[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 60 (Thursday, April 29, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H2476-H2516]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1999

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 154 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 154

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1480) to provide for the conservation and 
     development of water and related resources, to authorize the 
     United States Army Corps of Engineers to construct various 
     projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United 
     States, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to 
     the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure now printed in the bill, modified by the 
     amendments printed in part 1 of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution. That amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in part 2 of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent,

[[Page H2477]]

     shall not be subject to an amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
     or in the Committee of the Whole. The chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during 
     further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request 
     for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five 
     minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendments the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

                              {time}  1030

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Hastings) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, H.R. 154 is a structured 
rule providing 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided and 
controlled between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule makes in order 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure amendment in the 
nature of a substitute as an original bill for the purposes of 
amendment, modified by the amendments printed in part 1 of the report 
of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution.
  The rule waives points of order against consideration of the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute and makes in order only those 
amendments printed in part 2 of the Committee on Rules report 
accompanying the resolution.
  Furthermore, the rule provides that amendments made in order may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by 
the Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, be 
debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and 
controlled by an opponent and proponent, shall not be subject to 
amendment, and shall not be subject to demand for a division of the 
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
  The rule allows for the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to 
postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce voting 
time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15 
minute vote.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Madam Speaker, the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, H.R. 
1480, is the culmination of work that was begun in the 105th Congress 
on a variety of Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
water projects. In fact, I would like to take this opportunity to 
commend the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure and all committee members for their hard work on this 
important legislation.
  The maintenance and improvement of water resource infrastructure is 
vital to the residents in my own district and to the people and economy 
of the entire Nation as a whole.
  Specifically, H.R. 1480 authorizes 95 new water resource projects, 
makes necessary modifications to six existing projects, and authorizes 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct 26 studies on a variety of 
water resource issues. The bill authorizes $1.9 billion for these 
development projects, which are funded on a cost-share basis with non-
Federal partners. These projects are being authorized only after 
detailed feasibility studies conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers and by a careful review of the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure.
  H.R. 1480 also addresses the concerns of those who believe that past 
water resource projects have had unintended impacts on the environment. 
In particular, the bill establishes a pilot program to explore the 
feasibility of natural flood control methods, and it makes it easier 
for nonprofit organizations to participate in U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers environmental programs.
  Madam Speaker, passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
will allow needed maintenance and improvements to our Nation's 
navigation, irrigation, flood control and power generation 
infrastructure to move forward. I therefore encourage my colleagues to 
support H. Res. 154, which I believe is a fair rule, and to support the 
underlying legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I am supporting this rule, in spite of the fact that 
the rule is not open and it does limit amendments to those printed in 
the report of the Committee on Rules. While I am perfectly aware that 
every amendment submitted to the Committee on Rules was made in order, 
the committee's ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar) did point out at the Committee on Rules hearing last night 
that water resources bills are nearly always considered under open 
rules, or, in some cases, under suspension of the rules.
  The Democratic members of the Committee on Rules would not ordinarily 
support closing down a rule on legislation as important as this water 
resources development bill. In this case, however, we will not oppose 
the rule. This is because the majority and minority on the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure have worked diligently to reach a 
number of compromises on controversial positions in the committee 
reported bill, and because every amendment submitted to the Committee 
on Rules has been made in order either in the manager's amendment or as 
a freestanding amendment.
  The major controversy in the committee reported bill has been 
resolved in an amendment which will be self-executed into the text of 
the bill by virtue of adoption of the rule. The rule self-executes an 
amendment which removes language that would have allowed one Member to 
further development in his district at the expense of his neighbors 
along the Sacramento and American Rivers. I would like to commend the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Tauscher) for their willingness to work out an 
agreement on this thorny issue.
  In spite of this compromise, the bill does not satisfactorily resolve 
the issue of flood control for the city of Sacramento, California. 
Flood control has been and remains a serious and potentially deadly 
issue for Sacramento. Quite frankly, the flood protection provided in 
the bill is inadequate, but an amendment to be offered by the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) seeks to improve those flood protection 
provisions and deserves the support of the House.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that there are many 
provisions in this legislation that are strongly supported by 
communities across the country. In particular, the committee has 
responded to the request of a community in my congressional district to 
alter the original flood control plans of the Corps of Engineers.
  The city of Arlington, Texas, had requested that the committee 
include a locally preferred plan for flood control for Johnson Creek, a 
tributary of the Trinity River which flows through the cities of 
Arlington and Grand Prairie, in lieu of the original Corps plan.
  This locally preferred plan, which will have a total cost of $20 
million and a Federal share of $12 million, would allow the city of 
Arlington to include recreational facilities and environmental 
restoration along Johnson Creek, which will benefit the residents of 
that city on an ongoing basis, while assuring that adequate flood 
control will protect life and property in the surrounding area. I am 
particularly pleased that this amendment to the

[[Page H2478]]

plan and the funding for it have been included in H.R. 1480.
  Madam Speaker, I know that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman 
Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) are eager to 
move their legislation, especially now that the controversy on the 
Sacramento and American Rivers has been resolved. However, I must again 
point out that a bill like water resources really should be considered 
under an open rule.
  Madam Speaker, that being said, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 
such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, and 
I congratulate my friends on both sides of the aisle for their 
management of it. I would like to especially congratulate my friend the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for the role that he has played 
in helping to fashion a compromise here. I would like to also 
congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the 
others who have worked on this measure, and, of course, the many 
Californians who have played a role in getting to where we are.
  These projects are particularly important to western States, the 23 
that have been authorized in this package that we are going to be 
considering. My State of California is very, very key, as I mentioned, 
because access to safe, usable water is obviously very, very critical 
to our State's survival.
  This bill addresses past environmental concerns that water resources 
projects have had unintended impacts on the environment. For example, 
the bill establishes a pilot program to explore the feasibility of 
natural flood control methods, and, in addition to that, the bill makes 
it easier for nonprofit organizations to participate in U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers environmental programs.
  The rule also ensures that no provisions in the bill will interfere 
with California State water rights, which are balanced with great care 
by State laws that we have today. In particular, members of my 
delegation with communities wrestling with major water issues will be 
given the time that they need to work on compromise language that will 
be fair to everyone and address the concerns that are there.
  So I urge strong support of the rule. I congratulate my friends on 
both sides of the aisle for having fashioned this compromise, and look 
forward to passage of both the rule and the bill itself.
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Madam Speaker, many of our colleagues on our side of the aisle in 
committee and other Members have expressed surprise that we bring a 
water resources bill to the floor, any bill from our committee, to the 
floor under what amounts to a modified closed rule and to a very 
unusual self-executing provision in the rule that deals with the 
substantive provision of the bill.
  My response is that not in my 36 years' experience on the committee 
have we done such a maneuver on a water resources bill. Generally this 
is a matter that is brought to the floor under an open rule, as we have 
nothing to fear. But in this case there were some extenuating 
circumstances.
  This water resources bill has been held up for two Congresses over 
one project, and, even though that one issue of flood control 
protection for the city of Sacramento and water distribution for 
potential upstream users has not yet been satisfactorily resolved, it 
has at least been deferred to another time. That is the purpose of the 
self-executing provision in the rule.
  The bill deals with all the rest of what is needed in the rest of 
this country. Indeed, as the previous speaker said, a good deal of this 
bill benefits the rest of the State of California outside of 
Sacramento.
  So, reluctant as I would be to support this type of procedure for our 
committee, in this case, this exceptional case, it is a means to get 
through the problem that has held up all the rest of the country and 
deal substantively with the needs of other Members, and put off to 
another time the appropriate protection for the city of Sacramento.
  So, Madam Speaker, I support the rule, with those caveats.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of 
the subcommittee dealing with this issue.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me 
time.
  Madam Speaker, I want to rise in strong support of the rule. The 
chairman and the committee and the Committee on Rules have crafted a 
rule that provides for the fair consideration of the Water Resources 
and Development Act of 1999 and a rule that resolves the primary fiscal 
and environmental concerns that were raised about this legislation.

                              {time}  1045

  Specifically, the rule includes an amendment that I offered at the 
Committee on Rules yesterday that strips all water supply language that 
was opposed by the environmental community and the fiscal watchdog 
organizations like Taxpayers for Common Sense. In fact, the leading 
environmental and taxpayer groups have endorsed my amendment.
  As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
Environment, I am proud to report that we have labored long and hard in 
a bipartisan manner to craft this bill. Essentially, we are going 
forward with unfinished business. We should have concluded it at the 
end of the last Congress, but we were not able to do so because of a 
serious controversy about one region of the country. That controversy 
has now been resolved.
  I think that WRDA 1999 specifically deals with the California water 
supply and Sacramento flood protection provisions in a very responsible 
way. Once again, let me report the environmental community is endorsing 
what we are about and so, too, are the fiscal watchdogs.
  What I did was I listened, I learned, I heard and I heeded. So the 
bill we are bringing forward today has earned the support of a broad 
coalition of Republicans and Democrats alike. We are about the Nation's 
business. We are committed to dealing with infrastructure, and in this 
bill we are dealing with infrastructure in a very responsible way in 
the best interests of the entire Nation.
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski).
  Mr. BORSKI. Madam Speaker, I want to just follow up with my 
distinguished colleague and chairman of our subcommittee, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and explain just briefly, if I may, that 
in the subcommittee we had a very partisan divide on this issue; and as 
a matter of fact, in the full committee in reporting the bill, there 
was still a very partisan struggle, if you will.
  I am reminded somewhat of the old Mark Twain quote that ``whiskey is 
for drinking and water is for fighting.'' We fought a little bit in the 
subcommittee, and I particularly want to commend the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Tauscher) for her efforts in subcommittee and full 
committee to bring this to light.
  This rule, with the self-enacting rule will, in effect, do what the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) wanted to do in committee. 
I want to commend our distinguished chairman, because again, he had 
suggested to us in the strongest terms possible that he would continue 
to work with us to improve the bill. He has done so, and I support the 
rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this 
rule. It is a fair rule that makes in order every amendment that was 
offered, ensuring an open debate.
  Let me begin by commending the transportation committee for resolving 
the issues that held this much needed legislation up over the last 
year. It is a critically important bill for my home state of Florida 
and the rest of the country. I am pleased to see that Congress, as 
evidenced by the funding levels in this bill, has once again turned 
back the Clinton-Gore administration's assault on beach renourishment 
projects. These vital projects serve the same function as other flood 
control projects: they

[[Page H2479]]

save lives and limit damage to property. I simply cannot understand the 
Clinton-Gore administration's continued neglect of these important 
projects. It is irresponsible and it's past time they got the message.
  I am particularly grateful for the committee's attention to southwest 
Florida and the captiva project. In addition, I would point out that 
this bill will help us continue moving forward on the Everglades 
restoration program. The bill extends the authorization period for the 
Everglades ``critical projects'' so they can be funded and completed as 
planned. Once again, Congress has reaffirmed its commitment to the 
Everglades restoration program and is meeting its obligations to help 
restore this national treasure.
  In conclusion, Madam Speaker, this is a fair rule and a good bill. I 
encourage my colleagues to support both.
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance 
of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Pursuant to 
House Resolution 154 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 1480.

                              {time}  1048


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1480) to provide for the conservation and development of water 
and related resources, to authorize the United States Army Corps of 
Engineers to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and 
harbors of the United States, and for other purposes, with Mrs. Emerson 
in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. H.R. 1480, the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, is a 
comprehensive authorization of the water resources programs of the Army 
Corps of Engineers. It represents two-and-a-half years of bipartisan 
effort to preserve and develop the water infrastructure that is so 
vital to our Nation's safety and economic well-being.
  First, let me thank and congratulate my colleagues on the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure for their tireless efforts. I want 
to give special thanks to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), 
the ranking member of the full committee; the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of the subcommittee; and the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the ranking member of the subcommittee.
  This legislation is unfinished business that should be enacted as 
soon as possible. The 105th Congress failed to enact the Water 
Resources Development Act, largely because of a contentious flood 
control issue in California.
  The bill we bring to the floor today, however, ends the impasse. It 
represents a fair and balanced compromise on all fronts.
  Madam Chairman, this legislation accomplishes three important 
objectives. First, it reflects the committee's continuing commitment to 
improving the Nation's water infrastructure and keeping to a regular 
schedule for authorizations.
  Second, it responds to policy initiatives to modernize the Corps of 
Engineers' activities and to achieve programmatic reforms.
  Third, and this is very important, it takes advantage of the Corps' 
capabilities and recognizes evolving national priorities by expanding 
and creating new authorities for protecting and enhancing the 
environment.
  Now, is this bill 100 percent perfect, free of controversy? I am sure 
it is not. We have heard concerns about a few provisions, and intend to 
address those as the bill progresses. There are also some differences 
between this legislation and the Senate counterpart that must be 
resolved. In many cases, people are not getting everything they want 
here, so many are not totally pleased, but it is a balanced compromise 
and one that we think deserves support.
  Madam Chairman, as we move forward with this important legislation, I 
intend to work with all parties to ensure that the final product 
reflects a balance of all interests. I also want to assure my 
colleagues that we do intend to move another water resources bill that 
will really be the vehicle to address new items and requests that have 
arisen and are likely to arise in the coming months, and we intend 
indeed to move that legislation early in the next session.
  This legislation is a strong bipartisan bill that reflects balance in 
every sense of the word, and a responsible approach to developing water 
infrastructure, preserving and enhancing the Federal, State and local 
partnerships.
  Madam Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, before yielding, I would like to take 
this opportunity to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Borski) for his splendid work over several years of trying to shape 
this bill and bring it to this point. He has been most diligent and 
deserves credit for the work product that we bring to the House today 
with great pride.
  And now, Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the ranking Democrat on the 
Subcommittee on Water Resources.
  Mr. BORSKI. Madam Chairman, let me thank the distinguished ranking 
member for yielding me this time and for his outstanding leadership on 
all issues, but particularly on this water resources issue that is 
before us today. I also want to congratulate and commend the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), my friend, the distinguished chairman, 
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), my good friend and the 
subcommittee chairman, for, as always, listening to the members of the 
minority, working with us in a fair and bipartisan manner. The bill 
before us today is one which we all can support.
  Madam Chairman, the committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
strongly supports biennial legislation for the Corps' water resources 
program because it provides stability to Corps programs, certainly to 
local project sponsors, and timely response to changing circumstances.
  The bill before us today authorizes major flood control navigation, 
shore protection, and other water resource development projects. These 
projects have gone through the traditional review and evaluation 
process of the Corps and have received favorable reports from the Chief 
of Engineers. Another 16 projects will be authorized to proceed to 
construction if their Chief's reports are complete by September 30, 
1999.
  This bill also establishes a new flood mitigation and riverine 
restoration pilot program that is modeled after the administration's 
proposed Challenge 21 program. It takes a broader approach to address 
the issues of flood protection, especially by using nonstructural 
measures and environmental restoration in a coherent manner. I see a 
great deal of value in this approach and expect overall savings as well 
as enhancement of the environment.
  The bill also addresses current policies concerning shore protection 
and cost share of deep-draft harbors. With regard to shore protection 
and beach nourishment, I hope the provisions in this bill will bring 
the administration's policy more in line with congressional intent. The 
proposed change to harbor cost sharing is intended to proactively deal 
with potentially deeper draft requirements of new generations of 
oceangoing vessels.
  Madam Chairman, we all know that our failure to enact the bill last 
year during its normal cycle was due entirely to one issue: providing 
adequate flood protection for Sacramento, California. The bill, as 
reported by the committee, attempted to address this issue but further 
complicated the debate by adding numerous provisions relating to water 
supply. I am pleased

[[Page H2480]]

that the adoption of the rule removed the offending water supply 
provisions from the bill. Any Federal involvement in a reallocation of 
water rights adversely affects the traditional State prerogative 
jealously guarded by the States and, in particular, by Western States. 
I do not believe the Federal Government should get involved in such 
matters.

  Finally, I am concerned that the bill does not provide the adequate 
flood protection that Sacramento needs. I support a level of flood 
protection for Sacramento closer to 200 years, not to 117 in the 
current bill. That level would allow the issue to be disposed of once 
and for all. Future WRDAs would not be held hostage by similar 
disagreements as occurred last year.
  Madam Chairman, but for the issue of flood protection for Sacramento, 
H.R. 1480 is a good bill and is worthy of the strong support of the 
House.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of our 
distinguished subcommittee.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Before anything else, I just wanted to pay tribute to the outstanding 
professionalism of the entire staff, the staff of the Subcommittee on 
Water Resources and Development and the full committee staff on the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Mike Strachn and Jeff 
More, Ben Grumbles, the whole team on our side and on the other side, a 
team of very able professionals.
  Secondly, I want to say this proves that we can work things out the 
way we should. Our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure I 
think is the envy of a lot of other committees on Capitol Hill, because 
while we have differences, we come together in a bipartisan manner and 
we overcome those differences, and the product we have on the floor 
today is as a result of that.
  Before us this morning we have a water resources bill that provides 
billions of dollars for flood protection, navigation improvements, 
water infrastructure and the enhancement of critical environmental 
resources. This legislation is critical to our Nation's ports, our 
Nation's cities, the millions of Americans who live along our Nation's 
rivers; and yes, this bill is critical to the environment, which is a 
very important subject that warms my heart.
  I would like to share with my colleagues a list of some of the 
environmental provisions in the Water Resources Development Act of 
1999. It authorizes a $100 million pilot project for nonstructural 
flood control and riverine environmental restoration. It enhances 
environmentally sensitive floodplain management measures. It authorizes 
an aquatic ecosystem restoration project. It reauthorizes a sediment 
decontamination program. It encourages beneficial reuse of dredge 
material. The list goes on and on.
  Madam Chairman, I include the entire list at this point in the 
Record.

Environmental Highlights of H.R. 1480, the Water Resources Development 
                              Act of 1999


                   A. Programmatic and Policy Changes

       Authorizes a $100 million pilot program for nonstructural 
     flood control and riverine environmental restoration
       Advances environmentally sensitive floodplain management 
     measures (including those involving nonstructural features 
     such as buyouts and relocations)
       Continues Corps' efforts to coordinate with FEMA's hazard 
     mitigation program
       Authorizes aquatic ecosystem restoration projects and makes 
     programmatic changes to encourage new local sponsors
       Reauthorizes sediment decontamination program and 
     authorizes the development and testing of innovative dredging 
     technologies to minimize release of contaminants and improve 
     water quality
       Encourages beneficial reuse of dredged material
       Promotes a ``systems approach'' to sand management and 
     beach nourishment
       Expands Corps' efforts to control non-indigenous invasive 
     aquatic plant species
       Extends authorization for critical projects under the 
     Everglades and South Florida ecosystem restoration program
       Authorizes in-kind contributions to projects to enhance 
     fish and wildlife resources thereby promoting additional 
     local sponsorship of such projects
       Encourages the use of innovative treatment technologies for 
     watershed and environmental restoration and protection 
     projects involving water quality
       Authorizes development of coastal aquatic habitat 
     management plans to address problems associated with toxic 
     micro-organisms and the resulting degradation of ecosystems 
     in tidal and non-tidal wetlands
       Provides for restoration of abandoned and inactive coal 
     mines


                          B. Regional Programs

       Reauthorizes and improves the Upper Mississippi 
     Environmental Management Program
       Directs a comprehensive study of the Great Lakes 
     environment to promote effective planning and management
       Increases the acreage cap for the Missouri River mitigation 
     project to increase the program's effectiveness
       Provides financial and technical assistance for management 
     of non-indigenous species in the Great Lakes
       Provides for aquatic restoration projects on the Lower 
     Missouri River
       Provides for aquatic resources restoration in the Pacific 
     Northwest
       Authorizes assistance for integrated water management 
     planning for the State of Texas


                C. Miscellaneous Projects and Provisions

       Adds 3 additional projects to the Corps' Clean Lakes 
     Program to improve water quality by reducing silt and 
     sediment
       Authorizes 3 projects for improvement of the environment 
     under the authority of section 1135 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986
       Authorizes 16 projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration 
     under the authority of section 206 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996
       Authorizes technical assistance for 8 watersheds for 
     environmental restoration and protection.

  Madam Chairman, whether it is helping clean up abandoned mines in the 
West or the development of nonstructural flood control measures in the 
East, or the establishment of aquatic restoration projects in the 
South, WRDA 1999 provides critical resources for the enhancement of our 
environment. In recent years we have seen a gradual greening of the 
Corps of Engineers, and the legislation before us today continues that 
trend. Our committee is most responsible for that greening of the 
Corps.
  The Corps' traditional functions, flood control and navigation, are 
also continued in WRDA 1999. Dredging of our great harbors and 
navigation routes is a central component of this legislation. Moving 
bulk commodities such as grain and coal by water is essential to our 
growing economy.

                              {time}  1100

  WRDA 1999 provides increased protection for flooding for millions of 
Americans. Perhaps no place is a better example of that than the city 
of Sacramento, the capital of California, of why WRDA 1999 is so 
critically needed.
  Today the city of Sacramento has only about 77 years of flood 
protection. The legislation before us today, this day, authorizes over 
$300 million for projects designed to increase the flood protection for 
Sacramento to nearly 140 years.
  As my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the 
ranking member of our subcommittee, has stated so eloquently, and we 
have no disagreement on this, we want to provide the maximum level of 
protection for Sacramento, and we are determined to do so. Not only are 
we investing $300 million in this bill. No, we are expediting studies 
of the possibility of elevating the Folsom Dam. We are expediting 
studies of the possibility of doing levee work south of the dam. We are 
looking at this in a very serious, professional way.
  That is what we should do, because we want our final decisions to be 
made not based upon emotions, and we all can get very emotional about 
these subjects, but based upon facts. That is exactly what we are going 
to do.
  We have moved responsibly to dramatically increase the flood 
protection for the capital of California, and I remain committed to the 
proposition that we can provide additional flood protection for 
Sacramento in next year's water bill.
  The chairman of the full committee has indicated that as soon as this 
bill is behind us, we are going to start on WRDA 2000. There is a 
fundamental national interest in moving this legislation forward in a 
bipartisan, expeditious fashion.
  WRDA 1999 is important to the lives and livelihood of millions of 
Americans, from Sacramento to Syracuse, from Savannah to Seattle, from 
Urbana to Utica. WRDA 1999 deserves our support.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the

[[Page H2481]]

gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), ranking member of the Committee on 
Agriculture.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman 
Shuster), the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for their action and hard work 
in bringing this bill to the floor.
  I rise today to speak in favor of this legislation. I do it as the 
ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture, but also to make my 
colleagues aware of a rather ironic situation.
  Section 501 would mandate that the Army Corps of Engineers would take 
control of some of the projects of the USDA's Natural Resources and 
Conservation Service. This would be done because of a $1.5 billion 
backlog in the USDA's small watershed program.
  Local residents who have sponsored these projects have lost 
confidence in USDA's ability to provide funding, and they are now 
looking at other sources of funding. This situation is indicative of 
the lack of resources and support currently being provided to 
agriculture.
  Funding for the NRCS's Small Watershed Program is no greater today 
than it was in the 1950s. In fact, the program has been virtually cut 
in half in the last 5 years. As a result, projects typically sit on the 
backlog list for more than a decade.
  We cannot blame the sponsors. In essence, they are shopping for the 
most available source of funding. There simply is not enough funding in 
the USDA program to live up to existing responsibilities and 
commitments.
  In 1937, the United States invested 6 percent of the Federal budget 
in USDA conservation programs. This is in stark contrast to the .16 
percent included in the 1999 Federal budget. In 1937, Congress 
appropriated $440 million for financial assistance, and $23 million in 
technical assistance. In 1999 dollars, that would be $5.3 billion.
  In 1999, the estimated appropriation for USDA conservation financial 
and technical assistance programs is $1.2 billion. These numbers speak 
for themselves. I would challenge my colleagues to make conservation 
spending a priority in order to meet the pressing needs in rural 
America.
  Again, I thank the sponsors of this legislation for, in another way, 
dealing with a part of the problem for many areas, of which this was 
the only available opportunity that they had.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), a member of 
the committee.
  (Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Madam Chairman, today we come to the floor with a very 
important bill, the water bill. I am very, very pleased to be able to 
support it. It contains many important projects across the country that 
can be developed with the passage and enactment of this legislation.
  I would particularly like to thank for their work on our problem in 
Sacramento our chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), 
and our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert) and their staffs. They have been tremendously helpful, and it 
has been a very, very difficult problem for us to resolve.
  I would like to thank my colleagues from the Sacramento region who 
have been involved with me for months of intense negotiation with our 
staffs, the gentlemen from California, Mr. Pombo, Mr. Ose, Mr. Herger, 
and Mr. Matsui. All of us have worked hard to try and come up with a 
solution.
  Ultimately that solution that we worked on did not materialize in the 
exact way that we had desired. But the bottom line is this, Madam 
Chairman, this bill today enables Sacramento to take a giant step 
forward in the area of flood control, achieving virtually a 1 hundred 
percent increase in the level of protection over what we presently 
have.
  Madam Chairman, I would be less than candid if I did not say that 
this is still not what we need. But the truth of the matter is that we 
will never have what we need until, in one fashion or another, we are 
able to complete the construction of the Auburn Dam. It is the only 
solution that provides the level of flood protection for Sacramento. 
Everything else ultimately falls short.
  But this is a political process, and one that requires a certain 
agreement between all the parties. We are moving in the right 
direction, and when we come to issues of water and flood control and so 
forth, I think if you are moving in the right direction and making 
progress, that is something that we have to acknowledge and encourage.
  We are taking this step today. It is something that will be, I think, 
a very significant improvement for our community. Moreover, we do not 
do any harm, such as by passing the disastrous stepped release plan 
which is in the Senate bill, which would actually make things worse, 
increase the danger to life and property, and export flood control 
problems to those down below. So I am grateful to see that.
  I cannot help but acknowledge that this process has revealed the 
tremendous problem we also face in our State, which is the shortage of 
water. Even in an average year we are short of water. In a drought year 
we are significantly short of water, by about 5 million acre feet a 
year.
  We in California are going to have to address that problem, and in my 
own subcommittee which I chair, next month we will be specifically 
addressing that problem as we continue oversight over the Cal-Fed 
process. Water storage has to be developed.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), and to also commend him for his 
diligent work on behalf of his community and people who desperately 
need the flood control protection. He has been a vigilant advocate for 
the people he represents.
  Mr. MATSUI. Madam Chairman, I first would like to thank the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for his very kind remarks and all of his 
help over the last decade, but particularly over the last 3 or 4 years 
that he has given me, along with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Borski) as the subcommittee ranking member, obviously, and thanks to 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for all of the help he has 
given me as ranking member of the full committee as well.
  I would like to turn to my colleagues on the other side, the other 
side of the aisle. Certainly the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman 
Shuster) has been extremely helpful in trying to put together a 
consensus for all of us in the Sacramento region. I want to express my 
gratitude and thanks to him, along with the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Boehlert), who has been tireless over the last 3 or 4 years on our 
behalf. The staffs of both majority and minority have been extremely 
helpful, as well. I do want to express my appreciation.
  I also want to express my apologies to members of the subcommittee 
and certainly the Members of the entire House of Representatives. As we 
know, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) and the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Boehlert) have said, this bill had been delayed from 
the last Congress to this Congress. It was basically because of the 
Sacramento problem, and particularly about the flood control issue.
  I know it was very difficult for the Members of this body, but I 
appreciate the fact that there was tolerance to me and my constituents. 
I certainly would hope that I would never have to put my colleagues in 
that kind of imposition again.
  I would like to, if I may, just comment a little bit about my problem 
in Sacramento County. We have about a 100-year protection, now. This 
bill would get us up to about 137 years protection, because it would 
modify the existing Folsom Dam in Sacramento County.
  The problem with this, as all of us know, is the fact that we still 
would be by far the lowest community in terms of flood protection in 
this Nation. Just to read off a few, Kansas City currently has 500-year 
protection; St. Louis, 50-year protection; Dallas, Texas, 500-

[[Page H2482]]

year; New Orleans, 300 years; Topeka, Kansas, 500 years; and Omaha, 
Nebraska, Tacoma and the quad cities all have 500-year protection.
  We now will have, with this bill, 137 years. We wanted to get up to 
about 170 years, and we are, of course, afraid, because of the rainfall 
in northern California and the continuing uncertainty of our climate, 
that we could fall again in terms of hydrology studies.
  We have approximately 600,000 people at risk. We have over six major 
regional hospitals. We have 100 public schools. All of these are at 
risk with respect to Sacramento County. This bill will go a long way, 
obviously, in making sure that we are given some additional level of 
protection, but we need more. I think my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle know this, and would want to help us.
  I would hope that as we proceed along over the next few weeks and 
perhaps months that we not confuse this issue. Sacramento County needs 
flood protection, and one of the real concerns that I have is that we 
have been tied into the whole issue of water supply.
  I agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), the 
previous speaker, that Northern California needs more water. We are the 
fastest growing region in America. We need more water. But we are 
trying to work that through right now with the State-Federal compact.
  We have Bruce Babbitt from the Interior Department. Obviously, former 
Governor Wilson and now Governor Gray Davis are attempting through Cal-
Fed to come up with a solution, because there are various competing 
interests in California with respect to the limited supply of water.
  We do need to solve this problem, but it has to be done in a 
methodical way. But please, I urge my colleagues not to tie flood 
protection for 600,000 people with this issue that has been raging in 
the State of California for over 125 years. We are not going to solve 
the issue of water supply in California as long as it is tied to the 
whole issue of flood protection, which we need immediately.
  The issue of water supply has to be an issue that is going to be 
dealt with from a larger perspective, from a Federal-State perspective, 
with all the water districts in California.
  I am not, however, suggesting that my colleague up north of me, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) is incorrect. Placer County 
is growing and it will need water in a few years. But that issue is one 
we need to work together on, not in an adversarial role on, and flood 
protection, unfortunately, puts us somewhat at odds.
  So I want to express my thanks to my colleagues, all of them, the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) and all of them for all of 
the tolerance and help they have given my community and myself over the 
last few months, and I urge adoption of this bill.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes).
  (Mr. FORBES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FORBES. Madam Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding time to me.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999, H.R. 1480. This is critically needed 
legislation, and I want to thank the chairman of the full committee, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for his leadership, and 
of course, my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for 
really shepherding this bill, this much-needed bill, through the 
committee and bringing it to the floor, understanding that it had to go 
through some tenuous minefields getting fiscal watchdogs, environmental 
watchdogs to agree to this much-needed legislation.
  I might remind my colleagues that the ritual here in Congress has 
been that this program, this important program, has been funded 
generally and sufficiently by the Congress, not by the administration, 
for years. Whether it be the current administration or previous 
administrations, they have not provided the Army Corps of Engineers, in 
my estimation, the kinds of support they need, and it has been Congress 
that has come to the rescue.
  Again this year, it is the United States House of Representatives and 
this committee that have provided this adequate support. For over 150 
years the Corps has done a phenomenal job of protecting our lives and 
property. If you come from a place like I do, on Long Island, New York, 
you understand the tremendous importance of the Army Corps program.
  I might point out in this bill is the Atlantic Coast Monitoring 
Study, which is a very, very important undertaking that will study 
tides, erosion data, make future erosion predictions, and try to get 
ahead, if you will, of Mother Nature, to the extent that we can do 
that, and provide protection for our coastlines; very, very important.
  I again thank the committee for recognizing that and bringing the 
other Federal agencies together with the Army Corps of Engineers to get 
a final plan in place by June 30 for the Moriches Inlet Island plan.

                              {time}  1115

  I thank the committee tremendously for this support. This is a 
tremendous program. It deserves the support that is demonstrated in 
this bill today, and I urge my colleagues to support it, and I hope the 
President will sign it.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Tauscher), who has made a very valuable 
contribution to our committee in her service and has been a leader on 
these California water projects for the committee.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for those kind 
words, and I also want to thank him and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) for all their help.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1480, which has 
incorporated the Tauscher-Petri amendment to strip the controversial 
American River water supply provisions from H.R. 1480. I appreciate the 
work of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier) to self-execute this important amendment as part of the rule.
  As my colleagues know, H.R. 1480 traditionally funds flood control 
and port and harbor maintenance projects. This year, however, over $287 
million in municipal water supply projects were included in the bill at 
the last minute which were wrong for the American taxpayer, wrong for 
the environment and wrong for the development of long-term water policy 
in my State of California. Over the past 2 weeks I have worked hard 
with members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and 
Members of the House in general to address the implications of this 
water grab.
  The Bay-Delta in my district is the largest estuary on the West Coast 
and serves as the drinking water source for 22 million Californians. 
Moreover, it serves as a key component of the State's $24 billion 
agricultural industry. In California, water is a zero-sum game, and 
these ill-conceived projects that have been stripped out would have had 
devastating effects for water for two out of every three Californians. 
In addition, the projects were terribly expensive.
  I am pleased to have been joined by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Petri), Taxpayers for Common Sense, Friends of the River and Friends of 
the Earth, and scores of other taxpayer and environmental organizations 
in effectively getting that message out. Officials throughout 
California, including Governor Gray Davis and Attorney General Bill 
Lockyer expressed extreme apprehension with the projects included in 
the bill.
  Once again, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert) and others for urging the removal of those audacious 
provisions from H.R. 1480.
  At the same time, however, I must object to the concurrent removal of 
the much needed flood control for the city of Sacramento. That city 
currently has only 85 years of flood protection, making it the largest 
metropolitan area in the country without an adequate flood control 
system. That is why I urge support for the Oberstar amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Walsh).
  Mr. WALSH. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for his leadership

[[Page H2483]]

on this incredibly important bill. I would also like to thank my good 
friend and neighbor, colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert), who chairs the subcommittee, for the hard work he has done 
in bringing this bill to fruition; also to the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). I want to thank them all for 
this terrific bill. The work that they have done is remarkable, getting 
it this far, given all the traps along the way.
  The project that I am supporting has been identified by my community 
as the number one priority project, and we could not do it without the 
help of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Army 
Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency. This is a 
critical bill to my community, I strongly support it, and I urge all my 
colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chairman, I thank the esteemed ranking member for 
yielding me time and I would like to congratulate the chairman of the 
subcommittee and the ranking member, as well as the full committee 
chairman and ranking member on what I consider to be an excellent Water 
Resources Development Act piece of legislation.
  This bill is vital in three major areas for my State and for many 
States across the Union. It contains investment in appropriate projects 
that are vital to the economic infrastructure and the competitiveness 
of the United States in the international economy.
  In particular, we have provided for an authorization, should all of 
the environmental reviews be adequately completed by the Corps of 
Engineers, for the Columbia River. It is vital if the port of Portland 
is to compete in the Asia Rim, that they be able to accommodate the new 
larger class of ships.
  It is vital in a number of other areas. The environment. Certainly we 
can say this is probably the most important piece of environmental 
legislation to pass this Congress. It contains money for a number of 
projects in my district: Amazon Creek; Springfield Millrace; going to 
look at nonstructural flood control alternatives for the Willamette 
River; Skinner Butte Park environmental restoration right in the heart 
of the largest city of my district; and, finally, it is good for 
salmon. It contains a large investment in a long overdue Willamette 
River temperature control project that I have been working on for 
almost a decade here in Congress. It is a large project, $65 million, 
but it will correct problems created by the Federal Government when 
those dams were constructed, which are destroying salmon runs in the 
McKenzie and Willamette Rivers.
  All in all, this is an excellent piece of legislation. It is good for 
the economy, good for the environment, and good for water resources 
across the United States.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), the chairman of one of our subcommittees.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Madam Chairman, I too want to make some comments about 
the water bill of 1999, sort of a retroactive process.
  There are a lot of good projects in here. As the previous speaker 
mentioned, there are a number of positive environmental provisions in 
here. There are several in particular in my district. One of those 
provisions is to correct a couple of previous mistakes by the Corps of 
Engineers in Chesapeake City, where a water pipe was cut as a result of 
dredging in the C&D Canal.
  Another provision which is under evaluation to be corrected is an 
area where there is a dredge disposal site by the Corps of Engineers 
that was not managed properly and the wells of the community right now 
cannot be used as a result of the acidic leaching from that dredge 
disposal site. That will be corrected.
  There is a small community on the ocean side called Snug Harbor. 
There is going to be some effort into producing nonstructural flood 
control measures.
  And the other provision that is in the water bill, that I am very, 
very pleased with, is a study that has never been done before, not even 
by the Chesapeake Bay Program, NMFS, or Fish and Wildlife. This is a 
study to evaluate the nutrient loads into the Chesapeake Bay as a 
result of dredging across the entire bay.
  Now, the Chesapeake Bay Program, what we have funded every single 
year with millions and millions and millions of dollars tries to 
evaluate the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus and other pollutants 
that get into the bay from all kinds of sources: from air deposition, 
from agricultural runoff, from shopping plazas, from housing 
developments, from roads; all kinds of sources, with one exception, and 
that is the nutrient pollution problem from dredging. In this bill 
there is going to be an 18-month study to determine the contribution of 
pollution nutrient overloads from dredging.
  And if we are going to restore the Chesapeake Bay to the kind of 
health that is necessary for that marine ecosystem to be sustained for 
future generations, this is the kind of thing we really need to do, and 
this is in this bill and we are very pleased with it.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from the State of Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Chairman, I thank my friend from Minnesota and the 
chairman of the committee, and I rise in support of this bill and, in 
particular, section 573, which authorizes $7 million for the Corps of 
Engineers to work with USDA, Interior, EPA, NOAA and State and local 
agencies to develop strategies for dealing with toxic microorganisms 
and the damage they inflict on aquatic ecosystems.
  I want to congratulate my friend and colleague, the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Wayne Gilchrest) on his support of this provision and his 
discussions just earlier about some of the studies he has undertaken 
and his support of making sure the Chesapeake Bay is what we want it to 
be.
  Toxic microorganisms, Madam Chairman, are a serious threat. The 
summer before last, Maryland was struck by the toxic microorganism 
pfiesteria. Linked to the flow of excess nutrients and the loss of 
aquatic habitat in our waterways, toxic blooms like pfiesteria 
seriously impact regional economies and threaten sensitive aquatic 
resources.
  Several Federal agencies, including the EPA, NOAA, and the Centers 
for Disease Control presently are assisting States impacted by these 
toxic algae blooms. I have worked diligently in the past, through the 
appropriations process, to ensure that these agencies have the proper 
resources to undertake this effort. Although they have responded 
quickly and made substantial progress, no single agency is tasked with 
taking a comprehensive look at the problem and developing a master 
plan.
  Given its expertise in water resources modeling, water quality 
monitoring, watershed management and restoration, and environmental 
planning, the Corps of Engineers has a vital role to play in this 
process. Section 573 simply authorizes $7 million for the Corps' 
participation in these efforts, and I urge my colleagues to support 
this important initiative and the bill itself.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the delegate from 
Guam (Mr. Underwood).
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota 
for yielding me the time. I rise today to support the passage of H.R. 
1480 to provide for the conservation and development of water and 
related resources projects, and I wish to thank the committee's 
leadership for moving this legislation quickly, well, not quickly, but 
successfully to the House floor.
  The projects in this bill are important to the successful development 
of water-related projects across America. It helps to prepare 
communities to mitigate themselves against natural disasters and helps 
redress the destruction of storms past.
  The projects for Guam are a prime example of repairing damages that 
were inflicted by a cumulative series of storms that have devastated 
Guam over the past decade. The most recent one, Supertyphoon Paka, was 
one of the largest and more powerful storms that have hit Guam in 
recent years. It inflicted a lot of damage to individual homes and 
businesses, but, most important, it nearly destroyed the lifeline of 
our island, which is our port facilities. Seaports are the direct link 
to an island's economic development activities

[[Page H2484]]

and without them communities and families suffer.
  Guam's plan to build a seawall to protect our harbor, the hardening 
of our piers, and the reconstruction of two of our largest marinas will 
help our island mitigate against any future damages caused by natural 
disasters. I might add that the development of these harbor projects 
are also very important for national defense.
  I wish to thank again the chairman of the committee, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster); the subcommittee chairman the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert); as well as the two ranking 
Members, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) for their roles in moving this 
legislation and these projects successfully to the floor.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining on our side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has 12 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute 
to the organization frequently mentioned in debate here but almost 
never discussed, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It celebrates its 
224th birthday this year. It is the Nation's oldest, largest, and most 
experienced government organization in the area of water and related 
land engineering matters. It has provided extraordinary, competent, 
lifesaving, economic development enhancing service to this country for 
two and a quarter centuries.
  Little is it known that the Corps of Engineers, among its many 
responsibilities, had jurisdiction over Yellowstone Park.

