[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 95 (Thursday, July 14, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H5810-H5880]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1145
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2005
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution
346 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 2864.
{time} 1145
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. 2864) 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. Bonilla 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
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
legislation. I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan)
and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for their
hard work.
This is a bill that has been from very bipartisan work together,
which made it, in fact, a great bill.
And I urge everybody to vote against the Flake amendment. Keep that
in mind. The Flake amendment is not a good amendment for this bill. If
we want to relieve our congestion on our highways, we have to use our
waterways.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
First, let me thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), our chairman and ranking
member, and the chair of the subcommittee for their leadership. I am
delighted to acknowledge that this committee works bipartisanly.
Today, we consider the Water Resources Development Act of 2005. And
this bill addresses what the Congress failed to do for the past 5
years, to enact a Water Resources Development Act.
I support biennial legislation for the Corps water resources program.
It is critical to maintain a 2-year cycle to provide continuity to the
program and certainly to the nonfederal sponsors who support the Corps
projects.
A biennial 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. 2864 authorizes projects for the entirety of the Corps civil
works program. It includes major flood control, navigation,
environmental restoration, and other water resources projects. This
legislation represents roughly 5\1/2\ years of project requests and
modifications, as well as oversight over how the Corps of Engineers
carries out its business.
As in the past, projects included in this bill were included not on
the basis of whether they were Democratic projects or Republican
projects but on their individual merit. And this is as it should be.
Many of these projects provide vital public safety and economic
benefits to our constituents. Their approval should not be withheld
solely for partisan reasons. Again, I thank the gentleman from Alaska
(Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the chairman
of the subcommittee, for working with me and with individual Members on
both sides of the aisle to accommodate their requests for this
important legislation. All of us know that the more we delay projects
like this, the more costly they become and sometimes the conditions
worsen.
I also acknowledge our leadership of the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Oberstar), our ranking member, who cannot be here because he is
attending the funeral of his mother-in-law, but he certainly has
interest and a great deal of expertise in water resources issues.
I strongly support this legislation and recommend that my colleagues
vote in favor of final passage.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise to urge all Members to support H.R. 2864, the Water Resources
Development Act of 2005. I want to first acknowledge the great
assistance, the hard work, and especially the bipartisan nature of all
the efforts of the staff on both sides and the gentleman from Alaska
(Chairman Young), our great chairman; the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar), our ranking member, who has worked on this committee as a
staff member and as a member since being elected to the House and has
seniority over all of us on that; and my close friendship and good
working relationship with the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie
[[Page H5811]]
Bernice Johnson), my ranking member. And I want to acknowledge also the
hard work done by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), the
former ranking member, with whom we worked out so many contentious
issues the first time this bill came up.
The bill authorizes and directs the Corps to carry out various
studies, projects, and programs relating to navigation, flood damage
reduction, shoreline protection, dam safety, water supply, recreation,
and environmental restoration and protection. H.R. 2864 is very similar
to H.R. 2557 from the last Congress, which passed this House on
September 24, 2003, by a vote of 412 to 8.
At the beginning of this Congress, the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure leadership sent a Dear Colleague to all House
Members to give them an opportunity to update their project requests.
In response, the committee received more than 340 letters from Members
making requests for more than 1,000 projects, studies and
modifications. Given budgetary constraints, we could not accommodate
every request. However, we were able to address over 600 separate
matters.
The bill also includes provisions that reform the planning and
project development process of the Corps of Engineers, including the
most extensive independent peer review process ever set forth in one of
these water resources bills or any other bill. These provisions were
worked out in a bipartisan manner in the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure last Congress and were in the WRDA bill that the
House approved overwhelmingly at that time.
We stand by the agreement that we made during the last Congress and
have made only a few clarifying changes to these policy provisions. As
a result, the main difference between H.R. 2864 and the bill from the
last Congress is the addition of three large projects that were not
ready for authorization during the last Congress but have now completed
chief's reports from the Corps of Engineers. These projects are the
Indian River Lagoon Everglades Restoration project, the Louisiana
Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration program, and the Upper Mississippi
River and Illinois Waterway Navigation and Ecosystem Restoration
program. Together, these projects represent $5 billion in federal
authorization or about half the cost of this bill. We knew these
chief's reports were coming, so, in the last Congress, the Water
Resources and Environment Subcommittee held separate hearings on each.
Later there will be debate on part of the Upper Mississippi River and
Illinois Waterway chief's report, the authorization of the seven new
locks there. This is a $1.8 billion authorization, but one half of that
funding comes from the Inland Waterway Trust Fund, which is funded by a
20 cents per gallon tax on inland waterway fuel.
These lock authorizations are the number one priority of the Inland
Waterway Users Board, the board representing the people who pay into
the inland Waterway Trust Fund. It is important to understand that the
Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway Navigation Authorization
is not the most costly Corps project. The authorization of $1.8 billion
is for seven different locks; so the per-project cost is really on
average $257 million.
At the subcommittee hearing on the Upper Mississippi River and
Illinois Waterway project, the subcommittee received very strong
testimony in support of this project from the Department of
Agriculture, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of
the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency. All of the civil
works projects in this bill, all of them, Mr. Chairman, are investments
in America that save capital, make our exports more competitive, make
our imports more affordable, and improve our environment and our
quality of life.
Over 200 organizations have sent us letters supporting this
legislation, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who has stated
that they will make this one of their key votes of the year; the
American Farm Bureau; the American Association of Port Authorities; the
American Society of Civil Engineers; the Associated General Contractors
of America; the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management
Agencies; the National Corn Growers Association; the National
Association of Wheat Growers; the National Council of Farmer
Cooperatives; the National Mining Association; the National Stone, Sand
and Gravel Association; the Portland Cement Association; seven
different national labor unions. In fact, I do not believe that we will
deal with any bill in the Congress this year that has more bipartisan
and broad support from both labor and business than this legislation,
and over 180 other organizations that would be too numerous to name,
and it would take too much time.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to recognize again the expertise and
friendship provided by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice
Johnson), the ranking member of the subcommittee. It is an honor and
privilege to work with her and also the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman
Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), ranking member,
and the entire committee. We have a bill that has the unanimous support
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Mr. Chairman, it is a good bill, and I urge all Members to support
it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes
to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
I would also like to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young),
chairman of the full committee; the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar); the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the chairman of
the subcommittee, for all of his hard work; and of course the work of
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), our ranking
member on the subcommittee, for a job well done for bringing this
legislation to the floor today. Without their strong leadership,
dedication and persistence, we would not have a bill before us to
consider.
H.R. 2864 authorizes projects for major flood control, navigation,
environmental restoration, and other water resource projects, as well
as it includes authorization of several important projects to restore
and enhance the Nation's environmental infrastructure.
The United States transportation system is the envy of the world. We
have an extensive system of highways, ports, locks and dams, and
airports. Yet we have neglected to upgrade and modernize our
infrastructure over the years. We should not build infrastructure in
this country and then walk away from it without maintaining it and
modernizing it as it becomes antiquated like we have done with the
Upper Mississippi River and the Illinois Waterways lock and dam system.
This bill, after 15 years of talking and inaction, finally authorizes
the modernization of the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Waterway
system. The bill authorizes the replacement of 600-foot navigation
locks with seven new 1,200-foot locks. In addition, the bill authorizes
the largest environmental restoration program, next to the Florida
Everglades, to ensure that the project goes forward respecting the
environment and minimizing any adverse impact.
At a time when other countries are investing and improving their
navigation systems, we are still operating a lock and dam system that
is well over a half century old, built to handle 600-foot barges, not
the 1,200-foot barges of today, and a system that exceeded its life
expectancy over 20 years ago and is very expensive to maintain and
repair. Our current system loses about 10 percent of its capacity every
year due to system failures and breakdowns.
The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake), my friends, have offered an amendment that I urge
all of my colleagues to oppose. In my opinion, if this amendment is
adopted, it will further delay and most likely kill the modernization
project. They raise questions about the need for the project and have
concerns about the environment. They believe that, with the increased
use of ethanol here in the United States, that traffic will decrease in
the coming years on the Mississippi River and the Illinois waterways.
