[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 132 (Wednesday, September 24, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H8833-H8875]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1612


                     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. 2557) to provide for the conservation and development of water 
and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of 
the United States, and for other purposes, with Mr. LaHood 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 Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support H.R. 2557, the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2003. Under the great leadership of the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) our committee has focused on the need 
to meet our Nation's navigation, flood control and environmental 
restoration needs.
  In our subcommittee, we have held numerous hearings in which 
witnesses have testified about the importance of these water resources 
projects to our economy. Just last week, our subcommittee held a 
hearing on the contributions of ports and inland waterways to the 
Nation's intermodal transportation system. It is clear from the 
testimony we received that if we do not take action now to improve our 
ports and waterways, we could severely harm our economy as a result of 
congestion in our transportation systems.
  That is just one reason why we need to pass the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2003. There are many other reasons.
  Each of the over 400 provisions of the bill meets an important 
national purpose. We are confident of this because for each request the 
committee received, the committee consulted with the Corps of Engineers 
to ensure that there was a Federal interest in the project and that the 
request complied with all rules on cost-sharing and cost-benefit 
analysis. Obviously not all requests met this standard, but after this 
review, the committee was able to approve over 60 authorizations, 
modifications, studies and policies relating to navigation 
improvements, over 100 flood control authorizations, modifications and 
studies, over 80 environmental authorizations, modifications or 
studies.
  H.R. 2557 also includes some important new policies. H.R. 2557 
encourages watershed planning by authorizing greater technical 
assistance to State and local governments and authorizes an additional 
24 watershed studies.

                              {time}  1615

  This bill encourages the Corps of Engineers to carry out projects in 
partnerships with its local sponsors and to streamline the process for 
entering into agreements with local sponsors. In fact, this bill has 
very good streamlining provisions in it so that these very important 
projects, instead of sometimes taking 8 or 10 or 12 years, hopefully 
can be done in a much shorter time, saving taxpayer money and saving 
lives and doing good things for the environment in the process.
  H.R. 2557 includes important provisions that allow the Corps of 
Engineers to help expedite environmental permits for non-Federal water 
resource projects as well as streamlining approvals for its own 
projects. And that, as I said, is one of the most important parts of 
this legislation.
  H.R. 2557 includes consensus provisions on peer review of certain 
Corps of Engineers studies. This is a landmark provision in this 
legislation. It also includes, Mr. Chairman, 27 shoreline and 
streambank protection projects, 16 water conservation projects, 12 
recreation projects, 12 dam safety projects, and many other projects 
too numerous to name.
  This bill has been put together on a true bipartisan basis. There are 
no Republican or Democrat navigation, flood control, or environmental 
restoration projects. We all recognize that communities across the 
country have water resources needs, very important water resources 
needs. This bill responds to those communities, our constituents.
  I want to recognize the assistance and expertise and friendship 
provided

[[Page H8834]]

by the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Costello). Thanks to his efforts and the efforts of the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman of the full committee, and the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), as well as 
the entire committee, we tackled some very contentious issues, as I 
mentioned when I spoke on the rule; and we have come together on a bill 
that has the unanimous support of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, and I urge all Members to support 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2557, the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2003. This bill addresses what Congress 
failed to do last year, enact a Water Resources Development Act for 
2002.
  Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
strongly supports this legislation for the corps' water resource 
program. It is critical to maintain this 2-year cycle to provide 
continuity to the program and certainty to the non-Federal local 
sponsors who support the corps' program. This 2-year cycle also affords 
Congress the opportunity to monitor and, if necessary, amend the 
workings of the corps' program, often in response to changing 
circumstances.
  H.R. 2557 authorizes projects for the entirety of the corps' civil 
works program. It includes flood control, navigation, environmental 
restoration, and authorizations for several important projects to 
restore and enhance the Nation's environmental infrastructure. In 
developing this legislation over the past 3 years, the committee 
received over 300 individual requests from Members for projects of 
importance to the various regions of this country. The committee tried 
to accommodate as many requests as feasible within the jurisdiction and 
authority of the Corps of Engineers.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity now to 
acknowledge and thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young), the ranking member of the full committee, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and in particular my 
colleague, friend, and chairman of the subcommittee for all of their 
hard work and their leadership. Without their leadership, support, and 
work we would not be here today. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Duncan) in particular, let me say, showed a willingness to work with 
individual Members on both sides; and we were able to put together what 
I believe is a good bipartisan bill.
  The tough issue of independent review, which yielded a bipartisan 
solution to a very complex issue of great importance to the members of 
the committee and the entire House and to the improved operation of the 
corps' civil works program was accomplished because of this bipartisan 
support and their leadership.
  The independent review language that is included in H.R. 2557 creates 
a firm, yet flexible, standard for the independent review of corps 
project studies. It is firm in that it establishes a $50 million 
threshold for projects to be reviewed. It is flexible in that the chief 
of engineers has the opportunity to exempt certain projects from review 
and retains the authority to time the reviews to a particular 
circumstance of an individual project study. This approach is the key 
to this bipartisan proposal.
  Including this language in the bill will ultimately improve the 
corps' program. It will result in better recommendations for the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to consider when 
developing future water resource legislation. I believe also that it 
will save the taxpayers money and it will enhance the quality of 
investment in water resource projects.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full committee, 
without whose support and hard work this legislation would not be here 
on the floor today.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time, and I will compliment the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Duncan) for his hard work and that of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Costello) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) on this 
legislation. It is a bipartisan piece of legislation, and I am very 
pleased today that we are considering it because this has been delayed 
for numerous years.
  I also would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Doolittle) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) for their 
good work and their understanding, because that is one of the 
roadblocks we had, and they were able to sit down and work out a 
solution to a very complex problem in their State. In California, I 
feel sorry for them because there are 53 of them, and so they have a 
real problem. In Alaska, there is only one of us. If I start arguing 
with myself, I know it is a problem; but these gentlemen were able to 
get together, and I want to compliment them.
  As I said, this bill has been stalled for 2 years, but we got 
together and we have been able to get past the rhetoric, identify real 
issues and come up with workable bipartisan solutions that will 
actually help the Corps of Engineers carry out its mission. This 
negotiation involved a lot of give and take, as I just mentioned. The 
result does not represent my initial positions nor those of the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and that is the nature of 
compromise.
  The compromise language gives the Corps of Engineers the tools it 
needs to improve and expedite water resource projects. These provisions 
earned the support of all the members of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure and deserve the support of all 
Members of this House.
  Now that the debate over corps reform is past us, both the Congress 
and the Corps of Engineers can focus on meeting the Nation's 
navigation, flood control, and environmental restoration needs to 
provide economic and national security to improve our quality of life.
  I know some will complain about the cost of the Corps of Engineers 
projects, but these investments are critically important to the 
economy. Over 13 million jobs are dependent on trade, but our harbors 
are not ready to meet the increasing demands of international trade.
  Our farmers and our electric utilities depend on efficient waterways 
to move grain and coal, but over half are over 50 years old and two 
have been operating since the 19th century. And may I stress this 
again. Our goal in this committee is to relieve congestion. We must use 
our waterways to the best of our ability, as they are doing in other 
countries.
  Many communities along the rivers and shores are not protected from 
hurricanes and flooding, even though the cost of recovering from a 
flood is an average six times greater than the cost of investing in the 
infrastructure needed to prevent those damages.
  Finally, there are worthwhile environmental restoration projects to 
provide both environmental and economic benefits. The Water Resources 
Development Act addresses the needs in communities all over the 
country.
  Again, I want to thank the Members that worked on bringing this bill 
to the floor. It is a bill that can do the job for the Nation. I am 
very, very excited about having this legislation on the floor today.
  Mr. Chairman, there will be two amendments. My understanding is that 
one amendment will be offered and withdrawn. The other amendment, and I 
hope everybody listens very carefully, because I do have concerns about 
the effect on our ports, but we will discuss that in debate on those 
amendments and hopefully listen to all the arguments and then make the 
right decisions.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the 
full committee.
  (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H8835]]

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and want to 
compliment the gentleman from Illinois on the splendid work that he has 
done since becoming the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Water 
Resources and Environment. He has devoted himself heart and soul and 
invested countless hours in the shaping of this legislation, and I 
really appreciate the splendid professional service he has rendered to 
the Nation and to the Congress.
  And to the Chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Duncan), no more judicious, thoughtful Member serves in this body. 
His contribution is always one of openness, inclusiveness, and 
willingness to listen and work to reach the compromises necessary for 
the legislative process to work.
  And to our chairman, the gentleman from Alaska, again, as he has 
said, we have spent a great deal of time together working out the 
complexities of this measure. Were it up to us alone, we would have had 
this bill on the floor in the last Congress, but that was not possible 
because of a California problem, and maybe some other issues of lesser 
significance. But as the chairman said, we have together reasoned with 
the Members from California directly involved in the project in the 
Sacramento and American Rivers, and that matter is now resolved and is 
included in this legislation, and we will move forward. The gentleman 
from Alaska has been a splendid partner and leader in shaping this 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, we move with this bill to not only build but rebuild 
the Nation's water infrastructure, to expand international trade by 
improving our coastal ports and the inland navigation system. Through 
flood control and hurricane storm damage reduction, we will meet 
critical needs to protect lives and property.
  We have a bipartisan solution to the complex issue of independent 
review of corps projects, and I compliment the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Costello) and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), on the time they have invested, together with 
the chairman and me and with the corps, in resolving long-standing 
issues that span several Congresses.
  I am a long-time supporter of the corps, an advocate for and admirer 
of the Corps of Engineers for the valuable service it does this 
country. The Nation needs the Corps of Engineers, but the corps also 
needs to be sure that its proposals can withstand the strictest 
scrutiny; that its proposals are as rock solid as the foundations of 
the most secure dams that the corps builds. And that is why we needed 
to craft this independent review process, to validate and give 
substance to and authority to the process by which the corps recommends 
projects for our committee to act upon.
  This independent review process will help restore the confidence that 
Congress has long put in the Corps of Engineers but which has been 
shaken in recent years by outside critical review of the corps' process 
in evaluating major, multimillion dollar and multibillion dollar 
projects.
  The corps is not a static entity, and it does not do this work all by 
itself. The corps, truthfully, does nothing that the Congress does not 
authorize it to do and direct it to do. Every water resources bill has 
clear direction for the Corps of Engineers, what to do and how to get 
to that goal. And several times we have acted to make commonsense 
reforms to improve the way the corps does its business.
  Our committee instituted cost sharing. We established mitigation 
requirements. In fact, going back to 1977, the gentleman from 
Minnesota, then on the Republican side, Mr. Quie, and I, had an 
innovative proposal for the corps to do mitigation and reconstruction 
concurrently. We gave the corps a no-net loss of wetlands goal. We made 
environmental restoration a mission priority for the Corps of 
Engineers. We instituted floodplain management. We eliminated barriers 
to nonstructural flood damage reduction, allowing rivers to connect 
with the natural floodplain. This committee has initiated all of these 
activities and the corps has carried them out, but we always need to 
review and to move that process further.
  Over the past 200 years, the Congress and Presidents have given the 
Corps of Engineers responsibility for a wide variety of critical 
military and civilian needs and have made this agency the world's 
premier water resource manager, the Corps of Engineers, the envy of 
other countries around the world who come to study the corps and try to 
emulate it in some fashion in their own back yard.

                              {time}  1630

  In the over 200 years since the Corps of Engineers was formed, that 
organization has served the Nation with great pride and extraordinary 
results. Throughout the 19th Century, it was the Corps that mapped the 
coastal fortifications, supervised the construction of those coastal 
fortifications, that went out and mapped the West in the aftermath of 
Lewis and Clark, constructed lighthouses, built jetties and piers for 
harbors, and carefully mapped the navigation channels of this country.
  Its most important legacy, perhaps, was the work on canals, on 
rivers, and on roads. The Corps built those paths of commerce. Out of 
treacherous streams, the Corps built safe waterways, water highways for 
inland navigation and coastal safe harbors for a growing Nation that 
was founded on the water.
  Congress expanded the Corps's responsibilities in 1826, authorizing 
the President to have river surveys made to clean out and to deepen 
selected waterways and make other river and harbor improvements that 
extended to the river basin of the Ohio, the Mississippi, and the 
Missouri River systems.
  The Corps shaped this Nation as it entered the 20th Century. Chief of 
Engineers, Henry M. Robert, who is also and perhaps better known as the 
author of Robert's Rules of Order, oversaw the planning of the 
Galveston Seawall, a major engineering project that has protected that 
area from destruction by numerous hurricanes since his pioneering work.
  I would like to point out Hiram M. Chittenden, an engineer officer, 
who supervised the construction of roads, bridges and aqueducts we know 
today as Yellowstone National Park, wrote a report on his survey of 
reservoir sites in Wyoming and Colorado that contributed to the 
establishment of what we now today know as the U.S. Bureau of 
Reclamation.
  The Corps of Engineers had responsibility for the welfare of 
restoring Yosemite Valley and was the protector of our natural 
resources until the creation of the National Park Service. In fact, it 
was John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club, who in the 1880s said, 
``Thank God for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. They have saved and 
restored Yellowstone Park.''
  I will conclude by saying that this extraordinary agency is today at 
work not only at home, but in Afghanistan and in Iraq, ever protecting 
the long-range best interests and needs of the United States. This bill 
will assure that the Corps will continue to do that work in a manner of 
great credibility for the public.
  George W. Goethals' early work at Davis Island and Muscle Shoals 
created the skills and management expertise needed to successfully 
finish the Panama Canal. Although the Panama Canal was not built by the 
Corps of Engineers, through the efforts of engineer officers such as 
Goethals, who were detailed to the Panama Canal Commission, some of the 
most difficult construction obstacles were overcome. If the Corps' 
original recommendations on the size of locks had been followed, there 
would be no need to expand the canal today.
  The Corps' military and civilian functions have always been mutually 
supportive. Thousands of engineers troops served in France in 1917 and 
1918, contributing to both front-line and rear-support efforts. The 
combat engineers constructed bridges, roads, and narrow-gauge railroads 
at or immediately behind the front. Other engineer troops enlarged 
French port facilities, constructed more than 20 million square feet of 
storage space, and built 800 miles of standard-gauge rail lines, plus 
an equal distance in yards and storage tracks. These types of 
contributions continued through World War II.
  After World War II, the Corps developed and maintained new navigation 
systems such as the American portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway. At the 
same time, modernization of existing waterways became a growing 
concern. Heavier tows, barges, and other vessels plied the nation's 
major rivers. Locks such as those on the upper Mississippi, built 
mainly in the 1930s, were no longer adequate to handle the traffic. 
Lock and Dam 26 near Alton, Illinois, was the principal bottleneck on 
the upper

[[Page H8836]]

Mississippi system until a new lock was constructed in the 1980s.
  Corps' construction activities since World War II have been further 
expanded. The Corps built Veterans Administration hospitals; Nike, 
Atlas, Titan, and Minuteman missile sites; NASA facilities, including 
the massive vehicle assembly building at Cape Kennedy; post offices and 
bulk mail facilities; and armed forces recruiting centers.
  Successes at home were matched by the Corps' accomplishments abroad. 
The Corps provides technical assistance in conjunction with economic 
aid in an approach that came to typify many American foreign assistance 
programs.
  Since the 1950s, the Corps has engaged in major engineering studies 
and projects in many countries. Under terms of the Foreign Assistance 
Act of 1961, the Corps began work in reimbursable programs through the 
State Department's Agency for International Development (AID).
  Today, the Corps is active in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
  In foreign affairs, we need instantly available, in-house 
capabilities to address the Nation's strategic needs. Domestically, 
only the Corps has the experience to balance economic development with 
environmental stewardship.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2557, the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2003, and to continue the quality work of the Corps 
of Engineers in service to the Nation.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Doolittle).
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I very much wish to thank the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young) and his staff and the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar) and his staff and also the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Duncan) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Costello) and their 
staffs for helping us on this bill.
  As the economy begins to revive in this country, I am delighted that 
we can pass WRDA. It will do a great deal to help the economy but also 
to help all the communities throughout the Nation that will receive 
improvements under this bill.
  We have struggled for many years in the Sacramento region to find a 
common solution to the water management problems that we have. And I am 
very pleased to be here today and to say that we have reached an 
acceptable compromise. The gentlemen from California (Mr. Matsui) (Mr. 
Ose) (Mr. Pombo) and I represent various parts of the Sacramento region 
and have reached a compromise that will address both water supply and 
flood control.
  We could not have done this without the help of all the members and 
their staffs who lead this committee. I really appreciate that. It is a 
great effort. It will be of immeasurable benefit to our region.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to lend my support for this piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Matsui).
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to take this 
moment to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for the work that 
he has done on this bill along with the ranking member, the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). The work that they have done in terms of 
putting this legislation together, the Corps reform proposals, the 
legislation, and, obviously, the projects, will go a long way in making 
sure America remains strong in terms of our infrastructure.
  I would also like to thank Chairman Young and ranking member Oberstar 
and their staff along with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) 
and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) for the wonderful work 
that they have done in helping the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Doolittle), myself, and the regional members in the northern California 
area put together, obviously, a piece of legislation within this bill 
that would take care of many of the water needs that the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Doolittle) and I have been concerned about over the 
years with respect to Sacramento County and the American River 
watershed.
  We had a major flood problem in 1986, and then another in 1997, which 
almost broke our levee system. And as a result of that, the Corps of 
Engineers has come up with a chief report that would raise the current 
Folsom Dam by some 7 feet and, obviously, shore up the American River 
levee system.
  Due to the efforts the members that I just mentioned, obviously, we 
have put together a proposal that would take care of both water needs 
and, certainly, the needs of the people in the County of Sacramento.
  So I just want to take this moment to thank again the members, 
particularly the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for working out this proposal with the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), myself and the regional 
members from our area.
  Again, I want to make that effort because obviously this is a matter 
that has been going on for 20 years. I want to thank all members 
involved in this process.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2557, the Water 
Resources Development Act, and I thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for their strong 
leadership on this measure. This legislation is vital to my district in 
northeastern Oklahoma. Among many provisions of this legislation is 
language authorizing improvements to the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River 
Navigation System. This legislation will allow an extension in depth 
from its current 9 feet to 12 feet.
  This extension represents a significant step in economic development 
and job growth in northeastern Oklahoma. Just the increase in depth 
from 9 to 12 feet means that barges can carry 40 percent more cargo.
  Mr. Chairman, there are over 65 industries on the Oklahoma segment of 
the navigation system providing direct employment for over 4,000 
people. The annual payroll for these hardworking Oklahomans is more 
than $85 million a year. Over the past 25 years, the navigation system 
has created 54,000 jobs, paying an average of $78 million annually. The 
Tulsa port of Catoosa is home to a foreign trade zone and 42 countries 
have traded in our area via this navigation system. The expansion of 
the McClellan-Kerr system brings remarkable prospects for jobs, growth 
and development.
  Not only will this legislation build up current businesses, but will 
allow Oklahoma to go after new businesses such as Boeing. The passage 
of this measure is part of my commitment to bring industry and quality 
jobs to Oklahoma. It is good news for hardworking Oklahomans and a 
cornerstone of our economic recovery.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of H.R. 2557, 
and I urge my colleagues to join me in my support for this measure.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the work of the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Costello), as well as our chairman, the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan). It has truly been one of the pleasures for 
me this Congress, watching the work that has been done in the 
subcommittee developing a broad range of inputs, looking with fresh 
eyes at some of the most important environmental and infrastructure 
issues that the country faces.
  I am pleased that we now have a bill that is done right, which can 
enhance our country's ports, navigation and flood control, as well as 
the environment, and, ultimately, I am convinced will save the 
taxpayers money.
  We are finally dealing with a number of Corps reform issues that 
heretofore had bogged down previous bills, including last year's bill. 
We now have, as has been referenced, independent review of costly and 
controversial projects, one of the key issues for me over the course of 
my tenure on this committee. And we are beginning a conversation about 
updating the Corps' principles and guidelines. These operating 
principles have not been updated in 20 years. The facts are that we 
have learned a great deal about our water resources projects, what 
works and what does not, in that time, and I look forward to working 
with our committee leadership, especially since the National Academy of 
Science is set to finish a report on updating the principles and 
guidelines this fall.
  I am pleased that there was an amendment that I offered adopted to

[[Page H8837]]

give the Corps more flexibility in its planning process to take into 
account economic benefits of environmental restoration and 
environmental benefits of economic restoration. It asks the Corps to 
calculate the residual flood risk of a project, such as downstream 
impacts of a structural project like a levee. Our intent is to 
encourage the Corps to be able to do more nonstructural flood control 
projects which are clearly beneficial for the environment and the 
taxpayers, even though these benefits are sometimes more difficult to 
calculate.
  This bill does take important steps that I think will help enhance 
the credibility of the Corps of Engineers. I must caution, however, 
that we have got to be continuing our work on the independent review 
process. It is not exactly as I personally would design it. It gives a 
bit more discretion, frankly, to the Chief of Engineers and the 
Secretary of the Army than I think is helpful in terms of providing 
that clear picture that is important for the integrity of the Corps, 
but I think this is an important start.
  I have some concerns about environmental streamlining provisions. I 
am all for dealing with ways that can shorten the planning and 
construction process, but not at the expense of the benefits that are 
required. Reports from the National Academy of Science show that delays 
in Corps projects are often caused by their complexity and inconsistent 
funding; and, occasionally, frankly, we run into problems because 
people try and jam through things and not follow the process, which 
creates problems in the long run.
  Last but not least, I am very concerned about protections for 
destruction of our Nation's wetlands. I plan on coming back and 
speaking on an amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Kind). But on balance, I think this bill moves us in the right 
direction. It starts a conversation about refining some important 
areas, and it is testimony to the hard work of our committee leadership 
in allowing us to come together and do the legislation the people 
deserve, which I appreciate.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and for including in the manager's amendment language 
authorizing construction of a second aquatic invasive species dispersal 
barrier on the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal. I also thank the 
chairman for authorizing a study of and construction of needed 
improvements to the existing, temporary barrier.
  As the chairman is aware, these barriers are the last line of defense 
against an aggressive aquatic invasive species called the Asian carp. 
This menace is now well within 50 miles of Lake Michigan and 
approaching fast. I very much appreciate what the committee has done in 
this bill to halt the spread of invasive species like the Asian carp.
  I remain concerned, however, about the cost-sharing requirements and 
the burden on the State of Illinois. I do not want anything to delay 
the timely construction of a better permanent barrier.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, the Corps of Engineers is currently 
evaluating a test barrier that was authorized under the National 
Invasive Species Act in 1996. At the same time, the Corps is studying 
the potential of building a second barrier under a continuing authority 
for small projects. I will work with the gentlewoman and be glad to do 
so to see that this project is not delayed.
  This is a serious matter that involves the missions of several 
Federal agencies and impacts the entire Great Lakes region. The 
committee plans to work on a reauthorization of the National Invasive 
Species Act during the next session. I am willing to work with the 
gentlewoman as we work on that legislation to encourage a regional and 
multi-agency response to this problem.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his response, 
and I look forward to working with him to see that the Asian carp, and 
other species like it, do not make it into the Great Lakes.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Indiana (Ms. Carson).
  Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), ranking member, and certainly 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), et cetera.
  I rise today to speak in favor of the Water Resources Development Act 
and to share with my colleagues an experience that I have had in 
Indianapolis, Indiana of the transformative power of this legislation. 
As this poster will reveal, it is almost like a tale of two cities, 
what used to be the worst of times and which is now the very best of 
times because of the incredible assistance that we received in 
Indianapolis, that we benefitted from funding from the committee, and 
in August of 2002 the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) was in 
Indianapolis; the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) was there 
just a couple of months ago. I was happy to share my experience with my 
constituents and my colleagues and countless other visitors who have 
come. We can tell before we received the water appropriation for 
Indianapolis, the picture to my right revealed the old city that had 
the dilapidated landscape. The walls of the waterfront were sort of 
falling down. And because of the yeoman's work of the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Chairman Duncan) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Costello), ranking member, and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), we have been able to transform the city. And I thought it 
was imperative that I came down and said thanks on behalf of the city 
to these incredible, wonderful gentlemen who were very beneficial in 
seeing to it that we got the appropriation, and now that we have the 
White River there that will carry commerce back and forth from the Ohio 
River and connecting us to the rest of the world.
  From the days we have come a long way, finally turning our attention 
to the river, and I just wanted to thank them so very much, everybody 
that was involved in ascertaining that this happen.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for 
her kind words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Harris), another member who has worked hard on certain parts of this 
legislation.
  Ms. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my vigorous support for the Water 
Resources and Development Act, particularly in view of the essential 
reforms it contains. In my home State of Florida and across America, 
coastal communities rely upon effective flood control and the 
maintenance of navigable channels as their economic lifeblood. For 
example, Port Manatee, which is served by a federally maintained 
channel, is an essential economic engine for southwest Florida. 
According to a study conducted by Economic Research Associates, the 
port supported more than 22,000 jobs in 2002, while contributing in 
excess of $2.3 billion to the local economy. A successful partnership 
between the Army Corps of Engineers and the port's local leadership in 
dredging and expansion of the harbor helped produce these stunning 
economic achievements.
  Nevertheless, the protection of sensitive ecosystems remains 
essential to preserving our quality of life in Florida. Additionally, 
our achievement of this goal has become indispensable to the health of 
our number one industry, tourism. Thus we simply cannot afford to 
neglect our infrastructure nor our environment. Fortunately, the Water 
Resources and Development Act strikes an effective balance between 
these purposes. The act mandates additional project development reform, 
while imposing more requirements that directly mitigate the impact of 
projects upon fish and wildlife.
  Further, the act removes several impediments to the creation of 
partnerships between the Army Corps of Engineers and non-Federal 
sponsors. This reform will not only expedite project execution, it will 
engage the expertise of our local communities, which know

[[Page H8838]]

best how to protect our sensitive ecological areas.
  An outstanding partnership between the Army Corps of Engineers and 
the City of Bradenton received the Hammer Award from former Vice 
President Al Gore, due to their outstanding efforts in connection with 
flood control projects on Wares Creek in Manatee County. Working 
together, the Gore and the city of Bradenton saved taxpayers more than 
$600,000 by accelerating the start date of this project by 2\1/2\ 
years.
  This reauthorization measure reaffirms the Federal Government's 
commitment to shoreline protection. Regrettably, the argument persists 
that the Army Corps of Engineers should not engage in beach nourishment 
projects. This perspective appears rooted in the erroneous assumption 
that such projects constitute a taxpayer-funded tourist entitlement.
  Quite to the contrary, beach nourishment provides an economical 
solution to storm damage, while protecting shorefront structures and 
critical wildlife habitats from the punishing effects of future 
hurricanes and tropical storms. As we assess the effect of storms like 
Isabel, we must consider every possible means of reducing their costs. 
In my district, beaches such as Lido Key in the city of Sarasota 
routinely endure the effects of the storms that batter our region.
  Mr. Chairman, the Army Corps of Engineers is prepared to apply the 
valuable lessons we have learned from the mistakes committed in the 
Everglades and other areas. The Corps has adopted environmental 
operating principles, while expanding its professional development 
programs that focus upon environmental protection. We must provide them 
the tools they need to secure the future of our coastal communities.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Costello) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) 
for their work on this important legislation and the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  They have brought out a well-balanced Water Resources Development 
Act, and we appreciate that. This is a good bill for our Nation. It is 
a good bill for the people that I represent, and I thank them very much 
for their courtesies.
  I particularly wanted to mention a project authorized in the 
manager's amendment to restore the stream ecosystem of the Gwynns Falls 
in Baltimore City. This is a complicated project that has been under 
study by the Corps and local jurisdictions now since we first 
authorized the study in April of 1992; so it has been a long time.
  The authorization of this ecosystem restoration stream builds on the 
successful work we have on a greenway/bikepath through the Gwynns 
Falls. It also is an important part of the Chesapeake Bay program for 
improving the quality of the water along the bay. We now understand 
that our watersheds, our streams are a very important part of our work 
to restore the Chesapeake Bay, and the work done along the Gwynns Falls 
will be very helpful in that regard.
  Let me also mention the fact that Baltimore is currently under a 
court order to replace its aging sewer system. We need to modernize our 
sewer system. In doing the work along the Gwynns Falls, we also will be 
advancing the work of the replacement of our aged sewer system. So for 
all these reasons, this project is a win-win for our environment, for 
the appropriate use of our lands. And I want to thank all of them for 
including this project. I know it was complicated. I know it was 
difficult, and we thank them very much.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), former ranking member of this subcommittee.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Costello) for yielding me this time.
  I would like to congratulate the chairman and the ranking member for 
their excellent work. This is a piece of legislation that is overdue, 
and we can only hope that the Senate will not be the usual dead weight 
on this issue and will actually move this needed bill through.
  This bill would go a long way toward helping many communities across 
the United States meet Federal mandates. There is a lot of talk around 
here in Washington, D.C. about unfunded mandates. The law is replete 
with unfunded mandates.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman must refrain from improper references to 
the Senate.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thought that we were able to talk about 
the reality that there are people on the other side of the Capitol.
  The CHAIRMAN. References to the Senate as ``dead weight'' are not 
proper.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I understand, Mr. Chairman. I certainly meant not to 
impugn the other body with that statement, just to talk about the 
reality of what has happened to the Water Resources Development Act in 
the past.
  But to continue, there are a number of Federal mandates that would be 
helpful to our local communities and our States if the Water Resources 
Development Act becomes law. But even more importantly, today in the 
United States of America, I think, is the fact that this bill 
represents a real jobs program. We can cut taxes for the wealthy people 
until the cows come home, and it is not going to put people back to 
work in the United States of America. But if we invest in 
infrastructure, it will. We know that the return on the dividend tax 
cut was 5 cents on the dollar. For every dollar we borrowed to cut 
dividend taxes, and we borrowed all that money, we are going to get 5 
cents of stimulus to the economy; not a great investment. But for every 
dollar we borrow, and again we would have to borrow, to invest in water 
infrastructure, we are going to get $7, seven times over the impact on 
the economy. If we spend $1 billion under the Water Resources 
Development Act, we get about 45,000 jobs, real jobs, putting Americans 
back to work. This is an economic stimulus bill.
  It is also a bill, as the gentleman who preceded me from Maryland 
discussed, that helps to deal with environmental problems, and also I 
want to recognize further that the Corps of Engineers often is subject 
to criticism, but there is an awful lot of good work that the Corps of 
Engineers does. I was just up in the mountains of my district last 
weekend seeing a project they are doing on a reservoir which is to help 
with fish runs, but also the dam itself was originally built to stop 
the annual flooding. So there are many good things that the Corps has 
done and many more that they will do if this legislation becomes law, 
if whoever else it is who is responsible for passing this somewhere 
else on Capitol Hill gets their act together.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would urge passage of this legislation. I again thank the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), my friend, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, for all of his hard work on this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I likewise would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Costello), ranking member, for his work on this legislation. I used to 
say that during my 6 years as Chairman of the aviation subcommittee 
that I knew of no other chairman and ranking member of a subcommittee 
who got along better than I did with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Lipinski), my ranking member. We got along with each. Now, I can say 
the same thing about the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello). There 
must be something special about people from Illinois, Mr. Chairman, but 
it has been a pleasure to work with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Costello) on this bill. This is the most environmentally friendly Water 
Resources Development Act that this Congress has ever produced. It is 
also a good bill for the taxpayers in the provisions that it has to 
speed up and thus

[[Page H8839]]

hold down the cost of these very needed projects around the country.
  So like the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), I urge passage of 
this bill.
  Ms. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, as we debate H.R. 2557, the Water 
Resources Department Act today, I think it is important to take careful 
note of intent of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 
Section 5007 of the bill in fact instructs that certain projects' 
reports and construction be expedited. I would like to highlight the 
fact that the Lucas Berg Pit project is among those reports directed to 
be expedited.
  Lucas Berg Pit is in Worth in my district, the third district of 
Illinois. Work on Lucas Berg Pit was initiated in FY 2003. This work is 
ongoing, but it is taking longer than necessary. It is my hope that the 
Army Corps of Engineers will take notice of the Congressional intent 
and expedite the Lucas Berg Pit project, as directed in this important 
water resources legislation. I look forward to working with the Army 
Corps' Rock Island District on this vital project.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2003. This legislation is a long 
time coming.
  The Water Resources Development Act of 2003 authorizes $4 billion 
dollars worth of new water projects throughout the United States.
  Our environmental infrastructure is a vital backdrop to our 
communities. Congress must continue to work to provide the guidance and 
resources to the communities across the country that are working to 
preserve and enhance their environmental infrastructure.
  The Water Resources Development Act of 2003 will provide our 
communities and our Nation with an updated blueprint of the major 
environmental infrastructure projects that must be undertaken.
  Members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, of which 
I am proud to serve on, and specifically the Water Resources and 
Environment subcommittee have worked diligently for the past 2 years to 
produce a bill that works toward addressing our Nation's mounting 
environmental infrastructure needs. I would like to applaud the work of 
Ranking Member Costello of the Water Resources and Environment 
subcommittee for his support and commitment to seeing this legislation 
through. This legislation is a product of bipartisanship in its purest 
form.
  As all of us are aware, our communities and our Nation must work 
together to ensure a healthy, productive and efficient environmental 
infrastructure.
  In southern California, where water is quickly becoming a precious 
commodity, our region is anxious to begin to repair our water 
infrastructure.
  In addition, the Water Resources Development Act of 2003 includes 
provisions that will enhance dredging and local Federal matches for 
these projects. Specifically, this bill will provide the Port of Los 
Angeles the ability to apply in-kind credits to the local match, 
thereby stretching the impact of precious local funds. This language 
modifies the project for navigation, Los Angeles Harbor, to direct the 
Secretary to provide credit for the cost of planning and design work 
performed by the non-Federal interest.
  Finally, this bill is a good first step in providing for our 
environmental infrastructure and reaffirming our commitment to the 
American people that the environmental infrastructure in which they 
live is healthy.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2003. This important legislation 
will authorize critical flood control projects across the country, 
including authorizing a project for Halls Bayou to be constructed by 
the local sponsor and reimbursed by the Army Corps of Engineers.
  Located in a 42-square-mile watershed in North Central Harris County, 
Halls Bayou is already an authorized project, but this bill allows for 
Halls Bayou work to be done more quickly and with more local input, 
which is what my constituents want.
  After Halls Bayou is added as a Section 211(f) project under the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1996, the local sponsor will be able 
to pursue the General Reevaluation Review and identify a Federal 
project that will protect homes and businesses from the risk of 
flooding.
  The local sponsor has already constructed a detention area in the 
Halls Bayou watershed at Keith. Weiss Park, but a full Federal project 
is urgently needed. We are also acquiring other areas for detention in 
anticipation of the new authorization for Halls Bayou.
  Back in 2001 Tropical Storm Allison flooded almost 13,000 homes in 
the Halls Bayou watershed, a tributary of Greens Bayou, which saw 
another 15,000 homes flooded. Recently Hurricane Isabel showed the 
Nation the damage one of these storms can do, even to the most 
developed, advanced nation in the world. And often, it is not the wind 
that is the problem, it is the water. Isabel showed why Federal flood 
control projects are needed more than ever in our country.
  Clearly the sooner this legislation is approved, the better for my 
constituents. I would like to express my sincere thanks to Chairman 
Young, Ranking Member Oberstar, Subcommittee Chairman Duncan, Ranking 
Member Costello, Texans Nick Lampson and Eddie Bernice Johnson, and to 
my friend Bob Menendez for their work getting this bill together and 
looking out for the critical flood control needs of Harris County.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill deserves the support of the full House.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today in strong support 
of H.R. 2557, the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). This Member 
commends the distinguished gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman 
of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), ranking member on the 
committee, the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), 
chairman of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, and the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), the ranking 
member on the subcommittee, for all their hard work in bringing this 
bill to the floor.
  This important legislation presents a tremendous opportunity to 
improve flood control, navigation, shore protection and environmental 
protection. This Member is pleased that the bill includes necessary 
provisions which assist the Sand Creek watershed project in Sanders 
County, NE. Among the many benefits it provides, the Sand Creek project 
will help meet Federal environmental restoration goals, address local 
flooding problems and preserve water quality. The Sand Creek Project 
can serve as a showcase of emerging science and restoration techniques 
for secluded wetlands with their multiple environmental benefits to the 
Great Plains and other States. The project is sponsored jointly by the 
Lower Platte North NRD, the City of Wahoo and Saunders County.
  The Sand Creek section of the H.R. 2557 allows the local sponsor of 
the project to complete needed soil, water and other environmental 
restoration work and ultimately to receive proper financial credit in 
its matching share of Federal funds in this project. This action would 
result in significant cost and time savings. Additionally, the enclosed 
would authorize the Secretary of the Army to accept advance non-Federal 
project sponsor funds until Federal funds are available in order to 
move this project forward consistent with State plans to relocate U.S. 
Highway 77 as an expressway.
  The Sand Creek project received conditional authorization in the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2000. Earlier this year, the Corps 
formally approved the project. The Sand Creek project has attracted 
widespread support.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to support 
this important bill.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to take issue with report 
language included in H.R. 2557, the Water Resources and Development Act 
that endorses the Army Corps of Engineers' Delaware River Main Channel 
Deepening project. Although the report language admits that ``close 
scrutiny revealed that the projected benefits of the project might not 
exceed the projected costs,'' it goes on to say that ``notwithstanding 
mathematical errors made by the Corps in its original economic 
analysis, further analysis has demonstrated that the project remains 
economically justified and the project is continuing.'' This defies all 
logic and much evidence to the contrary.
  The Delaware River dredging project remains a boondoggle. This ill-
advised project continues to undergo tremendous scrutiny that raises 
more questions than it answers. In June of 2002 the General Accounting 
Office (GAO) found that the Army Corps of Engineers grossly 
misrepresented the costs and benefits of the project. The GAO has 
determined that the economic analysis provided for this project 
contained a number of ``material errors,'' miscalculations, invalid 
assumptions, and used significantly outdated information.'' Based on 
the GAO findings, the benefit-to-cost ratio of this project is .49 to 
1.
  Last fall the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 
revoked the Army Corps of Engineers' coastal zone permit for this 
project. A few months later, during the 2002 Christmas holiday, the 
Army Corps of Engineers released its ``Comprehensive Economic 
Reanalysis.'' This report represents an attempt by the Army Corps of 
Engineers to rework the benefit to cost ratio using a significantly 
lower discount rate than they have used in all prior cost analysis of 
the project, a possible violation of their own policy. Additionally, 
there remain concerns that the benefits of the project continue to be 
overstated.
  A July 14, 2003 report by Dr. Robert Stearns, a former high-ranking 
Army Corps of Engineers official, says the project will lose money. The 
report says the Army Corps of Engineers' reanalysis, ``does not address 
the

[[Page H8840]]

outstanding issues or the questions raised regarding the project. In 
fact, the reanalysis raises more questions about his project--questions 
raised by the independent review panel, questions regarding the 
process, and questions about the data and models used to justify the 
project.'' Dr. Stearns estimated the project will lose between 50 cents 
and 25 cents for every dollar the project costs, and could easily fail 
to meet the cost-benefit test if even one major assertion does not 
occur.
  I will list just a few of the many problems in the Army Corps of 
Engineers' reanalysis. One, the Army Corps of Engineers has still not 
calculated the dramatically higher expense of alternatives to disposing 
spoils along the river in South Jersey. Second, Army Corps of Engineers 
economists selectively discounted negative reactions from refiners, who 
are to be the project's prime beneficiaries by being able to bring 
tankers up river more fully laden with oil. Third, they used an 
``inappropriately low'' discount rate, in calculating the benefits. And 
fourth, the analysis failed to account for assertions by Maritrans, a 
company that offloads oil from tankers onto barges, that the project 
likely will not reduce the number of barges it needs.
  From an environmental standpoint, there continue to be many questions 
about the impact on water quality, dredge spoil disposal, and wildlife 
and aquatic life. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has recently 
expressed concerns that contaminants in the Delaware River could 
adversely affect the bald eagle or peregrine falcon population. There 
remain serious concerns about whether the Army Corps of Engineers has 
fulfilled the requirements of the Clean Air Act. This is of critical 
concern considering that much of the project falls in a portion of New 
Jersey that is in severe non-attainment for ozone.
  On September 11, 2003, in his Statement of Administration Policy on 
S. 1424, the FY04 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill, 
President Bush offered more harsh words for this project. The statement 
expresses concern ``that the bill includes excessive funding for 
studies and design of potential new projects, which would add to the 
backlog and could unrealistically raise sponsor expectations for near-
term construction starts.'' The President further objects to the 
appropriation of ``over $150 million to other work that raises policy 
concerns, such as directing funds for construction for the Delaware 
River Main Channel'' project.
  Mr. Chairman, the Delaware River dredging project is not economically 
justified and should not move forward.
  Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Mr. Chairman, today, the House considers the Water 
Resources Development Act, H.R. 2557, a vital piece of legislation, 
with a significant impact on the quality of life of our citizens. I 
commend the leadership of the House Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee for their steadfast support for this legislation: Chairman 
Young, Congressman Oberstar, Chairman Duncan and Congressman Costello 
deserve our recognition and gratitude for their tireless work on this 
legislation.
  Some will say, that WRDA can wait, that there are other more 
important pieces of legislation. I am here to tell you that it cannot 
wait. WRDA is not just about large water infrastructure projects, WRDA 
has a direct impact on the lives of some of our most vulnerable 
citizens. I offer you the example of the people living on the edge of 
the Martin Pena Channel in San Juan, Puerto Rico. For generations, 
people have lived on what used to be the channel. These people are 
literally living on top of piles of trash. These are U.S. citizens 
living in Third World conditions.
  For years, as I was growing up in Puerto Rico, politicians would talk 
about the need to move the families from this area and dredge the 
channel. It never happened. I have made it my priority to change this 
situation. We are now on the verge of taking the first and most 
important step of authorizing the dredging of this channel. I am 
grateful to the members of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee, many of which have personally visited this area, for 
recognizing the importance of this project. I also acknowledge the 
support of Chairman Hobson and Congressman Visclosky who have included 
the funding for the necessary planning, engineering and design work in 
the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill for FY 2004.
  Those who have seen the living conditions of the families in the 
areas around the channel will agree that Congress cannot wait any 
longer to enact WRDA. I hope we can use this project as an example of 
why we need WRDA now. I urge my fellow House members to vote for this 
measure and to send a strong message to the Senate that we need their 
quick action so we can begin to improve the lives of our must 
vulnerable citizens.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, a 10-county area in southeast Alabama, 
which I represent, is almost solely dependent on groundwater sources to 
supply their drinking water needs. The 10-county region includes 
Barbour, Bullock, Coffee, Covington, Crenshaw, Dale, Geneva, Henry, 
Houston, and Pike counties. Due to the drought conditions during 2000 
and 2002, water demand increased by 50 to 80 percent in this region.
  The Geological Survey of Alabama conducted a 3-year study beginning 
in 1997 to map the aquifers currently being used in southeast Alabama 
and to identify other potential aquifers, most of which are at deeper 
levels. The results of the study reveal that current and future water 
withdrawals of groundwater within the Choctawhatchee, Pea, and Yellow 
Rivers Watershed area will be insufficient to meet future demand. 
Bullock, Barbour, and Pike counties have the most significant, long-
range, high-capacity water resources, some of which have not been 
developed, but counties to the south, including Houston, Dale, and 
Coffee, will have to rely on their current aquifers and the possible 
development of a few deeper aquifers.
  The study states, ``the development of alternative sources of water, 
specifically surface impoundments, is essential to the long-range 
achievement of continued growth, industrial expansion, and prosperity 
of the citizens in southeastern Alabama.'' The Choctawhatchee, Pea, and 
Yellow Rivers Watershed Management Authority estimates the timeline to 
build a regional reservoir is approximately 10 years for the reservoir 
to be operational.
  The Corps of Engineers conducted a needs assessment for a regional 
reservoir in southeast Alabama, which helped to reinforce the need for 
a reservoir at this time. This was completed in December 2001 and the 
Corps is currently completing an alternative analysis to be finished by 
the end of 2003 that should show the reservoir is the best available 
option for addressing this concern.
  Given these circumstances and the length of time necessary to develop 
an operational reservoir for water supply purposes, I believe it is 
imperative that the project receives Congressional authorization to 
allow the Corps to move forward with design and construction work. 
Continued delays only prolong the problem and force the local entities 
to expend scarce resources to develop additional short-term solutions 
to meet their water supply needs. The more prudent approach is the 
development of a long-term solution for the region's water supply 
needs, which could be accomplished through the development of a 
regional reservoir.
  I look forward to working with the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee next year during the development of the 2004 Water Resources 
Development Act to authorize the Corps to design and construct a multi-
purpose regional reservoir for southeast Alabama.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. 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 shall be considered as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be 
considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 2557

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2003''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition of secretary.