                              {time}  1130

  The Corps managed Yellowstone for 30 years. And Lieutenant Dan 
Kingman of the Corps, later to become chief of engineers, wrote:

       The plan of development which I have submitted is given 
     upon the supposition and in the earnest hope that it will be 
     preserved as nearly as may be as the hand of nature left it, 
     a source of pleasure to all who visit and a source of wealth 
     to no one.

  A fewer years later, John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club, said:

       The best service in forest protection, almost the only 
     efficient service, is that rendered by the military. For many 
     years, they have guarded the great Yellowstone Park, and now 
     they are guarding Yosemite. They found it a desert as far as 
     underbrush, grass and flowers are concerned. But, in 2 years, 
     the skin of the mountains is healthy again, blessings on 
     Uncle Sam's soldiers, as they have done the job well, and 
     every pine tree is waving its arms for joy.

  Another great American said: ``The military engineers are taking upon 
their shoulders the job of making the Mississippi River over again, a 
job transcended in size only by the original job of creating it.'' That 
was Mark Twain.
  Those two statements together pay tribute to what the Corps of 
Engineers has done so admirably and the great legacy they have left for 
all Americans protected in floods, enhanced with river navigation 
programs, and protecting the great resource of the Great Lakes, one 
fifth of all the fresh water on the face of the Earth.
  And that is the spirit in which we normally present the Water 
Resources Development Act, projects throughout our Nation to promote 
control of floods, to enhance river navigation, to protect our shores, 
to protect and restore the environment, to enhance navigation.
  And that is mostly what this bill before us does today, with one 
flaw. It fails to give the capital of the world's sixth largest 
economy, the City of Sacramento, the flood protection it needs and 
deserves.
  This deficiency comes from a dispute between two parts of the State 
of California that has resulted in flood control at Sacramento being 
held hostage for almost a decade. The amendment made in order by the 
self-executing rule, and which is now adopted because the rule has been 
adopted, gives the City of Sacramento only 117 years of flood 
protection, and that is the estimate of the Corps of Engineers in their 
1997 analysis.
  That is significantly less than the protection given cities of 
comparable size, the nearly 200 to 500 years protection for Santa Ana, 
Tacoma, New Orleans, St. Louis, Dallas, Kansas City, Omaha. Surely 
Sacramento deserves as much flood protection as those cities.
  Today some 400,000 residents in Sacramento face an unacceptable risk 
of flood; 160,000 residential structures are in the flood plain in the 
capital city, 5,000 businesses, 1,200 government facilities, with an 
estimated value of $37 billion. The 55,000-acre flood plain includes 
seven of the nine major hospitals in the region and 130 schools.
  Potential losses from flood in the City of Sacramento range from $7 
billion to $16 billion depending on the size of the flood. Even at the 
lower end of the scale, flood losses in Sacramento would be comparable 
to the losses experienced in the Northridge earthquake a few years ago, 
to date the single largest disaster in U.S. history.
  Now, I do not say these words and make those comments in the 
abstract. I have traveled several times to Sacramento. I have bicycled 
along the flood protection walls of the American River. I have traveled 
to Folsom Dam and further up river to the site once planned and once 
development begun on the Auburn Dam proposal by the Bureau of 
Reclamation. I understand what is at stake here.
  Linking flood protection for Sacramento and reallocation of water 
through a new dam at Auburn has been in the works for many, many years. 
But the Bureau of Reclamation already stubbed its toe to the tune of 
$250 million developing the base for a dam right on the fault line of a 
major earthquake region in the upper reaches of the American River.
  The Auburn Dam has already been rejected by the House in 1992 in a 
vote of 273-140. And it was rejected in 1996 in our Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure in a vote of 28 ayes, 35 nays. There 
is no reason to believe the vote would be any different today.
  So why could we not have just simply accommodated whatever water 
resource needs there may be for the upper reaches of the American 
River, and at the same time provide Sacramento its requested 200-year 
flood protection, and have done it in this bill?
  I had an amendment in committee to do that. I offered the amendment 
in committee to make the adjustments to Folsom, to widen the outlets so 
the gates can discharge more water, raise the level of the dam to allow 
more water to be discharged in advance of midwinter melt from the 
Sierra Nevada Mountains, where they get as much as 30 feet of snow and 
often have midwinter rains that cause not only runoff but melt, to 
accommodate that runoff, accommodate in a larger basin and protect 
Sacramento and its residents and facilities, and also improve the 
levees at Sacramento to accommodate that increased runoff.
  The amendment was defeated on a straight party-line vote. And now we 
come to the floor with this legislation that does not do what 
Sacramento truly deserves and, as the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Matsui) said, does not really provide the water resources needs of the 
upper reaches of the American River Valley area.
  There were several arguments made about the amendment that I offered. 
One was that the levee strengthening proposed for Sacramento in my 
amendment would create unacceptable risks to areas downstream. But that 
objection fails on closer scrutiny.
  The Army Corps of Engineers analyzed that argument and rejected it. 
The Corps specifically stated this: ``Additional protection can be 
provided without adversely affecting the reaches below the mouth of the 
American River without project conditions.''
  The Corps' plan includes several different structural and operational 
modifications to ensure that no flood threat is transferred to 
downstream interests. In addition, I talked with the City of 
Sacramento. They have committed to spend $100 million to mitigate any 
possible further adverse effects downstream.
  Finally, my amendment specifically required that measures to increase 
the capacity of the levees be undertaken only after downstream 
mitigation features will have been constructed.
  So absent any objective, substantive reason for opposition to the 
Sacramento amendment, I am left only to

[[Page H2485]]

surmise that the real basis for opposition was the desire by upstream 
interests to withhold flood protection from Sacramento in hope that the 
Auburn Dam at some future time could be revived or that some 
alternative, far more expensive yet unstudied water distribution plan 
be enacted.
  That is not the way to conduct the water resources business of the 
country. And while I am not prepared to accept this legislation as it 
is to go forward with the bill on the floor, the bill before us, I will 
not relent in my purpose of providing for Sacramento the protection 
that it rightly deserves and to address in a rational and responsible 
manner the water resources requirements upstream of Sacramento in an 
appropriate time frame.
  We should not hold Sacramento hostage. We will have to come back at 
another time to address this issue. And I am confident that at that 
future time we will treat the lives and the property of the residents 
of Sacramento in an appropriate and responsible manner, as this 
committee has always done, absent these extraneous considerations.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and the 
endless flow of visitors from Sacramento can attest, this Chair of this 
subcommittee is determined to work cooperatively to provide the maximum 
level of protection for Sacramento. That is a commitment.
  Secondly, let me point out, we are nearly doubling the level of 
protection in this bill, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) 
himself has indicated, from 77 to 137 years, and we are studying the 
feasibility and practicability and affordability of additional 
measures. So we will continue to work together to protect Sacramento.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I look forward to that happy outcome.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).
  (Mr. HERGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HERGER. Madam Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Shuster, 
Speaker Hastert, and the other members of the leadership for their 
invaluable assistance in reaching a final compromise for our California 
area flood control. The compromise that is included in this bill is a 
win for those of us who have sought sincere dialogue and consensus in 
California flood control issues. More importantly, however, this 
legislation is also a partial win for northern California. I can 
testify from personal experience that California has a very real need 
for increased flood protection. For example, just two years ago the 
district I represent in norhtern California suffered a horrendous 
tragedy as a result of an inadequate flood control system. On January 
2nd, 1997, a levee in my district near the community of Arboga suddenly 
broke, and as a result, three people drowned. This tragedy could have 
been avoided if flood control officials had been allowed to complete 
repairs on the levee when the problem was first acknowledged six years 
earlier. In 1955, almost directly across the river from the Arboga 
break, another levee broke and this time flooded Yuba City. However, 
instead of three people losing their lives 37 people died. Mr. Speaker 
and members, we have a natural phenomenon in California where heavy 
snowfall in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, followed by warm rains results 
in an overwhelming amount of water that flows into our Sacramento River 
Valley. There is no levee system in the world that can handle this kind 
of extreme flows. Until we build a flood control structure that can 
hold back this overwhelming flow of water and release it in a 
controlled manner, our levees are set up to fail. As California's first 
State Engineer, William Hall, said, ``There are two types of levees, 
those that have failed and those that will.'' This legislation provides 
$26.6 million to complete flood control repairs along the Yuba River 
basin, but regrettably, it won't be enough. I hope and pray that it 
will not take another great tragedy before we are allowed to proceed 
with the development of a structure that can hold back these waters. 
Next time, it may not be just three or even 37 people who drown, but 
rather, if a levee breaks in Sacramento or in my Marysville and Yuba 
City area, we could be talking about thousands of people drowned by 
this type of flooding. I do, however, want to commend my colleagues, 
Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Matsui, Mr. Pombo and Mr. Ose for their hard work in 
reaching this historic compromise for further flood protection in our 
northern California area in a responsible manner. I therefore urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation and vote in favor of the 1999 
Water Resources Development Act.

  Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I wish to emphasize, Madam Chairman, that with the passage of this 
legislation today, it will represent the 21st piece of legislation that 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House has 
brought to the floor and has seen passed.
  In addition, thus far, six of our bills of the 21 pieces of 
legislation that have come to the floor have been signed into law, 
representing 25 percent of the public laws which have been signed into 
law thus far this year.
  So the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is moving 
vigorously to bring important legislation to the floor. And I certainly 
want to compliment, on a bipartisan basis, the leadership on the other 
side of the aisle as well as my colleagues on our committee who have 
made this possible.
  I want to particularly, in addition, recognize Dr. Joe Westphal, the 
Assistant Secretary of the Army, for the valuable steps that he set in 
motion last fall so that we could proceed; the water experts in the 
Corps of Engineers, especially Mr. Bob Childs in the Corps' Sacramento 
office, who has certainly made a major contribution; and to Mr. Dave 
Mendelsohn and Curt Haensel in our Legislative Counsel's Office for 
their expertise, patience, and undying efforts.
  Jack Schenendorf, our chief of staff, is without fear, in my 
judgment. There never has been a more competent chief of staff in the 
history of the Congress that I am aware of, in my judgment.
  I want to thank our water staff for the excellent work which they 
have done: Ben Grumbles, Jeff More, Carrie Jelsma on the Republican 
staff, Ken Kopocis, and Art Chan on the Democratic staff.
  I would also like to thank John Anderson, the detailee of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure from the Corps of 
Engineers, for his fine work.
  But the one person who needs to really be singled out for his superb 
work on the Sacramento River and American River issues, that person is 
Mike Strachn. His outstanding knowledge of water resource programs and 
his high standard of professionalism were of tremendous benefit to all 
Members of the House as we tried to work out these difficult issues. 
His efforts were in the highest tradition of the House and certainly 
has set an example for all staffs.

                              {time}  1145

  I want to compliment all the individuals on both sides of the aisle, 
both Members and staff, as well as the administration, who were 
involved in bringing us to this point today to be able to bring this 
very important national bipartisan legislation to the floor. I urge its 
passage.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Madam Chairman, today, I rise in strong support of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1999.
  This bill authorizes vital projects for our nation's coast line and 
the shoreline of our rivers and tributaries, for dredging in our 
nation's harbors, and for flood control throughout our States.
  My district includes over 100 miles of coastline, several ports and 
navigation channels. It is easy to understand how important this bill 
is to my district.
  The corps projects authorized in this bill will protect and create 
avenues of commerce and transportation. Improvements to our harbors are 
necessary to open up access to our ports and enhance international 
trade. It is imperative to continue projects that preserve property and 
protect our beaches. Shore protection projects are particularly 
important to Florida and I applaud the committee's work in 
understanding the need for preserving our beaches--something that the 
administration has failed to do.
  This bill protects and maintains our vast and crucial water resources 
not just in my district but, across the country.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this important 
legislation.
  Mr. EVERETT. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Water 
Resources Development Act (H.R. 1480). This long overdue legislation 
authorizes important civil works projects of the Army Corps of 
Engineers to address critical water resource and management issues 
facing the Nation. This $4.2 billion national investment in flood 
control, navigation, and water quality initiatives goes a long way in 
meeting the water resource needs in virtually every part of the 
country.

[[Page H2486]]

  In Alabama, we are blessed with many river systems that contribute 
significant environmental, commercial, and recreational benefits to the 
State and southeastern region. The Alabama/Coosa/Tallapoosa and the 
Appalachicola/Chattahoochee/Flint river systems both flow through my 
district and are important navigable waterways that, in addition to 
enhancing the environment, help drive the economy. This legislation 
continues to provide the Corps of Engineers with the necessary funds to 
continue the operation and maintenance of these systems.
  Of particular note in my own district in southeast Alabama, flooding 
has been a problem. In the past decade, Coffee and Geneva counties have 
been subjected to three major floods that forced the evacuation of the 
towns of Elba and Geneva. The flooding resulted from heavy tropical 
storms and hurricanes, which are seasonal occurrences, and caused these 
old and outdated levees to fail. I am pleased that this legislation 
includes funds to rebuild both of these two levees to modern standards. 
Section 520 authorizes $12.9 million to repair and rehabilitate the 
Elba levee and section 521 authorizes $16.6 million to repair and 
rehabilitate the Geneva levee.
  It's important that we move this overdue authorization forward, so I 
encourage the adoption of this measure in order to go to conference 
with the Senate to arrive at a final reauthorization bill for these 
water resource projects.
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Chairman, I just wanted to take this opportunity to 
commend and thank the members of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee, and its Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, for 
the good work they have done in assembling this year's version of the 
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). As reported, H.R. 1480 
authorizes numerous flood control, navigational improvement, beach 
restoration and ecosystem enhancement projects that will be of 
significant benefit to millions of Americans.
  Let me cite one example with which I am particularly familiar. 
Thirteen years ago, the Des Plaines River, which flows through my 
congressional district in northeastern Illinois, went on a rampage, 
flooding over 10,000 homes and businesses, forcing 15,000 people to 
flee to drier ground, and causing at least $35 million in damages. A 
year later, there was another major flood along the Des Plaines and 
several times since the waters of that river have spilled over their 
banks. Just this past week, in fact, residents in the area were 
reminded of the threat posed by the Des Plaines, when a pair of 
rainstorms caused the river to crest 1.4 feet above flood stage in 
Gurnee, IL.
  Much to my relief, and not just to mine alone, sections 101 and 408 
of H.R. 1480 address this flood threat by authorizing (subject to the 
timely completion of the final Corps of Engineers report) the 
construction of the first phase of the Des Plaines River Flood Control 
Project and an expanded study of the options for Phase II. Assuming 
their wording remains unchanged and H.R. 1480 is enacted into law, 
those provisions will allow the Corps of Engineers to proceed 
expeditiously with work on three floodwater storage areas, the 
construction of a pair of levees, the raising of an existing dam and 
development of additional flood control alternatives. As a result, a 
25-percent reduction in Des Plaines River flood damages can be expected 
when the authorized construction work is complete, the benefits of 
which are anticipated to exceed the costs by a ratio of 1.7 to 1. 
Furthermore, the groundwork will have been laid for the implementation 
of additional flood prevention and/or reduction measures.
  In short, these efforts to mitigate, if not eliminate, flood damages 
along the Des Plaines are a win-win proposition. Thousands of people in 
the northern Chicago suburbs will profit because they will not suffer 
the same, or as severe, disruptions as they have in the past and 
millions of taxpayers will benefit because they are less likely to be 
asked to repair the damages that future flooding episodes would 
otherwise cause. Moreover, the same can be said for a number of the 
other projects in the bill, one reason being that, much to its credit, 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers takes very seriously its obligation to 
determine that water-resource projects under its jurisdiction have a 
favorable benefit-to-cost ratio. Also, it should be noted that H.R. 
1480 contains a number of provisions aimed at making future flood 
control and water resource projects as environmentally friendly as 
possible.
  To sum up, what we have before us today is a long-awaited bill which 
authorizes projects that promise substantial and cost-effective returns 
on the financial investment being made in them. With that thought very 
much in mind, let me reiterate my thanks to our Transportation and 
Infrastructure colleagues for bringing this WRDA99 bill before us today 
and let me urge my colleagues in the House to give H.R. 1480 their full 
support. It deserves no less.
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, I would like to express my thanks and 
appreciation to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 
Chairman Bud Shuster and Ranking Member Jim Oberstar, and Water 
Resources and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert and 
Ranking Member Robert Borski for their hard work and tireless effort to 
pass this long overdue and much needed legislation. I would also like 
to thank ranking member and friend Jim Oberstar for his special effort 
in providing the authorization needed to implement an important 
educational tool for the residents of Minnesota, the Mississippi Place. 
The Mississippi Place would bring together the Army Corps of Engineers, 
the U.S. Geological Survey, the Environmental Protection Agency and 
NASA to offer the nation an opportunity to develop a more complete 
understanding of the unique resource which the Upper Mississippi River 
System represents. Located on the banks of the Mississippi River in 
downtown St. Paul, Mississippi Place will provide these Federal 
entities an opportunity to partner with State, local, and educational 
institutions in providing the public with real time learning 
opportunities on important issues affecting the river. In addition, the 
Corps and the USGS will operate Mississippi River monitoring stations 
at Mississippi Place for practical research purposes while still being 
accessible to the public. Once again, I would like to thank my 
colleagues for their efforts in finally crafting this bipartisan 
legislation.
  Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, I have some serious concerns with the 
potential environmental and economic ramifications of the project 
authorized to deepen the Delaware River ship channel from 40 to 45 
feet. I had prepared a number of amendments to address some of these 
concerns, but I have agreed to withhold them with the assurance from 
the chairman that we will address these concerns by working together as 
the process moves forward. It is essential that as this project moves 
forward, it does so in an environmentally and economically sound 
manner.
  First, let met state that I am concerned with the environmental 
consequences that the project may have on the State of Delaware. I have 
heard from many of my constituents and there remains many unanswered 
questions that the Army Corps of Engineers has yet to address to 
Delaware's satisfaction.
  I am concerned with the authority clarified in this bill to allow the 
local sponsor--the Delaware River Port Authority--to operate a revenue 
generating dredge spoil disposal operation that is designed to import 
dredge spoils--that could be contaminated--and dump them at sites along 
the Delaware River. The Army Corps of Engineers requires a permit for 
this disposal with checks and balances to prevent environmentally 
unsafe disposal of the dredge spoils. Even so, it would be a great 
comfort to me to know that the Delaware Department of Natural Resources 
and Environmental Control (DNREC) has approved the details because 
there are many different ways to dispose of dredge spoils, each with a 
different degree of environmental protection. The method chosen needs 
to meet Delaware's standards because Delawareans living near these 
sites are the most at risk.
  Furthermore, I want to make absolutely certain that the Coastal Zone 
Management consistency provisions apply to Federal activities relating 
to the Delaware River channel deepening project. DNREC has given its 
approval conditioned upon a list of requirements being met, however 
this conditional approval is not final approval as some have suggested 
in public meetings. The Army Corps of Engineers has given me assurances 
that they are fully aware they must meet the growing list of 
requirements before consistency approval from Delaware is effective.
  Third, while this project has been authorized since 1992, last week, 
just prior to committee consideration of this bill, section 347 was 
included in this bill to relocate a portion of the channel along the 
Camden area. It is my understanding that this portion has been 
relocated to deeper water that will not require any dredging or 
disruption of the existing soils. In fact, this shift in the channel 
will make the project less expensive for the taxpayer because the Army 
Corps of Engineers will not have to dredge there. This is an 
encouraging development, but there should be more public notice for 
stakeholders and efforts made to inform the congressional delegations 
involved about changes to the project as originally authorized.
  Madam Chairman, I also have concerns about the economic risks of this 
project to the American taxpayer. According to the Army Corps of 
Engineers benefit-cost analysis, over 80 percent of the benefits have 
been attributed to six oil facilities along the river channel. However, 
none of the benefitting oil companies have directly indicated outright 
support for the project. Although they are not legally required to 
commit to spending their own capital dollars to deepen their own berths 
to take advantage of a deeper channel, it seems prudent

[[Page H2487]]

for Congress or the Army Corps of Engineers to seek assurances that 
they will make those expenditures before $300 million in taxpayer funds 
are committed to building the channel.
  In light of these financial concerns, it seems particularly important 
that Congress reinforce the intent of Congress in 1992 when the project 
was first authorized. Report 102-842 accompanying the Water Resource 
Development Act of 1992 states on page 12:

       Committee comments.--The Committee believes that the non-
     Federal cost of the channel deepening should be funded by 
     water transportation users, not surface transportation users. 
     The Committee urges the Delaware River Port Authority to make 
     every effort to ensure that the non-Federal cost of the 
     project is borne by water transportation users.

  There has been some discussion of bridge toll receipts being raised 
to help fund the non-Federal cost--$100 million. Although report 
language is not binding, raising bridge tolls would appear to violate 
the committee's intent. Before the Delaware River Port Authority raises 
bridge tolls, at a minimum it should demonstrate its efforts to raise 
the funds from water transportation users.
  We must make sure that those projects Congress chooses to finance 
give Americans a sufficient return both on their tax dollar investment 
and their investment of natural resources. I look forward to continuing 
to address these fiscal and environmental concerns.
  Mr. MOORE. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the managers' 
amendment to H.R. 1480, the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, 
and in support of the underlying legislation.
  I want to take this opportunity to thank publicly House 
Transportation Infrastructure Chairman Bud Shuster of Pennsylvania and 
ranking Democrat Jim Oberstar of Minnesota for their assistance in 
adding to the managers' amendment language I requested authorizing a 
badly needed flood control project for Turkey Creek Basin in Kansas 
City, MO, and Kansas City, KS.
  This language also is included in S. 507, the Senate companion 
measure to H.R. 1480, which passed the other body by voice vote on 
April 19. This project is of significant importance to my congressional 
district. Turkey Creek flows from its urbanized drainage basis in 
Johnson County, KS, and into Kansas City, MO, and the Kansas River. 
Severe flooding has occurred along the basin, most recently in 1993 and 
again in 1998. An improvement plan has been prepared in partnership 
with the U.S. Corps of Engineers. This project will provide vitally 
needed protection for commercial and industrial areas in both cities. I 
hope that Congress also will approve later this year an appropriation I 
am seeking to complete design work on this project.
  Once again, Madam Chairman, I commend the bipartisan leadership of 
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for bringing this 
important legislation to the House floor and my constituents and I very 
much appreciate their timely responsiveness to this request.
  Mr. RILEY. Madam Chairman, I had planned to offer an amendment today 
that would have expressed the Sense of Congress that any water 
agreement entered into between the States of Alabama, Georgia, and 
Florida should comply with existing Federal environmental water quality 
protection laws as they are presently written. At the Committee's 
request, I have decided not to offer my amendment, with the 
understanding that Chairman Shuster has pledged to work with me to 
identify an appropriate legislative vehicle for my proposal.
  I would like to clarify that my amendment would not have altered or 
expanded the Clean Water Act, it simply urged the States to ensure that 
water quality should be considered within the scope of all water 
quantity negotiations as consistent with current Federal law. We need 
to emphasize that the citizens of these States deserve to have not only 
the proper quantity of water they need, but also the highest quality of 
water.
  Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1999.
  I represent a district in South Florida with over 90 miles of 
coastline, and 100 miles of Intracoastal Waterway, so water projects 
are very important to my constituents. I commend Chairmen Shuster, 
Boehlert, and all of the members of the Water Resources Subcommittee 
for their perseverance in getting this bill to the floor.
  One issue of much concern to my constituents is the continued 
participation of the federal government to renourish beaches. Despite 
the Administration's decision to abandon coastal communities across the 
country, for three years the Committee has continued to ensure adequate 
funding levels for desperately needed projects. When the Committee 
finally decided to adjust the cost share formula for new construction 
projects, I am grateful they provided for a phased-in approach over 
three years. This will give local sponsors the chance to prepare for a 
reduced federal share. I am optimistic that the change will provide the 
needed motivation to the Clinton Administration to send a realistic 
budget to the Congress next year, with sensible funding levels for 
shore protection.
  On a related topic, I am most grateful to the Committee for including 
a provision in H.R. 1480 that will allow Broward County, Florida to be 
reimbursed for the federal portion of their beach renourishment project 
in two phases. Although this language was not included in the Senate 
version, I hope the language will be included in the final conference 
report.
  Finally, the Committee is also to be commended for their willingness 
to assist the Florida congressional delegation on the Everglades 
restoration effort. Three provisions in the bill relating to land 
acquisition and the extension of critical projects authority will 
ensure the program moves forward unimpeded.
  Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R. 
1480, the Water Resources Development Act of 1999.
  This Member would like to begin by commending the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the Chairman of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the ranking member of the 
Transportation Committee, the distinguished gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Boehlert], the Chairman of the Water Resources and Environment 
Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Borski], the ranking member of the Subcommittee, for their 
extraordinary work in developing this bill and bringing it to the 
floor. This Member appreciates their diligence, persistence, and hard 
work.
  This important legislation includes numerous projects designed to 
improve flood control, navigation, and shore protection. It also 
promotes environmental restoration and protection efforts across the 
nation.
  In particular, this Member is pleased that the bill includes a 
provision he promoted which helps to ensure that the Missouri River 
Mitigation Project can be implemented as envisioned. In 1986, Congress 
authorized over $50 million (more than $79 million in today's dollars 
if adjusted for inflation) to fund the Missouri River Mitigation 
Project to restore fish and wildlife habitat that were lost due to the 
construction of structures to implement the Pick-Sloan plan. At that 
time the Corps did not choose to include funding requests for 
implementing that Act in their budgeting process. That is why this 
Member, along with other Members who represent the four states 
bordering the channelized Missouri River (Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas and 
Missouri), have worked to provide funding to implement the Missouri 
River Mitigation Project which has just begun to become a reality 
during the last few years.

  This project is specifically needed to restore fish and wildlife 
habitat lost due to the Federally sponsored channelization and 
stabilization projects of the Pick-Sloan era. The islands, wetlands, 
and flat floodplains that are needed to support the wildlife and 
waterfowl that once lived along the river are dramatically reduced. And 
estimated 475,000 acres of habitat in Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri and 
Kansas have been lost because of Federal action in creating the flood 
control projects and channelization of the Missouri River. Today's 
fishery resources are estimated to be only one-fifth of those which 
existed in pre-development days.
  The success of the project has resulted in a concern related to the 
original study that outlined habitat needs. Under this study, acreage 
goals for each state were listed and these goals are generally 
considered to be an acreage limitation for each state. Nebraska and 
Kansas have already reached their acreage limits and Missouri is fast 
approaching its ceiling. Before long, Iowa will also reach its acreage 
limit.
  To correct this problem, H.R. 1480 authorizes an increase in 
mitigation lands authorized to the four states to 25% of the lands 
lost, or 118,650 acres. In addition, the Corps of Engineers--in 
conjunction with the four states--is directed to study the amount of 
funds that would need to be authorized to achieve that acreage goal.
  This Member is also pleased that H.R. 1480 also includes a provision 
which provides for the completion of the Wood River Flood Control 
Project. When completed, this important project in Nebraska's Third 
Congressional District will provide protection for an estimated 1,755 
home and business structures in southern Grand Island, Nebraska. It is 
also expected to protect more than 5,000 acres of irrigated farmland 
and 7,000 to 8,000 acres of grassland.
  Madam Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 
1480, the Water Resources Development Act of 1999.
  Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong 
support of H.S. 1480, the ``Water Resources Development Act.''

[[Page H2488]]

  The bill authorizes $4.2 billion for projects and programs of the 
Army Corps of Engineers civil works program.
  It responds to pressing water infrastructure priorities, policy 
initiatives to update existing water resources programs,and 
opportunities to restore, protect, and enhance the aquatic environment.
  Specifically, H.R. 1480 authorizes 95 new water resources projects, 
modifies 66 existing authorized projects, and authorizes the Corps. to 
conduct 26 studies to address a variety of water resources problems and 
opportunities.
  The bill, Madam Chairman, is extremely important to my district, 
especially to the Chino Dairy Preserve in California.
  The bill calls upon the Secretary of the Army, in coordination with 
the heads of other Federal agencies, to provide technical assistance to 
State and local agencies in the study, design, and implementation of 
measures for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration and 
protection in the Santa Ana River Watershed, with particular emphasis 
on structural and nonstructural measures in the vicinity of the Chino 
Dairy Preserve.
  H.R. 1480 also calls upon the Secretary to conduct a feasibility 
study to determine the most cost-effective plan for flood damage 
reduction an environmental restoration and protection in the vicinity 
of the Chino Dairy Preserve, Santa Ana River Watershed, Orange County, 
and San Bernardino County, California.
  I wish to extend my deep appreciation for the leadership shown by 
Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Oberstar, Subcommittee Chairman 
Boehlert and Ranking Member Borski in drafting this important piece of 
legislation.
  I ask my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1480.
  Mr. WELLER. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1480, the 
Water Resources Development Act. This important legislation includes a 
provision that will advance a flood control project important to 
thousands of my constituents and many residents of Chicago's South 
Suburbs. H.R. 1480 will advance the construction of the Thornton 
Reservoir, which is located in my Congressional District, through an 
innovative approach allowing the Metropolitan Water Reclamation 
District of Greater Chicago to work with the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service to build a transitional reservoir for Thorn Creek. 
Because of this project, my constituents in the South Suburbs of 
Chicago will see the much needed benefits of flood control more than a 
decade earlier than previously anticipated by the Army Corps of 
Engineers.
  The innovative approach included in H.R. 1480 will allow the 
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Chicago to secure credit for 
the advance work which is critical to the development of the permanent 
Thornton Reservoir. The approach couples early protection with local/
federal partnering resulting in significant benefits to area 
communities.
  Frequent flooding has been a constant problem in the Chicago area. 
This has consistently been the cause of disruptions in major 
expressways, as well as rainwater and raw sewage back up into the 
basements of over 500,000 homes. The solution comes from the Tunnel and 
Reservoir Plan (TARP) through an intricate system of underground 
tunnels, pumping stations and storage reservoirs used to control this 
flooding and combined sewage pollution in the Chicago Metropolitan 
Area. The Thornton Reservoir is a crucial component of the TARP 
project. Once completed, the Thornton Reservoir will provide 5 billion 
gallons of floodwater storage. The reservoir will have a service area 
of 91 square miles and will provide flood relief to 131,000 dwellings 
in 18 communities.
  The continuation of the TARP project and the Thornton Reservoir is 
important to 500,000 families in Chicago's South Suburbs. I urge my 
colleagues to support H.R. 1480.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Madam Chairman, I'm excited to rise in 
strong support for the Water Resources Development Act today. Three 
words can sum up my thoughts--finally, finally, finally!
  This Water Resources bill contains a reauthorization for the Wood 
River/Warm Slough flood control project in Grand Island, Nebraska. The 
residents of Grand Island and I have been working on reauthorization 
and waiting for an opportunity to move it since 1997. Their patience 
has been tested, but I'm pleased I'm going to be able to report good 
news today.
  Construction of the Wood River project was originally authorized in 
the 1996 Water Resources Development Act. Soon after the initial 
authorization, the Army Corps of Engineers had to revise its cost 
estimates for the project. The revision increased the cost by more than 
20 percent, thus requiring congressional review and reauthorization.
  The project eventually will provide flood protection for more than 
1,700 structures in Grand Island and protect 5,000 acres of irrigated 
cropland. The project also will enhance wildlife habitat for many 
species, including the endangered Whooping Crane, and provide 
opportunities for wetlands development.
  This is a good project that deserves our support. I wish to extend my 
sincere appreciation to the Transportation Committee for expeditiously 
moving this bill this spring. And thank you very, very much for your 
work on behalf of the residents of Grand Island, Nebraska.
  Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, I rise today as a co-chair of the upper 
Mississippi River congressional task force, in support of the upper 
Mississippi environmental management program which is part of WRDA 99.
  The EMP is designed to evaluate, restore and enhance river and 
wetland habitat along a 1200 mile stretch of the upper Mississippi and 
Illinois Rivers. It is a cooperative effort among the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Service, the Army Corps of 
Engineers and the 5 upper Mississippi River basin States.
  The EMP has always had bipartisan support in Congress and the five 
midwestern States. I, along with Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Gutknecht and Mr. 
Leach co-chair the 16 member upper Mississippi River congressional task 
force, which strongly supports expansion of the EMP.
  WRDA 99 authorizes funding of $33.17 million each year for EMP.
  EMP was established in 1986 by my predecessor Steve Gunderson. At the 
time EMP was only authorized for 15 years. This WRDA bill gives EMP a 
permanent authorization. In the past EMP projects faced funding 
challenges due to the uncertain future of the program. With adequate 
funding and permanent authorization the EMP will be able to continue 
it's outstanding work protecting this great natural resource.
  The EMP is vital to the environmental and economic well being of the 
Mississippi River, and it enjoys strong bipartisan support throughout 
the upper Mississippi region.
  Navigation along the upper Mississippi River supports 400,000 full 
and part-time jobs, which produces over $4 billion in individual 
income. Recreation use totals 12 million visitors each year and 1.2 
billion in direct and indirect expenditures annually. Communities along 
the river from St. Paul, Minnesota to St. Louis, Missouri are striving 
to enhance the river. The EMP helps to rehabilitate the natural areas 
up and down the river.
  I urge the Members to support WRDA and the Environmental Management 
Program, and I thank the chairman for the time.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished 
Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for his 
cooperation and assistance in addressing an important concern in my 
district.
  I appreciate that the chairman's manager's amendment includes 
language to allow the Corps of Engineers to conduct a feasibility study 
on improvements to a regional water supply for Cumberland County, 
Tennessee.
  Water Supply has become a critical concern on the Cumberland Plateau. 
Recent growth and development throughout this region has placed extreme 
pressure on the six county water utility districts in Cumberland County 
and the City of Crossville to expand water supplies.
  The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation worked with 
the water utility districts and local officials within Cumberland 
County to form a regional water planning partnership to work together 
to address their mutual problem.
  By working together in this partnership, they will be able to resolve 
water issues, avoid and reduce impacts to natural streams and save time 
and taxpayers' money.
  At the request of local and state officials, the Army Corps of 
Engineers conducted a regional water supply study. This Preliminary 
Engineering Report was completed earlier this year and provides 
Cumberland County residents with innovative alternatives for a water 
supply through the year 2050. This ``state of the art'' model can be 
used as a process for other local governments to effectively plan the 
use of their region's water resources.
  The manager's amendment will help this rapidly growing county by 
allowing them to continue into the next phase of the process in solving 
their long-term water supply needs.
  Again, I want to thank Chairman Shuster for his assistance and urge 
all my colleagues to support his amendment and the entire bill.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill, modified by the amendments printed in 
part 1 of House Report 106-120, is considered as an original bill for 
the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and is considered 
read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
modified, is as follows:

                               H.R. 1480

         Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 
     of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

[[Page H2489]]

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1999''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Secretary defined.

                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

Sec. 101. Project authorizations.
Sec. 102. Small flood control projects.
Sec. 103. Small bank stabilization projects.
Sec. 104. Small navigation projects.
Sec. 105. Small projects for improvement of the environment.
Sec. 106. Small aquatic ecosystem restoration projects.

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Small flood control authority.
Sec. 202. Use of non-Federal funds for compiling and disseminating 
              information on floods and flood damages.
Sec. 203. Contributions by States and political subdivisions.
Sec. 204. Sediment decontamination technology.
Sec. 205. Control of aquatic plants.
Sec. 206. Use of continuing contracts required for construction of 
              certain projects.
Sec. 207. Support of Army civil works program.
Sec. 208. Water resources development studies for the Pacific region.
Sec. 209. Everglades and south Florida ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 210. Beneficial uses of dredged material.
Sec. 211. Harbor cost sharing.
Sec. 212. Aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 213. Watershed management, restoration, and development.
Sec. 214. Flood mitigation and riverine restoration pilot program.
Sec. 215. Shoreline management program.
Sec. 216. Assistance for remediation, restoration, and reuse.
Sec. 217. Shore damage mitigation.
Sec. 218. Shore protection.
Sec. 219. Flood prevention coordination.
Sec. 220. Annual passes for recreation.
Sec. 221. Cooperative agreements for environmental and recreational 
              measures.
Sec. 222. Nonstructural flood control projects.
Sec. 223. Lakes program.
Sec. 224. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal 
              interests.
Sec. 225. Enhancement of fish and wildlife resources.
Sec. 226. Sense of Congress; requirement regarding notice.
Sec. 227. Periodic beach nourishment.
Sec. 228. Environmental dredging.

