the opportunity to speak on
behalf of this important legislation. I would also like to thank the
subcommittee chairman, Mr. Boehlert, and ranking member, Mr. Borski,
for their assistance on two vital initiatives in this conference report
that will promote economic development and provide better flood control
in southeast Texas.
The Houston Ship Channel widening and dredging project will provide
the first major expansion of the Port of Houston in 30 years. It will
expand the capabilities of the Port to meet the challenges of expanding
global trade and to maintain its competitive edge as a major
international port. Currently, the Port of Houston is the second
largest port in the United States in total tonnage, and is a catalyst
for the southeast Texas economy, contributing more than $5 billion
annually and providing 200,000 jobs. The Ship Channel expansion project
will preserve the Port of Houston's status as one of the premier deep-
channel Gulf ports and one of the top transit points for cargo in the
world. The project also is unique in that it is supported by a
coalition of community and environmental groups, to help reverse
decades of environmental degradation of Galveston Bay.
This legislation also constructively addresses the issue of Federal
flood control reform. As Congress seeks to balance the budget, the
scarcity of Federal dollars for flood control threatens hundreds of
projects in southeast Texas and around the country. That is why I have
been working with this committee and my fellow Texan, Majority Whip Tom
DeLay, to allow local entities to plan and construct Federal flood
control projects. Giving local agencies, such as the Harris County
Flood Control District, the ability to construct and manage these
projects will save lives and property, cut Federal administrative costs
and better protect the environment. It will also reduce Federal
disaster assistance needed to bail out communities in our area each
time it floods.
This legislation includes language designating Harris County Texas,
as a test site for allowing local control over flood control. Under
this plan, the Federal Government would remain a partner in flood
control, but local governments would gain the authority to respond more
quickly and innovatively to their communities' flood control needs.
Federal flood control policy must adapt to meet increasing budgetary
constraints without sacrificing public safety and envrionmental
protection. The bottomline will be safer communities and savings for
the taxpayers.
This legislation meets the challenges of protecting the environment,
promoting economic development, and providing safe and efficient flood
control throughout the Houston area. I strongly support the Water
Resources Development Act, and I urge my colleagues to join me in
voting in favor of this conference report.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that this legislation
includes a provision which renames the important Uniontown Lock and Dam
on the Ohio river in Indiana and Kentucky, and it shall be known as and
designated as the John T. Myers Lock and Dam, named in recognition of
the extraordinary contributions to our country by the gentleman from
Indiana, the honorable John T. Myers, who is retiring, and who will be
sorely missed in this body. We are just very, very pleased to include
this provision.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my good friend, the
distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Shuster], chairman of the full committee, for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Shuster], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Oberstar], for working on this bill for many, many months, and creating
an excellent piece of legislation in truly a bipartisan fashion. When I
say an excellent piece of legislation, this is an economic stimulator
for the country, and it is an environmentally sound piece of
legislation.
Five quick comments I want to make. It truly does stimulate the
economy, imports and exports, as far as this Nation is concerned and
its waterways. In Maryland alone, it is directly connected to 18,000
jobs, and many more that are spinoffs, and directly related to $2
billion annual sales as a result of the Baltimore Harbor.
It goes a long way in understanding the nature of sediment control as
far as the marine ecosystem is concerned. It has environmental
alternatives to disposing of dredged material. It enhances wildlife
habitat, which is another $1 billion to the Maryland economy. It goes a
long way to understanding the important of eliminating persistent toxic
chemicals. This is a great piece of legislation.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today in support of the
Water Resource Development Act of 1996 conference report. I would like
to thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Shuster], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], and our
ranking Democrats, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] and the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], for their dedication to
getting this bill passed in the 104th Congress.
I would also like to thank my colleagues the gentlemen from New
Jersey, Bob Franks and Bob Menendez, for their efforts on behalf of the
Jersey shore and the Port of New York and New Jersey.
This long-awaited bill contains several provisions that are vital to
stopping ocean dumping of contaminated dredged materials in New Jersey
while protecting jobs in the Port of New York and New Jersey. With this
bill, we finally have Federal-local cost sharing of confined disposal
facilities, so ports can be dredged and the sediments disposed of in a
safe environmental manner.
In addition, this bill reauthorizes a cutting edge sediment
decontamination project for the New York-New Jersey Harbor area.
Finally, and very important, thanks to the efforts of the House
Coastal Caucus as well as the Senate Coastal Coalition, and the support
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, this bill also
maintains the role of the Army Corps of Engineers in much needed shore
protection. These are projects that are important to the millions of
Americans who live on the coast and whose livelihoods are dependent on
the coastal tourism industry.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the
distinguished ranking member of the committee, who has done such an
outstanding job not just on this bill, but on leading the Democrats in
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman especially for those kind words,
Mr. Speaker, and I want to return the compliment to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] for the steadfast dedication he has devoted
on our side to the complex issues of clean water, the Clean Water Act,
the Water Resources Development Act, and the many other issues that
have come before that subcommittee.
I would also express my very great appreciation to our chairman, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], who has led us through many
complex issues in the course of this Congress. There will be other
bills on which I will also be saying the same thing as we go through
these last hours of this Congress, but we have worked together in the
time-honored tradition of this committee, the buildings committee of
the Congress.