                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

Sec. 1001. Project authorizations.
Sec. 1002. Small projects for flood damage reduction.
Sec. 1003. Small projects for emergency streambank protection.
Sec. 1004. Small projects for navigation.
Sec. 1005. Small projects for improvement of the quality of the 
              environment.
Sec. 1006. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 1007. Small projects for shoreline protection.
Sec. 1008. Small projects for snagging and sediment removal.

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 2001. Annual passes for recreation.
Sec. 2002. Non-Federal contributions.
Sec. 2003. Harbor cost sharing.
Sec. 2004. Funding to process permits.
Sec. 2005. National shoreline erosion control development and 
              demonstration program.
Sec. 2006. Written agreement for water resources projects.
Sec. 2007. Assistance for remediation, restoration, and reuse.
Sec. 2008. Compilation of laws.
Sec. 2009. Dredged material disposal.
Sec. 2010. Wetlands mitigation.
Sec. 2011. Remote and subsistence harbors.
Sec. 2012. Beneficial uses of dredged material.
Sec. 2013. Cost sharing provisions for certain areas.
Sec. 2014. Revision of project partnership agreement.

[[Page H8841]]

Sec. 2015. Cost sharing.
Sec. 2016. Credit for work performed before partnership agreement.
Sec. 2017. Recreation user fee revenues.
Sec. 2018. Expedited actions for emergency flood damage reduction.
Sec. 2019. Watershed and river basin assessments.
Sec. 2020. Tribal partnership program.
Sec. 2021. Treatment of certain separable elements.
Sec. 2022. Prosecution of work.
Sec. 2023. Wildfire firefighting.
Sec. 2024. Credit for nonconstruction services.
Sec. 2025. Technical assistance.
Sec. 2026. Centers of specialized planning expertise.
Sec. 2027. Coordination and scheduling of Federal, State, and local 
              actions.
Sec. 2028. Project streamlining.
Sec. 2029. Lakes program.
Sec. 2030. Mitigation for fish and wildlife losses.
Sec. 2031. Cooperative agreements.
Sec. 2032. Project planning.
Sec. 2033. Independent peer review.

                 TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

Sec. 3001. Cook Inlet, Alaska.
Sec. 3002. King Cove Harbor, Alaska.
Sec. 3003. Sitka, Alaska.
Sec. 3004. Tatilek, Alaska.
Sec. 3005. Nogales Wash and tributaries, Arizona.
Sec. 3006. Grand Prairie Region and Bayou Meto Basin, Arkansas.
Sec. 3007. Saint Francis Basin, Arkansas.
Sec. 3008. American and Sacramento Rivers, California.
Sec. 3009. Cache Creek Basin, California.
Sec. 3010. Grayson Creek/Murderer's Creek, California.
Sec. 3011. John F. Baldwin Ship Channel and Stockton Ship Channel, 
              California.
Sec. 3012. Los Angeles Harbor, Los Angeles, California.
Sec. 3013. Larkspur Ferry Channel, Larkspur, California.
Sec. 3014. Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration, Napa River, California.
Sec. 3015. Pacific Flyway Center, Sacramento, California.
Sec. 3016. Pinole Creek, California.
Sec. 3017. Prado Dam, California.
Sec. 3018. Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California.
Sec. 3019. Sacramento River, Glenn-Colusa, California.
Sec. 3020. San Lorenzo River, California.
Sec. 3021. Upper Guadalupe River, California.
Sec. 3022. Walnut Creek Channel, California.
Sec. 3023. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase I, California.
Sec. 3024. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase II, California.
Sec. 3025. Brevard County, Florida.
Sec. 3026. Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet, Florida.
Sec. 3027. Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida.
Sec. 3028. Lido Key Beach, Sarasota, Florida.
Sec. 3029. Manatee Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 3030. Tampa Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 3031. Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida.
Sec. 3032. Miami Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 3033. Little Wood River, Gooding, Idaho.
Sec. 3034. Hennepin-Hopper Lakes, Illinois.
Sec. 3035. Mississippi River and Big Muddy River, Illinois.
Sec. 3036. Spunky Bottoms, Illinois.
Sec. 3037. Emiquon, Illinois.
Sec. 3038. Little Calumet River, Indiana.
Sec. 3039. White River, Indiana.
Sec. 3040. Wolf Lake, Indiana.
Sec. 3041. Prestonsburg, Kentucky.
Sec. 3042. Amite River and tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge 
              Parish Watershed.
Sec. 3043. Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.
Sec. 3044. Public access, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana.
Sec. 3045. J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to 
              Shreveport, Louisiana.
Sec. 3046. Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana.
Sec. 3047. New Orleans to Venice, Louisiana.
Sec. 3048. West Bank of the Mississippi River (East of Harvey Canal), 
              Louisiana.
Sec. 3049. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine.
Sec. 3050. Union River, Maine.
Sec. 3051. Cass River, Spaulding Township, Michigan.
Sec. 3052. Detroit River Shoreline, Detroit, Michigan.
Sec. 3053. Water Resources Institute, Muskegon, Michigan.
Sec. 3054. Saginaw River, Bay City, Michigan.
Sec. 3055. Ada, Minnesota.
Sec. 3056. Duluth Harbor, McQuade Road, Minnesota.
Sec. 3057. Grand Portage Harbor, Minnesota.
Sec. 3058. Granite Falls, Minnesota.
Sec. 3059. Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Sec. 3060. Red Lake River, Minnesota.
Sec. 3061. Silver Bay, Minnesota.
Sec. 3062. Taconite Harbor, Minnesota.
Sec. 3063. Two Harbors, Minnesota.
Sec. 3064. Deer Island, Harrison County, Mississippi.
Sec. 3065. Bois Brule Drainage and Levee District, Missouri.
Sec. 3066. Sand Creek Watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska.
Sec. 3067. Alamogordo, New Mexico.
Sec. 3068. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York.
Sec. 3069. Times Beach, Buffalo, New York.
Sec. 3070. Port of New York and New Jersey, New York and New Jersey.
Sec. 3071. New York State Canal System.
Sec. 3072. Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 3073. Willamette River Temperature Control, McKenzie Subbasin, 
              Oregon.
Sec. 3074. French Creek, Union City Dam, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3075. Lackawanna River at Olyphant, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3076. Lackawanna River at Scranton, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3077. Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3078. Sheraden Park Stream and Chartiers Creek, Allegheny County, 
              Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3079. Solomon's Creek, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3080. South Central Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3081. Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3082. Little Limestone Creek, Jonesborough, Tennessee.
Sec. 3083. Cedar Bayou, Texas.
Sec. 3084. Lake Kemp, Texas.
Sec. 3085. Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas.
Sec. 3086. North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay, Texas.
Sec. 3087. Proctor Lake, Texas.
Sec. 3088. San Antonio Channel, San Antonio, Texas.
Sec. 3089. Elizabeth River, Chesapeake, Virginia.
Sec. 3090. Roanoke River Upper Basin, Virginia.
Sec. 3091. Blair and Sitcum Waterways, Tacoma Harbor, Washington.
Sec. 3092. Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia.
Sec. 3093. Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin.
Sec. 3094. Mississippi River Headwaters Reservoirs.
Sec. 3095. Continuation of project authorizations.
Sec. 3096. Project reauthorizations.
Sec. 3097. Project deauthorizations.
Sec. 3098. Land conveyances.
Sec. 3099. Extinguishment of reversionary interests and use 
              restrictions.
Sec. 3100. Land exchange, disposal and acquisition of lands, Allatoona 
              Lake, Georgia.

                           TITLE IV--STUDIES

Sec. 4001. John Glenn Great Lakes basin program.
Sec. 4002. St. George Harbor, Alaska.
Sec. 4003. Susitna River, Alaska.
Sec. 4004. Searcy County, Arkansas.
Sec. 4005. Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway, Illinois, 
              Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin.
Sec. 4006. Hamilton, California.
Sec. 4007. Oceanside, California.
Sec. 4008. Sacramento River, California.
Sec. 4009. San Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California.
Sec. 4010. Tybee Island, Georgia.
Sec. 4011. Calumet Harbor, Illinois.
Sec. 4012. Paducah, Kentucky.
Sec. 4013. Bastrop-Morehouse Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 4014. West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 4015. City of Mackinac Island, Michigan.
Sec. 4016. Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 4017. South Branch, Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 4018. Northeast Mississippi.
Sec. 4019. Pueblo of Zuni, New Mexico.
Sec. 4020. Hudson-Raritan Estuary, New York and New Jersey.
Sec. 4021. Sac and Fox Nation, Oklahoma.
Sec. 4022. Sutherlin, Oregon.
Sec. 4023. Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon.
Sec. 4024. Ecosystem restoration and fish passage improvements, Oregon.
Sec. 4025. Northeastern Pennsylvania aquatic ecosystem restoration and 
              protection.
Sec. 4026. Georgetown and Williamsburg Counties, South Carolina.
Sec. 4027. Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay, Texas.
Sec. 4028. Grand County and Moab, Utah.
Sec. 4029. Chehalis River Basin, Washington.
Sec. 4030. Sprague, Lincoln County, Washington.
Sec. 4031. Monongahela River Basin, Northern West Virginia.
Sec. 4032. Wauwatosa, Wisconsin.

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 5001. Maintenance of navigation channels.
Sec. 5002. Watershed management.
Sec. 5003. Dam safety.
Sec. 5004. Structural integrity evaluations.
Sec. 5005. Flood mitigation priority areas.
Sec. 5006. Additional assistance for authorized projects.
Sec. 5007. Expedited completion of reports and construction for certain 
              projects.
Sec. 5008. Expedited completion of reports for certain projects.
Sec. 5009. Southeastern water resources assessment.
Sec. 5010. Upper Mississippi River environmental management program.
Sec. 5011. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers enhancement project.
Sec. 5012. Membership of Missouri River Trust.
Sec. 5013. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 5014. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River basins.
Sec. 5015. Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and protection 
              program.
Sec. 5016. Montgomery, Alabama.
Sec. 5017. Pinhook Creek, Huntsville, Alabama.
Sec. 5018. Alaska.
Sec. 5019. Akutan Small Boat Harbor, Alaska.
Sec. 5020. Lowell Creek Tunnel, Seward, Alaska.
Sec. 5021. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska.
Sec. 5022. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas.
Sec. 5023. Loomis Landing, Arkansas.
Sec. 5024. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River navigation project, Arkansas 
              and Oklahoma.
Sec. 5025. St. Francis River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.
Sec. 5026. Cambria, California.

[[Page H8842]]

Sec. 5027. Contra Costa Canal, Oakley and Knightsen, California; 
              Mallard Slough, Pittsburg, California.
Sec. 5028. East San Joaquin County, California.
Sec. 5029. Sacramento Area, California.
Sec. 5030. Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California.
Sec. 5031. San Francisco, California.
Sec. 5032. San Francisco, California, waterfront area.
Sec. 5033. Stockton, California.
Sec. 5034. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, Connecticut.
Sec. 5035. Everglades restoration, Florida.
Sec. 5036. Florida Keys water quality improvements.
Sec. 5037. Lake Worth, Florida.
Sec. 5038. Lake Lanier, Georgia.
Sec. 5039. Riley Creek recreation area, Idaho.
Sec. 5040. Reconstruction of Illinois flood protection projects.
Sec. 5041. Kaskaskia River basin, Illinois, restoration.
Sec. 5042. Natalie Creek, Midlothian and Oak Forest, Illinois.
Sec. 5043. Peoria riverfront development, Peoria, Illinois.
Sec. 5044. Illinois River basin restoration.
Sec. 5045. Calumet region, Indiana.
Sec. 5046. Rathbun Lake, Iowa.
Sec. 5047. Cumberland River Basin, Kentucky.
Sec. 5048. Mayfield Creek and tributaries, Kentucky.
Sec. 5049. North Fork, Kentucky River, Breathitt County, Kentucky.
Sec. 5050. Southern and Eastern Kentucky.
Sec. 5051. Coastal Louisiana ecosystem protection and restoration.
Sec. 5052. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Sec. 5053. West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 5054. Chesapeake Bay shoreline, Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, 
              and Delaware.
Sec. 5055. Delmarva conservation corridor, Maryland.
Sec. 5056. Detroit River, Michigan.
Sec. 5057. Oakland County, Michigan.
Sec. 5058. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan.
Sec. 5059. Garrison and Kathio Township, Minnesota.
Sec. 5060. Northeastern Minnesota.
Sec. 5061. Desoto County, Mississippi.
Sec. 5062. Harrison, Hancock, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi.
Sec. 5063. Mississippi River, Missouri, and Illinois.
Sec. 5064. St. Louis, Missouri.
Sec. 5065. Hackensack Meadowlands area, New Jersey.
Sec. 5066. Atlantic Coast of New York.
Sec. 5067. College Point, New York City, New York.
Sec. 5068. Flushing Bay and Creek, New York City, New York.
Sec. 5069. Little Neck Bay, Village of Kings Point, New York.
Sec. 5070. Onondaga Lake, New York.
Sec. 5071. John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina.
Sec. 5072. Stanly County, North Carolina.
Sec. 5073. Central Riverfront Park, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Sec. 5074. Piedmont Lake Dam, Ohio.
Sec. 5075. Ohio.
Sec. 5076. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 5077. Columbia River, Oregon.
Sec. 5078. Eugene, Oregon.
Sec. 5079. John Day Lock and Dam, Lake Umatilla, Oregon and Washington.
Sec. 5080. Lowell, Oregon.
Sec. 5081. Hagerman's Run, Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 5082. Northeast Pennsylvania.
Sec. 5083. Susquehannock Campground access road, Raystown Lake, 
              Pennsylvania.
Sec. 5084. Upper Susquehanna River basin, Pennsylvania and New York.
Sec. 5085. Washington, Greene, Westmoreland, and Fayette Counties, 
              Pennsylvania.
Sec. 5086. Cano Martin Pena, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Sec. 5087. Beaufort and Jasper Counties, South Carolina.
Sec. 5088. Cooper River, South Carolina.
Sec. 5089. Lakes Marion and Moultrie, South Carolina.
Sec. 5090. Upper Big Sioux River, Watertown, South Dakota.
Sec. 5091. Fritz Landing, Tennessee.
Sec. 5092. Memphis, Tennessee.
Sec. 5093. Town Creek, Lenoir City, Tennessee.
Sec. 5094. Tennessee River partnership.
Sec. 5095. Clear Creek and tributaries, Harris, Galveston, and Brazoria 
              Counties, Texas.
Sec. 5096. Harris County, Texas.
Sec. 5097. Harris Gully, Harris County, Texas.
Sec. 5098. Onion Creek, Texas.
Sec. 5099. Pelican Island, Texas.
Sec. 5100. Front Royal, Virginia.
Sec. 5101. Richmond National Battlefield Park, Richmond, Virginia.
Sec. 5102. Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington.
Sec. 5103. Chehalis River, Centralia, Washington.
Sec. 5104. Hamilton Island Campground, Washington.
Sec. 5105. Puget Island, Washington.
Sec. 5106. Bluestone, West Virginia.
Sec. 5107. West Virginia and Pennsylvania flood control.
Sec. 5108. Lower Kanawha River Basin, West Virginia.
Sec. 5109. Central West Virginia.
Sec. 5110. Southern West Virginia.
Sec. 5111. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal 
              interests.
Sec. 5112. Bridge authorization.
Sec. 5113. Additional assistance for critical projects.
Sec. 5114. Use of Federal hopper dredge fleet.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.

       In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
     the Army.

                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

     SEC. 1001. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

       Except as otherwise provided in this section, 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 section:
       (1) American river watershed, california.--The project for 
     flood damage reduction and environmental restoration, 
     American River Watershed, California: Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers, dated November 5, 2002, at a total cost of 
     $257,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $201,200,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $56,100,000; except that 
     the Secretary is authorized to accept funds from State and 
     local governments and other Federal agencies for the purpose 
     of constructing a permanent bridge instead of the temporary 
     bridge described in the recommended plan and may construct 
     such permanent bridge if all additional costs for such 
     bridge, above the $36,000,000 provided for in the recommended 
     plan for bridge construction, are provided by such 
     governments or agencies.
       (2) Pine flat dam and reservoir, california.--The project 
     for environmental restoration, Pine Flat Dam and Reservoir, 
     Fresno County, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers, 
     dated July 19, 2002, at a total cost of $38,480,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $24,930,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $13,550,000.
       (3) South platte river, denver, colorado.--The project for 
     environmental restoration Denver County Reach, South Platte 
     River, Denver, Colorado: Report of the Chief of Engineers, 
     dated May 16, 2003, at a total cost of $17,997,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $11,698,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $6,299,000.
       (4) Morganza to the gulf of mexico, louisiana.--
       (A) In general.--The project for hurricane and storm damage 
     reduction, Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana: Report 
     of the Chief of Engineers, dated August 23, 2002, at a total 
     cost of $719,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $467,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $252,000,000.
       (B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work 
     carried out by the non-Federal interest for interim flood 
     protection after March 31, 1989, if the Secretary determines 
     that the work is integral to the project.
       (5) Smith island, maryland.--The project for environmental 
     restoration and protection, Smith Island, Maryland: Report of 
     the Chief of Engineers, dated October 29, 2001, at a total 
     cost of $8,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $5,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,800,000.
       (6) Corpus christi ship channel, corpus christi, texas.--
     The project for navigation and environmental restoration, 
     Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Texas, Channel Improvement 
     Project: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated June 2, 2003, 
     at a total cost of $153,808,000, with an estimated Federal 
     cost of $73,554,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $80,254,000.
       (7) Matagorda bay, texas.--The project for navigation, Gulf 
     Intracoastal Waterway, Brazos River to Port O'Connor, 
     Matagorda Bay Re-Route, Texas: Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers, dated December 4, 2002, at a total cost of 
     $14,515,000. The costs of construction of the project are to 
     be paid \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the general fund 
     of the Treasury and \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the 
     Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
       (8) Riverside oxbow, fort worth, texas.--
       (A) In general.--The project for environmental restoration, 
     Riverside Oxbow, Fort Worth, Texas: Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers dated May 29, 2003, at a total cost of $22,200,000, 
     with an estimated Federal cost of $9,180,000 and an estimated 
     non-Federal cost of $13,020,000.
       (B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of design 
     and construction work carried out on the Beach Street Dam and 
     associated features by the non-Federal interest before the 
     date of the partnership agreement for the project if the 
     Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project.
       (9) Deep creek, chesapeake, virginia.--The project for the 
     Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge Replacement, Deep 
     Creek, Chesapeake, Virginia: Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers, dated March 3, 2003, at a total cost of 
     $22,178,000.

     SEC. 1002. SMALL PROJECTS FOR FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study for 
     each of the following projects and, if the Secretary 
     determines that a project is feasible, may carry out the 
     project under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 
     (33 U.S.C. 701s):
       (1) Cache river basin, grubbs, arkansas.--Project for flood 
     damage reduction, Cache River basin, Grubbs, Arkansas.
       (2) Santa ana river basin and orange county streams, 
     california.--Project for flood damage reduction, Santa Ana 
     River basin and Orange County streams, California.
       (3) Stony creek, oak lawn, illinois.--Project for flood 
     damage reduction, Stony Creek, Oak Lawn, Illinois.
       (4) Olive hill and vicinity, kentucky.--Project for flood 
     damage reduction, Olive Hill and vicinity, Kentucky.

[[Page H8843]]

       (5) Nashua river, fitchburg, massachusetts.--Project for 
     flood damage reduction, Nashua River, Fitchburg, 
     Massachusetts.
       (6) Saginaw river, hamilton dam, flint, michigan.--Project 
     for flood damage reduction, Saginaw River, Hamilton Dam, 
     Flint, Michigan.
       (7) Marsh creek, minnesota.--Project for flood damage 
     reduction, Marsh Creek, Minnesota.
       (8) Roseau river, roseau, minnesota.--Project for flood 
     damage reduction, Roseau River, Roseau, Minnesota.
       (9) South branch of the wild rice river, borup, 
     minnesota.--Project for flood damage reduction, South Branch 
     of the Wild Rice River, Borup, Minnesota.
       (10) Twin valley lake, wild rice river, minnesota.--Project 
     for flood damage reduction, Twin Valley Lake, Wild Rice 
     River, Minnesota.
       (11) Blacksnake creek, st. joseph, missouri.--Project for 
     flood damage reduction, Blacksnake Creek, St. Joseph, 
     Missouri.
       (12) McKeel brook, new jersey.--Project for flood damage 
     reduction, McKeel Brook, New Jersey.
       (13) East river, silver beach, new york city, new york.--
     Project for flood damage reduction, East River, Silver Beach, 
     New York City, New York.
       (14) Ramapo river, town of monroe and villages of monroe, 
     kiryas joel, and harriman, new york.--Project for flood 
     damage reduction, Ramapo River, Town of Monroe and Villages 
     of Monroe, Kiryas Joel, and Harriman, New York.
       (15) Little mill creek, southampton, pennsylvania.--Project 
     for flood damage reduction, Little Mill Creek, Southampton, 
     Pennsylvania.
       (16) Little neshaminy creek, warrenton, pennsylvania.--
     Project for flood damage reduction, Little Neshaminy Creek, 
     Warrenton, Pennsylvania.
       (17) Surfside beach, south carolina.--Project for flood 
     damage reduction, Surfside Beach and vicinity, South 
     Carolina.
       (b) Special Rules.--In carrying out the project for flood 
     damage reduction, South Branch of the Wild Rice River, Borup, 
     Minnesota, referred to in subsection (a)(9) the Secretary may 
     consider national ecosystem restoration benefits in 
     determining the Federal interest in the project and 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. 1003. SMALL PROJECTS FOR EMERGENCY STREAMBANK 
                   PROTECTION.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the 
     following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a 
     project is feasible, may carry out the project under section 
     14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r):
       (1) Ouachita and black rivers, arkansas.--Project for 
     emergency streambank protection, Ouachita and Black Rivers, 
     Arkansas.
       (2) Melvina ditch, chicago ridge, illinois.--Project for 
     emergency streambank protection for the east side of Melvina 
     Ditch in the vicinity of 96th Street and Nashville Avenue, 
     Chicago Ridge, Illinois.
       (3) Middle fork grand river, gentry county, missouri.--
     Project for emergency streambank protection, Middle Fork 
     Grand River, Gentry County, Missouri.
       (4) Shrewsbury river, rumson, new jersey.--Project for 
     emergency streambank protection, Shrewsbury River, Rumson, 
     New Jersey.
       (5) Kowawese unique area and hudson river, new windsor, new 
     york.--Project for emergency streambank protection, Kowawese 
     Unique Area and Hudson River, New Windsor, New York.

     SEC. 1004. SMALL PROJECTS FOR NAVIGATION.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the 
     following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a 
     project is feasible, may carry out the project under section 
     107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577):
       (1) Blytheville county harbor, arkansas.--Project for 
     navigation, Blytheville County Harbor, Arkansas.
       (2) Evanston, illinois.--Project for navigation, Evanston, 
     Illinois.
       (3) Niagara frontier transportation authority boat harbor, 
     buffalo, new york.--Project for navigation, Niagara Frontier 
     Transportation Authority Boat Harbor, Buffalo, New York.
       (4) Woodlawn marina, lackawanna, new york.--Project for 
     navigation, Woodlawn Marina, Lackawanna, New York.
       (5) Baker bay and ilwaco harbor, washington.--Project for 
     navigation, Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington.

     SEC. 1005. SMALL PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY OF 
                   THE ENVIRONMENT.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study for the following 
     project and, if the Secretary determines that the project is 
     appropriate, may carry out the project under section 1135 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
     2309a): Project for improvement of the quality of the 
     environment, Smithville Lake, Missouri.

     SEC. 1006. SMALL PROJECTS FOR AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the 
     following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a 
     project is appropriate, may carry out the project under 
     section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (33 U.S.C. 2330):
       (1) Colorado river, yuma, arizona.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, Colorado River, Yuma, Arizona.
       (2) Chino valley, california.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, Chino Valley, California.
       (3) New and alamo rivers, imperial county, california.--
     Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, New and Alamo 
     Rivers, Imperial County, California, including efforts to 
     address invasive aquatic plant species.
       (4) San diego river, california.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, San Diego River, California, including 
     efforts to address invasive aquatic plant species.
       (5) Stockton deep water ship channel and lower san joaquin 
     river, california.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel and lower San 
     Joaquin River, California.
       (6) Sweetwater reservoir, san diego county, california.--
     Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Sweetwater 
     Reservoir, San Diego County, California, including efforts to 
     address invasive aquatic plant species.
       (7) Biscayne bay, florida.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Biscayne Bay, Key Biscayne, Florida.
       (8) Destin harbor, florida.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Destin Harbor, Florida.
       (9) Chattahoochee river, columbus, georgia, and phenix 
     city, alabama.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, 
     City Mills Dam and Eagle and Phenix Dam, Chattahoochee River, 
     Columbus, Georgia, and Phenix City, Alabama.
       (10) Chattahoochee river and ocmulgee river basins, 
     georgia.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, 
     Chattahoochee River and Ocmulgee River basins, Gwinnett 
     County, Georgia.
       (11) Snake river, jerome, idaho.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, Snake River, Jerome, Idaho.

     SEC. 1007. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SHORELINE PROTECTION.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study for the following 
     project and, if the Secretary determines that the project is 
     feasible, may carry out the project under section 3 of the 
     Act entitled ``An Act authorizing Federal participation in 
     the cost of protecting the shores of publicly owned 
     property'', approved August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g): 
     Project for shoreline protection, Nelson Lagoon, Alaska.

     SEC. 1008. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SNAGGING AND SEDIMENT REMOVAL.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study for the following 
     project and, if the Secretary determines that the project is 
     feasible, the Secretary may carry out the project under 
     section 2 of the Flood Control Act of August 28, 1937 (33 
     U.S.C. 701g): Project for removal of snags and clearing and 
     straightening of channels for flood control, Kowawese Unique 
     Area and Hudson River, New Windsor, New York.

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 2001. ANNUAL PASSES FOR RECREATION.

       Section 208(c)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (16 U.S.C. 460d-3 note; 110 Stat. 3681; 113 Stat. 294) 
     is amended by striking ``the December 31, 2003'' and 
     inserting ``December 31, 2004''.

     SEC. 2002. NON-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS.

       Section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 2213) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(n) Non-Federal Contributions.--
       ``(1) Prohibition on solicitation of excess 
     contributions.--The Secretary may not solicit contributions 
     from non-Federal interests for costs of constructing 
     authorized water resources development projects or measures 
     in excess of the non-Federal share assigned to the 
     appropriate project purposes listed in subsections (a), (b), 
     and (c) or condition Federal participation in such projects 
     or measures on the receipt of such contributions.
       ``(2) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in 
     this subsection shall be construed to affect the Secretary's 
     authority under section 903(c) of this Act.''.

     SEC. 2003. HARBOR COST SHARING.

       (a) Payments During Construction.--Section 101(a)(1) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
     2211(a)(1); 100 Stat. 4082) is amended in each of 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C) by striking ``45 feet'' and 
     inserting ``53 feet''.
       (b) Operation and Maintenance.--Section 101(b)(1) of such 
     Act (33 U.S.C. 2211(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``45 feet'' 
     and inserting ``53 feet''.
       (c) Definitions.--Section 214 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2241; 
     100 Stat. 4108) is amended in each of paragraphs (1) and (3) 
     by striking ``45 feet'' and inserting ``53 feet''.
       (d) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsections (a), 
     (b), and (c) shall apply only to a project, or separable 
     element of a project, on which a contract for physical 
     construction has not been awarded before the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 2004. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.

       Section 214(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2000 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note; 114 Stat. 2594) is amended by 
     striking ``2003'' and inserting ``2005''.

     SEC. 2005. NATIONAL SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT AND 
                   DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Extension of Program.--Section 5(a) of the Act entitled 
     ``An Act authorizing Federal participation in the cost of 
     protecting the shores of publicly owned property'', approved 
     August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426h(a)), is amended by striking 
     ``6 years'' and inserting ``10 years''.
       (b) Extension of Planning, Design, and Construction 
     Phase.--Section 5(b)(1)(A) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 
     426h(b)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``3 years'' and 
     inserting ``6 years''.
       (c) Cost-Sharing; Removal of Projects.--Section 5(b) of 
     such Act (33 U.S.C. 426h(b)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs 
     (5) and (6), respectively; and

[[Page H8844]]

       (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) Cost sharing.--The Secretary may enter into a cost-
     sharing agreement with a non-Federal interest to carry out a 
     project, or a phase of a project, under the erosion control 
     program in cooperation with the non-Federal interest.
       ``(4) Removal of projects.--The Secretary may pay all or a 
     portion of the costs of removing a project, or an element of 
     a project, constructed under the erosion control program if 
     the Secretary determines during the term of the program that 
     the project or element is detrimental to the environment, 
     private property, or public safety.''.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 5(e)(2) of 
     such Act (33 U.S.C. 426h(e)(2)) is amended by striking 
     ``$21,000,000'' and inserting ``$31,000,000''.

     SEC. 2006. WRITTEN AGREEMENT FOR WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS.

       (a) Partnership Agreements.--Section 221 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``under the provisions'' and all that 
     follows through ``under any other'' and inserting ``under 
     any'';
       (B) by inserting ``partnership'' after ``written'';
       (C) by striking ``Secretary of the Army to furnish its 
     required cooperation for'' and inserting ``district engineer 
     for the district in which the project will be carried out 
     under which each party agrees to carry out its 
     responsibilities and requirements for implementation or 
     construction of''; and
       (D) by inserting after ``$25,000.'' the following: ``Such 
     agreement may include a provision for liquidated damages in 
     the event of a failure of one or more parties to perform.'';
       (2) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
       ``(e) Limitation.--Nothing in subsection (a) shall be 
     construed as limiting the authority of the Secretary to 
     ensure that a partnership agreement meets all requirements of 
     law and policies of the Secretary in effect on the date of 
     entry into the partnership agreement.''.
       (b) Local Cooperation.--Section 912(b) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (101 Stat. 4190) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``shall'' the first place it appears and 
     inserting ``may''; and
       (B) by striking the last sentence; and
       (2) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) by inserting after ``injunction, for'' the following: 
     ``payment of liquidated damages or, for'';
       (B) by striking ``to collect a civil penalty imposed under 
     this section,''; and
       (C) by striking ``any civil penalty imposed under this 
     section,'' and inserting ``any liquidated damages,''.
       (c) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b) only apply to partnership agreements entered into 
     after the date of enactment of this Act; except that at the 
     request of a non-Federal interest for a project the district 
     engineer for the district in which the project is located may 
     amend a project partnership agreement entered into on or 
     before such date and under which construction on the project 
     has not been initiated as of such date of enactment for the 
     purpose of incorporating such amendments.
       (d) References.--
       (1) To cooperation agreements.--Any reference in a law, 
     regulation, document, or other paper of the United States to 
     a cooperation agreement or project cooperation agreement 
     shall be treated to be a reference to a partnership agreement 
     or a project partnership agreement, respectively.
       (2) To partnership agreements.--Any reference to a 
     partnership agreement or project partnership agreement in 
     this Act (other than this section) shall be treated as a 
     reference to a cooperation agreement or a project cooperation 
     agreement, respectively.

     SEC. 2007. 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 improvement of 
     water quality or the conservation of water and related 
     resources of drainage basins and watersheds within the United 
     States.
       (b) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost 
     of assistance provided under subsection (a) shall be 50 
     percent.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008.

     SEC. 2008. COMPILATION OF LAWS.

       Within one year after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the laws of the United States relating to the improvement of 
     rivers and harbors, flood control, beach erosion, and other 
     water resources development enacted after November 8, 1966, 
     and before January 1, 2004, shall be compiled under the 
     direction of the Secretary and the Chief of Engineers and 
     printed for the use of the Department of the Army, Congress, 
     and the general public. The Secretary shall reprint the 
     volumes containing such laws enacted before November 8, 1966. 
     In addition, the Secretary shall include an index in each 
     volume so compiled or reprinted. Not later than December 1, 
     2004, the Secretary shall transmit at least 25 copies of each 
     such volume to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate.

     SEC. 2009. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL.

       Section 217 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (33 U.S.C. 2326a; 110 Stat. 3694-3696) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d);
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Governmental Partnerships.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may enter into cost-
     sharing agreements with 1 or more non-Federal public 
     interests with respect to a project, or group of projects 
     within a geographic region if appropriate, for the 
     acquisition, design, construction, management, or operation 
     of a dredged material processing, treatment, contaminant 
     reduction, or disposal facility (including any facility used 
     to demonstrate potential beneficial uses of dredged material, 
     which may include effective sediment contaminant reduction 
     technologies) using funds provided in whole or in part by the 
     Federal Government. One or more of the parties of the 
     agreement may perform the acquisition, design, construction, 
     management, or operation of a dredged material processing, 
     treatment, or disposal facility. If appropriate, the 
     Secretary may combine portions of separate construction or 
     maintenance appropriations from separate Federal projects 
     with the appropriate combined cost-sharing between the 
     various projects when the facility serves to manage 
     dredged material from multiple Federal projects located in 
     the geographic region of the facility.
       ``(2) Public financing.--
       ``(A) Agreements.--
       ``(i) Specified federal funding sources and cost sharing.--
     The cost-sharing agreement used shall clearly specify the 
     Federal funding sources and combined cost-sharing when 
     applicable to multiple Federal navigation projects and the 
     responsibilities and risks of each of the parties related to 
     present and future dredged material managed by the facility.
       ``(ii) Management of sediments.--The cost-sharing agreement 
     may include the management of sediments from the maintenance 
     dredging of Federal navigation projects that do not have 
     partnership agreements. The cost-sharing agreement may allow 
     the non-Federal sponsor to receive reimbursable payments from 
     the Federal Government for commitments made by the sponsor 
     for disposal or placement capacity at dredged material 
     treatment, processing, contaminant reduction, or disposal 
     facilities.
       ``(iii) Credit.--The cost-sharing agreement may allow costs 
     incurred prior to execution of a partnership agreement for 
     construction or the purchase of equipment or capacity for the 
     project to be credited according to existing cost-sharing 
     rules.
       ``(B) Credit.--Nothing in this subsection supersedes or 
     modifies existing agreements between the Federal Government 
     and any non-Federal sponsors for the cost-sharing, 
     construction, and operation and maintenance of Federal 
     navigation projects. Subject to the approval of the Secretary 
     and in accordance with existing laws, regulations, and 
     policies, a non-Federal public sponsor of a Federal 
     navigation project may seek credit for funds provided in the 
     acquisition, design, construction, management, or operation 
     of a dredged material processing, treatment, or disposal 
     facility to the extent the facility is used to manage dredged 
     material from the Federal navigation project. The non-Federal 
     sponsor shall be responsible for providing all necessary 
     lands, easements, rights-of-way, or relocations associated 
     with the facility and shall receive credit for these 
     items.''; and
       (3) in each of subsections (d)(1) and (d)(2)(A), as so 
     redesignated--
       (A) by inserting ``and maintenance'' after ``operation''; 
     and
       (B) by inserting ``processing, treatment, or'' after 
     ``dredged material'' the first place it appears.

     SEC. 2010. WETLANDS MITIGATION.

       In carrying out a water resources project that involves 
     wetlands mitigation and that has impacts that occur 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) or other applicable 
     Federal law (including regulations).

     SEC. 2011. REMOTE AND SUBSISTENCE HARBORS.

       (a) In General.--In conducting a study of harbor and 
     navigation improvements, the Secretary may recommend a 
     project without the need to demonstrate that the project is 
     justified solely by national economic development benefits if 
     the Secretary determines that--
       (1)(A) the community to be served by the project is at 
     least 70 miles from the nearest surface accessible commercial 
     port and has no direct rail or highway link to another 
     community served by a surface accessible port or harbor; or
       (B) the project would be located in the Commonwealth of 
     Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands, or American Samoa;
       (2) the harbor is economically critical such that over 80 
     percent of the goods transported through the harbor would be 
     consumed within the community served by the harbor and 
     navigation improvement; and
       (3) the long-term viability of the community would be 
     threatened without the harbor and navigation improvement.
       (b) Justification.--In considering whether to recommend a 
     project under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider 
     the benefits of the project to--
       (1) public health and safety of the local community, 
     including access to facilities designed to protect public 
     health and safety;

[[Page H8845]]

       (2) access to natural resources for subsistence purposes;
       (3) local and regional economic opportunities;
       (4) welfare of the local population; and
       (5) social and cultural value to the community.