                 TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. Missouri River Levee System.
Sec. 302. Ouzinkie Harbor, Alaska.
Sec. 303. Greers Ferry Lake, Arkansas.
Sec. 304. Ten- and Fifteen-Mile Bayous, Arkansas.
Sec. 305. Loggy Bayou, Red River below Denison Dam, Arkansas, 
              Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas.
Sec. 306. Sacramento River, Glenn-Colusa, California.
Sec. 307. San Lorenzo River, California.
Sec. 308. Terminus Dam, Kaweah River, California.
Sec. 309. Delaware River mainstem and channel deepening, Delaware, New 
              Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
Sec. 310. Potomac River, Washington, District of Columbia.
Sec. 311. Brevard County, Florida.
Sec. 312. Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet, Florida.
Sec. 313. Fort Pierce, Florida.
Sec. 314. Nassau County, Florida.
Sec. 315. Miami Harbor Channel, Florida.
Sec. 316. Lake Michigan, Illinois.
Sec. 317. Springfield, Illinois.
Sec. 318. Little Calumet River, Indiana.
Sec. 319. Ogden Dunes, Indiana.
Sec. 320. Saint Joseph River, South Bend, Indiana.
Sec. 321. White River, Indiana.
Sec. 322. Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana.
Sec. 323. Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana.
Sec. 324. Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee, Louisiana.
Sec. 325. Twelve-mile Bayou, Caddo Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 326. West Bank of the Mississippi River (East of Harvey Canal), 
              Louisiana.
Sec. 327. Tolchester Channel, Baltimore Harbor and channels, Chesapeake 
              Bay, Kent County, Maryland.
Sec. 328. Sault Sainte Marie, Chippewa County, Michigan.
Sec. 329. Jackson County, Mississippi.
Sec. 330. Tunica Lake, Mississippi.
Sec. 331. Bois Brule Drainage and Levee District, Missouri.
Sec. 332. Meramec River Basin, Valley Park Levee, Missouri.
Sec. 333. Missouri River mitigation project, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, 
              and Nebraska.
Sec. 334. Wood River, Grand Island, Nebraska.
Sec. 335. Absecon Island, New Jersey.
Sec. 336. New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels, Port Jersey, New 
              Jersey
Sec. 337. Passaic River, New Jersey.
Sec. 338. Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey.
Sec. 339. Arthur Kill, New York and New Jersey.
Sec. 340. New York City watershed.
Sec. 341. New York State Canal System.
Sec. 342. Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point, New york.
Sec. 343. Broken Bow Lake, Red River Basin, Oklahoma.
Sec. 344. Willamette River temperature control, Mckenzie Subbasin, 
              Oregon.
Sec. 345. Aylesworth Creek Reservoir, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 346. Curwensville Lake, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 347. Delaware River, Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Sec. 348. Mussers Dam, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 349. Nine-Mile Run, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 350. Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 351. South Central Pennsylvania.
Sec. 352. Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.
Sec. 353. Bowie County Levee, Texas.
Sec. 354. Clear Creek, Texas.
Sec. 355. Cypress Creek, Texas.
Sec. 356. Dallas Floodway Extension, Dallas, Texas.
Sec. 357. Upper Jordan River, Utah.
Sec. 358. Elizabeth River, Chesapeake, Virginia.
Sec. 359. Bluestone Lake, Ohio River Basin, West Virginia.
Sec. 360. Greenbrier Basin, West Virginia.
Sec. 361. Moorefield, West Virginia.
Sec. 362. West Virginia and Pennsylvania Flood Control.
Sec. 363. Project reauthorizations.
Sec. 364. Project deauthorizations.
Sec. 365. American and Sacramento Rivers, California.
Sec. 366. Martin, Kentucky.

                           TITLE IV--STUDIES

Sec. 401. Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers levees and streambanks 
              protection.
Sec. 402. Upper Mississippi River comprehensive plan.
Sec. 403. El Dorado, Union County, Arkansas.
Sec. 404. Sweetwater Reservoir, San Diego County, California.
Sec. 405. Whitewater River Basin, California.
Sec. 406. Little Econlackhatchee River Basin, Florida.
Sec. 407. Port Everglades Inlet, Florida.
Sec. 408. Upper Des Plaines River and tributaries, Illinois and 
              Wisconsin.
Sec. 409. Cameron Parish west of Calcasieu River, Louisiana.
Sec. 410. Grand Isle and vicinity, Louisiana.
Sec. 411. Lake Pontchartrain seawall, Louisiana.
Sec. 412. Westport, Massachusetts.
Sec. 413. Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Sec. 414. Cayuga Creek, New York.
Sec. 415. Arcola Creek Watershed, Madison, Ohio.
Sec. 416. Western Lake Erie Basin, Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan.
Sec. 417. Schuylkill River, Norristown, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 418. Lakes Marion and Moultrie, South Carolina.
Sec. 419. Day County, South Dakota.
Sec. 420. Corpus Christi, Texas.
Sec. 421. Mitchell's Cut Channel (Caney Fork Cut), Texas.
Sec. 422. Mouth of Colorado River, Texas.
Sec. 423. Kanawha River, Fayette County, West Virginia.
Sec. 424. West Virginia ports.
Sec. 425. Great Lakes region comprehensive study.
Sec. 426. Nutrient loading resulting from dredged material disposal.
Sec. 427. Santee Delta focus area, South Carolina.

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. Corps assumption of NRCS projects.
Sec. 502. Construction assistance.
Sec. 503. Contaminated sediment dredging technology.
Sec. 504. Dam safety.
Sec. 505. Great Lakes remedial action plans.
Sec. 506. Sea Lamprey control measures in the Great Lakes.
Sec. 507. Maintenance of navigation channels.
Sec. 508. Measurement of Lake Michigan diversions.
Sec. 509. Upper Mississippi River environmental management program.
Sec. 510. Atlantic Coast of New York monitoring.
Sec. 511. Water control management.
Sec. 512. Beneficial use of dredged material.
Sec. 513. Design and construction assistance.
Sec. 514. Lower Missouri River aquatic restoration projects.
Sec. 515. Aquatic resources restoration in the Northwest.
Sec. 516. Innovative technologies for watershed restoration.
Sec. 517. Environmental restoration.
Sec. 518. Expedited consideration of certain projects.
Sec. 519. Dog River, Alabama.
Sec. 520. Elba, Alabama.
Sec. 521. Geneva, Alabama.
Sec. 522. Navajo Reservation, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah.
Sec. 523. Augusta and Devalls Bluff, Arkansas.
Sec. 524. Beaver Lake, Arkansas.
Sec. 525. Beaver Lake trout production facility, Arkansas.
Sec. 526. Chino Dairy Preserve, California.
Sec. 527. Novato, California.
Sec. 528. Orange and San Diego Counties, California.
Sec. 529. Salton Sea, California.
Sec. 530. Santa Cruz Harbor, California.
Sec. 531. Point Beach, Milford, Connecticut.
Sec. 532. Lower St. Johns River Basin, Florida.
Sec. 533. Shoreline protection and environmental restoration, Lake 
              Allatoona, Georgia.
Sec. 534. Mayo's Bar Lock and Dam, Coosa River, Rome, Georgia.
Sec. 535. Comprehensive flood impact response modeling system, 
              Coralville Reservoir and Iowa River Watershed, Iowa.

[[Page H2490]]

Sec. 536. Additional construction assistance in Illinois.
Sec. 537. Kanopolis Lake, Kansas.
Sec. 538. Southern and Eastern Kentucky.
Sec. 539. Southeast Louisiana.
Sec. 540. Snug Harbor, Maryland.
Sec. 541. Welch Point, Elk River, Cecil County, and Chesapeake City, 
              Maryland.
Sec. 542. West View Shores, Cecil County, Maryland.
Sec. 543. Restoration projects for Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West 
              Virginia.
Sec. 544. Cape Cod Canal Railroad Bridge, Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts.
Sec. 545. St. Louis, Missouri.
Sec. 546. Beaver Branch of Big Timber Creek, New Jersey.
Sec. 547. Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River water levels, New York.
Sec. 548. New York-New Jersey Harbor, New York and New Jersey.
Sec. 549. Sea Gate Reach, Coney Island, New York, New York.
Sec. 550. Woodlawn, New York.
Sec. 551. Floodplain mapping, New York.
Sec. 552. White Oak River, North Carolina.
Sec. 553. Toussaint River, Carroll Township, Ottawa County, Ohio.
Sec. 554. Sardis Reservoir, Oklahoma.
Sec. 555. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma, water conveyance facilities.
Sec. 556. Skinner Butte Park, Eugene, Oregon.
Sec. 557. Willamette River basin, Oregon.
Sec. 558. Bradford and Sullivan Counties, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 559. Erie Harbor, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 560. Point Marion Lock And Dam, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 561. Seven Points' Harbor, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 562. Southeastern Pennsylvania.
Sec. 563. Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna watershed restoration 
              initiative.
Sec. 564. Aguadilla Harbor, Puerto Rico.
Sec. 565. Oahe Dam to Lake Sharpe, South Dakota, study.
Sec. 566. Integrated water management planning, Texas.
Sec. 567. Bolivar Peninsula, Jefferson, Chambers, and Galveston 
              Counties, Texas.
Sec. 568. Galveston Beach, Galveston County, Texas.
Sec. 569. Packery Channel, Corpus Christi, Texas.
Sec. 570. Northern West Virginia.
Sec. 571. Urbanized peak flood management research.
Sec. 572. Mississippi River Commission.
Sec. 573. Coastal aquatic habitat management.
Sec. 574. Abandoned and inactive noncoal mine restoration.
Sec. 575. Beneficial use of waste tire rubber.
Sec. 576. Site designation.
Sec. 577. Land conveyances.
Sec. 578. Namings.
Sec. 579. Folsom Dam and Reservoir additional storage and additional 
              flood control studies.
Sec. 580. Wallops Island, Virginia.
Sec. 581. Detroit River, Detroit, Michigan.

     SEC. 2. SECRETARY DEFINED.

       In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
     the Army.
                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

     SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) Projects With Chief's Reports.--The following projects 
     for water resources development and conservation and other 
     purposes are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary 
     substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to 
     the conditions, described in the respective reports 
     designated in this subsection:
       (1) Sand point harbor, alaska.--The project for navigation, 
     Sand Point Harbor, Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers 
     dated October 13, 1998, at a total cost of $11,760,000, with 
     an estimated Federal cost of $6,964,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $4,796,000.
       (2) Rio salado, salt river, phoenix and tempe, arizona.--
     The project for flood control and environmental restoration, 
     Rio Salado, Salt River, Phoenix and Tempe, Arizona: Report of 
     the Chief of Engineers dated August 20, 1998, at a total cost 
     of $88,048,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $56,355,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $31,693,000.
       (3) Tucson drainage area, arizona.--The project for flood 
     control, Tucson drainage area, Arizona: Report of the Chief 
     of Engineers, dated May 20, 1998, at a total cost of 
     $29,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $16,768,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $13,132,000.
       (4) American river watershed, california.--
       (A) In general.--The Folsom Dam Modification portion of the 
     Folsom Modification Plan described in the United States Army 
     Corps of Engineers Supplemental Information Report for the 
     American River Watershed Project, California, dated March 
     1996, as modified by the report entitled ``Folsom Dam 
     Modification Report, New Outlets Plan,'' dated March 1998, 
     prepared by the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, at an 
     estimated cost of $150,000,000, with an estimated Federal 
     cost of $97,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $52,500,000. The Secretary shall coordinate with the 
     Secretary of the Interior with respect to the design and 
     construction of modifications at Folsom Dam authorized by 
     this paragraph.
       (B) Reoperation measures.--Upon completion of the 
     improvements to Folsom Dam authorized by subparagraph (A), 
     the variable space allocated to flood control within the 
     Reservoir shall be reduced from the current operating range 
     of 400,000-670,000 acre-feet to 400,000-600,000 acre-feet.
       (C) Makeup of water shortages caused by flood control 
     operation.--The Secretary of the Interior shall enter into, 
     or modify, such agreements with the Sacramento Area Flood 
     Control Agency regarding the operation of Folsom Dam and 
     reservoir as may be necessary in order that, notwithstanding 
     any prior agreement or provision of law, 100 percent of the 
     water needed to make up for any water shortage caused by 
     variable flood control operation during any year at Folsom 
     Dam and resulting in a significant impact on recreation at 
     Folsom Reservoir shall be replaced, to the extent the water 
     is available for purchase, by the Secretary of the Interior.
       (D) Significant impact on recreation.--For the purposes of 
     this paragraph, a significant impact on recreation is defined 
     as any impact that results in a lake elevation at Folsom 
     Reservoir below 435 feet above sea level starting on May 15 
     and ending on September 15 of any given year.
       (5) South sacramento county streams, california.--The 
     project for flood control, environmental restoration and 
     recreation, South Sacramento County streams, California: 
     Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 6, 1998, at a 
     total cost of $65,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $41,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $24,300,000.
       (6) Upper guadalupe river, california.--The project for 
     flood control and recreation, Upper Guadalupe River, 
     California: Locally Preferred Plan (known as the ``Bypass 
     Channel Plan''), Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 
     August 19, 1998, at a total cost of $140,285,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $44,000,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $96,285,000.
       (7) Yuba river basin, california.--The project for flood 
     control, Yuba River Basin, California: Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers dated November 25, 1998, at a total cost of 
     $26,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $17,350,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $9,250,000.
       (8) Delaware bay coastline, delaware and new jersey-
     broadkill beach, delaware.--The project for hurricane and 
     storm damage reduction, Delaware Bay coastline, Delaware and 
     New Jersey-Broadkill Beach, Delaware: Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers dated August 17, 1998, at a total cost of 
     $9,049,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $5,674,000 and 
     an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,375,000, and at an 
     estimated average annual cost of $538,200 for periodic 
     nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an 
     estimated annual Federal cost of $349,800 and an estimated 
     annual non-Federal cost of $188,400.
       (9) Delaware bay coastline, delaware and new jersey-port 
     mahon, delaware.--The project for ecosystem restoration, 
     Delaware Bay coastline, Delaware and New Jersey-Port Mahon, 
     Delaware: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September 
     28, 1998, at a total cost of $7,644,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $4,969,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $2,675,000, and at an estimated average annual cost of 
     $234,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of 
     the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of 
     $152,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $82,000.
       (10) Delaware bay coastline, delaware and new jersey-
     roosevelt inlet-lewes beach, delaware.--The project for 
     navigation mitigation and hurricane and storm damage 
     reduction, Delaware Bay coastline, Delaware and New Jersey-
     Roosevelt Inlet-Lewes Beach, Delaware: Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers dated February 3, 1999, at a total cost of 
     $3,393,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $2,620,000 and 
     an estimated non-Federal cost of $773,000, and at an 
     estimated average annual cost of $196,000 for periodic 
     nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an 
     estimated annual Federal cost of $152,000 and an estimated 
     annual non-Federal cost of $44,000.
       (11) Jacksonville harbor, florida.--
       (A) In general.--The project for navigation, Jacksonville 
     Harbor, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers April 21, 
     1999, at a total cost of $26,116,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $9,129,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $16,987,000.
       (B) Special rule.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the 
     Secretary may construct the project to a depth of 40 feet if 
     the non-Federal interest agrees to pay any additional costs 
     above those for the recommended plan.
       (12) Tampa harbor-big bend channel, florida.--The project 
     for navigation, Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida: 
     Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 13, 1998, at a 
     total cost of $9,356,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $6,235,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,121,000.
       (13) Brunswick harbor, georgia.--The project for 
     navigation, Brunswick Harbor, Georgia: Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers dated October 6, 1998, at a total cost of 
     $50,717,000, with an estimate Federal cost of $32,966,000 and 
     an estimated non-Federal cost of $17,751,000.
       (14) Beargrass creek, kentucky.--The project for flood 
     control, Beargrass Creek, Kentucky: Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers, dated May 12, 1998, at a total cost of 
     $11,171,300, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,261,500 and 
     an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,909,800.
       (15) Amite river and tributaries, louisiana.--The project 
     for flood control, Amite River and tributaries, Louisiana: 
     Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 23, 1996, at 
     a total cost of $112,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost 
     of $84,675,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $28,225,000. Cost sharing for the project shall be determined 
     in accordance with section 103(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213), as in effect on 
     October 11, 1996.
       (16) Baltimore harbor anchorages and channels, maryland and 
     virginia.--The project for navigation, Baltimore harbor 
     anchorages and channels, Maryland and Virginia: Report of the 
     Chief of Engineers, dated June 8, 1998, at a total cost of 
     $28,430,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $19,000,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $9,430,000.

[[Page H2491]]

       (17) Red river lake at crookston, minnesota.--The project 
     for flood control, Red River Lake at Crookston, Minnesota: 
     Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated April 20, 1998, at a 
     total cost of $8,950,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $5,720,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,230,000.
       (18) Lower cape may meadows, cape may point, new jersey.--
     The project for navigation mitigation, ecosystem restoration, 
     and hurricane and storm damage reduction, Lower Cape May 
     Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers dated April 5, 1999, at a total cost of 
     $15,952,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $12,118,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,834,000, and at an 
     estimated average annual cost of $1,114,000 for periodic 
     nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an 
     estimated annual Federal cost of $897,000 and an estimated 
     annual non-Federal cost of $217,000.
       (19) New jersey shore protection: townsends inlet to cape 
     may inlet, new jersey.--The project for hurricane and storm 
     damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, New Jersey Shore 
     Protection: Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey: 
     Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September 28, 1998, at 
     a total cost of $56,503,000, with an estimated Federal cost 
     of $36,727,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $19,776,000, and at an estimated average annual cost of 
     $2,000,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of 
     the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of 
     $1,300,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of 
     $700,000.
       (20) Guanajibo river, puerto rico.--The project for flood 
     control, Guanajibo River, Puerto Rico: Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers, dated February 27, 1996, at a total cost of 
     $27,031,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $20,273,250 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,757,750. Cost sharing 
     for the project shall be determined in accordance with 
     section 103(a) of the Water Resources Development Act 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 2213) as in effect on October 11, 1986.
       (21) Rio grande de manati, barceloneta, puerto rico.--The 
     project for flood control, Rio Grande De Manati, Barceloneta, 
     Puerto Rico: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated January 
     22, 1999, at a total cost of $13,491,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $8,785,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $4,706,000.
       (22) Rio nigua at salinas, puerto rico.--The project for 
     flood control, Rio Nigua at Salinas, Puerto Rico: Report of 
     the Chief of Engineers, dated April 15, 1997, at a total cost 
     of $13,702,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,645,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,057,000.
       (23) Salt creek, graham, texas.--The project for flood 
     control, environmental restoration and recreation, Salt 
     Creek, Graham, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 
     October 6, 1998, at a total cost of $10,080,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $6,560,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $3,520,000.
       (b) Projects Subject to Report.--The following projects for 
     water resources development and conservation and other 
     purposes are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary 
     substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to 
     the conditions, recommended in a final report of the Corps of 
     Engineers, if the report is completed not later than 
     September 30, 1999.
       (1) Nome, alaska.--The project for navigation, Nome, 
     Alaska, at a total cost of $24,608,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $19,660,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $4,948,000.
       (2) Seward harbor, alaska.--The project for navigation, 
     Seward Harbor, Alaska, at a total cost of $12,240,000, with 
     an estimated Federal cost of $4,364,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $7,876,000.
       (3) Hamilton airfield, california.--The project for 
     wetlands restoration, Hamilton Airfield, California, at a 
     total cost of $55,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $41,400,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $13,800,000.
       (4) Oakland harbor, california.--The project for 
     navigation, Oakland Harbor, California, at a total cost of 
     $256,650,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $143,450,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $113,200,000.
       (5) Delaware bay coastline, delaware and new jersey: reeds 
     beach and pierces point, new jersey.--The project for shore 
     protection and ecosystem restoration, Delaware Bay Coastline, 
     Delaware and New Jersey: Reeds Beach and Pierces Point, New 
     Jersey, at a total cost of $4,057,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $2,637,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $1,420,000.
       (6) Delaware bay coastline, delaware and new jersey: villas 
     and vicinity, new jersey.--The project for shore protection 
     and ecosystem restoration, Delaware Bay Coastline, Delaware 
     and New Jersey: Villas and Vicinity, New Jersey, at a total 
     cost of $7,520,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $4,888,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,632,000.
       (7) Delaware coast from cape henelopen to fenwick island, 
     bethany beach/south bethany beach, delaware.--The project for 
     hurricane and storm damage reduction, Delaware Coast from 
     Cape Henelopen to Fenwick Island, Bethany Beach/South Bethany 
     Beach, Delaware, at a total cost of $22,205,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $14,433,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $7,772,000, and at an estimated average 
     annual cost of $1,584,000 for periodic nourishment over the 
     50-year life of the project, with an estimated annual Federal 
     cost of $1,030,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost 
     of $554,000.
       (8) Little talbot island, duval county, florida.--The 
     project for hurricane and storm damage prevention, Little 
     Talbot Island, Duval County, Florida, at a total cost of 
     $5,915,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $3,839,000 and 
     an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,076,000.
       (9) Ponce de leon inlet, florida.--The project for 
     navigation and related purposes, Ponce de Leon Inlet, Volusia 
     County, Florida, at a total cost of $5,454,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $2,988,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $2,466,000.
       (10) Savannah harbor expansion, georgia.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the project 
     for navigation, Savannah Harbor expansion, Georgia, including 
     implementation of the mitigation plan, with such 
     modifications as the Secretary deems appropriate, at a total 
     cost of $230,174,000 (of which amount a portion is authorized 
     for implementation of the mitigation plan), with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $145,160,000 and an estimated non-Federal 
     cost of $85,014,000.
       (B) Conditions.--The project authorized by subparagraph (A) 
     may be carried out only after--
       (i) the Secretary, in consultation with affected Federal, 
     State of Georgia, State of South Carolina, regional, and 
     local entities, has reviewed and approved an environmental 
     impact statement for the project that includes--

       (I) an analysis of the impacts of project depth 
     alternatives ranging from 42 feet through 48 feet; and
       (II) a selected plan for navigation and an associated 
     mitigation plan as required by section 906(a) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283); and

       (ii) the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of 
     Commerce, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, and the Secretary have approved the selected plan and 
     have determined that the mitigation plan adequately addresses 
     the potential environmental impacts of the project.
       (C) Mitigation requirements.--The mitigation plan shall be 
     implemented in advance of or concurrently with construction 
     of the project.
       (11) Des plaines river, illinois.--The project for flood 
     control, Des Plaines River, Illinois, at a total cost of 
     $44,300,000 with an estimated Federal cost of $28,800,000 and 
     an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,500,000.
       (12) New jersey shore protection, brigantine inlet to great 
     egg harbor, brigantine island, new jersey.--The project for 
     hurricane and storm damage reduction, New Jersey shore 
     protection, Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor, Brigantine 
     Island, New Jersey, at a total cost of $4,970,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $3,230,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $1,740,000, and at an estimated average 
     annual cost of $465,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-
     year life of the project, with an estimated annual Federal 
     cost of $302,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of 
     $163,000.
       (13) Columbia river channel, oregon and washington.--The 
     project for navigation, Columbia River Channel, Oregon and 
     Washington, at a total cost of $183,623,000 with an estimated 
     Federal cost $106,132,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $77,491,000.
       (14) Johnson creek, arlington, texas.--The locally 
     preferred project for flood control, Johnson Creek, 
     Arlington, Texas, at a total cost of $20,300,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $12,000,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $8,300,000.
       (15) Howard hanson dam, washington.--The project for water 
     supply and ecosystem restoration, Howard Hanson Dam, 
     Washington, at a total cost of $75,600,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $36,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $38,700,000.

     SEC. 102. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study for 
     each of the following projects and, after completion of such 
     study, shall carry out the project under section 205 of the 
     Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s):
       (1) Lancaster, california.--Project for flood control, 
     Lancaster, California, westside stormwater retention 
     facility.
       (2) Gateway triangle area, florida.--Project for flood 
     control, Gateway Triangle area, Collier County, Florida.
       (3) Plant city, florida.--Project for flood control, Plant 
     City, Florida.
       (4) Stone island, lake monroe, florida.--Project for flood 
     control, Stone Island, Lake Monroe, Florida.
       (5) Ohio river, illinois.--Project for flood control, Ohio 
     River, Illinois.
       (6) Repaupo creek, new jersey.--Project for flood control, 
     Repaupo Creek, New Jersey.
       (7) Owasco lake seawall, new york.--Project for flood 
     control, Owasco Lake seawall, New York.
       (8) Port clinton, ohio.--Project for flood control, Port 
     Clinton, Ohio.
       (9) North canadian river, oklahoma.--Project for flood 
     control, North Canadian River, Oklahoma.
       (10) Abington township, pennsylvania.--Project for flood 
     control, Baeder and Wanamaker Roads, Abington Township, 
     Pennsylvania.
       (11) Port indian, west norriton township, montgomery 
     county, pennsylvania.--Project for flood control, Port 
     Indian, West Norriton Township, Montgomery County, 
     Pennsylvania.
       (12) Port providence, upper providence township, 
     pennsylvania.--Project for flood control, Port Providence, 
     Upper Providence Township, Pennsylvania.
       (13) Springfield township, montgomery county, 
     pennsylvania.--Project for flood control, Springfield 
     Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.
       (14) First creek, knoxville, tennessee.--Project for flood 
     control, First Creek, Knoxville, Tennessee.
       (15) Metro center levee, cumberland river, nashville, 
     tennessee.--Project for flood control, Metro Center Levee, 
     Cumberland River, Nashville, Tennessee.
       (b) Festus and Crystal City, Missouri.--

[[Page H2492]]

       (1) Maximum federal expenditure.--The maximum amount of 
     Federal funds that may be expended for the project for flood 
     control, Festus and Crystal City, Missouri, shall be 
     $10,000,000.
       (2) Revision of project cooperation agreement.--The 
     Secretary shall revise the project cooperation agreement for 
     the project referred to in paragraph (1) to take into account 
     the change in the Federal participation in such project 
     pursuant to paragraph (1).
       (3) Cost sharing.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to affect any cost-sharing requirement applicable 
     to the project referred to in paragraph (1) under the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986.

      SEC. 103. SMALL BANK STABILIZATION PROJECTS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the 
     following projects and, after completion of such study, shall 
     carry out the project under section 14 of the Flood Control 
     Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r):
       (1) Saint joseph river, indiana.--Project for streambank 
     erosion control, Saint Joseph River, Indiana.
       (2) Saginaw river, bay city, michigan.--Project for 
     streambank erosion control, Saginaw River, Bay City, 
     Michigan.
       (3) Big timber creek, new jersey.--Project for streambank 
     erosion control, Big Timber Creek, New Jersey.
       (4) Lake shore road, athol springs, new york.--Project for 
     streambank erosion control, Lake Shore Road, Athol Springs, 
     New York.
       (5) Marist college, poughkeepsie, new york.--Project for 
     streambank erosion control, Marist College, Poughkeepsie, New 
     York.
       (6) Monroe county, ohio.--Project for streambank erosion 
     control, Monroe County, Ohio.
       (7) Green valley, west virginia.--Project for streambank 
     erosion control, Green Valley, West Virginia.

      SEC. 104. SMALL NAVIGATION PROJECTS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the 
     following projects and, after completion of such study, shall 
     carry out the project under section 107 of the River and 
     Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577):
       (1) Grand marais, arkansas.--Project for navigation, Grand 
     Marais, Arkansas.
       (2) Fields landing channel, humboldt harbor, california.--
     Project for navigation, Fields Landing Channel, Humboldt 
     Harbor, California.
       (3) San mateo (pillar point harbor), california.--Project 
     for navigation San Mateo (Pillar Point Harbor), California.
       (4) Agana marina, guam.--Project for navigation, Agana 
     Marina, Guam.
       (5) Agat marina, guam.--Project for navigation, Agat 
     Marina, Guam.
       (6) Apra harbor fuel piers, guam.--Project for navigation, 
     Apra Harbor Fuel Piers, Guam.
       (7) Apra harbor pier f-6, guam.--Project for navigation, 
     Apra Harbor Pier F-6, Guam.
       (8) Apra harbor seawall, guam.--Project for navigation 
     including a seawall, Apra Harbor, Guam.
       (9) Guam harbor, guam.--Project for navigation, Guam 
     Harbor, Guam.
       (10) Illinois river near chautauqua park, illinois.--
     Project for navigation, Illinois River near Chautauqua Park, 
     Illinois.
       (11) Whiting shoreline waterfront, whiting, indiana.--
     Project for navigation, Whiting Shoreline Waterfront, 
     Whiting, Indiana.
       (12) Naraguagus river, machias, maine.--Project for 
     navigation, Naraguagus River, Machias, Maine.
       (13) Union river, ellsworth, maine.--Project for 
     navigation, Union River, Ellsworth, Maine.
       (14) Detroit waterfront, michigan.--Project for navigation, 
     Detroit River, Michigan, including dredging and removal of a 
     reef.
       (15) Fortescue inlet, delaware bay, new jersey.--Project 
     for navigation for Fortescue Inlet, Delaware Bay, New Jersey.
       (16) Buffalo and lasalle park, new york.--Project for 
     navigation, Buffalo and LaSalle Park, New York.
       (17) Sturgeon point, new york.--Project for navigation, 
     Sturgeon Point, New York.

     SEC. 105. SMALL PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study for 
     each of the following projects and, after completion of such 
     study, shall carry out the project under section 1135 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a):
       (1) Illinois river in the vicinity of havana, illinois.--
     Project for the improvement of the environment, Illinois 
     River in the vicinity of Havana, Illinois.
       (2) Knitting mill creek, virginia.--Project for the 
     improvement of the environment, Knitting Mill Creek, 
     Virginia.
       (b) Pine Flat Dam, Kings River, California.--The Secretary 
     shall carry out under section 1135(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a(a)) a project to 
     construct a turbine bypass at Pine Flat Dam, Kings River, 
     California, in accordance with the Project Modification 
     Report and Environmental Assessment dated September 1996.

     SEC. 106. SMALL AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECTS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the 
     following projects and, after completion of such study, shall 
     carry out the project under section 206 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330):
       (1) Contra costa county, bay delta, california.--Project 
     for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Contra Costa County, Bay 
     Delta, California.
       (2) Indian river, florida.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration and lagoon restoration, Indian River, Florida.
       (3) Little wekiva river, florida.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration and erosion control, Little Wekiva 
     River, Florida.
       (4) Cook county, illinois.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration and lagoon restoration and protection, Cook 
     County, Illinois.
       (5) Grand batture island, mississippi.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, Grand Batture Island, Mississippi.
       (6) Hancock, harrison, and jackson counties, mississippi.--
     Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration and reef 
     restoration along the Gulf Coast, Hancock, Harrison, and 
     Jackson Counties, Mississippi.
       (7) Mississippi river and river des peres, st. louis, 
     missouri.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration and 
     recreation, Mississippi River and River Des Peres, St. Louis, 
     Missouri.
       (8) Hudson river, new york.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Hudson River, New York.
       (9) Oneida lake, new york.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Oneida Lake, Oneida County, New York.
       (10) Otsego lake, new york.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Otsego Lake, Otsego County, New York.
       (11) North fork of yellow creek, ohio.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, North Fork of Yellow Creek, Ohio.
       (12) Wheeling creek watershed, ohio.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, Wheeling Creek watershed, Ohio.
       (13) Springfield millrace, oregon.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, Springfield Millrace, Oregon.
       (14) Upper amazon creek, oregon.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, Upper Amazon Creek, Oregon.
       (15) Lake ontelaunee reservoir, berks county, 
     pennsylvania.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration and 
     distilling pond facilities, Lake Ontelaunee Reservoir, Berks 
     County, Pennsylvania.
       (16) Blackstone river basin, rhode island and 
     massachusetts.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration and 
     fish passage facilities, Blackstone River Basin, Rhode Island 
     and Massachusetts.
                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 201. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL AUTHORITY.

       Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 
     701s) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``construction of small projects'' and 
     inserting ``implementation of small structural and 
     nonstructural projects''; and
       (2) by striking ``$5,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$7,000,000''.

     SEC. 202. USE OF NON-FEDERAL FUNDS FOR COMPILING AND 
                   DISSEMINATING INFORMATION ON FLOODS AND FLOOD 
                   DAMAGES.

       The last sentence of section 206(b) of the Flood Control 
     Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 709a(b)) is amended by inserting 
     before the period the following: ``; except that this 
     limitation on fees shall not apply to funds voluntarily 
     contributed by such entities for the purpose of expanding the 
     scope of the services requested by such entities''.

     SEC. 203. CONTRIBUTIONS BY STATES AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS.

       Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936 (33 
     U.S.C. 701h), is amended by inserting ``or environmental 
     restoration'' after ``flood control''.

     SEC. 204. SEDIMENT DECONTAMINATION TECHNOLOGY.

       Section 405 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
     (33 U.S.C. 2239 note; 106 Stat. 4863) is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following:
       ``(4) Practical end-use products.--Technologies selected 
     for demonstration at the pilot scale shall be intended to 
     result in practical end-use products.
       ``(5) Assistance by the secretary.--The Secretary shall 
     assist the project to ensure expeditious completion by 
     providing sufficient quantities of contaminated dredged 
     material to conduct the full-scale demonstrations to stated 
     capacity.'';
       (2) in subsection (c) by striking the first sentence and 
     inserting the following: ``There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out this section $22,000,000 to 
     complete technology testing, technology commercialization, 
     and the development of full scale processing facilities 
     within the New York/New Jersey Harbor.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Support.--In carrying out the program under this 
     section, the Secretary is encouraged to utilize contracts, 
     cooperative agreements, and grants with colleges and 
     universities and other non-Federal entities.''.

     SEC. 205. CONTROL OF AQUATIC PLANTS.

       Section 104 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (33 U.S.C. 
     610) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by inserting ``arundo,'' after 
     ``milfoil,'';
       (2) in subsection (b) by striking ``$12,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$15,000,000.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Support.--In carrying out this program, the Secretary 
     is encouraged to utilize contracts, cooperative agreements, 
     and grants with colleges and universities and other non-
     Federal entities.''.

     SEC. 206. USE OF CONTINUING CONTRACTS REQUIRED FOR 
                   CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary shall not implement a fully allocated 
     funding policy with respect to a water resources project if 
     initiation of construction has occurred but sufficient funds 
     are not available to complete the project. The

[[Page H2493]]

     Secretary shall enter into continuing contracts for such 
     project.
       (b) Initiation of Construction Clarified.--For the purposes 
     of this section, initiation of construction for a project 
     occurs on the date of enactment of an Act that appropriates 
     funds for the project from 1 of the following appropriation 
     accounts:
       (1) Construction, General.
       (2) Operation and Maintenance, General.
       (3) Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries.

     SEC. 207. SUPPORT OF ARMY CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM.

       The requirements of section 2361 of title 10, United States 
     Code, shall not apply to any contract, cooperative research 
     and development agreement, cooperative agreement, or grant 
     entered into under section 229 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3703) between the 
     Secretary and Marshall University or entered into under 
     section 350 of this Act between the Secretary and Juniata 
     College.

     SEC. 208. WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT STUDIES FOR THE PACIFIC 
                   REGION.

       Section 444 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (110 Stat. 3747) is amended by striking ``interest of 
     navigation'' and inserting ``interests of water resources 
     development, including navigation, flood damage reduction, 
     and environmental restoration''.

     SEC. 209. EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

       (a) Program Extension.--Section 528(b)(3) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3769) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``1999'' and inserting 
     ``2000''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (C)(i) by striking ``1999'' and 
     inserting ``2003''.
       (b) Credit.--Section 528(b)(3) of such Act is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) Credit of past and future activities.--The Secretary 
     may provide a credit to the non-Federal interests toward the 
     non-Federal share of a project implemented under subparagraph 
     (A). The credit shall be for reasonable costs of work 
     performed by the non-Federal interests if the Secretary 
     determines that the work substantially expedited completion 
     of the project and is compatible with and an integral part of 
     the project, and the credit is provided pursuant to a 
     specific project cooperation agreement.''.
       (c) Caloosahatchee River Basin, Florida.--Section 528(e)(4) 
     of such Act is amended by inserting before the period at the 
     end of the first sentence the following: ``if the Secretary 
     determines that such land acquisition is compatible with and 
     an integral component of the Everglades and South Florida 
     ecosystem restoration, including potential land acquisition 
     in the Caloosahatchee River basin or other areas''.

     SEC. 210. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.

       Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
     (106 Stat. 4826-4827) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c) by striking ``cooperative agreement 
     in accordance with the requirements of section 221 of the 
     Flood Control Act of 1970'' and inserting ``binding agreement 
     with the Secretary''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Non-Federal Interests.--Notwithstanding section 
     221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-
     5b(b)), the Secretary, after coordination with the 
     appropriate State and local government officials having 
     jurisdiction over an area in which a project under this 
     section will be carried out, may allow a nonprofit entity to 
     serve as the non-Federal interest for the project.''.

     SEC. 211. HARBOR COST SHARING.

       (a) In General.--Sections 101 and 214 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211 and 2241; 
     P.L. 99-662) are amended by striking ``45 feet'' each place 
     it appears and inserting ``53 feet''.
       (b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall only apply to a project, or separable element thereof, 
     on which a contract for physical construction has not been 
     awarded before the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 212. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

       Section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (110 Stat. 3679-3680) is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end of subsection (b) the following: 
     ``Before October 1, 2003, the Federal share may be provided 
     in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs.''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end of subsection (c) the following: 
     ``Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 
     1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), the Secretary, after 
     coordination with the appropriate State and local government 
     officials having jurisdiction over an area in which a project 
     under this section will be carried out, may allow a nonprofit 
     entity to serve as the non-Federal interest for the 
     project.''.

     SEC. 213. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, RESTORATION, AND DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) Nonprofit Entity as Non-Federal Interest.--Section 
     503(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 
     Stat. 3756) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
     ``Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 
     1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), the Secretary, after 
     coordination with the appropriate State and local government 
     officials having jurisdiction over an area in which a project 
     under this section will be carried out, may allow a nonprofit 
     entity to serve as the non-Federal interest for the 
     project.''.
       (b) Project Locations.--Section 503(d) of such Act is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (7) by inserting before the period at the 
     end ``, including Clear Lake''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(14) Fresno Slough watershed, California.
       ``(15) Hayward Marsh, Southern San Francisco Bay watershed, 
     California.
       ``(16) Kaweah River watershed, California.
       ``(17) Malibu Creek watershed, California.
       ``(18) Illinois River watershed, Illinois.
       ``(19) Catawba River watershed, North Carolina.
       ``(20) Cabin Creek basin, West Virginia.
       ``(21) Lower St. Johns River basin, Florida.''.