[[Page H11325]]
I would say to the gentleman, I appreciate the leadership that he has
provided for us, particularly on this legislation and that of the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], who has worked very diligently
and exercised visionary leadership on these important issues.
Mr. Speaker, I especially want to express my appreciation to the
chairman of the committee for the consideration he gave to me on a
matter of importance in my district. Although we could not resolve it
satisfactorily, there was a partnership and an understanding that I
shall long cherish.
Mr. Speaker, we should support this legislation, the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996. We deal here with the oldest infrastructure
programs of the whole country. In fact, after the Committee on Ways and
Means, the first committee established by the Congress in 1789, the
Rivers and Harbors Subcommittee, or committee was created, which later
became a subcommittee of this full committee; recognizing, as the
Congress did, that to grow as a nation, we needed to develop means of
transportation.
Ports were our first cities. America grew up along the water, as 75
percent of our people still live along the water. The first project
authorized by the parent and predecessor committee of our Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure was the Fort Henry Lighthouse,
guiding navigation.
Mr. Speaker, over the years of development and expansion of the
Nation, water resources have been fundamental to our development and
growth as an economy and as a people, and as a means of safety and
navigation. Today, we continue that grand tradition, that more than
200-year-old tradition of taking the next steps. We continue the
development of water-related infrastructure.
Mr. Speaker, virtually every 2 years this committee comes to the
House with legislation based on the work of the Corps of Engineers to
respond to the needs of carrying goods to market in the most cost-
efficient and energy-efficient means, by water; to protect people from
floods, from disasters; to restore our shorelines; to deepen the
harbors of our great ports and improve the navigation channels.
In 1986, we first called this legislation the Water Resources
Development Act. Since then we have come every 2 years, with one
exception, in the last Congress, when we passed legislation in the
House, having again done our work, and sent the bill to the other body,
where, unfortunately, it languished and did not pass.
{time} 1630
So this is 4 years, not just 2 years, of accumulated legislative
needs, and we have done our work, again I think in a responsible
manner, responding to the usual assortment of flood damage reduction,
navigation, storm damage reduction and to continue the work of this
committee in emphasizing environmental improvement within the Corps
program, environmental restoration and environmental enhancement.
One of the great initiative that we undertook was the great river
improvement program, an initiative undertaken by the predecessor of the
gentleman in the chair today. Mr. Quie and I together worked on the
great river improvement program so that the Corps would be required to
contemporaneously undertake the environmental improvements at the same
time it was doing the navigation improvements, so that we would not
have the navigation first and the environmental damage later. The two,
environmental protection and enhancement, worked hand in hand and that
is a great legacy to the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Quie, years ago,
but again within the ambit of the Corps of Engineers programs. The
Corps often takes a rap for effects on the environment, and I just want
to take that moment to point out how the Corps has done such wonderful
work to protect the environment.
This legislation does raise the minimum non-Federal share of protect
costs from 25 to 35 percent. It does not go as far as the
administration bill requested, but it is a responsible step and I think
the chairman has sensitively understood the needs of communities that
have already made commitments and made plans, that to go beyond 35
percent would put unreasonable financial burdens.
The legislation also addresses the concerns of our committee and our
colleagues to provide meaningful ability to pay relief for lower-income
communities, and this legislation will provide that kind of help that
was envisioned when the 1986 WRDA act was first enacted for helping
lower-income communities.
For the Great Lakes I am particularly pleased that we continue the
important sharing of costs on confined disposal facilities for dredge
materials to protect those extremely sensitive waters of the Great
Lakes which represent one-fifth of all fresh water on the face of the
earth.
The conference report, however, is not perfect. The bill, I feel,
does not go far enough in adequately balancing structural and
nonstructural options in the Federal flood control program. I am
troubled by provisions that have the effect of legislatively
interfering in the 404 wetlands permitting program under the Clean
Water Act and the implementation of the national flood insurance
program. Both of those provisions, I think, are an unnecessary
intrusion and should not be considered precedent for future
legislation.
The conference report also has language included at the insistence of
the other body that abrogates, in the case of one project, cost-sharing
rules, cost-sharing rules that were insisted upon by the other body
many years ago. For one project, they were required to provide land
easements and right of way but no cash in a matching basis for its
project. We have steadfastly opposed repeal of cost-sharing rules for
any project, and we should not do that in this case.
Those shortcomings mentioned and noted, I think, for the record, this
is a good bill. This is good, solid legislation. Ninety-eight percent
of this bill is good policy, good initiative, good for the country,
good for the community is serves and will stand as a legacy to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], our chairman of the full
committee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], and to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] who has labored so hard. I
urge passage of this bill.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank my good friend
for his comments and emphasize that indeed on the very important
project in Minnesota, there will be another day and we shall be back
together working hard to make it come true.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Goss].