     SEC. 2012. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.

       (a) In General.--Section 204 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326) is amended by 
     striking subsections (c) through (g) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(c) In General.--The Secretary may carry out projects to 
     transport and place suitable material dredged in connection 
     with the construction, operation, or maintenance of an 
     authorized navigation project at locations selected by a non-
     Federal entity for use in the construction, repair, or 
     rehabilitation of projects determined by the Secretary to be 
     in the public interest and associated with navigation, flood 
     damage reduction, hydroelectric power, municipal and 
     industrial water supply, agricultural water supply, 
     recreation, hurricane and storm damage reduction, aquatic 
     plant control, and environmental protection and restoration.
       ``(d) Cooperative Agreement.--Any project undertaken 
     pursuant to this section shall be initiated only after non-
     Federal interests have entered into an agreement with the 
     Secretary in which the non-Federal interests agree to pay the 
     non-Federal share of the cost of construction of the project 
     and 100 percent of the cost of operation, maintenance, 
     replacement, and rehabilitation of the project in accordance 
     with section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213).
       ``(e) Special Rule.--Construction of a project under 
     subsection (a) for the protection and restoration of aquatic 
     and ecologically related habitat the cost of which does not 
     exceed $750,000 and which will be located in a disadvantaged 
     community as determined by the Secretary may be carried out 
     at Federal expense.
       ``(f) Determination of Construction Costs.--Costs 
     associated with construction of a project under this section 
     shall be limited solely to construction costs that are in 
     excess of those costs necessary to carry out the dredging for 
     construction, operation, or maintenance of the authorized 
     navigation project in the most cost effective way, consistent 
     with economic, engineering, and environmental criteria.
       ``(g) Selection of Dredged Material Disposal Method.--In 
     developing and carrying out a project for navigation 
     involving the disposal of dredged material, the Secretary may 
     select, with the consent of the non-Federal interest, a 
     disposal method that is not the least-cost option if the 
     Secretary determines that the incremental costs of such 
     disposal method are reasonable in relation to the 
     environmental benefits, including the benefits to the aquatic 
     environment to be derived from the creation of wetlands and 
     control of shoreline erosion. The Federal share of such 
     incremental costs shall be determined in accordance with 
     subsection (d).
       ``(h) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of 
     the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), for any 
     project carried out under this section, a non-Federal 
     interest may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of 
     the affected local government.
       ``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $30,000,000 annually for projects under 
     this section of which not more than $3,000,000 annually may 
     be used for construction of projects described in subsection 
     (e). Such sums shall remain available until expended.
       ``(j) Regional Sediment Management Planning.--In 
     consultation with appropriate State and Federal agencies, the 
     Secretary may develop, at Federal expense, plans for regional 
     management of material dredged in conjunction with the 
     construction, operation, or maintenance of navigation 
     projects, including potential beneficial uses of dredged 
     material for construction, repair, or rehabilitation of 
     public projects for navigation, flood damage reduction, 
     hydroelectric power, municipal and industrial water supply, 
     agricultural water supply, recreation, hurricane and storm 
     damage reduction, aquatic plant control, and environmental 
     protection and restoration.''.
       (b) Repeal.--
       (1) In general.--Section 145 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j) is repealed.
       (2) Hold harmless.--The repeal made by paragraph (1) shall 
     not affect the authority of the Secretary to complete any 
     project being carried out under such section 145 on the day 
     before the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Priority Areas.--In carrying out section 204 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326), the 
     Secretary shall give priority to a project for the beaches of 
     Bogues Bank in the vicinity of Morehead City, North Carolina, 
     and a project in the vicinity of the Smith Point Park 
     Pavilion and the TWA Flight 800 Memorial, Brookhaven, New 
     York.

     SEC. 2013. COST SHARING PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN AREAS.

       Section 1156 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 2310; 100 Stat. 4256) is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 1156. COST SHARING PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN AREAS.

       ``The Secretary shall waive local cost-sharing requirements 
     up to $500,000 for all studies and projects in the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the United 
     States Virgin Islands, in Indian country (as defined in 
     section 1151 of title 18, United States Code, and including 
     lands that are within the jurisdictional area of an Oklahoma 
     Indian tribe, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, 
     and are recognized by the Secretary of the Interior as 
     eligible for trust land status under part 151 of title 25, 
     Code of Federal Regulations) or on land in the State of 
     Alaska conveyed to an Alaska Native Village Corporation under 
     the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et 
     seq.).''.

     SEC. 2014. REVISION OF PROJECT PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT.

       Upon authorization by law of an increase in the maximum 
     amount of Federal funds that may be allocated for a project 
     or an increase in the total cost of a project authorized to 
     be carried out by the Secretary, the Secretary shall revise 
     the project partnership agreement for the project to take 
     into account the change in Federal participation in the 
     project.

     SEC. 2015. COST SHARING.

       An increase in the maximum amount of Federal funds that may 
     be allocated for a project or an increase in the total cost 
     of a project authorized to be carried out by the Secretary 
     shall not affect any cost sharing requirement applicable to 
     the project under title I of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211 et seq.).

     SEC. 2016. CREDIT FOR WORK PERFORMED BEFORE PARTNERSHIP 
                   AGREEMENT.

       If the Secretary is authorized to credit toward the non-
     Federal share the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal 
     interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
     project and such work has not been carried out as of the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall enter into an 
     agreement with the non-Federal interest for the project under 
     which the non-Federal interest shall carry out such work, and 
     the credit shall apply only to work carried out under the 
     agreement.

     SEC. 2017. RECREATION USER FEE REVENUES.

       Section 225 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 297-298) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1) by striking ``During fiscal years 
     1999 through 2002, the'' and inserting ``The''; and
       (2) in subsection (a)(3) by striking ``September 30, 2005'' 
     and inserting ``expended''.

     SEC. 2018. EXPEDITED ACTIONS FOR EMERGENCY FLOOD DAMAGE 
                   REDUCTION.

       The Secretary shall expedite any authorized planning, 
     design, and construction of any project for flood damage 
     reduction for an area that, within the preceding 5 years, has 
     been subject to flooding that resulted in the loss of life 
     and caused damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to 
     warrant a declaration of a major disaster by the President 
     under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster and Emergency Relief 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).

     SEC. 2019. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 729 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2267a; 114 Stat. 2587-
     2588; 100 Stat. 4164) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California.'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (1) of subsection (f) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the 
     costs of an assessment carried out under this section on or 
     after December 11, 2000, shall be 25 percent.''; and
       (3) by striking subsection (g).
       (b) Revision of Partnership Agreement.--The Secretary shall 
     revise the partnership agreement for any assessment being 
     carried out under such section 729 to take into account the 
     change in non-Federal participation in the assessment as a 
     result of the amendments made by subsection (a).

     SEC. 2020. TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.

       Section 203(b)(1)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2269(b)(1)(B); 114 Stat. 2589) is amended 
     by inserting after ``Code'' the following ``, and including 
     lands that are within the jurisdictional area of an Oklahoma 
     Indian tribe, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, 
     and are recognized by the Secretary of the Interior as 
     eligible for trust land status under part 151 of title 25, 
     Code of Federal Regulations''.

     SEC. 2021. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN SEPARABLE ELEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--If, in carrying out a water resources 
     project, the Secretary identifies a separable element that 
     would advance a primary mission of the Corps of Engineers, 
     with benefits that could be achieved more cost-effectively if 
     carried out in conjunction with the project, the Secretary, 
     in consultation with the non-Federal interest, may carry out 
     such separable element at Federal expense if the cost of such 
     separable element does not exceed 3 percent of the Federal 
     project cost and does not exceed $1,000,000.
       (b) Operation and Maintenance.--Operation and maintenance 
     of a separable element of a project carried out under this 
     section shall be a non-Federal responsibility.
       (c) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to increase the amount authorized 
     to be appropriated for a project beyond that amount 
     authorized by law or to provide a separate authorization of 
     appropriations.

     SEC. 2022. PROSECUTION OF WORK.

       Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of September 22, 
     1922 (33 U.S.C. 621; 42 Stat. 1043), is amended by inserting 
     after ``harbors'' the following: ``, including any planning, 
     engineering, design, construction, operation, and 
     maintenance,''.

     SEC. 2023. WILDFIRE FIREFIGHTING.

       Section 309 of Public Law 102-154 (42 U.S.C. 1856a-1; 105 
     Stat. 1034) is amended by inserting ``the Secretary of the 
     Army,'' after ``the Secretary of Energy,''.

[[Page H8846]]

     SEC. 2024. CREDIT FOR NONCONSTRUCTION SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to allow a 
     non-Federal interest credit toward its share of project costs 
     for any authorized water resources development project for 
     the cost of materials and in-kind services, including design 
     and management services but not including construction, 
     provided by the non-Federal interest for implementation of 
     the project.
       (b) Limitation.--Credit authorized under subsection (a)--
       (1) shall not exceed the non-Federal share of project 
     costs;
       (2) shall not alter any other requirements that require a 
     non-Federal interest to provide lands, easements, rights-of-
     way, and dredged material disposal areas for the project;
       (3) shall not exceed the actual and reasonable costs of the 
     materials or in-kind services provided by the non-Federal 
     interest, as determined by the Secretary; and
       (4) shall not be allowed unless the Secretary has 
     determined that such materials or services are compatible 
     with and necessary for the project.

     SEC. 2025. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       Section 22 of Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 
     U.S.C. 1962d-16) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``The Secretary'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(a) Federal State Cooperation.--
       ``(1) Comprehensive plans.--The Secretary'';
       (2) by inserting after the last sentence in subsection (a) 
     the following:
       ``(2) Technical assistance.--
       ``(A) In general.--At the request of a governmental agency 
     or non-Federal interest, the Secretary may provide, at 
     Federal expense, technical assistance to such agency or non-
     Federal interest in managing water resources.
       ``(B) Types of assistance.--Technical assistance under this 
     paragraph may include provision and integration of 
     hydrologic, economic, and environmental data and analyses.''
       (3) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ``this section'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``subsection (a)(1)'';
       (4) in subsection (c) by striking ``(c) There is'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) Federal and state cooperation.--There is'';
       (5) in subsection (c) strike ``the provisions of this 
     section'' and insert ``subsection (a)(1);''; and
       (6) by inserting at the end of subsection (c) the 
     following:
       ``(2) Technical assistance.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated $5,000,000 annually to carry out subsection 
     (a)(2), of which not more than $2,000,000 annually may be 
     used by the Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements 
     with nonprofit organizations to provide assistance to rural 
     and small communities.''.

     SEC. 2026. CENTERS OF SPECIALIZED PLANNING EXPERTISE.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     establish centers to provide specialized planning expertise 
     for water resources projects to be carried out by the 
     Secretary to enhance and supplement the capabilities of the 
     districts of the Army Corps of Engineers.
       (b) Duties.--A center of expertise shall have the following 
     duties:
       (1) Providing technical and managerial assistance to 
     district engineers for project planning, development, and 
     implementation.
       (2) Providing peer reviews of new major scientific, 
     engineering, or economic methods, models or analyses that 
     will be used to support decisions of the Secretary with 
     respect to feasibility studies.
       (3) Providing support for external peer review panels 
     convened by the Secretary.
       (4) Performing such other duties as prescribed by the 
     Secretary.

     SEC. 2027. COORDINATION AND SCHEDULING OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND 
                   LOCAL ACTIONS.

       (a) Notice of Intent.--Upon request of the non-Federal 
     interest in the form of a written notice of intent to 
     construct or modify a non-Federal water supply, wastewater 
     infrastructure, flood damage reduction, environmental 
     restoration, or navigation project that requires the approval 
     of the Secretary, the Secretary shall initiate, subject to 
     subsection (g)(1), procedures to establish a schedule for 
     consolidating Federal, State, and local agency and Indian 
     tribe environmental assessments, project reviews, and 
     issuance of all permits for the construction or modification 
     of the project. The non-Federal interest shall submit to the 
     Secretary, with the notice of intent, studies and 
     documentation, including environmental reviews, that may be 
     required by Federal law for decisionmaking on the proposed 
     project. All States and Indian tribes having jurisdiction 
     over the proposed project shall be invited by the Secretary, 
     but shall not be required, to participate in carrying out 
     this section with respect to the project.
       (b) Procedural Requirements.--Within 15 days after receipt 
     of notice under subsection (a), the Secretary shall publish 
     such notice in the Federal Register. The Secretary also shall 
     provide written notification of the receipt of a notice under 
     subsection (a) to all State and local agencies and Indian 
     tribes that may be required to issue permits for the 
     construction of the project or related activities. The 
     Secretary shall solicit the cooperation of those agencies and 
     request their entry into a memorandum of agreement described 
     in subsection (c) with respect to the project. Within 30 days 
     after publication of the notice in the Federal Register, 
     State and local agencies and Indian tribes that intend to 
     enter into the memorandum of agreement with respect to the 
     project shall notify the Secretary of their intent in 
     writing.
       (c) Scheduling Agreement.--Within 90 days after the date of 
     receipt of notice under subsection (a) with respect to a 
     project, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of 
     Commerce, and the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, as necessary, and any State or local 
     agencies that have notified the Secretary under subsection 
     (b) shall enter into an agreement with the Secretary 
     establishing a schedule of decisionmaking for approval of the 
     project and permits associated with the project and with 
     related activities.
       (d) Contents of Agreement.--An agreement entered into under 
     subsection (c) with respect to a project, to the extent 
     practicable, shall consolidate hearing and comment periods, 
     procedures for data collection and report preparation, and 
     the environmental review and permitting processes associated 
     with the project and related activities. The agreement shall 
     detail, to the extent possible, the non-Federal interest's 
     responsibilities for data development and information that 
     may be necessary to process each permit required for the 
     project, including a schedule when the information and data 
     will be provided to the appropriate Federal, State, or local 
     agency or Indian tribe.
       (e) Revision of Agreement.--The Secretary may revise an 
     agreement entered into under subsection (c) with respect to a 
     project once to extend the schedule to allow the non-Federal 
     interest the minimum amount of additional time necessary to 
     revise its original application to meet the objections of a 
     Federal, State, or local agency or Indian tribe that is a 
     party to the agreement.
       (f) Final Decision.--Not later than the final day of a 
     schedule established by an agreement entered into under 
     subsection (c) with respect to a project, the Secretary shall 
     notify the non-Federal interest of the final decision on the 
     project and whether the permit or permits have been issued.
       (g) Reimbursement.--
       (1) Costs of coordination.--The costs incurred by the 
     Secretary to establish and carry out a schedule to 
     consolidate Federal, State, and local agency and Indian tribe 
     environmental assessments, project reviews, and permit 
     issuance for a project under this section shall be paid by 
     the non-Federal interest.
       (2) Costs incurred to expedite permits and reviews.--
       (A) Acceptance of non-federal funds.--The Secretary may 
     accept funds from the non-Federal interest to hire additional 
     staff or obtain the services of consultants, or to provide 
     financial, technical, and administrative support to agencies 
     that have entered into an agreement with the Secretary under 
     subsection (c) with respect to a project in order to 
     facilitate the timely processing, review, and completion 
     of applicable Federal, State, and local agency and Indian 
     tribe environmental assessments, project reviews, and 
     permits for the project.
       (B) Use of funds.--Funds accepted under this paragraph 
     shall be used to supplement existing resources of the 
     Secretary or a participating agency.
       (C) Assurance of level of service and impartiality.--The 
     Secretary shall ensure that the Department of the Army and 
     any participating agency that accepts funds under this 
     paragraph shall continue to provide the same level of service 
     to other projects and other responsibilities not covered by 
     this section as it would provide notwithstanding any 
     activities carried out under this section and that acceptance 
     of such funds will not impact impartial decisionmaking either 
     substantively or procedurally.
       (h) Report on Timesavings Methods.--Not later than 3 years 
     after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary 
     shall prepare and transmit to Congress a report estimating 
     the time required for the issuance of all Federal, State, 
     local, and tribal permits for the construction of non-Federal 
     projects for water supply, wastewater infrastructure, flood 
     damage reduction, environmental restoration, and navigation. 
     The Secretary shall include in that report recommendations 
     for further reducing the amount of time required for the 
     issuance of those permits, including any proposed changes in 
     existing law.

     SEC. 2028. PROJECT STREAMLINING.

       (a) Policy.--The benefits of water resources projects are 
     important to the Nation's economy and environment, and 
     recommendations to Congress regarding such projects should 
     not be delayed due to uncoordinated and sequential 
     environmental reviews or the failure to timely resolve 
     disputes during the development of water resources projects.
       (b) Scope.--This section shall apply to each study 
     initiated after the date of enactment of this Act to develop 
     a feasibility report under section 905 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282), or a reevaluation 
     report, for a water resources project if the Secretary 
     determines that such study requires an environmental impact 
     statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       (c) Water Resources Project Review Process.--The Secretary 
     shall develop and implement a coordinated review process for 
     water resources projects.
       (d) Coordinated Reviews.--
       (1) In general.--The coordinated review process under this 
     section shall provide that all environmental reviews, 
     analyses, opinions, permits, licenses, and approvals that 
     must be issued or made by a Federal, State, or local 
     government agency or Indian tribe for a water resources 
     project will be conducted concurrently, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, and completed within a time period established 
     by the Secretary, in cooperation with the agencies identified 
     under subsection (e) with respect to the project.
       (2) Agency participation.--Each Federal agency identified 
     under subsection (e) shall formulate and implement 
     administrative, policy,

[[Page H8847]]

     and procedural mechanisms to enable the agency to ensure 
     completion of environmental reviews, analyses, opinions, 
     permits, licenses, and approvals described in paragraph (1) 
     in a timely and environmentally responsible manner.
       (e) Identification of Jurisdictional Agencies.--With 
     respect to each water resources project, the Secretary shall 
     identify, as soon as practicable, all Federal, State, and 
     local government agencies and Indian tribes that may have 
     jurisdiction over environmental-related matters that may be 
     affected by the project or may be required by law to conduct 
     an environmental-related review or analysis of the project or 
     determine whether to issue an environmental-related permit, 
     license, or approval for the project.
       (f) State Authority.--If a coordinated review process is 
     being implemented under this section by the Secretary with 
     respect to a water resources project within the boundaries of 
     a State, the State, consistent with State law, may choose to 
     participate in such process and provide that all State 
     agencies that have jurisdiction over environmental-related 
     matters that may be affected by the project or may be 
     required by law to conduct an environmental-related review or 
     analysis of the project or determine whether to issue an 
     environmental-related permit, license, or approval for the 
     project, be subject to the process.
       (g) Memorandum of Understanding.--The coordinated review 
     process developed under this section may be incorporated into 
     a memorandum of understanding for a project between the 
     Secretary and the heads of other Federal, State, and local 
     government agencies and Indian tribes identified under 
     subsection (e) with respect to the project and the non-
     Federal interest for the project.
       (h) Effect of Failure To Meet Deadline.--
       (1) Notification of congress and ceq.--If the Secretary 
     determines that a Federal, State, or local government agency, 
     Indian tribe, or non-Federal interest that is participating 
     in a coordinated review process under this section with 
     respect to a project has not met a deadline established under 
     subsection (d) for the project, the Secretary shall notify, 
     within 30 days of the date of such determination, the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives, the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate, the Council on Environmental Quality, 
     and the agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal interest 
     involved about the failure to meet the deadline.
       (2) Agency report.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     of receipt of a notice under paragraph (1), the Federal, 
     State, or local government agency, Indian tribe, or non-
     Federal interest involved shall submit a report to the 
     Secretary, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Environment 
     and Public Works of the Senate, and the Council on 
     Environmental Quality explaining why the agency, Indian 
     tribe, or non-Federal interest did not meet the deadline and 
     what actions it intends to take to complete or issue the 
     required review, analysis, opinion, permit, license, or 
     approval.
       (i) Purpose and Need and Determination of Reasonable 
     Alternatives.--
       (1) In general.--As an official of the lead Federal agency 
     that is responsible for carrying out a study to which this 
     section applies and its associated process for meeting the 
     requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and as the Federal agency with 
     expertise in water resources development, the Secretary, in 
     carrying out such study and process, shall--
       (A) define the purpose and need for the proposed water 
     resources project; and
       (B) determine which alternatives are reasonable and may be 
     reasonably anticipated to meet project purposes and needs.
       (2) Streamlining study.--To streamline a study to which 
     this section applies and its associated process for meeting 
     the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 
     1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Secretary may eliminate 
     from consideration any alternatives the Secretary determines 
     are not reasonable or are not reasonably anticipated to meet 
     project purposes and needs.
       (j) Solicitation and Consideration of Comments.--In 
     applying subsection (i), the Secretary shall solicit, 
     consider, and respond to comments from interested persons and 
     governmental entities.
       (k) Categorical Exclusions.--Not later than 120 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     develop and publish a list of categorical exclusions from the 
     requirement that an environmental assessment or an 
     environmental impact statement be prepared under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for 
     water resources projects.
       (l) Limitations.--Nothing in this section shall preempt or 
     interfere with--
       (1) any practice of seeking public comment;
       (2) any power, jurisdiction, or authority that a Federal, 
     State, or local government agency, Indian tribe, or non-
     Federal interest has with respect to carrying out a water 
     resources project; or
       (3) any obligation to comply with the provisions of the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4371 et 
     seq.) and the regulations issued by the Council on 
     Environmental Quality to carry out such Act.
       (m) Benchmarks.--Within 12 months of the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Chief of Engineers shall establish 
     benchmarks for determining the length of time it should take 
     to conduct a feasibility study for a water resources 
     development project and its associated review process under 
     the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4371 
     et seq.). Benchmarks may be established for activities based 
     on project type, size, cost, and complexity. The Chief of 
     Engineers shall use such benchmarks as a management tool to 
     make the feasibility study process more efficient in all 
     districts of the Army Corps of Engineers.

     SEC. 2029. LAKES PROGRAM.

       Section 602(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (100 Stat. 4148; 110 Stat. 3758; 113 Stat. 295) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at end of paragraph (18);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (19) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(20) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois, removal of 
     silt and aquatic growth and measures to address excessive 
     sedimentation;
       ``(21) Rogers Pond, Franklin Township, New Jersey, removal 
     of silt and restoration of structural integrity;
       ``(22) Greenwood Lake, Greenwood Lake, New York, removal of 
     silt and aquatic growth; and
       ``(23) Lake Rodgers, Creedmoor, North Carolina, removal of 
     silt and excessive nutrients and restoration of structural 
     integrity.''.

     SEC. 2030. MITIGATION FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE LOSSES.

       (a) Completion of Mitigation.--Section 906(a) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(a)) is 
     amended by adding at the following:
       ``(3) Completion of mitigation.--In those instances in 
     which it is not technically practicable to complete 
     mitigation concurrent with the last day of project 
     construction because of the nature of the mitigation to be 
     undertaken, the Secretary shall complete the required 
     mitigation as expeditiously as practicable, but in no case 
     later than the last day of the first fiscal year beginning 
     after the last day of construction of the project or 
     separable element of the project.''.
       (b) Mitigation Plan Contents.--Section 906(d) of such Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 2283(d)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(3) Contents.--A mitigation plan shall include--
       ``(A) a description of the physical action to be undertaken 
     to achieve the mitigation objectives within the watershed in 
     which such losses occur and, in any case in which mitigation 
     must take place outside the watershed, a justification 
     detailing the rationale for undertaking the mitigation 
     outside of the watershed;
       ``(B) a description of the lands or interests in lands to 
     be acquired for mitigation and the basis for a determination 
     that such lands are available for acquisition;
       ``(C) the type, amount, and characteristics of the habitat 
     being restored;
       ``(D) success criteria for mitigation based on replacement 
     of lost functions and values of the habitat, including 
     hydrologic and vegetative characteristics; and
       ``(E) a plan for any necessary monitoring to determine the 
     success of the mitigation, including the cost and duration of 
     any monitoring, and to the extent practicable, the entities 
     responsible for any monitoring.
       ``(4) Responsibility for monitoring.--In any case in which 
     it is not practicable to identify in a mitigation plan for a 
     water resources project, the entity responsible for 
     monitoring at the time of a final report of the Chief of 
     Engineers or other final decision document for the project, 
     such entity shall be identified in the partnership agreement 
     entered into with the non-Federal interest.''.
       (c) Status Report.--
       (1) In general.--Concurrent with the President's submission 
     to Congress of the President's request for appropriations for 
     the Civil Works Program for a fiscal year, the Secretary 
     shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on the Environment and Public Works of the Senate a 
     report on the status of construction of projects that require 
     mitigation under section 906 of Water Resources Development 
     Act 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283; 100 Stat. 4186) and the status of 
     such mitigation.
       (2) Projects included.--The status report shall include the 
     status of all projects that are under construction, all 
     projects for which the President requests funding for the 
     next fiscal year, and all projects that have completed 
     construction, but have not completed the mitigation required 
     under section 906 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986.

     SEC. 2031. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--For the purpose of expediting the cost-
     effective design and construction of wetlands restoration 
     that is part of an authorized water resources project, the 
     Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements under section 
     6305 of title 31, United States Code, with nonprofit 
     organizations with expertise in wetlands restoration to carry 
     out such design and construction on behalf of the Secretary.
       (b) Limitations.--
       (1) Per project limit.--A cooperative agreement under this 
     section shall not obligate the Secretary to pay the nonprofit 
     organization more than $1,000,000 for any single wetlands 
     restoration project.
       (2) Annual limit.--The total value of work carried out 
     under cooperative agreements under this section may not 
     exceed $5,000,000 in any fiscal year.

     SEC. 2032. PROJECT PLANNING.

       (a) Objectives.--
       (1) Flood control, navigation, and hurricane and storm 
     damage reduction projects.--The Federal objective of any 
     study of the feasibility of a water resources project carried 
     out by the Secretary for flood damage reduction, navigation, 
     or hurricane and storm damage reduction shall be to maximize 
     the net national economic development benefits associated 
     with the project, consistent with protecting the Nation's 
     environment.
       (2) Ecosystem restoration projects.--The Federal objective 
     of any study of the feasibility of a water resources project 
     for ecosystem restoration carried out by the Secretary shall 
     be to

[[Page H8848]]

     maximize the net national ecosystem restoration benefits 
     associated with the project, consistent with national 
     economic development.
       (3) Projects with multiple purposes.--In the case of a 
     study that includes multiple project purposes, the primary 
     and other project purposes shall be evaluated, based on the 
     relevant Federal objective identified under paragraphs (1) 
     and (2).
       (4) Selection of project alternatives.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding the Federal objectives 
     identified in this subsection, the Secretary may select a 
     project alternative that does not maximize net benefits if 
     there is an overriding reason based upon other Federal, 
     State, local, or international concerns.
       (B) Flood damage reduction, navigation, and hurricane storm 
     damage reduction projects.--With respect to a water resources 
     project described in paragraph (1), an overriding reason for 
     selecting a plan other than the plan that maximizes national 
     economic development benefits may be if the Secretary 
     determines, and the non-Federal interest concurs, that an 
     alternative plan is feasible and achieves the project 
     purposes while providing greater ecosystem restoration 
     benefits.
       (C) Ecosystem restoration projects.--With respect to a 
     water resources project described in paragraph (2), an 
     overriding reason for selecting a plan other than the plan 
     that maximizes national ecosystem restoration benefits may be 
     if the Secretary determines, and the non-Federal interest 
     concurs, that an alternative is feasible and achieves the 
     project purpose while providing greater economic development 
     benefits.
       (b) Identifying Additional Benefits and Projects.--
       (1) Primarily economic benefits.--In conducting a study of 
     the feasibility of a project where the primary benefits are 
     expected to be economic, the Secretary may identify ecosystem 
     restoration benefits that may be achieved in the study area 
     and, after obtaining the participation of a non-Federal 
     interest, may study and recommend construction of a separate 
     project or separable project element to achieve those 
     benefits.
       (2) Primarily ecosystem restoration benefits.--In 
     conducting a study of the feasibility of a project where the 
     primary benefits are expected to be associated with ecosystem 
     restoration, the Secretary may identify economic benefits 
     that may be achieved in the study area and, after obtaining 
     the participation of a non-Federal interest, may study and 
     recommend construction of a separate project or separable 
     project element to achieve those benefits.
       (3) Rules applicable to identified separate projects and 
     elements.--Any separate project or separable element 
     identified under paragraph (1) or (2) and recommended for 
     construction shall not be considered integral to the 
     underlying project under study and, if authorized, shall be 
     subject to a separate partnership agreement, unless a non-
     Federal interest agrees to share in the cost of both projects 
     or separable elements.
       (c) Calculation of Benefits and Costs for Flood Damage 
     Reduction Projects.--A feasibility study for a project for 
     flood damage reduction shall include, as part of the 
     calculation of benefits and costs--
       (1) a calculation of the residual risk of flooding 
     following completion of the proposed project;
       (2) a calculation of any upstream or downstream impacts of 
     the proposed project; and
       (3) calculations to ensure that the benefits and costs 
     associated with structural and nonstructural alternatives are 
     evaluated in an equitable manner.

     SEC. 2033. INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW.

       (a) Project Studies Subject to Independent Peer Review.--
       (1) In general.--Project studies shall be subject to a peer 
     review by an independent panel of experts as determined under 
     this section.
       (2) Scope.--The peer review may include a review of the 
     economic and environmental assumptions and projections, 
     project evaluation data, economic analyses, environmental 
     analyses, engineering analyses, formulation of alternative 
     plans, methods for integrating risk and uncertainty, models 
     used in evaluation of economic or environmental impacts of 
     proposed projects, and any biological opinions of the project 
     study.
       (3) Project studies subject to peer review.--
       (A) Mandatory.--A project study shall be subject to peer 
     review under paragraph (1) if the project has an estimated 
     total cost of more than $50,000,000, including mitigation 
     costs, and is not determined by the Chief of Engineers to be 
     exempt from peer review under paragraph (6).
       (B) Discretionary.--A project study may be subject to peer 
     review if--
       (i) the Governor of an affected State requests a peer 
     review by an independent panel of experts;
       (ii) the head of a Federal or State agency charged with 
     reviewing the project study determines that the project is 
     likely to have a significant adverse impact on environmental, 
     cultural, or other resources under the jurisdiction of the 
     agency after implementation of proposed mitigation plans and 
     requests a peer review by an independent panel of experts; or
       (iii) the Chief of Engineers determines that the project 
     study is controversial.
       (4) Controversial projects.--Upon receipt of a written 
     request under paragraph (3)(B) or on the initiative of the 
     Chief of Engineers, the Chief of Engineers shall determine 
     whether a project study is controversial.
       (5) Factors to consider.--In determining whether a project 
     study is controversial, the Chief of Engineers shall consider 
     if--
       (A) there is a significant public dispute as to the size, 
     nature, or effects of the project; or
       (B) there is a significant public dispute as to the 
     economic or environmental costs or benefits of the project.
       (6) Project studies excluded from peer review.--Project 
     studies that may be excluded from peer review under paragraph 
     (1) are--
       (A) a study for a project the Chief of Engineers 
     determines--
       (i) is not controversial;
       (ii) has no more than negligible adverse impacts on scarce 
     or unique cultural, historic, or tribal resources;
       (iii) has no substantial adverse impacts on fish and 
     wildlife species and their habitat prior to the 
     implementation of mitigation measures; and
       (iv) has, before implementation of mitigation measures, no 
     more than a negligible adverse impact on a species listed as 
     endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species 
     Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1539 et seq.) or the critical habitat 
     of such species designated under such Act; and
       (B) a study for a project pursued under section 205 of the 
     Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), section 2 of the 
     Flood Control Act of August 28, 1937 (33 U.S.C. 701g), 
     section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r), 
     section 107(a) of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 
     577(a)), section 3 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing 
     Federal participation in the cost of protecting the shores of 
     publicly owned property'', approved August 13, 1946 (33 
     U.S.C. 426g), section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 
     (33 U.S.C. 426i), section 3 of the Act entitled ``An Act 
     authorizing the construction, repair, and preservation of 
     certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other 
     purposes'', approved March 2, 1945 (33 U.S.C. 603a), section 
     1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
     U.S.C. 2309a), section 206 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), or section 204 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326).
       (7) Appeal.--The decision of the Chief of Engineers whether 
     to peer review a project study shall be published in the 
     Federal Register and shall be subject to appeal by a person 
     referred to in paragraph (3)(B)(i) or (3)(B)(ii) to the 
     Secretary of the Army if such appeal is made within the 30-
     day period following the date of such publication.
       (8) Determination of project cost.--For purposes of 
     determining the estimated total cost of a project under 
     paragraph (3)(A), the project cost shall be based upon the 
     reasonable estimates of the Chief of Engineers at the 
     completion of the reconnaissance study for the project. If 
     the reasonable estimate of project costs is subsequently 
     determined to be in excess of the amount in paragraph (3)(A), 
     the Chief of Engineers shall make a determination whether a 
     project study should be reviewed under this section.
       (b) Timing of Peer Review.--The Chief of Engineers shall 
     determine the timing of a peer review of a project study 
     under subsection (a). In all cases, the peer review shall 
     occur during the period beginning on the date of the 
     completion of the reconnaissance study for the project and 
     ending on the date the draft report of the Chief of Engineers 
     for the project is made available for public comment. Where 
     the Chief of Engineers has not initiated a peer review of a 
     project study, the Chief of Engineers shall consider, at a 
     minimum, whether to initiate a peer review at the time that--
       (1) the without project conditions are identified;
       (2) the array of alternatives to be considered are 
     identified; and
       (3) the preferred alternative is identified.
     Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require the 
     Chief of Engineers to conduct multiple peer reviews for a 
     project study.
       (c) Establishment of Panels.--
       (1) In general.--For each project study subject to peer 
     review under subsection (a), as soon as practicable after the 
     Chief of Engineers determines that a project study will be 
     subject to peer review, the Chief of Engineers shall contract 
     with the National Academy of Sciences (or a similar 
     independent scientific and technical advisory organization), 
     or an eligible organization, to establish a panel of experts 
     to peer review the project study for technical and scientific 
     sufficiency.
       (2) Membership.--A panel of experts established for a 
     project study under this section shall be composed of 
     independent experts who represent a balance of areas of 
     expertise suitable for the review being conducted.
       (3) Limitation on appointments.--An individual may not be 
     selected to serve on a panel of experts established for a 
     project study under this section if the individual has a 
     financial or close professional association with any 
     organization or group with a strong financial or 
     organizational interest in the project.
       (4) Congressional notification.--Upon identification of a 
     project study for peer review under this section, but prior 
     to initiation of any review, the Chief of Engineers shall 
     notify the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     of the House of Representatives of such review.
       (d) Duties of Panels.--A panel of experts established for a 
     peer review for a project study under this section shall, 
     consistent with the scope of the referral for review--
       (1) conduct a peer review for the project study submitted 
     to the panel for review;
       (2) assess the adequacy and acceptability of the economic 
     and environmental methods, models, and analyses used by the 
     Chief of Engineers;
       (3) provide timely written and oral comments to the Chief 
     of Engineers throughout the development of the project study, 
     as requested; and
       (4) submit to the Chief of Engineers a final report 
     containing the panel's economic, engineering, and 
     environmental analysis of the project

[[Page H8849]]

     study, including the panel's assessment of the adequacy and 
     acceptability of the economic and environmental methods, 
     models, and analyses used by the Chief of Engineers, to 
     accompany the publication of the project study.
       (e) Duration of Project Study Peer Reviews.--
       (1) Deadline.--A panel of experts shall--
       (A) complete its peer review under this section for a 
     project study and submit a report to the Chief of Engineers 
     under subsection (d)(4) within 180 days after the date of 
     establishment of the panel, or, if the Chief of Engineers 
     determines that a longer period of time is necessary, such 
     period of time established by the Chief of Engineers, but in 
     no event later than 90 days after the date a draft project 
     study is made available for public review; and
       (B) terminate on the date of submission of the report.
       (2) Failure to meet deadline.--If a panel does not complete 
     its peer review of a project study under this section and 
     submit a report to the Chief of Engineers under subsection 
     (d)(4) on or before the deadline established by paragraph (1) 
     for the project study, the Chief of Engineers shall continue 
     the project study for the project that is subject to peer 
     review by the panel without delay.
       (f) Recommendations of Panel.--
       (1) Consideration by the chief of engineers.--After 
     receiving a report on a project study from a panel of experts 
     under this section and before entering a final record of 
     decision for the project, the Chief of Engineers shall 
     consider any recommendations contained in the report and 
     prepare a written response for any recommendations adopted or 
     not adopted.
       (2) Public availability and transmittal to congress.--After 
     receiving a report on a project study from a panel of experts 
     under this section, the Chief of Engineers shall--
       (A) make a copy of the report and any written response of 
     the Chief of Engineers on recommendations contained in the 
     report available to the public; and
       (B) transmit to Congress a copy of the report, together 
     with any such written response, on the date of a final report 
     of the Chief of Engineers or other final decision document 
     for a project study that is subject to peer review by the 
     panel.
       (g) Costs.--
       (1) In general.--The costs of a panel of experts 
     established for a peer review under this section--
       (A) shall be a Federal expense; and
       (B) shall not exceed $500,000.
       (2) Waiver.--The Chief of Engineers may waive the $500,000 
     limitation contained in paragraph (1)(B) in cases that the 
     Chief of Engineers determines appropriate.
       (h) Applicability.--This section shall apply to--
       (1) project studies initiated during the 2-year period 
     preceding the date of enactment of this Act and for which the 
     array of alternatives to be considered has not been 
     identified; and
       (2) project studies initiated during the period beginning 
     on such date of enactment and ending 4 years after such date 
     of enactment.
       (i) Report.--Within 4 1/2 years of the date of enactment of 
     this section, the Chief of Engineers shall submit a report to 
     Congress on the implementation of this section.
       (j) Nonapplicability of FACA.--The Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to any peer 
     review panel established under this section.
       (k) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to affect any authority of the Chief of Engineers 
     to cause or conduct a peer review of a water resources 
     project existing on the date of enactment of this section.
       (l) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Project study.--The term ``project study'' means a 
     feasibility study or reevaluation study for a project. The 
     term also includes any other study associated with a 
     modification or update of a project that includes an 
     environmental impact statement, including the environmental 
     impact statement.
       (2) Affected state.--The term ``affected State'', as used 
     with respect to a project, means a State all or a portion of 
     which is within the drainage basin in which the project is or 
     would be located and would be economically or environmentally 
     affected as a consequence of the project.
       (3) Eligible organization.--The term ``eligible 
     organization'' means an organization that--
       (A) is described in section 501(c)(3), and exempt from 
     Federal tax under section 501(a), of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986;
       (B) is independent;
       (C) is free from conflicts of interest;
       (D) does not carry out or advocate for or against Federal 
     water resources projects; and
       (E) has experience in establishing and administering peer 
     review panels.

                 TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

     SEC. 3001. COOK INLET, ALASKA.

       (a) Anchorage Harbor.--The project for navigation 
     improvements, Cook Inlet, Alaska (Anchorage Harbor, Alaska), 
     authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 
     (72 Stat. 299) and modified by section 199 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2944), is further 
     modified to direct the Secretary to establish a harbor depth 
     of minus 45 feet mean lower low water for a length of 5,200 
     feet at the modified Port of Anchorage intermodal marine 
     facility at each phase as such phases are completed and 
     thereafter as the entire project is completed, at a total 
     cost of $8,175,000. Federal maintenance shall continue for 
     the existing facility until the modified facility is 
     completed. Federal maintenance of the modified project shall 
     be in accordance with such section 101; except that the 
     project shall be maintained at a depth of minus 45 feet mean 
     lower low water for such 5,200 feet, at an estimated annual 
     cost of $6,000,000.
       (b) Navigation Channel.--The Secretary shall modify the 
     channel depth to run the entire length of Fire Island Range 
     and Point Woronzof Range maintaining the same width and 
     modifying the depth to minus 45 feet mean lower low water in 
     the existing Cook Inlet Navigation Channel approach to 
     Anchorage Harbor, Alaska, at a total cost of $21,525,000. The 
     project shall be maintained at a depth of minus 45 mean lower 
     low water, at an estimated annual cost of $3,000,000.

     SEC. 3002. KING COVE HARBOR, ALASKA.

       The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended 
     for the project for navigation, King Cove Harbor, Alaska, 
     being carried out under section 107 of the River Harbor Act 
     of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), shall be $8,000,000.

     SEC. 3003. SITKA, ALASKA.

       The Thompson Harbor, Sitka, Alaska, element of the project 
     for navigation Southeast Alaska Harbors of Refuge, Alaska, 
     authorized by section 101 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4801), is modified to direct the 
     Secretary to take such action as may be necessary to correct 
     design deficiencies in such element, at a Federal expense of 
     $6,300,000.