On the question of the need to modernize for the future of the system,
some studies have said that major increases in traffic will take place.
Others have indicated that the demand
[[Page H5812]]
will decrease. It depends on which study we look at and read and which
study we want to believe.
What we do know for certain is that other countries are investing in
modernizing their navigation system and our system on the Upper
Mississippi and the Illinois waterway system outlived its life
expectancy over 20 years ago. The system cannot handle today's traffic
in an efficient and cost-effective manner, and it is costing taxpayers
tens of millions of dollars to patch it together, let alone the cost in
time and money.
On the issue of ethanol, I agree with my friends that there will be
an increase in the production of ethanol and more of a demand here at
home.
{time} 1200
Let me also say that increase in demand here at home will require
that we transport both grain and DDGS both in the United States and
abroad. Already, in the first quarter of this year, we have seen an 11
percent increase in DDGS shipped to other countries using ethanol
through the New Orleans Port.
Lastly, the environment. I am as concerned about the environment as
anyone. I would not support the modernization of the Upper Mississippi
without the safeguards in this bill that respect the environment. This
project will have the second largest environmental restoration program
in the Nation.
Finally, we do not need another study. We do not need further delays.
We need to move forward with the project to modernize the navigation
system, while providing congressional oversight in making certain that
the environmental restoration protections are implemented.
The gentleman from Tennessee (Chairman Duncan) has indicated that
this bill probably has more support from the business community and
labor unions than any bill that we will consider this year.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller), a member of the
committee.
(Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in
support of H.R. 2864, the Water Resources Development Act of 2005. This
important legislation is long overdue in addressing the needs of our
Nation's water resources infrastructure. I commend the gentleman from
Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Chairman
Duncan) for their hard work and dedication in drafting a water
infrastructure policy that sets our Nation on the course to an
economically and environmentally sustainable future.
The dependability of our Nation's water infrastructure could not be
more vital to the health, safety, and overall quality of life of every
American. As a Representative from Southern California, where we face
significant water supply challenges, a safe and reliable water supply
infrastructure system is particularly important to me.
The work to implement needed flood control measures is critical to
preventing loss of life and property to our Nation's communities. This
bill is critical to accommodating the many more flood control projects
awaiting authorization. In addition, this bill streamlines the
feasibility study process and enforces policies that are based on sound
science.
The enactment of this bill is of critical importance to the Nation's
environmental and economic well-being. For every $1 billion spent on
water resources development activities, approximately 40,000 jobs are
created. In addition, an estimated $706 billion in damages has been
prevented through flood reduction projects, representing a 6-to-1
return on investment.
Congress must commit to infrastructure investments now to leave
behind a legacy of economic security and opportunity for future
generations.
This bill provides a Federal commitment to such infrastructure
investments, leaving behind a legacy of safe and reliable water
infrastructure systems.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this important bill to ensure our
Nation has an economically and environmentally sound water resources
infrastructure.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Eddie Bernice Johnson) for her leadership and the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). I also want to thank the staff
on both sides, but the staff on our side has kept us well informed of
the progress of the bill, worked with us on the projects that we
needed; and I greatly appreciate the work that they have all done on
this.
I support the underlying bill. I am looking forward to the manager's
amendment from the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). Many of us
throughout the Nation have projects in here. I just want to stress a
couple that are important to my own constituents in Imperial and San
Diego counties in California.
The New River in my district starts in Mexico, flows into the Salton
Sea, one of the biggest bodies of water in the United States which I
share with the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono). This river, the
New River, has been described as the world's most polluted river. Due
to grossly inadequate sewage treatment and solid waste facilities in
Mexico, raw sewage, industrial waste, and garbage, up to 50 million
gallons a day, are constantly released into the New River.
It violates every water quality standard we have. Plants and animals
cannot survive in the New River, and it threatens the health and safety
of the residents of my district. It also runs through the Imperial
County farmlands that supply many of our Nation's winter crops. By
supplying the funds to treat and clean up this river in this bill, we
are assuring the health and well-being of the food that we feed to the
children of our Nation.
The New River also runs through the city of Brawley, California,
which has its own water quality problems. The city's proximity to the
United States-Mexico border makes both their air and water vulnerable
to pollution that comes up from Mexico. This legislation will provide
funds to the Brawley area to improve the conditions in their water.
Finally, WRDA provides the appropriate funding level to San Diego
County for the removal of non-native exotic species from the drinking
water in the Sweetwater Reservoir. My constituents, like everyone
throughout the country, deserve clean water. This legislation provides
them with the resources to make this a reality.
As our speakers have said, this is a bipartisan, well-written bill
which will not only help in creating jobs across the Nation, but will
help provide safe and clean water for our future. So please join me in
supporting this bill and the manager's amendment. We are truly voting
to ensure America's future.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Mack), an outstanding member of our committee.
Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support for
the Water Resources Development Act of 2005, also known as WRDA. This
important legislation affirms our continuing commitment to our Nation's
water resources infrastructure and will help protect and preserve our
Nation's freedom, security, and prosperity.
Today's WRDA bill includes several projects that are significant for
southwest Florida. Before I highlight one of those projects, I would
like to thank our colleague and my subcommittee chairman, the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), for his partnership and leadership in his
efforts to produce a WRDA bill that addresses the needs of our Nation.
I also want to thank the subcommittee staff for all of their hard work
in getting this critical legislation to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, the Water Resources Development Act is important
legislation that sets forth a comprehensive national water resources
policy, together with authorization of civil works projects that are
investments in America. It will improve our transportation
infrastructure, bolster our environment, and enhance our quality of
life.
This legislation is vitally important to Florida. In particular, this
bill will support restoration of the Everglades, one of our Nation's
most precious ecosystems. South Florida, which includes
[[Page H5813]]
my district, is home to millions of Americans, several of the fastest-
growing cities in the country, and a huge tourism industry, and also
contains one of the most unique environmental resources in the country.
Over the past century, manmade changes to the region's water flow
have provided important economic benefits to the region, but have also
had devastating effects on the environment. The Federal Government and
the State of Florida have begun a long-term partnership to restore the
ecosystem and preserve it for future generations.
Make no mistake: environmental restoration projects like these
improve water quality and habitats, benefit our people and wildlife.
The actions we are considering today will support this continued
partnership.
Mr. Chairman, the Water Resources Development Act of 2005 is good for
my district in southwest Florida, it is good for the State of Florida,
and it is good for the Nation. I encourage my colleagues to vote for
this critical legislation.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the
purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will submit my statement for
the Record in support of this legislation and in support of the Halls
Bayou Federal Flood Control Project in Houston, Texas.
Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the Subcommittee on Water
Resources and the full Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for
reporting out the Water Resources Development Act, WRDA, of 2005. I
appreciate your inclusion of our language for the Halls Bayou Federal
Flood Control Project in Houston, Texas.
Historic flooding along Halls Bayou has been severe and frequent in
some neighborhoods. During Tropical Storm Allison in June 2001, Halls
Bayou was hit very hard, with more than 8,000 homes flooding within the
watershed. No project can keep all homes from flooding, but a project
can help reduce the risk of flooding for a significant number of
families, reducing the need for Federal assistance, property damage,
and loss of life.
The purpose of section 5128 of this legislation which pertains to
Halls Bayou is to allow the Harris County Flood Control District,
HCFCD, to conduct the GRR and any subsequent Federal interest project
on Halls Bayou. The Corps is limited in its staff, resources, and time
with the many projects in the Galveston District and the Southwest
Division. Local project sponsors with the necessary expertise, like
Harris County, can provide efficiency by becoming more involved.
Halls Bayou, a major tributary of Greens Bayou, was authorized in
WRDA 1990 as part of the Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries Project. The
original Halls Bayou authorization assumed the Greens Bayou project in
place, which is now finishing a General Reevaluation Review, GRR.