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I commend my friends, Mr. Boehlert and
Chairman Shuster, for their dedicated work. The citizens of Florida's
southwest coast recognize the importance of maintaining proper
stewardship of our water resources. I am very pleased that this bill
contains vital Everglades restoration provisions to promote the
innovative partnership that has formed between the State of Florida and
the Army Corps of Engineers; speeding up the restoration process by
many years through proactively reducing bureaucratic red tape and
formalizing the joint Federal-State working group. I am also pleased
this bill includes legislation introduced by my Florida colleague Clay
Shaw that will overturn an unfortunate Presidential policy and ensure
the continued involvement of the corps in worthwhile beach restoration
projects. Overall, this is a good bill for Florida's citizens and
Florida's environment as it is for all America and I urge my colleagues
to support it.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise], a valuable member of the
committee.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman of our committee, the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], our ranking member, the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski]. They are true examples of what, working
together, Republicans and Democrats can do to move this country
forward.
Infrastructure is vital to this country. The infrastructure in this
bill will move a lot of our areas forward. I want to point out
particularly how important it was to get the $229 million authorization
that is in this bill for the
[[Page H11326]]
Marmet locks and dam upgrade project. This is a project, a lock and dam
that moves the second largest amount of traffic in our country right
behind the Winfield lock and dams which is presently being upgraded.
And most significantly why this is so important to those people in the
Belle region, because for years they have known that this was coming
but without this authorization, a couple of hundred families could not
make the necessary decisions about what to do with their lives and
their property. Happily this now provides the authorization for the
Corps of Engineers to move forward. We still need to get the
appropriation, the budget money for it, but now we know that this
project is going to be built. And so we will be able to move large
jumbo barges through whereas before we could only move the smaller
barges and suffer the delays as a result. Likewise, for central West
Virginia which has been hard hit in flooding, the language in here
could greatly help the Moorefield residents which were hard hit in
January and even devastated further in the floods of September. This
gives us the vehicle to move forward with the Corps of Engineers and
move those flood control projects forward, too, in a way that is
beneficial to the community.
I just want to thank those who have made this bill possible. This
bill is moving now, it is going to pass, it is going to go to the
President, and we can get about the business of building America even
more.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Traficant], the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee
on Public Buildings and Economic Development.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] and commend him for the fine job he has done
in representing the interests of many of the Democrats in some of the
important projects they had on this bill as well as the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar]. I want to thank the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Boehlert] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] for
being fair to all concerns. But I would like to say this: that there
are many of us who did not join this committee for cerebral
stimulation.
Mr. Speaker, this Nation must improve its infrastructure and I
believe that there is much more that we can and should be doing, and I
think that public works is most important. It will help to put people
to work in our country, and improve the quality of life.
Specifically I want to thank the committee for three projects that
will be happening in my district. First, the Army Corps to plan and
assist with a regional water system for our valley, absolutely
necessary; to make improvements to the Gerard Lake and in fact make
repairs at that spillway; and finally, the environmental dredging
program for the Mahoning River that cuts right through the city of
Youngstown from the Beaver River on up through all that old steel mill
property that has been polluted for years. This will help to clean up
the city of Youngstown.
So I am hoping that in the future all this business of being afraid
of earmarks, being afraid of pork barrels, keep this in mind. These are
taxpayer dollars that come from our communities, put back into our
communities, and I would hope that our venerable leader, the gentleman
from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], will continue to push hard for the
inclusion of these projects for both Democrats and Republicans. I also
want to say that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] has been
a war horse as well, and without these two fellows specifically, I
think a lot of improvements to our Nation's infrastructure would never
have been made with some of the so-called new philosophy we have around
here.
I like the old-fashioned take care of our own, take care of America,
and I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], a
Pitt man, for his help and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the great former
quarterback from the University of Pittsburgh for his kind comments.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch].
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support S. 640 to emphasize a
provision that strengthens our commitment to one of America's greatest
natural treasures--the Florida Everglades.
This legislation contains measures that will expedite restoration of
this endangered ecosystem, authorize critical new resources, and cut
through bureaucratic redtape. Mr. Speaker, this bill directs the Army
Corps of Engineers to complete its comprehensive Everglades restoration
plan and report this plan to Congress by July 1, 1999. The bill also
codifies the partnership between the Federal, State, and local agencies
which are involved with this effort. This will facilitate better
cooperation and information sharing so we can finish the job as soon as
possible. Finally, Mr. Speaker, there are many critical projects which
must be completed now. Accordingly, this bill authorizes $75 million in
new resources to construct projects which are critical to restoration.
I thank my colleagues for supporting this bipartisan accomplishment,
and I urge passage of the bill.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to particularly recognize Mike Strachn and Ken Kopocis who
have really been the lead staffers on both sides of the aisle for the
tremendous job they have done on this legislation.
Finally and very importantly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a
moment to recognize the extraordinary service to the House and most
particularly to our committee of Erla Youmans. Erla, the committee
administrator, is retiring at the end of this Congress.
She began her career in the House when she went to work for
Congressman Gordon Scherer in 1958. She went to work for the Public
Works Committee in 1962 and since then has worked for 7 senior
Republican Members.
After a number of years serving as the committee minority
administrator, Erla finally had the opportunity in 1995 to become the
majority administrator. Erla has provided invaluable service to the
Members on both sides of the aisle throughout her career, but most
particularly in the last 2 years in ensuring that the committee has run
smoothly and efficiently.
I am sure all of the members of the committee join me in thanking
Erla Youmans for her outstanding contribution and in wishing her well
in her retirement for many, many years in the future.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I want to join with him in recognizing
Erla Youmans and paying tribute to her.
