Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 136 (Friday, September 27, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 136 (Friday, September 27, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11522-S11527]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

EVERGLADES RESTORATION PROVISION

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the
conference report on the Water Resources Development Act and, in
particular, the provision in the bill relating to the restoration of
Florida's Everglades. I want to especially thank the distinguished
chairman of the committee, Mr. Chafee. The Senator from Rhode Island
clearly understands the unique nature of the Everglades problem and, on
behalf of all Floridians, I extend my appreciation for his efforts on
behalf of this legislation.
It is no secret, Mr. President, that the Everglades are a resource
unique and precious to all Americans. This ``river of grass''--
extending from the Kissimmee chain of lakes through to Florida Bay and
the Florida Keys--is the primary source of south Florida's drinking
water, critical to our cultural heritage and essential to our continued
economic well-being. As the Everglades go, Mr. President, so goes south
Florida. How best to craft a balance between the urban, agricultural,
and environmental interests presents one of the greatest challenges
facing this generation of Floridians.
This Congress has already demonstrated its unwavering commitment to
this resource by appropriating $200 million in direct funding for
Everglades restoration during consideration of the farm bill earlier
this year. This move represents the single-largest funding commitment
to the Everglades in history and is indicative of the interest this
Congress has in ensuring that this important resource is passed on to
future generations.
It has not always been so. In an effort to provide flood control for
the rapidly-growing region, Congress in 1948 authorized the massive
central and southern Florida project. The goal of this effort was to
drain the swamp through a series of canals extending from Lake
Okeechobee to the sea. The result was thousands of acres opened to
agriculture and development and an unprecedented economic expansion in
the region.
This was not, however, without a significant cost. The reallocation
of water resulting from the project disrupted the natural hydroperiod
of the Everglades. Wildlife populations plummeted and fresh water flows
were diminished. Critical resources like Florida Bay--a once-vibrant
body of water that sustained both a healthy environment and a strong
coastal economy--began to wither on the vine. As Florida's coastal
communities felt the effect of this harm, an effort began to rethink
the

[[Page S11523]]

project and how it relates to the new realities in south Florida.
In 1992, Mr. President, Congress directed the Army Corps of Engineers
to perform a Comprehensive Review Study--restudy--of the C&SF project
with an eye toward capturing the millions of acre-feet of fresh water
currently being lost to tide every year and reallocating this resource
within the south Florida ecosystem. This restudy presents the
opportunity to integrate scientifically sound environmental restoration
into the mix of priorities in south Florida in a balanced, equitable,
and responsible manner.
Due to the complexity of this task and the difficulty coming to
consensus on solutions, it began to appear that this restudy would last
at least several years into the next century. This, Mr. President, was
simply unacceptable. The citizens and water users in south Florida have
a legitimate interest in knowing the specifics of the restoration
effort sooner rather than later. The Congress has a legitimate interest
in knowing how much all of this is going to cost the Federal
Government. And the State of Florida--which has committed to become a
50/50 partner with the Federal Government in this effort--has a
legitimate interest in knowing the size and duration of its commitment
to Everglades restoration.