     SEC. 3004. TATILEK, ALASKA.

       The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended 
     for the project for navigation, Tatilek, Alaska, being 
     carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 
     1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), shall be $10,000,000.

     SEC. 3005. NOGALES WASH AND TRIBUTARIES, ARIZONA.

       The project for flood control, Nogales Wash and 
     tributaries, Arizona, authorized by section 101(a)(4) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4606) and 
     modified by section 303 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3711) and section 302 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2600), is 
     further modified to direct the Secretary to use the Mexico 
     Plan-1st Added Increment, as described in the limited 
     reevaluation report dated September 13, 2002, to determine 
     the cost allocation and cost apportionment for the project.

     SEC. 3006. GRAND PRAIRIE REGION AND BAYOU METO BASIN, 
                   ARKANSAS.

       The Secretary shall review the general reevaluation report 
     for the Bayou Meto basin element of the project for Grand 
     Prairie Region and Bayou Meto Basin, Arkansas, reauthorized 
     by section 363(a) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1996 (110 Stat. 3730), and make a determination of 
     whether the element is feasible, regardless of mission 
     priorities.

     SEC. 3007. SAINT FRANCIS BASIN, ARKANSAS.

       The project for flood control, Saint Francis Basin, 
     Missouri and Arkansas, authorized by section 204 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 172), is modified to authorize 
     the Secretary to construct improvements along Ditch No. 1 
     that consist of a gated culvert through the Saint Francis 
     Levee and related channel improvements.

     SEC. 3008. AMERICAN AND SACRAMENTO RIVERS, CALIFORNIA.

       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) and modified by section 366 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 319-320), is 
     further modified to direct the Secretary to carry out the 
     project, at a total cost of $205,000,000.

     SEC. 3009. CACHE CREEK BASIN, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for flood control, Cache Creek Basin, 
     California, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4112), is 
     modified to direct the Secretary to mitigate the impacts of 
     the new south levee of the Cache Creek settling basin on the 
     city of Woodland's storm drainage system, including all 
     appurtenant features, erosion control measures, and 
     environmental protection features. Such mitigation shall 
     restore the city's preproject capacity (1,360 cubic feet per 
     second) to release water to the Yolo Bypass, including 
     channel improvements, an outlet work through the west levee 
     of the Yolo Bypass, and a new low-flow cross channel to 
     handle city and county storm drainage and settling basin 
     flows (1,760 cubic feet per second) when the Yolo Bypass is 
     in a low flow condition.

     SEC. 3010. GRAYSON CREEK/MURDERER'S CREEK, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Grayson 
     Creek/Murderer's Creek, California, being carried out under 
     section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified to direct the Secretary to 
     credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal 
     interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
     project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 
     to the project and to authorize the Secretary to consider 
     national ecosystem restoration benefits in determining the 
     Federal interest in the project.

     SEC. 3011. JOHN F. BALDWIN SHIP CHANNEL AND STOCKTON SHIP 
                   CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for navigation, San Francisco to Stockton, 
     California, authorized by section 301 of the River and Harbor 
     Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1091) is modified--
       (1) to provide that the non-Federal share of the cost of 
     the John F. Baldwin Ship Channel and Stockton Ship Channel 
     element of the project may be provided in the form of in-kind 
     services and materials; and
       (2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of such element the cost of 
     planning and design work carried

[[Page H8850]]

     out by the non-Federal interest before the date of an 
     agreement for such planning and design if the Secretary 
     determines that such work is integral to such element.

     SEC. 3012. LOS ANGELES HARBOR, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for navigation, Los Angeles Harbor, Los 
     Angeles, California, authorized by section 101(b)(5) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2577), is 
     modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of the 
     planning, design, and construction work carried out by the 
     non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
     agreement for the project if the Secretary determines the 
     work is integral to the project.

     SEC. 3013. LARKSPUR FERRY CHANNEL, LARKSPUR, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for navigation, Larkspur Ferry Channel, 
     Larkspur, California, authorized by section 601(d) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148), is 
     modified to direct the Secretary to prepare a limited 
     reevaluation report to determine whether maintenance of the 
     project is feasible. If the Secretary determines that 
     maintenance of the project is feasible, the Secretary shall 
     carry out the maintenance.

     SEC. 3014. NAPA RIVER SALT MARSH RESTORATION, NAPA RIVER, 
                   CALIFORNIA.

       In carrying out the feasibility study for the project for 
     aquatic ecosystem restoration, Napa River Salt Marsh 
     Restoration, Napa and Sonoma Counties, California, the 
     Secretary shall determine whether work carried out by the 
     non-Federal interest is integral to the project. In any case 
     in which the work is determined to be integral to the project 
     before completion of the final report of the Chief of 
     Engineers on the project, such work shall be included as part 
     of the project, and the cost of such work shall be 
     recommended in the final report for credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project. Work carried out 
     after submission of the final report and before the date of 
     the partnership agreement for the project that is determined 
     to be integral to the project shall be considered as part of 
     the project, and the cost of such work shall be credited 
     toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project.

     SEC. 3015. PACIFIC FLYWAY CENTER, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Pacific 
     Flyway Center, Sacramento, California, being carried out 
     under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified to authorize the Secretary 
     to expend $2,000,000 to enhance public access to the project.

     SEC. 3016. PINOLE CREEK, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for improvement of the quality of the 
     environment, Pinole Creek Phase I, California, being carried 
     out under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), is modified to direct the 
     Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost 
     of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-
     Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement 
     for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is 
     integral to the project.

     SEC. 3017. PRADO DAM, CALIFORNIA.

       Upon completion of the modifications to the Prado Dam 
     element of the project for flood control, Santa Ana River 
     Mainstem, California, authorized by section 401(a) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4113), the 
     Memorandum of Agreement for the Operation for Prado Dam for 
     Seasonal Additional Water Conservation between the Department 
     of the Army and the Orange County Water District (including 
     all the conditions and stipulations in the memorandum) shall 
     remain in effect for volumes of water made available prior to 
     such modifications.

     SEC. 3018. SACRAMENTO DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for navigation, Sacramento Deep Water Ship 
     Channel, California, authorized by section 202(a) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4092), is 
     modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of planning 
     and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
     before the date of the partnership agreement for the project 
     if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project.

     SEC. 3019. SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA, CALIFORNIA.

       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), title I of the Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (112 Stat. 1841), and section 305 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 299), 
     is further modified to direct the Secretary to credit the 
     non-Federal interest up to $4,000,000 toward the non-Federal 
     share of the cost of the project for costs incurred by the 
     non-Federal interest in carrying out activities (including 
     the provision of lands, easements, rights-of-way, 
     relocations, and dredged material disposal areas) associated 
     with environmental compliance for the project if the 
     Secretary determines that the activities are integral to the 
     project.

     SEC. 3020. SAN LORENZO RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for flood control, San Lorenzo River, 
     California, authorized by section 101(a)(5) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3663), is 
     modified to direct the Secretary to credit not more than 
     $2,000,000 toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     project for the cost of the work carried out by the non-
     Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement 
     for the project if the Secretary determines the work is 
     integral to the project.

     SEC. 3021. UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for flood damage reduction and recreation, 
     Upper Guadalupe River, California, described as the Bypass 
     Channel Plan of the Chief of Engineers dated August 19, 1998, 
     authorized by section 101(a)(9) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 275), is modified to 
     authorize the Secretary to construct the project, 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. The non-Federal share of the cost of the project 
     shall be subject to section 103(a)(3) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(a)(3)).

     SEC. 3022. WALNUT CREEK CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Walnut Creek 
     Channel, California, being carried out under section 206 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), 
     is modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work 
     carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of 
     the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
     determines that the work is integral to the project and to 
     authorize the Secretary to consider national ecosystem 
     restoration benefits in determining the Federal interest in 
     the project.

     SEC. 3023. WILDCAT/SAN PABLO CREEK PHASE I, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for improvement of the quality of the 
     environment, Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase I, California, 
     being carried out under section 1135 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), is modified to 
     direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share 
     of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by 
     the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
     agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that 
     the work is integral to the project.

     SEC. 3024. WILDCAT/SAN PABLO CREEK PHASE II, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Wildcat/San 
     Pablo Creek Phase II, California, being carried out under 
     section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified to direct the Secretary to 
     credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal 
     interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
     project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 
     to the project and to authorize the Secretary to consider 
     national ecosystem restoration benefits in determining the 
     Federal interest in the project.

     SEC. 3025. BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA.

       Section 310 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 301) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(d) Credit.--After completion of the study, the Secretary 
     shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     project the cost of nourishment and renourishment associated 
     with the shore protection project incurred by the non-Federal 
     interest to respond to damages to Brevard County beaches that 
     are the result of a Federal navigation project, as determined 
     in the final report for the study.''.

     SEC. 3026. BROWARD COUNTY AND HILLSBORO INLET, FLORIDA.

       The project for shore protection, Broward County and 
     Hillsboro Inlet, Florida, authorized by section 301 of the 
     River and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1090), and modified by 
     section 311 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 301), is further modified to direct the Secretary 
     to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     project the cost of mitigation construction and derelict 
     erosion control structure removal carried out by the non-
     Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
     agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that 
     the work is integral to the project.

     SEC. 3027. GASPARILLA AND ESTERO ISLANDS, FLORIDA.

       The project for shore protection, Gasparilla and Estero 
     Island segments, Lee County, Florida, authorized under 
     section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1073) 
     by Senate Resolution dated December 17, 1970, and by House 
     Resolution dated December 15, 1970, and modified by section 
     309 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 
     2602), is further modified to direct the Secretary to credit 
     toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the 
     cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest before 
     the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the 
     Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project.

     SEC. 3028. LIDO KEY BEACH, SARASOTA, FLORIDA.

       The project for shore protection, Lido Key Beach, Sarasota, 
     Florida, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor 
     Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1819), deauthorized under section 
     1001(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
     U.S.C. 579a(b)), and reauthorized by section 364(2)(A) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 313), is 
     modified to direct the Secretary to construct the project, at 
     a total cost of $12,926,000, with an estimated Federal cost 
     of $6,547,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $6,379,000, and at an estimated average annual cost of 
     $925,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of 
     the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of 
     $468,500 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of 
     $456,500.

[[Page H8851]]

     SEC. 3029. MANATEE HARBOR, FLORIDA.

       The project for navigation, Manatee Harbor, Florida, 
     authorized by section 202(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4093) and modified by 
     section 102(j) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 
     (104 Stat. 4612), is further modified--
       (1) to include the construction of an extension of the 
     south channel a distance of approximately 1584 feet 
     consistent with the general reevaluation report, dated April 
     2002, prepared by the Jacksonville District Corps of 
     Engineers, at a total cost of $11,300,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $8,475,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $2,825,000;
       (2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of in-kind 
     services and materials provided for the project by the non-
     Federal interest;
       (3) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of 
     planning, design, and construction work carried out by the 
     non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
     agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that 
     the work is integral to the project; and
       (4) to authorize the Secretary to carry out the project as 
     modified at a total cost of $61,500,000.

     SEC. 3030. TAMPA HARBOR, FLORIDA.

       The project for navigation, Tampa Harbor, Florida, referred 
     to in section 4 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of September 
     22, 1922 (42 Stat. 1042), is modified to direct the Secretary 
     to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     project the cost of planning, design, and construction work 
     carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of 
     the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
     determines that the work is integral to the project.

     SEC. 3031. TAMPA HARBOR-BIG BEND CHANNEL, FLORIDA.

       The project for navigation, Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, 
     Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(18) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276) is modified 
     to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal 
     share of the cost of the project the cost of planning, 
     design, and construction work carried out by the non-Federal 
     interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
     project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 
     to the project.

     SEC. 3032. MIAMI HARBOR, 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) and modified by 
     section 315 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 302), is further modified to include as a project 
     purpose environmental mitigation required before July 18, 
     2003, by Federal, State, and local environmental agencies for 
     unauthorized or unanticipated environmental impacts within, 
     or in the vicinity of, the authorized project.

     SEC. 3033. LITTLE WOOD RIVER, GOODING, IDAHO.

       The project for flood damage reduction, Little Wood River, 
     Gooding, Idaho, being carried out under section 205 of the 
     Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), is modified--
       (1) to authorize the non-Federal interest to provide any 
     portion of the non-Federal share of the cost of the project 
     in the form of services, materials, supplies, or other in-
     kind contributions;
       (2) to authorize the non-Federal interest to use funds made 
     available under any other Federal program toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project if such use of the 
     funds is permitted under the other Federal program; and
       (3) to direct the Secretary, in calculating the non-Federal 
     share of the cost of the project, to make a determination 
     under section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) on the non-Federal interest's 
     ability to pay.

     SEC. 3034. HENNEPIN-HOPPER LAKES, ILLINOIS.

       (a) Project Purpose.--The project for flood control, 
     Hennepin levees, Illinois, authorized by the Flood Control 
     Act of June 26, 1936 (35 Stat. 1583), is modified to add 
     environmental restoration as a project purpose.
       (b) Maximum Amount.--The maximum amount of Federal funds 
     that may be expended for the project for improvement of the 
     quality of the environment, Hennepin-Hopper Lakes, Illinois, 
     being carried out under section 1135 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), shall be 
     $7,500,000.
       (c) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall affect the 
     eligibility of the project for emergency repair assistance 
     under section 5(a) of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing 
     the construction of certain public works on rivers and 
     harbors for flood control, and for other purposes'', approved 
     August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n).

     SEC. 3035. MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND BIG MUDDY RIVER, ILLINOIS.

       (a) In General.--The project for flood control, Mississippi 
     River and Big Muddy River, Illinois, authorized by the Flood 
     Control Act of 1938, is modified to authorize the Secretary 
     to carry out repair and rehabilitation of the project at a 
     total cost of $22,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $16,950,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,650,000, 
     and to perform operation and maintenance of the project 
     thereafter.
       (b) Other Assistance.--Federal assistance made available 
     through the Department of Agriculture may be used toward 
     payment of the non-Federal share of the costs of the repair 
     and rehabilitation under this section.
       (c) United States Lands.--Costs under this section for the 
     repair and rehabilitation allocable to the protection of 
     lands owned by the United States shall be a Federal 
     responsibility. The Secretary shall seek reimbursement from 
     the Secretary of Agriculture for the costs allocated to 
     protecting lands owned by the Department of Agriculture.
       (d) Operation and Maintenance of Non-Federal Lands.--The 
     cost of operation and maintenance under this section 
     allocated to protecting non-Federal lands shall be a non-
     Federal responsibility.

     SEC. 3036. SPUNKY BOTTOMS, ILLINOIS.

       (a) Project Purpose.--The project for flood control at 
     Spunky Bottoms, Illinois, authorized by section 5 of the 
     Flood Control Act of June 26, 1936 (35 Stat. 1584), is 
     modified to add environmental restoration as a project 
     purpose.
       (b) Maximum Amount.--The maximum amount of Federal funds 
     that may be expended for the project for improvement of the 
     quality of the environment, Spunky Bottoms, Illinois, being 
     carried out under section 1135 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), shall be 
     $7,500,000.
       (c) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall affect the 
     eligibility of the project for emergency repair assistance 
     under section 5(a) of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing 
     the construction of certain public works on rivers and 
     harbors for flood control, and for other purposes'', approved 
     August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n).

     SEC. 3037. EMIQUON, ILLINOIS.

       (a) Maximum Amount.--The maximum amount of Federal funds 
     that may be expended for the project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Emiquon, Illinois, being carried out under 
     section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (33 U.S.C. 2330), shall be $7,500,000.
       (b) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall affect the 
     eligibility of the project for emergency repair assistance 
     under section 5(a) of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing 
     the construction of certain public works on rivers and 
     harbors for flood control, and for other purposes'', approved 
     August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n).

     SEC. 3038. 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 carry out the project in 
     accordance with the postauthorization change report dated 
     August 2000, at a total cost of $186,300,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $136,600,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $49,700,000.

     SEC. 3039. WHITE RIVER, INDIANA.

       The project for flood control, Indianapolis on West Fork of 
     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 Stat. 1586), and 
     modified by section 323 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3716) and section 322 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 303-304), is 
     further modified to authorize the Secretary to undertake the 
     riverfront alterations described in the Central Indianapolis 
     Waterfront Concept Plan, dated February 1994, for the Fall 
     Creek Reach feature, at a total cost of $28,545,000 and to 
     direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share 
     of the cost of the project the cost of planning, design, and 
     construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
     before the date of the partnership agreement for the project 
     if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project.

     SEC. 3040. WOLF LAKE, INDIANA.

       The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Wolf Lake, 
     Indiana, being carried out under section 206 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is 
     modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of 
     planning, design, and construction work carried out by the 
     non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
     agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that 
     the work is integral to the project.

     SEC. 3041. PRESTONSBURG, KENTUCKY.

       The Prestonsburg, Kentucky, element of the project for 
     flood control, Levisa and Tug Fork of the Big Sandy and 
     Cumberland Rivers, West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky, 
     authorized by section 202(a) of the Energy and Water 
     Development Appropriations Act, 1981 (94 Stat. 1339), is 
     modified to direct the Secretary to take measures to provide 
     a 100-year level of flood protection for the city of 
     Prestonsburg.

     SEC. 3042. AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, LOUISIANA, EAST BATON 
                   ROUGE PARISH WATERSHED.

       The project for flood damage reduction and recreation, 
     Amite River and Tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge 
     Parish Watershed, authorized by section 101(a)(21) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 277) and 
     modified by section 116 of Division D of Public Law 108-7 
     (117 Stat. 140), is further modified to direct the Secretary 
     to carry out the project with the cost sharing for the 
     project determined in accordance with section 103(a) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(a)), 
     as in effect on October 11, 1996.

     SEC. 3043. ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LOUISIANA.

       (a) In General.--Section 315(a)(1) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2603-2604) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(1) is authorized to study, design, construct, operate, 
     and maintain, at Federal expense, a Type A Regional Visitor 
     Center in the vicinity of Morgan City, Louisiana, in 
     consultation with the State of Louisiana, to provide 
     information to the public on the Atchafalaya River system and 
     other associated waterways that have influenced surrounding 
     communities, and national and local water resources 
     development of the Army Corps of Engineers in South Central 
     Louisiana; and''.
       (b) Technical Correction.--Section 315(b) of such Act is 
     amended by striking ``(a)'' and inserting ``(a)(2)''.
       (c) Donations.--Section 315 of such Act is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

[[Page H8852]]

        ``(c) Donations.--In carrying out subsection (a)(1), the 
     Mississippi River Commission is authorized to accept the 
     donation of cash, funds, lands, materials, and services from 
     non-Federal governmental entities and nonprofit 
     corporations.''.

     SEC. 3044. PUBLIC ACCESS, ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM, 
                   LOUISIANA.

       The public access feature of the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway 
     System, Louisiana, project, authorized by the Water Resources 
     Development Act 1986 (100 Stat. 4142), is modified to 
     authorize the Secretary to acquire from willing sellers the 
     fee interest, exclusive of oil, gas, and minerals, of an 
     additional 20,000 acres of land within the Lower Atchafalaya 
     Basin Floodway for the public access feature of the 
     Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, to enhance fish and 
     wildlife resources, at a total cost of $4,000,000.

     SEC. 3045. J. BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, MISSISSIPPI RIVER TO 
                   SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA.

       The project for mitigation of fish and wildlife losses, J. 
     Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, 
     Louisiana, authorized by section 601(a) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142) and 
     modified by section 4(h) of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4016), section 102(p) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4613), section 
     301(b)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 
     Stat. 3710), and section 316 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2572), is further modified 
     to authorize the purchase and reforesting of lands which have 
     been cleared or converted to agricultural uses.

     SEC. 3046. MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LOUISIANA.

       The Mississippi Delta Region project, Louisiana, authorized 
     as part of the project for hurricane-flood protection on Lake 
     Pontchartrain, Louisiana, by section 204 of the Flood Control 
     Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1077) and modified by section 365 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3739), 
     is further modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward 
     the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the costs of 
     relocating oyster beds in the Davis Pond project area if the 
     Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     Mississippi Delta Region project.

     SEC. 3047. NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE, LOUISIANA.

       The New Orleans to Venice, Louisiana, project for hurricane 
     protection, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control 
     Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1184), is modified to authorize the 
     Secretary to carry out the work on the St. Jude to City 
     Price, Upper Reach A back levee. The Federal share of the 
     cost of such work shall be 70 percent.

     SEC. 3048. WEST BANK OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER (EAST OF HARVEY 
                   CANAL), LOUISIANA.

       Section 328 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 304-305) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``operation and maintenance'' and inserting 
     ``operation, maintenance, rehabilitation, repair, and 
     replacement''; and
       (B) by striking ``Algiers Channel'' and inserting ``Algiers 
     Canal Levees''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
     the project shall be 35 percent.''.

     SEC. 3049. CAMP ELLIS, SACO, MAINE.

       The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended 
     for the project being carried out under section 111 of the 
     River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i) for the 
     mitigation of shore damages attributable to the project for 
     navigation, Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine, shall be $10,000,000.

     SEC. 3050. UNION RIVER, MAINE.

       The project for navigation, Union River, 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 3, 1896 (29 Stat. 215), is modified 
     by redesignating as an anchorage area that portion of the 
     project consisting of a 6-foot turning basin and lying 
     northerly of a line commencing at a point N315,975.13, 
     E1,004,424.86 thence running north 61 degrees 27 minutes 
     20.71 seconds west about 132.34 feet to a point N316,038.37, 
     E1,004,308.61.

     SEC. 3051. CASS RIVER, SPAULDING TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN.

       (a) In General.--The project for flood damage reduction, 
     Cass River, Spaulding Township, Saginaw County, Michigan, 
     being carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act 
     of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), is modified to incorporate flood 
     control works constructed by the non-Federal interests 
     between Sheridan Road and East Street (M-13) if the Secretary 
     determines that the inclusion of such flood control works is 
     feasible.
       (b) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of 
     work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the 
     date of the partnership agreement for the project if the 
     Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project.

     SEC. 3052. DETROIT RIVER SHORELINE, DETROIT, MICHIGAN.

       (a) In General.--The project for emergency streambank and 
     shoreline protection, Detroit River Shoreline, Detroit, 
     Michigan, being carried out under section 14 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r), is modified to include 
     measures to enhance public access.
       (b) Maximum Federal Expenditure.--The maximum amount of 
     Federal funds that may be expended for the project shall be 
     $3,000,000.

     SEC. 3053. WATER RESOURCES INSTITUTE, MUSKEGON, MICHIGAN.

       (a) In General.--The project for emergency streambank and 
     shoreline protection, Water Resources Institute, Muskegon, 
     Michigan, being carried out under section 14 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r), is modified to provide 
     for completion of shoreline protection measures in accordance 
     with the approved plans and specifications for Grand Valley 
     State University, Lake Michigan Center, dated August 6, 2001.
       (b) Maximum Federal Expenditure.--The maximum amount of 
     Federal funds that may be expended for the project shall be 
     $2,000,000.
       (c) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of design 
     and implementation of shoreline protection measures carried 
     out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the 
     partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
     determines that the work is integral to the project.

     SEC. 3054. SAGINAW RIVER, BAY CITY, MICHIGAN.

       The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended 
     for the project for emergency streambank protection, Saginaw 
     River, Bay City, Michigan, being carried out under section 14 
     of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r), shall be 
     $2,000,000.

     SEC. 3055. ADA, MINNESOTA.

       (a) In General.--The project for flood damage reduction, 
     Wild Rice River, Ada, Minnesota, being carried out under 
     section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 
     701s), is modified to authorize the Secretary to consider 
     national ecosystem restoration benefits in determining the 
     Federal interest in the project.
       (b) Evaluation of Benefits and Costs.--In evaluating the 
     economic benefits and costs for the project, the Secretary 
     shall not consider the emergency levee adjacent to Judicial 
     Ditch No. 51 in the determination of conditions existing 
     prior to construction of the project.
       (c) Special Rule.--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) to the extent that the Secretary's 
     evaluation indicates that applying such section is necessary 
     to implement the project.

     SEC. 3056. DULUTH HARBOR, MCQUADE ROAD, MINNESOTA.

       (a) In General.--The project for navigation, Duluth Harbor, 
     McQuade Road, Minnesota, being carried out under section 107 
     of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) and 
     modified by section 321 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2605), is further modified to 
     authorize the Secretary to provide public access and 
     recreational facilities as generally described in the 
     Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment, McQuade 
     Road Harbor of Refuge, Duluth, Minnesota, dated August 1999.
       (b) Credit.--The Secretary shall provide credit toward the 
     non-Federal share of the cost of the project for the costs of 
     design work carried out before the date of the partnership 
     agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that 
     the work is integral to the project.
       (c) Maximum Federal Expenditure.--The maximum amount of 
     Federal funds that may be expended for the project shall be 
     $5,000,000.

     SEC. 3057. GRAND PORTAGE HARBOR, MINNESOTA.

       The Secretary shall provide credit toward the non-Federal 
     share of the cost of the navigation project for Grand Portage 
     Harbor, Minnesota, carried out under section 107 of the River 
     and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) and modified by 
     section 312 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
     (114 Stat. 2605), for the costs of design work carried out 
     before the date of the partnership agreement for the project 
     if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project.

     SEC. 3058. GRANITE FALLS, MINNESOTA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is directed to implement 
     under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 
     701s) the locally preferred plan for flood damage reduction, 
     Granite Falls, Minnesota, substantially in accordance with 
     the detailed project report dated 2002, at a total cost of 
     $12,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $8,000,000 and 
     an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,000,000.
       (b) Project Financing.--In evaluating and implementing the 
     project under this section, the Secretary shall allow the 
     non-Federal interests 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 detailed project report evaluation indicates 
     that applying such section is necessary to implement the 
     project.
       (c) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the project the cost of design and 
     construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
     before date of execution of a partnership agreement for the 
     project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 
     to the project.
       (d) Maximum Funding.--The maximum amount of Federal funds 
     that may be expended for the flood damage reduction shall be 
     $8,000,000.

     SEC. 3059. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA.

       Section 527 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
     (114 Stat. 2657) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by inserting after ``June 30, 1999'' 
     the following ``, and including Hennepin Island and adjacent 
     areas on the east side of the Mississippi River''; and
       (2) in subsection (c) by striking ``$10,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$25,000,000''.

     SEC. 3060. RED LAKE RIVER, MINNESOTA.

       The project for flood control, Red Lake River at Crookston, 
     Minnesota, authorized by section 101(a)(23) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 278), is 
     modified to include

[[Page H8853]]

     flood protection for the adjacent and interconnected areas 
     generally known as the Sampson and Chase/Loring 
     neighborhoods, in accordance with the Feasibility Report 
     Supplement, Local Flood Protection, Crookston, Minnesota, at 
     a total cost of $25,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost 
     of $16,250,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $8,750,000.

     SEC. 3061. SILVER BAY, MINNESOTA.

       The project for navigation, Silver Bay, Minnesota, 
     authorized by section 2 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 
     March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 19), is modified to include operation 
     and maintenance of the general navigation facilities as a 
     Federal responsibility.

     SEC. 3062. TACONITE HARBOR, MINNESOTA.

       The project for navigation, Taconite Harbor, Minnesota, 
     carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 
     1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified to include operation and 
     maintenance of the general navigation facilities as a Federal 
     responsibility.

     SEC. 3063. TWO HARBORS, MINNESOTA.

       (a) In General.--The project for navigation, Two Harbors, 
     Minnesota, being carried out under section 107 of the River 
     and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified to 
     include construction of a dredged material disposal facility, 
     including actions required to clear the site.
       (b) Lands, Easements, and Rights-of-Way.--Non-Federal 
     interests shall be responsible for providing all lands, 
     easements, rights-of-way, and relocations necessary for the 
     construction of the dredged material disposal facility.
       (c) Maximum Federal Expenditure.--The maximum amount of 
     Federal funds that may be expended for the project shall be 
     $5,000,000.

     SEC. 3064. DEER ISLAND, HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.

       The project for ecosystem restoration, Deer Island, 
     Harrison County, Mississippi, being carried out under section 
     204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 
     2326) is modified to authorize the non-Federal interest to 
     provide any portion of the non-Federal share of the cost of 
     the project in the form of services, materials, supplies, or 
     other in-kind contributions.

     SEC. 3065. BOIS BRULE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT, MISSOURI.

       The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended 
     for the project for flood damage reduction, Bois Brule 
     Drainage and Levee District, Missouri, being carried out 
     under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 
     701s), shall be $25,000,000.

     SEC. 3066. SAND CREEK WATERSHED, WAHOO, NEBRASKA.

       The project for ecosystem restoration and flood damage 
     reduction, Sand Creek watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska, authorized 
     by section 101(b)(20) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 2000 (114 Stat. 2578), is modified--
       (1) to direct the Secretary to provide credit toward the 
     non-Federal share of the cost of the project or reimbursement 
     for the costs of any work that has been or will be performed 
     by the non-Federal interest before, on, or after the approval 
     of the project partnership agreement, including work 
     performed by the non-Federal interest in connection with the 
     design and construction of 7 upstream detention storage 
     structures, if the Secretary determines that the work is 
     integral to the project;
       (2) to require that in-kind work to be credited under 
     paragraph (1) be subject to audit; and
       (3) to direct the Secretary to accept advance funds from 
     the non-Federal interest as needed to maintain the project 
     schedule.

     SEC. 3067. ALAMOGORDO, NEW MEXICO.

       The Secretary shall review the general reevaluation report, 
     dated March 1999, for the project for flood protection, 
     Alamogordo, New Mexico, authorized by section 203 of the 
     Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 85), and determine if the 
     locally preferred flood detention basin would provide the 
     same level of flood protection for the north side of the city 
     of Alamogordo at a cost that is not greater than the cost of 
     authorized channel improvements. If the Secretary determines 
     that the flood detention basin is feasible, would provide the 
     same level of flood protection, and can be constructed at the 
     no additional cost, the Secretary may construct the flood 
     detention basin instead of the channel improvements. The 
     Federal share of the cost of the flood detention basin 
     alternative shall be calculated in the same manner as if the 
     channel improvements project was being constructed.

     SEC. 3068. ORCHARD BEACH, BRONX, NEW YORK.

       The project for shoreline protection, Orchard Beach, Bronx, 
     New York, authorized by section 554 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3781), is modified to 
     authorize the Secretary to construct the project, at a total 
     cost of $18,000,000.

     SEC. 3069. TIMES BEACH, BUFFALO, NEW YORK.

       The project for improvement of the quality of the 
     environment, Times Beach, Buffalo, New York, being carried 
     out under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1986 (100 Stat. 4251), is modified to direct the Secretary 
     to credit not more than $750,000 toward the non-Federal share 
     of the cost of the project for the cost of planning, design, 
     and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
     before the date of the partnership agreement for the project 
     if the Secretary determines the work is integral to the 
     project.

     SEC. 3070. PORT OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK AND NEW 
                   JERSEY.

       The navigation project, Port of New York and New Jersey, 
     New York and New Jersey, authorized by section 101(a)(2) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2576), 
     is modified--
       (1) to authorize the Secretary to allow the non-Federal 
     interest to construct a temporary dredged material storage 
     facility to receive dredged material from the project if--
       (A) the non-Federal interest submits, in writing, a list of 
     potential sites for the temporary storage facility to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives, the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate, and the Secretary at least 180 days 
     before the selection of the final site; and
       (B) at least 70 percent of the dredged material generated 
     in connection with the project suitable for beneficial reuse 
     will be used at sites in the State of New Jersey to the 
     extent that there are sufficient sites available; and
       (2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of 
     construction of the temporary storage facility if the 
     Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project.

     SEC. 3071. NEW YORK STATE CANAL SYSTEM.

       Section 553(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3781) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) New York State Canal System Defined.--In this 
     section, the term `New York State Canal System' means the 524 
     miles of navigable canal that comprise the New York State 
     Canal System, including the Erie, Cayuga-Seneca, Oswego, and 
     Champlain Canals and the historic alignments of these canals, 
     including the cities of Albany and Buffalo.''.

     SEC. 3072. ARCADIA LAKE, OKLAHOMA.

       Payments made by the city of Edmond, Oklahoma, to the 
     Secretary in October 1999 of all costs associated with 
     present and future water storage costs at Arcadia Lake, 
     Oklahoma, under Arcadia Lake Water Storage Contract Number 
     DACW56-79-C-002 shall satisfy the obligations of the city 
     under that contract.

     SEC. 3073. 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) and 
     modified by section 344 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 308), is further modified to direct 
     the Secretary to pay, subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, compensation for losses to small business 
     attributable to the implementation of the drawdown conducted 
     as a part of project implementation in 2002.
       (b) Establishment of Program.--Not later than 120 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     establish, and provide public notice of, a program--
       (1) to receive claims for compensation for losses to small 
     business attributable to the implementation of the drawdown 
     conducted as a part of project implementation in 2002;
       (2) to evaluate claims for such losses; and
       (3) to pay claims for such losses.
       (c) Implementation of Program.--In carrying out the program 
     established under subsection (b), the Secretary shall 
     provide--
       (1) public notice of the existence of the program 
     sufficient to reach those in the area that may have suffered 
     losses to small businesses;
       (2) a period for the submission of claims of not fewer than 
     45 days and not greater than 75 days from the date of the 
     first public notice of the existence of the program;
       (3) for the evaluation of each claim submitted to the 
     Secretary under the program and a determination of whether 
     the claim constitutes a loss to a small business on or before 
     the last day of the 30-day period beginning on the date of 
     submission of the claim; and
       (4) for the payment of each claim that the Secretary 
     determines constitutes a loss to a small business on or 
     before the last day of the 30-day period beginning on the 
     date of the Secretary's determination.
       (d) Loss to a Small Business Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``loss to a small business'' means documented financial 
     losses associated with commercial activity of a small 
     business that can be attributed to the turbidity levels in 
     the McKenzie River being higher than those anticipated in the 
     original planning documents and public announcements existing 
     before the initiation of the drawdown in 2002. Commercial 
     losses include decline in sales, loss of revenue (including 
     loss of revenue from canceled or delayed reservations at 
     lodging establishments), and any other financial losses that 
     can be shown to be associated with the elevated turbidity 
     levels in the McKenzie River in 2002.
       (e) Payment of Claims.--The payment of claims for losses to 
     small businesses shall be a Federal responsibility.

     SEC. 3074. FRENCH CREEK, UNION CITY DAM, PENNSYLVANIA.

       The project for flood control French Creek, Union City Dam, 
     Pennsylvania, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control 
     Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1189), is modified to include 
     recreation as a project purpose.

     SEC. 3075. LACKAWANNA RIVER AT OLYPHANT, PENNSYLVANIA.

       The project for flood control, Lackawanna River at 
     Olyphant, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 101(16) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4803), is 
     modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project, 
     at a total cost of $20,000,000.

     SEC. 3076. LACKAWANNA RIVER AT SCRANTON, PENNSYLVANIA.

       The project for flood control, Lackawanna River at 
     Scranton, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 101(17) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4803), is 
     modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project, 
     at a total cost of $23,000,000.

     SEC. 3077. RAYSTOWN LAKE, PENNSYLVANIA.

       The Secretary may take such action as may be necessary, 
     including construction of a breakwater, to prevent shoreline 
     erosion between .07

[[Page H8854]]

     and 2.7 miles south of Pennsylvania State Route 994 on the 
     east shore of Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.

     SEC. 3078. SHERADEN PARK STREAM AND CHARTIERS CREEK, 
                   ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.

       The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Sheraden 
     Park Stream and Chartiers Creek, Allegheny County, 
     Pennsylvania, being carried out under section 206 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is 
     modified to direct the Secretary to credit up to $400,000 
     toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for 
     planning and design work carried out by the non-Federal 
     interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
     project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 
     to the project.

     SEC. 3079. SOLOMON'S CREEK, WILKES-BARRE, PENNSYLVANIA.

       The project for flood control, Wyoming Valley, 
     Pennsylvania, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124), is 
     modified to include as a project element the project for 
     flood control for Solomon's Creek, Wilkes-Barre, 
     Pennsylvania.

     SEC. 3080. SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA.

       Section 313(h)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1992 (106 Stat. 4847; 109 Stat. 407; 117 Stat. 142) is 
     amended by striking ``Allegheny, Armstrong, Beford, Blair, 
     Cambria, Clearfield, Fayette, Franklin, Fulton, Greene, 
     Huntingdon, Indiana, Juniata, Mifflin, Somerset, Snyder, 
     Washington, and Westmoreland Counties'' and inserting 
     ``Allegheny, Armstrong, Bedford, Blair, Cambria, Fayette, 
     Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Huntingdon, Indiana, Juniata, 
     Somerset, Washington, and Westmoreland Counties''.

     SEC. 3081. WYOMING VALLEY, PENNSYLVANIA.

       In carrying out the project for flood control, Wyoming 
     Valley, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 401(a) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124), the 
     Secretary shall coordinate with non-Federal interests to 
     review opportunities for increased public access.

     SEC. 3082. LITTLE LIMESTONE CREEK, JONESBOROUGH, TENNESSEE.

       In evaluating and implementing the project for flood damage 
     reduction, Little Limestone Creek, Jonesborough, Tennessee, 
     under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 
     701s), 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. 3083. CEDAR BAYOU, TEXAS.

       (a) In General.--The project for navigation, Cedar Bayou, 
     Texas, reauthorized by section 349(a)(2) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2632), is 
     modified--
       (1) to authorize the Secretary to carry out the project to 
     a depth of 10 feet by 100 feet wide from mile 2.5 to mile 11 
     on Cedar Bayou if the Secretary determines that the project 
     is feasible; and
       (2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of planning 
     and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest for 
     the project if the Secretary determines that such work is 
     integral to the project.
       (b) Cost Sharing.--Cost sharing for construction and 
     operation and maintenance of the project shall be determined 
     in accordance with section 101 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211).

     SEC. 3084. LAKE KEMP, TEXAS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may not take any legal or 
     administrative action seeking to remove a Lake Kemp 
     improvement before the earlier of January 1, 2020, or the 
     date of any transfer of ownership of the improvement 
     occurring after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Limitation on Liability.--The United States, or any of 
     its officers, agents, or assignees, shall not be liable for 
     any injury, loss, or damage accruing to the owners of a Lake 
     Kemp improvement, their lessees, or occupants as a result of 
     any flooding or inundation of such improvements by the waters 
     of the Lake Kemp reservoir, or for such injury, loss, or 
     damage as may occur through the operation and maintenance of 
     the Lake Kemp dam and reservoir in any manner.
       (c) Lake Kemp Improvement Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``Lake Kemp improvement'' means an improvement 
     (including dwellings) located within the flowage easement of 
     Lake Kemp, Texas, below elevation 1159 feet mean sea level.

     SEC. 3085. LOWER RIO GRANDE BASIN, TEXAS.

       The project for flood control, Lower Rio Grande Basin, 
     Texas, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4125), is modified--
       (1) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of 
     planning, design, and construction work carried out by the 
     non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
     agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that 
     the work is integral to the project; and
       (2) to direct the Secretary, in calculating the non-Federal 
     share of the cost of the project, to make a determination 
     under section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) on the non-Federal interest's 
     ability to pay.

     SEC. 3086. NORTH PADRE ISLAND, CORPUS CHRISTI BAY, TEXAS.

       The project for ecosystem restoration and storm damage 
     reduction, North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay, Texas, 
     authorized by section 556 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 353), is modified to include 
     recreation as a project purpose.

     SEC. 3087. PROCTOR LAKE, TEXAS.

       The Secretary is authorized to convert flowage easements to 
     fee simple title in the subdivisions of Buffalo Springs and 
     Frees Lakeview, and adjacent areas, located within the 
     boundaries necessary for the operation of the Proctor Lake 
     project, Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1259), and to purchase all 
     improved and unimproved properties within such boundaries and 
     to pay relocation assistance benefits to qualified landowners 
     as applicable under the provisions of the Uniform Relocation 
     Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 (42 
     U.S.C. 4601 et seq.).

     SEC. 3088. SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS.

       The project for flood control, San Antonio Channel, Texas, 
     authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1954 
     (68 Stat. 1259) as part of the comprehensive plan for flood 
     protection on the Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers in Texas 
     and modified by section 103 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2921) and section 335 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2611), 
     is further modified to authorize the Secretary to credit 
     toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the 
     cost of construction work carried out by the non-Federal 
     interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
     project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 
     to the project.

     SEC. 3089. ELIZABETH RIVER, CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA.