Results indicate that the work on Greens Bayou downstream of Halls
Bayou will not have Federal work although it will have significant
local projects. Therefore, a GRR is now needed for Halls Bayou as well.
While conducting the GRR to find a possible Federal interest, Harris
County can begin project implementation in order to reduce future flood
damage as soon as possible. Adding Halls Bayou to section 211(f) allows
Harris County to be reimbursed if the project is later approved by the
Secretary. I thank the Subcommittee and full Committee for their work
on this issue.
I support the bill and the balance that it strikes between the need
to improve water resources for human purposes and to preserve our water
uses for the environment and future generations.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes
to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy
in permitting me to speak on this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, this Water Resources Development Act is an important
start to change the way that we do business. I salute the hard work
from our chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young); the gentleman
from Minnesota (Ranking Member Oberstar); the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson); and a special note of thanks to
the vision and hard work of my friend, the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. Duncan), to move forward with ways that we ought to be dealing
with water resources.
Usually, in the past, Congress has produced just a collection of
projects and, too often in the past, things that make the Corps of
Engineers' job harder: Too little money to deal with a huge backlog
that contains the good, the bad, the ugly, and the obsolete. We make
the job of the Corps of Engineers even harder, since they are operating
under outdated principles and guidelines that have not been updated
since 1983. You would not go to a heart surgeon or a brain surgeon
under that circumstance. The Corps of Engineers is facing an almost $60
billion backlog, and only $2 billion a year of construction money for
these critical projects, and this makes it intensely political.
Well, this brings me to the dinosaur of the navigation projects that
is in this bill which has been referenced by my good friend, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello). The Upper Mississippi Lock
Project is going to be the most expensive navigation project in
history. Where I must take modest exception to my friend, the gentleman
from Illinois, we are not walking away. We have not walked away. He
would not let us walk away from the problems of Mississippi navigation.
In fact, I think we have an $88 million renovation project that is
occurring right now immediately adjacent to where there is going to be
a massive new lock built. We have invested appropriately almost $1
billion, almost $1 billion in the last 25 years. So, any hint that we
have walked away or that we do not care about the Mississippi sysem is
wrong. Congress has proven that it does care, and it has invested. Have
we invested everything that one would want in all of these locks? Look
at your district and see if Congress has ever invested everything that
you want and need. But given a $60 billion backlog, we have done a
pretty good job dealing with this channel.
Now, I deeply, deeply respect the work the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Costello) has done in the past. I do not know who is opposing this
project on environmental grounds. Those words have not come from my
mouth. I appreciate the hard work that the gentleman did earlier, I
think that this is very important environmental restoration work, and
it is work that is long overdue. We have treated the Mississippi River
as a machine for well over a century; and the wildlife, the people who
depend on it for recreation, for the environmental health, they need
these environmental investments, they deserve it, and I hope it
happens. But I think what we need to be focusing on is how we are going
to deal with this massive project.
Now, I am not here today to say that it should be eliminated. I again
take modest exception to the notion that you must pick studies, dueling
studies. The independent studies from the National Academy of Science
time and time and time again have documented that the economic
justification is not there. In fact, we had the Inspector General find
that the corps, under intense political pressure, cooked the books, two
generals and a colonel lost their job. It was a scandal, and a
whistleblower had to get protection because he was going to be fired
for just telling the truth.
Well, what we have offered as an amendment is a safety valve that if
the experts, the independent experts are wrong and barge traffic is
going to go up, not decline, then the project goes ahead, because the
corps cannot build this project for another 4 or 5 years anyway. It
goes ahead, and we continue spending lots of money renovating the
existing locks. But our amendment is a safety valve and a reality
check.
Now, I think this bill is a good start. I hope our amendment is
approved, because there is an effort here to accelerate the good work
that the committee, past and present, has done. We are going to
strongly urge that we make the transition to make sure that given the
troubled history of this project, given the fact that it will impact
every district across the country competing for scarce resources, we
ought to have this safety valve and reality check.
I strongly urge approval of the bill and approval of the Flake-
Blumenauer amendment at the appropriate time.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to share my admiration for
the good work of the subcommittee. I have enjoyed my service, and I
look
[[Page H5814]]
forward to working as it moves forward through the legislative process.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Foley), a strong proponent of the Everglades portion of
this legislation.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Tennessee
(Chairman Duncan) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) and
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for all of their
work in helping us improve the quality of life in Florida.
This provision in this bill is critically needed for the State of
Florida and for our national treasure, the Everglades. It is being
polluted. It is being destroyed. And much like a patient, it is waiting
for emergency surgery. This bill finally allocates, after many years of
attempts, to fund the necessary reconstruction and replumbing of
Florida's Everglades, specifically, the Indian River Lagoon, which is a
project of massive proportion that is important to the restoration of
the Everglades and cleaning up our tributaries, our lagoons, and our
estuaries.
{time} 1215
I want to thank our local and State and Federal parties who have
worked tirelessly to ensure this plan would be included in the bill. My
constituents in Martin County have come on repeated occasions to our
Nation's Capital at their own expense, to plead for funding for this
important Indian River Lagoon Project. They have organized rallies.
They have written letters. And they have passed on themselves a half-
penny sales tax to show their commitment is not only through deeds but
through fiscal actions.
So they have taken it upon themselves to assist in raising the
necessary moneys to complete this project. I want to thank the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, the Jacksonville District, who worked
tirelessly with our State partner, the South Florida Water Management
District, Governor Bush and the cabinet have worked and have weighed in
on this issue, and I have to thank the White House as well for paving
the way to make this very, very important financial commitment to the
restoration of America's treasured Everglades.
The committee has listened to me many, many years pleading for this
project to be included. I thank them for listening. Time now is for
action, for not only the House to pass WRDA, to include the Indian
River Lagoon, but for the Senate to act accordingly and bring this to
fruition. I thank all parties involved, and I hope we have a very
strong vote in support.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\
minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the
time. I thank her for her very hard and thoughtful work on this bill.
I thank the gentleman from Tennessee, (Chairman Duncan) as well. I
appreciated the hearings you had trying to press us really to new
plateaus on water projects. I am grateful for the inclusion in the
manager's amendment of an amendment that would require the Secretary to
coordinate with the governor, the mayors, for a 10-year plan for
restoration of the Anacostia River which flows within sight of the
Congress. In many ways, it is the Congressional River, not only because
it is so near, but because if you will forgive me, when Congressional
toilets flush on a rainy day, the waste from the Anacostia, the waste
goes into the Anacostia River and finds its way all of the way down to
the Chesapeake Bay, one of the great wonders of the United States.
This is about more than beauty, however; it is about health and the
ecologically integrity of the waterways of this entire region. The
Federal Government is a major offender. One-third of the sewer system
here serves the Federal presence. The Federal Government is a rate
payer; it would not be a rate payer, of course, if it was not strongly
and significantly involved. The Federal Government built the sewer
system here 100 years ago. The Corps of Engineers still runs it.
But the Federal Government is not a major contributor to the billion
dollar combined sewer overflow problem, much of it of its own Federal
making.
There are many projects in this bill. We do have $55 million in this
bill, for which I am very grateful, but historically, if you look over
the last 20 years, there have been projects, large amounts of money to
jurisdictions and projects which have absolutely no relationship to the
Federal sector.
Here we have the Federal sector deeply involved, a billion-dollar
problem, and we have yet to really get to the bottom of it.
I want to particularly thank you for the way in which the Chairman
and the ranking member have understood this problem, and for the ways
they have made us understand that part of the problem is a larger one,
our approach to water rehabilitation, which is starkly different from
the way we understand we have to rehabilitate roads. We cannot see what
is happening in our water structures. We can see what is happening on
our roads. It is time we saw what is happening to our health when we do
not deal with our waterways in the same way.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman I yield 1 minute at this time to the
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson.)