In fact, the State of Florida recognized the need for balance and
consensus several years ago. The Governor's Commission for a
Sustainable South Florida--an ad-hoc coalition of 46 interest groups
and governmental entities across the spectrum in south Florida--was
created to seek out restoration goals and projects which everyone
agreed would accelerate the restoration without harming the various
water users. The commission recently unanimously approved a remarkable
document which details 40 specific projects. This blueprint will
increase the pace of restoration while taking into account the water-
related needs of all parties in the region. The corps has indicated
that if it were able to work from this consensus document, it could
come to closure on the restudy within 3 years.
Thus began, Mr. President, our efforts this year. After much
negotiation and effort, my colleague from Florida, Senator Graham and I
were able to arrive at the package we are considering today.
Specifically, Mr. President, the legislation before us requires the
corps to submit a comprehensive plan for restoration of the Everglades
by July 1, 1999. This plan will include a list of specific projects for
authorization by Congress and will include the necessary engineering
and design. Clearly, this will require a monumental effort by the corps
as it works to complete its work by this deadline. We have been
repeatedly assured by the corps that it can be done without
shortcutting necessary engineering and planning.
The legislation further contains $75 million in authority for the
Corps of Engineers to construct projects deemed critical to the
restoration effort. The report language accompanying this bill
indicates five projects which ought to be top priority for the corps as
it exercises this authority. These projects are universally accepted in
south Florida as projects which can be carried out within the next 3
years and which will significantly accelerate the restoration effort.
Lastly, Mr. President, this bill establishes in law the South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. This is an intergovernmental body
which includes representatives from the Federal Government, State and
local entities and the two Indian tribes present in the Everglades. The
task force is based largely on the successful arrangement currently
operating in south Florida and will provide a forum for exchanging
information, taking public comment and input, and coordinating the
overall restoration effort.
Mr. President, we believe this package represents a significant step
forward in the continuing effort to restore the Everglades and provide
a sustainable economy for all the residents of south Florida. I again
express my sincere appreciation to Senator Chafee and Senator Baucus--
and the Environment Committee staff--for their outstanding support and
leadership on this effort. I urge my colleagues to support the
conference report.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 640, the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 [WRDA]. Congress last passed a
WRDA bill in 1992, and I am pleased that we are able to pass this
legislation that authorizes spending for many important water projects.
A provision in this bill authorizes the Secretary of the Army to
acquire, from willing sellers, permanent flowage and saturation
easements for lands within or contiguous to the boundaries of the
Buford Trenton Irrigation District, ND. These flowage easements are to
compensate landowners for land that has been affected by rising ground
water and the risk of surface flooding due to the operation of the
Garrison Dam on the Missouri River. The corps began operation of this
Dam in 1955.
In acquiring these easements, this provision specifies the Secretary
shall pay an amount based on the unaffected fee value of the lands,
meaning the value of the lands as if unaffected by rising ground water
and the risk of surface flooding. The intent of Congress is for the
Secretary to acquire these easements based on the current fair market
value of the land, and not the value of land before Garrison Dam was
operational. I would like to submit a copy of a letter I sent to the
corps requesting a clarification of their intent in implementing this
provision, and a copy of the corps' response stating the Secretary
shall appraise these easements at their current fair market value, as
if the lands are not affected by rising ground water and the risk of
surface flooding.
I applaud this provision that justly compensates these landowners for
damage to their land from rising ground water and the risk of surface
flooding due to the operation of the Garrison Dam.
Mr. President, I would also like to express my position to a
provision in this bill that raises the non-Federal cost-share
requirement for Corps of Engineers flood control projects from 25
percent to 35 percent. it is my understanding that this provision does
not apply to flood control projects that have previously been
authorized, or are authorized in this bill.
I am concerned that this provision will have a detrimental impact on
smaller communities in North Dakota that are in need of flood control
projects. I understand the motivation to save the Federal Government
money by requiring local partners to contribute more to these flood
control projects. However, this provision will place a significant
financial burden on communities in North Dakota that are in dire need
of flood control projects but do not possess the resources or the tax-
base to raise this additional cost share.
Also, some communities in my State, such as Grand Forks, are
currently cost-sharing feasibility studies for flood control projects
with the corps. These communities have committed significant funds
based on the fact any flood control project that resulted from the
study would be cost-shared at a 75-to-25 Federal/non-Federal ratio.
This provision places a financial burden on communities like Grand
Forks that are currently financing feasibility studies and budgeting
for a cost share of 25 percent on flood control projects. It is my hope
the Congress would recognize the negative impact this provision has on
communities like Grand Forks and allow flood control projects to be
constructed under the current 25 percent non-Federal cost-share, should
the community demonstrate an inability to meet the 35 percent cost-
share requirement.
Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman of the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senator Chafee, and the
ranking member of the committee, Senator Baucus, for their efforts in
completing this important legislation during the 104th Congress.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two letters be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, September 26, 1996.
H. Martin Lancaster,
Assistant Secretary for Civil Works, Department of the Army,
Washington, DC.
Dear Assistant Secretary Lancaster: I am writing in regard
to the Water Resources

[[Page S11524]]

