[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 136 (Friday, September 27, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11519-S11522]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we do have a very important piece of 
legislation that has been in the making for quite some time. I know 
Senators on both sides of the aisle are very interested in it and have 
been working on it in committee and in conference. This is the water 
resources conference report.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of the conference report to accompany S. 640.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the House to the 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, having 
     met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend 
     and do recommend to their respective Houses this report, 
     signed by a majority of the conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of September 25, 1996.)
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today the Senate will consider the 
conference report to accompany S. 640, the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1996. This measure, similar to water resources legislation 
enacted in 1986, 1988, 1990, and 1992, is comprised of water resources 
project and study authorizations, as well as important policy 
initiatives, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program.
  S. 640 was introduced on March 28, 1995, and was reported by the 
Environment and Public Works Committee to the full Senate on November 
9, 1995. The measure was adopted unanimously by the Senate on July 11, 
1996. On July 30 of this year, the House of Representatives adopted its 
version of the legislation.
  Since that time, we have worked together with our colleagues from the 
House of Representatives and the administration to reach bipartisan 
agreement on a sensible compromise measure. Because of the numerous 
differences between the Senate- and House-passed bills, completion of 
this conference report has required countless hours of negotiation.
  To ensure that the items contained in this legislation are responsive 
to the Nation's most pressing water infrastructure and environmental 
needs, we have adhered to a set of criteria established in previous 
water resources law. Mr. President, let me take a few moments here to 
discuss these criteria--that is--the criteria used by the conference 
committee to determine the merit of proposed projects, project studies, 
and policy directives.
  On November 17, 1986, almost 10 years ago, under President Reagan, we 
enacted the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. Importantly, the 
1986 act marked an end to the 16-year deadlock between Congress and the 
executive branch regarding authorization of the Army Corps Civil Works 
Program.
  In addition to authorizing numerous projects, the 1986 act resolved 
longstanding disputes relating to cost-sharing between the Army Corps 
and non-Federal sponsors, waterway user fees, environmental 
requirements and, importantly, the types of projects in which Federal 
involvement is appropriate and warranted.
  The criteria used to develop the legislation before us are consistent 
with the reforms and procedures established in the landmark Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986.
  Is a project for flood control, navigation, environmental 
restoration, or some other purpose cost-shared in a manner consistent 
with the 1986 act?
  Have all of the requisite reports and studies on economic, 
engineering, and environmental feasibility been completed for major 
projects?
  Are the projects and policy initiatives consistent with the 
traditional and appropriate mission of the Army Corps?
  Should the Federal Government be involved?
  These, Mr. President, are the fundamental questions that we have 
applied to the provisions contained in the pending conference report.
  As I noted at the outset, water resources legislation has been 
enacted on a biennial basis since 1986, with the exception of 1994. As 
such, we have a 4-year backlog of projects reviewed by the Army Corps 
and submitted to Congress for authorization.
  The measure before us authorizes 33 flood control, environmental 
restoration, inland navigation, and harbor projects which have received 
a favorable report by the Chief of Engineers.

[[Page S11520]]