     SEC. 214. FLOOD MITIGATION AND RIVERINE RESTORATION PILOT 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may undertake a program for 
     the purpose of conducting projects that reduce flood hazards 
     and restore the natural functions and values of rivers 
     throughout the United States.
       (b) Studies and Projects.--
       (1) Authority.--In carrying out the program, the Secretary 
     may conduct studies to identify appropriate flood damage 
     reduction, conservation, and restoration measures and may 
     design and implement projects described in subsection (a).
       (2) Consultation and coordination.--The studies and 
     projects carried out under this section shall be conducted, 
     to the maximum extent practicable, in consultation and 
     coordination with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and 
     other appropriate Federal agencies, and in consultation and 
     coordination with appropriate State, tribal, and local 
     agencies.
       (3) Nonstructural approaches.--The studies and projects 
     shall emphasize, to the maximum extent practicable and 
     appropriate, nonstructural approaches to preventing or 
     reducing flood damages.
       (4) Use of state, tribal, and local studies and projects.--
     The studies and projects shall include consideration of and 
     coordination with any State, tribal, and local flood damage 
     reduction or riverine and wetland restoration studies and 
     projects that conserve, restore, and manage hydrologic and 
     hydraulic regimes and restore the natural functions and 
     values of floodplains.
       (c) Cost-Sharing Requirements.--
       (1) Studies.--Studies conducted under this section shall be 
     subject to cost sharing in accordance with section 105 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2215).
       (2) Environmental restoration and nonstructural flood 
     control projects.--The non-Federal interests shall pay 35 
     percent of the cost of any environmental restoration or 
     nonstructural flood control project carried out under this 
     section. The non-Federal interests shall provide all land, 
     easements, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal areas, 
     and relocations necessary for such projects. The value of 
     such land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged material 
     disposal areas, and relocations shall be credited toward the 
     payment required under this paragraph.
       (3) Structural flood control projects.--Any structural 
     flood control measures carried out under this section shall 
     be subject to cost sharing in accordance with section 103(a) 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
     2213(a)).
       (4) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal interests 
     shall be responsible for all costs associated with operating, 
     maintaining, replacing, repairing, and rehabilitating all 
     projects carried out under this section.
       (d) Project Justification.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     or requirement for economic justification established 
     pursuant to section 209 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 
     U.S.C. 1962-2), the Secretary may implement a project under 
     this section if the Secretary determines that the project--
       (A) will significantly reduce potential flood damages;
       (B) will improve the quality of the environment; and
       (C) is justified considering all costs and beneficial 
     outputs of the project.
       (2) Establishment of selection and rating criteria and 
     policies.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Secretary, in cooperation with 
     State, tribal, and local agencies, shall develop, and 
     transmit to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, 
     criteria for selecting and rating projects to be carried out 
     under this section and shall establish policies and 
     procedures for carrying out the studies and projects 
     undertaken under this section. Such criteria shall include, 
     as a priority, the extent to which the appropriate State 
     government supports the project.
       (e) Priority Areas.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary shall examine the potential for flood damage 
     reductions at appropriate locations, including the following:
       (1) Upper Delaware River, New York.
       (2) Willamette River floodplain, Oregon.
       (3) Pima County, Arizona, at Paseo De Las Iglesias and 
     Rillito River.
       (4) Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers, California.
       (5) Murrieta Creek, California.
       (6) Napa County, California, at Yountville, St. Helena, 
     Calistoga, and American Canyon.
       (7) Santa Clara basin, California, at Upper Guadalupe River 
     and tributaries, San Francisquito Creek, and Upper Penitencia 
     Creek.
       (8) Pine Mount Creek, New Jersey.
       (9) Chagrin River, Ohio.
       (10) Blair County, Pennsylvania, at Altoona and Frankstown 
     Township.
       (11) Lincoln Creek, Wisconsin.
       (f) Program Review.--
       (1) In general.--The program established under this section 
     shall be subject to an independent review to evaluate the 
     efficacy of the program in achieving the dual goals of flood 
     hazard mitigation and riverine restoration.
       (2) Report.--Not later than April 15, 2003, the Secretary 
     shall transmit to the Committee on

[[Page H2494]]

     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate a report on the findings of the review 
     conducted under this subsection with any recommendations 
     concerning continuation of the program.
       (g) Cost Limitations.--
       (1) Maximum federal cost per project.--No more than 
     $30,000,000 may be expended by the United States on any 
     single project under this section.
       (2) Committee resolution procedure.--
       (A) Limitation on appropriations.--No appropriation shall 
     be made to construct any project under this section the total 
     Federal cost of construction of which exceeds $15,000,000 if 
     the project has not been approved by resolutions adopted by 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate.
       (B) Report.--For the purpose of securing consideration of 
     approval under this paragraph, the Secretary shall transmit a 
     report on the proposed project, including all relevant data 
     and information on all costs.
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section--
       (1) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       (2) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 if $12,500,000 or more 
     is appropriated to carry out subsection (e) for fiscal year 
     2000;
       (3) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 if $12,500,000 or more 
     is appropriated to carry out subsection (e) for fiscal year 
     2001; and
       (4) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 if $12,500,000 or more 
     is appropriated to carry out subsection (e) for fiscal year 
     2002.

     SEC. 215. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.

       (a) Review.--The Secretary shall review the implementation 
     of the Corps of Engineers' shoreline management program, with 
     particular attention to inconsistencies in implementation 
     among the divisions and districts of the Corps of Engineers 
     and complaints by or potential inequities regarding property 
     owners in the Savannah District including an accounting of 
     the number and disposition of complaints over the last 5 
     years in the District.
       (b) Report.--As expeditiously as practicable after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate a report describing the results of 
     the review conducted under subsection (a).

     SEC. 216. ASSISTANCE FOR REMEDIATION, RESTORATION, AND REUSE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may provide to State and 
     local governments assessment, planning, and design assistance 
     for remediation, environmental restoration, or reuse of areas 
     located within the boundaries of such State or local 
     governments where such remediation, environmental 
     restoration, or reuse will contribute to the conservation of 
     water and related resources of drainage basins and watersheds 
     within the United States.
       (b) Beneficial Use of Dredged Material.--In providing 
     assistance under subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
     encourage the beneficial use of dredged material, consistent 
     with the findings of the Secretary under section 204 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326).
       (c) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost 
     of assistance provided under subsection (a) shall be 50 
     percent.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $3,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2000 through 2004.

     SEC. 217. SHORE DAMAGE MITIGATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 
     1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i; 100 Stat. 4199) is amended by inserting 
     after ``navigation works'' the following: ``and shore damages 
     attributable to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and the 
     Gulf Intracoastal Waterway''.
       (b) Palm Beach County, Florida.--The project for 
     navigation, Palm Beach County, Florida, authorized by section 
     2 of the River and Harbor Act of March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 11), 
     is modified to authorize the Secretary to undertake beach 
     nourishment as a dredged material disposal option under the 
     project.
       (c) Galveston County, Texas.--The Secretary may place 
     dredged material from the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway on the 
     beaches along Rollover Pass, Galveston County, Texas, to 
     stabilize beach erosion.

     SEC. 218. SHORE PROTECTION.

       (a) Non-Federal Share of Periodic Nourishment.--Section 
     103(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 
     Stat. 4085-5086) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1) Construction.--'' before ``Costs of 
     constructing'';
       (2) by inserting at the end the following:
       ``(2) Periodic nourishment.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the non-
     Federal share of costs of periodic nourishment measures for 
     shore protection or beach erosion control that are carried 
     out--
       ``(i) after January 1, 2001, shall be 40 percent;
       ``(ii) after January 1, 2002, shall be 45 percent; and
       ``(iii) after January 1, 2003, shall be 50 percent;
       ``(B) Benefits to privately owned shores.--All costs 
     assigned to benefits of periodic nourishment measures to 
     privately owned shores (where use of such shores is limited 
     to private interests) or to prevention of losses of private 
     lands shall be borne by the non-Federal interest and all 
     costs assigned to the protection of federally owned shores 
     for such measures shall be borne by the United States.''; and
       (C) by indenting paragraph (1) (as designated by 
     subparagraph (A) of this paragraph) and aligning such 
     paragraph with paragraph (2) (as added by subparagraph (B) of 
     this paragraph).
       (b) Utilization of Sand From Outer Continental Shelf.--
     Section 8(k)(2)(B) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 
     (43 U.S.C. 1337(k)(2)(B)) is amended by striking ``an agency 
     of the Federal Government'' and inserting ``a Federal, State, 
     or local government agency''.
       (c) Report on Nation's Shorelines.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall report to Congress 
     on the state of the Nation's shorelines.
       (2) Contents.--The report shall include--
       (A) a description of the extent of, and economic and 
     environmental effects caused by, erosion and accretion along 
     the Nation's shores and the causes thereof;
       (B) a description of resources committed by local, State, 
     and Federal governments to restore and renourish shorelines;
       (C) a description of the systematic movement of sand along 
     the Nation's shores; and
       (D) recommendations regarding (i) appropriate levels of 
     Federal and non-Federal participation in shoreline 
     protection, and (ii) utilization of a systems approach to 
     sand management.
       (3) Utilization of specific location data.--In developing 
     the report, the Secretary shall utilize data from specific 
     locations on the Atlantic, Pacific, Great Lakes, and Gulf of 
     Mexico coasts.
       (d) National Coastal Data Bank.--
       (1) Establishment of data bank.--Not later than 2 years 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     establish a national coastal data bank containing data on the 
     geophysical and climatological characteristics of the 
     Nation's shorelines.
       (2) Content.--To the extent practical, the national coastal 
     data bank shall include data regarding current and predicted 
     shoreline positions, information on federally-authorized 
     shore protection projects, and data on the movement of sand 
     along the Nation's shores, including impediments to such 
     movement caused by natural and manmade features.
       (3) Access.--The national coastal data bank shall be made 
     readily accessible to the public.

     SEC. 219. FLOOD PREVENTION COORDINATION.

       Section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 
     709a) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections 
     (c) and (d), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) Flood Prevention Coordination.--The Secretary shall 
     coordinate with the Director of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency and the heads of other Federal agencies to 
     ensure that flood control projects and plans are 
     complementary and integrated to the extent practicable and 
     appropriate.''.

     SEC. 220. ANNUAL PASSES FOR RECREATION.

       Section 208(c)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (16 U.S.C. 460d note; 110 Stat. 3680) is amended by 
     striking ``1999, or the date of transmittal of the report 
     under paragraph (3)'' and inserting ``2003''.

     SEC. 221. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND 
                   RECREATIONAL MEASURES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to enter into 
     cooperative agreements with non-Federal public bodies and 
     non-profit entities for the purpose of facilitating 
     collaborative efforts involving environmental protection and 
     restoration, natural resources conservation, and recreation 
     in connection with the development, operation, and management 
     of water resources projects under the jurisdiction of the 
     Department of the Army.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate a report that includes--
       (1) a listing and general description of the cooperative 
     agreements entered into by the Secretary with non-Federal 
     public bodies and entities under subsection (a);
       (2) a determination of whether such agreements are 
     facilitating collaborative efforts; and
       (3) a recommendation on whether such agreements should be 
     further encouraged.

     SEC. 222. NONSTRUCTURAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.

       (a) Analysis of Benefits.--Section 308 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2318; 104 Stat. 
     4638) is amended--
       (1) in the heading to subsection (a) by inserting 
     ``Elements Excluded from'' before ``Benefit-Cost'';
       (2) by redesignating subsections (b) through (e) as 
     subsections (c) through (f), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) Flood Damage Reduction Benefits.--In calculating the 
     benefits of a proposed project for nonstructural flood damage 
     reduction, the Secretary shall calculate benefits of 
     nonstructural projects using methods similar to structural 
     projects, including similar treatment in calculating the 
     benefits from losses avoided from both structural and 
     nonstructural alternatives. In carrying out this subsection, 
     the Secretary should avoid double counting of benefits.''.
       (b) Reevaluation of Flood Control Projects.--At the request 
     of a non-Federal interest for a flood control project, the 
     Secretary shall conduct a reevaluation of a previously 
     authorized project to consider nonstructural alternatives in 
     light of the amendments made by subsection (a).
       (c) Cost Sharing.--Section 103(b) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33

[[Page H2495]]

     U.S.C. 2213(b)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``At any time during construction of the project, 
     where the Secretary determines that the costs of lands, 
     easements, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal areas, 
     and relocations in combination with other costs contributed 
     by the non-Federal interests will exceed 35 percent, any 
     additional costs for the project, but not to exceed 65 
     percent of the total costs of the project, shall be a Federal 
     responsibility and shall be contributed during construction 
     as part of the Federal share.''.

     SEC. 223. LAKES PROGRAM.

       Section 602(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (110 Stat. 3758) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (15);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (16) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(17) Clear Lake, Lake County, California, removal of silt 
     and aquatic growth and measures to address excessive 
     sedimentation and high nutrient concentration; and
       ``(18) Osgood Pond, Milford, Hillsborough County, New 
     Hampshire, removal of silt and aquatic growth and measures to 
     address excessive sedimentation.
       ``(19) Flints Pond, Hollis, Hillsborough County, New 
     Hampshire, removal of silt and aquatic growth and measures to 
     address excessive sedimentation.''.

     SEC. 224. CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS BY NON-
                   FEDERAL INTERESTS.

       (a) Construction by Non-Federal Interests.--Section 
     211(d)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 
     U.S.C. 701b-13(d)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(b) or'';
       (2) by striking ``Any non-Federal'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) Studies and design activities under subsection (b).--
     A non-Federal interest may only carry out construction for 
     which studies and design documents are prepared under 
     subsection (b) if the Secretary approves such construction. 
     The Secretary shall approve such construction unless the 
     Secretary determines, in writing, that the design documents 
     do not meet standard practices for design methodologies or 
     that the project is not economically justified 
     or environmentally acceptable or does not meet the 
     requirements for obtaining the appropriate permits 
     required under the Secretary's authority. The Secretary 
     shall not unreasonably withhold approval. Nothing in this 
     subparagraph may be construed to affect any regulatory 
     authority of the Secretary.
       ``(B) Studies and design activities under subsection (c).--
     Any non-Federal''; and
       (3) by aligning the remainder of subparagraph (B) (as 
     designated by paragraph (2) of this subsection) with 
     subparagraph (A) (as inserted by paragraph (2) of this 
     subsection).
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 211(d)(2) of such Act is 
     amended by inserting ``(other than paragraph (1)(A))'' after 
     ``this subsection''.
       (c) Reimbursement.--
       (1) In general.--Section 211(e)(1) of such Act is amended--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (1) by inserting 
     after ``constructed pursuant to this section'' the following: 
     ``and provide credit for the non-Federal share of the 
     project'';
       (B) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
       (C) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) if the construction work is reasonably equivalent to 
     Federal construction work.''.
       (2) Special rules.--Section 211(e)(2)(A) of such Act is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``subject to amounts being made available 
     in advance in appropriations Acts'' and inserting ``subject 
     to appropriations''; and
       (B) by inserting after ``the cost of such work'' the 
     following: ``, or provide credit (depending on the request of 
     the non-Federal interest) for the non-Federal share of such 
     work,''.
       (3) Schedule and manner of reimbursements.--Section 211(e) 
     of such Act (33 U.S.C. 701b-13(e)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(6) Schedule and manner of reimbursement.--
       ``(A) Budgeting.--The Secretary shall budget and request 
     appropriations for reimbursements under this section on a 
     schedule that is consistent with a Federal construction 
     schedule.
       ``(B) Commencement of reimbursements.--Reimbursements under 
     this section may commence upon approval of a project by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(C) Credit.--At the request of a non-Federal interest, 
     the Secretary may reimburse the non-Federal interest by 
     providing credit toward future non-Federal costs of the 
     project.
       ``(D) Scheduling.--Nothing in this paragraph shall affect 
     the President's discretion to schedule new construction 
     starts.''.

     SEC. 225. ENHANCEMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES.

       Section 906(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(e)) is amended by inserting after the 
     second sentence the following: ``Not more than 80 percent of 
     the non-Federal share of such first costs may be satisfied 
     through in-kind contributions, including facilities, 
     supplies, and services that are necessary to carry out the 
     enhancement project.''.

     SEC. 226. SENSE OF CONGRESS; REQUIREMENT REGARDING NOTICE.

       (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products.--It 
     is the sense of Congress that, to the greatest extent 
     practicable, all equipment and products purchased with funds 
     made available under this Act should be American made.
       (b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance under this Act, the Secretary, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, shall provide to each recipient 
     of the assistance a notice describing the statement made in 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 227. PERIODIC BEACH NOURISHMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 506(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3757) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(5) Lee county, florida.--Project for shoreline 
     protection, Lee County, Captiva Island segment, Florida.''.
       (b) Projects.--Section 506(b)(3) of such Act (110 Stat. 
     3758) is amended by striking subparagraph (A) and 
     redesignating subparagraphs (B) through (D) as subparagraphs 
     (A) through (C), respectively.

     SEC. 228. ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING.

       Section 312 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 
     (104 Stat. 4639-4640) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ``50'' and inserting 
     ``35''; and
       (2) in subsection (d) by striking ``non-Federal 
     responsibility'' and inserting ``shared as a cost of 
     construction''.
                 TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

     SEC. 301. MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM.

       The project for flood control, Missouri River Levee System, 
     authorized by section 10 of the Act entitled ``An Act 
     authorizing the construction of certain public works on 
     rivers and harbors for flood control, and other purposes'', 
     approved December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 897), is modified to 
     provide that project costs totaling $2,616,000 expended on 
     Units L-15, L-246, and L-385 out of the Construction, General 
     account of the Corps of Engineers before the date of 
     enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
     U.S.C. 2201 note) shall not be treated as part of total 
     project costs.

     SEC. 302. OUZINKIE HARBOR, ALASKA.

       (a) Maximum Federal Expenditure.--The maximum amount of 
     Federal funds that may be expended for the project for 
     navigation, Ouzinkie Harbor, Alaska, shall be $8,500,000.
       (b) Revision of Project Cooperation Agreement.--The 
     Secretary shall revise the project cooperation agreement for 
     the project referred to in subsection (a) to take into 
     account the change in the Federal participation in such 
     project pursuant to subsection (a).
       (c) Cost Sharing.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to affect any cost-sharing requirement applicable 
     to the project referred to in subsection (a) under the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986.

     SEC. 303. GREERS FERRY LAKE, ARKANSAS.

       The project for flood control, Greers Ferry Lake, Arkansas, 
     authorized by the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the 
     construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors 
     for flood control, and other purposes'', approved June 28, 
     1938 (52 Stat. 1218), is modified to authorize the Secretary 
     to construct water intake facilities for the benefit of 
     Lonoke and White Counties, Arkansas.

     SEC. 304. TEN- AND FIFTEEN-MILE BAYOUS, ARKANSAS.

       The project for flood control, St. Francis River Basin, 
     Missouri and Arkansas, authorized by section 204 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 172), is modified to expand the 
     project boundaries to include Ten- and Fifteen-Mile Bayous 
     near West Memphis, Arkansas. Notwithstanding section 103(f) 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 
     4086), the flood control work at Ten- and Fifteen-Mile Bayous 
     shall not be considered separable elements of the St. Francis 
     Basin project.

     SEC. 305. LOGGY BAYOU, RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM, ARKANSAS, 
                   LOUISIANA, OKLAHOMA, AND TEXAS.

       The project for flood control on the Red River Below 
     Denison Dam, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas, 
     authorized by section 10 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (60 
     Stat. 647), is modified to direct the Secretary to conduct a 
     study to determine the feasibility of expanding the project 
     to include mile 0.0 to mile 7.8 of Loggy Bayou between the 
     Red River and Flat River. If the Secretary determines as a 
     result of the study that the project should be expanded, the 
     Secretary may assume responsibility for operation and 
     maintenance of the expanded project.

     SEC. 306. SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The project for flood control, Sacramento 
     River, California, authorized by section 2 of the Act 
     entitled ``An Act to provide for the control of the floods of 
     the Mississippi River and of the Sacramento River, 
     California, and for other purposes'', approved March 1, 1917 
     (39 Stat. 949), and modified by section 102 of the Energy and 
     Water Development Appropriations Act, 1990 (103 Stat. 649), 
     section 301(b)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3110), and title I of the Energy and Water 
     Development Appropriations Act, 1999 (112 Stat. 1841), is 
     further modified to authorize the Secretary--
       (1) to carry out the portion of the project at Glenn-
     Colusa, California, at a total cost of $26,000,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $20,000,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $6,000,000; and
       (2) to carry out bank stabilization work in the vicinity of 
     the riverbed gradient facility, particularly in the vicinity 
     of River Mile 208.
       (b) Credit.--The Secretary shall provide the non-Federal 
     interests for the project referred to in subsection (a) a 
     credit of up to $4,000,000 toward the non-Federal share of 
     the project costs for the direct and indirect costs incurred 
     by the

[[Page H2496]]

     non-Federal sponsor in carrying out activities associated 
     with environmental compliance for the project. Such credit 
     may be in the form of reimbursements for costs which were 
     incurred by the non-Federal interests prior to an agreement 
     with the Corps of Engineers, to include the value of lands, 
     easements, rights-of-way, relocations, or dredged material 
     disposal areas.

     SEC. 307. SAN LORENZO RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for flood control and habitat restoration, San 
     Lorenzo River, California, authorized by section 101(a)(5) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3663), 
     is modified to authorize the Secretary to expand the 
     boundaries of the project to include bank stabilization for a 
     1,000-foot portion of the San Lorenzo River.

     SEC. 308. TERMINUS DAM, KAWEAH RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Transfer of Title to Additional Land.--If the non-
     Federal interests for the project for flood control and water 
     supply, Terminus Dam, Kaweah River, California, authorized by 
     section 101(b)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3667), transfers to the Secretary without 
     consideration title to perimeter lands acquired for the 
     project by the non-Federal interests, the Secretary may 
     accept the transfer of such title.
       (b) Lands, Easement, and Rights-of-Way.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to change, modify, or otherwise 
     affect the responsibility of the non-Federal interests to 
     provide lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and 
     dredged material disposal areas necessary for the Terminus 
     Dam project and to perform operation and maintenance for the 
     project.
       (c) Operation and Maintenance.--Upon request by the non-
     Federal interests, the Secretary shall carry out operation, 
     maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation of the 
     project if the non-Federal interests enter into a binding 
     agreement with the Secretary to reimburse the Secretary for 
     100 percent of the costs of such operation, maintenance, 
     repair, replacement, and rehabilitation.
       (d) Hold Harmless.--The non-Federal interests shall hold 
     the United States harmless for ownership, operation, and 
     maintenance of lands and facilities of the Terminus Dam 
     project title to which is transferred to the Secretary under 
     this section.

     SEC. 309. DELAWARE RIVER MAINSTEM AND CHANNEL DEEPENING, 
                   DELAWARE, NEW JERSEY, AND PENNSYLVANIA.

       The project for navigation, Delaware River Mainstem and 
     Channel Deepening, Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, 
     authorized by section 101(6) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4802), is modified as 
     follows:
       (1) The Secretary is authorized to provide non-Federal 
     interests credit toward cash contributions required for 
     construction and subsequent to construction for engineering 
     and design and construction management work that is performed 
     by non-Federal interests and that the Secretary determines is 
     necessary to implement the project. Any such credits extended 
     shall reduce the Philadelphia District's private sector 
     performance goals for engineering work by a like amount.
       (2) The Secretary is authorized to provide to non-Federal 
     interests credit toward cash contributions required during 
     construction and subsequent to construction for the costs of 
     construction carried out by the non-Federal interest on 
     behalf of the Secretary and that the Secretary determines is 
     necessary to implement the project.
       (3) The Secretary is authorized to enter into an agreement 
     with a non-Federal interest for the payment of disposal or 
     tipping fees for dredged material from a Federal project 
     other than for the construction or operation and maintenance 
     of the new deepening project as described in the Limited 
     Reevaluation Report of May 1997, where the non-Federal 
     interest has supplied the corresponding disposal capacity.
       (4) The Secretary is authorized to enter into an agreement 
     with a non-Federal interest that will provide that the non-
     Federal interest may carry out or cause to have carried out, 
     on behalf of the Secretary, a disposal area management 
     program for dredged material disposal areas necessary to 
     construct, operate, and maintain the project and to authorize 
     the Secretary to reimburse the non-Federal interest for the 
     costs of the disposal area management program activities 
     carried out by the non-Federal interest.

     SEC. 310. POTOMAC RIVER, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

       The project for flood control authorized by section 5 of 
     the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936 (69 Stat. 1574), as 
     modified by section 301(a)(4) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3707), is further modified 
     to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a 
     Federal cost of $5,965,000.

     SEC. 311. BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the non-
     Federal interest, shall conduct a study of any damage to the 
     project for shoreline protection, Brevard County, Florida, 
     authorized by section 101(b)(7) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3667), to determine 
     whether the damage is the result of a Federal navigation 
     project.
       (b) Conditions.--In conducting the study, the Secretary 
     shall utilize the services of an independent coastal expert 
     who shall consider all relevant studies completed by the 
     Corps of Engineers and the project's local sponsor. The study 
     shall be completed within 120 days of the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
       (c) Mitigation of Damages.--After completion of the study, 
     the Secretary shall mitigate any damage to the shoreline 
     protection project that is the result of a Federal navigation 
     project. The costs of the mitigation shall be allocated to 
     the Federal navigation project as operation and maintenance.

     SEC. 312. BROWARD COUNTY AND HILLSBORO INLET, FLORIDA.

       The project for shoreline protection, Broward County and 
     Hillsboro Inlet, Florida, authorized by section 301 of the 
     River and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1090), is modified to 
     authorize the Secretary to reimburse the non-Federal interest 
     for the Federal share of the cost of preconstruction planning 
     and design for the project upon execution of a contract to 
     construct the project if the Secretary determines such work 
     is compatible with and integral to the project.

     SEC. 313. FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA.

       (a) In General.--The project for shore protection and 
     harbor mitigation, Fort Pierce, Florida, authorized by 
     section 301 of the River and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 
     1092) and section 506(a)(2) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3757), is modified to 
     incorporate an additional 1 mile into the project in 
     accordance with a final approved General Reevaluation Report, 
     at a total cost for initial nourishment for the entire 
     project of $9,128,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $7,073,500 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,054,500.
       (b) Period Nourishment.--Periodic nourishment is authorized 
     for the project in accordance with section 506(a)(2) of Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3757).
       (c) Revision of the Project Cooperation Agreement.--The 
     Secretary shall revise the project cooperation agreement for 
     the project referred to in subsection (a) to take into 
     account the change in Federal participation in the project 
     pursuant to subsection (a).

     SEC. 314. NASSAU COUNTY, FLORIDA.

       The project for beach erosion control, Nassau County 
     (Amelia fIsland), Florida, authorized by section 3(a)(3) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4013), 
     is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the 
     project at a total cost of $17,000,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $13,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $3,700,000.

     SEC. 315. MIAMI HARBOR CHANNEL, FLORIDA.

       The project for navigation, Miami Harbor Channel, Florida, 
     authorized by section 101(a)(9) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4606), is modified to 
     include construction of artificial reefs and related 
     environmental mitigation required by Federal, State, and 
     local environmental permitting agencies for the project.

     SEC. 316. LAKE MICHIGAN, ILLINOIS.

       The project for storm damage reduction and shoreline 
     erosion protection, Lake Michigan, Illinois, from Wilmette, 
     Illinois, to the Illinois-Indiana State line, authorized by 
     section 101(a)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3664), is modified to authorize the Secretary 
     to provide a credit against the non-Federal share of the cost 
     of the project for costs incurred by the non-Federal 
     interest--
       (1) in constructing Reach 2D and Segment 8 of Reach 4 of 
     the project; and
       (2) in reconstructing Solidarity Drive in Chicago, 
     Illinois, prior to entry into a project cooperation agreement 
     with the Secretary.

     SEC. 317. SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS.

       Section 417 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (110 Stat. 3743) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The 
     Secretary''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of assistance 
     provided under this section before, on, or after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection shall be 50 percent.''.

     SEC. 318. LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, INDIANA.

       The project for flood control, Little Calumet River, 
     Indiana, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4115), is modified to 
     authorize the Secretary to construct the project 
     substantially in accordance with the report of the Corps of 
     Engineers, at a total cost of $167,000,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $122,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal 
     cost of $45,000,000.

     SEC. 319. OGDEN DUNES, INDIANA.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of beach 
     erosion in and around the town of Ogden Dunes, Indiana, to 
     determine whether the damage is the result of a Federal 
     navigation project.
       (b) Mitigation of Damages.--After completion of the study, 
     the Secretary shall mitigate any damage to the beach and 
     shoreline that is the result of a Federal navigation project. 
     The cost of the mitigation shall be allocated to the Federal 
     navigation project as operation and maintenance.

     SEC. 320. SAINT JOSEPH RIVER, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA.

       (a) Maximum Total Expenditure.--The maximum total 
     expenditure for the project for streambank erosion, 
     recreation, and pedestrian access features, Saint Joseph 
     River, South Bend, Indiana, shall be $7,800,000.
       (b) Revision of Project Cooperation Agreement.--The 
     Secretary shall revise the project cooperation agreement for 
     the project referred to in subsection (a) to take into 
     account the change in the Federal participation in such 
     project pursuant to subsection (a).
       (c) Cost Sharing.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to affect any cost-sharing requirement applicable 
     to the project referred to in subsection (a) under title I of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211 
     et seq.).

     SEC. 321. WHITE RIVER, INDIANA.

       The project for flood control, Indianapolis on West Fork of 
     the White River, Indiana, authorized by section 5 of the Act 
     entitled ``An Act authorizing the construction of certain 
     public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and 
     other purposes'', approved June 22, 1936 (49

[[Page H2497]]

     Stat. 1586), and modified by section 323 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3716), is 
     further modified to authorize the Secretary to undertake 
     riverfront alterations as described in the Central 
     Indianapolis Waterfront Concept Master Plan, dated February 
     1994, at a total cost of $110,975,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $52,475,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $58,500,000.

     SEC. 322. LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, LOUISIANA.

       The project for hurricane-flood protection, Lake 
     Pontchartrain, Louisiana, authorized by section 204 of the 
     Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1077), is modified--
       (1) to direct the Secretary to conduct a study to determine 
     the feasibility of constructing a pump adjacent to each of 
     the 4 proposed drainage structures for the Saint Charles 
     Parish feature of the project; and
       (2) to authorize the Secretary to construct such pumps upon 
     completion of the study.

     SEC. 323. LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LOUISIANA.

       The project for hurricane protection Larose to Golden 
     Meadow, Louisiana, authorized by section 204 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1077), is modified to direct 
     the Secretary to convert the Golden Meadow floodgate into a 
     navigation lock if the Secretary determines that the 
     conversion is feasible.

     SEC. 324. LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY LEVEE, LOUISIANA.

       The Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee project, Louisiana, 
     authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4117), is modified to 
     direct the Secretary to provide credit to the non-Federal 
     interest toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     project. The credit shall be for cost of work performed by 
     the non-Federal interest prior to the execution of a project 
     cooperation agreement as determined by the Secretary to be 
     compatible with and an integral part of the project.

     SEC. 325. TWELVE-MILE BAYOU, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA.

       The Secretary shall be responsible for maintenance of the 
     levee along Twelve-Mile Bayou from its junction with the 
     existing Red River Below Denison Dam Levee approximately 26 
     miles upstream to its terminus at high ground in the vicinity 
     of Black Bayou, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, if the Secretary 
     determines that such maintenance is economically justified 
     and environmentally acceptable and that the levee was 
     constructed in accordance with appropriate design and 
     engineering standards.

     SEC. 326. WEST BANK OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER (EAST OF HARVEY 
                   CANAL), LOUISIANA.

       (a) In General.--The project for flood control and storm 
     damage reduction, West Bank of the Mississippi River (East of 
     Harvey Canal), Louisiana, authorized by section 401(b) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4128) and 
     section 101(a)(17) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3665), is modified--
       (1) to provide that any liability under the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) from the construction of the 
     project is a Federal responsibility; and
       (2) to authorize the Secretary to carry out operation and 
     maintenance of that portion of the project included in the 
     report of the Chief of Engineers, dated May 1, 1995, referred 
     to as ``Algiers Channel'', if the non-Federal sponsor 
     reimburses the Secretary for the amount of such operation and 
     maintenance included in the report of the Chief of Engineers.
       (b) Combination of Projects.--The Secretary shall carry out 
     work authorized as part of the Westwego to Harvey Canal 
     project, the East of Harvey cannal project, and the Lake 
     Cataouatche modifications as a single project, to be known as 
     the West Bank and vicinity, New Orleans, Louisiana, hurricane 
     protection project, with a combined total cost of 
     $280,300,000.

     SEC. 327. TOLCHESTER CHANNEL, BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS, 
                   CHESAPEAKE BAY, KENT COUNTY, MARYLAND.

       The project for navigation, Tolchester Channel, Baltimore 
     Harbor and Channels, Chesapeake Bay, Kent County, Maryland, 
     authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 
     (72 Stat. 297), is modified to authorize the Secretary to 
     straighten the navigation channel in accordance with the 
     District Engineer's Navigation Assessment Report and 
     Environmental Assessment, dated April 30, 1997. This 
     modification shall be carried out in order to improve 
     navigation safety.

     SEC. 328. SAULT SAINTE MARIE, CHIPPEWA COUNTY, MICHIGAN.

       The project for navigation Sault Sainte Marie, Chippewa 
     County, Michigan, authorized by section 1149 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4254-4255) and 
     modified by section 330 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3717-3718), is further modified to 
     provide that the amount to be paid by non-Federal interests 
     pursuant to section 101(a) of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211(a)) and subsection (a) of such 
     section 330 shall not include any interest payments.

     SEC. 329. JACKSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.

       The project for environmental infrastructure, Jackson 
     County, Mississippi, authorized by section 219(c)(5) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835) and 
     modified by section 504 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3757), is further modified to direct 
     the Secretary to provide a credit, not to exceed $5,000,000, 
     against the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for 
     the costs incurred by the Jackson County Board of Supervisors 
     since February 8, 1994, in constructing the project if the 
     Secretary determines that such costs are for work that the 
     Secretary determines is compatible with and integral to the 
     project.

      SEC. 330. TUNICA LAKE, MISSISSIPPI.

       The project for flood control, Mississippi River Channel 
     Improvement Project, Tunica Lake, Mississippi, authorized by 
     the Act entitled: ``An Act for the control of floods on the 
     Mississippi River and its tributaries, and for other 
     purposes'', approved May 15, 1928 (45 Stat. 534-538), is 
     modified to include construction of a weir at the Tunica 
     Cutoff, Mississippi.

     SEC. 331. BOIS BRULE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT, MISSOURI.

       (a) Maximum Federal Expenditure.--The maximum amount of 
     Federal funds that may be allocated for the project for flood 
     control, Bois Brule Drainage and Levee District, Missouri, 
     authorized pursuant to section 205 of the Flood Control Act 
     of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), shall be $15,000,000.
       (b) Revision of the Project Cooperation Agreement.--The 
     Secretary shall revise the project cooperation agreement for 
     the project referred to in subsection (a) to take into 
     account the change in Federal participation in the project 
     pursuant to subsection (a).
       (c) Cost Sharing.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to affect any cost-sharing requirement applicable 
     to the project referred to in subsection (a) under title I of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211 
     et seq.).

     SEC. 332. MERAMEC RIVER BASIN, VALLEY PARK LEVEE, MISSOURI.

       The project for flood control, Meramec River Basin, Valley 
     Park Levee, Missouri, authorized by section 2(h) of an Act 
     entitled ``An Act to deauthorize several projects within the 
     jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers'' (95 Stat. 1682-
     1683) and modified by section 1128 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986, (100 Stat. 4246), is further 
     modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project 
     at a maximum Federal expenditure of $35,000,000.

     SEC. 333. MISSOURI RIVER MITIGATION PROJECT, MISSOURI, 
                   KANSAS, IOWA, AND NEBRASKA.

       (a) In General.--The project for mitigation of fish and 
     wildlife losses, Missouri River Bank Stabilization and 
     Navigation Project, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska, 
     authorized by section 601 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4143), is modified to increase by 
     118,650 acres the lands and interests in lands to be acquired 
     for the project.
       (b) Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, in conjunction with the 
     States of Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri, shall conduct 
     a study to determine the cost of restoring, under the 
     authority of the Missouri River fish and wildlife mitigation 
     project, a total of 118,650 acres of lost Missouri River 
     habitat.
       (2) Report.--The Secretary shall report to Congress on the 
     results of the study not later than 6 months after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 334. WOOD RIVER, GRAND ISLAND, NEBRASKA.

       The project for flood control, Wood River, Grand Island, 
     Nebraska, authorized by section 101(a)(19) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3665), is 
     modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project 
     substantially in accordance with the report of the Corps of 
     Engineers dated June 29, 1998, at a total cost of 
     $17,039,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $9,730,000 and 
     an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,309,000.

     SEC. 335. ABSECON ISLAND, NEW JERSEY.

       The project for storm damage reduction and shoreline 
     protection, Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet, 
     Absecon Island, New Jersey, authorized by section 101(b)(13) 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
     3668), is modified to provide that, if, after October 12, 
     1996, the non-Federal interests carry out any work associated 
     with the project that is later recommended by the Chief of 
     Engineers and approved by the Secretary, the Secretary may 
     credit the non-Federal interests toward the non-Federal share 
     of the cost of the project an amount equal to the Federal 
     share of the cost of such work, without interest.

     SEC. 336. NEW YORK HARBOR AND ADJACENT CHANNELS, PORT JERSEY, 
                   NEW JERSEY

       The project for navigation, New York Harbor and Adjacent 
     Channels, New York and New Jersey, authorized by section 
     202(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 
     Stat. 4098), is modified to authorize the Secretary to 
     construct that portion of the project that is located between 
     Military Ocean Terminal Bayonne and Global Terminal in 
     Bayonne, New Jersey, substantially in accordance with the 
     report of the Corps of Engineers, at a total cost of 
     $103,267,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $76,909,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $26,358,000.

     SEC. 337. PASSAIC RIVER, NEW JERSEY.

       Section 101(a)(18)(B) of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4608-4609) is amended by inserting ``, 
     including an esplanade for safe pedestrian access with an 
     overall width of 600 feet'' after ``public access to Route 
     21''.

     SEC. 338. SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET, NEW JERSEY.

       The project for shoreline protection, Sandy Hook to 
     Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey, authorized by section 101 of the 
     River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 299), is modified--
       (1) to include the demolition of Long Branch pier and 
     extension of Ocean Grove pier; and
       (2) to authorize the Secretary to reimburse the non-Federal 
     sponsor for the Federal share of costs associated with the 
     demolition of Long Branch pier and the construction of the 
     Ocean Grove pier.

     SEC. 339. ARTHUR KILL, NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY.

       The project for navigation, Arthur Kill, New York and New 
     Jersey, authorized by section

[[Page H2498]]

     202(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 
     Stat. 4098) and modified by section 301(b)(11) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3711), is 
     further modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the 
     portion of the project at Howland Hook Marine Terminal 
     substantially in accordance with the report of the Corps of 
     Engineers, dated September 30, 1998, at a total cost of 
     $315,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $183,200,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $132,500,000.