Development Act of 1996 (WRDA). I would like to know the
intent of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in implementing
Section 336 of this bill.
As you know, Section 336 of the conference version of the
WRDA bill authorizes the Secretary of the Army to acquire,
from willing sellers, permanent flowage and saturation
easements for lands within or contiguous to the boundaries of
the Buford Trenton Irrigation District in North Dakota. These
flowage easements are to compensate landowners for land that
has been affected by rising ground water and the risk of
surface flooding due to the operation of the Garrison Dam on
the Missouri River.
In acquiring these easements, this provision specifies the
Secretary shall pay an amount based on the unaffected fee
value of the lands, meaning the value of the lands as if
unaffected by rising ground water and the risk of surface
flooding. The intent of Congress is for the Secretary to
acquire these easements based on the current fair market
value of the land, as if unaffected by rising ground water
and the risk of surface flooding. Implementing this provision
as Congress intends will justly compensate these landowners
for damage to their land due to the operation of the Garrison
Dam.
I am requesting an assurance from the Corps that, for the
purpose of acquiring these flowage easements, this land will
be appraised at the current fair market value, as if
unaffected by the operation of Garrison Dam.
Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to
hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Kent Conrad,
U.S. Senate.
____

Department of the Army, Office of the Assistant
Secretary, Civil Works, 108 Army Pentagon,
Washington, DC, September 27, 1996.
Hon. Kent Conrad,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Conrad: This letter is written in response to
your letter dated September 26, 1996, regarding the Army
Corps of Engineers intent in implementing Section 336 of the
conference version of the proposed Water Resources
Development Act of 1996.
In implementing section 336 and the acquisition of flowage
easements from willing sellers, the Corps shall appraise such
easements at their current fair market value as if the lands
are not affected by rising ground water and the risk of
surface flooding.
I hope this letter addresses your concerns.
Sincerely,
John H. Zirschky,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works).