She started with the committee a year before I did, in 1963, is when
I came then to work for my predecessor, John Blatnik. But I started on
the Rivers and Harbors Subcommittee as what was quaintly known as a
clerk in those days, and Erla was there. She has been there all through
the years since then, and worked in such a bipartisan manner, years
later that I realized she worked for the Republican side of the
committee. We did not know the distinction.
She gave 38 years to government service, 36 of them with the
committee on Public Works and then Committee on Public Works and
Transportation, now Transportation and Infrastructure. We served 6
years together, those first 2 years as I worked on the subcommittee and
then 4 years when I was administrator of the Public Works Committee
staff. In every respect, Erla was a thorough-going professional.
I just kind of looked it up the other day. If she had been a Member
all these years, she would rank third in seniority, having begun her
service in the 85th Congress. That is a long and dedicated career. She
has made such a lasting contribution. Many Members come through here,
they might get a bill passed, they might even get an amendment passed,
they might even have something become law. Erla has presided over many
bills, many laws, too numerous to mention, provided enormous service. A
person of great patience, devotion, deep professionalism, and now she,
as the chairman said, had the opportunity, which I am very happy for
her, to have served as the majority staff person and run a very smooth
and efficient operation.
[[Page H11327]]
I am going to miss Erla. Always a ready smile, always a warm word,
always a kind person, and always a professional.
Mr. SHUSTER. I thank my good friend for his comments.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of a
particular provision contained in the Water Resources Development Act
conference report. This provision directs the Secretary of the Army to
convey a parcel of land under the jurisdiction of the Corps of
Engineers to the Village of Mariemont, OH.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is very important to Mariemont because
it will enable the village to relocate its maintenance facility to the
former Army Corps land, and move MariElders, a center for older adults
that has been displaced from its site, to the refurbished maintenance
facility.
This legislation also makes good fiscal sense. The Army Corps land
has an appraised value of $85,000. Mr. Speaker, the conference report
transfers the land to Mariemont for the appraised amount and will put
the property to productive use. In addition, the property has been
screened by the General Services Administration [GSA] and no other
Federal agency has expressed interest in the site.
I commend chairman Shuster, chairman Boehlert, and the conferees for
incorporating this provision in the conference report, and urge all my
colleagues to support this legislation.
Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this
legislation which will put to an end a long and very contentious
chapter in the history of North Bonneville.
This legislation would resolve a long-standing dispute between the
city of North Bonneville and the Federal Government that occurred when
the city was relocated in the 1970's. It would be a vital step forward
in the recovery of a community that has been severely impacted by this
relocation.
This community has been economically devastated through a combination
of factors outside their control, particularly the downturn of the
timber industry. This legislation will convey key parcels of land to
the city that will create jobs by giving the county a land base to
attract businesses to the area. In fact, this might be the most
important jobs bill this county has seen in a long time because for
many years, the city has not had industrial land that could bring in
family-wage jobs.
I want to thank public officials in the community of North Bonneville
for their support of this legislation. I particularly want to commend
Mayor Keith Chamberlain for being a strong advocate of this
legislation.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. CRANE. I rise today in support of the conference report on S.
640, the Water Resources Development Act [WRDA] of 1996. Once again,
the 104th Congress is on the verge of an accomplishment that eluded its
predecessor, passage of a measure that authorizes and reauthorizes a
number of important water-related projects in a fiscally responsible
manner.
One such project deserves particular mention by this Member, not just
because it is in his congressional district, but due to the
environmental and economic benefits it can provide to many places
around the country in the future. I refer specifically to the Des
Plaines River Wetlands Demonstration Project [DPRWDP] adjacent to
Wadsworth in northern Illinois. Since its inception over a decade ago,
this internationally recognized research effort has produced, and
continues to produce, invaluable data that will facilitate the
rehabilitation, restoration, maintenance and/or expansion of our
nation's wetlands. In the process, information has been, and is being,
developed that has significant and positive implications for habitat
conservation, species enhancement and flood control efforts as well. In
addition, the success of two wetlands mitigation banks at the DPRWDP is
providing further evidence that environmental protection imperatives
can, indeed, be reconciled with the manifestations of economic growth.
But, for all these potential benefits to be fully realized, additional
funds are needed to complete the research and to prepare a how to
manual that will enable interested parties to put the findings to good
use.
To date, almost $9 million has been contributed to the research work
at the DPRWDP, only $1.9 million of which has come from the Federal
Government. However, another $2.2 million in Federal funds was
authorized by the 1988 WRDA, only $125,000 of which has actually been
expended. Enactment of this conference report would once again give the
DPRWDP an equal chance to compete for the rest of those monies, which
is all one can ask in this era of tight budget constraints. That being
the case, I urge my colleagues to give this project, and the conference
report in which it is reauthorized, their support. Both will redound to
the future benefit of America.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this conference
report and salute the hard work of chairman Shuster and ranking member
Oberstar.
I believe this bill to be one of the most important that we undertake
in this Congress. The wise use of America's water resources is critical
to the environmental and economic well-being of this Nation. This fact
is evident in the First Congressional District of Arkansas, which I
represent. The first district is one of the most productive
agricultural district in the Nation, ranking No. 1 in the production of
rice, No. 3 in soybeans, and No. 6 in cotton. Our water supply is vital
to the production of agricultural commodities as well as their
transportation to market.