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, you will hear today and you have heard
today that modernizing our locks and dams on the Mississippi River is a
financial boondoggle. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
And economically, waterway transportation is the most efficient mode
of transporting commercial freight. Our fleet today carries 800 tons of
raw materials and finished goods each year, and it adds $5 billion to
the United States' economy.
A typical inland barge holds a capacity of 15 tons greater than one
rail car, and 60 times greater than one semi-trailer truck. Waterway
transportation is also the most environmentally friendly mode of
commercial transportation.
I would like to remind my colleagues from Oregon and Arizona that
modernization of the Ohio River navigation system has been ongoing for
more than 40 years, and updated to current value, investments to
restore that navigation system would far surpass the cost of
improvements on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois waterways.
You know, we ship millions of tons of agricultural commodities--oil,
gas, chemicals, fertilizers, hazardous materials--up and down the
Mississippi River because it is safer, and it is less costly. For this
reason, we must continue the modernization process and defeat Flake-
Blumenauer when it comes up later today.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes
to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz.)
Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support
of the Water Resources Development Act. I want to acknowledge the
wonderful work, important work of the chairman and ranking member for
their efforts and the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for their leadership in
bringing this much needed bill to the floor today.
It has been 5 years since Congress has passed a water resources bill,
legislation that is significant in recognizing the Federal Government's
commitment to improving the navigational safety of our waterways and
upgrading our local water infrastructure.
My colleagues, we cannot take the safety and security of our water
for granted. Many of the sewer and drinking water pipes in our Nation
today were installed 50 to 100 years ago. Those pipes are showing their
age, leaking, cracking, breaking. By passing this legislation, we
reaffirm Congress's commitment to providing clean and safe water in
communities across the Nation.
The bill also contains an important provision that compliments the--
recently passed in the House--bill, called the Delaware River
Protection Act, legislation crafted by the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. LoBiondo), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the gentleman from Delaware
(Mr. Castle) and myself, to respond to the November 2004 oil spill that
occurred alongside our districts in the Port of Philadelphia.
The oil spill struck at the heart of our region, dumping 265,000
gallons of oil in the Delaware River. Its effect was devastating,
temporarily shutting
[[Page H5815]]
down a nuclear power plant, impeding trade, injuring, killing wildlife
and putting the area's drinking water at risk.
The Delaware River Protection Act will bolster our ability to better
provide for the environmental integrity and economic vitality of the
Delaware River and the greater Philadelphia area.
Additionally, today's legislation gives the Army Corps of Engineers
the authority to remove debris from the riverbed of the Delaware River,
an authority we need to keep the river safe for navigation and to
prevent a similar incident in the future.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this bill. It is
time to let our local and State officials know that we will continue
working with them to maintain our water infrastructure, something that
is so important to protecting Americans' health.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Upton) for the purpose of making a brief statement and
entering into a colloquy.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the committee on both sides
of the aisle, particularly all of the parties. I just want to explain,
when I was in Michigan this last week, over the July 4th recess, I met
with my Corps of Engineers as it related to the harbor in St. Joe and
Benton Harbor.
They asked that we take steps necessary to lower the depth of the
harbor from 21 feet to 23 feet, which would be consistent with the
other harbors along Lake Michigan, Holland, as well as Muskegon and
Traverse City.
I realize that it is too late now, as the rule has been pending, to
offer that as an amendment. And I would just like to receive an
assurance from both sides that we will work together in conference to
include the appropriate language, so that, at the end of the day, in
fact, that we will be able to see this harbor dredged, obviously with
the correct appropriation from the proper subcommittee.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. DUNCAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is my
understanding that this is a very fine project that the gentleman has
endorsed and is strongly proposing here, and we will be glad to work
with the gentleman in every way to assure that this ends up in the
legislation.
Mr. UPTON. Thank you.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that
I agree to work with this change in conference.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Salazar.)
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from
Texas for yielding me this time to speak on this important bill.
I rise today to express my strong support for the Water Resource
Development Act of 2005. As a new Member of Congress, I am also proud
to be on a part of the committee that works in such a bipartisan way. I
would like to recognize the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) the ranking member as well
as the gentleman from Tennessee (Chairman Duncan) and the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for their strong leadership.
Today, each Member will have an opportunity to vote for a bill that
is about investing in America. It is about investing in our
infrastructure. And to me, it is about addressing rural Colorado's
water resources needs.
WRDA will authorize new projects for the Corps of Engineers,
including certain environmental restoration projects in our rivers and
our lakes. I am pleased that WRDA contains two projects that are
critical to water resources in my district out in Colorado.
The first project is out in the eastern part of my district and
provides for water transmission infrastructure in Pueblo and Otero
Counties for safe drinking water.
The second will help the water and wastewater related infrastructure
for the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe in southeastern Colorado. Like many
areas, the needs of the Third Congressional District and the county
resources are stretched thin. But assistance from the Army Corps will
go far.
I thank the leadership for the support of these projects. Water is
the lifeblood of rural Colorado. After 5 years of delay, Congress
should move quickly and put WRDA on the President's desk for signature.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes for WRDA.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a member of the
committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the chairman. I thank him for the work that he
has done on this bill, and managing this bill on the floor today.
Later on today, there will be an amendment coming forward that is
being sponsored by my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Stupak) any myself.
And what this amendment will do is it will ensure that the Corps of
Engineers uses the criteria that it used in 2004 for the projects in
the harbors that will be dredged under this bill. It is important to my
district.
I represent a district with over 200 miles of Lake Michigan
shoreline, and a number of different harbors, and the Corps of
Engineers had proposed a criteria that would have meant that a number
of my harbors would no longer have qualified for dredging.
Well, when you are along the shores of Lake Michigan, you begin to
realize that, for many of these communities, both from an economic
development, both recreational and commercial, the harbor is the
lifeblood to these communities.
When this amendment is brought forward, and it is going to be
supported by the gentleman managing the bill, I thank him for his
support. As that amendment becomes part of the bill, it will ensure
that the harbors, these kinds of harbors will get the dredging that is
necessary to keep them open.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans).
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for H.R.
2864, particularly the provisions authorizing the projects in the Upper
Mississippi River Basin.
As many of our colleagues know, the Corps began studying the locking
needs on the river nearly 12 years ago. Those locks were designed a
long time ago. They need to be modernized and improved sooner rather
than later.
Farmers in Brazil, China and other competing countries have had the
advantage of government investment in infrastructure to ship their
goods. We must invest in expanding our locks so that our farmers can
compete.
Additionally the bill addresses the ecosystem's needs for the areas
of the river. The Corps projects will help restore the wildlife along
the Mississippi. These resources put to improving the ecosystem are a
necessary compliment to lock improvement.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this improvement and
support H.R. 2864.
{time} 1230
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. LaHood), a former member of the committee.
(Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman very much for his
leadership and certainly on the minority side, I thank them for their
leadership over there to all the staff.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill and certainly against
the Flake amendment. But the important part of this bill, I think, for
the country is we are going to fix the potholes in the river. That is
what I call the locks and dams. They have not been touched for over 50
years. They need to be replaced. They need to be repaired. These are
the pot holes; and if we have potholes in our roads, we fix them up.
The potholes on the rivers are the locks and dams.
This bill provides the authorization that will allow the Committee on
Appropriations to come up with the money to implement the plan that has
been long overdue and long coming with the Corps of Engineers' $3.2
billion over 15 years that will help those who use the Illinois and
Mississippi Rivers
[[Page H5816]]
to continue to have it be the navigable waterway that is so important
for the transportation of the food and fiber that is used and produced
all along those two waterways.
I encourage all to support the bill and to vote against the Flake
amendment.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Eddie Bernice Johnson) for yielding me time, and I appreciate the great
job that she and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) have done
with this bill along with the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the
ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
I rise in support of this bill and the good work it does with the
environment and with environmental restoration, but I must speak
against the Flake-Blumenauer amendment. I know that these gentlemen
have good intentions and good will in their hearts, but I have to tell
you that I think they are terribly misguided.