       Section 358 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 312) is amended by striking ``September 30, 1999'' 
     and inserting ``May 4, 1997''.

     SEC. 3090. ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, VIRGINIA.

       The project for flood control, Roanoke River Upper Basin, 
     Virginia, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4126) and modified by 
     section 110 of the Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, 1990 (103 Stat. 650), is further modified 
     to authorize the Secretary to construct the project, at a 
     total cost of $64,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $42,100,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $22,200,000. 
     In carrying out the project, the Secretary shall award 
     contracts based on invitation-for-bids procedures.

     SEC. 3091. BLAIR AND SITCUM WATERWAYS, TACOMA HARBOR, 
                   WASHINGTON.

       (a) In General.--The project for navigation, Blair and 
     Sitcum Waterways, Tacoma Harbor, Washington, authorized by 
     section 202(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (100 Stat. 4096) and deepened to 51 feet under section 107 of 
     the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified 
     to direct the Secretary to review the locally prepared plan 
     for the Blair and Sitcum Waterways, Washington, and, if the 
     Secretary determines that the plan meets the evaluation and 
     design standards of the Corps of Engineers and that the plan 
     is feasible, to authorize the Secretary to carry out the 
     plan, at a Federal cost of $4,240,000.
       (b) Non-Federal Work.--The Secretary shall provide credit 
     toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project, or 
     reimbursement for, the cost of work carried out by the non-
     Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement 
     for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is 
     integral to the project.

     SEC. 3092. GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA.

       Section 579(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3790; 113 Stat. 312) is amended by striking 
     ``$47,000,000'' and inserting ``$89,000,000''.

     SEC. 3093. MANITOWOC HARBOR, WISCONSIN.

       The project for navigation, Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin, 
     authorized by the River and Harbor Act of August 30, 1852, is 
     modified to direct the Secretary to deepen the upstream reach 
     of the navigation channel from 12 feet to 18 feet, at a total 
     cost of $300,000.

     SEC. 3094. MISSISSIPPI RIVER HEADWATERS RESERVOIRS.

       Section 21 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 
     (102 Stat. 4027) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``1276.42'' and inserting ``1278.42'';
       (B) by striking ``1218.31'' and inserting ``1221.31''; and
       (C) by striking ``1234.82'' and inserting ``1235.30''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Exception.--The Secretary may operate the headwaters 
     reservoirs below the minimum or above the maximum water 
     levels established in subsection (a) in accordance with water 
     control regulation manuals (or revisions thereto) developed 
     by the Secretary, after consultation with the Governor of 
     Minnesota and affected tribal governments, landowners, and 
     commercial and recreational users. The water control 
     regulation manuals (and any revisions thereto) shall be 
     effective when the Secretary transmits them to Congress. The 
     Secretary shall report to Congress at least 14 days before 
     operating any such headwaters reservoir below the minimum or 
     above the maximum water level limits specified in subsection 
     (a); except that notification is not required for operations 
     necessary to prevent the loss of life or to ensure the safety 
     of the dam or where the drawdown of lake levels is in 
     anticipation of flood control operations.''.

     SEC. 3095. CONTINUATION OF PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 1001(b)(2) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
     579a(b)(2)), the following projects shall remain authorized 
     to be carried out by the Secretary:
       (1) The project for navigation, Fall River Harbor, 
     Massachusetts, authorized by section 101 of the River and 
     Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731).

[[Page H8855]]

       (2) The project for flood control, Agana River, Guam, 
     authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4127).
       (b) Limitation.--A project described in subsection (a) 
     shall not be authorized for construction after the last day 
     of the 5-year period beginning on the date of enactment of 
     this Act, unless, during such period, funds have been 
     obligated for the construction (including planning and 
     design) of the project.

     SEC. 3096. PROJECT REAUTHORIZATIONS.

       Each of the following projects may be carried out by the 
     Secretary and no construction on any such project may be 
     initiated until the Secretary determines that the project is 
     feasible:
       (1) Menominee harbor and river, michigan and wisconsin.--
     The project for navigation, Menominee Harbor and River, 
     Michigan and Wisconsin, authorized by section 101 of the 
     River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 482) and deauthorized 
     on April 15, 2002, in accordance with section 1001(b)(2) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
     579a(b)(2)).
       (2) Manitowoc harbor, wisconsin.--That portion of the 
     project for navigation, Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin, 
     consisting of the channel in the south part of the outer 
     harbor, deauthorized by section 101 of the River and 
     Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1176).

     SEC. 3097. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) In General.--The following projects are not authorized 
     after the date of enactment of this Act:
       (1) Bridgeport harbor, connecticut.--The portion of the 
     project for navigation, Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut, 
     authorized by the River and Harbor Act of July 3, 1930 (46 
     Stat. 919), consisting of an 18-foot channel in Yellow Mill 
     River and described as follows: Beginning at a point along 
     the eastern limit of the existing project, N123,649.75, 
     E481,920.54, thence running northwesterly about 52.64 feet to 
     a point N123,683.03, E481,879.75, thence running 
     northeasterly about 1,442.21 feet to a point N125,030.08, 
     E482,394.96, thence running northeasterly about 139.52 feet 
     to a point along the east limit of the existing channel, 
     N125,133.87, E482,488.19, thence running southwesterly about 
     1,588.98 feet to the point of origin.
       (2) Norwalk harbor, connecticut.--The following portions a 
     10-foot channel of the project for navigation, Norwalk 
     Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the first section of the 
     Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of March 2, 1919 (40 
     Stat. 1276):
       (A) An approximate rectangular shaped section along the 
     northwesterly terminus of the channel. The section is 35-feet 
     wide and about 460-feet long and is further described as 
     follows: Commencing at a point N104,165.85, E417,662.71, 
     thence running south 24 degrees 06 minutes 55 seconds east 
     395.00 feet to a point N103,805.32, E417,824.10, thence 
     running south 00 degrees 38 minutes 06 seconds east 87.84 
     feet to a point N103,717.49, E417,825.07, thence running 
     north 24 degrees 06 minutes 55 seconds west 480.00 feet, to a 
     point N104,155.59, E417.628.96, thence running north 73 
     degrees 05 minutes 25 seconds east 35.28 feet to the point of 
     origin.
       (B) An area having the approximate shape of a parallelogram 
     along the northeasterly portion of the channel, southeast of 
     the area described in subparagraph (A). This area is 20-feet 
     wide and about 260-feet long and is further described as 
     follows: Commencing at a point N103,855.48, E417,849.99, 
     thence running south 33 degrees 07 minutes 30 seconds east 
     133.40 feet to a point N103,743.76, E417,922.89, thence 
     running south 24 degrees 07 minutes 04 seconds east 127.75 
     feet to a point N103,627.16, E417,975.09, thence running 
     north 33 degrees 07 minutes 30 seconds west 190.00 feet to a 
     point N103,786.28, E417,871.26, thence running north 17 
     degrees 05 minutes 15 seconds west 72.39 feet to the point of 
     origin.
       (3) Chicago river and harbor, chicago, illinois.--Those 
     portions of the projects for navigation, Chicago River and 
     Chicago Harbor, Chicago, Illinois, authorized by the River 
     and Harbor Act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1129), extending 50 
     feet riverward of the existing dock wall on the south side of 
     the channel from Lake Street to Franklin Street and 25 feet 
     riverward of the existing dock wall on the south side of the 
     channel from Franklin Street to Wabash Avenue, and those 
     areas within 20 feet of the bridge abutments on the south 
     side of the channel for the length of the protection bridge 
     piers from the Franklin Street Bridge to the Michigan Avenue 
     Bridge.
       (4) Island end river, massachusetts.--The portion of the 
     project for navigation, Island End River, Massachusetts, 
     carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 
     1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), described as follows: Beginning at a 
     point along the eastern limit of the existing project, 
     N507,348.98, E721,180.01, thence running northeast about 35 
     feet to a point N507,384.17, E721,183.36, thence running 
     northeast about 324 feet to a point N507,590.51, E721,433.17, 
     thence running northeast about 345 feet to a point along the 
     northern limit of the existing project, N507,927.29, 
     E721,510.29, thence running southeast about 25 feet to a 
     point N507,921.71, E721,534.66, thence running southwest 
     about 354 feet to a point N507,576.65, E721,455.64, thence 
     running southwest about 357 feet to the point of origin.
       (5) City waterway, tacoma, washington.--The portion of the 
     project for navigation, City Waterway, Tacoma, Washington, 
     authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor 
     Appropriations Act of June 13, 1902 (32 Stat. 347), 
     consisting of the last 1,000 linear feet of the inner portion 
     of the waterway beginning at Station 70+00 and ending at 
     Station 80+00.
       (b) Anchorage Area, New London Harbor, Connecticut.--The 
     portion of the project for navigation, New London Harbor, 
     Connecticut, authorized by the River and Harbor 
     Appropriations Act of June 13, 1902 (32 Stat. 333), that 
     consists of a 23-foot waterfront channel and that is further 
     described as beginning at a point along the western limit of 
     the existing project, N188, 802.75, E779, 462.81, thence 
     running northeasterly about 1,373.88 feet to a point N189, 
     554.87, E780, 612.53, thence running southeasterly about 
     439.54 feet to a point N189, 319.88, E780, 983.98, thence 
     running southwesterly about 831.58 feet to a point N188, 
     864.63, E780, 288.08, thence running southeasterly about 
     567.39 feet to a point N188, 301.88, E780, 360.49, thence 
     running northwesterly about 1,027.96 feet to the point of 
     origin, shall be redesignated as an anchorage area.
       (c) Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut.--The 10-foot channel 
     portion of the Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut, navigation 
     project described in subsection (a)(2) is modified to 
     authorize the Secretary to realign the channel to include a 
     new section immediately north of the area described in 
     subsection (a)(2)(B). The new triangular shaped section is 
     described as follows: Commencing at a point N103,968.35, 
     E417,815.29, thence running south 17 degrees 05 minutes 15 
     seconds east 118.09 feet to a point N103,855.48, E417,849.99, 
     thence running north 33 degrees 07 minutes 30 seconds west 
     36.76 feet to a point N103,886.27, E417.829.90, thence 
     running north 10 degrees 05 minutes 26 seconds west 83.37 
     feet to the point of origin.
       (d) Chicago River and Harbor, Chicago, Illinois.--The 
     projects for navigation, Chicago River and Chicago Harbor 
     referred to in subsection (a)(3) are modified to direct the 
     Secretary to redefine the Federal navigation channel for 
     the North Branch Canal portion extending from 100 feet 
     downstream of the Halsted Street Bridge to 100 feet 
     upstream of the Division Street Bridge to be no wider than 
     66 feet.
       (e) Additional Deauthorizations.--The following projects 
     are not authorized after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     except with respect to any portion of such a project which 
     portion has been completed before such date or is under 
     construction on such date:
       (1) The project for flood damage reduction, Cache Creek 
     Basin, Clear Lake Outlet Channel, California, authorized by 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-
     662).
       (2) The project for flood control, Goleta and Vicinity, 
     California, authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1970.
       (3) The project to modify the Central and Southern Florida 
     project to improve water supply to the Everglades National 
     Park, Florida, authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1954 
     (Public Law 83-780) and the Flood Control Act of 1968 (Public 
     Law 90-483).
       (4) The project for flood control, Central and Southern 
     Florida Project, Shingle Creek Basin, Florida, authorized by 
     the Flood Control Act of 1962.
       (5) The project for flood control, Middle Wabash, 
     Greenfield Bayou, Indiana, authorized by section 10 of the 
     Flood Control Act of 1946.
       (6) The project for flood damage reduction, Lake George, 
     Hobart, Indiana, authorized by section 602 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662).
       (7) The project for flood damage reduction, Green Bay Levee 
     and Drainage District No. 2, Iowa, authorized by the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986, deauthorized in fiscal 
     year 1991, and reauthorized by the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-580).
       (8) The project for flood damage reduction, Hazard, 
     Kentucky, authorized by section 3 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-676) and section 108 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (Public Law 
     101-640).
       (9) The recreation portion of the project for flood 
     control, Taylorsville Lake, Kentucky, authorized by section 
     203 of the Flood Control Act of 1966.
       (10) The project for flood control, West Kentucky 
     Tributaries, Kentucky, authorized by the Flood Control Acts 
     of 1965 and 1970 and the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986.
       (11) The project for flood damage reduction, Bayou Cocodrie 
     and Tributaries, Louisiana, authorized by the Flood Control 
     Act of 1941 and the Water Resources Development Act of 1974.
       (12) The project for flood control, Eastern Rapides and 
     South-Central Avoyelles Parishes, Louisiana, authorized by 
     the Flood Control Act of 1970 (Public Law-611).
       (13) The project for Red River Waterway, Shreveport, 
     Louisiana to Daingerfield, Texas, authorized by the River and 
     Harbor Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-483).
       (14) The project for flood damage reduction Brockton, 
     Massachusetts, authorized by section 401(c) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662).
       (15) The project for navigation, Grand Haven Harbor, 
     Michigan, authorized by section 202 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662).
       (16) The project for navigation, Greenville Harbor, 
     Mississippi, authorized by section 601 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662).
       (17) The project for hydropower, Libby Dam, Montana, (Units 
     6-8), authorized by section 549 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-303).
       (18) The project for flood damage reduction, Platte River 
     Flood and Related Streambank Erosion Control, Nebraska, 
     authorized by section 603 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662).
       (19) The project for navigation, Outer Harbor, Buffalo, New 
     York, authorized by section 110 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992.
       (20) The project for flood damage reduction, Sugar Creek 
     Basin, North Carolina and South Carolina, authorized by 
     section 401 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (Public Law 99-662).
       (21) The project for flood control and recreation, 
     Fairfield, Ohio, authorized by section

[[Page H8856]]

     401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public 
     Law 99-662).
       (22) The project for shoreline protection, Maumee Bay, Lake 
     Erie, Ohio, authorized by section 501(a) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986.
       (23) The project for flood control and water supply, Parker 
     Lake, Muddy Boggy Creek, Oklahoma, authorized by the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662).
       (24) The project for the Columbia River, Seafarers 
     Memorial, Hammond, Oregon, authorized by the Energy and Water 
     Development Appropriations Act of 1991.
       (25) The project for bulkhead repairs, Quonset Point-
     Davisville, Rhode Island, authorized by section 571 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
       (26) The project for flood damage reduction, Harris Fork 
     Creek, Tennessee and Kentucky, authorized by section 102 of 
     the Water Resources Development Acts of 1976 and 1986.
       (27) The project for flood damage reduction, Arroyo 
     Colorado, Texas, authorized by the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662).
       (28) The project for flood damage reduction, Cypress Creek-
     Structural, Texas, authorized by the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1988.
       (29) The project for flood damage reduction, East Fork 
     Channel Improvement, Increment 2, East Fork of the Trinity 
     River, Texas, authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1962.
       (30) The project for flood damage reduction, Falfurrias, 
     Texas, authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1988.
       (31) The project for bank erosion, Kanawha River, 
     Charleston, West Virginia, authorized by section 603(f)(13) 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 
     99-662).
       (f) Conditions.--The first sentence of section 1001(b)(2) 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
     579a(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``two years'' and inserting ``year''; and
       (2) by striking ``7'' and inserting ``5''.

     SEC. 3098. LAND CONVEYANCES.

       (a) Milford, Kansas.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to the provisions of this section, 
     the Secretary shall convey by quitclaim deed without 
     consideration to the Geary County Fire Department, Milford, 
     Kansas, all right, title, and interest of the United States 
     in and to a parcel of land consisting of approximately 7.4 
     acres located in Geary County, Kansas, for construction, 
     operation, and maintenance of a fire station.
       (2) Survey to obtain legal description.--The exact acreage 
     and the description of the real property referred to in 
     paragraph (1) shall be determined by a survey that is 
     satisfactory to the Secretary.
       (3) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the 
     property conveyed under paragraph (1) ceases to be held in 
     public ownership or to be used for any purpose other than a 
     fire station, all right, title, and interest in and to the 
     property shall revert to the United States, at the option of 
     the United States.
       (b) Boardman, Oregon.--Section 501(g)(1) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3751) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``city of Boardman,'' and inserting ``the 
     Boardman Park and Recreation District, Boardman,''; and
       (2) by striking ``such city'' and inserting ``the city of 
     Boardman''.
       (c) Generally Applicable Provisions.--
       (1) Applicability of property screening provisions.--
     Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply 
     to any conveyance under this section.
       (2) Additional terms and conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require that any conveyance under this section be subject to 
     such additional terms and conditions as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate and necessary to protect the interests 
     of the United States.
       (3) Costs of conveyance.--An entity to which a conveyance 
     is made under this section shall be responsible for all 
     reasonable and necessary costs, including real estate 
     transaction and environmental compliance costs, associated 
     with the conveyance.
       (4) Liability.--An entity to which a conveyance is made 
     under this section shall hold the United States harmless from 
     any liability with respect to activities carried out, on or 
     after the date of the conveyance, on the real property 
     conveyed. The United States shall remain responsible for any 
     liability with respect to activities carried out, before such 
     date, on the real property conveyed.

     SEC. 3099. EXTINGUISHMENT OF REVERSIONARY INTERESTS AND USE 
                   RESTRICTIONS.

       (a) Idaho.--
       (1) In general.--With respect to each deed listed in 
     paragraph (2), the reversionary interests and use 
     restrictions relating to industrial use purposes are 
     extinguished.
       (2) Affected deeds.--The deeds with the following county 
     auditor's file numbers are referred to in paragraph (1):
       (A) Auditor's Instrument No. 399218 of Nez Perce County, 
     Idaho--2.07 acres.
       (B) Auditor's Instrument No. 487437 of Nez Perce County, 
     Idaho--7.32 acres.
       (b) Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, 
     Tennessee.--
       (1) Release of retained rights, interests, reservations.--
     With respect to land conveyed by the Secretary to the 
     Tennessee Society of Crippled Children and Adults, 
     Incorporated (now known as ``Easter Seals Tennessee''), at 
     Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee, under 
     section 211 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1087), 
     the reversionary interests and the use restrictions relating 
     to recreation and camping purposes are extinguished.
       (2) Instrument of release.--As soon as possible after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall execute 
     and file in the appropriate office a deed of release, amended 
     deed, or other appropriate instrument effectuating the 
     release of interests required by paragraph (1).
       (c) No Effect of Other Rights.--Nothing in this section 
     affects the remaining rights and interests of the Corps of 
     Engineers for authorized project purposes.

     SEC. 3100. LAND EXCHANGE, DISPOSAL AND ACQUISITION OF LANDS, 
                   ALLATOONA LAKE, GEORGIA.

       (a) Land Exchange.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may exchange lands above 863 
     feet in elevation at Allatoona Lake, Georgia, identified in 
     the Real Estate Design Memorandum prepared by the Mobile 
     district engineer, April 5, 1996, and approved October 8, 
     1996, for lands on the north side of Allatoona Lake that are 
     needed for wildlife management and for protection of the 
     water quality and overall environment of Allatoona Lake.
       (2) Terms and conditions.--The basis for all land exchanges 
     under this subsection shall be a fair market appraisal so 
     that lands exchanged are of equal value.
       (b) Disposal and Acquisition of Lands, Allatoona Lake, 
     Georgia.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may also sell lands above 
     863 feet in elevation at Allatoona Lake, Georgia, identified 
     in the memorandum referred to in subsection (a)(1) and may 
     use the proceeds to pay costs associated with the purchase of 
     lands needed for wildlife management and for protection of 
     the water quality and overall environment of Allatoona Lake.
       (2) Terms and conditions.--Land sales and purchases to be 
     conducted under this subsection shall be subject to the 
     following terms and conditions:
       (A) Lands acquired under this subsection shall be by 
     negotiated purchase from willing sellers only.
       (B) The basis for all transactions under the program shall 
     be a fair market appraisal acceptable to the Secretary.
       (C) The purchasers shall share in the associated 
     environmental and real estate costs, to include surveys and 
     associated fees in accordance with the memorandum referred to 
     in subsection (a)(1).
       (D) Any other conditions that the Secretary may impose.
       (c) Repeal.--Section 325 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4849) is repealed.

                           TITLE IV--STUDIES

     SEC. 4001. JOHN GLENN GREAT LAKES BASIN PROGRAM.

       Section 455 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 330-332) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(g) In-Kind Contributions for Study.--The non-Federal 
     interest may provide up to 100 percent of the non-Federal 
     share required under subsection (f) in the form of services, 
     materials, supplies, or other in-kind contributions.''.

     SEC. 4002. ST. GEORGE HARBOR, ALASKA.

       The Secretary shall conduct, at Federal expense, a study to 
     determine the feasibility of providing navigation 
     improvements at St. George, Alaska.

     SEC. 4003. SUSITNA RIVER, ALASKA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for hydropower, 
     recreation, and related purposes on the Susitna River, 
     Alaska.

     SEC. 4004. SEARCY COUNTY, ARKANSAS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of using Greers Ferry Lake as a water supply 
     source for Searcy County, Arkansas.

     SEC. 4005. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATERWAY, 
                   ILLINOIS, IOWA, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, AND 
                   WISCONSIN.

       The Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the 
     results of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway 
     Restructured System Navigation Feasibility Study, Illinois, 
     Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin, no later than July 
     1, 2004.

     SEC. 4006. HAMILTON, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary is directed to continue planning, 
     preconstruction, engineering, and design efforts on the 
     Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive Study-
     Hamilton City Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem 
     Restoration Initial Project and shall include in the study an 
     area 2 miles north and 4 miles south of State Highway 32.

     SEC. 4007. OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA.

       Section 414 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
     (114 Stat. 2636) is amended by striking ``32 months'' and 
     inserting ``44 months''.

     SEC. 4008. SACRAMENTO RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study to 
     determine the feasibility of, and alternatives for, measures 
     to protect water diversion facilities and fish protective 
     screen facilities in the vicinity of river mile 178 on the 
     Sacramento River, California.

     SEC. 4009. SAN FRANCISCO BAY, SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, 
                   CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of the beneficial use of dredged 
     material from the San Francisco Bay in the Sacramento-San 
     Joaquin Delta, California, including the benefits and impacts 
     of salinity in the Delta and the benefits to navigation, 
     flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, water quality, 
     salinity control, water supply reliability, and recreation.
       (b) Cooperation.--In conducting the study, the Secretary 
     shall cooperate with the California Department of Water 
     Resources and appropriate Federal and State entities in 
     developing options for the beneficial use of dredged

[[Page H8857]]

     material from San Francisco Bay for the Sacramento-San 
     Joaquin Delta area.
       (c) Review.--The study shall include a review of the 
     feasibility of using Sherman Island as a rehandling site for 
     levee maintenance material, as well as for ecosystem 
     restoration. The review may include monitoring a pilot 
     project using up to 150,000 cubic yards of dredged material 
     and being carried out at the Sherman Island site, examining 
     larger scale use of dredged materials from the San Francisco 
     Bay and Suisun Bay Channel, and analyzing the feasibility of 
     the potential use of saline materials from the San Francisco 
     Bay for both rehandling and ecosystem restoration purposes.

     SEC. 4010. TYBEE ISLAND, GEORGIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of including the northern end of Tybee Island 
     extending from the north terminal groin to the mouth of 
     Lazaretto Creek as a part of the project for beach erosion 
     control, Tybee Island, Georgia, carried out under section 201 
     of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5).

     SEC. 4011. CALUMET HARBOR, ILLINOIS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation at 
     Calumet Harbor, Illinois.

     SEC. 4012. PADUCAH, KENTUCKY.

       The Secretary is authorized to complete a rehabilitation 
     evaluation report for the project for flood damage reduction, 
     Paducah, Kentucky, and, if the Secretary determines that the 
     project is feasible, proceed to preconstruction engineering 
     and design for rehabilitation of the project.

     SEC. 4013. BASTROP-MOREHOUSE PARISH, LOUISIANA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, 
     Bastrop-Morehouse Parish, Louisiana.

     SEC. 4014. WEST FELICIANA PARISH, LOUISIANA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for riverfront 
     development, including enhanced public access, recreation, 
     and environmental restoration, on the Mississippi River in 
     West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana.

     SEC. 4015. CITY OF MACKINAC ISLAND, MICHIGAN.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation at the 
     city of Mackinac Island, Michigan.

     SEC. 4016. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.

       Section 425(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2000 (114 Stat. 2638) is amended by inserting ``Lake Michigan 
     and'' before ``the Chicago River''.

     SEC. 4017. SOUTH BRANCH, CHICAGO RIVER, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for ecosystem 
     restoration at the South Fork of the South Branch of the 
     Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois.

     SEC. 4018. NORTHEAST MISSISSIPPI.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of modifying the project for navigation, 
     Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Alabama and Mississippi, to 
     provide water supply for northeast Mississippi.

     SEC. 4019. PUEBLO OF ZUNI, NEW MEXICO.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out projects for water resources 
     development, environmental restoration, and natural resources 
     protection for the Pueblo of Zuni, New Mexico, under section 
     203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 
     2269).

     SEC. 4020. HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY.

       In carrying out the study for environmental restoration, 
     Hudson-Raritan Estuary, New York and New Jersey, the 
     Secretary shall establish and utilize watershed restoration 
     teams composed of estuary restoration experts from the Corps 
     of Engineers, the New Jersey Department of Environmental 
     Protection, and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 
     and other experts designated by the Secretary for the purpose 
     of developing habitat restoration and water quality 
     enhancement.

     SEC. 4021. SAC AND FOX NATION, OKLAHOMA.

       The Secretary shall complete a water and related land 
     resource conservation and management plan for the Sac and Fox 
     Nation, Oklahoma, under section 203 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2269).

     SEC. 4022. SUTHERLIN, OREGON.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of water 
     resources along Sutherlin Creek in the vicinity of Sutherlin, 
     Oregon, to determine the feasibility of carrying out a 
     project to restore and enhance aquatic resources using a 
     combination of structural and bioengineering techniques and, 
     if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, may 
     carry out the project.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $2,500,000.

     SEC. 4023. TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, OREGON.

       The Secretary shall conduct under section 216 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1830) a study of the project 
     for navigation, Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon, authorized by 
     the first section of the River and Harbor Appropriations Act 
     of July 25, 1912 (37 Stat. 220), to investigate measures to 
     address dangerous and hazardous wave and ocean conditions.

     SEC. 4024. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND FISH PASSAGE 
                   IMPROVEMENTS, OREGON.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of undertaking ecosystem 
     restoration and fish passage improvements on rivers 
     throughout the State of Oregon.
       (b) Requirements.--In carrying out the study, the Secretary 
     shall--
       (1) work in coordination with the State of Oregon, local 
     governments, and other Federal agencies; and
       (2) place emphasis on--
       (A) fish passage and conservation and restoration 
     strategies to benefit species that are listed or proposed for 
     listing as threatened or endangered species under the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and
       (B) other watershed restoration objectives.
       (c) Pilot Program.--
       (1) In general.--In conjunction with conducting the study 
     under subsection (a), the Secretary may carry out pilot 
     projects to demonstrate the effectiveness of ecosystem 
     restoration and fish passages.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this subsection.

     SEC. 4025. NORTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM 
                   RESTORATION AND PROTECTION.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out aquatic ecosystem restoration and 
     protection projects in the counties of Lackawanna, Lycoming, 
     Susquehanna, Wyoming, Pike, Wayne, Sullivan, Bradford, 
     Northumberland, Union, Snyder, and Montour, Pennsylvania, 
     particularly as related to abandoned mine drainage abatement 
     and reestablishment of stream and river channels.

     SEC. 4026. GEORGETOWN AND WILLIAMSBURG COUNTIES, SOUTH 
                   CAROLINA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply for 
     Georgetown and Williamsburg Counties, South Carolina, 
     including the viability and practicality of constructing a 
     desalinization water treatment facility to meet such water 
     supply needs.

     SEC. 4027. SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TEXAS.

       In conducting a feasibility study for shore protection and 
     related improvements between Sabine Pass and the entrance to 
     Galveston Bay, Texas, the Secretary may include any benefits 
     related to the use of State Highway 87 as an emergency 
     evacuation route in the determination of national economic 
     development benefits of the project.

     SEC. 4028. GRAND COUNTY AND MOAB, UTAH.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply for 
     Grand County and the city of Moab, Utah, including a review 
     of the impact of current and future demands on the Spanish 
     Valley Aquifer.

     SEC. 4029. CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN, WASHINGTON.

       The Secretary shall conduct a river basin study for the 
     Chehalis River basin, Washington, including a study of the 
     uses of the basin's water resources to assist users 
     in developing a fair and equitable distribution of such 
     resources.

     SEC. 4030. SPRAGUE, LINCOLN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.

       The Secretary may accept from the non-Federal interest to 
     pay all or a part of the non-Federal share of the cost of 
     feasibility study for the project for flood control in the 
     vicinity of Sprague, Lincoln County, Washington, funds made 
     available under any other Federal program if such use of the 
     funds is permitted under the Federal program.

     SEC. 4031. MONONGAHELA RIVER BASIN, NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out aquatic ecosystem restoration and 
     protection projects in the watersheds of the Monongahela 
     River basin lying within the counties of Hancock, Ohio, 
     Marshall, Wetzel, Tyler, Pleasants, Wood, Doddridge, 
     Monongalia, Marion, Harrison, Taylor, Barbour, Preston, 
     Tucker, Mineral, Grant, Gilmer, Brooke, and Rithchie, West 
     Virginia, particularly as related to abandoned mine drainage 
     abatement.

     SEC. 4032. WAUWATOSA, WISCONSIN.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction and environmental restoration, Menomonee River and 
     Underwood Creek, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin.

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 5001. MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION CHANNELS.

       (a) In General.--Upon request of a non-Federal interest, 
     the Secretary shall be responsible for maintenance of the 
     following navigation channels and breakwaters constructed or 
     improved by the non-Federal interest if the Secretary 
     determines that such maintenance is economically justified 
     and environmentally acceptable and that the channel or 
     breakwater was constructed in accordance with applicable 
     permits and appropriate engineering and design standards:
       (1) Pix Bayou navigation channel, Chambers County, Texas.
       (2) Pidgeon Industrial Harbor, Pidgeon Industrial Park, 
     Memphis Harbor, Tennessee.
       (3) Racine Harbor, Wisconsin.
       (b) Completion of Assessment.--Not later than 6 months 
     after the date of receipt of a request from a non-Federal 
     interest for Federal assumption of maintenance of a channel 
     listed in subsection (a), the Secretary shall make a 
     determination as provided in subsection (a) and advise the 
     non-Federal interest of the Secretary's determination.
       (c) Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas.--The Secretary shall 
     remove sunken vessels and debris between miles 35 and 43 of 
     the Channel to Orange, Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas, for the 
     purpose of improving navigation safety and reducing the risk 
     to the public.

     SEC. 5002. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may provide technical, 
     planning, and design assistance to non-Federal interests for 
     carrying out watershed management, restoration, and 
     development projects at the locations described in subsection 
     (d).

[[Page H8858]]

       (b) Specific Measures.--Assistance provided under 
     subsection (a) may be in support of non-Federal projects for 
     the following purposes:
       (1) Management and restoration of water quality.
       (2) Control and remediation of toxic sediments.
       (3) Restoration of degraded streams, rivers, wetlands, and 
     other waterbodies to their natural condition as a means to 
     control flooding, excessive erosion, and sedimentation.
       (4) Protection and restoration of watersheds, including 
     urban watersheds.
       (5) Demonstration of technologies for nonstructural 
     measures to reduce destructive impacts of flooding.
       (c) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost 
     of assistance provided under subsection (a) shall be 50 
     percent.
       (d) Project Locations.--The locations referred to in 
     subsection (a) are the following:
       (1) Spring Branch watershed, Huntsville, Alabama.
       (2) Tuolumne County, California.
       (3) Cucamonga basin, Upland, California.
       (4) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois.
       (5) Those portions of the watersheds of the Concord, 
     Charles, Blackstone, Neponset, Taunton, Nashua, Shawsheen, 
     and Merrimack Rivers, Massachusetts, lying within the 
     Interstate Route 495 corridor.
       (6) Jackson Brook watershed, New Jersey.
       (7) Those portions of the watersheds of the Beaver, Upper 
     Ohio, Connoquenessing, Lower Allegheny, Kiskiminetas, Lower 
     Monongahela, Youghiogheny, Shenango, and Mahoning Rivers 
     lying within the counties of Beaver, Butler, Lawrence, and 
     Mercer, Pennsylvania.
       (8) Southampton Creek watershed, Southampton, Pennsylvania.
       (9) Unami Creek watershed, Milford Township, Pennsylvania.
       (10) Amite River basin, Louisiana.
       (11) Iberville Parish, East Atchafalaya River basin, 
     Louisiana.
       (12) Genesee River watershed, New York.
       (13) Tonawanda Creek watershed, New York.
       (14) Buffalo River watershed, New York.
       (15) Eighteenmile Creek watershed, Niagara County, New 
     York.
       (16) Cattaragus Creek watershed, New York.
       (17) Oswego River basin, New York.
       (18) Red River watershed, Louisiana.
       (19) Fountain Creek and tributaries, Colorado.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000.

     SEC. 5003. DAM SAFETY.

       (a) Assistance.--The Secretary may provide assistance to 
     enhance dam safety at the following locations:
       (1) Mountain Park Dam, Mountain Park, Georgia.
       (2) Barber Dam, Ada County, Idaho.
       (3) Fish Creek Dam, Blaine County, Idaho.
       (4) Lost Valley Dam, Adams County, Idaho.
       (5) Salmon Falls Dam, Twin Falls County, Idaho.
       (6) Whaley Lake Dam, Pawling, New York.
       (7) Lake Carl Blackwell Dam, Stillwater, Oklahoma.
       (8) Dams in Mountain Lakes Park, Princeton Township, New 
     Jersey.
       (9) State Dam, Auburn, New York.
       (10) Candor Dam, Candor, New York.
       (b) Special Rule.--The assistance provided under subsection 
     (a) for State Dam, Auburn, New York, shall be for a project 
     for rehabilitation in accordance with the report on State Dam 
     Rehabilitation, Owasco Lake Outlet, New York, dated March 
     1999, if the Secretary determines that the project is 
     feasible.
       (c) Fern Ridge Dam, Oregon.--It is the sense of Congress 
     that the Secretary should work to immediately remedy the 
     situation at Fern Ridge Dam, Oregon, due to the rapid 
     deterioration of the dam.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $6,000,000.

     SEC. 5004. STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY EVALUATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Upon request of a non-Federal interest, 
     the Secretary shall evaluate the structural integrity and 
     effectiveness of a project for flood damage reduction and, if 
     the Secretary determines that the project does not meet such 
     minimum standards as the Secretary may establish and, absent 
     action by the Secretary, the project will fail, the Secretary 
     may take such action as may be necessary to restore the 
     integrity and effectiveness of the project.
       (b) Priority.--The Secretary shall evaluate under 
     subsection (a) the following projects:
       (1) Project for flood damage reduction, Arkansas River 
     Levees, river mile 205 to river mile 308.4, Arkansas.
       (2) Project for flood damage reduction, Marianna Borough, 
     Pennsylvania.
       (3) Project for flood damage reduction, Nonconnah Creek, 
     Tennessee.

     SEC. 5005. FLOOD MITIGATION PRIORITY AREAS.

       Section 212(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999 (33 U.S.C. 2332(e); 114 Stat. 2599) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (27);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (28) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(29) La Crosse County, Wisconsin;
       ``(30) Crawford County, Wisconsin;
       ``(31) Buffalo County, Wisconsin;
       ``(32) Calhoun County, Illinois;
       ``(33) Saint Charles County, Missouri;
       ``(34) Saint Louis County, Missouri;
       ``(35) Dubuque County, Iowa;
       ``(36) Scott County, Iowa;
       ``(37) Rock Island County, Illinois;
       ``(38) Ascension Parish, Louisiana;
       ``(39) East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana;
       ``(40) Iberville Parish, Louisiana; and
       ``(41) Livingston Parish, Louisiana.''.

     SEC. 5006. ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR AUTHORIZED PROJECTS.

       Section 219(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 110 Stat. 3757; 113 Stat. 334) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (7);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(20);
       ``(10) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(25);
       ``(11) $15,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(26);
       ``(12) $7,800,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(27);
       ``(13) $18,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(31); and
       ``(14) $30,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(40).''.

     SEC. 5007. EXPEDITED COMPLETION OF REPORTS AND CONSTRUCTION 
                   FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS.

       The Secretary shall expedite completion of the reports and, 
     if the Secretary determines the project is feasible, shall 
     expedite completion of construction for the following 
     projects:
       (1) Welch Point, Elk River, Cecil County, Maryland, being 
     carried out under section 535(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 348-349).
       (2) West View Shores, Cecil County, Maryland, being carried 
     out under section 521 of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 2000 (114. Stat. 2655).
       (3) Sylvan Beach Breakwater, Verona, Oneida County, New 
     York, being carried out under section 3 of the Act entitled 
     ``An Act authorizing Federal participation in the cost of 
     protecting the shores of publicly owned property'', approved 
     August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g).
       (4) Fulmer Creek, Village of Mohawk, New York, being 
     carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 
     1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).
       (5) Moyer Creek, Village of Frankfort, New York, being 
     carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 
     1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).
       (6) Steele Creek, Village of Ilion, New York, being carried 
     out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 
     U.S.C. 701s).
       (7) Oriskany Wildlife Management Area, Rome, New York, 
     being carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330).
       (8) Whitney Point Lake, Otselic River, Whitney Point, New 
     York, being carried out under section 1135 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a).
       (9) Newton Creek, Bainbridge, New York, being carried out 
     under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 
     701r).
       (10) Chenango Lake, Chenango County, New York, being 
     carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330).
       (11) Lucas Berg Pit, Worth, Illinois, being carried out as 
     part of the Calumet-Sag navigation project, authorized by 
     section 2 of the River and Harbor Act of March 2, 1945 (59 
     Stat. 19), and modified by the first section of the River and 
     Harbor Act of July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 636), and section 109 
     of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 302).

     SEC. 5008. EXPEDITED COMPLETION OF REPORTS FOR CERTAIN 
                   PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall expedite completion of 
     the reports for the following projects and, if the Secretary 
     determines that a project is justified in the completed 
     report, proceed directly to project preconstruction, 
     engineering, and design:
       (1) Project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem 
     restoration, Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins, 
     Hamilton, California.
       (2) Project for ecosystem restoration, University Lake, 
     Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
       (3) Project for shoreline protection, Detroit River 
     Greenway Corridor, Detroit, Michigan.
       (4) Project for shoreline stabilization at Egmont Key, 
     Florida.
       (b) Special Rule.--In carrying out the project for 
     shoreline stabilization at Egmont Key, Florida, referred to 
     in subsection (a)(4), the Secretary shall waive any cost 
     share to be provided by non-Federal interests for any portion 
     of the project that benefits federally owned property.
       (c) Chesapeake, Maryland.--The Secretary shall expedite 
     completion of the study being carried out under section 
     535(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 
     Stat. 349) with respect to additional compensation to the 
     city of Chesapeake, Maryland.

     SEC. 5009. SOUTHEASTERN WATER RESOURCES ASSESSMENT.

       The Secretary may provide assistance to a coordinated 
     effort by Federal, State, and local agencies, non-Federal and 
     nonprofit entities, regional researchers, and other 
     interested parties to assess the water resources and water 
     resources needs of river basins and watersheds of the 
     southeastern United States.

     SEC. 5010. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 1103(e)(7)(A) of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 652(e)(7)(A)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following: ``The non-Federal interest may provide 
     the non-Federal share of the cost of the project in the form 
     of services, materials, supplies, or other in-kind 
     contributions.''.

     SEC. 5011. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS ENHANCEMENT 
                   PROJECT.

       Section 514(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999 (113 Stat. 343; 117 Stat. 142) is amended by striking 
     ``and 2004'' and inserting ``through 2015''.

[[Page H8859]]

     SEC. 5012. MEMBERSHIP OF MISSOURI RIVER TRUST.

       Section 904(b)(1)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 2000 (114 Stat. 2708) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (vii);
       (2) by redesignating clause (viii) as clause (ix); and
       (3) by inserting after clause (vii) the following:
       ``(viii) rural water systems; and''.

     SEC. 5013. GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

       Section 506(f)(3)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-22; 114 Stat. 2646) is amended by 
     striking ``50 percent'' and inserting ``100 percent''.

     SEC. 5014. SUSQUEHANNA, DELAWARE, AND POTOMAC RIVER BASINS.