     SEC. 340. NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED.

       Section 552(i) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3781) is amended by striking ``$22,500,000'' 
     and inserting ``$42,500,000''.

     SEC. 341. NEW YORK STATE CANAL SYSTEM.

       Section 553(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3781) is amended by striking ``$8,000,000'' 
     and inserting ``$18,000,000''.

     SEC. 342. FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NEW YORK.

       The project for combined beach erosion control and 
     hurricane protection, Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point, 
     Long Island, New York, authorized by the River and Harbor Act 
     of 1960 (74 Stat. 483) and modified by the River and Harbor 
     Act of 1962, the Water Resources Development Act of 1974, and 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, is further 
     modified to direct the Secretary, in coordination with the 
     heads of other Federal departments and agencies, to complete 
     all procedures and reviews expeditiously and to adopt and 
     transmit to Congress not later than June 30, 1999, a mutually 
     acceptable shore erosion plan for the Fire Island Inlet to 
     Moriches Inlet reach of the project.

     SEC. 343. BROKEN BOW LAKE, RED RIVER BASIN, OKLAHOMA.

       The project for flood control and water supply, Broken Bow 
     Lake, Red River Basin, Oklahoma, authorized by section 203 of 
     the Flood Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 309) and modified by 
     section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1187), 
     section 102(v) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
     (106 Stat. 4808), and section 338 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3720), is further modified 
     to require the Secretary to make seasonal adjustments to the 
     top of the conservation pool at the project as follows (if 
     the Secretary determines that the adjustments will be 
     undertaken at no cost to the United States and will 
     adequately protect impacted water and related resources):
       (1) Maintain an elevation of 599.5 from November 1 through 
     March 31.
       (2) Increase elevation gradually from 599.5 to 602.5 during 
     April and May.
       (3) Maintain an elevation of 602.5 from June 1 to September 
     30.
       (4) Decrease elevation gradually from 602.5 to 599.5 during 
     October.

     SEC. 344. WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL, MCKENZIE 
                   SUBBASIN, OREGON.

       (a) In General.--The project for environmental restoration, 
     Willamette River Temperature Control, McKenzie Subbasin, 
     Oregon, authorized by section 101(a)(25) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3665), is 
     modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project 
     substantially in accordance with the Feature Memorandum dated 
     July 31, 1998, at a total cost of $64,741,000.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall report to Congress 
     on the reasons for the cost growth of the Willamette River 
     project and outline the steps the Corps of Engineers is 
     taking to control project costs, including the application of 
     value engineering and other appropriate measures. In the 
     report, the Secretary shall also include a cost estimate for, 
     and recommendations on the advisability of, adding fish 
     screens to the project.

     SEC. 345. AYLESWORTH CREEK RESERVOIR, PENNSYLVANIA.

       The project for flood control, Aylesworth Creek Reservoir, 
     Pennsylvania, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control 
     Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1182), is modified to authorize the 
     Secretary to transfer, in each of fiscal years 1999 and 2000, 
     $50,000 to the Aylesworth Creek Reservoir Park Authority for 
     recreational facilities.

     SEC. 346. CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PENNSYLVANIA.

       Section 562 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (110 Stat. 3784) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``The Secretary shall provide design and 
     construction assistance for recreational facilities at 
     Curwensville Lake and, when appropriate, may require the non-
     Federal interest to provide not more than 25 percent of the 
     cost of designing and constructing such facilities. The 
     Secretary may transfer, in each of fiscal years 1999 through 
     2003, $100,000 to the Clearfield County Municipal Services 
     and Recreation Authority for recreational facilities.''.

     SEC. 347. DELAWARE RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA AND DELAWARE.

       The project for navigation, Delaware River, Philadelphia to 
     Wilmington, Pennsylvania and Delaware, authorized by section 
     3(a)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 
     Stat. 4014), is modified to authorize the Secretary to extend 
     the channel of the Delaware River at Camden, New Jersey, to 
     within 150 feet of the existing bulkhead and to relocate the 
     40-foot deep Federal navigation channel, eastward within 
     Philadelphia Harbor, from the Ben Franklin Bridge to the Walt 
     Whitman Bridge, into deep water.

     SEC. 348. MUSSERS DAM, PENNSYLVANIA.

       Section 209 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
     (106 Stat. 4830) is amended by striking subsection (e) and 
     redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (e).

     SEC. 349. NINE-MILE RUN, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.

       The Nine-Mile Run project, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, 
     carried out pursuant to section 206 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330; 110 Stat. 3679-
     3680), is modified to authorize the Secretary to provide a 
     credit toward the non-Federal share of the project for costs 
     incurred by the non-Federal interest in preparing 
     environmental and feasibility documentation for the project 
     before entering into an agreement with the Corps of Engineers 
     with respect to the project if the Secretary determines such 
     costs are for work that is compatible with and integral to 
     the project.

     SEC. 350. RAYSTOWN LAKE, PENNSYLVANIA.

       (a) Recreation Partnership Initiative.--Section 519(b) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3765) 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) Engineering and design services.--The Secretary may 
     perform, at full Federal expense, engineering and design 
     services for project infrastructure expected to be associated 
     with the development of the site at Raystown Lake, Hesston, 
     Pennsylvania.''.
       (b) Construction Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--Consistent with the master plan described 
     in section 318 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
     (106 Stat. 4848), the Secretary may provide a grant to 
     Juniata College for the construction of facilities and 
     structures at Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania, to interpret and 
     understand environmental conditions and trends. As a 
     condition of the receipt of such financial assistance, 
     officials at Juniata College shall coordinate with the 
     Baltimore District of the Army Corps of Engineers.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $5,000,000 for fiscal years beginning 
     after September 30, 1998, to carry out this subsection.

     SEC. 351. SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA.

       Section 313(g)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1992 (106 Stat. 4846) is amended by striking ``$80,000,000'' 
     and inserting ``$180,000,000''.

     SEC. 352. COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SOUTH CAROLINA.

       The project for rediversion, Cooper River, Charleston 
     Harbor, South Carolina, authorized by section 101 of the 
     River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731) and modified by 
     title I of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
     Act, 1992 (105 Stat. 516), is further modified to authorize 
     the Secretary to pay to the State of South Carolina not more 
     than $3,750,000 if the Secretary and the State enter into a 
     binding agreement for the State to perform all future 
     operation of, including associated studies to assess the 
     efficacy of, the St. Stephen, South Carolina, fish lift. The 
     agreement must specify the terms and conditions under which 
     payment will be made and the rights of, and remedies 
     available to, the Federal Government to recover all or a 
     portion of such payment in the event the State suspends or 
     terminates operation of the fish lift or fails to operate the 
     fish lift in a manner satisfactory to the Secretary. 
     Maintenance of the fish lift shall remain a Federal 
     responsibility.

     SEC. 353. BOWIE COUNTY LEVEE, TEXAS.

       The project for flood control, Red River Below Denison Dam, 
     Texas and Oklahoma, authorized by section 10 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 647), is modified to direct the 
     Secretary to implement the Bowie County Levee feature of the 
     project in accordance with the plan defined as Alternative B 
     in the draft document entitled ``Bowie County Local Flood 
     Protection, Red River, Texas Project Design Memorandum No. 1, 
     Bowie County Levee'', dated April 1997. In evaluating and 
     implementing this modification, the Secretary shall allow the 
     non-Federal interest to participate in the financing of the 
     project in accordance with section 903(c) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) to the 
     extent that the Secretary's evaluation indicates that 
     applying such section is necessary to implement the project.

     SEC. 354. CLEAR CREEK, TEXAS.

       Section 575 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (110 Stat. 3789) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(c) Clear Creek, Texas.--In any evaluation of economic 
     benefits and costs for the project for flood control, Clear 
     Creek, Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control 
     Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 742) that occurs after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall include the 
     costs and benefits of nonstructural measures undertaken, 
     including any buyout or relocation actions, of non-Federal 
     interests within the drainage area of such project before the 
     date of the evaluation in the determination of conditions 
     existing before the construction of the project.''.

     SEC. 355. CYPRESS CREEK, TEXAS.

       (a) In General.--The project for flood control, Cypress 
     Creek, Texas, authorized by section 3(a)(13) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014), is 
     modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out a 
     nonstructural flood control project at a total cost of 
     $5,000,000.
       (b) Reimbursement for Work.--The Secretary may reimburse 
     the non-Federal interest for the Cypress Creek project for 
     work done by the non-Federal interest on the nonstructural 
     flood control project in an amount equal to the estimate of 
     the Federal share, without interest, of the cost of such 
     work--
       (1) if, after authorization and before initiation of 
     construction of such nonstructural project, the Secretary 
     approves the plans for construction of such nonstructural 
     project by the non-Federal interest; and
       (2) if the Secretary finds, after a review of studies and 
     design documents prepared to carry

[[Page H2499]]

     out such nonstructural project, that construction of such 
     nonstructural project is economically justified and 
     environmentally acceptable.

     SEC. 356. DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, DALLAS, TEXAS.

       The project for flood control, Dallas Floodway Extension, 
     Dallas, Texas, authorized by section 301 of the River and 
     Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1091) and modified by section 
     351 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
     3724), is further modified--
       (1) to add environmental restoration and recreation as 
     project purposes; and
       (2) to authorize the Secretary to construct the project 
     substantially in accordance with the Chain of Wetlands Plan 
     in the report of the Corps of Engineers at a total cost of 
     $123,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $80,000,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $43,200,000.

     SEC. 357. UPPER JORDAN RIVER, UTAH.

       The project for flood control, Upper Jordan River, Utah, 
     authorized by section 101(a)(23) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4610) and modified by 
     section 301(a)(14) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3709), is further modified to direct the 
     Secretary to carry out the locally preferred project, 
     entitled ``Upper Jordan River Flood Control Project, Salt 
     Lake County, Utah--Supplemental Information'' and identified 
     in the document of Salt Lake County, Utah, dated July 30, 
     1998, at a total cost of $12,870,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $8,580,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $4,290,000.

     SEC. 358. ELIZABETH RIVER, CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after September 
     30, 1999, the city of Chesapeake, Virginia, shall not be 
     obligated to make the annual cash contribution required under 
     paragraph 1(9) of the Local Cooperation Agreement dated 
     December 12, 1978, between the Government and the city for 
     the project for navigation, southern branch of Elizabeth 
     River, Chesapeake, Virginia.

     SEC. 359. BLUESTONE LAKE, OHIO RIVER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA.

       Section 102(ff) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1992 (106 Stat. 4810) is amended by striking ``take such 
     measures as are technologically feasible'' and inserting 
     ``implement Plan C/G, as defined in the Evaluation Report of 
     the District Engineer, dated December 1996,''.

     SEC. 360. GREENBRIER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA.

       Section 579(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3790) is amended by striking ``$12,000,000'' 
     and inserting ``$73,000,000.''

     SEC. 361. MOOREFIELD, WEST VIRGINIA.

       Effective October 1, 1999, the project for flood control, 
     Moorefield, West Virginia, authorized by section 101(a)(25) 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 
     4610-4611), is modified to provide that the non-Federal 
     interest shall not be required to pay the unpaid balance, 
     including interest, of the non-Federal share of the cost of 
     the project.

     SEC. 362. WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD CONTROL.

       Section 581(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3790) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may design and construct--
       ``(1) flood control measures in the Cheat and Tygart River 
     basins, West Virginia, at a level of protection that is 
     sufficient to prevent any future losses to these communities 
     from flooding such as occurred in January 1996 but no less 
     than a 100-year level of protection; and
       ``(2) structural and nonstructural flood control, 
     streambank protection, stormwater management, and channel 
     clearing and modification measures in the Lower Allegheny, 
     Lower Monongahela, West Branch Susquehanna, and Juniata River 
     basins, Pennsylvania, at a level of protection that is 
     sufficient to prevent any future losses to communities in 
     these basins from flooding such as occurred in January 1996, 
     but no less than a 100-year level of flood protection with 
     respect to those measures that incorporate levees or 
     floodwalls.''.

     SEC. 363. PROJECT REAUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) Lee Creek, Arkansas and Oklahoma.--The project for 
     flood protection on Lee Creek, Arkansas and Oklahoma, 
     authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 
     (79 Stat. 1078) and deauthorized pursuant to section 
     1001(b)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
     U.S.C. 579a(b)(1)), is authorized to be carried out by the 
     Secretary.
       (b) Indian River County, Florida.--The project for shore 
     protection, Indian River County, Florida, authorized by 
     section 501 of the Water Resources and Development Act of 
     1986 (100 Stat. 4134) and deauthorized pursuant to section 
     1001(b)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
     U.S.C. 579a(b)(1)), is authorized to be carried out by the 
     Secretary.
       (c) Lido Key, Florida.--The project for shore protection, 
     Lido Key, Florida, authorized by section 101 of the River and 
     Harbor Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1819) and deauthorized pursuant 
     to section 1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1986 (33 U.S.C 579a(b)(2)), is authorized to be carried 
     out by the Secretary.
       (d) St. Augustine, St. Johns County, Florida.--
       (1) In general.--The project for shore protection and storm 
     damage reduction, St. Augustine, St. Johns County, Florida, 
     authorized by section 501 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1986 and deauthorized pursuant to section 1001(a) of 
     such Act (33 U.S.C. 579a(a)), is authorized to include 
     navigation mitigation as a project purpose and to be carried 
     out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with the 
     General Reevaluation Report dated November 18, 1998, at a 
     total cost of $16,086,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $12,949,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,137,000.
       (2) Periodic nourishment.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     carry out periodic nourishment for the project for a 50-year 
     period at an estimated average annual cost of $1,251,000, 
     with an estimated annual Federal cost of $1,007,000 and an 
     estimated annual non-Federal cost of $244,000.
       (e) Cass River, Michigan (Vassar).--The project for flood 
     protection, Cass River, Michigan (Vassar), authorized by 
     section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 311) 
     and deauthorized pursuant to section 1001(b)(2) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)), is 
     authorized to be carried out by the Secretary.
       (f) Saginaw River, Michigan (Shiawassee Flats).--The 
     project for flood control, Saginaw River, Michigan 
     (Shiawassee Flats), authorized by section 203 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 311) and deauthorized pursuant 
     to section 1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)), is authorized to be carried 
     out by the Secretary.
       (g) Park River, Grafton, North Dakota.--The project for 
     flood control, Park River, Grafton, North Dakota, authorized 
     by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (100 Stat. 4121) and deauthorized pursuant to section 
     1001(a) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 579a(a)), is authorized to be 
     carried out by the Secretary.
       (h) Memphis Harbor, Memphis, Tennessee.--The project for 
     navigation, Memphis Harbor, Memphis, Tennessee, authorized by 
     section 601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (100 Stat. 4145) and deauthorized pursuant to 1001(a) of such 
     Act (33 U.S.C 579a(a)), is authorized to be carried out by 
     the Secretary.

     SEC. 364. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) In General.--The following projects or portions of 
     projects are not authorized after the date of enactment of 
     this Act:
       (1) Bridgeport harbor, connecticut.--That portion of the 
     project for navigation, Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut, 
     authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 
     (72 Stat. 297), consisting of a 2.4-acre anchorage area, 9 
     feet deep, and an adjacent 0.6-acre anchorage, 6 feet deep, 
     located on the west side of Johnsons River.
       (2) Clinton harbor, connecticut.--That portion of the 
     project for navigation, Clinton Harbor, Connecticut, 
     authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1945, House 
     Document 240, 76th Congress, 1st Session, lying upstream of a 
     line designated by the 2 points N158,592.12, E660,193.92 and 
     N158,444.58, E660,220.95.
       (3) Bass harbor, maine.--The following portions of the 
     project for navigation, Bass Harbor, Maine, authorized on May 
     7, 1962, under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 
     1960 (33 U.S.C. 577):
       (A) Beginning at a bend in the project, N149040.00, 
     E538505.00, thence running easterly about 50.00 feet along 
     the northern limit of the project to a point N149061.55, 
     E538550.11, thence running southerly about 642.08 feet to a 
     point, N14877.64, E538817.18, thence running southwesterly 
     about 156.27 feet to a point on the westerly limit of the 
     project, N148348.50, E538737.02, thence running northerly 
     about 149.00 feet along the westerly limit of the project to 
     a bend in the project, N148489.22, E538768.09, thence running 
     northwesterly about 610.39 feet along the westerly limit of 
     the project to the point of origin.
       (B) Beginning at a point on the westerly limit of the 
     project, N148118.55, E538689.05, thence running southeasterly 
     about 91.92 feet to a point, N148041.43, E538739.07, thence 
     running southerly about 65.00 feet to a point, N147977.86, 
     E538725.51, thence running southwesterly about 91.92 feet to 
     a point on the westerly limit of the project, N147927.84, 
     E538648.39, thence running northerly about 195.00 feet along 
     the westerly limit of the project to the point of origin.
       (4) Boothbay harbor, maine.--The project for navigation, 
     Boothbay Harbor, Maine, authorized by the River and Harbor 
     Act of 1912 (37 Stat. 201).
       (5) Bucksport harbor, maine.--That portion of the project 
     for navigation, Bucksport Harbor, Maine, authorized by the 
     River and Harbor Act of 1902, consisting of a 16-foot deep 
     channel beginning at a point N268.748.16, E423.390.76, thence 
     running north 47 degrees 02 minutes 23 seconds east 51.76 
     feet to a point N268.783.44, E423.428.64, thence running 
     north 67 degrees 54 minutes 32 seconds west 1513.94 feet to a 
     point N269.352.81, E422.025.84, thence running south 47 
     degrees 02 minutes 23 seconds west 126.15 feet to a point 
     N269.266.84, E421.933.52, thence running south 70 degrees 24 
     minutes 28 seconds east 1546.79 feet to the point of origin.
       (6) East boothbay harbor, maine.--The project for 
     navigation, East Boothbay Harbor, Maine, authorized by the 
     first section of the Act entitled, ``An Act making 
     appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation 
     of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other 
     purposes'', approved June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 631).
       (7) Wells harbor, maine.--The following portions of the 
     project for navigation, Wells Harbor, Maine, authorized by 
     section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 
     480):
       (A) The portion of the 6-foot channel the boundaries of 
     which begin at a point with coordinates N177,992.00, 
     E394,831.00, thence running south 83 degrees 58 minutes 14.8 
     seconds west 10.38 feet to a point N177,990.91, E394,820.68, 
     thence running south 11 degrees 46 minutes 47.7 seconds west 
     991.76 feet to a point N177,020.04, E394,618.21, thence 
     running south 78 degrees 13 minutes 45.7 seconds east 10.00 
     feet to a point N177,018.00, E394,628.00, thence running 
     north 11 degrees 46 minutes 22.8 seconds east 994.93 feet to 
     the point of origin.

[[Page H2500]]

       (B) The portion of the 6-foot anchorage the boundaries of 
     which begin at a point with coordinates N177,778.07, 
     E394,336.96, thence running south 51 degrees 58 minutes 32.7 
     seconds west 15.49 feet to a point N177,768.53, E394,324.76, 
     thence running south 11 degrees 46 minutes 26.5 seconds west 
     672.87 feet to a point N177,109.82, E394,187.46, thence 
     running south 78 degrees 13 minutes 45.7 seconds east 10.00 
     feet to a point N177,107.78, E394,197.25, thence running 
     north 11 degrees 46 minutes 25.4 seconds east 684.70 feet to 
     the point of origin.
       (C) The portion of the 10-foot settling basin the 
     boundaries of which begin at a point with coordinates 
     N177,107.78, E394,197.25, thence running north 78 degrees 13 
     minutes 45.7 seconds west 10.00 feet to a point N177,109.82, 
     E394,187.46, thence running south 11 degrees 46 minutes 15.7 
     seconds west 300.00 feet to a point N176,816.13, E394,126.26, 
     thence running south 78 degrees 12 minutes 21.4 seconds east 
     9.98 feet to a point N176,814.09, E394,136.03, thence running 
     north 11 degrees 46 minutes 29.1 seconds east 300.00 feet to 
     the point of origin.
       (D) The portion of the 10-foot settling basin the 
     boundaries of which begin at a point with coordinates 
     N177,018.00, E394,628.00, thence running north 78 degrees 13 
     minutes 45.7 seconds west 10.00 feet to a point N177,020.04, 
     E394,618.21, thence running south 11 degrees 46 minutes 44.0 
     seconds west 300.00 feet to a point N176,726.36, E394,556.97, 
     thence running south 78 degrees 12 minutes 30.3 seconds east 
     10.03 feet to a point N176,724.31, E394,566.79, thence 
     running north 11 degrees 46 minutes 22.4 seconds east 300.00 
     feet to the point of origin.
       (8) Falmouth harbor, massachusetts.--That portion of the 
     project for navigation, Falmouth Harbor, Massachusetts, 
     authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1948 
     lying southeasterly of a line commencing at a point 
     N199,286.41, E844,394.91, thence running north 66 degrees 52 
     minutes 3.31 seconds east 472.95 feet to a point N199,472.21, 
     E844,829.83, thence running north 43 degrees 9 minutes 28.3 
     seconds east 262.64 feet to a point N199,633.80, E845,009.48, 
     thence running north 21 degrees 40 minutes 11.26 seconds east 
     808.38 feet to a point N200,415.05, E845,307.98, thence 
     running north 32 degrees 25 minutes 29.01 seconds east 160.76 
     feet to a point N200,550.75, E845,394.18, thence running 
     north 24 degrees 56 minutes 42.29 seconds east 1,410.29 feet 
     to a point N201,829.48, E845,988.97.
       (9) Green harbor, massachusetts.--That portion of the 
     project for navigation, Green Harbor, Massachusetts, 
     undertaken pursuant to section 107 of the River and Harbor 
     Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), consisting of the 6-foot deep 
     channel beginning at a point along the west limit of the 
     existing project, North 395990.43, East 831079.16, thence 
     running northwesterly about 752.85 feet to a point, North 
     396722.80, East 830904.76, thence running northwesterly about 
     222.79 feet to a point along the west limit of the existing 
     project, North 396844.34, East 830718.04, thence running 
     southwesterly about 33.72 feet along the west limit of the 
     existing project to a point, North 396810.80, East 830714.57, 
     thence running southeasterly about 195.42 feet along the west 
     limit of the existing project to a point, North 396704.19, 
     East 830878.35, thence running about 544.66 feet along the 
     west limit of the existing project to a point, North 
     396174.35, East 831004.52, thence running southeasterly about 
     198.49 feet along the west limit of the existing project to 
     the point of beginning.
       (10) New bedford and fairhaven harbor, massachusetts.--The 
     following portions of the project for navigation, New Bedford 
     and Fairhaven Harbor, Massachusetts:
       (A) A portion of the 25-foot spur channel leading to the 
     west of Fish Island, authorized by the River and Harbor Act 
     of 3 March 1909, beginning at a point with coordinates 
     N232,173.77, E758,791.32, thence running south 27 degrees 36 
     minutes 52.8 seconds west 38.2 feet to a point N232,139.91, 
     E758,773.61, thence running south 87 degrees 35 minutes 31.6 
     seconds west 196.84 feet to a point N232,131.64, E758,576.94, 
     thence running north 47 degrees 47 minutes 48.4 seconds west 
     502.72 feet to a point N232,469.35, E758,204.54, thence 
     running north 10 degrees 10 minutes 20.3 seconds west 438.88 
     feet to a point N232,901.33, E758,127.03, thence running 
     north 79 degrees 49 minutes 43.1 seconds east 121.69 feet to 
     a point N232,922.82, E758,246.81, thence running south 04 
     degrees 29 minutes 17.6 seconds east 52.52 feet to a point 
     N232,870.46, E758,250.92, thence running south 23 degrees 56 
     minutes 11.2 seconds east 49.15 feet to a point N323,825.54, 
     E758,270.86, thence running south 79 degrees 49 minutes 27.0 
     seconds west 88.19 feet to a point N232,809.96, E758,184.06, 
     thence running south 10 degrees 10 minutes 25.7 seconds east 
     314.83 feet to a point N232,500.08, E758,239.67, thence 
     running south 56 degrees 33 minutes 56.1 seconds east 583.07 
     feet to a point N232,178.82, E758,726.25, thence running 
     south 85 degrees 33 minutes 16.0 seconds east to the point of 
     origin.
       (B) A portion of the 30-foot west maneuvering basin, 
     authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 3 July 1930, 
     beginning at a point with coordinates N232,139.91, 
     E758,773.61, thence running north 81 degrees 49 minutes 30.1 
     seconds east 160.76 feet to a point N232,162.77, E758.932.74, 
     thence running north 85 degrees 33 minutes 16.0 seconds west 
     141.85 feet to a point N232,173.77, E758,791.32, thence 
     running south 27 degrees 36 minutes 52.8 seconds west to the 
     point of origin.
       (b) Anchorage Area, Clinton Harbor, Connecticut.--That 
     portion of the Clinton Harbor, Connecticut, navigation 
     project referred to in subsection (a)(2) beginning at a point 
     beginning: N158,444.58, E660,220.95, thence running north 79 
     degrees 37 minutes 14 seconds east 833.31 feet to a point 
     N158,594.72, E661,040.67, thence running south 80 degrees 51 
     minutes 53 seconds east 181.21 feet to a point N158,565.95, 
     E661,219.58, thence running north 57 degrees 38 minutes 04 
     seconds west 126.02 feet to a point N158,633.41, E660,113.14, 
     thence running south 79 degrees 37 minutes 14 seconds west 
     911.61 feet to a point N158,469.17, E660,216.44, thence 
     running south 10 degrees 22 minutes 46 seconds east 25 feet 
     returning to a point N158,444.58, E660,220.95 is redesignated 
     as an anchorage area.
       (c) Wells Harbor, Maine.--
       (1) Project modification.--The project for navigation, 
     Wells Harbor, Maine, navigation project referred to in 
     subsection (a)(7) is modified to authorize the Secretary to 
     realign the channel and anchorage areas based on a harbor 
     design capacity of 150 craft.
       (2) Redesignations.--
       (A) 6-foot anchorage.--The following portions of the 
     project for navigation, Wells Harbor, Maine, navigation 
     project referred to in subsection (a)(7) shall be 
     redesignated as part of the 6-foot anchorage:
       (i) The portion of the 6-foot channel the boundaries of 
     which begin at a point with coordinates N177,990.91, 
     E394,820.68, thence running south 83 degrees 58 minutes 40.8 
     seconds west 94.65 feet to a point N177,980.98, E394,726.55, 
     thence running south 11 degrees 46 minutes 22.4 seconds west 
     962.83 feet to a point N177,038.40, E394,530.10, thence 
     running south 78 degrees 13 minutes 45.7 seconds east 90.00 
     feet to a point N177,020.04, E394,618.21, thence running 
     north 11 degrees 46 minutes 47.7 seconds east 991.76 feet to 
     the point of origin.
       (ii) The portion of the 10-foot inner harbor settling basin 
     the boundaries of which begin at a point with coordinates 
     N177,020.04, E394,618.21, thence running north 78 degrees 13 
     minutes 30.5 seconds west 160.00 feet to a point N177,052.69, 
     E394,461.58, thence running south 11 degrees 46 minutes 45.4 
     seconds west 299.99 feet to a point N176,759.02, E394,400.34, 
     thence running south 78 degrees 13 minutes 17.9 seconds east 
     160 feet to a point N176,726.36, E394,556.97, thence running 
     north 11 degrees 46 minutes 44.0 seconds east 300.00 feet to 
     the point of origin.
       (B) 6-foot channel.--The following portion of the project 
     for navigation, Wells Harbor, Maine, navigation project 
     referred to in subsection (a)(7) shall be redesignated as 
     part of the 6-foot channel: the portion of the 6-foot 
     anchorage the boundaries of which begin at a point with 
     coordinates N178,102.26, E394,751.83, thence running south 51 
     degrees 59 minutes 42.1 seconds west 526.51 feet to a point 
     N177,778.07, E394,336.96, thence running south 11 degrees 46 
     minutes 26.6 seconds west 511.83 feet to a point N177,277.01, 
     E394,232.52, thence running south 78 degrees 13 minutes 17.9 
     seconds east 80.00 feet to a point N177,260.68, E394,310.84, 
     thence running north 11 degrees 46 minutes 24.8 seconds east 
     482.54 feet to a point N177,733.07, E394,409.30, thence 
     running north 51 degrees 59 minutes 41.0 seconds east 402.63 
     feet to a point N177,980.98, E394,726.55, thence running 
     north 11 degrees 46 minutes 27.6 seconds east 123.89 feet to 
     the point of origin.
       (3) Realignment.--The 6-foot anchorage area described in 
     paragraph (2)(B) shall be realigned to include the area 
     located south of the inner harbor settling basin in existence 
     on the date of enactment of this Act beginning at a point 
     with coordinates N176,726.36, E394,556.97, thence running 
     north 78 degrees 13 minutes 17.9 seconds west 160.00 feet to 
     a point N176,759.02, E394,400.34, thence running south 11 
     degrees 47 minutes 03.8 seconds west 45 feet to a point 
     N176,714.97, E394,391.15, thence running south 78 degrees 13 
     minutes 17.9 seconds 160.00 feet to a point N176,682.31, 
     E394,547.78, thence running north 11 degrees 47 minutes 03.8 
     seconds east 45 feet to the point of origin.
       (4) Relocation.--The Secretary may relocate the settling 
     basin feature of the project for navigation, Wells Harbor, 
     Maine, navigation project referred to in subsection (a)(7) to 
     the outer harbor between the jetties.
       (d) Anchorage Area, Green Harbor, Massachusetts.--The 
     portion of the Green Harbor, Massachusetts, navigation 
     project referred to in subsection (a)(9) consisting of a 6-
     foot deep channel that lies northerly of a line whose 
     coordinates are North 394825.00, East 831660.00 and North 
     394779.28, East 831570.64 is redesignated as an anchorage 
     area.

     SEC. 365. AMERICAN AND SACRAMENTO RIVERS, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The project for flood damage reduction, 
     American and Sacramento Rivers, California, authorized by 
     section 101(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3662-3663), is modified to direct the 
     Secretary to include the following improvements as part of 
     the overall project:
       (1) Raising the left bank of the non-Federal levee upstream 
     of the Mayhew Drain for a distance of 4,500 feet by an 
     average of 2.5 feet.
       (2) Raising the right bank of the American River levee from 
     1,500 feet upstream to 4,000 feet downstream of the Howe 
     Avenue bridge by an average of 1 feet.
       (3) Modifying the south levee of the Natomas Cross Canal 
     for a distance of 5 miles to ensure that the south levee is 
     consistent with the level of protection provided by the 
     authorized levee along the east bank of the Sacramento River.
       (4) Modifying the north levee of the Natomas Cross Canal 
     for a distance of 5 miles to ensure that the height of the 
     levee is equivalent to the height of the south levee as 
     authorized by paragraph (3).
       (5) Installing gates to the existing Mayhew Drain culvert 
     and pumps to prevent backup of floodwater on the Folsom 
     Boulevard side of the gates.
       (6) Installation of a slurry wall in the north levee of the 
     American River from the east levee of the Natomas east Main 
     Drain upstream for a distance of approximately 1.2 miles.
       (7) Installation of a slurry wall in the north levee of the 
     American River from 300 feet west of Jacob Lane north for a 
     distance of approximately 1 mile to the end of the existing 
     levee.
       (b) Cost Limitations.--Section 101(a)(1)(A) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1996

[[Page H2501]]

     (110 Stat. 3662) is amended by striking ``at a total cost 
     of'' and all that follows through ``$14,225,000,'' and 
     inserting the following: ``at a total cost of $91,900,000, 
     with an estimated Federal cost of $68,925,000 and an 
     estimated non-Federal cost of $22,975,000,''.
       (c) Cost Sharing.--For purposes of section 103 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213), the 
     modifications authorized by this section shall be subject to 
     the same cost sharing in effect for the project for flood 
     damage reduction, American and Sacramento Rivers, California, 
     authorized by section 101(a)(1) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3662).

     SEC. 366. MARTIN, KENTUCKY.

       The project for flood control, Martin, Kentucky, authorized 
     by section 202(a) of the Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, 1981 (94 Stat. 1339) is modified to 
     authorize the Secretary to take all necessary measures to 
     prevent future losses that would occur from a flood equal in 
     magnitude to a 100-year frequency event.
                           TITLE IV--STUDIES

     SEC. 401. UPPER MISSISSIPPI AND ILLINOIS RIVERS LEVEES AND 
                   STREAMBANKS PROTECTION.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of erosion damage to 
     levees and infrastructure on the upper Mississippi and 
     Illinois Rivers and the impact of increased barge and 
     pleasure craft traffic on deterioration of levees and other 
     flood control structures on such rivers.

     SEC. 402. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

       (a) Development.--The Secretary shall develop a plan to 
     address water and related land resources problems and 
     opportunities in the Upper Mississippi and Illinois River 
     Basins, extending from Cairo, Illinois, to the headwaters of 
     the Mississippi River, in the interest of systemic flood 
     damage reduction by means of a mixture of structural and 
     nonstructural flood control and floodplain management 
     strategies, continued maintenance of the navigation project, 
     management of bank caving and erosion, watershed nutrient and 
     sediment management, habitat management, recreation needs, 
     and other related purposes.
       (b) Contents.--The plan shall contain recommendations on 
     future management plans and actions to be carried out by the 
     responsible Federal and non-Federal entities and shall 
     specifically address recommendations to authorize 
     construction of a systemic flood control project in 
     accordance with a plan for the Upper Mississippi River. The 
     plan shall include recommendations for Federal action where 
     appropriate and recommendations for follow-on studies for 
     problem areas for which data or current technology does not 
     allow immediate solutions.
       (c) Consultation and Use of Existing Data.--The Secretary 
     shall consult with appropriate State and Federal agencies and 
     shall make maximum use of existing data and ongoing programs 
     and efforts of States and Federal agencies in developing the 
     plan.
       (d) Cost Sharing.--Development of the plan under this 
     section shall be at Federal expense. Feasibility studies 
     resulting from development of such plan shall be subject to 
     cost sharing under section 105 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2215).
       (e) Report.--The Secretary shall submit a report that 
     includes the comprehensive plan to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 403. EL DORADO, UNION COUNTY, ARKANSAS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of improvements to regional water supplies for El 
     Dorado, Union County, Arkansas.

     SEC. 404. SWEETWATER RESERVOIR, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of the potential water 
     quality problems and pollution abatement measures in the 
     watershed in and around Sweetwater Reservoir, San Diego 
     County, California.

     SEC. 405. WHITEWATER RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall undertake and complete a feasibility 
     study for flood damage reduction in the Whitewater River 
     basin, California, and, based upon the results of such study, 
     give priority consideration to including the recommended 
     project, including the Salton Sea wetlands restoration 
     project, in the flood mitigation and riverine restoration 
     pilot program authorized in section 214 of this Act.

     SEC. 406. LITTLE ECONLACKHATCHEE RIVER BASIN, FLORIDA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of pollution abatement 
     measures in the Little Econlackhatchee River basin, Florida.

     SEC. 407. PORT EVERGLADES INLET, FLORIDA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a sand bypass project at Port 
     Everglades Inlet, Florida.

     SEC. 408. UPPER DES PLAINES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, ILLINOIS 
                   AND WISCONSIN.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is directed to conduct a 
     study of the upper Des Plaines River and tributaries, 
     Illinois and Wisconsin, upstream of the confluence with Salt 
     Creek at Riverside, Illinois, to determine the feasibility of 
     improvements in the interests of flood damage reduction, 
     environmental restoration and protection, water quality, 
     recreation, and related purposes.
       (b) Special Rule.--In conducting the study, the Secretary 
     may not exclude from consideration and evaluation flood 
     damage reduction measures based on restrictive policies 
     regarding the frequency of flooding, drainage area, and 
     amount of runoff.

     SEC. 409. CAMERON PARISH WEST OF CALCASIEU RIVER, LOUISIANA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for storm damage 
     reduction and environmental restoration, Cameron Parish west 
     of Calcasieu River, Louisiana.

     SEC. 410. GRAND ISLE AND VICINITY, LOUISIANA.

       In carrying out a study of the storm damage reduction 
     benefits to Grand Isle and vicinity, Louisiana, the Secretary 
     shall include benefits that a storm damage reduction project 
     for Grand Isle and vicinity, Louisiana, may have on the 
     mainland coast of Louisiana as project benefits attributable 
     to the Grand Isle project.

     SEC. 411. LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN SEAWALL, LOUISIANA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall complete a post-
     authorization change report on the project for hurricane-
     flood protection, Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, and 
     vicinity, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act 
     of 1965 (79 Stat. 1077), to incorporate and accomplish 
     structural modifications to the seawall fronting protection 
     along the south shore of Lake Pontchartrain from the New 
     Basin Canal on the west to the Inner harbor Navigation Canal 
     on the east.
       (b) Report.--The Secretary shall ensure expeditious 
     completion of the post-authorization change report required 
     by subsection (a) not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this section.

     SEC. 412. WESTPORT, MASSACHUSETTS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a navigation project for the town 
     of Westport, Massachusetts, and the possible beneficial uses 
     of dredged material for shoreline protection and storm damage 
     reduction in the area. In determining the benefits of the 
     project, the Secretary shall include the benefits derived 
     from using dredged material for shoreline protection and 
     storm damage reduction.

     SEC. 413. SOUTHWEST VALLEY, ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO.

       The Secretary shall undertake and complete a feasibility 
     study for flood damage reduction in the Southwest Valley, 
     Albuquerque, New Mexico, and, based upon the results of such 
     study, give priority consideration to including the 
     recommended project in the flood mitigation and riverine 
     restoration pilot program authorized in section 214 of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 414. CAYUGA CREEK, NEW YORK.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood control for 
     Cayuga Creek, New York.

     SEC. 415. ARCOLA CREEK WATERSHED, MADISON, OHIO.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of a project to provide environmental restoration 
     and protection for the Arcola Creek watershed, Madison, Ohio.

     SEC. 416. WESTERN LAKE ERIE BASIN, OHIO, INDIANA, AND 
                   MICHIGAN.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     develop measures to improve flood control, navigation, water 
     quality, recreation, and fish and wildlife habitat in a 
     comprehensive manner in the western Lake Erie basin, Ohio, 
     Indiana, and Michigan, including watersheds of the Maumee, 
     Ottawa, and Portage Rivers.
       (b) Cooperation.--In carrying out the study, the Secretary 
     shall cooperate with interested Federal, State, and local 
     agencies and nongovernmental organizations and consider all 
     relevant programs of such agencies.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report on the results of the study, including findings and 
     recommendations.