It is interesting to me that we have two folks opposed to something
on the Mississippi River that live a thousand miles from there and live
in States where they do not have any water. There are rivers in their
States that are empty. They are just nothing but a hole in the ground.
Those of us in the Mississippi River Valley understand what a critical,
essential thing it is to our economy to have a navigable Mississippi
River, and that is what we are talking about here is maintaining and
improving the ability to have a superhighway into the international
marketplace at a time when we are moving into a world economy for that
part of the central United States.
It would be absolutely insane not to complete the restoration of the
navigation capacity of the upper Mississippi River, and that is why you
should oppose the Flake-Blumenauer amendment.
This is a good thing. It would make just as much sense for me to
offer an amendment to do away with the maintenance on the interstate
highways in the States of Arizona and Oregon. I would not do that. What
we need to do is to expedite the repair and maintenance and restoration
of the capacity to navigate the upper Mississippi River and the entire
navigation system of this country. It is absolutely essential to our
economic growth and our economic well-being in today's worldwide
economy.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the very distinguished
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).
(Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time. I rise to speak in favor of this long overdue Water Resources
Development Act and to applaud the chairman and ranking member for
bringing it to the floor, but specifically to speak strongly in
opposition to the amendment offered by my colleagues, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer).
I grew up in the shadow of the levees along the Mississippi River
that protect the fertile farm land in southeast Missouri and delivered
grain from our family's farm to barge terminals; and those extra cents
per bushel have helped keep food on our table and keep that family farm
within our family.
I am presently privileged to represent Missouri's ninth district
which includes about 120 miles of the Mississippi, four of the locks in
question, several important environmental projects, including
mitigation and habitat restoration. Let me echo what the gentleman who
just spoke, my friend from Arkansas, said, that it is a little bit
frustrating for those of us who know and understand and appreciate the
character and the many facets of the Mississippi River to deal with an
amendment that has been offered by those whose personal knowledge of
locks and dams is a seat on a plane 30,000 feet above these very
structures which maintain the navigable waterway of the Mississippi
River.
When the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) was a signatory to a
letter to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) back in March of
2004 urging a line item appropriation to dredge the Columbia River
channel from 40 to 43 feet, I did not object because the gentleman
should know his own district and how it affects his infrastructure in
his area.
Let me just address some of the concerns that have been raised by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). First of all, I have been
hearing that this amendment by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake)
and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is a compromise.
The underlying bill is a compromise. There are 29 locks and dams on
the upper Mississippi River. We are talking about modernizing five of
those locks on the upper Mississippi along with two on the Illinois
River.
We have heard the discussion about this being a costly boondoggle,
that the cost-benefit analysis does not justify modernization of locks
and dams. Here are some facts. First of all, I did not hear from the
gentleman offering the amendment that we should have a cost-benefit
analysis for the environmental restoration portion of the bill.
Secondly, as the chairman pointed out in his opening remarks, $900
million, half of the cost of modernizing the locks and dams, is already
being borne by the barge owners and operators with this 20-cent-per-
fuel excise tax that is now going into the Inland Waterway Trust Fund.
What is interesting, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that 40 percent of the
funds in that trust fund have been placed there by the upper
Mississippi barge owners and operators, and yet only about 15 percent
of the trust fund is used on projects that help those operators on the
upper Mississippi.
It is not the first time those of us in the Midwest helped subsidize
infrastructure across the country. Highway 89 that cuts through the
gentleman from Arizona's (Mr. Flake) district, those of us in the
Midwest helped subsidize the maintenance of that highway.
Just as the light rail project the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer) has pushed for, about 48 cents out of a dollar is borne by
the passengers of the light rail system. We pick up the rest of the
cost. I think that is appropriate just as the users of the upper
Mississippi are paying for half the cost.
Let me say on the issue of traffic decreasing, because the gentleman
talked about the $900 million that has been invested in modernization
already. Even with those investments, these 1930s facilities, we are
losing 10 percent a year and have for the last 10 years, 10 percent
reliability. And so the fact is if a project is broken, it is time to
fix it. You do not wait to see if it gets better.
Traffic has been increasing on the inland waterway system everywhere
except in the upper Mississippi because of the declining condition of
these locks and dams. It is time we modernize them.
I urge a vote for the water bill and a strong vote ``no'' against the
Flake-Blumenauer amendment.
I thank the gentleman for bringing forth a WRDA bill that balances
all needs. I also want to thank both Chairman Young and Chairman Duncan
for honoring my request and including the modernization of seven locks
on the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway in this
legislation.
I urge all members to support the modernization of these locks and
oppose the Flake-Blumenauer amendment that would ensure that the
Mississippi and Illinois Rivers remain gravel roads in a world filled
with interstates.
No one would say that our Nation's trucks should transport materials
on roads built in the 1930s. But we are forcing the barges on the
Mississippi River to use locks built in that far-gone era. Doing so
limits our access to export markets and increases the load on our
already over-burdened road and rail system.
Today we will hear supporters of this amendment say that river
traffic has decreased; this is true but is very misleading. Barge
traffic has decreased only in the section of river that contains these
woefully outdated and undersized locks. When you look at stretches of
the river that are unencumbered by 1930's technology, barge traffic is
increasing.
Why? Because this section is plagued by delays and unscheduled
maintenance closures, in fact, the capacity of the system is decreasing
by 10 percent per year because of these closures. Thus, shippers are
forced to stay away from this section of the river and
[[Page H5817]]
must use road or rail to transport their crops. Doing so increases
transportation costs by almost 30 percent.
When something is broke you don't wait to see if it will get better
on its own, you fix it before the problem gets worse. Yet Congressmen
Flake and Blumenauer publicly say they want to wait and see if the
situation improves. In reality they are using these costly lock delays
and the shippers' regrettable but understandable lack of confidence in
1930's technology to achieve their goal of eliminating this project,
saying, ``If they come we might build it.''
Additionally, the Flake-Blumenauer amendment contains no exceptions
for droughts, floods or other factors outside of anyone's control that
could impact the amount of cargo transported during their three-year
window. Quite frankly, acts of God should not preclude us from helping
farmers secure export markets.
Nor should we be forced to justify this project during a very small
window of time; we need to look long term. The long-term effects of
inaction more than justify the project. If we allow the delays at our
outdated locks to continue, farmers will lose $562 million per year,
the Nation would lose more than 20,000 jobs and our trade deficit will
increase by $264 million. Moreover, corn exports will be decreased by
68 million bushels per year, soybean exports by 10 million per year,
all before the year 2020.
And every day we delay is a day where more cargo is taken off of the
river and put on trucks and rails. These are dangerous options for all
Americans, dangerous to the driving public because every tow and barge
that is taken off the river is replaced by 870 trucks on our highways,
increasing the likelihood of accidents by 5,967 percent. And dangerous
for the shipper because every barge is replaced by 225 rail cars that
even the rail industry says it does not have, creating a situation
where farmers will be able to grow crops and even sell crops but never
be able to ship these crops.
If you support trade, providing farmers access to as many markets as
possible and oppose adding 4 million semi trucks to our overcrowded
roads, come join me and the American Farm Bureau, the Carpenters Union,
the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, the National Corn Growers, and the
American Soybean Association--to name a few--in our opposition to the
Flake-Blumenauer Amendment.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).
(Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate sharing with the committee I
used to serve on.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, we just came from talking to Iowa corn
growers a few minutes ago, and this is a terribly important thing to
Iowa and many States which I will mention as we discuss this very
important matter.
Today we have the opportunity to support and extend the vitality of
the Nation's economy by supporting the upper Mississippi River locks
and dams projects included in this bill.
The upper Mississippi River waterway system is in severe need of
update and repair. Until these projects are completed, many of our
farmer owners who ship out of Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin,
Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, Kansas, and
Missouri will continue to experience costly delays and inefficient
transportation.
This legislation is crucial to preserving U.S. agricultural
competitiveness in markets worldwide.
Last year we saw an emergency closure of Lock & Dam 27 in Granite
City, Illinois. The effect of a 2-week closure at a single site can be
felt in the pocketbooks of many of my constituents. If we do not act
now to repair these locks and dams, we continue to risk shut-down at
any number of sites, the effect of which would be disastrous.