 Fourteen other water resources projects are included for 
authorization, contingent upon the Congress receiving a favorable 
Chief's report by December 31 of this year. The estimated Federal cost 
of this bill is $3.8 billion.
  I would like to note that almost one-fourth of the cost of this bill, 
or an estimated $890 million, is specifically dedicated to 
environmental restoration and protection. In terms of projects, 
programs and policies, this is far and away the most environmentally 
significant Water Resources Development Act to have been assembled by 
the Congress.
  What are some of the important new policy and program initiatives 
included in the bill? First, we have included a provision proposed by 
the administration to clarify the cost-sharing for dredged material 
disposal associated with the operation and maintenance of harbors.
  Currently, Federal and non-Federal responsibilities for construction 
of dredged material disposal facilities vary from project to project, 
depending on when the project was authorized, and the method or site 
selected for disposal.
  For some projects, the costs of providing dredged material disposal 
facilities are all Federal. For others, the non-Federal sponsor bears 
the entire cost of constructing disposal facilities. This arrangement 
is inequitable for numerous ports.
  In addition, the failure to identify economically and environmentally 
acceptable disposal options has reduced operations and increased cargo 
costs in many port cities. Regrettably, this is the case for the Port 
of Providence in Rhode Island.
  Under this bill, the costs of constructing dredged material disposal 
facilities will be shared in accordance with the cost-sharing formulas 
established for general navigation features by section 101(a) of the 
1986 Water Resources Development Act. This would apply to all methods 
of dredged material disposal including open water, upland and confined. 
This provision will allow ports like the one in Providence to compete 
on an equal footing.
  We have also expanded section 1135 of the 1986 act in this bill. 
Currently, section 1135 authorizes the Secretary of the Army to review 
the structure and operation of existing projects for possible 
modifications--at the project itself--which will improve the quality of 
the environment. The 1986 act authorizes a $5 million Federal cost-
sharing cap for each such project and a $25 million annual cap for the 
entire program.
  The revision included here does not increase the existing dollar 
limits. Instead, it authorizes the Secretary to implement small fish 
and wildlife habitat restoration projects in cooperation with non-
Federal interests in those situations where mitigation is required off 
of project lands.
  Third, we have included a provision to shift certain dam safety 
responsibilities from the Army Corps to the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency [FEMA]. This change, proposed by Senator Bond and 
supported by the two agencies, authorizes a total of $22 million over 5 
years for FEMA to conduct dam safety inspections and to provide 
technical assistance to the States.
  Next, a provision has been included to address the administration's 
proposal to discontinue Army Corps involvement in shore protection 
projects. The provision directs continued beach and shoreline 
protection, restoration and renourishment activities which are 
economically justified. I want to credit Senators Mack and Bradley, in 
particular, for their efforts on this matter.
  Mr. President, this legislation includes landmark Everglades 
restoration provisions. On June 11 of this year, the administration 
submitted its plan to restore and protect the Everglades.
  The conferees have worked closely with the Florida delegation to 
modify and improve the administration's proposal to reverse damage done 
to this critical natural resource.
  The provision we have agreed to would: expedite the Corps study 
process for future restoration activities; formally establish the South 
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force; authorize $75 million for the 
implementation of critical projects through fiscal year 1999; and 
authorize important modifications to the existing Canal-51 and Canal-
111 projects.
  Mr. President, I would like to highlight an important cost-sharing 
reform made necessary by current budget circumstances. The non-Federal 
share for flood control projects has been increased from the current 25 
percent to 35 percent. The fact of the matter is that Corps of 
Engineers's construction dollars are increasingly scarce.

  In order to meet the very real flood control needs across the nation, 
we are forced to require greater participation by non-Federal project 
sponsors. Importantly, the bill also includes prudent, yet meaningful 
ability-to-pay eligibility reforms for poor areas.
  Also provided here is a pilot program to demonstrate the benefits of 
privatizing the management of wastewater treatment plants through long-
term lease arrangements. Over the past 25 years, Congress has made a 
considerable investment in protecting water quality by working with 
States and cities to ensure the proper treatment and disinfection of 
domestic sewage. Federal appropriations exceeding $65 billion under the 
Clean Water Act and $10 billion through the Department of Agriculture 
have supported grants and loans for the construction of sewage 
treatment plants.
  But in recent years, the flow of funds from the Federal level has 
slowed while needs at the local level have increased. The most recent 
survey by EPA indicates that the cost to build and maintain needed 
sewage collection and treatment facilities across the country exceeds 
$130 billion. We can't close that gap with Federal tax dollars and 
local governments are hard-pressed to keep up.
  One source of funds that remains virtually untapped is private 
financing and operation of these facilities. Although many cities are 
receiving their drinking water from privately owned utilities, this is 
a much rarer occurrence for the ownership and operation of sewage 
treatment plants.
  To encourage privatization, as it is sometimes called, President Bush 
issued an Executive order establishing a Federal policy for the sale of 
sewage plants now owned by cities to entities in the private sector. A 
policy change is necessary, because the law now requires that any 
Federal assistance received to build the plant must be repaid from the 
proceeds of the sale. The Executive order requires that only the 
undepreciated value of the grant be repaid.
  However, sales are not the only means to encourage private investment 
in these facilities. Another option is a long-term lease. This approach 
may be more advantageous than a sale because sewage plants that remain 
in the ownership of municipal government agencies are subject to less 
stringent pollution control regulations than those that are owned by 
private entities.
  There has only been one outright sale under the Executive order, but 
several communities including Wilmington, DE, and Cranston, RI, are 
looking at long-term lease arrangements.
  To encourage this approach, the conference report provides that the 
requirement to repay grants that applies under the Clean Water Act and 
the Executive order in the case of a sale would not apply to leases if 
two conditions are met. First, the municipal agency must retain 
ownership of the facility.