     SEC. 417. SCHUYLKILL RIVER, NORRISTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood control for 
     Schuylkill River, Norristown, Pennsylvania, including 
     improvement to existing stormwater drainage systems.

     SEC. 418. LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE, SOUTH CAROLINA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for Lakes Marion and 
     Moultrie to provide water supply, treatment, and distribution 
     to Calhoun, Clarendon, Colleton, Dorchester, Orangeburg, and 
     Sumter Counties, South Carolina.

     SEC. 419. DAY COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA.

       The Secretary shall conduct an investigation of flooding 
     and other water resources problems between the James River 
     and Big Sioux watersheds in South Dakota and an assessment of 
     flood damage reduction needs of the area.

     SEC. 420. CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS.

       The Secretary shall include, as part of the study 
     authorized in a resolution of the Committee on Public Works 
     and Transportation of the House of Representatives, dated 
     August 1, 1990, a review of two 175-foot-wide barge shelves 
     on either side of the navigation channel at the Port of 
     Corpus Christi, Texas.

     SEC. 421. MITCHELL'S CUT CHANNEL (CANEY FORK CUT), TEXAS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation, 
     Mitchell's Cut Channel (Caney Fork Cut), Texas.

     SEC. 422. MOUTH OF COLORADO RIVER, TEXAS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation at the 
     mouth of the Colorado River, Texas, to provide a minimum 
     draft navigation channel extending from the Colorado River 
     through Parkers Cut (also known as ``Tiger Island Cut''), or 
     an acceptable alternative, to Matagorda Bay.

[[Page H2502]]

     SEC. 423. KANAWHA RIVER, FAYETTE COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of developing a public port along the Kanawha 
     River in Fayette County, West Virginia, at a site known as 
     ``Longacre''.

     SEC. 424. WEST VIRGINIA PORTS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of expanding public port development in West 
     Virginia along the Ohio River and navigable portion of the 
     Kanawha River from its mouth to river mile 91.0

     SEC. 425. GREAT LAKES REGION COMPREHENSIVE STUDY.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive 
     study of the Great Lakes region to ensure the future use, 
     management, and protection of water and related resources of 
     the Great Lakes basin. Such study shall include a 
     comprehensive management plan specifically for St. Clair 
     River and Lake St. Clair.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate a report that includes the 
     strategic plan for Corps of Engineers programs in the Great 
     Lakes basin and details of proposed Corps of Engineers 
     environmental, navigation, and flood damage reduction 
     projects in the region.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,400,000 for 
     fiscal years 2000 through 2003.

     SEC. 426. NUTRIENT LOADING RESULTING FROM DREDGED MATERIAL 
                   DISPOSAL.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of nutrient 
     loading that occurs as a result of discharges of dredged 
     material into open-water sites in the Chesapeake Bay.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to 
     Congress a report on the results of the study.

     SEC. 427. SANTEE DELTA FOCUS AREA, SOUTH CAROLINA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of the Santee Delta 
     focus area, South Carolina, to determine the feasibility of 
     carrying out a project for enhancing wetlands values and 
     public recreational opportunities in the area.
                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 501. CORPS ASSUMPTION OF NRCS PROJECTS.

       (a) Llagas Creek, California.--The Secretary is authorized 
     to complete the remaining reaches of the Natural Resources 
     Conservation Service's flood control project at Llagas Creek, 
     California, undertaken pursuant to section 5 of the Watershed 
     Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1005), 
     substantially in accordance with the Natural Resources 
     Conservation Service watershed plan for Llagas Creek, 
     Department of Agriculture, and in accordance with the 
     requirements of local cooperation as specified in section 4 
     of such Act, at a total cost of $45,000,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $21,800,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $23,200,000.
       (b) Thornton Reservoir, Cook County, Illinois.--
       (1) In general.--The Thornton Reservoir project, an element 
     of the project for flood control, Chicagoland Underflow Plan, 
     Illinois, authorized by section 3(a)(5) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4013), is 
     modified to authorize the Secretary to include additional 
     permanent flood control storage attributable to the Natural 
     Resources Conservation Service Thornton Reservoir (Structure 
     84), Little Calumet River Watershed, Illinois, approved under 
     the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1001 et seq.).
       (2) Cost sharing.--Costs for the Thornton Reservoir project 
     shall be shared in accordance with section 103 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213).
       (3) Transitional storage.--The Secretary of Agriculture may 
     cooperate with non-Federal interests to provide, on a 
     transitional basis, flood control storage for the Natural 
     Resources Conservation Service Thornton Reservoir (Structure 
     84) in the west lobe of the Thornton quarry in advance of 
     Corps' construction.
       (4) Crediting.--The Secretary may credit against the non-
     Federal share of the Thornton Reservoir project all design, 
     lands, easements, rights-of-way (as of the date of 
     authorization), and construction costs incurred by the non-
     Federal interests before the signing of the project 
     cooperation agreement.
       (5) Reevaluation report.--The Secretary shall determine the 
     credits authorized by paragraph (4) that are integral to the 
     Thornton Reservoir project and the current total project 
     costs based on a limited reevaluation report.

     SEC. 502. CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE.

       Section 219(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1992 (106 Stat. 4836-4837) is amended by striking paragraphs 
     (5) and (6) and inserting the following:
       ``(5) $25,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(2);
       ``(6) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(9);
       ``(7) $30,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(16); and
       ``(8) $30,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(17).''.

     SEC. 503. CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT DREDGING TECHNOLOGY.

       (a) Contaminated Sediment Dredging Project.--
       (1) Review.--The Secretary shall conduct a review of 
     innovative dredging technologies designed to minimize or 
     eliminate contamination of a water column upon removal of 
     contaminated sediments. The Secretary shall complete such 
     review by June 1, 2001.
       (2) Testing.--After completion of the review under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall select the technology of 
     those reviewed that the Secretary determines will increase 
     the effectiveness of removing contaminated sediments and 
     significantly reduce contamination of the water column. Not 
     later than December 31, 2001, the Secretary shall enter into 
     an agreement with a public or private entity to test such 
     technology in the vicinity of Peoria Lakes, Illinois.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $2,000,000.

     SEC. 504. DAM SAFETY.

       (a) Assistance.--The Secretary is authorized to provide 
     assistance to enhance dam safety at the following locations:
       (1) Healdsburg Veteran's Memorial Dam, California
       (2) Felix Dam, Pennsylvania
       (3) Kehly Run Dam, Pennsylvania
       (4) Owl Creek Reservoir, Pennsylvania
       (5) Sweet Arrow Lake Dam, Pennsylvania
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $6,000,000 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 505. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS.

       Section 401(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1990 (110 Stat. 3763) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``Nonprofit public or private entities may 
     contribute all or a portion of the non-Federal share.''.

     SEC. 506. SEA LAMPREY CONTROL MEASURES IN THE GREAT LAKES.

       (a) In General.--In conjunction with the Great Lakes 
     Fishery Commission, the Secretary is authorized to undertake 
     a program for the control of sea lampreys in and around 
     waters of the Great Lakes. The program undertaken pursuant to 
     this section may include projects which consist of either 
     structural or nonstructural measures or a combination 
     thereof.
       (b) Cost Sharing.--Projects carried out under this section 
     on lands owned by the United States shall be carried out at 
     full Federal expense. The non-Federal share of the cost of 
     any such project undertaken on lands not in Federal ownership 
     shall be 35 percent.
       (c) Non-Federal Interests.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) 
     of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), the 
     Secretary, after coordination with the appropriate State and 
     local government officials having jurisdiction over an area 
     in which a project under this section will be carried out, 
     may allow a nonprofit entity to serve as the non-Federal 
     interest for the project.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $2,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2000 through 2005.

     SEC. 507. MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION CHANNELS.

       Section 509(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3759) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(12) Acadiana Navigation Channel, Louisiana.
       ``(13) Contraband Bayou, Louisiana, as part of the 
     Calcasieu River and Pass Ship Channel.
       ``(14) Lake Wallula Navigation Channel, Washington.
       ``(15) Wadley Pass (also known as McGriff Pass), Suwanee 
     River, Florida.''.

     SEC. 508. MEASUREMENT OF LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSIONS.

       Section 1142(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-20 note; 100 Stat. 4253) is amended by 
     striking ``$250,000'' and inserting ``$1,250,000''.

     SEC. 509. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Authorized Activities.--Section 1103(e)(1) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 652(e)(1)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
       (2) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``long-term resource 
     monitoring program; and'' and inserting ``long-term resource 
     monitoring, computerized data inventory and analysis, and 
     applied research program.''; and
       (3) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the 
     following:

     ``In carrying out subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall 
     establish an independent technical advisory committee to 
     review projects, monitoring plans, and habitat and natural 
     resource needs assessments.''.
       (b) Reports.--Section 1103(e)(2) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 
     652(e)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Reports.--Not later than December 31, 2004, and not 
     later than December 31st of every sixth year thereafter, the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior 
     and the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and 
     Wisconsin, shall transmit to Congress a report that--
       ``(A) contains an evaluation of the programs described in 
     paragraph (1);
       ``(B) describes the accomplishments of each of such 
     programs;
       ``(C) provides updates of a systemic habitat needs 
     assessment; and
       ``(D) identifies any needed adjustments in the 
     authorization.''.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1103(e) of 
     such Act (33 U.S.C. 652(e)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3) by striking ``not to exceed'' and all 
     that follows before the period at the end and inserting 
     ``$22,750,000 for fiscal year 1999 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter'';
       (2) in paragraph (4) by striking ``not to exceed'' and all 
     that follows before the period at the end and inserting 
     ``$10,420,000 for fiscal year 1999 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter''; and
       (3) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following:

[[Page H2503]]

       ``(5) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out paragraph (1)(A) $350,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 1999 through 2009.''.
       (d) Transfer of Amounts.--Section 1103(e)(6) of such Act is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(6) Transfer of amounts.--For fiscal year 1999, and each 
     fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary, in consultation with 
     the Secretary of the Interior and the States of Illinois, 
     Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin, may transfer not to 
     exceed 20 percent of the amounts appropriated to carry out 
     subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) to the amounts 
     appropriated to carry out the other of such subparagraphs.''.
       (e) Habitat Needs Assessment.--Section 1103(h)(2) of such 
     Act (33 U.S.C. 652(h)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``The Secretary shall complete the on-going 
     habitat needs assessment conducted under this paragraph not 
     later than September 30, 2000, and shall include in each 
     report required by subsection (e)(2) the most recent habitat 
     needs assessment conducted under this paragraph.''.
       (f) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1103 of such Act (33 
     U.S.C. 652) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (e)(7) by striking ``paragraphs (1)(B) 
     and (1)(C)'' and inserting ``paragraph (1)(B)''; and
       (2) in subsection (f)(2)--
       (A) by striking ``(2)(A)'' and inserting ``(2)''; and
       (B) by striking subparagraph (B).

     SEC. 510. ATLANTIC COAST OF NEW YORK MONITORING.

       Section 404(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1992 (106 Stat. 4863) is amended by striking ``1993, 1994, 
     1995, 1996, and 1997'' and inserting ``1993 through 2003''.

     SEC. 511. WATER CONTROL MANAGEMENT.

       (a) In General.--In evaluating potential improvements for 
     water control management activities and consolidation of 
     water control management centers, the Secretary may consider 
     a regionalized water control management plan but may not 
     implement such a plan until the date on which a report is 
     transmitted under subsection (b).
       (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate a report containing 
     the following:
       (1) A description of the primary objectives of streamlining 
     water control management activities.
       (2) A description of the benefits provided by streamlining 
     water control management activities through consolidation of 
     centers for such activities.
       (3) A determination of whether or not benefits to users of 
     regional water control management centers will be retained in 
     each district office of the Corps of Engineers that does not 
     have a regional center.
       (4) A determination of whether or not users of such 
     regional centers will receive a higher level of benefits from 
     streamlining water management control management activities.
       (5) A list of the Members of Congress who represent a 
     district that currently includes a water control management 
     center that is to be eliminated under a proposed regionalized 
     plan.

     SEC. 512. BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL.

       The Secretary is authorized to carry out the following 
     projects under section 204 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326):
       (1) Bodega bay, california.--A project to make beneficial 
     use of dredged materials from a Federal navigation project in 
     Bodega Bay, California.
       (2) Sabine refuge, louisiana.--A project to make beneficial 
     use of dredged materials from Federal navigation projects in 
     the vicinity of Sabine Refuge, Louisiana.
       (3) Hancock, harrison, and jackson counties, mississippi.--
     A project to make beneficial use of dredged material from a 
     Federal navigation project in Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson 
     Counties, Mississippi.
       (4) Rose city marsh, orange county, texas.--A project to 
     make beneficial use of dredged material from a Federal 
     navigation project in Rose City Marsh, Orange County, Texas.
       (5) Bessie heights marsh, orange county, texas.--A project 
     to make beneficial use of dredged material from a Federal 
     navigation project in Bessie Heights Marsh, Orange County, 
     Texas.

     SEC. 513. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE.

       Section 507(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3758) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Expansion and improvement of Long Pine Run Dam and 
     associated water infrastructure in accordance with the 
     requirements of subsections (b) through (e) of section 313 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4845) 
     at a total cost of $20,000,000.''.

     SEC. 514. LOWER MISSOURI RIVER AQUATIC RESTORATION PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after funds are made 
     available for such purposes, the Secretary shall complete a 
     comprehensive report--
       (1) identifying a general implementation strategy and 
     overall plan for environmental restoration and protection 
     along the Lower Missouri River between Gavins Point Dam and 
     the confluence of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers; and
       (2) recommending individual environmental restoration 
     projects that can be considered by the Secretary for 
     implementation under section 206 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330; 110 Stat. 3679-
     3680).
       (b) Scope of Projects.--Any environmental restoration 
     projects recommended under subsection (a) shall provide for 
     such activities and measures as the Secretary determines to 
     be necessary to protect and restore fish and wildlife habitat 
     without adversely affecting private property rights or water 
     related needs of the region surrounding the Missouri River, 
     including flood control, navigation, and enhancement of water 
     supply, and shall include some or all of the following 
     components:
       (1) Modification and improvement of navigation training 
     structures to protect and restore fish and wildlife habitat.
       (2) Modification and creation of side channels to protect 
     and restore fish and wildlife habitat.
       (3) Restoration and creation of fish and wildlife habitat.
       (4) Physical and biological monitoring for evaluating the 
     success of the projects.
       (c) Coordination.--To the maximum extent practicable, the 
     Secretary shall integrate projects carried out in accordance 
     with this section with other Federal, tribal, and State 
     restoration activities.
       (d) Cost Sharing.--The report under subsection (a) shall be 
     undertaken at full Federal expense.

     SEC. 515. AQUATIC RESOURCES RESTORATION IN THE NORTHWEST.

       (a) In General.--In cooperation with other Federal 
     agencies, the Secretary is authorized to develop and 
     implement projects for fish screens, fish passage devices, 
     and other similar measures agreed to by non-Federal interests 
     and relevant Federal agencies to mitigate adverse impacts 
     associated with irrigation system water diversions by local 
     governmental entities in the States of Oregon, Washington, 
     Montana, and Idaho.
       (b) Procedure and Participation.--
       (1) Consultation requirement; use of existing data.--In 
     providing assistance under subsection (a), the Secretary 
     shall consult with other Federal, State, and local agencies 
     and make maximum use of data and studies in existence on the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Participation by non-federal interests.--Participation 
     by non-Federal interests in projects under this section shall 
     be voluntary. The Secretary shall not take any action under 
     this section that will result in a non-Federal interest being 
     held financially responsible for an action under a project 
     unless the non-Federal interest has voluntarily agreed to 
     participate in the project.
       (c) Cost Sharing.--Projects carried out under this section 
     on lands owned by the United States shall be carried out at 
     full Federal expense. The non-Federal share of the cost of 
     any such project undertaken on lands not in Federal ownership 
     shall be 35 percent.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for 
     fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1999.

     SEC. 516. INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR WATERSHED RESTORATION.

       The Secretary shall use, and encourage the use of, 
     innovative treatment technologies, including membrane 
     technologies, for watershed and environmental restoration and 
     protection projects involving water quality.

     SEC. 517. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION.

       (a) Atlanta, Georgia.--Section 219(c)(2) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835) is amended 
     by inserting before the period ``and watershed restoration 
     and development in the regional Atlanta watershed, including 
     Big Creek and Rock Creek''.
       (b) Paterson and Passaic Valley, New Jersey.--Section 
     219(c)(9) of such Act (106 Stat. 4836) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(9) Paterson, passaic county, and passaic valley, new 
     jersey.--Drainage facilities to alleviate flooding problems 
     on Getty Avenue in the vicinity of St. Joseph's Hospital for 
     the City of Paterson, New Jersey, and Passaic County, New 
     Jersey, and innovative facilities to manage and treat 
     additional flows in the Passaic Valley, Passaic River basin, 
     New Jersey.''.

     SEC. 518. EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN PROJECTS.

       The Secretary shall expedite completion of the reports for 
     the following projects and proceed directly to project 
     planning, engineering, and design:
       (1) Arroyo Pasajero, San Joaquin River basin, California, 
     project for flood control.
       (2) Success Dam, Tule River, California, project for flood 
     control and water supply.
       (3) Alafia Channel, Tampa Harbor, Florida, project for 
     navigation.

     SEC. 519. DOG RIVER, ALABAMA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to establish, 
     in cooperation with non-Federal interests, a pilot project to 
     restore natural water depths in the Dog River, Alabama, 
     between its mouth and the Interstate Route 10 crossing, and 
     in the downstream portion of its principal tributaries.
       (b) Form of Assistance.--Assistance provided under 
     subsection (a) shall be in the form of design and 
     construction of water-related resource protection and 
     development projects affecting the Dog River, including 
     environmental restoration and recreational navigation.
       (c) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost 
     of the project carried out with assistance under this section 
     shall be 90 percent.
       (d) Lands, Easements, and Rights-of-Way.--The non-Federal 
     sponsor provide all lands, easements, rights of way, 
     relocations, and dredged material disposal areas including 
     retaining dikes required for the project.
       (e) Operation Maintenance.--The non-Federal share of the 
     cost of operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, or 
     rehabilitation of the project carried out with assistance 
     under this section shall be 100 percent.

[[Page H2504]]

       (f) Credit Toward Non-Federal Share.--The value of the 
     lands, easements, rights of way, relocations, and dredged 
     material disposal areas, including retaining dikes, provided 
     by the non-Federal sponsor shall be credited toward the non-
     Federal share.

     SEC. 520. ELBA, ALABAMA.

       The Secretary is authorized to repair and rehabilitate a 
     levee in the city of Elba, Alabama at a total cost of 
     $12,900,000.

      SEC. 521. GENEVA, ALABAMA.

       The Secretary is authorized to repair and rehabilitate a 
     levee in the city of Geneva, Alabama at a total cost of 
     $16,600,000.

      SEC. 522. NAVAJO RESERVATION, ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO, AND UTAH.

       (a) In General.--In cooperation with other appropriate 
     Federal and local agencies, the Secretary shall undertake a 
     survey of, and provide technical, planning, and design 
     assistance for, watershed management, restoration, and 
     development on the Navajo Indian Reservation, Arizona, New 
     Mexico, and Utah.
       (b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     activities carried out under this section shall be 75 
     percent. Funds made available under the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et 
     seq.) may be used by the Navajo Nation in meeting the non-
     Federal share of the cost of such activities.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $12,000,000 for 
     fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1999.

     SEC. 523. AUGUSTA AND DEVALLS BLUFF, ARKANSAS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to perform 
     operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation on 37 miles of 
     levees in and around Augusta and Devalls Bluff, Arkansas.
       (b) Reimbursement.--After performing the operations, 
     maintenance, and rehabilitation under subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall seek reimbursement from the Secretary of the 
     Interior of an amount equal to the costs allocated to 
     benefits to a Federal wildlife refuge of such operations, 
     maintenance, and rehabilitation.

     SEC. 524. BEAVER LAKE, ARKANSAS.

       (a) Water Supply Storage Reallocation.--The Secretary shall 
     reallocate approximately 31,000 additional acre-feet at 
     Beaver Lake, Arkansas, to water supply storage at no 
     additional cost to the Beaver Water District or the Carroll-
     Boone Water District above the amount that has already been 
     contracted for. At no time may the bottom of the conservation 
     pool be at an elevation that is less than 1,076 feet NGVD.
       (b) Contract Pricing.--The contract price for additional 
     storage for the Carroll-Boone Water District beyond that 
     which is provided for in subsection (a) shall be based on the 
     original construction cost of Beaver Lake and adjusted to the 
     1998 price level net of inflation between the date of 
     initiation of construction and the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 525. BEAVER LAKE TROUT PRODUCTION FACILITY, ARKANSAS.

       (a) Expedited Construction.--The Secretary shall construct, 
     under the authority of section 105 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2921) and section 1135 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4251-
     4252), the Beaver Lake trout hatchery as expeditiously as 
     possible, but in no event later than September 30, 2002.
       (b) Mitigation Plan.--Not later than 2 years after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in conjunction with 
     the State of Arkansas, shall prepare a plan for the 
     mitigation of effects of the Beaver Dam project on Beaver 
     Lake. Such plan shall provide for construction of the Beaver 
     Lake trout production facility and related facilities.

     SEC. 526. CHINO DAIRY PRESERVE, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary, in coordination 
     with the heads of other Federal agencies, shall provide 
     technical assistance to State and local agencies in the 
     study, design, and implementation of measures for flood 
     damage reduction and environmental restoration and protection 
     in the Santa Ana River watershed, California, with particular 
     emphasis on structural and nonstructural measures in the 
     vicinity of the Chino Dairy Preserve.
       (b) Comprehensive Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a 
     feasibility study to determine the most cost-effective plan 
     for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration and 
     protection in the vicinity of the Chino Dairy Preserve, Santa 
     Ana River watershed, Orange County and San Bernardino County, 
     California.

     SEC. 527. NOVATO, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall carry out a project for flood control 
     under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 
     701s) at Rush Creek, Novato, California.

     SEC. 528. ORANGE AND SAN DIEGO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary, in cooperation with local governments, may 
     prepare special area management plans in Orange and San Diego 
     Counties, California, to demonstrate the effectiveness of 
     using such plans to provide information regarding aquatic 
     resources. The Secretary may use such plans in making 
     regulatory decisions and issue permits consistent with such 
     plans.

     SEC. 529. SALTON SEA, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary, in coordination 
     with other Federal agencies, shall provide technical 
     assistance to Federal, State, and local agencies in the 
     study, design, and implementation of measures for the 
     environmental restoration and protection of the Salton Sea, 
     California.
       (b) Study.--The Secretary, in coordination with other 
     Federal, State, and local agencies, shall conduct a study to 
     determine the most effective plan for the Corps of Engineers 
     to assist in the environmental restoration and protection of 
     the Salton Sea, California.

     SEC. 530. SANTA CRUZ HARBOR, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary is authorized to modify the cooperative 
     agreement with the Santa Cruz Port District, California, to 
     reflect unanticipated additional dredging effort and to 
     extend such agreement for 10 years.

     SEC. 531. POINT BEACH, MILFORD, CONNECTICUT.

       (a) Maximum Federal Expenditure.--The maximum amount of 
     Federal funds that may be expended for the project for 
     hurricane and storm damage reduction, Point Beach, Milford, 
     Connecticut, shall be $3,000,000.
       (b) Revision of Project Cooperation Agreement.--The 
     Secretary shall revise the project cooperation agreement for 
     the project referred to in subsection (a) to take into 
     account the change in the Federal participation in such 
     project.
       (c) Cost Sharing.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to affect any cost-sharing requirement applicable 
     to the project referred to in subsection (a) under section 
     101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (31 U.S.C. 
     2211).

     SEC. 532. LOWER ST. JOHNS RIVER BASIN, FLORIDA.

       (a) Computer Model.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may apply the computer model 
     developed under the St. Johns River basin feasibility study 
     to assist non-Federal interests in developing strategies for 
     improving water quality in the Lower St. Johns River basin, 
     Florida.
       (2) Cost sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
     assistance provided under this subsection shall be 50 
     percent.
       (b) Topographic Survey.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     provide 1-foot contour topographic survey maps of the Lower 
     St. Johns River basin, Florida, to non-Federal interests for 
     analyzing environmental data and establishing benchmarks for 
     subbasins.

     SEC. 533. SHORELINE PROTECTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, 
                   LAKE ALLATOONA, GEORGIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, is 
     authorized to carry out the following water-related 
     environmental restoration and resource protection activities 
     to restore Lake Allatoona and the Etowah River in Georgia:
       (1) Lake allatoona/etowah river shoreline restoration 
     design.--Develop pre-construction design measures to 
     alleviate shoreline erosion and sedimentation problems.
       (2) Little river environmental restoration.--Conduct a 
     feasibility study to evaluate environmental problems and 
     recommend environmental infrastructure restoration measures 
     for the Little River within Lake Allatoona, Georgia.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 
     30, 1999--
       (1) $850,000 to carry out subsection (a)(1); and
       (2) $250,000 to carry out subsection (a)(2).

     SEC. 534. MAYO'S BAR LOCK AND DAM, COOSA RIVER, ROME, 
                   GEORGIA.

       The Secretary is authorized to provide technical 
     assistance, including planning, engineering, and design 
     assistance, for the reconstruction of the Mayo's Bar Lock and 
     Dam, Coosa River, Rome, Georgia. The non-Federal share of 
     assistance under this section shall be 50 percent.

     SEC. 535. COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD IMPACT RESPONSE MODELING 
                   SYSTEM, CORALVILLE RESERVOIR AND IOWA RIVER 
                   WATERSHED, IOWA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     University of Iowa, shall conduct a study and develop a 
     Comprehensive Flood Impact Response Modeling System for 
     Coralville Reservoir and the Iowa River watershed, Iowa.
       (b) Contents of Study.--The study shall include--
       (1) an evaluation of the combined hydrologic, geomorphic, 
     environmental, economic, social, and recreational impacts of 
     operating strategies within the Iowa River watershed;
       (2) development of an integrated, dynamic flood impact 
     model; and
       (3) development of a rapid response system to be used 
     during flood and other emergency situations.
       (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 5 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit 
     to Congress a report containing the results of the study and 
     modeling system together with such recommendations as the 
     Secretary determines to be appropriate.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $900,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2000 through 2004.

     SEC. 536. ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE IN ILLINOIS.

       The Secretary may carry out the project for Georgetown, 
     Illinois, and the project for Olney, Illinois, referred to in 
     House Report Number 104-741, accompanying Public Law 104-182.

     SEC. 537. KANOPOLIS LAKE, KANSAS.

       (a) Water Storage.--The Secretary shall offer to the State 
     of Kansas the right to purchase water storage in Kanopolis 
     Lake, Kansas, at a price calculated in accordance with and in 
     a manner consistent with the terms of the memorandum of 
     understanding entitled ``Memorandum of Understanding Between 
     the State of Kansas and the U.S. Department of the Army 
     Concerning the Purchase of Municipal and Industrial Water 
     Supply Storage'', dated December 11, 1985.
       (b) Effective Date.--For the purposes of this section, the 
     effective date of that memorandum of understanding shall be 
     deemed to be the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 538. SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY.

       Section 531(h) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3774) is amended

[[Page H2505]]

     by striking ``$10,000,000'' and inserting ``$25,000,000''.

     SEC. 539. SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA.

       Section 533(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3775) is amended by striking ``$100,000,000'' 
     and inserting ``$200,000,000''.

     SEC. 540. SNUG HARBOR, MARYLAND.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, in coordination with the 
     Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is 
     authorized--
       (1) to provide technical assistance to the residents of 
     Snug Harbor, in the vicinity of Berlin, Maryland, for 
     purposes of flood damage reduction;
       (2) to conduct a study of a project for nonstructural 
     measures for flood damage reduction in the vicinity of Snug 
     Harbor, Maryland, taking into account the relationship of 
     both the Ocean City Inlet and Assateague Island to the 
     flooding; and
       (3) after completion of the study, to carry out the project 
     under the authority of section 205 of the Flood Control Act 
     of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).
       (b) FEMA Assistance.--The Director, in coordination with 
     the Secretary and under the authorities of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5121 note), may provide technical assistance and 
     nonstructural measures for flood damage mitigation in the 
     vicinity of Snug Harbor, Maryland.
       (c) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     assistance under this section shall not exceed $3,000,000. 
     The non-Federal share of such cost shall be determined in 
     accordance with the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     or the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act, as appropriate.

     SEC. 541. WELCH POINT, ELK RIVER, CECIL COUNTY, AND 
                   CHESAPEAKE CITY, MARYLAND.

       (a) Spillage of Dredged Materials.--The Secretary shall 
     carry out a study to determine if the spillage of dredged 
     materials that were removed as part of the project for 
     navigation, Inland Waterway from Delaware River to Chesapeake 
     Bay, Delaware and Maryland, authorized by the first section 
     of the Act of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1030), is a 
     significant impediment to vessels transiting the Elk River 
     near Welch Point, Maryland. If the Secretary determines that 
     the spillage is an impediment to navigation, the Secretary 
     may conduct such dredging as may be required to permit 
     navigation on the river.
       (b) Damage to Water Supply.--The Secretary shall carry out 
     a study to determine if additional compensation is required 
     to fully compensate the city of Chesapeake, Maryland, for 
     damage to the city's water supply resulting from dredging of 
     the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal project. If the Secretary 
     determines that such additional compensation is required, the 
     Secretary may provide the compensation to the city of 
     Chesapeake.

     SEC. 542. WEST VIEW SHORES, CECIL COUNTY, MARYLAND.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall carry out an investigation of the 
     contamination of the well system in West View Shores, Cecil 
     County, Maryland. If the Secretary determines that the 
     disposal site from any Federal navigation project has 
     contributed to the contamination of the wells, the Secretary 
     may provide alternative water supplies, including replacement 
     of wells, at full Federal expense.

     SEC. 543. RESTORATION PROJECTS FOR MARYLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, 
                   AND WEST VIRGINIA.

       Section 539 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (110 Stat. 3776-3777) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1) by striking ``technical'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(1) by inserting ``(or in the case of 
     projects located on lands owned by the United States, to 
     Federal interests)'' after ``interests'';
       (3) in subsection (a)(3) by inserting ``or in conjunction'' 
     after ``consultation''; and
       (4) by inserting at the end of subsection (d) the 
     following: ``Funds authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
     section 340 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
     (106 Stat. 4856) are authorized for projects undertaken under 
     subsection (a)(1)(B).''.

     SEC. 544. CAPE COD CANAL RAILROAD BRIDGE, BUZZARDS BAY, 
                   MASSACHUSETTS.

       (a) Alternative Transportation.--The Secretary is 
     authorized to provide up to $300,000 for alternative 
     transportation that may arise as a result of the operation, 
     maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of the Cape Cod Canal 
     Railroad Bridge.
       (b) Operation and Maintenance Contract Renegotiation.--Not 
     later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary shall enter into negotiation with the owner of 
     the railroad right-of-way for the Cape Cod Canal Railroad 
     Bridge for the purpose of establishing the rights and 
     responsibities for the operation and maintenance of the 
     Bridge. The Secretary is authorized to include in any new 
     contract the termination of the prior contract numbered ER-
     W175-ENG-1.

     SEC. 545. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.

       (a) Demonstration Project.--The Secretary, in consultation 
     with local officials, shall conduct a demonstration project 
     to improve water quality in the vicinity of St. Louis, 
     Missouri.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $1,700,000 to carry out this section.

      SEC. 546. BEAVER BRANCH OF BIG TIMBER CREEK, NEW JERSEY.

       Upon request of the State of New Jersey or a political 
     subdivision thereof, the Secretary may compile and 
     disseminate information on floods and flood damages, 
     including identification of areas subject to inundation by 
     floods, and provide technical assistance regarding floodplain 
     management for Beaver Branch of Big Timber Creek, New Jersey.

     SEC. 547. LAKE ONTARIO AND ST. LAWRENCE RIVER WATER LEVELS, 
                   NEW YORK.

       Upon request, the Secretary shall provide technical 
     assistance to the International Joint Commission and the St. 
     Lawrence River Board of Control in undertaking studies on the 
     effects of fluctuating water levels on the natural 
     environment, recreational boating, property flooding, and 
     erosion along the shorelines of Lake Ontario and the St. 
     Lawrence River in New York. The Commission and Board are 
     encouraged to conduct such studies in a comprehensive and 
     thorough manner before implementing any change to water 
     regulation Plan 1958-D.

     SEC. 548. NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NEW YORK AND NEW 
                   JERSEY.

       The Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements with 
     non-Federal interests to investigate, develop, and support 
     measures for sediment management and reduction of contaminant 
     sources which affect navigation in the Port of New York-New 
     Jersey and the environmental conditions of the New York-New 
     Jersey Harbor estuary. Such investigation shall include an 
     analysis of the economic and environmental benefits and costs 
     of potential sediment management and contaminant reduction 
     measures.

     SEC. 549. SEA GATE REACH, CONEY ISLAND, NEW YORK, NEW YORK.

       The Secretary is authorized to construct a project for 
     shoreline protection which includes a beachfill with 
     revetment and T-groin for the Sea Gate Reach on Coney Island, 
     New York, as identified in the March 1998 report prepared for 
     the Corps of Engineers, New York District, entitled ``Field 
     Data Gathering, Project Performance Analysis and Design 
     Alternative Solutions to Improve Sandfill Retention'', at a 
     total cost of $9,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $5,850,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,150,000.

     SEC. 550. WOODLAWN, NEW YORK.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide planning, 
     design, and other technical assistance to non-Federal 
     interests for identifying and mitigating sources of 
     contamination at Woodlawn Beach in Woodlawn, New York.
       (b) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
     assistance provided under this section shall be 50 percent.

     SEC. 551. FLOODPLAIN MAPPING, NEW YORK.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide assistance for 
     a project to develop maps identifying 100- and 500-year flood 
     inundation areas in the State of New York.
       (b) Requirements.--Maps developed under the project shall 
     include hydrologic and hydraulic information and shall 
     accurately show the flood inundation of each property by 
     flood risk in the floodplain. The maps shall be produced in a 
     high resolution format and shall be made available to all 
     flood prone areas in the State of New York in an electronic 
     format.
       (c) Participation of FEMA.--The Secretary and the non-
     Federal sponsor of the project shall work with the Director 
     of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to ensure the 
     validity of the maps developed under the project for flood 
     insurance purposes.
       (d) Forms of Assistance.--In carrying out the project, the 
     Secretary may enter into contracts or cooperative agreements 
     with the non-Federal sponsor or provide reimbursements of 
     project costs.
       (e) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the 
     project shall be 75 percent.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $12,000,000 for 
     fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1998.

     SEC. 552. WHITE OAK RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine if water 
     quality deterioration and sedimentation of the White Oak 
     River, North Carolina, are the result of the Atlantic 
     Intracoastal Waterway navigation project. If the Secretary 
     determines that the water quality deterioration and 
     sedimentation are the result of the project, the Secretary 
     shall take appropriate measures to mitigate the deterioration 
     and sedimentation.

     SEC. 553. TOUSSAINT RIVER, CARROLL TOWNSHIP, OTTAWA COUNTY, 
                   OHIO.

       The Secretary is authorized to provide technical assistance 
     for the removal of military ordnance from the Toussaint 
     River, Carroll Township, Ottawa County, Ohio.

     SEC. 554. SARDIS RESERVOIR, OKLAHOMA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall accept from the State 
     of Oklahoma or an agent of the State an amount, as determined 
     under subsection (b), as prepayment of 100 percent of the 
     water supply cost obligation of the State under Contract No. 
     DACW56-74-JC-0314 for water supply storage at Sardis 
     Reservoir, Oklahoma.
       (b) Determination of Amount.--The amount to be paid by the 
     State of Oklahoma under subsection (a) shall be subject to 
     adjustment in accordance with accepted discount purchase 
     methods for Federal Government properties as determined by an 
     independent accounting firm designated by the Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget. The cost of such 
     determination shall be paid for by the State of Oklahoma or 
     an agent of the State.
       (c) Effect.--Nothing in this section affects any of the 
     rights or obligations of the parties to the contract referred 
     to in subsection (a).

     SEC. 555. WAURIKA LAKE, OKLAHOMA, WATER CONVEYANCE 
                   FACILITIES.

       For the project for construction of the water conveyances 
     authorized by the first section of Public Law 88-253 (77 
     Stat. 841), the requirement for the Waurika Project Master 
     Conservancy District to repay the $2,900,000 in costs 
     (including interest) resulting from the October 1991 
     settlement of the claim before the United States Claims 
     Court, and the payment of $1,190,451 of the final cost 
     representing the difference between the 1978 estimate of cost 
     and the actual

[[Page H2506]]

     cost determined after completion of such project in 1991, are 
     waived.

     SEC. 556. SKINNER BUTTE PARK, EUGENE, OREGON.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of the 
     south bank of the Willamette River, in the area of Skinner 
     Butte Park from Ferry Street Bridge to the Valley River 
     footbridge, to determine the feasibility of carrying out a 
     project to stabilize the river bank, and to restore and 
     enhance riverine habitat, using a combination of structural 
     and bioengineering techniques.
       (b) Construction.--If, upon completion of the study, the 
     Secretary determines that the project is feasible, the 
     Secretary shall participate with non-Federal interests in the 
     construction of the project.
       (c) Cost Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     project shall be 35 percent.
       (d) Lands, Easements, and Rights-of-Way.--The non-Federal 
     interest shall provide lands, easements, rights-of-way, 
     relocations, and dredged material disposal areas necessary 
     for construction of the project. The value of such items 
     shall be credited toward the non-Federal share of the cost of 
     the project.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000 for 
     fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1999.

     SEC. 557. WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN, OREGON.

       The Secretary, Director of the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, 
     and heads of other appropriate Federal agencies shall, using 
     existing authorities, assist the State of Oregon in 
     developing and implementing a comprehensive basin-wide 
     strategy in the Willamette River basin of Oregon for 
     coordinated and integrated management of land and water 
     resources to improve water quality, reduce flood hazards, 
     ensure sustainable economic activity, and restore habitat for 
     native fish and wildlife. The heads of such Federal agencies 
     may provide technical assistance, staff and financial support 
     for development of the basin-wide management strategy. The 
     heads of Federal agencies shall seek to exercise flexibility 
     in administrative actions and allocation of funding to reduce 
     barriers to efficient and effective implementing of the 
     strategy.

     SEC. 558. BRADFORD AND SULLIVAN COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA.