Barge traffic on the Mississippi River represents the most efficient,
most cost-effective, most environmentally sound means of transporting
commodity goods from this region of the country to market. If we move
away from the barge traffic, the expense we would have of creating new
roads and rail to accommodate this traffic would be daunting. Each year
hundreds of millions of tons of commerce move through the upper
Mississippi River system; this is equivalent to roughly 67,000 barges.
To replace barge traffic with truck and rail traffic would require 1
million rail cars or 4 million trucks. This is the most cost-efficient
way to support and maintain the agriculture economy in our Nation.
The 2005 Water Resources Development Act is important in many ways;
but at its heart it is about job creation, reducing the burden of
transportation costs of American producers, promoting U.S. agriculture
exports, and supporting the most environmental friendly mode of
transportation.
For the good of our environment, the good of the economy, and the
good of the Nation, I strongly urge support of the upper Mississippi
locks and dams project.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Water Resources
Development Act.
As Congressman Mo Udall used to say, Everything that has been said
has been said. It just has not been said by everybody that needs to say
it.
There are a lot of good things in this bill. I am particularly
supportive of the sections pertaining to the Mississippi and Illinois
rivers.
Enlarging and improving the navigation on these rivers will create
jobs, promote economic growth, and also strengthen the environment by
providing $1.6 billion in environmental restoration funding. This is
good for the economy and the environment.
If everything we did in this country was like this legislation on
other pieces of legislation, other problems that we were trying to
tackle in this country, we would be a better place and a better
country.
Navigation in the upper Mississippi supports more than 400,000 jobs
and 90,000 high-paying manufacturing jobs. Every year, shipping in the
upper Mississippi River adds up to about $1.2 billion to our economy.
Lock modernization will provide 48 million man hours of labor for
Midwest workers. But just as important, the bill provides $1.6 billion
in Federal funding for environmental restoration which will also be
important economically. In fact, under the bill, for every dollar spent
on construction, we spend $2 on environmental restoration.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It is a balanced approach. It is
right for the economy. It is right for the environment, and it is good
for the Nation.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time is
remaining?
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Latham). The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Eddie Bernice Johnson) has 4 minutes remaining. The gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy
in permitting me to speak.
I wanted to just clarify something. I really appreciate the
interaction that we are having here, but there is an element of
confusion.
Some of the talking points that the opposition to our amendment in
the upper Mississippi have been distributing contain the notion that we
have ignored the upper Mississippi River, that the locks are ignored.
They are antiquated. They are crumbling. We have not done anything. One
of my colleagues from Illinois said that we had not touched them for 50
years.
Now, it may be in the talking points, but it is not true. Right now
there is $88 million that is being spent on Lock 24 for important
reconstruction. And I appreciated the anecdote that my friend from
Missouri pointed out in terms of a problem that occurred when there was
a visitation recently to the big 1,200-foot lock where there were seven
bolts that were sheared off. That story he shared with me is exactly
the point.
{time} 1245
We need to spend money to maintain what we have in place right now.
We have spent almost $1 billion. We are not adequately maintaining the
current locks. My friends are confusing building elaborate expensive
new construction, which may or may not happen in its entirety, with
adequate
[[Page H5818]]
maintenance for what is there now. This is missing the point. I
respectfully suggest that we not in the course of this debate confuse
these points.
I take modest exception to the notion that just because we are moving
forward with efforts to invest in America's infrastructure and trying
to protect what we have, that we are somehow alleging that we have this
vast river system that we are ignoring. We have not, we are not, and we
will not ignore the river's needs.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).
Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, to my friend from Oregon I would
personally invite him to come out and view these. Some of these locks,
built, again, Mr. Chairman, in the 1930s, are standing just out of
habit, with bailing wire and duct tape. And the Corps of Engineers has
done a magnificent job.
Here is the reason, which I did not get to address earlier as far as
the trigger that is in the gentleman's amendment. The trigger, the
tonnage requirement the gentleman has in his amendment, does not take
into account, for instance, the weather. A year ago, because of high
water, the river was shut down as far as barge navigation. In low-water
years, barges can only fill halfway, for instance.
So by putting this trigger mechanism in place, it does not take into
account the many variables like weather, like the failure of one of the
locks, which I did share with the gentleman, a bad harvest year,
fluctuating market prices that may mean farmers choose to store their
grain rather than ship their grain.
Again, I certainly acknowledge the intent with which the gentleman is
bringing this amendment; but, again, because of the age of these locks
and dams, it is time for modernization.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. 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 think everyone here knows that I am one of the most fiscally
conservative Members of this Congress, but this is a very fiscally
conservative bill. It is not fiscally conservative to let a very
important asset to deteriorate, and so I urge passage of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time.
I did not plan to come and speak before the amendment was offered,
but hearing the debate on the floor now, I am wondering which amendment
is being described. Surely it cannot be the one we are offering,
because the one we are offering does not scrub the project and does not
say it cannot go forward. It simply says it should go forward only if
the minimum requirements that have been laid out are met in terms of it
being economically viable and useful. That is all we are saying. It is
a pretty darn low bar.
We are saying, let us take the bottom standard that the corps, the
National Academy of Sciences, CRS, and other groups have said is
feasible in order to make the project go forward. If it is not, it
should not be built. If it is met, it should be built.
I heard some discussion about, well, we would not go to your district
and say you should not build that road or should not build that
waterway or whatever if it is something you want. Well, if I say I need
a road and it is going to carry 1,000 people per day, and over the next
3 years we find out it is only going to carry 800 per day or 500 per
day, I hope my colleagues vote against it. They ought to. That is why
they are here. That is why we are all here in this position.
We have a near-$400 billion deficit this year; a nearly $8 trillion
debt. If we are not willing to husband our resources better than that,
what hope do we have of getting ahold over this debt and deficit?
Our amendment, again to be clear, does not say this project should
not go forward. It simply says it ought to meet the requirements that
have been laid out by those who are advocating the project itself. So
this amendment that has been spoken of, I can assure all of my
colleagues, it is not being offered. The amendment that is being
offered, the Flake-Blumenauer amendment, says that the requirements
simply need to be met. It needs to be economically viable and feasible.
Mr. Chairman, we need to protect taxpayer resources and make sure
that they are spent prudently. That is what this amendment is all
about; and I would urge my colleagues, when it comes time, to vote for
the Flake-Blumenauer amendment.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
Water Resources Development Act.
I'd first like to thank Chairmen Young and Duncan, Ranking Members
Oberstar and Johnson, and the committee staff. They have worked
tirelessly on this bill. I appreciate all they have done to be
responsive to member requests, and to work across the aisle to reach
bipartisan agreement on many contentious issues.
This bill is important for me for both its regional and national
significance.
In Louisiana, we will see a very direct impact from this legislation.
Louisiana is losing its coastline from erosion at the staggering rate
of a 15,000 acres per year. USGS estimates that the state has already
lost about 1.22 million acres of coastal wetland in the past 70 years,
which is roughly equivalent to the area of Delaware.
As ``America's Wetlands'', the coast of Louisiana provides much of
the seafood and shellfish, oil and natural gas, and agricultural
commodities enjoyed by the rest of the country. In fact, more than 80
percent of the country's offshore oil and gas is produced off our
coast, and 25 percent of the foreign and domestic oil used in this
country comes ashore through our ports. It is estimated that more than
25 percent of the seafood consumed in the country comes through
Louisiana, and that more than 75 percent of the marine species in the
northern Gulf of Mexico spend a portion of their lifecycles in the
wetlands of Louisiana. The land also serves as a buffer against ocean
storms and protects industries and cities located further inland.
Without the shelter provided by our wetlands, the damage done by a
major hurricane could be catastrophic in terms of dollars and life. The
loss of our coast is more than Louisiana's problem; it's America's
problem. I appreciate the committee's recognition of this problem, and
strongly support provisions in this bill that address Coastal
Louisiana.