  And second, EPA must determine that the lease furthers the purposes 
and objectives of the Clean Water Act. Our principal aim here is to 
assure that privatization does not lead to disinvestment. When the 
Federal Government provided the grant to build the plant, we required 
the city to collect rates sufficient to maintain the plant and keep it 
in good working order.
  The law and the Executive order also require that the consumer 
charges supporting maintenance and reinvestment be imposed in a fair 
and reasonable way. The administrator is to look to these and other 
requirements of the Clean Water Act to ensure that privatization does 
not undermine the purposes for which the grant and loan programs to 
finance the construction of sewage treatment plants were first enacted.
  Mr. President, nothing in this legislation directs EPA to approve any 
particular lease arrangement. As I have said, the city of Cranston in 
my home State has developed what I believe to be an excellent proposal. 
Mayor Traficante is to be commended on the innovative approach that he 
is taking

[[Page S11521]]

to hold down the costs of municipal government for the people of his 
city.
  Cranston has worked closely with EPA to develop the details of its 
lease and we very much appreciate the assistance that EPA has provided. 
There has been a question on whether Cranston would be required to 
repay part of its grant in the event the lease is completed. This 
legislation would answer that question, but only if EPA determines that 
lease arrangement serves the purposes and objectives of the Clean Water 
Act.
  Again, Mr. President, in the area of environmental protection, one of 
the most difficult water quality problems is the discharge of untreated 
sewage into rivers, lakes, and estuaries from combined sanitary and 
stormwater sewers. Sewage treatment plants are designed to handle all 
of the wastewater generated by a community during dry weather periods.
  But for the 1,200 communities that have systems with connections 
between the stormwater and domestic sewage pipes, large storm events 
can overwhelm the capacity of the treatment works and lead to 
discharges of untreated wastewater. This problem is one of the most 
significant unresolved issues in water quality today.
  We have this problem in Rhode Island. The intermittent discharges 
from our combined sewer overflows have led to closures of swimming 
beaches and shellfishing beds. Rhode Island is well on the way to 
correcting the problem, but it will be an expensive undertaking.
  In fact, the solution--a planned underground tunnel to hold 
stormwater runoff until it can be treated--is the biggest 
public construction project ever planned for the State, with expected 
costs exceeding $450 million. The bill includes an authorization of 
modest Federal assistance to Rhode Island to solve this problem and to 
pay for the water quality mandate imposed by the Federal Clean Water 
Act.