Messrs. Shuster and Oberstar were kind enough to work with me on
three projects that are vital to the first district. The first is the
Grand Prairie-Bayou Meto project that lies in the heart of Arkansas'
rice production. The alluvial aquifer that supports this area is
rapidly being depleted and unless something is done by 2015 the area
stands to suffer irreparable economic damage and the Nation would lose
a large percentage of its domestic rice supply. The project
reauthorized in this bill will allow work on this vital project to
begin so that the aquifer can be restored without economic or
environmental damage to our State.
The second project is the White River Navigation Project. The White
River is a 255-mile river that flows from the Ozark Mountain to the
Mississippi River through the heart of the Arkansas Delta. It flows
through the Grand Prairie of which I just spoke, and is a great
resource for agricultural and industrial commerce, but only part of the
year. The commercial channel of the river has only a 5-foot depth which
is inadequate to accommodate the standard 9-foot draft barges employed
around the country today. The reauthorization project that is included
in this bill will allow development of a commercially viable 9-foot
channel that can be utilized during the entire year.
I was also very pleased that members of the conference saw fit to
include language which would ensure that new cost sharing requirements
on Corps projects would not apply to works which have already been
authorized, but on which construction has yet to begin. The Helena and
Vicinity flood control project in the town of Helena, Arkansas on the
Mississippi was first authorized by this Congress in 1986. However, the
local community contribution was not worked out until a year ago,
delaying the beginning of construction. It would have been patently
unfair to raise the bar on this type of project after years of hard
work by local citizens and the Corps of Engineers. I am very pleased
that the drafters of this bill had the foresight to impose the new
cost-sharing requirements only on projects authorized in this bill and
beyond.
Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
the conference report for H.R. 3592, the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996. I commend Chairman Bud Shuster and Chairman Sherwood
Boehlert for their diligent work in writing this important legislation.
This bill contains several provisions that I introduced in
legislation earlier this year to help our Nation's ports. First, this
bill provides for a Federal cost-sharing mechanism for the upland
disposal of dredged material. This updates the current cost-sharing
mechanism that provides for only ocean disposal of dredged material.
Second, this bill allows ports to take advantage of the $600 million
surplus in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund by allowing the fund to be
used for the Federal share of upland disposal, and for the construction
of containment facilities that are needed to hold contaminated
material. Third, this bill doubles the funding authorization for the
EPA's sediment decontamination pilot study, which will allow for the
environmental restoration of harbor floors.
In addition, this legislation contains a provision I have worked on
for several years regarding flood control projects. Currently, the
prevention of the loss of life is not one of the principal criteria
used in deciding whether to proceed with a particular water resources
project. H.R. 3592 will elevate the criteria of saving human life,
rather than economic benefit, in the prioritization of these projects.
I would also like to commend the chairman for including language that
calls for a greater utilization of private industry to perform the
Corps' hopper dredge work. I would have preferred a much broader
provision than what is contained in the bill, but I am pleased that the
Committee is taking an important first step toward reaping the economic
benefits that greater reliance on the private sector will yield. I
intend to work closely with the committee leadership to evaluate the
results of this study and to push forward for greater privatization if,
as I suspect, the results are promising.
I have enjoyed working with the committee on this legislation, and I
urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank
the Water Resources Subcommittee Chairman Boehlert, and all other
committee members and staff who
[[Page H11328]]
worked tirelessly to put together a fair and economically responsible
WRDA bill.
This bill has carefully balanced the interests of environmentalists
with those in the business community and provided the language that
will enable our ports to once again flourish, our citizens to be
protected from flooding, our environment to be protected, and our
taxpayers' dollars to be wisely and not frivolously spent.
I would like to specifically mention a couple of provisions in the
bill that are of great importance to the citizens in my district. The
Water Resources Development Act includes authorized funds for a buyout
alternative to the Passaic River Flood Tunnel.
Back in 1994 when I was first running for Congress, I recognized the
importance of flood protection to the citizens of the Eighth
Congressional District in New Jersey. In addition, I recognized that
there must be a more economically and environmentally sound flood
control alternative to an authorized flood tunnel with a price tag of
$1.9 billion that would have extensive negative affects on area
wetlands and the existing ecosystems.
By authorizing $194 million for the buyout alternative, we are taking
great strides towards both flood protection for our citizens and
environmental protection for the Passaic River, while saving the
taxpayer money.
Also included in the bill is continued authorization for the Molly
Ann's Brook flood protection project. I am pleased that the committee
treated this project with the urgency and priority that it deserves.
This project will provide critical flood protection to many residents
of Haledon, Prospect Park and the city of Paterson.
Once again, I extend my thanks to the committee. The Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 is a clear example of the 104th making things
happen and protecting the interests of not only the citizens of New
Jersey, but the interests of all Americans.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Chairmen Shuster and
Boehlert, as well as Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Borski, for all their hand
work on this bill, and rise in strong support of this legislation. I
came to the floor earlier this summer when the bill first came through
the House to discuss two provisions critical to the Houston area, and
am very pleased that these provisions remain in this final conference
report.