This bill is good for more than just Louisiana, though; it is good
for the nation. H.R. 2864 contains important reform provisions that
will improve the way the Corps does business. It streamlines the
approval process for projects; it encourages the Corps of Engineers to
carry out projects in partnerships with its local sponsors; and it
streamlines the process for entering into agreements with local
sponsors. In the end, these reform provisions will save taxpayers money
and speed up the completion time for projects.
H.R. 2864 also benefits American consumers by improving on the
nation's greatly outdated water infrastructure. Shipping via waterway
is the single most cost-effective way to get goods to market, and
improving our waterways will make American exports more competitive and
our imports more affordable.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this legislation and urge my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for H.R.
2864, particularly the provisions authorizing the projects in the Upper
Mississippi River basin.
As many of my colleagues know, the Corps began studying the locking
needs on the Mississippi River nearly 12 years ago. These locks were
built in the 1930s, and were never expected to carry the workload that
they have as long as they have. Today, over 100 million tons of
materials are carried along the Mississippi and Illinois waterways.
Because of their age and their use, the locks are deteriorating and
breaking down. The Corps has done its best to maintain these locks, but
their efforts are compromised due to lack of funding. We have locks
using temporary gates, crumbling concrete, and a host of other concerns
through out the lock system. This leads to costly delays and increased
costs to everyone.
Additionally, the process of double locking, made necessary by the
smaller lock chambers, doubles the workload and the chance for serious
accidents at all of these locks. The added costs and the added risks
could easily be overcome by building 1,200-foot locks.
The locks on the Mississippi and Illinois rivers are vital to the
regions economy creating a cheaper method to ship goods to ports and
then overseas. However, these locks are facing many potential problems
and are getting older every day. They need to be modernized and
improved sooner rather than later.
While some people have expressed concerns about the need to expand
the locks, the people whose livelihood is dependant on them know the
necessity of this project. Farmers in Brazil, China, and other
competing nations
[[Page H5819]]
have had the advantage of government investment in the infrastructure
used to ship their goods. We must invest in expanding our locks so that
our farmers can compete in the global market.
Additionally, this bill also addresses the environmental needs of the
Upper Mississippi River. Water systems are transportation routes for
ships, homes for wildlife, and recreation areas for communities. By
improving the environment of the Mississippi River Basin, we are
investing in all three of these uses.
The Corps projects will help restore the wildlife along the
Mississippi and help with water management. By restoring wildlife
habitat, we will bring back nesting grounds for the bald eagle. By
restoring natural features to the river, we will help mitigate some of
the flooding that can devastate the surrounding area. By restoring fish
passages, we are bringing opportunities for families to come together
to play and fish along the river. it
The resources put in to improving the ecosystem are a necessary
compliment to the lock improvements. The Corps efforts to improve the
ecosystem surrounding the locks and dams will help mitigate the effects
that we have on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. We have a
responsibility to take advantage of the opportunity to provide the
resources for these projects. I am pleased to see that the Committee
took that opportunity.
There are many other vital programs that are in this legislation. For
example, the aquatic ecosystem restoration project at Emiquon in Fulton
County, Illinois will provide researchers and the public an opportunity
to learn about how wetlands work to protect and preserve the
surrounding areas, on land and in the river. The inclusion of the
authorization to complete the Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive
Plan will allow the Corps to finish this vital study that will help
communities along the river to protect themselves from disastrous
flooding. There are many other such projects that will help us examine
what we can do to improve our water resources and implement what we
know.
I urge my colleagues to support the vital Mississippi River lock
improvements and support the underlying legislation.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to congratulate Chairman
John Duncan and Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson--and of course
Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar--for bringing the Water
Resources Development Act, H.R. 2864, to the floor.
Congress has not enacted a new WRDA since 2000--and I applaud the
leaders of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for bringing
a bill to the floor of the House before this year's August recess.
The WRDA Act guides the Army Corps of Engineers' management of our
Nation's waterways and water resources by authorizing projects that in
many cases have literally reshaped the rivers and waterways of our
Nation. For example, past WRDA bills have authorized the massive
restoration of the Florida Everglades--and this WRDA bill authorizes
significant changes to the Upper Mississippi-Illinois Waterway and as
well as projects to restore coastal wetlands in Louisiana.
When we as a Nation assume this kind of control over our
environment--particularly over elements as powerful as our rivers and
coastal plains--I believe it is imperative that policies and procedures
be in place that will ensure that the projects undertaken by the Corps
will achieve clear objectives. It is also essential that the potential
impact of such projects on our natural resources be fully studied and
understood.
We are the stewards of our planet's riches--and we must remember that
we will bequeath them to generations yet unborn. I encourage Congress
to continue to move thoughtfully as this bill is refined and
deliberated through the conference process, which I hope will begin
sooner rather than later.
In closing, I want to thank the committee for authorizing a study in
the 2005 WRDA that will enable us to undertake the kind of informed
interventions that are necessary to preserve the health of the Patapsco
River, which is a critical natural resource in my district in Baltimore
and indeed in the State of Maryland.
WRDA instructs the Corps to assess the impact of debris accumulating
in the Patapsco River basin on wetlands, water quality, and public
health. Using the results of this study, the Corps can assess the
impact of this debris on wetlands, water quality, and public health,
and can then develop strategies to help clean up Baltimore's Inner
Harbor.
I am hopeful that this project will be a component of a larger
initiative planned to restore the water quality and habitat of the
Patapsco River Basin--and I thank the Committee for their continued
support.
Mr. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
manager's amendment to the overall measure as introduced by the
gentleman from Florida because it authorizes additional projects and
calls for a series of additional studies. In addition to authorizing
$349 million, with an estimated Federal cost of $174 million, for
environmental restoration on Picayune Strand, FL; $193 million, with an
estimated federal cost of $123 million, for navigation at Port of
Iberia, LA.; $99 million, with an estimated Federal cost of $64
million, for hurricane and storm-damage reduction in New Jersey; and
other allocations for many critical projects across the country, it
seeks to bring improvement projects to my district of Houston, Texas.
I applaud the Chairman for the inclusion of section 4104 that calls
for a ``study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project
for flood damage reduction'' in Harris County. Tropical Storm Allison
destroyed expansive areas of my district in June 2001. More than 1,400
homes in the Bellaire section received serious flood damage. About 90
percent of Bellaire is in the Brays Bayou flood plain, according to new
maps drawn by the Harris County Flood Control District after that
storm, and I did submit requests in the fiscal year 2006 Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Act for $12,500,000 to be used to fund
for ongoing contracts and to initiate additional construction contracts
to mitigate some of this residual damage.
In addition, it is pleasing that this legislation contains a
provision, section 5123, that will extend funding from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, hazard mitigation grant program to
``the project for flood control, Upper White Oak Bayou, Texas,
authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986.'' Upper White Oak Bayou, almost in its entirety, serves the
northwest corridor of the 18th Congressional District and communities
such as the Heights, Lazybrook-Timbergrove, Oak Forest, Garden Oaks,
and many others.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that as negotiations begin with the other body
that these important projects are retained for their tremendous value
to the communities that have been affected by flood damage.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2863,
The Water Resources and Development Act of 2005, WRDA 05. I commend the
chairman for including in this bill provisions I requested that are
important to Port Canaveral and my constituents in Brevard County,
Florida.
This bill includes several provisions that are important to the
residents of Brevard County as a whole and those living in what has
been referred to as the ``Mid-Reach'' or ``wormrock'' area in
particular.
First, the bill makes it clear that the Corps of Engineers is to
accept the ICE report that was completed by and independent panel
assessing the true impact of Canaveral inlet on the beach south of that
inlet. The ICE report concluded that considerably larger share of the
costs of the Brevard County Storm Damage Protection Project should have
been borne by the federal government. The provision in WRDA 05 will
ensure that Brevard County, Florida is able to recover, as a part of
future renourishment activities, that portion of the costs of the
original renourishment project that should have been borne by the
Federal government.