  Mr. President, this legislation is vitally important for countless 
States and communities across the country.
  For economic and life-safety reasons, we must maintain our harbors, 
ports and inland waterways, flood control levees, shorelines, and the 
environment.
  Despite the fact that this package represents a 4-year backlog of 
project authorizations, it is consistent with the overall funding 
levels authorized in previous water resources measures. I urge my 
colleagues to support the conference report.
  Before I yield the floor, Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute 
to just a handful of the many individuals responsible for this 
important legislation. First, I would like to thank Senators Warner, 
Smith, Baucus, and Moynihan for their hard work as conferees.
  Likewise, we could not have reached agreement this year without the 
efforts of House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman 
Bud Shuster, his ranking minority member, Jim Oberstar, Representative 
Sherwood Boehlert, and their excellent staff.
  We have worked closely with the administration, Mr. President, and I 
want to recognize the valuable input of Assistant Secretary Martin 
Lancaster. Secretary Lancaster and his team, including Deputy Assistant 
Secretary Mike Davis, Jim Rausch, Gary Campbell, Milton Reider, Bill 
Schmidtz, John Anderson, Susan Bond, and others have aided us 
immeasurably.
  Finally, I want to thank the Senate staff who have worked so hard on 
this bill. On Senator Baucus's staff, I extend my appreciation to Jo-
Ellen Darcy and Tom Sliter. On the Republican side, I want to thank 
staff members Ann Loomis, Chris Russell, Steve Shimberg, Linda Jordan, 
Stephanie Brewster, Dan Delich and Senate legislative counsel, Janine 
Johnson.
  I again urge the adoption of the conference report and yield the 
floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senate now has before it the 
conference report to accompany S. 640, the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1996. I would like to compliment the conferees on the fine work 
they have done in bringing this conference report to the Senate for 
resolution before the 104th Congress adjourns.
  A great deal of work has been done by the House and Senate 
committees, working together, to reach this point. Everyone involved 
has been diligent in applying sound criteria for determining the 
worthiness of individual projects.
  I particularly want to commend the conferees for deleting the House 
provision that would have increased the navigation season on the 
Missouri River. The operation of the Missouri River is a controversial 
issue in my State. The Corps of Engineers is currently in the middle of 
a comprehensive review to determine the best way to manage the river 
for all interests, including recreation, navigation, irrigation, 
hydropower and water supply.
  For Congress to intervene at this stage of the reevaluation, to 
predetermine its outcome, would have been counterproductive to a fair 
and equitable resolution of this issue. I thank the House conferees for 
receding to the Senate on this issue.
  There are some laudable provisions in this conference report, most 
notably the changes in flood control policy. With tighter Federal 
budgets, there is a growing need for local interests to become even 
more committed to their projects. The conference report changes the 
current Federal cost share for flood control projects from 75 percent 
to 65 percent.
  It also reforms the so-called ability-to-pay provisions of current 
law to make them more meaningful. It requires floodplain management 
plans and the consideration of nonstructural alternatives to 
traditional flood control facilities. Finally, the conference report 
requires the corps, for the first time, to provide levee owners with a 
manual describing what they must do in order to maintain a levee to 
corps specifications.
  Another important provision of the bill directs the Secretary to 
provide increased emphasis on recreation opportunities at corps 
facilities. And it recognizes the problem of funding disposal 
facilities for dredged materials and allows that cost to be considered 
when calculating the overall cost of a navigation project.
  Mr. President, while all of these provisions are important 
improvements to current law and corps policy, I have one overriding 
concern with this conference report and that is its cost. This bill 
authorizes $3.8 billion in new Federal spending.
  When the Senate considered this bill earlier this year, I voiced 
concern that the cost of the bill at that time--$3.3 billion--was at 
odds with our efforts to balance the budget. Since that time, the cost 
of the bill has grown. I have long supported investments in our 
infrastructure, including our water infrastructure. They are necessary 
if America is to retain its competitive advantage and keep a sound base 
of manufacturing jobs.
  But we need to make choices about these investments, hard choices. 
And while the majority of the projects in this bill are worthy ones, 
the truth is that we simply cannot afford them all at this time.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we are at the end of a very long road in the 
process of enacting the 1996 Water Resources Development Act 
authorizing various water resources projects to enhance flood 
protection, navigation, environmental protection, and related Corps of 
Engineers projects. Special thanks and congratulations are in order for 
the Chairman of the full committee, Senator Chafee and his ranking 
member, Senator Baucus and the Subcommittee Chairman, Senator Warner. 
They and their excellent staff have carried the difficult burden of 
sorting through in a bipartisan manner these very complex and sensitive 
issues--issues that are of vital concern to many in this country but 
particulary for my State of Missouri.
  For States like Missouri, who rely greatly on water resources, this 
legislation is crucial to provide safety, economic development 
opportunities, and cost-effective navigation on our inland waterway 
system. Since 1928, for every dollar the corps has spent on flood 
control, 8 dollars' worth of damages have been avoided. This 8 to 1 
benefit to cost ratio does not account for the economic development and 
job creation benefits that flood protection provides. Recent flooding 
has highlighted the need to maintain this commitment and keep the Corps 
of Engineers engaged in partnering with Missouri citizens in this 
regard. This is a safety, jobs, and international competitiveness 
issues pure and simple.

[[Page S11522]]

  Again, I applaud the efforts of the chairman and urge strongly 
support for this bipartisan legislation.