One of these is the authorization of funding to deepen and widen the
Houston Ship Channel. These improvements are essential to the economic
development not only of the region, but of the country generally, as
the Houston Ship Channel is a critical economic lifeline between our
Nation and the rest of the world.
The improvements authorized are also consistent with the Port's and
my enduring commitment to the environment. The dredged material from
the Ship Channel project will be used to create over 4,000 acres of
additional marsh land to be used in developing bird islands, boater
destinations, and shoreline erosion projects.
The second provision in this bill allows certain flood control
districts to carry out flood control projects with far greater
flexibility than ever before.
Although still subject to the high standards set by the Corps of
Engineers, my Harris County Flood Control District officials will now
be able to plan, study, design and construct these projects with
greater independence and more input from the local community.
I am convinced that Harris County will demonstrate that it can design
and construct flood projects faster and cheaper when it is not burdened
by Federal redtape.
In fact, I am told that the Harris County projects will not only be
completed much sooner than projected by the Corps, they will be
completed at a total cost that is as much as 35 percent less than that
projected by the Corps.
Again, I strongly support this legislation and urge my colleagues to
support it, as well.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill.
I would just like to point out one clarification to Section
101(a)(1)(D) of the conference report, which relates to the cost-
sharing associated with the variable flood control operation of Folsom
Dam and Reservoir.
Specifically, it is the intent of this provision that the local, non-
Federal share of the costs of the variable flood control operation of
Folsom Dam not exceed 25 percent. It is also the intent of the
conference agreement that the remaining 75 percent of the costs
associated with the variable flood control operation of Folsom Dam and
Reservoir be the responsibility of the United States and that such
costs shall be considered a nonreimbursable expense. In other words,
these costs should not be passed onto the water and power ratepayers of
California.
It is the intent of this provision that the costs associated with the
variable flood control operation of Folsom Dam and Reservoir be shared
between the non-Federal project and sponsor and the Federal Government.
It was not the intent of the conferees that Californians' be required
to assume the full burden of the provision of interim flood protection
to the citizens of Sacramento.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, the conference report for S. 640, the Water
Resources Development Act, contains several important provisions for
the area that I represent. There is no doubt that these steps will
improve the flood control system for the city of Sacramento and afford
a level of additional safety to the citizens of my district.
Despite the inclusion of these provisions, I would note with grave
disappointment that with the final approval of this conference report,
another Corps of Engineers authorization will have passed the Congress
without inclusion of a comprehensive plan to address the severe flood
threat facing the Sacramento area. As a result, 400,000 people in
Sacramento will continue to face an unacceptable threat of flooding.
Our flood control system will be able to achieve the 100-year
protection level established as an actuarial baseline by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. Nonetheless, it will be far short of what
is tolerable for a highly urbanized area like Sacramento.
Given the very short warning period that Sacramento would have before
a flood event occurred, this threat is more than just a matter of
tremendous economic risk for our region. Lives will continue to be
unnecessarily at risk until a comprehensive plan for protecting
Sacramento from the American River is authorized and constructed. I am
deeply committed to working for a comprehensive solution to this
problem, and I am anxious to continue to build upon the progress toward
such a result embodied in this bill.
I would also like to take an opportunity to address one specific
aspect of the conference report. Section 101(a)(1)(D) of the conference
report directs that the non-Federal participant in the project for the
American River Watershed shall bear only a 25-percent share of the
costs associated with the variable flood control operation
(reoperation) of Folsom Dam and Reservoir for a 4-year period. This
provision modifies similar language in H.R. 3592 as passed by the
House.
I would like to underscore that it was the clear intent of the
Sacramento delegation, in working with the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee on this provision, that the Federal share of
reoperation costs would be nonreimbursable--in other words, that these
costs could not be passed along to California water and power
ratepayers. Only in this way will we actually limit the non-Federal
share of costs associated with the variable flood control operation of
Folsom Dam and Reservoir to 25 percent, as called for by the conference
report.
Finally, I would like to thank the members of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, particularly Chairman Bud Shuster and the
ranking member, James Oberstar, as well as Sherwood Boehlert and Robert
Borski, respectively the chairman and ranking member of the Water
Resources and Environment Subcommittee. Without their assistance, we
certainly would not have been able to take the important steps forward
for Sacramento that were included in this bill.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Boehlert and
Ranking Democrat Borski on a job well done. The Water Resources
Development Act was perhaps the most bipartisan effort of the 104th
Congress.
I am particularly pleased because this bill will enable major
projects in my congressional district in Connecticut to move forward.
The bill eliminates federal jurisdiction over three local channel
projects that are currently on hold in my district. In one case, a
deauthorization will enable a state financed bridge project to be
constructed--at no additional cost to taxpayers.
I also want to commend my colleagues for authorizing the construction
of an erosion barrier for Faulkner's Island, a federally owned wildlife
refuge in the Long Island Sound. This refuge is a migratory resting
site for over 300 species of birds, including threatened and endangered
species. It also encompasses a working light house commissioned by
Thomas Jefferson that would fall into the Sound in 15 years if the
erosion is not stopped.
Thank you again for your work on this bill. I urge my colleagues to
pass this measure.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 640, the conference
agreement on the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. The House
version of this bill, H.R. 3592, passed this body on July 29 of this
year.