       The Secretary is authorized to provide assistance for 
     water-related environmental infrastructure and resource 
     protection and development projects in Bradford and Sullivan 
     Counties, Pennsylvania, using the funds and authorities 
     provided in title I of the Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-245) under the 
     heading ``Construction, General'' (112 Stat. 1840) for 
     similar projects in Lackawanna, Lycoming, Susquehanna, 
     Wyoming, Pike, and Monroe Counties, Pennsylvania.

     SEC. 559. ERIE HARBOR, PENNSYLVANIA.

       The Secretary may reimburse the appropriate non-Federal 
     interest not more than $78,366 for architect and engineering 
     costs incurred in connection with the Erie Harbor basin 
     navigation project, Pennsylvania.

     SEC. 560. POINT MARION LOCK AND DAM, PENNSYLVANIA.

       The project for navigation, Point Marion Lock and Dam, 
     Borough of Point Marion, Pennsylvania, as authorized by 
     section 301(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (100 Stat. 4110), is modified to direct the Secretary, in the 
     operation and maintenance of the project, to mitigate damages 
     to the shoreline, at a total cost of $2,000,000. The cost of 
     the mitigation shall be allocated as an operation and 
     maintenance cost of a Federal navigation project.

     SEC. 561. SEVEN POINTS' HARBOR, PENNSYLVANIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized, at full 
     Federal expense, to construct a breakwater-dock combination 
     at the entrance to Seven Points' Harbor, Pennsylvania.
       (b) Operation and Maintenance Costs.--All operation and 
     maintenance costs associated with the facility constructed 
     under this section shall be the responsibility of the lessee 
     of the marina complex at Seven Points' Harbor.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $850,000 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 562. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA.

       Section 566(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3786) is amended by inserting ``environmental 
     restoration,'' after ``water supply and related 
     facilities,''.

     SEC. 563. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA-LACKAWANNA WATERSHED RESTORATION 
                   INITIATIVE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with 
     appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies and 
     nongovernmental institutions, is authorized to prepare a 
     watershed plan for the Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna Watershed 
     (USGS Cataloguing Unit 02050107). The plan shall utilize 
     geographic information system and shall include a 
     comprehensive environmental assessment of the watershed's 
     ecosystem, a comprehensive flood plain management plan, a 
     flood plain protection plan, water resource and environmental 
     restoration projects, water quality improvement, and other 
     appropriate infrastructure and measures.
       (b) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost 
     of preparation of the plan under this section shall be 50 
     percent. Services and materials instead of cash may be 
     credited toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     plan.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for 
     fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1999.

      SEC. 564. AGUADILLA HARBOR, PUERTO RICO.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine if erosion 
     and additional storm damage risks that exist in the vicinity 
     of Aguadilla Harbor, Puerto Rico, are the result of a Federal 
     navigation project. If the Secretary determines that such 
     erosion and additional storm damage risks are the result of 
     the project, the Secretary shall take appropriate measures to 
     mitigate the erosion and storm damage.

     SEC. 565. OAHE DAM TO LAKE SHARPE, SOUTH DAKOTA, STUDY.

       Section 441 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (110 Stat. 3747) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) Investigation.--'' before ``The 
     Secretary''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Report.--Not later than September 30, 1999, the 
     Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the results 
     of the investigation under this section. The report shall 
     include the examination of financing options for regular 
     maintenance and preservation of the lake. The report shall be 
     prepared in coordination and cooperation with the Natural 
     Resources Conservation Service, other Federal agencies, and 
     State and local officials.''.

     SEC. 566. INTEGRATED WATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING, TEXAS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with other 
     Federal agencies and the State of Texas, shall provide 
     technical, planning, and design assistance to non-Federal 
     interests in developing integrated water management plans and 
     projects that will serve the cities, counties, water 
     agencies, and participating planning regions under the 
     jurisdiction of the State of Texas.
       (b) Purposes of Assistance.--Assistance provided under 
     subsection (a) shall be in support of non-Federal planning 
     and projects for the following purposes:
       (1) Plan and develop integrated, near- and long-term water 
     management plans that address the planning region's water 
     supply, water conservation, and water quality needs.
       (2) Study and develop strategies and plans that restore, 
     preserve, and protect the State's and planning region's 
     natural ecosystems.
       (3) Facilitate public communication and participation.
       (4) Integrate such activities with other ongoing Federal 
     and State projects and activities associated with the State 
     of Texas water plan and the State of Texas legislation.
       (c) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
     assistance provided under subsection (a) shall be 50 percent, 
     of which up to \1/2\ of the non-Federal share may be provided 
     as in kind services.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, $10,000,000 for 
     the fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1999.

     SEC. 567. BOLIVAR PENINSULA, JEFFERSON, CHAMBERS, AND 
                   GALVESTON COUNTIES, TEXAS.

       (a) Shore Protection Project.--The Secretary is authorized 
     to design and construct a shore protection project between 
     the south jetty of the Sabine Pass Channel and the north 
     jetty of the Galveston Harbor Entrance Channel in Jefferson, 
     Chambers, and Galveston Counties, Texas, including beneficial 
     use of dredged material from Federal navigation projects.
       (b) Applicability of Benefit-Cost Ratio Waiver Authority.--
     In evaluating and implementing the project, the Secretary 
     shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate in the 
     financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184), 
     notwithstanding any limitation on the purpose of projects to 
     which such section applies, to the extent that the 
     Secretary's evaluation indicates that applying such section 
     is necessary to implement the project.

     SEC. 568. GALVESTON BEACH, GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS.

       The Secretary is authorized to design and construct a shore 
     protection project between the Galveston South Jetty and San 
     Luis Pass, Galveston County, Texas, using innovative 
     nourishment techniques, including beneficial use of dredged 
     material from Federal navigation projects.

     SEC. 569. PACKERY CHANNEL, CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall construct a navigation 
     and storm protection project at Packery Channel, Mustang 
     Island, Texas, consisting of construction of a channel and a 
     channel jetty and placement of sand along the length of the 
     seawall.
       (b) Ecological and Recreational Benefits.--In evaluating 
     the project, the Secretary shall include the ecological and 
     recreational benefits of reopening the Packery Channel.
       (c) Applicability of Benefit-Cost Ratio Waiver Authority.--
     In evaluating and implementing the project, the Secretary 
     shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate in the 
     financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184), 
     notwithstanding any limitation on the purpose of projects to 
     which such section applies, to the extent that the 
     Secretary's evaluation indicates that applying such section 
     is necessary to implement the project.

     SEC. 570. NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.

       The projects described in the following reports are 
     authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially 
     in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, 
     recommended in such reports:
       (1) Parkersburg, west virginia.--Report of the Corps of 
     Engineers entitled ``Parkersburg/Vienna Riverfront Park 
     Feasibility Study'', dated June 1998, at a total cost of 
     $8,400,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $4,200,000, and 
     an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,200,000.
       (2) Weirton, west virginia.--Report of the Corps of 
     Engineers entitled ``Feasibility Master Plan for Weirton Port 
     and Industrial Center,

[[Page H2507]]

     West Virginia Public Port Authority'', dated December 1997, 
     at a total cost of $18,000,000, with an estimated Federal 
     cost of $9,000,000, and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $9,000,000.
       (3) Erickson/wood county, west virginia.--Report of the 
     Corps of Engineers entitled ``Feasibility Master Plan for 
     Erickson/Wood County Port District, West Virginia Public Port 
     Authority'', dated July 7, 1997, at a total cost of 
     $28,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $14,000,000, 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $14,000,000.
       (4) Monongahela river, west virginia.--Monongahela River, 
     West Virginia, Comprehensive Study Reconnaissance Report, 
     dated September 1995, consisting of the following elements:
       (A) Morgantown Riverfront Park, Morgantown, West Virginia, 
     at a total cost of $1,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost 
     of $800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $800,000.
       (B) Caperton Rail to Trail, Monongahela County, West 
     Virginia, at a total cost of $4,425,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $2,212,500 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $2,212,500.
       (C) Palatine Park, Fairmont, West Virginia, at a total cost 
     of $1,750,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $875,000 and 
     an estimated non-Federal cost of $875,000.

     SEC. 571. URBANIZED PEAK FLOOD MANAGEMENT RESEARCH.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall develop and implement 
     a research program to evaluate opportunities to manage peak 
     flood flows in urbanized watersheds located in the State of 
     New Jersey.
       (b) Scope of Research.--The research program authorized by 
     subsection (a) shall be accomplished through the New York 
     District. The research shall specifically include the 
     following:
       (1) Identification of key factors in urbanized watersheds 
     that are under development and impact peak flows in the 
     watersheds and downsteam of the watersheds.
       (2) Development of peak flow management models for 4 to 6 
     watersheds in urbanized areas located with widely differing 
     geology, areas, shapes, and soil types that can be used to 
     determine optimal flow reduction factors for individual 
     watersheds.
       (3) Utilization of such management models to determine 
     relationships between flow and reduction factors and change 
     in imperviousness, soil types, shape of the drainage basin, 
     and other pertinent parameters from existing to ultimate 
     conditions in watersheds under consideration for development.
       (4) Development and validation of an inexpensive accurate 
     model to establish flood reduction factors based on runoff 
     curve numbers, change in imperviousness, the shape of the 
     basin, and other pertinent factors.
       (c) Report to Congress.--The Secretary shall evaluate 
     policy changes in the planning process for flood control 
     projects based on the results of the research authorized by 
     this section and transmit to Congress a report not later than 
     3 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carryout this section $3,000,000 for 
     fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1999.
       (e) Flow Reduction Factors Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``flow reduction factors'' means the ratio of estimated 
     allowable peak flows of stormwater after projected 
     development when compared to pre-existing conditions.

     SEC. 572. MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION.

       Section 8 of the Flood Control Act of May 15, 1928 (Public 
     Law 391, 70th Congress), is amended by striking ``$7,500'' 
     and inserting ``$21,500.''

     SEC. 573. COASTAL AQUATIC HABITAT MANAGEMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may cooperate with the 
     Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, the 
     Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency and the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, other 
     appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, and affected 
     private entities, in the development of a management strategy 
     to address problems associated with toxic microorganisms and 
     the resulting degradation of ecosystems in the tidal and 
     nontidal wetlands and waters of the United States for the 
     States along the Atlantic Ocean. As part of such management 
     strategy, the Secretary may provide planning, design, and 
     other technical assistance to each participating State in the 
     development and implementation of nonregulatory measures to 
     mitigate environmental problems and restore aquatic 
     resources.
       (b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     measures undertaken under this section shall not exceed 65 
     percent.
       (c) Operation and Maintenance.--The non-Federal share of 
     operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with 
     assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriation.--There is authorized to 
     be appropriated to carry out this section $7,000,000 for 
     fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1999.

     SEC. 574. ABANDONED AND INACTIVE NONCOAL MINE RESTORATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to provide 
     technical, planning, and design assistance to Federal and 
     non-Federal interests for carrying out projects to address 
     water quality problems caused by drainage and related 
     activities from abandoned and inactive noncoal mines.
       (b) Specific Measures.--Assistance provided under 
     subsection (a) may be in support of projects for the 
     following purposes:
       (1) Management of drainage from abandoned and inactive 
     noncoal mines.
       (2) Restoration and protection of streams, rivers, 
     wetlands, other waterbodies, and riparian areas degraded by 
     drainage from abandoned and inactive noncoal mines.
       (3) Demonstration of management practices and innovative 
     and alternative treatment technologies to minimize or 
     eliminate adverse environmental effects associated with 
     drainage from abandoned and inactive noncoal mines.
       (c) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost 
     of assistance under subsection (a) shall be 50 percent; 
     except that the Federal share with respect to projects 
     located on lands owned by the United States shall be 100 
     percent.
       (d) Effect on Authority of the Secretary of the Interior.--
     Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the 
     authority of the Secretary of the Interior under title IV of 
     the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 
     U.S.C. 1231 et seq.).
       (e) Technology Database for Reclamation of Abandoned 
     Mines.--The Secretary is authorized to provide assistance to 
     non-Federal and non-profit entities to develop, manage, and 
     maintain a database of conventional and innovative, cost-
     effective technologies for reclamation of abandoned and 
     inactive noncoal mine sites. Such assistance shall be 
     provided through the rehabilitation of abandoned mine sites 
     program, managed by the Sacramento District Office of the 
     Corps of Engineers.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000.

     SEC. 575. BENEFICIAL USE OF WASTE TIRE RUBBER.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to conduct 
     pilot projects to encourage the beneficial use of waste tire 
     rubber, including crumb rubber, recycled from tires. Such 
     beneficial use may include marine pilings, underwater 
     framing, floating docks with built-in flotation, utility 
     poles, and other uses associated with transportation and 
     infrastructure projects receiving Federal funds. The 
     Secretary shall, when appropriate, encourage the use of waste 
     tire rubber, including crumb rubber, in such federally funded 
     projects.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for 
     fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1998.

     SEC. 576. SITE DESIGNATION.

       Section 102(c)(4) of the Marine Protection, Research, and 
     Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1412(c)(4)) is amended by 
     striking ``January 1, 2000'' and inserting ``January 1, 
     2005''.

     SEC. 577. LAND CONVEYANCES.

       (a) Exchange of Land in Pike County, Missouri.--
       (1) Exchange of land.--Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), 
     at such time as Holnam Inc. conveys all right, title, and 
     interest in and to the land described in paragraph (2)(A) to 
     the United States, the Secretary shall convey all right, 
     title, and interest in the land described in paragraph (2)(B) 
     to Holnam Inc.
       (2) Description of lands.--The lands referred to in 
     paragraph (1) are the following:
       (A) Non-federal land.--152.45 acres with existing flowage 
     easements situated in Pike County, Missouri, described a 
     portion of Government Tract Number FM-9 and all of Government 
     Tract Numbers FM-11, FM-10, FM-12, FM-13, and FM-16, owned 
     and administered by the Holnam Inc.
       (B) Federal land.--152.61 acres situated in Pike County, 
     Missouri, known as Government Tract Numbers FM-17 and a 
     portion of FM-18, administered by the Corps of Engineers.
       (3) Conditions of exchange.--The exchange of land 
     authorized by paragraph (1) shall be subject to the following 
     conditions:
       (A) Deeds.--
       (i) Federal land.--The instrument of conveyance used to 
     convey the land described in paragraph (2)(B) to Holnam Inc. 
     shall contain such reservations, terms, and conditions as the 
     Secretary considers necessary to allow the United States to 
     operate and maintain the Mississippi River 9-Foot Navigation 
     Project.
       (ii) Non-federal land.--The conveyance of the land 
     described in paragraph (2)(A) to the Secretary shall be by a 
     warranty deed acceptable to the Secretary.
       (B) Removal of improvements.--Holnam Inc. may remove any 
     improvements on the land described in paragraph (2)(A). The 
     Secretary may require Holnam Inc. to remove any improvements 
     on the land described in paragraph (2)(A). In either case, 
     Holnam Inc. shall hold the United States harmless from 
     liability, and the United States shall not incur cost 
     associated with the removal or relocation of any such 
     improvements.
       (C) Time limit for exchange.--The land exchange authorized 
     by paragraph (1) shall be completed not later than 2 years 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (D) Legal description.--The Secretary shall provide the 
     legal description of the land described in paragraph (2). The 
     legal description shall be used in the instruments of 
     conveyance of the land.
       (E) Administrative costs.--The Secretary shall require 
     Holnam Inc. to pay reasonable administrative costs associated 
     with the exchange.
       (4) Value of properties.--If the appraised fair market 
     value, as determined by the Secretary, of the land conveyed 
     to Holnam Inc. by the Secretary under paragraph (1) exceeds 
     the appraised fair market value, as determined by the 
     Secretary, of the land conveyed to the United States by 
     Holnam Inc. under paragraph (1), Holnam Inc. shall make a 
     payment equal to the excess in cash or a cash equivalent to 
     the United States.
       (b) Candy Lake Project, Osage County, Oklahoma.--
       (1) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (A) Fair market value.--The term ``fair market value'' 
     means the amount for which a willing buyer would purchase and 
     a willing seller would sell a parcel of land, as determined 
     by a qualified, independent land appraiser.

[[Page H2508]]

       (B) Previous owner of land.--The term ``previous owner of 
     land'' means a person (including a corporation) that 
     conveyed, or a descendant of a deceased individual who 
     conveyed, land to the Corps of Engineers for use in the Candy 
     Lake project in Osage County, Oklahoma.
       (2) Land conveyances.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall convey, in accordance 
     with this subsection, all right, title, and interest of the 
     United States in and to the land acquired by the United 
     States for the Candy Lake project in Osage County, Oklahoma.
       (B) Previous owners of land.--
       (i) In general.--The Secretary shall give a previous owner 
     of land the first option to purchase the land described in 
     subparagraph (A).
       (ii) Application.--

       (I) In general.--A previous owner of land that desires to 
     purchase the land described in subparagraph (A) that was 
     owned by the previous owner of land, or by the individual 
     from whom the previous owner of land is descended, shall file 
     an application to purchase the land with the Secretary not 
     later than 180 days after the official date of notice to the 
     previous owner of land under paragraph (3).
       (II) First to file has first option.--If more than 1 
     application is filed to purchase a parcel of land described 
     in subparagraph (A), the first option to purchase the parcel 
     of land shall be determined in the order in which 
     applications for the parcel of land were filed.

       (iii) Identification of previous owners of land.--As soon 
     as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall, to the extent practicable, identify each 
     previous owner of land.
       (iv) Consideration.--Consideration for land conveyed under 
     this paragraph shall be the fair market value of the land.
       (C) Disposal.--Any land described in subparagraph (A) for 
     which an application to purchase the land has not been filed 
     under subparagraph (B)(ii) within the applicable time period 
     shall be disposed of in accordance with law.
       (D) Extinguishment of easements.--All flowage easements 
     acquired by the United States for use in the Candy Lake 
     project in Osage County, Oklahoma, are extinguished.
       (3) Notice.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall notify--
       (i) each person identified as a previous owner of land 
     under paragraph (2)(B)(iii), not later than 90 days after 
     identification, by United States mail; and
       (ii) the general public, not later than 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, by publication in the Federal 
     Register.
       (B) Contents of notice.--Notice under this paragraph shall 
     include--
       (i) a copy of this subsection;
       (ii) information sufficient to separately identify each 
     parcel of land subject to this subsection; and
       (iii) specification of the fair market value of each parcel 
     of land subject to this subsection.
       (C) Official date of notice.--The official date of notice 
     under this paragraph shall be the later of--
       (i) the date on which actual notice is mailed; or
       (ii) the date of publication of the notice in the Federal 
     Register.
       (c) Lake Hugo, Oklahoma, Area Land Conveyance.--
       (1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall convey at fair 
     market value to Choctaw County Industrial Authority, 
     Oklahoma, the property described in paragraph (2).
       (2) Description.--The property to be conveyed under 
     paragraph (1) is--
       (A) that portion of land at Lake Hugo, Oklahoma, above 
     elevation 445.2 located in the N\1/2\ of the NW\1/4\ of 
     Section 24, R 18 E, T 6 S, and the S\1/2\ of the SW\1/4\ of 
     Section 13, R 18 E, T 6 S bounded to the south by a line 50 
     north on the centerline of Road B of Sawyer Bluff Public Use 
     Area and to the north by the \1/2\ quarter section line 
     forming the south boundary of Wilson Point Public Use Area; 
     and
       (B) a parcel of property at Lake Hugo, Oklahoma, commencing 
     at the NE corner of the SE\1/4\ SW\1/4\ of Section 13, R 18 
     E, T 6 S, 100 feet north, then east approximately \1/2\ mile 
     to the county line road between Section 13, R 18 E, T 6 S, 
     and Section 18, R 19 E, T 6 S.
       (3) Terms and conditions.--The conveyances under this 
     subsection shall be subject to such terms and conditions, 
     including payment of reasonable administrative costs and 
     compliance with applicable Federal floodplain management and 
     flood insurance programs, as the Secretary considers 
     necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the 
     United States.
       (d) Conveyance of Property in Marshall County, Oklahoma.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey to the State of 
     Oklahoma all right, title, and interest of the United States 
     to real property located in Marshall County, Oklahoma, and 
     included in the Lake Texoma (Denison Dam), Oklahoma and 
     Texas, project consisting of approximately 1,580 acres and 
     leased to the State of Oklahoma for public park and 
     recreation purposes.
       (2) Consideration.--Consideration for the conveyance under 
     paragraph (1) shall be the fair market value of the real 
     property, as determined by the Secretary. All costs 
     associated with the conveyance under paragraph (1) shall be 
     paid by the State of Oklahoma.
       (3) Description.--The exact acreage and legal description 
     of the real property to be conveyed under paragraph (1) shall 
     be determined by a survey satisfactory to the Secretary. The 
     cost of the survey shall be paid by the State of Oklahoma.
       (4) Environmental compliance.--Before making the conveyance 
     under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall--
       (A) conduct an environmental baseline survey to determine 
     if there are levels of contamination for which the United 
     States would be responsible under the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.); and
       (B) ensure that the conveyance complies with the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       (5) Other terms and conditions.--The conveyance under 
     paragraph (1) shall be subject to such other terms and 
     conditions as the Secretary considers necessary and 
     appropriate to protect the interests of the United States, 
     including reservation by the United States of a flowage 
     easement over all portions of the real property to be 
     conveyed that are at or below elevation 645.0 NGVD.
       (e) Summerfield Cemetery Association, Oklahoma, Land 
     Conveyance.--
       (1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transfer to the 
     Summerfield Cemetery Association, Oklahoma, all right, title, 
     and interest of the United State in and to the land described 
     in paragraph (3) for use as a cemetery.
       (2) Reversion.--If the land to be transferred under this 
     subsection ever cease to be used as a not-for-profit cemetery 
     or for other public purposes the land shall revert to the 
     United States.
       (3) Description.--The land to be conveyed under this 
     subsection is the approximately 10 acres of land located in 
     Leflore County, Oklahoma, and described as follows:


                         indian basin meridian

              Section 23, Township 5 North, Range 23 East

       SW SE SW NW
       NW NE NW SW
       N\1/2\ SW SW NW.
       (4) Consideration.--The conveyance under this subsection 
     shall be without consideration. All costs associated with the 
     conveyance shall be paid by the Summerfield Cemetery 
     Association, Oklahoma.
       (5) Other terms and conditions.--The conveyance under this 
     subsection shall be subject to such other terms and 
     conditions as the Secretary considers necessary and 
     appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.
       (f) Dexter, Oregon.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey to the Dexter 
     Sanitary District all right, title, and interest of the 
     United States in and to a parcel of land consisting of 
     approximately 5 acres located at Dexter Lake, Oregon, under 
     lease to the Dexter Sanitary District.
       (2) Consideration.--Land to be conveyed under this section 
     shall be conveyed without consideration. If the land is no 
     longer held in public ownership or no longer used for 
     wastewater treatment purposes, title to the land shall revert 
     to the Secretary.
       (3) Terms and conditions.--The conveyance by the United 
     States shall be subject to such terms and conditions as the 
     Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of 
     the United States.
       (4) Description.--The exact acreage and description of the 
     land to be conveyed under paragraph (1) shall be determined 
     by such surveys as the Secretary considers necessary. The 
     cost of the surveys shall be borne by the Dexter Sanitary 
     District.
       (g) Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake, South Carolina.--
       (1) In general.--Upon execution of an agreement under 
     paragraph (4) and subject to the requirements of this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall convey, without 
     consideration, to the State of South Carolina all right, 
     title, and interest of the United States to the lands 
     described in paragraph (2) that are managed, as of the date 
     of enactment of this Act, by the South Carolina Department of 
     Natural Resources for fish and wildlife mitigation purposes 
     in connection with the Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake, South 
     Carolina, project.
       (2) Description.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the lands to 
     be conveyed under paragraph (1) are described in Exhibits A, 
     F, and H of Army Lease Number DACW21-1-93-0910 and associated 
     Supplemental Agreements or are designated in red in Exhibit A 
     of Army License Number DACW21-3-85-1904; except that all 
     designated lands in the license that are below elevation 346 
     feet mean sea level or that are less than 300 feet measured 
     horizontally from the top of the power pool are excluded from 
     the conveyance. Management of the excluded lands shall 
     continue in accordance with the terms of Army License Number 
     DACW21-3-85-1904 until the Secretary and the State enter into 
     an agreement under paragraph (4).
       (B) Survey.--The exact acreage and legal description of the 
     lands to be conveyed under paragraph (1) shall be determined 
     by a survey satisfactory to the Secretary, with the cost of 
     the survey to be paid by the State. The State shall be 
     responsible for all other costs, including real estate 
     transaction and environmental compliance costs, associated 
     with the conveyance.
       (3) Terms and conditions.--
       (A) Management of lands.--All lands that are conveyed under 
     paragraph (1) shall be retained in public ownership and shall 
     be managed in perpetuity for fish and wildlife mitigation 
     purposes in accordance with a plan approved by the Secretary. 
     If the lands are not managed for such purposes in accordance 
     with the plan, title to the lands shall revert to the United 
     States. If the lands revert to the United States under this 
     subparagraph, the Secretary shall manage the lands for such 
     purposes.
       (B) Terms and conditions.--The Secretary may require such 
     additional terms and conditions in connection with the 
     conveyance as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect 
     the interests of the United States.
       (4) Payments.--

[[Page H2509]]

       (A) Agreements.--The Secretary is authorized to pay to the 
     State of South Carolina not more than $4,850,000 if the 
     Secretary and the State enter into a binding agreement for 
     the State to manage for fish and wildlife mitigation 
     purposes, in perpetuity, the lands conveyed under this 
     subsection and the lands not covered by the conveyance that 
     are designated in red in Exhibit A of Army License Number 
     DACW21-3-85-1904.
       (B) Terms and conditions.--The agreement shall specify the 
     terms and conditions under which the payment will be made and 
     the rights of, and remedies available to, the Federal 
     Government to recover all or a portion of the payment in the 
     event the State fails to manage the lands in a manner 
     satisfactory to the Secretary.
       (h) Charleston, South Carolina.--The Secretary is 
     authorized to convey the property of the Corps of Engineers 
     known as the ``Equipment and Storage Yard'', located on 
     Meeting Street in Charleston, South Carolina, in as-is 
     condition for fair-market value with all proceeds from the 
     conveyance to be applied by the Corps of Engineers, 
     Charleston District, to offset a portion of the costs of 
     moving or leasing (or both) an office facility in the city of 
     Charleston.
       (i) Clarkston, Washington.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey to the Port of 
     Clarkston, Washington, all right, title, and interest of the 
     United States in and to a portion of the land described in 
     Army Lease Number DACW68-1-97-22, consisting of approximately 
     31 acres, the exact boundaries of which shall be determined 
     by the Secretary and the Port of Clarkston.
       (2) Additional land.--The Secretary may convey to the Port 
     of Clarkston, Washington, at fair market value as determined 
     by the Secretary, such additional land located in the 
     vicinity of Clarkston, Washington, as the Secretary 
     determines to be excess to the needs of the Columbia River 
     Project and appropriate for conveyance.
       (3) Terms and conditions.--The conveyances made under 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be subject to such terms and 
     conditions as the Secretary determines to be necessary to 
     protect the interests of the United States, including a 
     requirement that the Port of Clarkston pay all administrative 
     costs associated with the conveyances (including the cost of 
     land surveys and appraisals and costs associated with 
     compliance with applicable environmental laws, including 
     regulations).
       (4) Use of land.--The Port of Clarkston shall be required 
     to pay the fair market value, as determined by the Secretary, 
     of any land conveyed pursuant to paragraph (1) that is not 
     retained in public ownership or is used for other than public 
     park or recreation purposes, except that the Secretary shall 
     have a right of reverter to reclaim possession and title to 
     any such land.
       (j) Land Conveyance to Matewan, West Virginia.--
       (1) In general.--The United States shall convey by quit 
     claim deed to the Town of Matewan, West Virginia, all right, 
     title, and interest of the United States in and to four 
     parcels of land deemed excess by the Secretary of the Army, 
     acting through the Chief of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 
     to the structural project for flood control constructed by 
     the Corps of Engineers along the Tug Fork River pursuant to 
     section 202 of Public Law 96-367.
       (2) Property description.--The parcels of land referred to 
     in paragraph (1) are as follows:
       (A) A certain parcel of land in the State of West Virginia, 
     Mingo County, Town of Matewan, and being more particularly 
     bounded and described as follows:
       Beginning at a point on the southerly right-of-way line of 
     a 40-foot-wide street right-of-way (known as McCoy Alley), 
     having an approximate coordinate value of N228,695, 
     E1,662,397, in the line common to the land designated as 
     U.S.A. Tract No. 834, and the land designated as U.S.A. Tract 
     No. 837, said point being South 51 deg.52' East 81.8 feet 
     from an iron pin and cap marked M-12 on the boundary of the 
     Matewan Area Structural Project, on the north right-of-way 
     line of said street, at a corner common to designated U.S.A. 
     Tracts Nos. 834 and 836; thence, leaving the right-of-way of 
     said street, with the line common to the land of said Tract 
     No. 834, and the land of said Tract No. 837.
       South 14 deg.37' West 46 feet to the corner common to the 
     land of said Tract No. 834, and the land of said Tract No. 
     837; thence, leaving the land of said Tract No. 837, severing 
     the lands of said Project.
       South 14 deg.37' West 46 feet.
       South 68 deg.07' East 239 feet.
       North 26 deg.05' East 95 feet to a point on the southerly 
     right-of-way line of said street; thence, with the right-of-
     way of said street, continuing to sever the lands of said 
     Project.
       South 63 deg.55' East 206 feet; thence, leaving the right-
     of-way of said street, continuing to sever the lands of said 
     Project.
       South 26 deg.16' West 63 feet; thence, with a curve to the 
     left having a radius of 70 feet, a delta of 33 deg.58', an 
     arc length of 41 feet, the chord bearing.
       South 09 deg.17' West 41 feet; thence, leaving said curve, 
     continuing to sever the lands of said Project.
       South 07 deg.42' East 31 feet to a point on the right-of-
     way line of the floodwall; thence, with the right-of-way of 
     said floodwall, continuing to sever the lands of said 
     Project.
       South 77 deg.04' West 71 feet.
       North 77 deg.10' West 46 feet.
       North 67 deg.07' West 254 feet.
       North 67 deg.54' West 507 feet.
       North 57 deg.49' West 66 feet to the intersection of the 
     right-of-way line of said floodwall with the southerly right-
     of-way line of said street; thence, leaving the right-of-way 
     of said floodwall and with the southerly right-of-way of said 
     street, continuing to sever the lands of said Project.
       North 83 deg.01' East 171 feet.
       North 89 deg.42' East 74 feet.
       South 83 deg.39' East 168 feet.
       South 83 deg.38' East 41 feet.
       South 77 deg.26' East 28 feet to the point of beginning, 
     containing 2.59 acres, more or less. The bearings and 
     coordinate used herein are referenced to the West Virginia 
     State Plane Coordinate System, South Zone.
       (B) A certain parcel of land in the State of West Virginia, 
     Mingo County, Town of Matewan, and being more particularly 
     bounded and described as follows:
       Beginning at an iron pin and cap designated Corner No. M2-2 
     on the southerly right-of-way line of the Norfolk and Western 
     Railroad, having an approximate coordinate value of N228,755 
     E1,661,242, and being at the intersection of the right-of-way 
     line of the floodwall with the boundary of the Matewan Area 
     Structural Project; thence, leaving the right-of-way of said 
     floodwall and with said Project boundary, and the southerly 
     right-of-way of said Railroad.
       North 59 deg.45' East 34 feet.
       North 69 deg.50' East 44 feet.
       North 58 deg.11' East 79 feet.
       North 66 deg.13' East 102 feet.
       North 69 deg.43' East 98 feet.
       North 77 deg.39' East 18 feet.
       North 72 deg.39' East 13 feet to a point at the 
     intersection of said Project boundary, and the southerly 
     right-of-way of said Railroad, with the westerly right-of-way 
     line of State Route 49/10; thence, leaving said Project 
     boundary, and the southerly right-of-way of said Railroad, 
     and with the westerly right-of-way of said road.
       South 03 deg.21' East 100 feet to a point at the 
     intersection of the westerly right-of-way of said road with 
     the right-of-way of said floodwall; thence, leaving the 
     right-of-way of said road, and with the right-of-way line of 
     said floodwall.
       South 79 deg.30' West 69 feet.
       South 78 deg.28' West 222 feet.
       South 80 deg.11' West 65 feet.
       North 38 deg.40' West 14 feet to the point of beginning, 
     containing 0.53 acre, more or less. The bearings and 
     coordinate used herein are referenced to the West Virginia 
     State Plane Coordinate System, South Zone.
       (C) A certain parcel of land in the State of West Virginia, 
     Mingo County, Town of Matewan, and being more particularly 
     bounded and described as follows:
       Beginning at a point on the southerly right-of-way line of 
     the Norfolk and Western Railroad, having an approximate 
     coordinate value of N228,936 E1,661,672, and being at the 
     intersection of the easterly right-of-way line of State Route 
     49/10 with the boundary of the Matewan Area Structural 
     Project; thence, leaving the right-of-way of said road, and 
     with said Project boundary, and the southerly right-of-way of 
     said Railroad.
       North 77 deg.49' East 89 feet to an iron pin and cap 
     designated as U.S.A. Corner No. M-4.
       North 79 deg.30' East 74 feet to an iron pin and cap 
     designated as U.S.A. Corner No. M-5-1; thence, leaving the 
     southerly right-of-way of said Railroad, and continuing with 
     the boundary of said Project.
       South 06 deg.33' East 102 to an iron pipe and cap 
     designated U.S.A. Corner No. M-6-1 on the northerly right-of-
     way line of State Route 49/28; thence, leaving the boundary 
     of said Project, and with the right-of-way of said road, 
     severing the lands of said Project.
       North 80 deg.59' West 171 feet to a point at the 
     intersection of the Northerly right-of-way line of said State 
     Route 49/28 with the easterly right-of-way line of said State 
     Route 49/10; thence, leaving the right-of-way of said State 
     Route 49/28 and with the right-of-way of said State Route 49/
     10.
       North 03 deg.21' West 42 feet to the point of beginning, 
     containing 0.27 acre, more or less. The bearings and 
     coordinate used herein are referenced to the West Virginia 
     State Plane Coordinate System, South Zone.
       (D) A certain parcel of land in the State of West Virginia, 
     Mingo County, Town of Matewan, and being more particularly 
     bounded and described as follows:
       Beginning at a point at the intersection of the easterly 
     right-of-way line of State Route 49/10 with the right-of-way 
     line of the floodwall, having an approximate coordinate value 
     of N228,826 E1,661,679; thence, leaving the right-of-way of 
     said floodwall, and with the right-of-way of said State Route 
     49/10.
       North 03 deg.21' West 23 feet to a point at the 
     intersection of the easterly right-of-way line of said State 
     Route 49/10 with the southerly right-of-way line of State 
     Route 49/28; thence, leaving the right-of-way of said State 
     Route 49/10 and with the right-of-way of said State Route 49/
     28.
       South 80 deg.59' East 168 feet.
       North 82 deg.28' East 45 feet to an iron pin and cap 
     designated as U.S.A. Corner No. M-8-1 on the boundary of the 
     Western Area Structural Project; thence, leaving the right-
     of-way of said State Route 49/28, and with said Project 
     boundary.
       South 08 deg.28' East 88 feet to an iron pin and cap 
     designated as U.S.A. Corner No. M-9-1 point on the northerly 
     right-of-way line of a street (known as McCoy Alley); thence, 
     leaving said Project boundary and with the northerly right-
     of-way of said street.
       South 83 deg.01' West 38 feet to a point on the right-of-
     way line of said floodwall; thence, leaving the right-of-way 
     of said street, and with the right-of-way of said floodwall.
       North 57 deg.49' West 180 feet.
       South 79 deg.30' West 34 feet to a point of beginning, 
     containing 0.24 acre, more or less. The bearings and 
     coordinate used herein are referenced to the West Virginia 
     State Plane Coordinate System, South Zone.

     SEC. 578. NAMINGS.

       (a) Francis Bland Floodway Ditch, Arkansas.--

[[Page H2510]]

       (1) Designation.--8-Mile Creek in Paragould, Arkansas, 
     shall be known and designated as the ``Francis Bland Floodway 
     Ditch''.
       (2) Legal reference.--Any reference in a law, map, 
     regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 
     States to the creek referred to in paragraph (1) shall be 
     deemed to be a reference to the ``Francis Bland Floodway 
     Ditch''.
       (b) Lawrence Blackwell Memorial Bridge, Arkansas.--
       (1) Designation.--The bridge over lock and dam numbered 4 
     on the Arkansas River, Arkansas, constructed as part of the 
     project for navigation on the Arkansas River and tributaries, 
     shall be known and designated as the ``Lawrence Blackwell 
     Memorial Bridge''.
       (2) Legal reference.--Any reference in a law, map, 
     regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 
     States to the bridge referred to in paragraph (1) shall be 
     deemed to be a reference to the ``Lawrence Blackwell Memorial 
     Bridge''.

     SEC. 579. FOLSOM DAM AND RESERVOIR ADDITIONAL STORAGE AND 
                   ADDITIONAL FLOOD CONTROL STUDIES.

       (a) Folsom Flood Control Studies.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     State of California and local water resources agencies, shall 
     undertake a study of increasing surcharge flood control 
     storage at the Folsom Dam and Reservoir.
       (2) Limitations.--The study of the Folsom Dam and Reservoir 
     undertaken under paragraph (1) shall assume that there is to 
     be no increase in conservation storage at the Folsom 
     Reservoir.
       (3) Report.--Not later than March 1, 2000, the Secretary 
     shall transmit to Congress a report on the results of the 
     study under this subsection.
       (b) American and Sacramento Rivers Flood Control Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall undertake a study of 
     all levees on the American River and on the Sacramento River 
     downstream and immediately upstream of the confluence of such 
     Rivers to access opportunities to increase potential flood 
     protection through levee modifications.
       (2) Deadline for completion.--Not later than March 1, 2000, 
     the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the 
     results of the study undertaken under this subsection.

     SEC. 580. WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA.

       (a) Emergency Action.--The Secretary shall take emergency 
     action to protect Wallops Island, Virginia, from damaging 
     coastal storms, by improving and extending the existing 
     seawall, replenishing and renourishing the beach, and 
     constructing protective dunes.
       (b) Reimbursement.--The Secretary shall seek reimbursement 
     from other Federal agencies whose resources are protected by 
     the emergency action taken under subsection (a).
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $8,000,000.