       (a) Ex Officio Member.--Notwithstanding section 3001(a) of 
     the 1997 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for 
     Recovery From Natural Disasters, and for Overseas 
     Peacekeeping Efforts, Including Those in Bosnia (111 Stat. 
     176) and section 2.2 of both the Susquehanna River Basin 
     Compact (Public Law 91-575) and the Delaware River Basin 
     Compact (Public Law 87-328), beginning in fiscal year 2002 
     and thereafter, the Division Engineer, North Atlantic 
     Division, Corps of Engineers, shall be the ex officio United 
     States member under the Susquehanna River Basin Compact and 
     the Delaware River Basin Compact, who shall serve without 
     additional compensation and who may designate an alternate 
     member or members in accordance with the terms of those 
     respective compacts.
       (b) Authorization To Allocate.--The Secretary may allocate 
     funds to the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Delaware 
     River Basin Commission, and the Interstate Commission on the 
     Potomac River Basin (Potomac River Basin Compact (Public Law 
     91-407)) to fulfill the equitable funding requirements of 
     their respective interstate compacts.
       (c) Water Supply and Conservation Storage.--The Secretary 
     shall enter into an agreement with the Delaware River Basin 
     Commission to provide temporary water supply and conservation 
     storage at the Francis E. Walter Dam, Pennsylvania, during 
     any period in which the Commission has determined that a 
     drought warning or drought emergency exists. The agreement 
     shall provide that the cost for any such water supply and 
     conservation storage shall not exceed the incremental 
     operating costs associated with providing the storage.

     SEC. 5015. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND 
                   PROTECTION PROGRAM.

       Section 510(i) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3761) is amended by striking ``$10,000,000'' 
     and inserting ``$30,000,000''.

     SEC. 5016. MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA.

       The Secretary shall review the navigation and aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration components of the Montgomery Riverfront 
     and Downtown Master Plan, Montgomery, Alabama, dated May 
     2001, and prepared by the non-Federal interest and, if the 
     Secretary determines that those components meet the 
     evaluation and design standards of the Corps of Engineers and 
     that the components are feasible, may carry out the 
     components at a Federal cost not to exceed $5,000,000.

     SEC. 5017. PINHOOK CREEK, HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA.

       The Secretary shall design and construct the locally 
     preferred plan for flood protection at Pinhook Creek, 
     Huntsville, Alabama, under the authority of section 205 of 
     the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s). 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. 5018. ALASKA.

       Section 570 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 369) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (e)(3)(B) by striking the last sentence;
       (2) in subsection (h) by striking ``$25,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$40,000,000''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) 
     of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for 
     any project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal 
     interest may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of 
     the affected local government.
       ``(j) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the 
     amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used by 
     the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer 
     projects under this section at 100 percent Federal 
     expense.''.

     SEC. 5019. AKUTAN SMALL BOAT HARBOR, ALASKA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall expedite the study for 
     the Akutan Small Boat Harbor, Alaska, and upon completion of 
     the feasibility study, shall design and construct the 
     project, if the Secretary determines that the project is 
     feasible.
       (b) Treatment of Certain Dredging.--The headlands dredging 
     for the mooring basin shall be considered general navigation 
     feature for purposes of estimating the non-Federal share of 
     the cost of the project.

     SEC. 5020. LOWELL CREEK TUNNEL, SEWARD, ALASKA.

       (a) Long-Term Maintenance and Repair.--The Secretary shall 
     assume responsibility for the long-term maintenance and 
     repair of the Lowell Creek Tunnel.
       (b) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine whether alternative methods of flood diversion in 
     Lowell Canyon are feasible.

     SEC. 5021. ST. HERMAN AND ST. PAUL HARBORS, KODIAK, ALASKA.

       The Secretary shall carry out, on an emergency basis, 
     necessary removal of rubble, sediment, and rock that are 
     impeding the entrance to the St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, 
     Kodiak, Alaska, at a Federal cost of $2,000,000.

     SEC. 5022. AUGUSTA AND CLARENDON, ARKANSAS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to perform 
     operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of authorized and 
     completed levees on the White River between Augusta and 
     Clarendon, Arkansas.
       (b) Reimbursement.--After performing the operation, 
     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 operation, 
     maintenance, and rehabilitation.

     SEC. 5023. LOOMIS LANDING, ARKANSAS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of shore damage in the 
     vicinity of Loomis Landing, Arkansas, to determine if the 
     damage is the result of a Federal navigation project, and, if 
     the Secretary determines that the damage is the result of a 
     Federal navigation project, the Secretary shall carry out a 
     project to mitigate the damage under section 111 of the River 
     and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i).

     SEC. 5024. MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION PROJECT, 
                   ARKANSAS AND OKLAHOMA.

       The McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River navigation and 
     comprehensive development project, Arkansas and Oklahoma, 
     authorized by the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the 
     construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors 
     for flood control, and for other purposes'', approved June 
     28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1215), and the first section of the River 
     and Harbor Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 364) and modified by section 
     108 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 
     1988 (101 Stat. 1329-112), is further modified to authorize a 
     project depth of 12 feet in the States of Arkansas and 
     Oklahoma.

     SEC. 5025. ST. FRANCIS RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS AND MISSOURI.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of increased siltation 
     and streambank erosion in the St. Francis River basin, 
     Arkansas and Missouri, to determine if the siltation or 
     erosion, or both, are the result of a Federal flood control 
     project and, if the Secretary determines that the siltation 
     or erosion, or both, are the result of a Federal flood 
     control project, the Secretary shall carry out a project to 
     mitigate the siltation or erosion, or both.

     SEC. 5026. CAMBRIA, CALIFORNIA.

       Section 219(f)(48) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A-220) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$10,300,000'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) In general.--$10,300,000'';
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project not to exceed 
     $3,000,000 for the cost of planning and design work carried 
     out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the 
     partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
     determines that the work is integral to the project.''; and
       (3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph 
     (A) (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with 
     subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section).

     SEC. 5027. CONTRA COSTA CANAL, OAKLEY AND KNIGHTSEN, 
                   CALIFORNIA; MALLARD SLOUGH, PITTSBURG, 
                   CALIFORNIA.

       Sections 512 and 514 of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 2000 (114 Stat. 2650) are each amended by adding at the 
     end the following: ``All planning, study, design, and 
     construction on the project shall be carried out by the 
     office of the district engineer, San Francisco, 
     California.''.

     SEC. 5028. EAST SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

       Section 219(f)(22) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835-4836; 113 Stat. 336) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$25,000,000'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) In general.--$25,000,000'';
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project (i) the cost of 
     design and construction work carried out by the non-
     Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
     agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that 
     the work is integral to the project; and (ii) the cost of 
     in-kind services and materials provided for the project by 
     the non-Federal interest.
       ``(C) In-kind contributions.--The non-Federal interest may 
     provide any portion of the non-Federal share of the cost of 
     the project in the form of services, materials, supplies, or 
     other in-kind contributions.''; and
       (3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph 
     (A) (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with 
     subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section).

     SEC. 5029. SACRAMENTO AREA, CALIFORNIA.

       Section 219(f)(23) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835-4836; 113 Stat. 336) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$25,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$35,000,000'';
       (2) by inserting ``water supply and'' before ``regional''; 
     and
       (3) by adding at the end the following: ``$________________ 
     for wastewater and water supply infrastructure in the 
     counties of Modoc, Lassen, Plumas, Butte, Sierra, Nevada, El 
     Dorado, and Placer, California.''.

[[Page H8860]]

     SEC. 5030. SACRAMENTO DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to transfer 
     title to the Bascule Bridge, deauthorized by section 
     347(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
     (114. Stat. 2618), to the city of West Sacramento, 
     California, subject to the execution of an agreement by the 
     Secretary and the city which specifies the terms and 
     conditions for such transfer. The terms and conditions of the 
     transfer shall include a provision authorizing the Secretary 
     to participate in the construction of a replacement bridge 
     following the removal of the Bascule Bridge.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriation.--There is authorized to 
     be appropriated $5,000,000 for the Secretary to participate 
     in the construction of a replacement bridge under this 
     section.

     SEC. 5031. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Pier 70 Wharf 5 Removal and Dredging Project.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     Port of San Francisco, shall carry out the project for 
     removal of Wharf 5 and associated pilings and dredgings at 
     Pier 70 in San Francisco, California, substantially in 
     accordance with the Port's redevelopment plans.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $1,600,000 to carry out this subsection.
       (b) Piers 94-96 Repairs Project.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     Port of San Francisco, California, may carry out the project 
     for repairs to Piers 94-96 in San Francisco, California, 
     substantially in accordance with the Port's redevelopment 
     plan.
       (2) Authorization of appropriation.--There is authorized to 
     be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this subsection.
       (c) Capital Improvement Project.--
       (1) Establishment of office.--The Secretary shall establish 
     a centralized office at the office of the district engineer, 
     San Francisco, California, for the use of all Federal and 
     State agencies that are or will be involved in issuing 
     permits and conducting environmental reviews for the capital 
     improvement project to repair and upgrade the water supply 
     and delivery system for the city of San Francisco.
       (2) Contributions.--The Secretary may use the authority 
     under section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2000 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note) for the project described in 
     paragraph (1).
       (3) Protection of impartial decisionmaking.--In carrying 
     out this subsection, the Secretary and the heads of Federal 
     agencies receiving funds under such section 214 for the 
     project described in paragraph (1) shall ensure that the use 
     of the funds accepted under such section for such project 
     will not impact impartial decisionmaking with respect to the 
     issuance of permits, either substantively or procedurally, or 
     diminish, modify, or otherwise affect the statutory or 
     regulatory authorities of such agencies.

     SEC. 5032. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, WATERFRONT AREA.

       (a) Area To Be Declared Nonnavigable; Public Interest.--
     Unless the Secretary finds, after consultation with local and 
     regional public officials (including local and regional 
     public planning organizations), that the proposed projects to 
     be undertaken within the boundaries of the portion of the San 
     Francisco, California, waterfront area described in 
     subsection (b) are not in the public interest, such portion 
     is declared to be nonnavigable waters of the United States.
       (b) Northern Embarcadero South of Bryant Street.--The 
     portion of the San Francisco, California, waterfront area 
     referred to in subsection (a) is as follows: Beginning at the 
     intersection of the northwesterly line of Bryant Street with 
     the southwesterly line of Spear Street, which intersection 
     lies on the line of jurisdiction of the San Francisco Port 
     Authority; following thence westerly and southerly along said 
     line of jurisdiction as described in the State of California 
     Harbor and Navigable Code Section 1770, as amended in 1961, 
     to its intersection with the easterly line of Townsend Street 
     produced southerly; thence northerly along said easterly line 
     of Townsend Street produced to its intersection with the 
     United States Government pier-head line; thence following 
     said pier-head line westerly and northerly to its 
     intersection with the existing boundary line of Piers 30/32, 
     then northerly and easterly along the existing boundary of 
     Piers 30/32 until its intersection with the United States 
     Government pier-head line, thence following said pier-head 
     line westerly and northerly to the northwesterly line of 
     Bryant Street produced northwesterly; thence southwesterly 
     along said northwesterly line of Bryant Street produced to 
     the point of beginning.
       (c) Requirement That Area Be Improved.--The declaration of 
     nonnavigability under subsection (a) applies only to those 
     parts of the area described in subsection (b) that are or 
     will be bulkheaded, filled, or otherwise occupied by 
     permanent structures and does not affect the applicability of 
     any Federal statute or regulation applicable to such parts 
     the day before the date of enactment of this Act, including 
     sections 9 and 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 
     and 403; 30 Stat. 1151), commonly known as the Rivers and 
     Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, section 404 of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), and the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.).
       (d) Expiration Date.--If, 20 years from the date of 
     enactment of this Act, any area or part thereof described in 
     subsection (b) is not bulkheaded or filled or occupied by 
     permanent structures, including marina facilities, in 
     accordance with the requirements set out in subsection (c), 
     or if work in connection with any activity permitted in 
     subsection (c) is not commenced within 5 years after issuance 
     of such permits, then the declaration of nonnavigability for 
     such area or part thereof shall expire.

     SEC. 5033. STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Reevaluation.--The Secretary shall reevaluate the 
     feasibility of the Lower Mosher Slough element and the levee 
     extensions on the Upper Calaveras River element of the 
     project for flood control, Stockton Metropolitan Area, 
     California, carried out under section 211(f)(3) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3683), to 
     determine the eligibility of such elements for reimbursement 
     under section 211 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 701b-13).
       (b) Special Rules for Reevaluation.--In conducting the 
     reevaluation under subsection (a), the Secretary shall not 
     reject a feasibility determination based on policies of the 
     Corps of Engineers concerning the frequency of flooding, the 
     drainage area, and the amount of runoff.
       (c) Reimbursement.--If the Secretary determines that the 
     elements referred to subsection (a) are feasible, the 
     Secretary shall reimburse, subject to appropriations, the 
     non-Federal interest under section 211 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 for the Federal share of the cost of 
     such elements.

     SEC. 5034. CHARLES HERVEY TOWNSHEND BREAKWATER, CONNECTICUT.

       The western breakwater for the project for navigation, New 
     Haven Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the 1st 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 September 19, 1890 (26 Stat. 426), shall be known 
     and designated as the ``Charles Hervey Townshend 
     Breakwater''.

     SEC. 5035. EVERGLADES RESTORATION, FLORIDA.

       (a) Comprehensive Plan.--
       (1) Hillsboro and okeechobee aquifer.--Section 601(b)(2)(A) 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 
     2681) is amended--
       (A) in clause (i) by adding at the end the following: ``The 
     project for aquifer storage and recovery, Hillsboro and 
     Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(16) 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 
     276), shall be treated for purposes of this section as being 
     in the Plan.''; and
       (B) in clause (iii) by inserting after ``subparagraph (B)'' 
     the following: ``and the project for aquifer storage and 
     recovery, Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer''.
       (2) Outreach and assistance.--Section 601(k) of such Act 
     (114 Stat. 2691-2692) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(3) Maximum expenditures.--The Secretary may expend up to 
     $3,000,000 per fiscal year for fiscal years beginning after 
     September 30, 2002, to carry out this subsection.''.
       (b) Critical Restoration Projects.--Section 528(b)(3)(C) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3769; 
     113 Stat. 286) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i) by striking ``$75,000,000'' and all that 
     follows through ``2003'' and inserting ``$95,000,000''; and
       (2) in clause (ii) by striking ``$25,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$30,000,000''.

     SEC. 5036. FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS.

       Section 109(e)(2) of Division B of the Miscellaneous 
     Appropriations Act, 2001 (enacted into law by Public Law 106-
     554) (114 Stat. 2763A-222) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(C) Credit for work prior to execution of the partnership 
     agreement.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal 
     share of the cost of the project (i) the cost of construction 
     work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date 
     of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
     determines that the work is integral to the project; and (ii) 
     the cost of land acquisition carried out by the non-Federal 
     interest for projects to be carried out under this 
     section.''.

     SEC. 5037. LAKE WORTH, FLORIDA.

       The Secretary may carry out necessary repairs for the Lake 
     Worth bulkhead replacement project, West Palm Beach, Florida, 
     at an estimated total cost of $9,000,000.

     SEC. 5038. LAKE LANIER, GEORGIA.

       The Secretary may assist local interests with planning, 
     design, and construction of facilities at the Lake Lanier 
     Olympic Center, Georgia, in support of the 2003 World 
     Kayaking Championships, at a total cost of $5,300,000.

     SEC. 5039. RILEY CREEK RECREATION AREA, IDAHO.

       The Secretary is authorized to carry out the Riley Creek 
     Recreation Area Operation Plan of the Albeni Falls Management 
     Plan, dated October 2001, for the Riley Creek Recreation 
     Area, Albeni Falls Dam, Bonner County, Idaho.

     SEC. 5040. RECONSTRUCTION OF ILLINOIS FLOOD PROTECTION 
                   PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may participate in the 
     reconstruction of an eligible flood control project if the 
     Secretary determines that such reconstruction is not required 
     as a result of improper operation and maintenance of the 
     project by the non-Federal interest.
       (b) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the costs for 
     the reconstruction of a flood control project authorized by 
     this section shall be the same Federal share that was 
     applicable to construction of the project. The non-Federal 
     interest shall be responsible for operation and maintenance 
     and repair of a project for which reconstruction is 
     undertaken under this section.
       (c) Reconstruction Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``reconstruction'', as used with respect to a project, means 
     addressing major project deficiencies caused by long-term 
     degradation of the foundation, construction materials, or 
     engineering systems or components of the project, the results 
     of which render the project at risk of not performing in 
     compliance with its authorized project purposes. In 
     addressing such deficiencies, the Secretary may incorporate 
     current design standards and efficiency

[[Page H8861]]

     improvements, including the replacement of obsolete 
     mechanical and electrical components at pumping stations, if 
     such incorporation does not significantly change the scope, 
     function, and purpose of the project as authorized.
       (d) Eligible Projects.--The following flood control 
     projects are eligible for reconstruction under this section:
       (1) Wood River Drainage and Levee District, Illinois, 
     authorized as part of the navigation project of the Upper 
     Mississippi River basin by section 2 of the Flood Control Act 
     of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1218).
       (2) Clear Creek Drainage and Levee District, Illinois, 
     authorized by section 5 of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 
     1936 (49 Stat. 1581).
       (3) Fort Chartres and Ivy Landing Drainage District, 
     Illinois, authorized as part of the navigation project of the 
     Upper Mississippi River basin by section 2 of the Flood 
     Control Act of June 22, 1938 (52 Stat. 1218).
       (e) Justification.--The reconstruction of a project 
     authorized by this section shall not be considered a 
     separable element of the project.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriation.--There is authorized to 
     be appropriated $15,000,000 to carry out this section. Such 
     sums shall remain available until expended.

     SEC. 5041. KASKASKIA RIVER BASIN, ILLINOIS, RESTORATION.

       (a) Kaskaskia River Basin Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``Kaskaskia River basin'' means the Kaskaskia River, 
     Illinois, its backwaters, its side channels, and all 
     tributaries, including their watersheds, draining into the 
     Kaskaskia River.
       (b) Comprehensive Plan.--
       (1) Development.--The Secretary shall develop, as 
     expeditiously as practicable, a comprehensive plan for the 
     purpose of restoring, preserving, and protecting the 
     Kaskaskia River basin.
       (2) Technologies and innovative approaches.--The 
     comprehensive plan shall provide for the development of new 
     technologies and innovative approaches--
       (A) to enhance the Kaskaskia River as a transportation 
     corridor;
       (B) to improve water quality within the entire Kaskaskia 
     River basin;
       (C) to restore, enhance, and preserve habitat for plants 
     and wildlife;
       (D) to increase economic opportunity for agriculture and 
     business communities; and
       (E) to reduce the impacts of flooding to communities and 
     landowners.
       (3) Specific components.--The comprehensive plan shall 
     include such features as are necessary to provide for--
       (A) the development and implementation of a program for 
     sediment removal technology, sediment characterization, 
     sediment transport, and beneficial uses of sediment;
       (B) the development and implementation of a program for the 
     planning, conservation, evaluation, and construction of 
     measures for fish and wildlife habitat conservation and 
     rehabilitation, and stabilization and enhancement of land and 
     water resources in the basin;
       (C) the development and implementation of a long-term 
     resource monitoring program;
       (D) the development and implementation of a computerized 
     inventory and analysis system; and
       (E) the development and implementation of a systemic plan 
     to reduce flood impacts by means of ecosystem restoration 
     projects.
       (4) Consultation.--The comprehensive plan shall be 
     developed by the Secretary in consultation with appropriate 
     Federal agencies, the State of Illinois, and the Kaskaskia 
     River Coordinating Council.
       (5) Report to congress.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit 
     to Congress a report containing the comprehensive plan.
       (6) Additional studies and analyses.--After transmission of 
     a report under paragraph (5), the Secretary shall conduct 
     studies and analyses of projects related to the comprehensive 
     plan that are appropriate and consistent with this 
     subsection.
       (c) General Provisions.--
       (1) Water quality.--In carrying out activities under this 
     section, the Secretary's recommendations shall be consistent 
     with applicable State water quality standards.
       (2) Public participation.--In developing the comprehensive 
     plan under subsection (b), the Secretary shall implement 
     procedures to facilitate public participation, including 
     providing advance notice of meetings, providing adequate 
     opportunity for public input and comment, maintaining 
     appropriate records, and making a record of the proceedings 
     of meetings available for public inspection.
       (d) Coordination.--The Secretary shall integrate activities 
     carried out under this section with ongoing Federal and State 
     programs, projects, and activities, including the following:
       (1) Farm programs of the Department of Agriculture.
       (2) Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (State of 
     Illinois) and Conservation 2000 Ecosystem Program of the 
     Illinois Department of Natural Resources.
       (3) Conservation 2000 Conservation Practices Program and 
     the Livestock Management Facilities Act administered by the 
     Illinois Department of Agriculture.
       (4) National Buffer Initiative of the Natural Resources 
     Conservation Service.
       (5) Nonpoint source grant program administered by the 
     Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
       (e) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
     activities carried out under this section shall be 35 
     percent.
       (2) In-kind services.--The Secretary may credit the cost of 
     in-kind services provided by the non-Federal interest for an 
     activity carried out under this section toward not more than 
     80 percent of the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     activity. In-kind services shall include all State funds 
     expended on programs that accomplish the goals of this 
     section, as determined by the Secretary. The programs may 
     include the Kaskaskia River Conservation Reserve Program, the 
     Illinois Conservation 2000 Program, the Open Lands Trust 
     Fund, and other appropriate programs carried out in the 
     Kaskaskia River basin.

     SEC. 5042. NATALIE CREEK, MIDLOTHIAN AND OAK FOREST, 
                   ILLINOIS.

       The Secretary shall carry out a project for flood damage 
     reduction under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 
     (33 U.S.C. 701s) Natalie Creek, Midlothian and Oak Forest, 
     Illinois, if the Secretary determines that the project is 
     feasible.

     SEC. 5043. PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, PEORIA, ILLINOIS.

       The Secretary may carry out the project for Peoria 
     riverfront development, Peoria, Illinois, under section 519 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 
     2653-2655), at a total cost of $16,000,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $10,400,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $5,600,000.

     SEC. 5044. ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION.

       (a) Extension of Authorization.--Section 519(c)(2) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2654) is 
     amended by striking ``2004'' and inserting ``2010''.
       (b) In-Kind Services.--Section 519(g)(3) of such Act (114 
     Stat. 2655) is amended by inserting before the period at the 
     end of the first sentence ``if such services are provided not 
     more than 5 years before the date of initiation of the 
     project or activity''.

     SEC. 5045. CALUMET REGION, INDIANA.

       Section 219(f)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (113 Stat. 335) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$10,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$30,000,000''; and
       (2) by striking ``Lake and Porter'' and inserting ``Benton, 
     Jasper, Lake, Newton, and Porter''.

     SEC. 5046. RATHBUN LAKE, IOWA.

       (a) Conveyance.--The Secretary shall convey the remaining 
     water supply storage allocation in Rathbun Lake, Iowa, to the 
     Rathbun Regional Water Association (in this section referred 
     to as the ``Water Association'').
       (b) Cost Sharing.--Notwithstanding the Water Supply Act of 
     1958 (43 U.S.C. 390b), the Water Association shall pay 100 
     percent of the cost of the water supply storage allocation to 
     be conveyed under subsection (a). The Secretary shall credit 
     toward such non-Federal share the cost of any structures and 
     facilities constructed by the Water Association at the 
     project.
       (c) Terms and Conditions.--Before conveying the water 
     supply storage allocation under subsection (a), the Secretary 
     shall enter into an agreement with the Water Association, 
     under which the Water Association shall agree to--
       (1) in accordance with designs approved by the Chief of 
     Engineers, construct structures and facilities referred to in 
     subsection (b) that have a value equal to or greater than the 
     amount that otherwise would be paid to the Federal Government 
     for the costs of the water supply storage under the Water 
     Supply Act of 1958 (43 U.S.C. 390b);
       (2) be responsible for operating and maintaining the 
     structures and facilities;
       (3) pay all operation and maintenance costs allocated to 
     the water supply storage space;
       (4) use any revenues generated at the structures and 
     facilities that are above those required to operate and 
     maintain or improve the complex to undertake, subject to the 
     approval of the Chief of Engineers, activities that will 
     improve the quality of the environment in the Rathbun Lake 
     watershed area; and
       (5) such other terms and conditions as the Secretary 
     considers necessary to protect the interests of the United 
     States.

     SEC. 5047. CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KENTUCKY.

       At reservoirs managed by the Secretary within the 
     Cumberland River basin, Kentucky, the Secretary shall 
     continue to charge fees associated with storage and 
     maintenance of water supply that were in effect on October 1, 
     2002.

     SEC. 5048. MAYFIELD CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, KENTUCKY.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of flood damage along 
     Mayfield Creek and tributaries between Wickliffe and 
     Mayfield, Kentucky, to determine if the damage is the 
     result of a Federal flood damage reduction project, and, 
     if the Secretary determines that the damage is the result 
     of a Federal flood damage reduction project, the Secretary 
     shall carry out a project to mitigate the damage at 
     Federal expense.

     SEC. 5049. NORTH FORK, KENTUCKY RIVER, BREATHITT COUNTY, 
                   KENTUCKY.

       The Secretary shall rebuild the structure that is impeding 
     high water flows on the North Fork of the Kentucky River in 
     Breathitt County, Kentucky, in a manner that will reduce 
     flood damages, at an estimated total cost of $1,800,000. The 
     non-Federal interest shall provide lands, easements, rights-
     of-way, relocations, and disposal areas required for the 
     project. Operation and maintenance of the rebuilt structure 
     shall be a non-Federal expense.

     SEC. 5050. SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY.

       Section 531 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (110 Stat. 3774; 113 Stat. 348; 117 Stat. 142) is amended by 
     adding the following:
       ``(i) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the 
     amounts appropriated to carry out this section for fiscal 
     years 2004 and thereafter may be used by the Corps of 
     Engineers district offices to administer projects under this 
     section at 100 percent Federal expense.''.

[[Page H8862]]

     SEC. 5051. COASTAL LOUISIANA ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION AND 
                   RESTORATION.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Coastal louisiana ecosystem.--The term ``Coastal 
     Louisiana Ecosystem'' means the coastal area of Louisiana 
     from the Sabine River on the west to the Pearl River on the 
     east and includes tidal waters, barrier islands, marshes, 
     coastal wetlands, rivers and streams, and adjacent areas.
       (2) Governor.--The term ``Governor'' means the Governor of 
     Louisiana.
       (3) Task force.--The term ``Task Force'' means the Coastal 
     Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task Force 
     established by subsection (e).
       (b) Comprehensive Plan.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall develop a 
     comprehensive plan for the purpose of protecting, preserving, 
     and restoring the Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem. The 
     comprehensive plan shall provide for the protection, 
     conservation and restoration of the wetlands, barrier 
     islands, shorelines, and related lands and features that 
     protect critical resources, habitat, and infrastructure from 
     the impacts of coastal storms, hurricanes, erosion, and 
     subsidence.
       (2) Deadline.--Not later than July 1, 2004, the Secretary 
     shall transmit the plan to Congress.
       (3) Contents.--The plan shall include a comprehensive 
     report and a programmatic environmental impact statement 
     covering the proposed Federal action set forth in the plan.
       (4) Additional studies and analyses.--After transmission of 
     a report under this subsection, the Secretary may conduct 
     studies and analyses of projects related to the comprehensive 
     plan that are appropriate and consistent with this 
     subsection.
       (c) Integration of Other Activities.--
       (1) In general.--In developing the plan under subsection 
     (b), the Secretary shall integrate ongoing Federal and State 
     projects and activities, including projects implemented under 
     the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 3951 et seq.), the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands 
     Conservation Plan, the Louisiana Coastal Zone Management 
     Plan, and the plan of the State of Louisiana entitled ``Coast 
     2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana''.
       (2) Statutory construction.--
       (A) Existing authority.--Except as otherwise expressly 
     provided for in this section, nothing in the section affects 
     any authority in effect on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     or any requirement relating to the participation in 
     protection or restoration activities in the Coastal Louisiana 
     Ecosystem, including projects and activities specified in 
     paragraph (1) of--
       (i) the Department of the Army;
       (ii) the Department of the Interior;
       (iii) the Department of Commerce;
       (iv) the Environmental Protection Agency;
       (v) the Department of Agriculture;
       (vi) the Department of Transportation;
       (vii) the Department of Energy; and
       (viii) the State of Louisiana.
       (B) New authority.--Nothing in this section confers any new 
     regulatory authority on any Federal or non-Federal entity 
     that carries out any activity authorized by this section.
       (d) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
     developing the plan under subsection (b) shall be 50 percent.
       (e) Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration 
     Task Force.--
       (1) Establishment and membership.--There is established the 
     Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task 
     Force, which shall consist of the following members (or, in 
     the case of the head of a Federal Agency, a designee at the 
     level of Assistant Secretary or an equivalent level):
       (A) The Secretary.
       (B) The Secretary of the Interior.
       (C) The Secretary of Commerce.
       (D) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency.
       (E) The Secretary of Agriculture.
       (F) The Secretary of Transportation.
       (G) The Secretary of Energy.
       (H) The Coastal Advisor to the Governor.
       (I) The Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Natural 
     Resources.
       (J) A representative of the Governor's Advisory Commission 
     on Coastal Restoration and Conservation, Louisiana.
       (2) Duties of task force.--The Task Force--
       (A) shall consult with, and provide recommendations to, the 
     Secretary during development of the comprehensive plan under 
     subsection (b)(1);
       (B) shall coordinate the development of consistent 
     policies, strategies, plans, programs, projects, activities, 
     and priorities for addressing the protection, conservation, 
     and restoration of the Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem;
       (C) shall exchange information regarding programs, 
     projects, and activities of the agencies and entities 
     represented on the Task Force to promote ecosystem 
     protection, restoration, and maintenance;
       (D) shall establish a regional working group which shall 
     include representatives of the agencies and entities 
     represented on the Task Force as well as other governmental 
     entities as appropriate for the purpose of formulating, 
     recommending, coordinating, and implementing policies, 
     strategies, plans, programs, projects, activities, and 
     priorities of the Task Force;
       (E) may allow the working group described in subparagraph 
     (D) to--
       (i) establish such advisory bodies as are necessary to 
     assist the Task Force in its duties; and
       (ii) select as an advisory body any entity that represents 
     a broad variety of private and public interests;
       (F) shall facilitate the resolution of interagency and 
     intergovernmental conflicts associated with the protection, 
     conservation, and restoration of the Coastal Louisiana 
     Ecosystem;
       (G) shall coordinate scientific research associated with 
     the protection and restoration of the Coastal Louisiana 
     Ecosystem;
       (H) shall provide assistance and support to agencies and 
     entities represented on the Task Force in their protection 
     and restoration activities;
       (I) shall prepare an integrated financial plan and 
     recommendations for coordinated budget requests for the funds 
     proposed to be expended by agencies and entities represented 
     on the Task Force for the protection, conservation, and 
     restoration of the Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem; and
       (J) 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 summarizes the activities of the Task Force.
       (3) Procedures and advice.--
       (A) Public participation.--
       (i) In general.--The Task Force shall implement procedures 
     to facilitate public participation in the advisory process, 
     including providing advance notice of meetings, providing 
     adequate opportunity for public input and comment, 
     maintaining appropriate records, and making a record of 
     proceedings of meetings available for public inspection.
       (ii) Oversight.--The Secretary shall ensure that the 
     procedures described in clause (i) are adopted and 
     implemented and that the records described in clause (i) are 
     accurately maintained and available for public inspection.
       (B) Advisors to the task force and working groups.--The 
     Task Force or the working group described in paragraph (2)(D) 
     may seek such advice and input from any interested, 
     knowledgeable, or affected party as the Task Force or working 
     group determines to be necessary to perform the duties 
     described in paragraph (2).
       (C) Application of the federal advisory committee act.--The 
     Task Force, advisors to the Task Force, and any associated 
     workgroups shall not be considered advisory committees under 
     the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App).
       (4) Compensation.--A member of the Task Force shall receive 
     no additional compensation for the services provided as a 
     member of the Task Force.
       (5) Travel expenses.--Travel expenses incurred by a member 
     of the Task Force in the performance of services for the Task 
     Force shall be paid by the agency or entity that the member 
     represents.

     SEC. 5052. BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA.

       Section 219(f)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A-220) is amended by 
     striking ``$20,000,000'' and inserting ``$35,000,000''.

     SEC. 5053. WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LOUISIANA.

       Section 517(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999 (113 Stat. 345) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(5) Mississippi River, West Baton Rouge Parish, 
     Louisiana, project for waterfront and riverine preservation, 
     restoration, enhancement modifications, and interpretive 
     center development.''.

     SEC. 5054. CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE, MARYLAND, VIRGINIA, 
                   PENNSYLVANIA, AND DELAWARE.

       (a) In General.--In carrying out comprehensive study of the 
     feasibility of a project to address shoreline erosion and 
     related sediment management measures to protect water and 
     land resources of the Chesapeake Bay, the Secretary may carry 
     out pilot projects to demonstrate the feasibility of 
     alternative measures to address sediment loads to the 
     Chesapeake Bay from sediment behind dams on the lower 
     Susquehanna River.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 5055. DELMARVA CONSERVATION CORRIDOR, MARYLAND.

       (a) Assistance.--The Secretary may provide technical 
     assistance to the Secretary of Agriculture in carrying out 
     the Conservation Corridor Demonstration Program authorized 
     under subtitle G of title II of Public Law 107-171 (116 Stat. 
     275-278).
       (b) Coordination and Integration.--In carrying out water 
     resources projects in the State of Maryland on land located 
     on the east side of the Chesapeake Bay, the Secretary shall 
     coordinate and integrate, to the extent practicable, such 
     projects with any activities undertaken to implement a 
     conservation corridor plan approved by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture under section 2602 of Public Law 107-171 (116 
     Stat. 275-276).

     SEC. 5056. DETROIT RIVER, MICHIGAN.

       Section 568(c)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999 (113 Stat. 368) is amended by striking ``$1,000,000'' 
     and inserting ``$25,000,000''.

     SEC. 5057. OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN.

       Section 219(f)(29) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (113 Stat. 336) is amended by inserting ``sanitary 
     sewer overflows and'' before ``combined sewer overflows''.

     SEC. 5058. ST. CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST. CLAIR, MICHIGAN.

       The Secretary shall carry out feasible aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration projects identified in the comprehensive 
     management plan for St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, 
     Michigan, developed under section 426 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 326), at a total Federal 
     cost of not to exceed $5,000,000.

     SEC. 5059. GARRISON AND KATHIO TOWNSHIP, MINNESOTA.

       (a) Project Description.--Section 219(f)(61) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A-221) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the paragraph heading by striking ``township'' and 
     inserting ``and crow wing and mille lacs counties'';

[[Page H8863]]

       (2) by inserting ``, Crow Wing County, Mille Lacs County,'' 
     after ``Garrison''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following: ``Such assistance 
     shall be provided directly to the Garrison-Kathio-West Mille 
     Lacs Lake Sanitary District, Minnesota.''.
       (b) Procedures.--In carrying out the project for Garrison 
     and Kathio Township, Minnesota, authorized by such section 
     219(f)(61), the Secretary may use the cost sharing and 
     contracting procedures available to the Secretary under 
     section 569 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 368).

     SEC. 5060. NORTHEASTERN MINNESOTA.

       (a) In General.--Section 569 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 368) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``Benton, Sherburne,'' 
     and inserting ``Beltrami, Hubbard, Wadena,'';
       (2) by striking the last sentence of subsection (e)(3)(B);
       (3) by striking subsection (g) and inserting the following:
       ``(g) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) 
     of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for 
     any project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal 
     interest may include a nonprofit entity.''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the 
     amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used by 
     the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer 
     projects under this section at 100 percent Federal 
     expense.''.
       (b) Biwabik, Minnesota.--The Secretary shall reimburse the 
     non-Federal interest for the project for environmental 
     infrastructure, Biwabik, Minnesota, carried out under section 
     569 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 
     368-369), for planning, design, and construction costs that 
     were incurred by the non-Federal interest with respect to the 
     project before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
     project and that were in excess of the non-Federal share of 
     the cost of the project if the Secretary determines that the 
     costs are appropriate.

     SEC. 5061. DESOTO COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.

       Section 219(f)(30) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A-220) is amended by 
     striking ``$20,000,000'' and inserting ``$30,000,000''.

     SEC. 5062. HARRISON, HANCOCK, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, 
                   MISSISSIPPI.

       In carrying out projects for the protection, restoration, 
     and creation of aquatic and ecologically related habitats 
     located in Harrison, Hancock, and Jackson Counties, 
     Mississippi, under section 204 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326), the Secretary shall 
     accept any portion of the non-Federal share of the cost of 
     the project in the form of services, materials, supplies, and 
     other in-kind contributions.

     SEC. 5063. MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MISSOURI, AND ILLINOIS.

       As a part of the operation and maintenance of the project 
     for the Mississippi River (Regulating Works), between the 
     Ohio and Missouri Rivers, Missouri and Illinois, authorized 
     by the first section of an Act entitled ``Making 
     appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation 
     of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other 
     purposes'', approved June 25, 1910, the Secretary may carry 
     out activities necessary to restore and protect fish and 
     wildlife habitat in the middle Mississippi River system. Such 
     activities may include modification of navigation training 
     structures, modification and creation of side channels, 
     modification and creation of islands, and studies and 
     analysis necessary to apply adaptive management principles in 
     design of future work.

     SEC. 5064. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.

       Section 219(f)(32) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835-4836; 113 Stat. 337) is amended by 
     striking ``$15,000,000'' and inserting ``$35,000,000''.

     SEC. 5065. HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS AREA, NEW JERSEY.

       Section 324 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
     (106 Stat. 4849; 110 Stat. 3779) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``design'' and inserting ``planning, 
     design,''; and
       (B) by striking ``Hackensack Meadowlands Development'' and 
     all that follows through ``Plan for'' and inserting ``New 
     Jersey Meadowlands Commission for the development of an 
     environmental improvement program for'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the subsection heading by striking ``Required'';
       (B) by striking ``shall'' and inserting ``may'';
       (C) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Restoration and acquisitions of significant wetlands 
     and aquatic habitat that contribute to the Meadowlands 
     ecosystem.'';
       (D) in paragraph (2) by inserting ``and aquatic habitat'' 
     before the period at the end; and
       (E) by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the following:
       ``(7) Research, development, and implementation for a water 
     quality improvement program, including restoration of 
     hydrology and tidal flows and remediation of hot spots and 
     other sources of contaminants that degrade existing or 
     planned sites.'';
       (3) in subsection (c) by inserting before the last sentence 
     the following: ``The non-Federal sponsor may also provide in-
     kind services, not to exceed 25 percent of the total project 
     cost, and may also receive credit for reasonable cost of 
     design work completed prior to entering into the partnership 
     agreement with the Secretary for a project to be carried out 
     under the program developed under subsection (a).''; and
       (4) in subsection (d) by striking ``$5,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$35,000,000''.

     SEC. 5066. ATLANTIC COAST OF NEW YORK.

       (a) Development of Program.--Section 404(a) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4863) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``processes'' and inserting ``and related 
     environmental processes'';
       (2) by inserting after ``Atlantic Coast'' the following: 
     ``(and associated back bays)'';
       (3) by inserting after ``actions'' the following: ``, 
     environmental restoration or conservation measures for 
     coastal and back bays,''; and
       (4) by inserting at the end the following: ``The plan for 
     collecting data and monitoring information included in such 
     annual report shall be fully coordinated with and agreed to 
     by appropriate agencies of the State of New York.''.
       (b) Annual Reports.--Section 404(b) of such Act is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``Initial Plan.--Not later than 12 months 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the'' and 
     inserting ``Annual Reports.--The'';
       (2) by striking ``initial plan for data collection and 
     monitoring'' and inserting ``annual report of data collection 
     and monitoring activities''; and
       (3) by striking the last sentence.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 404(c) of 
     such Act (113 Stat. 341) is amended by striking ``and an 
     additional total of $2,500,000 for fiscal years thereafter'' 
     and inserting ``$2,500,000 for fiscal years 2000 through 
     2002, and $17,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after 
     September 30, 2002,''.

     SEC. 5067. COLLEGE POINT, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK.

       In carrying out section 312 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4639-4640), the Secretary 
     shall give priority to work in College Point, New York City, 
     New York.

     SEC. 5068. FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK.

       The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of 
     the cost of the project for ecosystem restoration, Flushing 
     Bay and Creek, New York City, New York, the cost of design 
     and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
     before the date of the partnership agreement for the project 
     if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project.

