[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.''
____________________