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak in
support of the Water Resources and Development Act of 1996. This
legislation authorizes funding for a number of critical flood control
projects in Pennsylvania, whose need was once again demonstrated by the
devastating flooding that occurred in January 1996. It will provide
essential protection to existing commercial and residential
developments, reducing losses attributable to floods, lowering flood
insurance, and creating opportunities for economic growth.
I have worked closely with Senator Santorum, as well as Chairman
Chafee, Chairman Warner, and Senator Baucus, to ensure that this
legislation reauthorizes the Saw Mill Run project in Pittsburgh,
authorizes Army Corps of Engineers funding for upgrades to the storm
water pumping station at the Wyoming Valley levee raising project in
Luzerne County, and authorizes a flood control project for the Plot and
Green Ridge neighborhoods in Scranton.
The flood protection project at Saw Mill Run will alleviate flood
damage in the West End section of Pittsburgh, bringing relief to
residents who have been hard hit by overbank flooding and creating
opportunities for economic development in the Saw Mill Run corridor.
During my visit to the project site with the mayor of Pittsburgh, Tom
Murphy, on November 21, 1995, he and I discussed the city's commitment
to protecting its vulnerable riverside communities and to providing the
city's share of the development funds. I am pleased that this project
can go forward and that we were able to secure $500,000 for
construction-related costs in the fiscal year 1997 energy and water
appropriations legislation.
The Wyoming Valley levee raising project is necessary to the
completion of the flood control project of 1986, so that the families
and businesses of Wyoming Valley will not have to withstand the
devastation of flooding as they did in 1972 from Tropical Storm Agnes.
This January's flooding forced more than 100,000 people to evacuate
their homes and businesses and resulted in President Clinton's
declaring it a disaster area. Such a flood control project is vitally
important to the affected communities along the Lackawanna River and is
deserving of significant attention from the Congress. This February,
the corps approved the General Design Memorandum and has begun to
develop the mitigation measures for the downstream communities. This
legislation incorporates an amendment offered on my behalf in the
Senate managers' amendments which directs the corps to take
responsibility for funding the upgrades to the storm water pumping
stations.
Finally, I have worked closely with Senator Santorum, Congressman
Joseph McDade, Chairman Chafee, and Scranton Mayor Jim Connors on
legislation authorizing the modification of the ongoing project for
flood control along the Lackawanna River in Scranton to include the
Diamond Plot and Green Ridge neighborhoods. These neighborhoods have
been consistently damaged by flooding, including in 1985, 1986, 1993,
and 1996. On March 11, 1996, I convened a meeting in the city council
chambers so Federal, State, and local officials, the Army Corps, and
residents could discuss the potential for a Federal flood control
project. I came away from that meeting even more impressed with the
need for the Federal Government to respond with a substantial flood
control effort to protect the lives and property of the residents.
The conference report authorizes the flood control project in the
Plot and Green Ridge areas, with the cost-sharing element to be worked
out between the Army Corps of Engineers and the city of Scranton. This
is a creative solution to a difficult problem and I am hopeful that the
city and the Commonwealth will work together to develop a strategy for
providing the non-Federal share of the project costs. It is worth
noting that the fiscal year 1997 energy and water appropriations bill
contains $600,000 for initial planning and design work of the Plot/
Green Ridge projects, which means that additional time will not be lost
on protecting the residents of those areas.
Mr. President, thousands of families and businesses in Pennsylvania
were adversely affected by in this January's floods, and one of my
priorities has been that Congress respond with sufficient funding for
justified Army Corps projects. I remain concerned with the time it
takes to make progress on various corps projects in Pennsylvania and
will continue to explore ways to streamline the construction process.
In the meantime, this legislation allows much-needed flood control
projects to go forward and thus deserves our support.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I am pleased today to support the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 and I would like to
congratulate the conferees of the Environment and Public Works
Committee for their fine work supporting the Senate's position on this
bill.
I also want to thank the conferees for supporting my amendments to
that bill. Specifically, the committee supported research and
development programs to improve salmon survival and supporting the
continuing presence of the dredge fleet in the Columbia River.
By now everyone in the country knows the immense challenges we in the
Northwest face concerning salmon survival in the Columbia and Snake
Rivers. The puzzle of salmon survival is a complex one which has its
roots in not only the water projects on the Columbia and Snake Rivers
but also on the coasts and in the open ocean. Although a great deal of
money has been spent on salmon survival, I was surprised in hearings
before the Drinking Water, Fisheries and Wildlife Subcommittee that
sometimes basic research into salmon survival is either not done or
waits until adaptive management techniques are implemented.
The intent of my amendment was to ensure that basic research into
marine mammal predation, spawning and rearing areas, estuary and near
ocean survival, salmon passage, light and sound guidance of salmon,
surface collection, transportation, dissolved gas monitoring, and other
innovative techniques to improve fish survival does not have to wait
until an adaptive management experiment is initiated.

[[Page S11525]]

Adaptive management should be a response to sound science not a
substitute for it. A $10 million authorization is provided for this
research.
The amendment would also ensure a continuing authorization for
advanced turbine development. One of the most overlooked sources of
renewable energy in the Nation's energy arsenal is hydroelectric power.
New research into turbine design has been for the most part overlooked.
With the environmentally and fish friendly turbine design research
authorized by this bill we can ensure that innovative, efficient, and
environmentally safe hydropower turbines will be providing us with the
next generation of power into the 21st century. A $12 million
authorization is provided for this research.
Finally, the Water Resources Development Act includes language which
ensures the continued presence of Army Corps of Engineers hopper
dredges in the Pacific Northwest. I thank the conferees and Chairman
Chafee for including language in the bill which directs the Secretary
to not reduce the availability or utilization of Federal hopper dredge
vessels on the Pacific coast below 1996 levels. I appreciate the
conferees working closely with me to develop language that would ensure
that the necessary resources remain available to keep the Columbia
River channel open to commerce of up river cities, including Idaho's
inland port of Lewiston.
I wholeheartedly support this legislation and I thank the conferees
for their consideration of my concerns.