     SEC. 5069. LITTLE NECK BAY, VILLAGE OF KINGS POINT, NEW YORK.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out a navigation 
     project at Little Neck Bay (Hague Basin), Village of Kings 
     Point, New York, sufficient to permit the safe operation of 
     the vessel T/V Kings Pointer at all tide levels.
       (b) Reimbursement.--The Secretary shall seek reimbursement 
     from the United States Merchant Marine Academy for the cost 
     of the project carried out under this section.

     SEC. 5070. ONONDAGA LAKE, NEW YORK.

       Section 573 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 372-373) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (f) by striking ``$10,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$30,000,000'';
       (2) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections 
     (g) and (h), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
       ``(f) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) 
     of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for 
     any project carried out under this section, a non-Federal 
     sponsor may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of 
     the affected local government.''.

     SEC. 5071. JOHN H. KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, NORTH CAROLINA.

       The Secretary shall expedite the completion of the 
     calculations necessary to negotiate and execute a revised, 
     permanent contract for water supply storage at John H. Kerr 
     Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina, among the Secretary and 
     the Kerr Lake Regional Water System and the city of 
     Henderson, North Carolina.

     SEC. 5072. STANLY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.

       Section 219(f)(64) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A-221) is amended by inserting ``water 
     and'' before ``wastewater''.

     SEC. 5073. CENTRAL RIVERFRONT PARK, CINCINNATI, OHIO.

       If the Secretary is authorized to carry out a downtown 
     waterfront development project for the Central Riverfront 
     Park, Cincinnati, Ohio, the Secretary shall credit toward the 
     non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of--
       (1) design and construction work undertaken by the non-
     Federal interest before entering into a partnership agreement 
     for the project with the Secretary if the Secretary 
     determines that the work is integral to the project; and
       (2) land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations 
     provided by the non-Federal interest.

     SEC. 5074. PIEDMONT LAKE DAM, OHIO.

       In reconstructing the road on the Piedmont Lake Dam as part 
     of the project for dam safety assurance, Piedmont Lake Dam, 
     Ohio, being carried out under section 4 of the Flood Control 
     Act of August 11, 1939 (53 Stat. 1414-1415), the Secretary 
     shall upgrade the condition of the road to meet standards 
     applicable to public use roads in the State of Ohio. The 
     incremental cost of upgrading the road to meet such 
     standards shall be a non-Federal expense.

     SEC. 5075. OHIO.

       Section 594(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999 (113 Stat. 383) is amended by striking ``$60,000,000'' 
     and inserting ``$90,000,000''.

     SEC. 5076. WAURIKA LAKE, OKLAHOMA.

       The remaining obligation of the Waurika Project Master 
     Conservancy District payable to the United States Government 
     in the amounts, rates of interest, and payment schedules is 
     set at the amounts, rates of interest, and payment schedules 
     that existed, and that both parties agreed to, on June 3, 
     1986, and may not be adjusted, altered, or changed without a 
     specific,

[[Page H8864]]

     separate, and written agreement between the District and the 
     United States Government.

     SEC. 5077. COLUMBIA RIVER, OREGON.

       Section 401(b)(3) of Public Law 100-581 (102 Stat. 2944), 
     is amended by inserting ``and Celilo Village, Oregon'' after 
     ``existing sites''.

     SEC. 5078. EUGENE, OREGON.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of restoring the millrace in 
     Eugene, Oregon, and, if the Secretary determines that the 
     restoration is feasible, shall carry out the restoration.
       (b) Consideration of Noneconomic Benefits.--In determining 
     the feasibility of restoring the millrace, the Secretary 
     shall include noneconomic benefits associated with the 
     historical significance of the millrace and associated with 
     preservation and enhancement of resources.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000.

     SEC. 5079. JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, LAKE UMATILLA, OREGON AND 
                   WASHINGTON.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall pay up to $2,500,000 
     to the provider of research and curation support previously 
     provided to the Federal Government as a result of the 
     multipurpose project, John Day Lock and Dam, Lake Umatilla, 
     Oregon and Washington, authorized by section 101 of the River 
     and Harbor Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 167), and the several 
     navigation and flood damage reduction projects constructed on 
     the Columbia River and Lower Willamette River, Oregon and 
     Washington.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $2,500,000.

     SEC. 5080. LOWELL, OREGON.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may convey without 
     consideration to Lowell School District, by quitclaim deed, 
     all right, title and interest of the United States in and to 
     approximately 3.32 acres of land and buildings thereon, known 
     as Tract A-82, located in Lowell, Oregon, and described in 
     subsection (b).
       (b) Description of Property.--The parcel of land authorized 
     to be conveyed under subsection (a) is as follows: Commencing 
     at the point of intersection of the west line of Pioneer 
     Street with the westerly extension of the north line of 
     Summit Street, in Meadows Addition to Lowell, as platted and 
     recorded at page 56 of Volume 4, Lane County Oregon Plat 
     Records; thence north on the west line of Pioneer Street a 
     distance of 176.0 feet to the true point of beginning of this 
     description; thence north on the west line of Pioneer Street 
     a distance of 170.0 feet; thence west at right angles to the 
     west line of Pioneer Street a distance of 250.0 feet; thence 
     south and parallel to the west line of Pioneer Street a 
     distance of 170.0 feet; thence east 250.0 feet to the true 
     point of beginning of this description in Section 14, 
     Township 19 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, 
     Lane County, Oregon.
       (c) Terms and Conditions.--Before conveying the parcel to 
     the school district, the Secretary shall ensure that the 
     conditions of buildings and facilities meet the requirements 
     of applicable Federal law.
       (d) Generally Applicable Provisions.--
       (1) Applicability of property screening provisions.--
     Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply 
     to any conveyance under this section.
       (2) Liability.--An entity to which a conveyance is made 
     under this section shall hold the United States harmless from 
     any liability with respect to activities carried out, on or 
     after the date of the conveyance, on the real property 
     conveyed. The United States shall remain responsible for any 
     liability with respect to activities carried out, before such 
     date, on the real property conveyed.

     SEC. 5081. HAGERMAN'S RUN, WILLIAMSPORT, PENNSYLVANIA.

       The Secretary may rehabilitate the pumps at the project for 
     flood damage reduction, Hagerman's Run, Williamsport, 
     Pennsylvania, at a total Federal cost of $225,000.

     SEC. 5082. NORTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA.

       Section 219(f)(11) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (113 Stat. 335) is amended by striking ``and Monroe'' 
     and inserting ``Northumberland, Union, Snyder, and Montour''.

     SEC. 5083. SUSQUEHANNOCK CAMPGROUND ACCESS ROAD, RAYSTOWN 
                   LAKE, PENNSYLVANIA.

       (a) Improvement of Access Road.--The Secretary may make 
     improvements to the Susquehannock Campground access road at 
     Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000.

     SEC. 5084. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND 
                   NEW YORK.

       Section 567 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (110 Stat. 3787-3788; 114 Stat. 2662-2663) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2) by striking ``$10,000,000.'' and 
     inserting the following: ``$20,000,000, of which the 
     Secretary may utilize not more than $5,000,000 to design and 
     construct feasible pilot projects during the development of 
     the strategy to demonstrate alternative approaches for the 
     strategy. The total cost for any single pilot project may not 
     exceed $500,000. The Secretary shall evaluate the results of 
     the pilot projects and consider the results in the 
     development of the strategy.'';
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in the subsection heading by striking ``Cooperation'' 
     and inserting ``Cooperative''; and
       (B) by striking ``cooperation'' and inserting 
     ``cooperative''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project (i) the cost of 
     design and construction work carried out by the non-Federal 
     interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
     project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 
     to the project; and (ii) the cost of in-kind services and 
     materials provided for the project by the non-Federal 
     interest.''.

     SEC. 5085. WASHINGTON, GREENE, WESTMORELAND, AND FAYETTE 
                   COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA.

       Section 219(f)(70) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A-221) is amended by striking 
     ``$8,000,000'' and inserting ``$13,300,000''.

     SEC. 5086. CANO MARTIN PENA, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO.

       The Secretary shall review a report prepared by the non-
     Federal interest concerning flood protection and 
     environmental restoration for Cano Martin Pena, San Juan, 
     Puerto Rico, and, if the Secretary determines that the report 
     meets the evaluation and design standards of the Corps of 
     Engineers and that the project is feasible, may carry out the 
     project, at a total cost of $130,000,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $85,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $45,000,000.

     SEC. 5087. BEAUFORT AND JASPER COUNTIES, SOUTH CAROLINA.

       The Secretary may accept from the Department of the Navy, 
     and may use, not to exceed $23,000,000 to assist the Beaufort 
     Jasper Water and Sewage Authority, South Carolina, with its 
     plan to consolidate civilian and military wastewater 
     treatment facilities.

     SEC. 5088. COOPER RIVER, SOUTH CAROLINA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to provide 
     technical and financial assistance for the removal of the 
     Grace and Pearman Bridges over the Cooper River, South 
     Carolina.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriation.--There is authorized to 
     be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 5089. LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE, SOUTH CAROLINA.

       Section 219(f)(25) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A-220) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$15,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$35,000,000''; and
       (2) by inserting ``wastewater treatment and'' before 
     ``water supply''.

     SEC. 5090. UPPER BIG SIOUX RIVER, WATERTOWN, SOUTH DAKOTA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall review the project for 
     flood damage reduction, Upper Big Sioux River basin, 
     Watertown, South Dakota, as described in the report of the 
     Chief of Engineers, dated August 31, 1994, and entitled 
     ``Watertown and Vicinity, South Dakota'' and, if the 
     Secretary determines that the project is feasible, may carry 
     out the project, at a total cost of $25,000,000.
       (b) Non-Federal Share.--
       (1) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     review may be provided in the form of in-kind services and 
     materials.
       (2) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the review the cost of planning 
     and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
     before the date of an agreement for the review if the 
     Secretary determines that such work is integral to the 
     review.

     SEC. 5091. FRITZ LANDING, TENNESSEE.

       The Secretary shall--
       (1) conduct a study of the Fritz Landing Agricultural Spur 
     Levee, Tennessee, to determine the extent of levee 
     modifications that would be required to make the levee and 
     associated drainage structures consistent with Federal 
     standards;
       (2) design and construct such modifications; and
       (3) after completion of such modifications, incorporate the 
     levee into the project for flood control, Mississippi River 
     and Tributaries, 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. 534-539), commonly known as the ``Flood Control Act 
     of 1928''.

     SEC. 5092. MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE.

       The Secretary shall review the aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration component of the Memphis Riverfront Development 
     Master Plan, Memphis, Tennessee, prepared by the non-Federal 
     interest and, if the Secretary determines that the component 
     meets the evaluation and design standards of the Corps of 
     Engineers and that the component is feasible, may carry out 
     the component at a total Federal cost not to exceed 
     $5,000,000.

     SEC. 5093. TOWN CREEK, LENOIR CITY, TENNESSEE.

       The Secretary shall design and construct the project for 
     flood damage reduction designated as Alternative 4 in the 
     Town Creek, Lenoir City, Loudon City, Tennessee, 
     feasibility report of the Nashville district engineer, 
     dated November 2000, under the authority of section 205 of 
     the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), 
     notwithstanding section 1 of the Flood Control Act of June 
     22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701a; 49 Stat. 1570). The non-Federal 
     share of the cost of the project shall be subject to 
     section 103(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(a)).

     SEC. 5094. TENNESSEE RIVER PARTNERSHIP.

       (a) In General.--As part of the operation and maintenance 
     of the project for navigation, Tennessee River, Tennessee, 
     Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky, authorized by the first 
     section of the Rivers and Harbors Act of July 3, 1930 (46 
     Stat. 927), the Secretary may enter into a partnership with a 
     nonprofit entity to remove debris from the Tennessee River in 
     the vicinity of Knoxville, Tennessee, by providing a vessel 
     to such entity, at Federal expense, for such debris removal 
     purposes.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000.

[[Page H8865]]

     SEC. 5095. CLEAR CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, HARRIS, GALVESTON, 
                   AND BRAZORIA COUNTIES, TEXAS.

       The Secretary shall expedite completion of the report for 
     the project for flood damage reduction, ecosystem 
     restoration, and recreation, Clear Creek and tributaries, 
     Harris, Galveston, and Brazoria Counties, Texas.

     SEC. 5096. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.

       Section 575(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3789; 113 Stat. 311) is amended by inserting 
     before the period at the end the following: ``, whether or 
     not such works or actions are partially funded under the 
     hazard mitigation grant program of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency''.

     SEC. 5097. HARRIS GULLY, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.

       (a) Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
     damage reduction in the Harris Gully watershed, Harris 
     County, Texas, to provide flood protection for the Texas 
     Medical Center, Houston, Texas.
       (2) Use of local studies and plans.--In conducting the 
     study, the Secretary shall use, to the extent practicable, 
     studies and plans developed by the non-Federal interest if 
     the Secretary determines that such studies and plans meet the 
     evaluation and design standards of the Corps of Engineers.
       (3) Completion date.--The Secretary shall complete the 
     study by July 1, 2004.
       (b) Critical Flood Damage Reduction Measures.--The 
     Secretary may carry out critical flood damage reduction 
     measures that the Secretary determines are feasible and that 
     will provide immediate and substantial flood damage reduction 
     benefits in the Harris Gully watershed, at a Federal cost of 
     $7,000,000.
       (c) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of 
     planning, design, and construction work carried out by the 
     non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
     agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that 
     such work is integral to the project.
       (d) Nonprofit Entity.--Notwithstanding section 221 of the 
     Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), a nonprofit 
     entity may, with the consent of the local government, serve 
     as a non-Federal interest for the project undertaken under 
     this section.

     SEC. 5098. ONION CREEK, TEXAS.

       In carrying out the study for the project for flood damage, 
     reduction, recreation, and ecosystem restoration, Onion 
     Creek, Texas, the Secretary shall include the costs and 
     benefits associated with the relocation of flood-prone 
     residences in the study area for the project during the 2-
     year period before the initiation of the feasibility study to 
     the extent the Secretary determines such relocations are 
     compatible with the project. The Secretary shall credit 
     toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the 
     cost of relocation of such flood-prone residences incurred by 
     the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
     agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that 
     the relocation of such residences is integral to the project.

     SEC. 5099. PELICAN ISLAND, TEXAS.

       (a) In General.--Section 108(a) of the Energy and Water 
     Development Appropriations Act, 1994 (33 U.S.C. 59hh(a)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) Authority to convey.--The Secretary'';
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Letter of intent.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary may provide a letter of 
     intent to the city of Galveston for conveyance of less than 
     100 acres of the parcel described in subsection (a) for 
     private development purposes if the Secretary receives and 
     approves a proposal by the city designating the land which 
     would be subject to such development.
       ``(B) Disposition of spoil.--If the Secretary issues a 
     letter of intent under subparagraph (A), no additional spoil 
     material may be placed on the land designated for private 
     development for a period of at least 5 years from the date of 
     issuance of the letter to provide the city of Galveston with 
     an opportunity to secure private developers, perform 
     appraisals, conduct environmental studies, and provide the 
     compensation to the United States required for the 
     conveyance.''; and
       (3) by aligning the remainder of the text of paragraph (1) 
     (as designated by paragraph (1) of this subsection) with 
     paragraph (2) (as added by paragraph (2) of this subsection).
       (b) Expiration Date.--Section 108(e)(3) of such Act (33 
     U.S.C. 59hh(e)(3)) is amended by striking ``date of the 
     enactment of this Act'' and inserting ``date of enactment of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 5100. FRONT ROYAL, VIRGINIA.

       Section 591(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999 (113 Stat. 378) is amended by striking ``$12,000,000'' 
     and inserting ``$22,000,000''.

     SEC. 5101. RICHMOND NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD PARK, RICHMOND, 
                   VIRGINIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out 
     bluff stabilization measures on the James River in the 
     vicinity of Drewry's Bluff, Richmond National Battlefield 
     Park, Richmond, Virginia.
       (b) Reimbursement.--The Secretary shall seek reimbursement 
     from the Secretary of the Interior of any costs incurred by 
     the Secretary in carrying out subsection (a).

     SEC. 5102. BAKER BAY AND ILWACO HARBOR, WASHINGTON.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of increased siltation 
     in Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington, to determine if 
     the siltation is the result of a Federal navigation project 
     (including diverted flows from the Columbia River) and, if 
     the Secretary determines that the siltation is the result of 
     a Federal navigation project, the Secretary shall carry out a 
     project to mitigate the siltation as part of maintenance of 
     the Federal navigation project.

     SEC. 5103. CHEHALIS RIVER, CENTRALIA, WASHINGTON.

       The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of 
     the cost of the project for flood damage reduction, Chehalis 
     River, Centralia, Washington, the cost of planning, design, 
     and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
     before the date of the partnership agreement for the project 
     if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project.

     SEC. 5104. HAMILTON ISLAND CAMPGROUND, WASHINGTON.

       The Secretary is authorized to plan, design, and construct 
     a campground for Bonneville Lock and Dam at Hamilton Island 
     (also know as ``Strawberry Island'') in Skamania County, 
     Washington.

     SEC. 5105. PUGET ISLAND, WASHINGTON.

       The Secretary is directed to place dredged and other 
     suitable material along portions of the Columbia River 
     shoreline of Puget Island, Washington, between river miles 38 
     to 47 in order to protect economic and environmental 
     resources in the area from further erosion, at a Federal cost 
     of $1,000,000. This action shall be coordinated with 
     appropriate resource agencies and comply with applicable 
     Federal laws.

     SEC. 5106. BLUESTONE, WEST VIRGINIA.

       Section 547 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
     (114 Stat. 2676-2678) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1)(A) by striking ``4 years'' and 
     inserting ``5 years'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(1)(B)(iii) by striking ``if all'' and 
     all that follows through ``facility'' and inserting 
     ``assurance project'';
       (3) in subsection (b)(1)(C) by striking ``and 
     construction'' and inserting ``, construction, and operation 
     and maintenance'';
       (4) by adding at the end of subsection (b) the following:
       ``(3) Operation and ownership.--The Tri-Cities Power 
     Authority shall be the owner and operator of the hydropower 
     facilities referred to in subsection (a).'';
       (5) in subsection (c)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``No'' and inserting ``Unless otherwise 
     provided, no'';
       (B) by inserting ``planning,'' before ``design''; and
       (C) by striking ``prior to'' and all that follows through 
     ``subsection (d)'';
       (6) in subsection (c)(2) by striking ``design'' and 
     inserting ``planning, design,'';
       (7) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) Approval.--The Secretary shall review the design and 
     construction activities for all features of the hydroelectric 
     project that pertain to and affect stability of the dam and 
     control the release of water from Bluestone Dam to ensure 
     that the quality of construction of those features meets all 
     standards established for similar facilities constructed by 
     the Secretary.'';
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2);
       (C) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) (as 
     so redesignated) and inserting ``, except that hydroelectric 
     power is no longer a project purpose of the facility. Water 
     flow releases from the hydropower facilities shall be 
     determined and directed by the Corps of Engineers.''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Coordination.--Construction of the hydroelectric 
     generating facilities shall be coordinated with the dam 
     safety assurance project currently in the design and 
     construction phases.'';
       (8) in subsection (e) by striking ``in accordance'' and all 
     that follows through ``58 Stat. 890)'';
       (9) in subsection (f)--
       (A) by striking ``facility of the interconnected systems of 
     reservoirs operated by the Secretary'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``facilities under construction under such 
     agreements''; and
       (B) by striking ``design'' and inserting ``planning, 
     design'';
       (10) in subsection (f)(2)--
       (A) by ``Secretary'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``Tri-Cities Power Authority''; and
       (B) by striking ``facilities referred to in subsection 
     (a)'' and inserting ``such facilities'';
       (11) by striking paragraph (1) of subsection (g) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) to arrange for the transmission of power to the 
     market or to construct such transmission facilities as 
     necessary to market the power produced at the facilities 
     referred to in subsection (a) with funds contributed by the 
     Tri-Cities Power Authority; and'';
       (12) in subsection (g)(2) by striking ``such facilities'' 
     and all that follows through ``the Secretary'' and inserting 
     ``the generating facility''; and
       (13) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Tri-Cities Power Authority Defined.--In this section, 
     the `Tri-Cities Power Authority' refers to the entity 
     established by the City of Hinton, West Virginia, the City of 
     White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, and the City of 
     Philippi, West Virginia, pursuant to a document entitled 
     `Second Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement' 
     approved by the Attorney General of West Virginia on February 
     14, 2002.''.

     SEC. 5107. WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD CONTROL.

       (a) Cheat and Tygart River Basins, West Virginia.--Section 
     581(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 
     Stat. 3790; 113 Stat. 313) is amended--

[[Page H8866]]

       (1) by striking ``flood control measures'' and inserting 
     ``structural and nonstructural flood control, streambank 
     protection, stormwater management, and channel clearing and 
     modification measures''; and
       (2) by inserting ``with respect to measures that 
     incorporate levees or floodwalls'' before the semicolon.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 581(c) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3791) is 
     amended by striking ``$12,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$90,000,000''.

     SEC. 5108. LOWER KANAWHA RIVER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a watershed and river basin 
     assessment under section 729 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2267a) for the Lower 
     Kanawha River Basin, in the counties of Mason, Putnam, 
     Kanawha, Jackson, and Roane, West Virginia.

     SEC. 5109. CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA.

       Section 571 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 371) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``Nicholas,''; and
       (B) by striking ``Gilmer,''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) 
     of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for 
     any project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal 
     interest may include a nonprofit entity with the consent of 
     the affected local government.
       ``(j) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the 
     amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used by 
     the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer 
     projects under this section at 100 percent Federal 
     expense.''.

     SEC. 5110. SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.

       (a) Corps of Engineers.--Section 340 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856; 113 Stat. 320) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Corps of Engineers.--Ten percent of the amounts 
     appropriated to carry out this section for fiscal years 2003 
     and thereafter may be used by the Corps of Engineers district 
     offices to administer projects under this section at 100 
     percent Federal expense.''.
       (b) Southern West Virginia Defined.--Section 340(f) of such 
     Act is amended by inserting ``Nicholas,'' after 
     ``Greenbrier,''.
       (c) Nonprofit Entities.--Section 340 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856) is further amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) 
     of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for 
     any project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal 
     interest may include a nonprofit entity with the consent of 
     the affected local government.''.

     SEC. 5111. CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS BY NON-
                   FEDERAL INTERESTS.

       Section 211(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (33 U.S.C. 701b-13) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(9) Buffalo bayou, texas.--The project for flood control, 
     Buffalo Bayou, Texas.
       ``(10) Halls bayou, texas.--The project for flood control, 
     Halls Bayou, Texas.
       ``(11) St. Paul downtown airport (holman field), st. paul, 
     minnesota.--The project for flood damage reduction, St. Paul 
     Downtown Holman Field), St. Paul, Minnesota.''.

     SEC. 5112. BRIDGE AUTHORIZATION.

       There is authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 for the 
     construction of the bridge referred to in section 1001(1).

     SEC. 5113. ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR CRITICAL PROJECTS.

       Section 219(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335-337; 114 Stat. 2763A-220-
     221) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(71) Plaquemine, louisiana.--$7,000,000 for sanitary 
     sewer and wastewater infrastructure, Plaquemine, Louisiana.
       ``(72) Charleston, south carolina.--$20,000,000 for 
     wastewater infrastructure, including wastewater collection 
     systems, Charleston, South Carolina.
       ``(73) Cross, south carolina.--$2,000,000 for water-related 
     environmental infrastructure, Cross, South Carolina.
       ``(74) Surfside, south carolina.--$8,000,000 for 
     environmental infrastructure, including stormwater system 
     improvements and ocean outfalls, Surfside, South Carolina.
       ``(75) North myrtle beach, south carolina.--$3,000,000 for 
     environmental infrastructure, including ocean outfalls, North 
     Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
       ``(76) Tia juana valley, california.--$1,400,000 for water-
     related environmental infrastructure, Tia Juana Valley, 
     California.
       ``(77) Cabarrus county, north carolina.--$4,500,000 for 
     water-related infrastructure, Cabarrus County, North 
     Carolina.
       ``(78) Richmond county, north carolina.--$8,000,000 for 
     water-related infrastructure, Richmond County, North 
     Carolina.
       ``(79) Union county, north carolina.--$9,000,000 for 
     wastewater infrastructure, Union County, North Carolina.
       ``(80) Washington, district of columbia.--$35,000,000 for 
     implementation of a combined sewer overflow long term control 
     plan, Washington, District of Columbia.
       ``(81) Southern los angeles county, california.--
     $15,000,000 for environmental infrastructure for the 
     groundwater basin optimization pipeline, Southern Los Angeles 
     County, California.
       ``(82) Indianapolis, indiana.--$6,430,000 for environmental 
     infrastructure for Indianapolis, Indiana.
       ``(83) Henderson, nevada.--$5,000,000 for wastewater 
     infrastructure, Henderson, Nevada.
       ``(84) Sennett, new york.--$1,500,000 for water 
     infrastructure, Town of Sennett, New York.
       ``(85) Ledyard and montville, connecticut.--$7,113,000 for 
     water infrastructure, Ledyard and Montville, Connecticut.
       ``(86) Awendaw, south carolina.--$2,000,000 for water-
     related infrastructure, Awendaw, South Carolina.
       ``(87) St. clair county, alabama.--$5,000,000 for water-
     related infrastructure, St. Clair County, Alabama.
       ``(88) East bay, san francisco, and santa clara areas, 
     california.--$4,000,000 for a desalination project to serve 
     the East Bay, San Francisco, and Santa Clara areas, 
     California.
       ``(89) Athens, tennessee.--$16,000,000 for wastewater 
     infrastructure, Athens, Tennessee.
       ``(90) Warwick, new york.--$1,200,000 for water storage 
     capacity restoration, Warwick, New York.
       ``(91) Kiryas joel, new york.--$20,000,000 for water-
     related infrastructure, Kiryas Joel, New York.
       ``(92) Whittier, california.--$8,000,000 for wastewater and 
     water-related infrastructure, Whittier, California.
       ``(93) Anacostia river, district of columbia and 
     maryland.--$20,000,000 for environmental infrastructure and 
     resource protection and development to enhance water quality 
     and living resources in the Anacostia River watershed, 
     District of Columbia and Maryland.
       ``(94) Duchesne, iron, and uintah counties, utah.--
     $10,000,000 for water-related infrastructure, Duchesne, Iron, 
     and Uintah Counties, Utah.
       ``(95) Hancock, harrison, jackson, and pearl river 
     counties, mississippi.--$5,824,300 for water and wastewater-
     related infrastructure, Hancock, Harrison, Jackson, and Pearl 
     River Counties, Mississippi.''.

     SEC. 5114. USE OF FEDERAL HOPPER DREDGE FLEET.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study on the 
     appropriate use of the Federal hopper dredge fleet.
       (b) Contents.--In conducting the study, the Secretary 
     shall--
       (1) obtain and analyze baseline data to determine the 
     appropriate use of the Federal hopper dredge fleet;
       (2) prepare a comprehensive analysis of the costs and 
     benefits of existing and proposed restrictions on the use of 
     the Federal hopper dredge fleet; and
       (3) assess the data and procedure used by the Secretary to 
     prepare the Government cost estimate for worked performed by 
     the Federal hopper dredge fleet.
       (c) Consultation.--The Secretary shall conduct the study in 
     consultation with ports, pilots, and representatives of the 
     private dredge industry.
       (d) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to 
     Congress a report on the results of the study.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order 
except those printed in House Report 108-282. Each amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated 
in the report, shall be considered read, shall be 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.

                              {time}  1700

  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House 
Report 108-282.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Duncan

  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as the designee of the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The Clerk will 
designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Duncan:
       Page 8, line 7, before ``Except'' insert ``(a) Projects 
     With Chief's Reports.--''.
       Page 8, before line 13, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
       (1) Tanque verde creek, arizona.--The project for 
     environmental restoration, Tanque Verde Creek, Arizona: 
     Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated July 22, 2003, at a 
     total cost of $4,878,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $3,170,700 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,707,300.
       Page 8, line 14, before ``The'' insert the following:
       (A) In general.--
       Page 9, after line 2, insert the following:
       (B) Expediting bridge design and construction.--The 
     Secretary, in cooperation with appropriate non-Federal 
     interests, shall immediately commence appropriate studies 
     for, and the design of, a permanent bridge (including an 
     evaluation of potential impacts of bridge construction on 
     traffic patterns and identification of alternatives for 
     mitigating such impacts) and, upon execution of a cost-
     sharing agreement with such non-Federal interests, shall 
     proceed to construction of the bridge as soon as practicable; 
     except that such studies, design, and construction shall not 
     adversely affect the schedule of design or construction of 
     authorized projects for flood damage reduction.
       Page 9, after line 16, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent paragraphs accordingly):

[[Page H8867]]

       (4) Peoria riverfront, illinois.--The project for 
     environmental restoration, Peoria Riverfront, Illinois: 
     Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated July 28, 2003, at a 
     total cost of $15,182,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $9,868,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,314,000.
       Page 9, line 21, strike ``Report'' and insert ``Reports''.
       Page 9, line 22, before ``at'' insert ``and July 22, 
     2003,''.
       Page 10, after line 12, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
       (6) South river, new jersey.--The project for hurricane and 
     storm damage reduction and environmental restoration, South 
     River, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated 
     July 22, 2003, at a total cost of $103,268,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $67,124,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $36,144,000.
       Page 11, after line 25, insert the following:
       (b) Projects Subject to Final 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 Chief of Engineers if a favorable report of the Chief is 
     completed not later than December 31, 2003:
       (1) Bel marin keys unit v, california.--The project for 
     environmental restoration, Bel Marin Keys Unit V, California, 
     at a total cost of $133,600,000, with an estimated Federal 
     cost of $100,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $33,400,000.
       (2) Imperial beach, california.--The project for storm 
     damage reduction, Imperial Beach, California, at a total cost 
     of $11,922,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,630,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,292,000.
       (3) Gwynns falls, maryland.--The project for environmental 
     restoration, Gwynns Falls, Maryland, at a total cost of 
     $14,660,000.
       (4) Manasquan to barnegat inlets, new jersey.--The project 
     for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Manasquan to 
     Barnegat Inlets, New Jersey, at a total cost of $60,649,000, 
     with an estimated Federal cost of $39,422,000 and an 
     estimated non-Federal cost of $21,227,000.
       (5) Centralia, chehalias river, washington.--The project 
     for flood damage reduction, Centralia, Chehalias River, 
     Washington, at a total cost of $86,872,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $56,467,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $30,405,000.
       Page 15, after line 10, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
       (3) Red lake falls, minnesota.--Project for emergency 
     streambank protection, Red Lake River, Red Lake Falls, 
     Minnesota.
       Page 16, after line 5, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
       (2) Palm beach harbor, florida.--Project for navigation, 
     Palm Beach Harbor, Florida.
       Page 16, after line 7, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
       (3) Mississippi river ship channel, louisiana.--Project for 
     navigation, Mississippi River Ship Channel, Louisiana.
       (4) Au sable river, michigan.--Project for navigation, Au 
     Sable River in the vicinity of Oscoda, Michigan.
       Page 23, strike lines 10 and 11.
       Page 23, line 12, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(B)''.
       Page 23, line 12, strike ``Secretary of the Army''.
       Page 23, line 14, strike ``district engineer'' and all that 
     follows through ``out'' on line 15.
       Page 23, line 19, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(C)''.
       Page 23, line 21, strike ``liquidated''.
       Page 24, lines 3 and 5, strike ``partnership''.
       Page 24, line 3, after ``agreement'' insert ``under this 
     section''.
       Page 24, line 15, strike ``liquidated''.
       Page 25, strike line 7, and insert the following:
       (d) Partnership and Cooperative Arrangements.--
       (1) In general.--Agreements entered into under section 221 
     of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5(b)) shall 
     further partnership and cooperative arrangements with non-
     Federal interests and shall be referred to as ``partnership 
     agreements''.
       Page 25, line 8, strike ``(1) To'' and insert ``(2) 
     References to''.
       Page 25, line 14, strike ``(2) To'' and insert ``(3) 
     References to''.
       Page 25, after line 18, insert the following:
       (e) Entry of Agreement With District Engineer.--After 
     January 1, 2005, the agreement required to be entered into 
     under section 221(a) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 
     U.S.C. 1962d-5b(a)) shall be entered into with the district 
     engineer for the district in which the project will be 
     carried out, unless, before that date, the Secretary issues 
     policies and guidelines for partnership agreements and 
     delegates to the district engineers, at a minimum--
       (1) the authority to approve any policy in a partnership 
     agreement that has appeared in an agreement previously 
     approved by the Secretary;
       (2) the authority to approve any policy in a partnership 
     agreement the specific terms of which are dictated by law, or 
     by a final feasibility study, final environmental impact 
     statement, or other final decision document for a water 
     resources development project;
       (3) the authority to approve any partnership agreement that 
     complies with the policies and guidelines issued by the 
     Secretary; and
       (4) the authority to sign any partnership agreement for any 
     water resources development project unless, within 30 days of 
     the date of authorization of the project, the Secretary 
     notifies the district engineer in which the project will be 
     carried out that the Secretary wishes to retain the 
     prerogative to sign the partnership agreement for that 
     project.
       (f) Public Availability.--Not later than the 120th day 
     following the date of enactment of this Act, the Chief of 
     Engineers shall ensure that each district engineer has made 
     available on the Internet all partnership agreements entered 
     into under section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 
     U.S.C. 1962d-5(b)) within the preceding 10 years and all 
     partnership agreements for water resources development 
     projects currently being carried out in that district and 
     shall make any partnership agreements entered into after such 
     date of enactment available on the Internet within 7 days of 
     the date on which such agreement is entered into.
       Page 36, line 19, strike ``conveyed to'' and all that 
     follows through the closing parenthesis mark on line 21 and 
     insert ``owned by an Alaska Native Regional Corporation or an 
     Alaska Native Village Corporation (as those terms are defined 
     in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et 
     seq.)) or the Metlakatla Indian community.''
       Page 74, after line 11, insert the following (and conform 
     the table of contents of the bill accordingly):

     SEC. 2034. SUPPORT OF ARMY CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 2361 of title 10, 
     United States Code, the Secretary is authorized to provide 
     assistance through contracts, cooperative agreements, and 
     grants to--
       (1) the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, for 
     establishment and operation of the Southeastern Water 
     Resources Institute to study sustainable development and 
     utilization of water resources in the Southeastern United 
     States; and
       (2) Lewis and Clark Community College, Illinois, for the 
     Great Rivers National Research and Education Center 
     (including facilities that have been or will be constructed 
     at one or more locations in the vicinity of the confluence of 
     the Illinois River, the Missouri River, and the Mississippi 
     River), a collaborative effort of Lewis and Clark Community 
     College, the University of Illinois, the Illinois Department 
     of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, and other 
     entities, for the study of river ecology, developing 
     watershed and river management strategies, and educating 
     students and the public on river issues.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out subsection 
     (a)(1) $5,000,000 and to carry out subsection (a)(2) 
     $5,000,000. Such sums shall remain available until expended.
       Page 76, line 4, strike ``TATILEK'' and insert 
     ``TATITLEK''. Conform the table of contents of the bill 
     accordingly.
       Page 76, line 6, strike ``Tatilek'' and insert 
     ``Tatitlek''.
       Pages 79 and 80, move section 3012 (relating to Los Angeles 
     Harbor, Los Angeles, California) after section 3013 (relating 
     to Larkspur Ferry Channel, Larkspur, California). Redesignate 
     subsequent sections, and conform the table of contents of the 
     bill, accordingly.
       Page 87, after line 15, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents of the bill, accordingly):

     SEC. 3028. JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FLORIDA.

       The project for navigation, Jacksonville Harbor, Florida, 
     authorized by section 101(a)(17) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276), is modified to 
     authorize the Secretary to extend the navigation features in 
     accordance with the Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated 
     July 22, 2003, at a total cost of $14,658,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $9,636,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $5,022,000.
       Page 87, line 24, after ``project'' insert ``in accordance 
     with the feasibility report of October 2002''.
       Page 87, line 24, strike ``$12,926,000'' and insert 
     ``$12,632,200''.
       Page 87, line 25, strike ``$6,547,000'' and insert 
     ``$7,882,493''.
       Page 88, line 1, strike ``$6,379,000'' and insert 
     ``$4,749,707''.
       Page 88, line 2, strike ``$925,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,044,400''.
       Page 88, line 4, strike ``$468,500'' and insert 
     ``$651,706''.
       Page 88, line 5, strike ``$456,500'' and insert 
     ``$392,694''.
       Pages 89 and 90, move section 3032 (relating to Miami 
     Harbor, Florida) after section 3029 (relating to Manatee 
     Harbor, Florida). Redesignate subsequent sections, and 
     conform the table of contents of the bill, accordingly.
       Page 89, after line 25, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents of the bill, accordingly):

     SEC. 3032. TAMPA HARBOR-CUT B, FLORIDA.

       The project for navigation, Tampa Harbor, Florida, 
     authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1970 
     (84 Stat. 1818), is modified to authorize the Secretary to 
     construct passing lanes in an area approximately 3.5 miles 
     long and centered on Tampa Bay Cut B if the Secretary 
     determines that such improvements are necessary for 
     navigation safety.
       Page 90, line 8, before ``Federal'' insert ``a''.

[[Page H8868]]

       Page 90, line 8, strike ``and'' and insert ``or''.
       Page 90, line 9, strike ``agencies'' and insert ``agency''.
       Page 91, after line 5, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents of the bill, accordingly):

     SEC. 3034. CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL, ILLINOIS.

       (a) Ongoing Project.--The project for improvement of the 
     quality of the environment, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, 
     Illinois, being carried out under section 1135 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) to 
     provide for a dispersal barrier for invasive species, is 
     modified to allow that Federal assistance made available 
     through other Federal agencies may be used toward payment of 
     the non-Federal share of the costs of the project.
       (b) New Work.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of a 
     project for the improvement of the quality of the 
     environment, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Illinois, and 
     if the Secretary determines that the project is appropriate, 
     shall carry out a project under section 1135 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), 
     including upgrades or improvements to the existing barrier 
     for aquatic invasive species. Federal assistance made 
     available by other Federal agencies may be used toward 
     payment of the non-Federal share of the cost of the project.
       Page 100, line 23, before the period insert the following:
     and to authorize the Secretary to carry out the project in 
     accordance with the report prepared by the non-Federal 
     interest if the Secretary determines that the report meets 
     the evaluation and design standards of the Corps of Engineers 
     and that the project is feasible
       Page 109, line 4, after ``would'' insert ``not''.
       Page 109, line 5, strike ``the same'' and insert ``a 
     lesser''.
       Page 109, line 17, strike ``$18,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$18,200,000''.
       Page 118, after line 20, insert the following:
       (1) to include as part of the project flood protection 
     works to reroute drainage to Raymondville Drain constructed 
     by the non-Federal interests in Hidalgo County in the 
     vicinity Edinburg, Texas, if the Secretary determines that 
     such work meets feasibility requirements;
       Page 118, line 21, strike ``(1)'' and insert ``(2)''.
       Page 119, line 3, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(3)''.
       Page 119, line 5, after ``determination'' insert ``, within 
     180 days after the date of enactment of this Act,''.
       Page 120, line 13, before ``construction'' insert ``design 
     and''.
       Page 120, lines 14 and 15, strike ``before the date of the 
     partnership agreement''.
       Page 123, line 25, insert before the period the following:
     ; except that the authorized depth of that portion of the 
     project extending riverward of the Charles M. Braga, Jr. 
     Memorial Bridge, Fall River and Somerset, Massachusetts, 
     shall not exceed 35 feet
       Page 127, after line 19, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
       (4) Muscatine, iowa.--The Mississippi River at Muscatine, 
     Iowa project, authorized by section 101 of the River and 
     Harbor Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 164).
       (5) Falmouth harbor, massachusetts.--The portion of the 
     project for navigation, Falmouth Harbor, Massachusetts, 
     authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1948 
     (62 Stat. 1172), beginning at a point along the eastern side 
     of the inner harbor N200,415.05, E845,307.98, thence running 
     north 25 degrees 48 minutes 54.3 seconds east 160.24 feet to 
     a point N200,559.20, E845,377.76, thence running north 22 
     degrees 7 minutes 52.4 seconds east 596.82 feet to a point 
     N201,112.15, E845,602.60, thence running north 60 degrees 1 
     minute 0.3 seconds east 83.18 feet to a point N201,153.72, 
     E845,674.65, thence running south 24 degrees 56 minutes 43.4 
     seconds west 665.01 feet to a point N200,550.75, E845,394.18 
     thence running south 32 degrees 25 minutes 29.0 seconds west 
     160.76 feet to the point of origin.
       Page 141, after line 3, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents of the bill, accordingly):

     SEC. 4002. CHOCTAWHATCHEE, PEA, AND YELLOW RIVERS WATERSHED, 
                   ALABAMA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction, environmental restoration, recreation, and water 
     supply in the Chactawhatchee, Pea, and Yellow Rivers 
     watershed, Alabama.
       Page 142, after line 8, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents of the bill, accordingly):

     SEC. 4007. NAPA RIVER, ST. HELENA, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study of the 
     Napa River in the vicinity of St. Helena, California, for the 
     purposes of improving flood management through reconnecting 
     the river to its floodplain; restoring habitat, including 
     riparian and aquatic habitat; improving fish passage and 
     water quality; and restoring native plant communities. In 
     conducting the study, the Secretary shall review plans and 
     designs developed by non-Federal interests and shall 
     incorporate such plans and designs into the Federal study 
     where the Secretary determines that such plans and designs 
     are consistent with the Federal interest.
       Page 144, after line 22, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents of the bill, accordingly):

     SEC. 4015. FALL RIVER HARBOR, MASSACHUSETTS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of deepening that portion of the navigation 
     channel of the navigation project for Fall River Harbor, 
     Massachusetts and Rhode Island, authorized by section 101 of 
     the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731), seaward of 
     the Charles M. Braga, Jr. Memorial Bridge, Fall River and 
     Somerset, Massachusetts.
       Pages 144 and 145, move sections 4016 (relating to Chicago, 
     Illinois) and 4017 (relating to South Branch, Chicago River, 
     Chicago, Illinois) after section 4011 (relating to Calumet 
     Harbor, Illinois). Redesignate subsequent sections, and 
     conform the table of contents of the bill, accordingly.
       Page 150, after line 25, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents of the bill, accordingly):

     SEC. 4033. LAKE ERIE DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the nature 
     and frequency of avian botulism problems in the vicinity of 
     Lake Erie associated with dredged material disposal sites and 
     shall make recommendations to eliminate the conditions that 
     result in such problems.
       Page 154, after line 12, insert the following:
       (20) Schuylkill River watershed, Pennsylvania.
       Page 157, after line 22, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
       ``(10) $25,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(23);
       Page 160, after line 25, insert the following:
       (5) Project for environmental restoration, Gwynns Falls, 
     Maryland.
       Page 161, line 1, after ``Special Rule'' insert ``for 
     Egmont Key, Florida''.
       Page 161, after line 10, insert the following:
       (d) Special Rule for Gwynns Falls, Maryland.--The report on 
     the project for environmental restoration at Gwynns Falls, 
     Maryland, referred to in subsection (a)(5), shall be treated 
     as being consistent and in compliance with the consent decree 
     entered into between the United States and the Mayor and City 
     Council of Baltimore, Maryland, filed with the United States 
     District Court for the District of Maryland on April 26, 
     2002, and no policy of the Secretary with respect to work 
     performed under a consent decree shall delay completion of 
     this report and its submission to Congress.
       Page 166, after line 7, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents of the bill, accordingly):

     SEC. 5020. FORT YUKON, ALASKA.

