[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.
____________________