WHITE RIVER BASIN LAKES, ARKANSAS AND MISSOURI

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, section 304 of this legislation includes
``recreation and fish and wildlife mitigation'' as purposes of the
White River Basin Lakes project approved June 28, 1938 (52 Stat.
1218.). There are some in my State who have voiced strong concern that
this provision may impact adversely the currently authorized project
purposes of flood control, power generation, and other purposes. They
fear that the outcome may be loss in generation capacity or energy
production which would increase the costs to ratepayers and adversely
affect the region's citizens.
The Senate language, however, explicitly authorizes these new
purposes ``to the extent that the purposes do not adversely impact
flood control, power generation, or other authorized purposes of the
project.'' Is it the intent of the Senators from Arkansas, who
sponsored this provision, that this provision forbids any adverse
impacts on currently authorized projects?
Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator from Missouri is correct. We drafted this
language to explicitly preclude adverse impacts to flood control, power
generation, and the other project purposes. It is the clear intent of
this legislation to recognize the contribution of tourism and
recreation to the economies of our respective States and to take such
actions as may be proper to protect that contribution. It is equally
clear that such action can occur only as long as the primary project
purposes, previously established by law and practical application of
that law, are fully protected.
It should be remembered that prudent use of our Nation's water
resources is not limited to a few specific purposes that are mutually
exclusive of one another. In addition, we must also recognize that, at
times, the establishment and protection of priorities are also proper
elements of public policy. Such is the case here. It is true that the
tourism and recreation industries have grown beyond the expectations of
anyone associated with the original construction of flood control and
power generation facilities along the White River. However, this does
not mean that our continuing support for flood control and efficient
power generation has diminished in any degree.
I have long been one of the strongest supporters in the U.S. Senate
of hydro-electric power generation. It is one of the most efficient and
environmentally based sources available to our ever-growing demand for
energy. Reasonable electric rates are critical to economic development
and a comfortable standard of living for our people. I understand the
concerns of those involved with power generation along the White River
that the inclusion of recreation as a project purpose may somehow
impair their access to an efficient and affordable energy source. Let
me clearly state that these concerns are totally unnecessary.
The provision before us plainly prohibits any adverse impact to power
generation. We clearly recognize the customary practices employed by
the Corps of Engineers and power generators along the White River which
have achieved proper resource conservation, energy output, and
ratepayer equity. In no way should those practices be impaired or
restricted by this provision. Instead, we have made certain that power
generation, along with flood control and other prior purposes and
practices, will remain intact.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Arkansas to
express thanks to the Committee on Environment and Public Works for
including the language in section 304 of the Water Resources
Development Act relating to the project purposes of the White River
Basin Lakes in Missouri and Arkansas. This is a significant development
for the tourism and recreation industries in our States.
In Arkansas, tourism has become the second leading industry, directly
behind agriculture, in terms of its impact on State and local
economies. Nowhere is it felt more strongly than in the White River
Basin. And it is not just the local economies that feel the impact. The
tax revenues generated return to the Federal treasury an amount far
exceeding the Federal investment.
The White River Basin Lakes were authorized during an era when our
Nation's needs and economies were quite different from today. While
the Congresses of the 1940's were visionary and accomplished many
positive things for our Nation in terms of flood control, and later
power generation, it would have been impossible for them to imagine the
development of tourist industries, such as Branson, MO, that would be
affected by these lakes. It would have been impossible to know that
millions of visitors each year would spend untold millions of dollars
on recreation related goods and services.

I am aware of the concerns of power suppliers in both States who
worry that this language will somehow subordinate power generation at
these dams to recreation interests. Mr. President, as we read this
language, it is absolutely clear that flood control and power
generation will not be adversely affected by any actions that this
legislation authorizes the Army Corps of Engineers to undertake. This
language simply grants a place at the table to recreation, tourism and
fish and wildlife interests. It allows the Corps of Engineers to
consider impacts on these interests when making decisions about the
management and operation of these lakes. This is long overdue.
Mr. INHOFE. I too am concerned that this language not adversely
impact flood control, power generation capacity, energy production,
Federal revenues or other authorized purposes. Has the Senator from
Arkansas been in contact with the Corps of Engineers to this regard?
Mr. BUMPERS. My office has contacted representatives of the Corps of
Engineers and they share our interpretation that this provision, as
drafted, cannot adversely impact ratepayers. As stated by my colleague
from Arkansas, we have no intention that this provision will raise
rates, affect energy production or federal revenues or any other
project purposes currently authorized. Conversely, it is our strong
view that there are measures that can be taken to assist the tourism
and fish and wildlife interests that do not impact adversely the
existing project purposes. It is not our intention to have this
provision result in loss of generation capacity or increase exposure to
ratepayers. It was for this reason that we drafted the language in such
an explicit manner.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, is it the interpretation of the
distinguished chairman of the Committee that the clear priority project
purposes remain flood control, power generation capacity, energy
production, Federal revenues, and those other purposes authorized
subject to the 1938 law and that the additional authorization included
in this legislation shall be secondary should there be any conflict
between them, and the current operation of the projects for the
purposes of flood control and power shall remain project priorities?