The enactment of this legislation is overdue. Many places of the
country, such as West Virginia, continue to be subjected to severe
flooding. In fact, many places of my Congressional District have spent
a good part of this last year under federal disaster declarations.
With this said, while I am pleased that we are finally gaining the
enactment of this legislation, I would have preferred to see many of
the provisions of the version as passed by the House have remained
unmodified by the Senate. In this respect, this conference agreement at
the insistence of the Senate Conferees scaled back certain House
provisions such as the one relating to flood control in the
[[Page H11329]]
Greenbrier Basin of West Virginia that I sponsored. The fight we have
had in gaining approval of this provision, which does not include the
construction of a main-stem dam, illustrates that it would be virtually
impossible for supporters of a dam on this river to be successful. In
effect, in this bill we have been reduced to a $12 million
authorization for non-dam alternatives. It is, as such, highly
improbable that anyone could have succeeded in obtaining over $100
million for a dam in an era when the Congress is simply not approving
new main-stem flood control dams.
Following is an explanation of those provisions I sponsored in this
legislation.
sec. 579. greenbrier river basin, west virginia, flood control
The subject of providing flood control along the Greenbrier
River Basin in West Virginia has been considered for many
years. At some point in the 1930s, a main-stem dam was
authorized, known as the Big Bend project. However, in 1974,
at the recommendation of the Corps of Engineers, this project
was deauthorized. This lack of interest in providing flood
control protections for the Greenbrier was short-lived. In
1978, the Huntington District of the Corps of Engineers
undertook a flood control study for the basin. The study was
ready for release in 1985. However, in that year, a flood of
record occurred which the caused the Corps to look into other
methods of flood control. Prior to 1985, the Corps was ready
to recommend channel improvements in the area of Marlinton
(Pocahontas County) as a means of flood control.
In 1994, preliminary findings of the study indicated that a
single-purpose flood control dam on the Greenbrier River
upstream from Marlinton may offer the greatest potential for
providing flood protections against a reoccurrence of the
1985 flood. This type of project, however, had a low cost-
benefit ratio and the Huntington District decided to evaluate
a non-structural flood plain management approach. Meanwhile,
earlier this year, in January, the area experienced a flood
which exceed the one in 1985. The Corps decided not to
release its study, but rather, to update it with the data
from the January 1996 event. In May, the Greenbrier River
once again left its banks and in certain areas, exceeded the
flood level experienced in January.
The communities along the river have been divided on the
question of the proposed main-stem dam. With the defeat of
the proposed Auburn Dam during the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure's consideration of H.R.
3592, and the fact that the cost-benefit ratio associated
with any type of Greenbrier River dam even with an updated
study would not pass Corps let alone Congressional muster, it
became apparent that some type of alternative flood control
protections should be pursued for the Greenbrier Basin.
The provision which passed the House of Representatives as
section 580 of H.R. 3592 would have authorized $20 million
for the Corps of Engineers to design and implement a flood
damage reduction program for the Greenbrier River Basin in
the vicinity of Durbin, Cass, Marlinton, Renick, Ronceverte
and Alderson. In consultation with these communities, flood
control activities that could be undertaken includes levees,
floodwalls, channelization, small tributary stream
impoundments and nonstructural measures such as individual
flood proofing. In addition, also authorized are floodplain
relocations, floodplain evacuations, and a comprehensive
river corridor management plan.
In Conference with the Senate, the House provision was
modified by reducing the $20 million authorization to $12
million. Further, the innovative cost-benefit considerations
included in the House-passed bill were objected to by the
Senate, and this provision was dropped.
sec. 359. southern west virginia environmental restoration
Section 340 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
authorized an environmental restoration infrastructure and
resource protection development pilot program in southern
West Virginia. Under this provision, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers is to provide design and construction assistance
for publicly owned projects such as wastewater treatment and
water supply facilities through local cooperation agreements
with non-Federal entities such as, for example, a county
commission or public service district. In addition,
appropriated amounts for the pilot program must be matched on
a 75% federal/25% local basis.
To date, the full $5 million authorized for the program in
1992 has been appropriated and the Huntington District of the
Corps of Engineers is engaged in two projects: a wastewater
system in Gilbert and a water supply system in Summers/Mercer
Counties. However, the authorized level of $5 million is
unduly restrictive and will serve to limit the potential
benefits this demonstration project has for the Nation.
H.R. 3592 as passed by the House would increase the
authorization to $25 million and make sundry technical
amendments which the Corps' has identified as facilitating
the implementation of the program. In Conference with the
Senate, the $25 million authorization increase was modified
to $20 million.
sec. 357. bluestone lake, west virginia
Section 102(ff) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1992 authorized and directed the Army Corps of Engineers to
take such measures as are technologically feasible to
prohibit the release of drift and debris into waters
downstream of Bluestone Lake project. As part of the
implementation of this directive, some concern has been
raised that the removal of all woody debris may adversely
affect the biological integrity of the New River. For this
reason, H.R. 3592 as passed by the House, and maintained in
the Conference Report, would provide for the release of that
organic matter necessary to maintain and enhance the
biological resources of such waters and such non-obtrusive
items of debris as may not be economically feasible to
prevent being release through the project.