       The Secretary shall make repairs to the dike at Fort Yukon, 
     Alaska, so that the dike meets Corps of Engineers standards.
       Page 167, after line 6, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents of the bill, accordingly):

     SEC. 5023. HELENA AND VICINITY, ARKANSAS.

       The Secretary shall accept as fulfilling the non-Federal 
     cost sharing responsibilities for the project for flood 
     control, Helena and Vicinity, Arkansas, authorized by section 
     401 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 
     4112), the non-Federal cash contribution of $568,000 and the 
     lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and dredged 
     material disposal areas provided by the non-Federal sponsor 
     as of September 1, 2003, and the Secretary shall not seek to 
     recover any reimbursement from the non-Federal sponsor 
     related to advanced payments to, or work performed for, the 
     non-Federal sponsor under the authority of sections 103 and 
     104 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
     2213, 2214).
       Page 170, after line 16, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents of the bill, accordingly):

     SEC. 5029. PLACER AND EL DORADO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary may establish 
     a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal 
     interests in Placer and El Dorado Counties, California.
       (b) Form of Assistance.--Assistance under this section may 
     be in the form of design and construction assistance to 
     improve the efficiency and use of existing water supplies in 
     Placer and El Dorado Counties through water and wastewater 
     projects, programs, and infrastructure.
       (c) Ownership Requirement.--The Secretary may provide 
     assistance for a project under this section only if the 
     project is publicly owned.
       (d) Partnership Agreements.--
       (1) In general.--Before providing assistance under this 
     section, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership 
     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 partnership 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.

[[Page H8869]]

       (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 partnership 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 work.--The non-Federal interests shall 
     receive credit for the reasonable cost of design work on a 
     project completed by the non-Federal interest before entering 
     into a partnership agreement with the Secretary for such 
     project.
       (C) Credit for interest.--In case 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 the project's costs.
       (D) Land, easements, and rights-of-way credit.--The non-
     Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements, 
     rights-of-way, and relocations toward the non-Federal 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 waives, limits, or otherwise affects 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) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of 
     the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b), for any 
     project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest 
     may include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the 
     affected local government.
       (g) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the 
     amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used by 
     the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer 
     projects under this section at 100 percent Federal expense.
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000. 
     Such sums shall remain available until expended.
       Page 170, lines 19 and 20, strike ``amended--'' and all 
     that follows through ``by'' on line 21 and insert ``amended 
     by''.
       Page 170, line 22, strike the semicolon and all that 
     follows through line 5 on page 171 and insert a period.
       Page 175, after line 22, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents of the bill, accordingly):

     SEC. 5033. SAN PABLO BAY WATERSHED AND SUISUN MARSH ECOSYSTEM 
                   RESTORATION.

       (a) San Pablo Bay Watershed, California.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall complete work, as 
     expeditiously as possible, on the ongoing San Pablo Bay 
     watershed, California, study to determine the feasibility of 
     opportunities for restoring, preserving and protecting the 
     San Pablo Bay watershed.
       (2) Report.--Not later than March 31, 2008, the Secretary 
     shall transmit to Congress a report on the results of the 
     study.
       (c) Suisun Marsh, California.--The Secretary shall conduct 
     a comprehensive study to determine the feasibility of 
     opportunities for restoring, preserving and protecting the 
     Suisun Marsh, California.
       (d) San Pablo and Suisun Bay Marsh Watershed Critical 
     Restoration Projects.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may participate in critical 
     restoration projects that will produce, consistent with 
     Federal programs, projects, activities, immediate and 
     substantial ecosystem restoration, preservation and 
     protection benefits in the following sub-watersheds of the 
     San Pablo and Suisun Bay Marsh watersheds:
       (A) The tidal areas of the Petaluma River, Napa-Sonoma 
     Marsh.
       (B) The shoreline of West Contra Costa County.
       (C) Novato Creek.
       (D) Suisun Marsh.
       (E) Gallinas-Miller Creek.
     Participation in such critical restoration projects may 
     include assistance for planning, design or construction.
       (2) Non-federal interests.--Notwithstanding the 
     requirements of section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 
     (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), a nonprofit entity may serve, with the 
     consent of the affected local government, as a non-Federal 
     sponsor for a project undertaken pursuant to this section.
       (3) Cost sharing.--Before carrying out any project under 
     this section, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership 
     agreement with the non-Federal interest that shall require 
     the non-Federal interest--
       (A) to pay 35 percent of the cost of construction for the 
     project;
       (B) to provide any lands, easements, rights-of-way, dredged 
     material disposal areas and relocations necessary to carry 
     out the project; and
       (C) to pay 100 percent of the operation, maintenance, 
     repair, replacement, and rehabilitation costs associated with 
     the project.
       (4) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of construction of a project under 
     this section--
       (A) the value of any lands, easements, rights-of-way, 
     dredged material disposal areas, or relocations provided for 
     carrying out the project, regardless of the date of 
     acquisition;
       (B) funds received from the CALFED Bay-Delta program; and
       (C) the cost of the studies, design and construction work 
     carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of 
     execution of a partnership agreement for the project if the 
     Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project.
       (5) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $40,000,000.
       Page 176, after line 17, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents of the bill, accordingly):

     SEC. 5034. UPPER KLAMATH BASIN, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Definition of Upper Klamath Basin.--In this section, 
     the term ``Upper Klamath Basin'' means the counties of 
     Klamath, Oregon, and Siskiyou and Modoc, California.
       (b) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary may establish 
     a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal 
     interests in the Upper Klamath Basin.
       (c) Form of Assistance.--Assistance under this section may 
     be in the form of design and construction assistance to 
     improve the efficiency and use of existing water supplies in 
     the Upper Klamath Basin through water and wastewater and 
     ecosystem restoration projects, programs, and infrastructure.
       (d) Ownership Requirement.--The Secretary may provide 
     assistance for a project under this section only if the 
     project is publicly owned.
       (e) Partnership Agreements.--
       (1) In general.--Before providing assistance under this 
     section, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership 
     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 partnership 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 partnership 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 work.--The non-Federal interests shall 
     receive credit for the reasonable cost of design work on a 
     project completed by the non-Federal interest before entering 
     into a partnership agreement with the Secretary for such 
     project.
       (C) Credit for interest.--In case 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 the project's costs.
       (D) Land, easements, and rights-of-way credit.--The non-
     Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements, 
     rights-of-way, and relocations toward the non-Federal 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.
       (f) Applicability of Other Federal and State Laws.--Nothing 
     in this section waives, limits, or otherwise affects 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.
       (g) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of 
     the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b), for any 
     project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest 
     may include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the 
     affected local government.
       (h) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the 
     amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used by 
     the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer 
     projects under this section at 100 percent Federal expense.
       (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000. 
     Such sums shall remain available until expended.
       Page 181, after line 11, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents of the bill, accordingly):

     SEC. 5041. COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS.

       Section 219(f)(54) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 535; 114 Stat. 2763A-221) 
     is amended--

[[Page H8870]]

       (1) by striking ``$35,000,000'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) In general.--$35,000,000'';
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project not to exceed 
     $80,000 for the cost of planning and design work carried out 
     by the non-Federal interest before, on, or after the date of 
     the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
     determines that the work is integral to the project.''; and
       (3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph 
     (A) (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with 
     subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section).
       Page 186, after line 20, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents of the bill, accordingly):

     SEC. 5045. SOUTHWEST ILLINOIS.

       (a) Definition of Southwest Illinois.--In this section, the 
     term ``Southwest Illinois'' means the counties of Madison, 
     St. Clair, Monroe, Randolph, Perry, Franklin, Jackson, Union, 
     Alexander, Pulaski, and Williamson, Illinois.
       (b) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary may establish 
     a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal 
     interests in Southwest Illinois.
       (c) 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 Southwest Illinois, 
     including projects for wastewater treatment and related 
     facilities, water supply and related facilities, and surface 
     water resource protection and development.
       (d) Ownership Requirement.--The Secretary may provide 
     assistance for a project under this section only if the 
     project is publicly owned.
       (e) Partnership Agreements.--
       (1) In general.--Before providing assistance under this 
     section, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership 
     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 partnership 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 partnership 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 work.--The non-Federal interests shall 
     receive credit for the reasonable cost of design work on a 
     project completed by the non-Federal interest before entering 
     into a partnership agreement with the Secretary for such 
     project.
       (C) Credit for interest.--In case 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 the project's costs.
       (D) Land, easements, and rights-of-way credit.--The non-
     Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements, 
     rights-of-way, and relocations toward the non-Federal 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.
       (f) Applicability of Other Federal and State Laws.--Nothing 
     in this section waives, limits, or otherwise affects 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.
       (g) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of 
     the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b), for any 
     project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest 
     may include a nonprofit entity.
       (h) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the 
     amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used by 
     the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer 
     projects under this section at 100 percent Federal expense.
       (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000. 
     Such sums shall remain available until expended.
       Page 197, after line 20, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents of the bill, accordingly):

     SEC. 5053. LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, LOUISIANA.

       For purposes of carrying out section 121 of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1271), the Lake 
     Pontchartrain, Louisiana, basin stakeholders conference 
     convened by the Environmental Protection Agency, the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and United States 
     Geological Survey on February 25, 2002, shall be treated as 
     being a management conference convened under section 320 of 
     such Act (33 U.S.C. 1330).
       Page 199, after line 22, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents of the bill, accordingly):

     SEC. 5059. CROOKSTON, MINNESOTA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study for a project for 
     emergency streambank protection in the vicinity of Highway 2, 
     Crookston, Minnesota, and, if the Secretary determines that 
     the project is feasible, may carry out the project under 
     section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r); 
     except that the maximum amount of Federal funds that may be 
     expended for the project shall be $6,500,000.
       Page 203, after line 8, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections of the bill, and conform the 
     table of contents of the bill, accordingly):

     SEC. 5065. DELAWARE RIVER, TRENTON, NEW JERSEY.

       The Secretary shall provide assistance to address floating 
     and partially submerged debris in that portion of the 
     Delaware River downstream from Trenton, New Jersey.
       Page 206, after line 20, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents of the bill, accordingly):

     SEC. 5069. GATEWAY POINT, NORTH TONAWANDA, NEW YORK.

       The Secretary shall review the shoreline stabilization, 
     recreation, and public access components of the feasibility 
     report for waterfront development at Gateway Point, North 
     Tonawanda, New York, entitled ``City of North Tonawanda, 
     Gateway Point Feasibility'', dated February 6, 2003, and 
     prepared by the non-Federal interest and, if the Secretary 
     determines that those components meet the evaluation and 
     design standards of the Corps of Engineers and that the 
     components are feasible, may carry out the components at a 
     Federal cost not to exceed $3,300,000.
       Page 207, after line 18, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents of the bill, accordingly):

     SEC. 5071. TIMES BEACH DIKE, BUFFALO, NEW YORK.

       As part of operation and maintenance of the Buffalo Harbor 
     and Buffalo River navigation projects, the Secretary may 
     repair the Times Beach confined disposal facility dike, 
     Buffalo, New York.
       Page 217, after line 13, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents of the bill, accordingly):

     SEC. 5092. J. PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, OHIO RIVER 
                   BASIN, TENNESSEE.

       The Secretary shall plan, design and construct upgrades to 
     the existing trail system at the J. Percy Priest Dam and 
     Reservoir, Ohio River Basin, Tennessee, authorized by section 
     4 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the construction 
     of certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood 
     control, and for other purposes'', approved June 28, 1938 (52 
     Stat. 1217), including design and construction of support 
     facilities for public health and safety associated with trail 
     development. In carrying out such improvements, the Secretary 
     is authorized to use funds made available by the State of 
     Tennessee from any Federal or State source, or both.
       Page 218, after line 8, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents of the bill, accordingly):

     SEC. 5094. EAST TENNESSEE.

       (a) Definition of East Tennessee.--In this section, the 
     term ``East Tennessee'' means the counties of Blount, Knox, 
     Loudon, McMinn, Monroe, and Sevier, Tennessee.
       (b) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary may establish 
     a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal 
     interests in East Tennessee.
       (c) 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 East Tennessee, 
     including projects for wastewater treatment and related 
     facilities, water supply and related facilities, and surface 
     water resource protection and development.
       (d) Ownership Requirement.--The Secretary may provide 
     assistance for a project under this section only if the 
     project is publicly owned.
       (e) Partnership Agreements.--
       (1) In general.--Before providing assistance under this 
     section, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership 
     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 partnership 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.

[[Page H8871]]

       (3) Cost sharing.--
       (A) In general.--The Federal share of the project costs 
     under each partnership 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 work.--The non-Federal interests shall 
     receive credit for the reasonable cost of design work on a 
     project completed by the non-Federal interest before entering 
     into a partnership agreement with the Secretary for such 
     project.
       (C) Credit for interest.--In case 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 the project's costs.
       (D) Land, easements, and rights-of-way credit.--The non-
     Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements, 
     rights-of-way, and relocations toward the non-Federal 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.
       (f) Applicability of Other Federal and State Laws.--Nothing 
     in this section waives, limits, or otherwise affects 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.
       (g) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of 
     the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b), for any 
     project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest 
     may include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the 
     affected local government.
       (h) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the 
     amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used by 
     the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer 
     projects under this section at 100 percent Federal expense.
       (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000. 
     Such sums shall remain available until expended.
       Page 230, line 23, strike ``$20,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$30,000,000''.
       Page 230, line 24, strike ``1001(1)'' and insert 
     ``1001(a)(1)''.
       Page 234, line 17, strike the closing quotation marks and 
     the final period.
       Page 234, after line 17, insert the following:
       ``(96) Placer and el dorado counties, california.--
     $35,000,000 to improve the efficiency and use of existing 
     water supplies in Placer and El Dorado Counties, California, 
     through water and wastewater projects, programs, and 
     infrastructure.
       ``(97) Arcadia and sierra madre, california.--$20,000,000 
     for water-related infrastructure, Arcadia and Sierra Madre, 
     California.
       ``(98) El paso county, texas.--$25,000,000 for water-
     related infrastructure and resource protection and 
     development, El Paso County, Texas.
       ``(99) Atlanta, georgia.--$35,000,000 for implementation of 
     a sanitary sewer overflow control plan, Atlanta, Georgia.
       ``(100) Chattahoochee river, georgia.--$20,000,000 for 
     implementation of wastewater infrastructure and resource 
     protection to enhance water quality in and adjacent to the 
     Chattahoochee River, Georgia.
       ``(101) Lassen, plumas, butte, sierra, and nevada counties, 
     california.--$25,000,000 to improve the efficiency and use of 
     existing water supplies in the counties of Lassen, Plumas, 
     Butte, Sierra, and Nevada, California, through water and 
     waste water projects, programs, and infrastructure.
       ``(102) Imperial county, california.--$10,000,000 for 
     wastewater infrastructure to improve water quality in the New 
     River, Imperial County, California.
       ``(103) Contra costa water district, california.--
     $23,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure for the 
     Contra Costa Water District, California.''.
       Page 235, after line 12, insert the following (and conform 
     the table of contents of the bill accordingly):

     SEC. 5115. WAGE SURVEYS.

       Employees of the United States Army Corps of Engineers who 
     are paid wages determined under the last undesignated 
     paragraph under the heading ``Administrative Provisions'' of 
     chapter V of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1982 (5 
     U.S.C. 5343 note; 96 Stat. 832) shall be allowed, through 
     appropriate employee organization representatives, to 
     participate in wage surveys under such paragraph to the same 
     extent as are prevailing rate employees under subsection 
     (c)(2) of section 5343 of title 5, United States Code. 
     Nothing in such section 5343 shall be considered to affect 
     which agencies are to be surveyed under such paragraph.

     SEC. 5116. PURCHASE OF AMERICAN-MADE EQUIPMENT AND PRODUCTS.

       (a) In General.--It is the sense of Congress that, to the 
     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).

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 375, the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and a Member opposed will each 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this en bloc amendment makes technical and conforming 
changes to project-related provisions in the bill and authorizes or 
modifies additional projects brought to the committee's attention 
following committee action.
  Specifically, the Corps of Engineers has prepared nine additional 
chief's reports, recommending that Congress authorize certain water 
resources projects. The amendment also directs the Corps of Engineers 
to carry out a number of small projects under existing Corps 
authorities to improve navigation, provide flood damage reduction and 
improve the quality of the environment. For other projects that have 
not been studied, the amendment authorizes four new Corps of Engineers 
studies.
  This amendment, like the underlying bill, has been developed in a 
bipartisan fashion. All projects must be in the Federal interest and 
must comply with cost-sharing and cost-benefit rules. This means not 
every project could be addressed. But, within these constraints, we did 
our best to meet the needs of all our communities and all the Members 
that we possibly could.
  I urge all Members to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not rising actually in opposition to the 
amendment, but I am claiming the time. I actually am rising in support 
of the manager's amendment that is offered by the gentleman from Alaska 
(Mr. Young).
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) 
is a bipartisan amendment addressing various needs and issues that have 
come to the committee's attention since the bill was considered at 
markup in July. The amendment contains modifications to provisions in 
the bill and a few new items. Each were considered by the leadership of 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and they are 
consistent with the policies of the committee for inclusion in the 
Water Resources Development Act.
  The Young amendment contains nine new authorizations or modifications 
based upon completed reports of the Chief of Engineers. It includes 
authorization of 5 small projects and modification to 10 existing 
projects. There are two new project deauthorizations and authority for 
the Corps to conduct four new project studies.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment, like the underlying bill itself, was 
developed in a bipartisan process that ensured that Members on both 
sides of the aisle were treated fairly and openly.
  Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the chairman of the full committee, the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and the subcommittee chairman, the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), for their cooperation in 
developing not only the bill, but this amendment, and I urge the 
adoption and approval of the manager's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers. I yield back 
the balance of my time and urge support for this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify one point that is in this bill. I was 
going to ask unanimous consent to modify the bill, but the Democrats 
have not had an opportunity to make a final decision about that, and we 
are ready to

[[Page H8872]]

move to final passage. So I would just ask the gentleman from Tennessee 
if he would clarify this with me.
  I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Duncan) to clarify section 3090 of the bill today.
  Included in this bill, H.R. 2557, is language regarding the Roanoke 
River Upper Basin Flood Control Project, a much-needed project located 
in the Sixth Congressional District of Virginia. This project has been 
in discussion for many years, and my community, along with the Corps of 
Engineers, stands ready to begin construction within the year. As 
written, section 3090 contains language stating that awards for 
contracts will be based on invitation for bids procedures.
  Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you might clarify the intent of that 
language.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, my understanding from staff on the other 
side is that the staff on the other side of the aisle and the Members 
on the other side of the aisle, particularly the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), will be glad to work with the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) if the gentleman withdraws his 
colloquy at this point.
  I will say that there is language in the bill at this time that 
attempts to get at the problem that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte) is trying to solve. The language says, ``In carrying out the 
project, the Secretary shall award contracts based on an invitation for 
bids procedure.''
  If that is not satisfactory to accomplish the goal of the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), if he feels that he is in a position to 
withdraw the colloquy at this point, then it is my understanding that 
the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), will 
try to work with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) to resolve 
this issue.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as the chairman 
knows, it is my intention that anybody be able to bid on this contract. 
That is what the city of Roanoke desires and so on. However, if the 
understanding is with the other side that they will at least strike 
this language that does not clarify that, I would ask unanimous consent 
at this time to strike the language at page 121, lines 5 and 6, 
carrying to the end of that section.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. That unanimous consent request is not in 
order in the Committee of the Whole.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, let me assure the gentleman that, number 
one, we have an agreement to strike the language, we agree to that, and 
we will work with the gentleman and with the chairman of the 
subcommittee and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) further. But we 
are not willing to go any further today than to strike the language.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Is it correct that once we are out of the Committee of 
the Whole and into the House itself, that this unanimous consent 
request would be in order at that time?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The unanimous consent to modify the bill 
before final passage might be entertained in the House after the 
committee rises.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Illinois 
(Costello) if that would be appropriate, to raise it in the House?
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, if 
the subcommittee chairman would make a motion to strike the language 
without any reference to legislative intent, just take the language 
out, we would agree to that.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 3 printed in House Report 108-282.


               Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher

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

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Rohrabacher:
       Page 74, after line 11, insert the following:

     SEC. 2034. PORT OR HARBOR DUES.

       Section 208(a) of Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 2236(a)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``or container fees'' after ``tonnage 
     duties or fees'';
       (2) in paragraph (1)(A)--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i);
       (B) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii) and 
     inserting ``or''; and
       (C) by inserting after clause (ii) the following:
       ``(iii) to finance the cost of construction and operation 
     and maintenance of any infrastructure project for a harbor, 
     including an infrastructure project outside the boundaries of 
     the harbor if the project is for transportation to, from, or 
     through the harbor; and''; and
       (3) in paragraph (1)(B) by inserting ``and security'' after 
     ``emergency response''.
       Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 375, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and a Member opposed each 
will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment will see to it that the massive costs in 
making our ports and harbors more secure are shared by those foreign 
manufacturers who use these facilities. The American people should not 
be stuck with the entire costs of the expensive infrastructure and 
security upgrades now necessary for the sake of homeland security.
  What happens under the current system is that Americans are taxed to 
pay for improvements to our ports, which are then used by foreign 
manufacturers to move more efficiently in their exporting of products 
into our market. Yes, we end up taxing our own manufacturers in order 
to help their foreign competitors put them out of business. Something 
is wrong with this formula.
  My amendment will permit local port authorities the right to levy a 
fee on containers traversing through their ports. This fee will be fed 
into a fund controlled by the authority to meet the new and rising cost 
of security and infrastructure.
  Why should all the tens of billions of dollars needed for this 
upgrading come out of the hide of our own taxpayers? Should the 
manufacturers in Shanghai not pay a share of the cost through a fee on 
the containers they use? After all, are these foreign manufacturers not 
making huge profits by using an infrastructure provided for them by our 
own taxpayers?
  Surprisingly, some of our ports are opposed to this amendment. You 
can hear lobbyists around the Hill talking about it. They like the 
status quo. They come to Washington and expect us to provide them more 
and more money by just simply taking it right out of the hide of the 
American working people. They want us, whenever there is an upgrade 
necessary, especially as we look into the future where it is not just 
regular upgrades and regular structural operations in their ports, now 
that we are looking at a huge expense because of homeland security 
needs, they just expect us to hand it to them and take it right out of 
the pockets of the American people.
  Well, I am sorry, but that is not the fair way to do things, and that 
is not the best way to do things. We should be expecting foreign 
businesses through a container fee to pay their fair share.
  If the ports do not want to ask them for that, but would rather come 
here and have us take that money out of the pockets of our own people, 
well, I am sorry, they are going to be disappointed. But the American 
people will not be disappointed. The American people will be 
disappointed if we continue to provide people overseas who manufacture 
products that put our own people out of work, that we continue to 
provide them these services free of charge, of course, at the expense 
of the American taxpayer.
  Mr. Chairman, lobbyists have been around. Some of the people who vote 
on this bill will have heard from their lobbyists saying they have to 
be against the container fee, I am suggesting, because it is going to 
go to a

[[Page H8873]]

non-Federal interest. That is right, it is not going to go into the 
Federal pool of money here. It is going to be kept locally by the port 
authorities to be used for infrastructure and security matters in those 
local areas, or it could perhaps, for example, be used for matching 
funds. If the Federal Government is going to provide something, they 
could use that for matching funds. This is fair to the American 
taxpayer.

                              {time}  1715

  If there is any problem with wording, a little bit of wording here, 
little tweaks that need to happen to make this a perfect bill, I am 
happy to work with the chairman and work with the people on this 
committee as this bill moves forward. But if this bill loses today, if 
my amendment loses today, it will mean the American taxpayer is going 
to get stuck with all of this cost, and we are basically letting these 
foreign manufacturers off the hook; and we all know that. This is our 
chance to start this process down the road so we will have container 
fees and a more fair system of providing resources to our ports and our 
harbors.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the committee and the 
gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), I claim the time in opposition 
to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Costello).
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I can understand 
the gentleman's interest in supporting the additional investment in 
infrastructure and security, but I believe that the Rohrabacher 
amendment is not the best way to pursue that goal.
  In the brief time that we have had to review the proposal, the 
committee has heard only objections to the proposal. Port interests, 
those that one would expect would be supporting this proposal, have 
indicated that they are either in opposition or that they have no 
position. We have been contacted by the California Marine Affairs and 
Navigation Conference who are opposed to the amendment; the California 
Association of Port Authority is opposed; the American Association of 
Port Authorities, they defer action and recommend that we take no 
position on this issue, at least they take no position. The Port of 
Long Beach is opposed, and the Port of Stockton is opposed. Those are 
just some of the port interests that have contacted us just today, 
since the amendment was given to us.
  Let me also say that a proposal similar to the Rohrabacher proposal, 
but a little more narrow than the Rohrabacher amendment, was considered 
in the last Congress during the committee's work on the Maritime 
Transportation and Security Act of 2002. That proposal was not adopted, 
in large part due to the strong objections from the Office of 
Management and Budget within the Bush administration.
  The fees contemplated in the Rohrabacher amendment would be available 
for ports or States to use for any infrastructure project, including 
infrastructure outside the boundaries of the harbor, if the project is 
for transportation to, from, or through the harbor. This could be any 
road, rail, or even any airport project associated with the harbor. It 
could include the locks and dams on the inland waterway system.
  The committee has long supported transportation trust fund financing 
of transportation modes. Highway users support highways, inland 
waterway users support inland waterways, airport users support 
airports, and port users support ports. It is inappropriate to 
establish a fee system where the containerized cargo industry could be 
supporting other transportation modes.
  This amendment could encourage ports or States to view containerized 
cargo as a simple source of revenue, in effect, a hidden tax to finance 
any and all transportation modes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply does not have broad-based 
support, and we should reject the amendment. There have been no 
hearings on the proposal. I would suggest that we have the opportunity 
to learn more about the proposal in the appropriate forum in the 
subcommittee of this Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 
While I will say that my friend from the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure and the Committee on Science, whom I serve with on 
the Committee on Science, that his amendment is well intentioned, and I 
would like to work with him to achieve what he is attempting to 
achieve, I believe that this amendment, in its current form, is more 
harmful than beneficial. Let us, on the appropriate authorizing 
committee, have the opportunity to consider and debate it. But I stand 
in opposition to the amendment as it is presented before us today.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw).
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Any amendment such as this and as broad as this should be debated and 
heard in the hearing process rather than coming right here to the floor 
of the House. This is almost giving to local government tariff 
authority. I question exactly the constitutionality of this. This is 
not just simply a user fee. It is much broader than that, and it goes 
on much beyond that. The ports of our Nation should be heard on this 
particular issue. All of the indications that I have and the letters 
and correspondence that I have before me indicate opposition to this 
idea.
  This type of authority and granting this type of authority, what I 
understand to be authority to impose a fee, or one might call it a tax 
upon imports into this country and use those funds outside of the port 
is certainly a very broad step, and I think a step in the wrong 
direction.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly would urge all Members to vote against this 
amendment.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just suggest, we do not represent the ports 
here. By the way, if anybody represents the ports in this room today, 
it is me. I represent, in my district, the ports of Los Angeles and 
Long Beach; and if there is anything I understand now about being a 
Congressman from an area that represents ports is the ports are looking 
for leadership. The American people, surprise, surprise, are looking 
for leadership from us.
  Our job is not to make our decisions by, well, let us call up the 
people who want Federal money and see if they want us to give them 
Federal money. That is not our job. Our job is to try to structure a 
system that works for the benefit of the American people.
  I would suggest this: that even though I represent both the ports of 
Los Angeles and Long Beach, who I really represent are the American 
people. I do not know if any of my colleagues have had the experience 
that I have with the small manufacturers in their areas. I have gone to 
small manufacturers in my area, and what have I found? They are going 
out of business. And they are going out of business because we have set 
up a structure that has permitted foreign manufacturers to slip into 
our market at almost no expense to those foreign manufacturers and 
undercut our own manufacturers. Why is it so wrong that we would expect 
that those foreign manufacturers pay a little fee, a little fee on the 
containers they are using so they can help build the infrastructure, 
rather than tax those companies that I visited in my district who are 
going under because of this, really, actually, American tax-supported 
competition that they are having to face? This is not right.
  I can see why our ports and harbors do not want this. They do not 
want to have to ask for that fee. Well, the fact is, it is good for 
America, it is good for the American manufacturer, and it will be good 
for our ports in the end if we give them this right.
  This idea that they may not get the money, we can tweak this 
language; we all know that. If this amendment passes, we can tweak the 
language to make sure it goes exactly where we want it, into security 
and infrastructure for these ports. But if we do not pass this 
amendment, this idea is dead, this idea is dead; and what is going to 
happen is, the tens of billions of dollars, right now, that we are 
making a stand on, will be paid by the American

[[Page H8874]]

people, rather than through a container tax paid for by foreign 
manufacturers.
  I say it is time for this body to stand up and provide some 
leadership. Who cares what the ports say right now. If they are 
operating in their self interests, we have to operate in America's 
interests, and it is in America's interests to have foreign 
manufacturers contribute to infrastructure costs here.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy 
in yielding me this time.
  I think one of the things that is important for us to consider when 
we are dealing with issues of our infrastructure with ports, we have a 
requirement here I think of the Federal Government to be a full 
partner. The Federal Government is a full partner with our ports around 
the country, and I think we need to be careful with the authority to 
levy charges coming in and out of our ports. This could have a very 
significant differential effect up and down, for example, the west 
coast.
  I am supportive of the notion of our committee investing more money 
in infrastructure from water resources to roads to transit, but I would 
hope that it is not done in a scatter-shot fashion where we take 
Federal authority and turn it over to interfere with the orderly flow 
of commerce and trade; but rather that we, as has been recommended by 
our ranking member and our chairman, have a consideration before the 
committee about what those resources' needs are.
  Frankly, we have higher priorities, in my judgment, that we are not 
meeting now. We have had difficulty providing adequate resources now to 
deal with critical maintenance dredging, to deal with port 
infrastructure, to deal with other areas that are connected; and I 
think the last thing we need to do is to take a step back to balkanize 
this, to move away from the system. This is authority that I think we 
as a committee ought to be looking at to be able to have an integrated 
system dealing with multimodal requirements and promoting an 
integrated, smooth flow of trade.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just note that this creates a new revenue flow. 
This amendment will create new revenue, a new source of revenue that 
begins perhaps in Shanghai or some other foreign country, and that 
revenue then can be used to our benefit. Now, the only other option we 
have, of course, is to fight over limited revenue, all of which is 
taken out of the pockets of the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) wanted to be here to make 
a statement in opposition to this amendment. On his behalf, I have been 
asked to point out, at least, that the ports already have the authority 
to charge fees for the services that they render; they do not need 
Congress to give them this authority.
  Also, the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) feels that if this 
amendment were to pass, this could force ships to go to other ports. 
Also, we have letters from the American Association of Port Authorities 
and the California Marine Affairs Navigation Conference, the Port of 
Long Beach, the California Association of Port Authorities, the 
Virginia Port Authority, the Port of Stockton, and other similar groups 
opposing the gentleman's amendment.
  Let me just say that as the gentleman from Illinois has said, we 
certainly sympathize with the gentleman's amendment. The gentleman from 
California and I came to Congress together. There is almost nobody in 
this Congress that I admire and respect more than the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  I think, as the gentleman from Illinois said, this amendment is well 
intentioned. I think it is something that our subcommittee could and 
should hold a hearing about. And I think that perhaps if the gentleman 
would work with the committee and the subcommittee and the various 
organizations, the port authorities and the shipping industry, there 
might be a way to accomplish what he is attempting to accomplish 
through this amendment.
  But at this point, we do have to rise in opposition to this amendment 
because it is something that I think probably deserves and probably 
needs a little additional work.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as I may have remaining to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  I just want to point out, in support of the committee position, that 
during the House-Senate conference on the port security bill last year, 
we were attempting to negotiate a fee proposition that would provide 
funding for the needs of ports to conduct the security measures that 
were required under the Port Security Act, and we hit upon this idea of 
a container fee. It was discussed between a Member of the other body 
and the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and me. And we revised 
and revised this language down so we had it very narrowly honed to fit 
the definition of the Office of Management and Budget that a fee is a 
charge for a service directly related to the purpose for which the 
charge is imposed. That language proved to be unacceptable to the 
Office of Management and Budget, not on its merits, but on policy 
grounds that they did not want to fund port security with a container 
fee.

                              {time}  1730

  At the request of the President, Senator Hollings and I, and the 
gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) agreed to drop that language.
  Now, while I am very much in sympathy with the purposes for which the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) wishes to generate this 
source of revenue, we tried a much more narrow application and ran 
aground on the rocks of OMB. We shoaled, if you will, on this issue. 
And I fear that there will be the same response were we to take a wider 
view. And I think that the gentleman from Tennessee's (Mr. Duncan) wise 
injunction let us put this aside, let us come back to work on the issue 
together, constructively, and find a way that we can reason together 
with the Office of Management and Budget.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
be extended by 1 minute on each side to allow the gentleman from Alaska 
(Mr. Young) to speak.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and my friend, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the chairman of the committee and rise in 
opposition. I do this somewhat reluctantly because the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher) has talked to me about this issue over 
some time.
  But to have a cliche, I do not think this amendment does anything 
right now but muddy the waters, and this is a very clean bill, and I 
would suggest respectfully that although his endeavors have great 
merit, that to put it on this bill, at this time, would be a detriment 
to the bill itself. We have had most, I would say all of the harbors 
speak out very strongly about this.
  As the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) said, if this was to 
be left in the bill or be adopted in this committee, then I think there 
would be a great opposition to the legislation because of OMB. And I 
would prefer that not to happen. I would prefer this to be a clean 
bill. I will work with the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) 
to try to solve this problem because I happen to agree that there ought 
to be some revenues generated from all the cargo containers that come 
into our ports, but I do not believe this is the appropriate vehicle to 
do so.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly respect those people, especially the 
gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) for the very hard work they have 
put into this legislation.
  It has always been my intent to support this legislation. So this is 
not

[[Page H8875]]

done with the spirit of anything except trying to do something for the 
American people because this is an opportunity that we have today to 
start working on a very positive idea.
  There is no reason for us to put this off. If we put this on this 
legislation today, this idea will move forward, and a lot of work will 
be done on this, and we will move toward this goal.
  If this amendment fails, what we have done is condemn the American 
people to tens of billions of dollars of expense that could have been 
taken up by foreign manufacturers who are importing their goods into 
our ports and putting their goods onto our market and undercutting our 
domestic manufacturers.
  Earlier the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) suggested that 
perhaps the ports already have this authority, thus this amendment is 
redundant. Let me say if that is the analysis, why not pass it then? 
There is no reason then, if the ports already have this authority, why 
are we so hesitant about passing this? The reason we are so hesitant is 
that there are powerful interests at play. We should be interested in 
what is the effect on the American people.
  We face, in these next 12 months, a horrendous, an astronomic expense 
in our ports, making them safe, making them more secure and more 
efficient. We should start working right now, and this is how we can do 
it, finding a new revenue source, a source for manufacturers overseas 
that will help us accomplish this mission. OMB will go along. The ports 
will go along. The American people will applaud us if we provide the 
leadership today, and that is what I am suggesting.
  I would ask my colleagues who are listening to this debate to join 
me, siding with the American people, the American manufacturer and let 
us not tax billions of dollars from them when we could have a fee paid 
by foreign manufacturers that would provide us the revenues necessary 
to make our ports secure and to upgrade their infrastructure.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the good work that those people who have 
worked on this legislation have done, and I intend to support this one 
way or the other.
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, today, I rise to discuss Mr. Rohrabacher's 
Amendment (No. 1) to the Water Resources Development Act of 2003 (H.R. 
2557). This amendment is well intended since it seeks to find a way to 
provide additional funds for needed port security improvements. It 
permits seaports to impose fees to be collected on a per container 
basis to be used for port security.
  On May 21, 2003, after holding a hearing on port security, with my 
Government Reform Subcommittee Ranking Member John Tierney, I 
introduced a bi-partisan bill, entitled the ``Port Security 
Improvements Act of 2003'' (H.R. 2193). Our bill takes a different 
approach. To date, Congress has provided extensive Federal funding to 
fully ensure air security. In contrast, Congress has not provided 
sufficient Federal funding to fully ensure port security. Currently, 
the U.S. Customs Bureau collects $15.6 billion in duties on commodities 
entering the U.S. through marine transportation. Our bill dedicates a 
portion of these duties for five years toward port security 
enhancements. In addition, our bill reflects other recommendations from 
our witnesses. It sets deadlines for issuance of regulations governing 
transportation security cards, and requires regulations that include a 
national minimum set of standard security requirements for ports, 
facilities, and vessels.
  Since America's ports are crucial to our economic well being, it is 
essential that we find the right balance between increasing port 
security while not impeding the flow of commerce and trade. As a 
Republican, I am sensitive to the costs of excessive government 
regulation. But, in a post-September 11 world, I realize that we must 
take additional precautions to protect our fellow citizens and our 
economy. We need to make sure that our ports are safe. I am not 
convinced that they are safe today.
  H.R. 2193 currently has 31 co-sponsors. This summer, both the 
American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) and I requested that 
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee Chairman Frank LoBiondo 
hold a hearing on this bill. Today, I ask for additional co-sponsors 
for H.R. 2193 and for Chairman LoBiondo to schedule the requested 
hearing.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hefley) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Chairman 
pro tempore 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. 2557) to provide for the conservation and development of 
water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of 
the United States, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________