[[Page S11526]]

Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator from Missouri is correct. The project
priorities are clear.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the consideration of the
Senators from Arkansas, Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma and the chairman
of the Committee. Hydropower is critical to the citizens and economies
of our states. I understand that power producers have been working
already with fish and wildlife specialists to accommodate their
interests. As this project proceeds, I will watch with great interest
to see that fish and wildlife interests can be served additionally
without undermining the clear and explicit intent of this provision.
Mr. CONRAD. I notice that the chairman of the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works is on the floor. I would like to engage
him in a short colloquy.
As you know, section 336 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 authorizes $34 million for the Secretary of the Army to acquire,
from willing sellers, permanent flowage and saturation easements for
lands within and contiguous to the boundaries of the Buford Trenton
Irrigation District, North Dakota. These flowage easements are to
compensate landowners for land that has been affected by rising ground
water and the risk of surface flooding due to the operation of the
Garrison Dam on the Missouri River. The corps began operation of this
dam in 1955.
In acquiring these easements, this provision specifies the Secretary
shall pay an amount based on the unaffected fee value of the lands,
meaning the value of the lands as if unaffected by rising ground water
and the risk of surface flooding. Would the chairman agree that it is
the intent of Congress that the unaffected fee value of the land be
based on the current fair market value of the land as if unaffected by
rising ground water and the risk of surface flooding, and not the value
of the land before the Garrison Dam was operational?
Mr. CHAFEE. I would agree with the Senator that the intent of
Congress is to compensate these landowners, as necessary, for damages
due to the operation of the Garrison Dam using the current fair market
fee value of the land. The Secretary shall value the land using current
fair market rates as if the land has not been affected by rising ground
water and the risk of surface flooding, and would compensate the
landowners based on this price assessment. The Secretary should not
value this land at the pre-project rate.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the chairman for clarifying the intent of
Congress regarding the purchase of flowage easements for lands in and
adjacent to the Buford Trenton Irrigation District. I also want to
thank the chairman for his efforts in passing this important
legislation during the 104th Congress.
Mrs. BOXER. Will Senator Chafee, the distinguished chairman of the
Environment and Public Works Committee, yield for a question?
Mr. CHAFEE. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. I first want to thank the chairman as well as Senator
Baucus, the ranking Democrat, and Senator John Warner, the chairman of
the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, for their
determination to bring the Water Resources Development Act to
conference. They have crafted a bill and a conference report that will
mean for my State of California strong economic progress by opening our
ports to more international trade, protecting our people from natural
disasters while providing opportunities to preserve and enhance the
environment.
I would like to focus on one provision of the bill involving the
American river watershed. Mr. President, subparagraph D of this
provision states:

The non-Federal sponsor shall be responsible for . . . 25
percent of the costs incurred for the variable flood control
operation of the Folsom Dam and Reservoir.