                    THE EpA LONG ISLAND SOUND OFFICE

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to note the critical 
importance of this legislation, the Water Resources Development Act, to 
the future of Connecticut's most valuable natural resource, Long Island 
Sound.
  Included in the bill is a provision reauthorizing the EPA's Long 
Island Sound Office [LISO], which was established by legislation I was 
proud to sponsor 6 years ago, and which is now responsible for 
coordinating the massive clean-up effort ongoing in the Sound. Quite 
simply, the LISO is the glue holding this project together, and I want 
to express my deep appreciation to the chairman and ranking member of 
the Environment and Public Works Committee--Senators Chafee and 
Baucus--for their help in making sure this office stays open for 
business.
  Mr. President, the Long Island Sound Office has been given a daunting 
task--orchestrating a multibillion dollar, decade-long initiative that 
requires the cooperation of nearly 150 different Federal, State and 
municipal agents and offices. Despite the odds, and the limited 
resources it has had to work with, the LISO is succeeding. Over the 
last few years, the EPA office has developed strong working 
relationships with the State environmental protection agencies in 
Connecticut and New York, local government officials along the Sound 
coastline and a number of proactive citizen groups. Together, these 
many partners have made tremendous progress toward meeting the six key 
goals we identified in the Sound's long-term conservation and 
management plan.
  The plan's top priority is fighting hypoxia, which is caused by the 
release of nutrients into the Sound's 1,300 square miles of water. 
Thanks in part to the LISO's efforts, nitrogen loads have dropped 5,000 
pounds per day from the baseline levels of 1990, exceeding all 
expectations. In addition, all sewage treatment plants in Connecticut 
and in New York's Westchester, Suffolk, and Nassau counties are now in 
compliance with the no net increase agreement brokered by the LISO, 
while the four New York City plants that discharge into the East River 
are expected to be in compliance by the end of this year. And the LISO 
is coordinating 15 different projects to retrofit treatment plants with 
new equipment that will help them reduce the amount of nitrogen 
reaching the Sound.
  The LISO and its many partners have made great strides in other 
areas, such as cracking down on the pathogens, toxic substances, and 
litter that have been finding their way into the Sound watershed and 
onto area beaches. A major source of toxic substances are industrial 
plants, and over the last few years the LISO has helped arrange more 
than 30 pollution prevention assessments at manufacturing facilities in 
Connecticut that enable companies to reduce emissions and cut their 
costs. Also, New York City has recently reduced the amount of floatable 
debris it produces by 70 percent, thanks to the use of booms on many 
tributaries and efforts to improve the capture of combined sewer 
overflows.

  With Congress' help, the LISO will soon be able to build on that 
progress and significantly broaden its efforts to bring the Sound back 
to life. This week the House and Senate approved an appropriation of 
the $700,000 for the Long Island Sound Office, doubling our commitment 
from the current fiscal year. These additional funds will be used in 
part to launch an ambitious habitat restoration project. The States of 
New York and Connecticut have been working with the LISO and the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service to develop a long-term strategy in this area, 
and they have already identified 150 key sites. The next step is to 
provide grants to local partnerships with local towns and private 
groups such as the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and The Nature 
Conservancy, which would focus on restoring tidal and freshwater 
wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation, and areas supporting anadromous 
fish populations.
  The funding will also be used for site-specific surveys to identify 
and correct local sources of non-point source pollution. This effort 
will focus on malfunctioning septic systems, stormwater management, and 
illegal stormwater connections, improper vessel waste disposal, and 
riparian protection. All of these sources contribute in some way to the 
release of pathogens and toxic compounds into the Sound, a problem that 
is restricting the use of area beaches and shellfish beds and hurting 
our regional economy.
  Finally, the LISO will continue to build on the successful public 
education and outreach campaign it initiated last year. In New York, 
the LISO has already been in contact with public leaders in 50 local 
communities, held follow-up meetings with officials in 15 key areas, 
and scheduled on-the-water workshops for this fall. The LISO is 
planning to conduct a similar effort to reach out to Connecticut 
communities in 1997.
  All of this could have been put in jeopardy, however, if we had not 
acted to extend the LISO's authorization, which is set to expire next 
week. The clean-up project is a team effort, with many important 
contributors, but it would be extremely difficult for those many 
partners to work in concert and keep moving forward without the 
leadership and coordination that the LISO has supplied. So I want to 
thank my colleagues, especially my friends from Rhode Island and from 
Montana, for passing this provision before the LISO's authorization 
lapsed.
  The people of Connecticut care deeply about the fate of the Sound, 
not only because of its environmental importance but also because of 
its importance as one of our region's most valuable economic assets. 
With the steps we've taken this week, we have reassured them that we 
remained committed to preserving this great natural resource, and that 
we are not about to sell Long Island Sound short.

                          ____________________