     SEC. 581. DETROIT RIVER, DETROIT, MICHIGAN.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to repair and 
     rehabilitate the seawalls on the Detroit River in Detroit, 
     Michigan.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 
     30, 1999, $1,000,000 to carry out this section.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment shall be in order except those printed in 
part 2 of that report. Each amendment may be offered only in the order 
specified, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, 
shall be considered read, debatable for the time specified in the 
report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
to a demand for division of the question.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in part 2 of 
House Report 106-120.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Shuster

  Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 printed in part 2 of House Report 106-120 
     offered by Mr. Shuster:
       In section 101(a)(6) of the bill, strike ``at a total cost 
     of'' and all that follows and insert the following:

     at a total cost of $140,328,000, with an estimated Federal 
     cost of $70,164,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $70,164,000.
       In section 101(a)(8) of the bill, strike all after 
     ``$3,375,000'' and insert a period.
       In section 101(a)(9) of the bill, strike all after 
     ``$2,675,000'' and insert a period.
       In section 101(a)(10) of the bill, strike all after 
     ``$773,000'' and insert a period.
       In section 101(a)(18) of the bill, strike all after 
     ``$3,834,000'' and insert a period.
       In section 101(a)(19) of the bill, strike all after 
     ``$19,776,000'' and insert a period.
       In section 101(a) of the bill, after paragraph (4) insert 
     the following:
       (5) Oakland harbor, california.--The project for 
     navigation, Oakland Harbor, California: Report of the Chief 
     of Engineers dated April 21, 1999, at a total cost of 
     $252,290,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $128,081,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $124,209,000.
       In section 101(a) of the bill, after paragraph (10) insert 
     the following:
       (11) Delaware bay coastline, delaware and new jersey-villas 
     and vicinity, new jersey.--The project for shore protection 
     and ecosystem restoration, Delaware Bay coastline, Delaware 
     and New Jersey-Villas and vicinity, New Jersey: Report of the 
     Chief of Engineers dated April 21, 1999, at a total cost of 
     $7,520,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $4,888,000 and 
     an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,632,000.
       (12) Delaware coast from cape henelopen to fenwick island, 
     bethany beach/south bethany beach, delaware.--The project for 
     hurricane and storm damage reduction, Delaware Coast from 
     Cape Henelopen to Fenwick Island, Bethany Beach/South Bethany 
     Beach, Delaware: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated April 
     21, 1999, at a total cost of $22,205,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $14,433,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $7,772,000.
       In section 101(a) of the bill, insert after paragraph (17) 
     the following (and redesignate paragraphs accordingly):
       (18) Turkey creek basin, kansas city, missouri, and kansas 
     city, kansas.--The project for flood damage reduction, Turkey 
     Creek Basin, Kansas City, Missouri, and Kansas City, Kansas: 
     Report of the Chief of Engineers dated April 21, 1999, at a 
     total cost of $42,875,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $25,596,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $17,279,000.
       In section 101(b)(7) of the bill, strike all after 
     ``$7,772,000'' and insert a period.
       In section 101(b)(12) of the bill, strike all after 
     ``$1,740,000'' and insert a period.
       In section 101(b) of the bill, strike paragraph (4) and 
     insert the following:
       (4) Delaware bay coastline, delaware and new jersey: 
     oakwood beach, new jersey.--The project for shore protection, 
     Delaware Bay Coastline, Delaware and New Jersey: Oakwood 
     Beach, New Jersey, at a total cost of $3,360,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $2,184,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $1,176,000.
       In section 101(b) of the bill, strike paragraphs (6) and 
     (7) and redesignate accordingly.
       At the end of section 104 of the bill, insert the 
     following:
       (18) Fairport harbor, ohio.--Project for navigation, 
     Fairport Harbor, Ohio, including a recreation channel.
       At the end of title II of the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. 229. WETLANDS MITIGATION.

       In carrying out a water resources project that involves 
     wetlands mitigation and that has an impact that occurs within 
     the service area of a mitigation bank, the Secretary, to the 
     maximum extent practicable and where appropriate, shall give 
     preference to the use of the mitigation bank if the bank 
     contains sufficient available credits to offset the impact 
     and the bank is approved in accordance with the Federal 
     Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of 
     Mitigation Banks (60 Fed. Reg. 58605 (November 28, 1995)) or 
     other applicable Federal law (including regulations).
       Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.
       In section 304 of the bill, insert ``River'' after ``St. 
     Francis''.
       In section 310 of the bill--
       (1) insert ``, Potomac River, Washington, District of 
     Columbia,'' after ``for flood control'';
       (2) strike ``as'' and insert ``and''; and
       (3) strike ``$5,965,000'' and insert ``$6,129,000''.
       In section 326 of the bill, strike ``cannal'' and insert 
     ``Canal''.
       In section 351 of the bill--
       (1) insert ``(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--'' 
     before ``Section''; and
       (2) add at the end the following:
       (b) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Section 313(g) of such 
     Act (106 Stat. 4846) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(4) Corps of engineers expenses.--10 percent of the 
     amounts appropriated to carry out this section for each of 
     fiscal years 2000 through 2002 may be used by the Corps of 
     Engineers district offices to administer and implement 
     projects under this section at 100 percent Federal 
     expense.''.
       Strike section 354 of the bill and insert the following:

     SEC. 354. CLEAR CREEK, TEXAS.

       Section 575 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (110 Stat. 3789) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by inserting ``or nonstructural (buyout) actions'' 
     after ``flood control works constructed''; and
       (B) by inserting ``or nonstructural (buyout) actions'' 
     after ``construction of the project''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) the project for flood control, Clear Creek, Texas, 
     authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 
     (82 Stat. 742).''.
       In section 356 of the bill, strike ``modified--'' and all 
     that follows and insert the following:


[[Page H2511]]


     modified to add environmental restoration and recreation as 
     project purposes.
       In section 363(d) of the bill, strike ``(1) In general.--
     ''.
       In section 363(d) of the bill, strike paragraph (2).
       In section 364(a) of the bill, after paragraph (5) insert 
     the following (and redesignate paragraph (6) as paragraph 
     (7)):
       (6) Carvers harbor, vinalhaven, maine.--That portion of the 
     project for navigation, Carvers Harbor, Vinalhaven, Maine, 
     authorized by the Act of June 3, 1896 (commonly known as the 
     ``River and Harbor Appropriations Act of 1896'') (29 Stat. 
     202, chapter 314), consisting of the 16-foot anchorage 
     beginning at a point with coordinates N137,502.04, 
     E895,156.83, thence running south 6 degrees 34 minutes 57.6 
     seconds west 277.660 feet to a point N137,226.21, 
     E895,125.00, thence running north 53 degrees, 5 minutes 42.4 
     seconds west 127.746 feet to a point N137,302.92, E895022.85, 
     thence running north 33 degrees 56 minutes 9.8 seconds east 
     239.999 feet to the point of origin.
       In section 364(a) of the bill, after paragraph (7), (as so 
     redesignated) insert the following (redesignate subsequent 
     paragraphs accordingly):
       (8) Searsport harbor, searsport, maine.--That portion of 
     the project for navigation, Searsport Harbor, Searsport, 
     Maine, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act 
     of 1962 (76 Stat. 1173), consisting of the 35-foot turning 
     basin beginning at a point with coordinates N225,008.38, 
     E395,464.26, thence running north 43 degrees 49 minutes 53.4 
     seconds east 362.001 feet to a point N225,269.52, 
     E395,714.96, thence running south 71 degrees 27 minutes 33.0 
     seconds east 1,309.201 feet to a point N224,853.22, 
     E396,956.21, thence running north 84 degrees 3 minutes 45.7 
     seconds west 1,499.997 feet to the point of origin.
       In section 364(c) of the bill--
       (1) strike ``(a)(7)'' each place it appears and insert 
     ``(a)(9)'';
       (2) strike ``project for navigation,'' each place it 
     appears; and
       (3) add at the end the following:
       (5) Additional actions.--In carrying out the operation and 
     the maintenance of the Wells Harbor, Maine, navigation 
     project referred to in subsection (a)(9), the Secretary shall 
     undertake each of the actions of the Corps of Engineers 
     specified in section IV(B) of the memorandum of agreement 
     relating to the project dated January 20, 1998, including 
     those actions specified in such section IV(B) that the 
     parties agreed to ask the Corps of Engineers to undertake.
       In section 364(d) of the bill, strike ``(a)(9)'' and insert 
     ``(a)(11)''.
       At the end of title III of the bill, add the following (and 
     conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly):

     SEC. 367. SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA PILOT PROGRAM.

       Section 340(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1992 (106 Stat. 4856) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out the pilot program under this 
     section $40,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after 
     September 30, 1992. Such sums shall remain available until 
     expended.''.

     SEC. 368. BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, JACKSON, 
                   ALABAMA.

       The project for navigation, Black Warrior and Tombigbee 
     Rivers, vicinity of Jackson, Alabama, as authorized by 
     section 106 of the Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, 1987 (100 Stat. 3341-199), is modified to 
     authorize the Secretary to acquire lands for mitigation of 
     the habitat losses attributable to the project, including the 
     navigation channel, dredged material disposal areas, and 
     other areas directly impacted by construction of the project. 
     Notwithstanding section 906 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283), the Secretary may 
     construct the project prior to acquisition of the mitigation 
     lands if the Secretary takes such actions as may be necessary 
     to ensure that any required mitigation lands will be acquired 
     not later than 2 years after initiation of construction of 
     the new channel and such acquisition will fully mitigate any 
     adverse environmental impacts resulting from the project.

     SEC. 369. TROPICANA WASH AND FLAMINGO WASH, NEVADA.

       Any Federal costs associated with the Tropicana and 
     Flamingo Washes, Nevada, authorized by section 101(13) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4803), 
     incurred by the non-Federal interest to accelerate or modify 
     construction of the project, in cooperation with the Corps of 
     Engineers, shall be considered to be eligible for 
     reimbursement by the Secretary.

     SEC. 370. COMITE RIVER, LOUISIANA.

       The Comite River Diversion Project for flood control, 
     authorized as part of the project for flood control, Amite 
     River and Tributaries, Louisiana, by section 101(11) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4802-4803) 
     and modified by section 301(b)(5) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3709-3710), is further 
     modified to authorize the Secretary to include the costs of 
     highway relocations to be cost shared as a project 
     construction feature if the Secretary determines that such 
     treatment of costs is necessary to facilitate construction of 
     the project.

     SEC. 371. ST. MARY'S RIVER, MICHIGAN.

       The project for navigation, St. Mary's River, Michigan, is 
     modified to direct the Secretary to provide an additional 
     foot of overdraft between Point Louise Turn and the Locks and 
     Sault Saint Marie, Michigan, consistent with the channels 
     upstream of Point Louise Turn. The modification shall be 
     carried out as operation and maintenance to improve 
     navigation safety.
       At the end of section 408 of the bill, add the following:
       (c) Consultation and Use of Existing Data.--The Secretary 
     shall consult with appropriate State and Federal agencies and 
     shall make maximum use of existing data and ongoing programs 
     and efforts of States and Federal agencies in conducting the 
     study.
       In section 425(a) of the bill, strike ``Such study'' and 
     all that follows.
       In section 425(c) of the bill, strike ``$1,400,000'' and 
     insert ``$1,000,000''.
       At the end of title IV of the bill, insert the following 
     (and conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly):

     SEC. 428. DEL NORTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall undertake and complete a feasibility 
     study for designating a permanent disposal site for dredged 
     materials from Federal navigation projects in Del Norte 
     County, California.

     SEC. 429. ST. CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST. CLAIR, MICHIGAN.

       (a) Plan.--The Secretary, in coordination with State and 
     local governments and appropriate Federal and provincial 
     authorities of Canada, shall develop a comprehensive 
     management plan for St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair. Such 
     plan shall include the following elements:
       (1) The causes and sources of environmental degradation.
       (2) Continuous monitoring of organic, biological, metallic, 
     and chemical contamination levels.
       (3) Timely dissemination of information of such 
     contamination levels to public authorities, other interested 
     parties, and the public.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to 
     Congress a report that includes the plan developed under 
     subsection (a), together with recommendations of potential 
     restoration measures.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $400,000.

     SEC. 430. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, TENNESSEE.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of improvements to regional water supplies for 
     Cumberland County, Tennessee.
       In the matter proposed to be inserted in section 219(e) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 by section 502 of 
     the bill, strike ``and'' at the end of paragraph (7) and all 
     that follows through paragraph (8) and insert the following:
       ``(8) $30,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(17);
       ``(9) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(19);
       ``(10) $15,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(20);
       ``(11) $11,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(21);
       ``(12) $2,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(22);
       ``(13) $3,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(23);
       ``(14) $1,500,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(24);
       ``(15) $2,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(25);
       ``(16) $8,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(26);
       ``(17) $8,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(27), of which $3,000,000 shall be available only for 
     providing assistance for the Montoursville Regional Sewer 
     Authority, Lycoming County;
       ``(18) $10,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(28); and
       ``(19) $1,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(29).''.
       At the end of section 517 of the bill, insert the 
     following:
       (c) Nashua, New Hampshire.--Section 219(c) of such Act is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(19) Nashua, new hampshire.--A sewer and drainage system 
     separation and rehabiliation program for Nashua, New 
     Hampshire.''.
       (d) Fall River and New Bedford, Massachusetts.--Section 
     219(c) of such Act is further amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(20) Fall river and new bedford, massachusetts.--
     Elimination or control of combined sewer overflows in the 
     cities of Fall River and New Bedford, Massachusetts.''.
       (e) Additional Project Descriptions.--Section 219(c) of 
     such Act is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(21) Findlay township, pennsylvania.--Water and sewer 
     lines in Findlay Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
       ``(22) Dillsburg borough authority, pennsylvania.--Water 
     and sewer systems in Franklin Township, York County, 
     Pennsylvania.
       ``(23) Hampton township, pennsylvania.--Water, sewer, and 
     stormsewer improvements in Hampton Township, Cumberland 
     County, Pennsylvania.
       ``(24) Towamencin township, pennsylvania.--Sanitary sewer 
     and water lines in Towamencin Township, Montgomery County, 
     Pennsylvania.
       ``(25) Dauphin county, pennsylvania.--Combined sewer and 
     water system rehabilitation for the City of Harrisburg, 
     Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.

[[Page H2512]]

       ``(26) Lee, norton, wise, and scott counties, virginia.--
     Water supply and wastewater treatment in Lee, Norton, Wise, 
     and Scott Counties, Virginia.
       ``(27) Northeast pennsylvania.--Water-related 
     infrastructure in Lackawanna, Lycoming, Susquehanna, Wyoming, 
     Pike, and Monroe Counties, Pennsylvania, including assistance 
     for the Montoursville Regional Sewer Authority, Lycoming 
     County.
       ``(28) Calumet region, indiana.--Water-related 
     infrastructure in Lake and Porter Counties, Indiana.
       ``(29) Clinton county, pennsylvania.--Water-related 
     infrastructure in Clinton County, Pennsylvania.''.
       At the end of section 518 of the bill, insert the 
     following:
       (4) Columbia Slough, Portland, Oregon, project for 
     ecosystem restoration.
       (5) Ohio River Greenway, Indiana, project for environmental 
     restoration and recreation.
       In section 523(b) of the bill, strike ``the Secretary 
     shall'' and insert ``the Secretary may''.
       After section 573 of the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. 574. WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LOUISIANA.

       The Secretary shall expedite completion of the report for 
     the West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, project for 
     waterfront and riverine preservation, restoration, and 
     enhancement modifications along the Mississippi River.
       Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.
       At the end of section 578 of the bill, add the following:
       (k) Merrisach Lake, Arkansas County, Arkansas.--
       (1) Land conveyance.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, the Secretary shall convey to eligible private 
     property owners at fair market value, as determined by the 
     Secretary, all right, title, and interest of the United 
     States in and to certain lands acquired for Navigation Pool 
     No. 2, McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, 
     Merrisach Lake Project, Arkansas County, Arkansas.
       (2) Property description.--The lands to be conveyed under 
     paragraph (1) include those lands lying between elevation 
     163, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929, and the 
     Federal Government boundary line for Tract Numbers 102, 129, 
     132-1, 132-2, 132-3, 134, 135, 136-1, 136-2, 138, 139, 140, 
     141, 142, 143, 144, and 145, located in sections 18, 19, 29, 
     30, 31, and 32, Township 7 South, Range 2 West, and the SE\1/
     4\ of Section 36, Township 7 South, Range 3 West, Fifth 
     Principal Meridian, with the exception of any land designated 
     for public park purposes.
       (3) Terms and conditions.--Any lands conveyed under 
     paragraph (1) shall be subject to--
       (A) a perpetual flowage easement prohibiting human 
     habitation and restricting construction activities;
       (B) the reservation of timber rights by the United States; 
     and
       (C) such additional terms and conditions as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.
       (4) Eligible property owner defined.--In this subsection, 
     the term ``eligible private property owner'' means the owner 
     of record of land contiguous to lands owned by the United 
     States in connection with the project referred to in 
     paragraph (1).
       In section 583(b) of the bill, strike ``The Secretary 
     shall'' and insert ``The Secretary may''.
       At the end of title V of the bill, add the following (and 
     conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly):

     SEC. 585. NORTHEASTERN MINNESOTA.

       (a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary may establish 
     a pilot program for providing environmental assistance to 
     non-Federal interests in northeastern Minnesota.
       (b) Form of Assistance.--Assistance under this section may 
     be in the form of design and construction assistance for 
     water-related environmental infrastructure and resource 
     protection and development projects in northeastern 
     Minnesota, including projects for wastewater treatment and 
     related facilities, water supply and related facilities, 
     environmental restoration, and surface water resource 
     protection and development.
       (c) Public Ownership Requirement.--The Secretary may 
     provide assistance for a project under this section only if 
     the project is publicly owned.
       (d) Local Cooperation Agreement.--
       (1) In general.--Before providing assistance under this 
     section, the Secretary shall enter into a local cooperation 
     agreement with a non-Federal interest to provide for design 
     and construction of the project to be carried out with the 
     assistance.
       (2) Requirements.--Each local cooperation agreement entered 
     into under this subsection shall provide for the following:
       (A) Plan.--Development by the Secretary, in consultation 
     with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities 
     or resource protection and development plan, including 
     appropriate engineering plans and specifications.
       (B) Legal and institutional structures.--Establishment of 
     such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to 
     ensure the effective long-term operation of the project by 
     the non-Federal interest.
       (3) Cost sharing.--
       (A) In general.--The Federal share of project costs under 
     each local cooperation agreement entered into under this 
     subsection shall be 75 percent. The Federal share may be in 
     the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs.
       (B) Credit for design work.--The non-Federal interest shall 
     receive credit for the reasonable costs of design work 
     completed by the non-Federal interest prior to entering into 
     a local cooperation agreement with the Secretary for a 
     project. The credit for the design work shall not exceed 6 
     percent of the total construction costs of the project.
       (C) Credit for interest.--In the event of a delay in the 
     funding of the non-Federal share of a project that is the 
     subject of an agreement under this section, the non-Federal 
     interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest 
     incurred in providing the non-Federal share of a project's 
     cost.
       (D) Land, easements, and rights-of-way credit.--The non-
     Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements, 
     rights-of-way, and relocations toward its share of 
     project costs (including all reasonable costs associated 
     with obtaining permits necessary for the construction, 
     operation, and maintenance of the project on publicly 
     owned or controlled land), but not to exceed 25 percent of 
     total project costs.
       (E) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal share of 
     operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with 
     assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent.
       (e) Applicability of Other Federal and State Laws.--Nothing 
     in this section shall be construed as waiving, limiting, or 
     otherwise affecting the applicability of any provision of 
     Federal or State law that would otherwise apply to a project 
     to be carried out with assistance provided under this 
     section.
       (f) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2001, the 
     Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the results 
     of the pilot program carried out under this section, together 
     with recommendations concerning whether or not such program 
     should be implemented on a national basis.
       (g) Northeastern Minnesota Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``northeastern Minnesota'' means the counties of Cook, 
     Lake, St. Louis, Koochiching, Itasca, Cass, Crow Wing, 
     Aitkin, Carlton, Pine, Kanabec, Mille Lacs, Morrison, Benton, 
     Sherburne, Isanti, and Chisago, Minnesota.
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000 for 
     fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1999. Such sums 
     shall remain available until expended.

     SEC. 586. ALASKA.

       (a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary may establish 
     a pilot program for providing environmental assistance to 
     non-Federal interests in Alaska.
       (b) Form of Assistance.--Assistance under this section may 
     be in the form of design and construction assistance for 
     water-related environmental infrastructure and resource 
     protection and development projects in Alaska, including 
     projects for wastewater treatment and related facilities, 
     water supply and related facilities, and surface water 
     resource protection and development.
       (c) Ownership Requirements.--The Secretary may provide 
     assistance for a project under this section only if the 
     project is publicly owned or is owned by a native corporation 
     as defined by section 1602 of title 43, United States Code.
       (d) Local Cooperation Agreements.--
       (1) In general.--Before providing assistance under this 
     section, the Secretary shall enter into a local cooperation 
     agreement with a non-Federal interest to provide for design 
     and construction of the project to be carried out with the 
     assistance.
       (2) Requirements.--Each local cooperation agreement entered 
     into under this subsection shall provide for the following:
       (A) Plan.--Development by the Secretary, in consultation 
     with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities 
     or resource protection and development plan, including 
     appropriate engineering plans and specifications.
       (B) Legal and institutional structures.--Establishment of 
     such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to 
     ensure the effective long-term operation of the project by 
     the non-Federal interest.
       (3) Cost sharing.--
       (A) In general.--The Federal share of the project costs 
     under each local cooperation agreement entered into under 
     this subsection shall be 75 percent. The Federal share may be 
     in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs.
       (B) Credit for design work.--The non-Federal interest shall 
     receive credit for the reasonable costs of design work 
     completed by the non-Federal interest prior to entering into 
     a local cooperation agreement with the Secretary for a 
     project. The credit for the design work shall not exceed 6 
     percent of the total construction costs of the project.
       (C) Credit for interest.--In the event of a delay in the 
     funding of the non-Federal share of a project that is the 
     subject of an agreement under this section, the non-Federal 
     interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest 
     incurred in providing the non-Federal share of a project's 
     cost.
       (D) Land, easements, and rights-of-way credit.--The non-
     Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements, 
     rights-of-way, and relocations toward its share of project 
     costs (including all reasonable costs associated with 
     obtaining permits necessary for the construction, operation, 
     and maintenance of the project on publicly owned or

[[Page H2513]]

     controlled land), but not to exceed 25 percent of total 
     project costs.
       (E) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal share of 
     operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with 
     assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent.
       (e) Applicability of Other Federal and State Laws.--Nothing 
     in this section shall be construed as waiving, limiting, or 
     otherwise affecting the applicability of any provision of 
     Federal or State law that would otherwise apply to a project 
     to be carried out with assistance provided under this 
     section.
       (f) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2001, the 
     Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the results 
     of the pilot program carried out under this section, together 
     with recommendations concerning whether or not such program 
     should be implemented on a national basis.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000 for 
     fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1999. Such sums 
     shall remain available until expended.

     SEC. 587. CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA.

       (a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary may establish 
     a pilot program for providing environmental assistance to 
     non-Federal interests in central West Virginia.
       (b) Form of Assistance.--Assistance under this section may 
     be in the form of design and construction assistance for 
     water-related environmental infrastructure and resource 
     protection and development projects in central West Virginia, 
     including projects for wastewater treatment and related 
     facilities, water supply and related facilities, and surface 
     water resource protection and development.
       (c) Public Ownership Requirement.--The Secretary may 
     provide assistance for a project under this section only if 
     the project is publicly owned.
       (d) Local Cooperation Agreements.--
       (1) In general.--Before providing assistance under this 
     section, the Secretary shall enter into a local cooperation 
     agreement with a non-Federal interest to provide for design 
     and construction of the project to be carried out with the 
     assistance.
       (2) Requirements.--Each local cooperation agreement entered 
     into under this subsection shall provide for the following:
       (A) Plan.--Development by the Secretary, in consultation 
     with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities 
     or resource protection and development plan, including 
     appropriate engineering plans and specifications.
       (B) Legal and institutional structures.--Establishment of 
     such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to 
     ensure the effective long-term operation of the project by 
     the non-Federal interest.
       (3) Cost sharing.--
       (A) In general.--The Federal share of the project costs 
     under each local cooperation agreement entered into under 
     this subsection shall be 75 percent. The Federal share may be 
     in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs.
       (B) Credit for design work.--The non-Federal interest shall 
     receive credit for the reasonable costs of design work 
     completed by the non-Federal interest prior to entering into 
     a local cooperation agreement with the Secretary for a 
     project. The credit for the design work shall not exceed 6 
     percent of the total construction costs of the project.
       (C) Credit for interest.--In the event of a delay in the 
     funding of the non-Federal share of a project that is the 
     subject of an agreement under this section, the non-Federal 
     interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest 
     incurred in providing the non-Federal share of a project's 
     cost.
       (D) Land, easements, and rights-of-way credit.--The non-
     Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements, 
     rights-of-way, and relocations toward its share of project 
     costs (including all reasonable costs associated with 
     obtaining permits necessary for the construction, operation, 
     and maintenance of the project on publicly owned or 
     controlled land), but not to exceed 25 percent of total 
     project costs.
       (E) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal share of 
     operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with 
     assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent.
       (e) Applicability of Other Federal and State Laws.--Nothing 
     in this section shall be construed as waiving, limiting, or 
     otherwise affecting the applicability of any provision of 
     Federal or State law that would otherwise apply to a project 
     to be carried out with assistance provided under this 
     section.
       (f) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2001, the 
     Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the results 
     of the pilot program carried out under this section, together 
     with recommendations concerning whether or not such program 
     should be implemented on a national basis.
       (g) Central West Virginia Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``central West Virginia'' means the counties of Mason, 
     Jackson, Putnam, Kanawha, Roane, Wirt, Calhoun, Clay, 
     Nicholas, Braxton, Gilmer, Lewis, Upshur, Randolph, 
     Pendleton, Hardy, Hampshire, Morgan, Berkeley, and Jefferson, 
     West Virginia.
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for 
     fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1999. Such sums 
     shall remain available until expended.

     SEC. 588. SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN AREA WATERSHED RESTORATION, 
                   CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to undertake 
     environmental restoration activities included in the 
     Sacramento Metropolitan Water Authority's ``Watershed 
     Management Plan''. These activities shall be limited to 
     cleanup of contaminated groundwater resulting directly from 
     the acts of any Federal agency or Department of the Federal 
     government at or in the vicinity of McClellan Air Force Base, 
     California; Mather Air Force Base, California; Sacramento 
     Army Depot, California; or any location within the watershed 
     where the Federal government would be a responsible party 
     under any Federal environmental law.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for 
     fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1999.

     SEC. 589. ONONDAGA LAKE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to plan, 
     design, and construct projects for the environmental 
     restoration, conservation, and management of Onondaga Lake, 
     New York, and to provide, in coordination with the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, 
     financial assistance to the State of New York and political 
     subdivisions thereof for the development and implementation 
     of projects to restore, conserve, and manage Onondaga Lake.
       (b) Partnership.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary shall establish a partnership with appropriate 
     Federal agencies (including the Environmental Protection 
     Agency) and the State of New York and political subdivisions 
     thereof for the purpose of project development and 
     implementation. Such partnership shall be dissolved not later 
     than 15 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of a 
     project constructed under subsection (a) shall be not less 
     than 30 percent of the total cost of the project and may be 
     provided through in-kind services.
       (d) Effect on Liability.--Financial assistance provided 
     under this section shall not relieve from liability any 
     person who would otherwise be liable under Federal or State 
     law for damages, response costs, natural resource damages, 
     restitution, equitable relief, or any other relief.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out the purposes of 
     this section.

     SEC. 590. EAST LYNN LAKE, WEST VIRGINIA.

       The Secretary shall defer any decision relating to the 
     leasing of mineral resources underlying East Lynn Lake, West 
     Virginia, project lands to the Federal entity vested with 
     such leasing authority.

     SEC. 591. EEL RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine if 
     flooding in the city of Ferndale, California, is the result 
     of a Federal flood control project on the Eel River. If the 
     Secretary determines that the flooding is the result of the 
     project, the Secretary shall take appropriate measures 
     (including dredging of the Salt River and construction of 
     sediment ponds at the confluence of Francis, Reas, and 
     Williams Creeks) to mitigate the flooding.

     SEC. 592. NORTH LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall review a report 
     prepared by the non-Federal interest concerning flood 
     protection for the Dark Hollow area of North Little Rock, 
     Arkansas. If the Secretary determines that the report meets 
     the evaluation and design standards of the Corps of Engineers 
     and that the project is economically justified, technically 
     sound, and environmentally acceptable, the Secretary shall 
     carry out the project.
       (b) Treatment of Design and Plan Preparation Costs.--The 
     costs of design and preparation of plans and specifications 
     shall be included as project costs and paid during 
     construction.

     SEC. 593. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MISSISSIPPI PLACE, ST. 
                   PAUL, MINNESOTA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may enter into a cooperative 
     agreement to participate in a project for the planning, 
     design, and construction of infrastructure and other 
     improvements at Mississippi Place, St. Paul, Minnesota.
       (b) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) In general.--The Federal share of the cost of the 
     project shall be 50 percent. The Federal share may be 
     provided in the form of grants or reimbursements of project 
     costs.
       (2) Credit for non-federal work.--The non-Federal interest 
     shall receive credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost 
     of the project for reasonable costs incurred by the non-
     Federal interests as a result of participation in the 
     planning, design, and construction of the project.
       (3) Land, easements, and rights-of-way credit.--The non-
     Federal interest shall receive credit toward the non-Federal 
     share of the cost of the project for land, easements, rights-
     of-way, and relocations provided by the non-Federal interest 
     with respect to the project.
       (4) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal share of 
     operation and maintenance costs for the project shall be 100 
     percent.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $3,000,000 to carry out this section.


         Modification of Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Shuster

  Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
manager's amendment be modified with the

[[Page H2514]]

modification I have placed at the desk. My modification would correct a 
technical mistake in the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification of amendment No. 1 printed in part 2 of House 
     Report 106-120 offered by Mr. Shuster:
       On page 1, after line 3, strike the next five sentences.
       On page 2, line 22, strike the period and add at the end 
     ``, and at an estimated average annual cost of $1,584,000 for 
     periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, 
     with an estimated annual Federal cost of $1,030,000 and an 
     estimated annual non-Federal cost of $554,000.''
       On page 3, after line 8, strike the next two sentences.
       On page 5, after ``$6,129,000''.'' and before the next 
     sentence, insert the following:
       ``In section 314 of the bill, strike ``(Amelia fIsland)'' 
     and insert ``(Amelia Island)''.
       On page 7, strike the first two sentences.
       On page 32, after line 14, insert the following:
       (f) Repeal.--Section 401 of the Great Lakes Critical 
     Programs Act of 1990 (104 Stat 3010) and section 411 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat 4648) are 
     repealed as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
       At the end of title III of the bill, add the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 367. CITY OF CHARLEVOIX REIMBURSEMENT, MICHIGAN.

       The Secretary shall review and, if consistent with 
     authorized project purposes, reimburse the city of 
     Charlevoix, Michigan, for the Federal share of costs 
     associated with construction of the new revetment connection 
     to the Federal navigation project at Charlevoix Harbor, 
     Michigan.
       Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.

  Mr. SHUSTER (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the modification be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, reserving the right to object, I do so 
for the purpose of yielding to the gentleman for an explanation.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, this amendment corrects provisions in the manager's 
amendment that were found to have unintended effects. And it adds two 
other noncontroversial items. The modification has been worked out with 
the minority.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 154, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. This is a bipartisan, noncontroversial package. It makes 
technical and conforming changes. It makes modifications to several 
projects in the reported bill. It includes environmental restoration 
and infrastructure projects. It includes flood control and navigation 
projects. It includes studies. It includes provisions based on 
discussions with other committees.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. The amendment continues the tradition of addressing the urgent 
concerns of Members by including several high priority, time-sensitive 
projects and provisions that could not be considered in their ordinary 
and customary time.
  I do want to thank the chairman of the committee for being so fully 
cooperative and responsive and participating in the time-honored 
tradition of our committee in a bipartisan manner.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me. I wanted to especially on this bill come down here to the floor 
and compliment the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for including language in this bill relative 
to a study by the Corps of Engineers on the Western Lake Erie Basin 
Watershed at the crossroads of the Great Lakes.
  I want to just put on the record, without the help of these two 
gentlemen, our part of America could not solve the significant water 
problem that we have crossing several jurisdictions. This bill is so 
important. I hope every Member understands how hard these men have 
worked to really help every single corner of America. We have waited 
for years for this bill as our cities flood and our rural areas get 
devastated by extra water because of all of the development that has 
occurred in our region.
  We cannot solve this problem without them and without the help of the 
Corps being the umbrella entity that brings all these multiple 
jurisdictions together across Indiana, Ohio and Michigan. I just want 
to thank them for being men of the future and paying attention to 
places like Toledo, Ohio and the crossroads of the Great Lakes. Our 
hats are off to them.
  Madam Chairman, I include the following memorandum for the Record:

                               Memorandum

     To: Marcy.
     From: George.
     Subject: Western Lake Erie Basin Watershed Study Talking 
         Points.
     Date: April 29, 1999.

       The 1999 Water Resources Development Act, H.R. 1480, 
     includes a provision authorizing the Western Lake Erie 
     Watershed study.
       The Western Lake Erie Basin is the crossroads of the Great 
     Lakes.
       The Maumee River, which empties into Lake Erie at Toledo is 
     the largest tributary to the Great Lakes. My District and the 
     City of Toledo sit at the mouth of the Maumee.
       The Corps of Engineers and other government agencies have 
     conducted numerous studies in the Western Lake Erie basin, 
     but no one has ever looked at the watershed as a whole.
       We understand now the indispensable interrelationship 
     between the various elements of the watershed's ecosystem, 
     the water, the farmland, the cities, the suburbs.
       If we are going to sustain the productive resources of the 
     Western Lake Erie Basin, we must understand how all these 
     elements work together.
       I hope and expect that this study will lead to an 
     understanding of our region on which we can plan a 
     sustainable future.

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I want to say to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio, I have not heard such kind words in 6 months. It is good to have 
those comments.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking 
member for yielding me this time.
  Let me try to continue the kind words as we go along here. To the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and to the chairman of the full 
committee and to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources 
and Environment on which I serve as well as to our ranking member, let 
me thank them for finally getting this bill to the floor. This is 
unfinished business from the 105th Congress. It is certainly one that 
is important to the people I represent and the region in which I come 
from. I want to thank particularly my side of the aisle for working 
with me as well as with the majority to make certain that East Coast 
residents will continue to have access to the goods that ships carry 
and the jobs our ports produce.
  When we talk about international trade, 95 percent of all of the 
Nation's commerce moves through ports like that of the Port of New York 
and New Jersey. If we are to take advantage of that trade, then we have 
to have ocean-going ports that can take care of the next generation of 
ocean-going ships. This project and the bill that encompasses the 
project that I am talking about will help my region fight off economic 
trouble and ensure healthy growth by making the port receptive for more 
and larger ships for years to come. It will widen, deepen and align the 
harbor's channels to improve navigational safety to make way for the 
new generation of ocean-going ships.

[[Page H2515]]

  The bill also contains important environmental considerations insofar 
as it contains provisions on sediment decontamination and sediment 
management which are enormous issues in the Port of New York and New 
Jersey and for that fact in other parts of the country. And it 
demonstrates the Federal commitment to deepening our harbors and 
channels which is unfortunately in direct contrast to some of the 
signals we have been getting within the region from the Governor of New 
York who has been holding us hostage on issues not related to the 
port's mission and the Port Authority.
  We believe that it is important for the 20 million consumers in the 
region to get products that will be cheaper. We believe for the 180,000 
jobs and $20 billion of economic activity that the Port of New York and 
New Jersey presently enjoys and which all the projections are that will 
grow dramatically, we believe that in essence for all of the economic 
opportunity yet to come as a result of international trade that this 
bill, the Water Resources Development Act, is an appropriate Federal 
response that will inure to the benefit of the region and to our 
country as this port is one of the vital natural resources that we have 
in this country in the promotion of international trade.
  I want to thank again the chairman of both the full committee and the 
subcommittee and the ranking member of the full committee and 
subcommittee for making this a reality.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), as modified.
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is advised that amendment No. 2 will not be 
offered.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in part 2 of 
House Report 106-120.
  Does any Member rise to offer that amendment?
  If not, it is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
part 2 of House Report 106-120.
  Does any Member rise to offer that amendment?
  Mr. PICKETT. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PICKETT. Madam Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in a colloquy.
  I had intended to offer an amendment today concerning a project at 
Sandbridge Beach in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. I have 
decided not to offer the amendment if the chairman can assure me that 
this important project will receive attention by the committee in the 
future.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PICKETT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for withholding 
his amendment. I will state that it is my intention to consider his 
proposal on the Sandbridge Beach project as we move forward with water 
resources legislation including our WRDA 2000 bill which we anticipate 
moving quickly in the next session.
  Mr. PICKETT. I thank the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Virginia offering amendment No. 
5?
  Mr. PICKETT. No, Madam Chairman, I am not.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed 
in part 2 of House Report 106-120.
  Does any Member rise to offer that amendment?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I take this time to express my 
appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania for the splendid 
cooperation that we have always enjoyed on this committee in working 
out matters. But for a little half billion dollar bump in the road over 
this California project, this bill would have been disposed of 2 years 
ago.
  I appreciate the continuing good will on the part of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania and understanding of these problems as well as the 
chairman of the subcommittee. I also want to express my great 
appreciation for his patience to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Borski).
  I do want to cite for extraordinary commendable service Ken Kopocis, 
our chief staff member on the Subcommittee on Waters Resources and 
Environment who has done yeoman's service. The chairman was kind enough 
to mention him, but I want to reinforce my appreciation for Ken's 
devoted endeavors, and that of Ward McCarragher and Dave Heymsfeld and 
Art Chan on our committee who all have given such enormous time and 
effort to the unfolding of this legislation and bringing us to this 
point today. We can pass this bill relatively uncontroversial.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as modified, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, 
as amended, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Herger) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Emerson, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1480) to 
provide for the conservation and development of water and related 
resources, to authorize the United States Army Corps of Engineers to 
construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of 
the United States, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 
154, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted 
by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 418, 
nays 5, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 104]

                               YEAS--418

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo

[[Page H2516]]


     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (AK)

                                NAYS--5

     Hefley
     Paul
     Sanford
     Sensenbrenner
     Sununu

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Aderholt
     Blagojevich
     Brown (CA)
     Cooksey
     Engel
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Strickland
     Tauzin
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1219

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I missed the vote on H.R. 1480, 
the Water Resources Development Act because I was detained away from 
the Capitol and the vote closed as I returned. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yes.''

                          ____________________