Therefore, I interpret this to say that the local, non-Federal share
of the costs of the variable flood control operation of Folsom Dam is
not to exceed 25 percent.
It is also my understanding that it is the intent of the conferees
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 on to the water and power ratepayers of
California. May I ask the chairman if my understanding of the language
is correct?
Mr. CHAFEE. Yes, the intent here is to ensure that the costs
associated with the variable flood control operation of Folsom Dam and
Reservoir be shared between the non-Federal project sponsor and the
Federal Government. The cost of the provision of interim flood
protection to the citizens of Sacramento is to be shared.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for this
clarification, and ask if he would yield for a question on another
provision.
Mr. CHAFEE. I will be happy to yield.
Mrs. BOXER. The Water Resources Development Act authorizes
construction of the San Lorenzo River flood control project. The
authorization includes critical habitat restoration, which is to done
in conjunction with the flood control portion.
It is my understanding that the Army Corps of Engineers has completed
the prerequisite studies for this restoration under the section 1135
environmental restoration program. In addition, the fiscal year 1995
and 1997 energy and water appropriations bills direct funding for this
project through the section 1135 program. Further, it is my
understanding that the intent of the conferees that the authorization
of this project will allow the use of section 1135 studies as well as
funding so that there is no further delay in the engineering, design,
and construction of this project. Is my interpretation correct?
Mr. CHAFEE. Yes, the intent here is to include the habitat
restoration work as part of the authorized project. Studies which have
been completed by the Secretary for the habitat restoration should be
put to use. Similarly, appropriations approved by Congress for the
project should be made available to avoid unnecessary delay.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the chairman for his responses and for his
continued leadership in water resource development and environmental
protection.

The La Farge Dam

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to express my strong support for
the conference language in the 1996 Water Resources Development Act
reauthorization [WRDA] that deauthorizes the La Farge Dam and Lake
project. I wish to commend the hard work of the Senator from Rhode
Island [Mr. Chafee], the Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], the Senator
from Virginia [Mr. Warner], and their staff in completing the
conference on this measure in a timely fashion prior to the adjournment
of the 104th Congress. I have also been very pleased with the collegial
work that has taken place among the Members of the Wisconsin
delegation--Representative Gunderson, Senator Kohl, and myself--in
steadfastly pursuing this deauthorization this year.
As I stated when this measure passed the Senate in July 1996, I am
pleased that the Congress is finally acting to end this controversial
project and to seek a new beginning for the Kickapoo Valley. We are
finally able to say to the people of the Kickapoo Valley that the
Federal Government can act to improve their lives and correct a
situation that has long been the symbol, to many in the area, of a
broken promise. This legislation will allow the property to be managed
jointly by a local government panel comprised of local, State and
tribal representation. It will be the first time in our State's history
that these three different levels of government will work together to
manage a property to preserve its ecological integrity while allowing
the public access to the outstanding recreational opportunities.
I wanted to briefly review the details of the conference agreement
with respect to this project. Under this legislation, the 8,569 acres
of land purchased by the Federal Government for the construction of the
La Farge Dam and Lake project will be transferred to two owners: The
State of Wisconsin and the Ho Chunk Nation, a federally recognized
tribe in my State. The Ho Chunk Nation will receive no more than 1,200
acres in the transfer of culturally and religiously significant sites,
and the State will receive the rest.

[[Page S11527]]

This transfer will occur once the State and the tribe enter into a
memorandum of understanding [MOU]. That MOU must ensure that the
property is developed only to enhance outdoor recreational or
educational purposes, described how the lands will be jointly managed,
protect the confidentiality of sites of cultural and religious
significance to the Ho Chunk as appropriate, and establish the terms by
which the agreement will be revisited in the future.
I am particularly pleased that the conference committee was able to
include a $17 million authorization for improvement projects at this
site, an authorization which was supported by the Wisconsin delegation
and the local community. These improvements include: Reconstruction of
the three roads; remediation of old underground storage tanks and wells
on the abandoned farms; and the stabilization of the old dam site.
Next month, members of a gubernatorially appointed negotiating panel
will meet with representatives of the Ho Chunk Nation to begin the MOU
negotiating process. Bolstered by the passage of this legislation, I
know they will try to work as swiftly as possible to complete their
task.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I again want to express my gratitude to
the members of the conference committee for their assistance in working
with the delegation on this matter. I believe that this legislation
will result in a truly landmark arrangement for the management of a
public recreational area. I look forward to the final establishment of
the Kickapoo Valley reserve, and the protection of this truly
outstanding resource.
I first introduced legislation, S. 2186, to achieve this goal on June
14, 1994, and reintroduced that measure as S. 40 on January 4, 1995. It
is a great pleasure to see this measure finally enacted.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the conference
report be considered adopted, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table, and that statements relating to the report be placed at this
point in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The conference report was agreed to.

____________________