In implementing this provision, the Secretary should not
construe the amendment being made as allowing the release of
substantial amounts of accumulated drift and debris. In this
regard, the amendment conforms this provision of law with the
Secretary's responsibility under section 1110 of the National
Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 to provide for the release
of water from the Bluestone Lake project in a manner to
facilitate protection of the biological resources of the
New River. I would further note that this amendment is
being adopted in anticipation of a Memorandum of
Understanding being entered into between the Corps of
Engineers, the National Park Service and the State of West
Virginia relating to river cleanup responsibilities
downstream of Bluestone Dam.
sec. 580. lower mud river, west virginia
Originally envisioned as a P.L. 83-566 watershed protection
and flood prevention project, the Watershed Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement has been completed for the
Lower Mud River, West Virginia, and section 401 and 404
permits secured. The proposed project is aimed at preventing
flooding in the City of Milton (Cabell County) through
channel work (widening and straightening the flood channel)
of the Lower Mud River and includes both on- and off-site
wetlands mitigation. In light of the fact that the Natural
Resources Conservation Service is no longer being authorized
or funded to undertake projects of this nature, H.R. 3592 as
passed by the House and agreed to in the Conference Report
provides for this project to be completed by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. The total project cost is $20,159,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $15,426,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $4,733,100.
sec. 360. west virginia trail head facilities
Section 306 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
directed the Corps of Engineers to conduct a study and
develop a plan for trailhead facilities connected several
Corps facilities in southern West Virginia. In devising the
report, the Corps entered into an interagency agreement with
the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service.
Earlier this year, the Corps published a ``West Virginia
Trailhead Facility Study, Final Report.'' This report
constitutes a Master Plan to guide in the development,
management and operation of a regional system of recreational
trails.
The development of the trail system will be undertaken by a
non-federal entity: the Hatfield-McCoy Regional Recreation
Authority established by the State of West Virginia. However,
as part of the development and management of the trail
system, the Authority is seeking continued technical
assistance from the Corps and BLM. H.R. 3592 as passed by the
House, and as agreed to in the Conference Report, provides
for the Corps to enter into an interagency agreement with the
BLM for the purpose of providing on-going technical
assistance and oversight for the trail facilities envisioned
in the master plan. Under this provision, the BLM must
provide this assistance and oversight. It intended for this
assistance and oversight to be undertaken with the trail
Authority.
sec. 229. marshall university, west virginia
H.R. 3592 as passed by the House contained a provision
authorizing the Corps of Engineers to enter into a
cooperative agreement with Marshall University to provide
technical assistance to the Center for Environmental,
Geotechnical and Applied Sciences. The House bill also
contained a generic provision of this nature, entitled
``Support of Army Civil Works Program,'' relating to
relationships through which the Corps could enter into with
colleges and universities, among other entities. In
Conference with the Senate, the House provision relating
solely to Marshall University was dropped with the intention
that it be covered by the generic House provision which was
retained by the Conference Committee and a specific reference
to Marshall University was included in the Statement of
Managers discussion of this provision.
Under this provision, it is intended for the Corps of
Engineers and Marshall's Environmental Center to work
together in dealing with environmental contamination in the
Central Appalachian Region and to provide national leadership
in this area.
Envisioned activities under the cooperative agreement would
include, among other items: (1) the development of innovative
technologies for all aspects of handling hazardous waste,
including management, treatment, remediation, restoration,
mitigation and disposal projects; (2) research to improve the
understanding of the processes of groundwater contamination
and subsequent
[[Page H11330]]
migration/diffusion; (3) the development and application of
modern computer technologies for the collection and
management of large volumes of scientific and other data
characterizing the various environmental problems located in
or affecting activities within the region; (4) environmental
technology transfer; and (5) public education about the many
regional environmental issues, problems and hazards.
sec. 539. acid mine drainage mitigation, new river, west virginia
Acid mine drainage from abandoned coal mines is perhaps the
single most serious water quality problem in many parts of
the Appalachian Region. In fact, nationwide, over 12,000
miles of rivers and streams and over 180,000 acres of lakes
and reservoirs are contaminated due to acidic and toxic
drainage from abandoned mines. Because of the magnitude of
the problems associated with acid mine drainage from
abandoned coal mines, and the lack of progress made to date
in addressing this issue, H.R. 3592 as passed by the House
authorized the Corps of Engineers to undertake certain
demonstration projects aimed at abatement and mitigation of
acid mine drainage caused by abandoned mines, as well as
degradation caused by the lack of sanitary wastewater
treatment facilities. As modified by the Conference
Committee, the provision is limited to the Corps providing
technical assistance for these projects. Under the Conference
Agreement, $1.5 million is authorized for the Corps to
provide technical assistance for projects in the New River,
West Virginia.
In conducting these activities, it is intended for the
Corps to focus on Dunloup Creek, Manns Creek, Wolf Creek and
Piney Creeks of the New River watershed. In this regard, the
Corps is to cooperate with the Federal entity with
administrative jurisdiction over the lands within such
watersheds, the National Park Service, and if appropriate,
with the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] that
the House suspend the rules and agree to the conference report on the
Senate bill, S. 640.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the conference report was agreed
to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________