Second, the bill corrects an error that has been promulgated through
several Corps documents since the mid-1990s and in WRDA 2000 that
incorrectly calculated the length of the ``MidReach'' section of the
Brevard County Storm Damage Protection Project as 7.1 miles rather than
7.6 miles. This encompasses the shoreline from the north end of the
``South Reach'' of the Brevard Beach project to the south end of
Patrick Air Force Base. The correct length of this section of beach is
7.6 miles and it is important that references to this section of beach
be corrected in law.
Third, H.R. 2864 directs the Corps to expedite the General
Reevaluation Report, GRR, for the Mid-Reach section of the Brevard
shoreline. This section of beach will be included as a part of the
original project and mitigation and storm damage protection efforts can
be undertaken.
Finally, H.R. 2864 includes an important provision to ensure that a
sediment trap can be constructed as a part of regular operation and
maintenance at Port Canaveral. This sediment trap south of the approach
channel and east of the south jetty will reduce the probability of a
repeat of severe shoaling in the event of future hurricanes. It is
appropriate to accomplish this work under the operation and maintenance
since this measure is being taken to reduce future maintenance dredging
of the Federal navigation channel. There will be cost savings if this
is accomplished together with regular scheduled maintenance dredging.
The hurricanes that occurred in September 2004 caused severe shoaling
in the approach channel to Port Canaveral. This led to the shutting
down of the port due to inadequate channel depth. This caused the loss
of business and serious problems for cruise ships that had to be
diverted to Miami, for oil tankers that could not deliver fuel to the
port, and for the power station and cargo ships carrying
[[Page H5820]]
lumber and other building materials that were needed for repairs and
reconstruction after the hurricanes. This also impacted access to the
Navy submarine base and Port Canaveral.
I thank the chairman for including these important provisions in this
legislation and I look forward to passage of this legislation in the
Senate.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, let me offer my congratulations to
Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar, and Subcommittee Chairman
Duncan and Congresswoman Johnson, for shepherding this Water Resources
bill to the House floor.
After 5 long years, we know this bill is well overdue.
The bipartisan nature of this WRDA bill, and of the operation of our
committee in general, should be a model for the entire Congress. It is
a credit to this committee that the work of the Corps translates into a
better economy, a cleaner environment, and improved livability for the
people of this Nation.
The Corps has a record of accomplishment that has enhanced
communities across America.
Every year, billions of tons of commerce move over the navigable
waterways the Corps maintains. This creates jobs and assures our
leadership in the global economy. We know that maritime transportation
will become even more critical in the years to come as we grow and
expand our congested intermodal system.
Another key element of the Corps mission is flood control. Death and
displacement due to severe flooding has reoccurred throughout our
Nation's history. Today, many of our major cities in the United States
are protected by Corps of Engineers flood control structures. Flood
protection on average prevents $16 billion in damages each year, saving
us $6 for every $1 invested.
The Passaic River Flood Basin is located smack in the middle of my
Congressional District. People in my district are up in arms about what
is too often a matter of life and death. Like along the Acid Brook in
Pompton Lakes, New Jersey, it is important that the Corps has adequate
authority to address and mitigate flooding issues.
We know that Corps projects are sometimes described as pork barrel
spending. Those who downplay the Corps' importance do not see the
tangible benefit neighborhood by neighborhood. Members of Congress know
their districts, we know what needs to be done, and by voting for this
bill, we will reject the ``pork barrel'' label.
That we have worked out bipartisan compromise on Corps reform, that
we have agreed upon what the Corps needs to focus on in the years
ahead, and that we are on the floor today is a huge victory for the
American people.
I would like to again thank the Committee leadership, especially the
always fair-minded Chairman Duncan, for their strong and untiring
effort to bring this bill to the floor.
Let us urge the other body to complete its work as well, so we might
finally renew our water resources program.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concerns with the Water
Resource Development Act of 2005.
I would like to begin by thanking the committee for authorizing
projects that are important to my district in their bill. Water and
infrastructure are important issues to the sprawling, populated area
that I represent. Each of these projects is important to the residents
of central New Jersey and will enhance the quality of life in my
district.
Although I am pleased that this legislation includes important civil
works projects that will better our nation, I am disappointed that this
legislation does not include stronger reforms of the Army Corps of
Engineers. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is charged with an
important mission--operating our Nation's water resources and civil
works projects. The projects they undertake provide our communities
with clean drinking water, electric power production, river
transportation, ecosystem restoration, and flood protection.
Regrettably, the Army Corps has been plagued by mismanagement that has
resulted in significant delays and distress to the communities that are
in need of these projects.
Although Congress specifically authorizes projects, the Army Corps
has repeatedly ignored these guidelines and set their own priorities.
For years, I have personally been frustrated with the Army Corps
handling of projects in the 12th Congressional District. The most
egregious example of the Army Corps disregard for authorized projects
in my district is the environmental restoration of Grover's Mill Pond.
Located at the site made famous by Orson Well's ``War of the Worlds''
radio broadcast, Grover's Mill is not only a historic site, but it is a
recreation destination and the pond is a vital link to stream
corridors. Years of sediment build-up and runoff from the watershed
have caused the pond to become overrun with aquatic weeds and algae.
In fiscal year 2003, Congress specifically designated $500,000 in
funding for this project, but only a fraction of this amount has been
spent by the Corps on Grover's Mill pond. This pond in its current
condition is not only an eyesore for the community and the residents
who live near it, but gives off an unpleasant smell in the summer.
Completion of this project is long overdue and is just one example of
how the Army Corps fiscal irresponsibility impacts projects across the
Nation.
The Army Corps should be a leading environmental organization, but
too often environmental protection seems to be a secondary
consideration. One large deficiency is their dependence on a planning
policy that was created by the Water Resources Council in 1983. More
than 20 years later, these policies have seen little revision. In
addition, I am concerned with provisions of this bill that would give
the Army Corps new authority to limit dramatically the alternatives it
will consider during project planning and the National Environmental
Policy Act, NEPA, review process. This will undermine NEPA and allow
the Army Corps to proceed with projects before evaluating a full range
of reasonable alternatives.
The proposed plan for the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway
is another disconcerting provision in the bill. H.R. 2648 would allow
the Army Corps to spend $1.8 billion to improve the water route and
ease travel time. The Army Corps claims that this large project is
necessary due to its projections that traffic will increase. However,
both the National Academy of Sciences and the Congressional Research
Service dispute this finding. Investing nearly 10 percent of total
Corps spending into a project based on faulty predictions is simply
unacceptable. I will support the amendment being offered by
Representative Blumenauer and Representative Flake that will ensure
that this project is economically justified by authorizing it only if
the Army Corps meets their lowest projected traffic scenario.
Although I have strong concerns that this bill does not go far enough
in reforming the Army Corps, I believe that the projects and programs
in this bill are important and need to be reauthorized. Therefore, I
will reluctantly vote in favor of this legislation. I hope in the
future that Congress will be able to enact reformative measure to
address the Army Corps fiscal, environmental, and logistical
oversights.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Water
Resources Development Act, which authorizes flood protection and
environmental restoration projects to be undertaken by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers in order to reduce flood damage and improve
environmental restoration. The House would not be considering this bill
were it not for the hard work and leadership of Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young, and Water Resources and
Environment Subcommittee Chairman John Duncan.
In our ongoing efforts to manage our water supplies, this bill
provides the critical partnership of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
to assist local water agencies in drought-proofing our region and
improving our water infrastructure.
Specifically, the bill authorizes $20 million for the cities of
Arcadia and Sierra Madre, for their Water Environmental Infrastructure
Program. This program will improve the water infrastructure that both
cities rely upon, which is at risk due to deterioration from age and
from the potential impact from a major seismic event in the region.
The bill also authorizes $13 million for the city of Upland's storm
drainage project for the Upland Basin to provide greater flood control
retention and groundwater aquifer recharge capacities. This project
will provide the opportunity to recharge 1326 acre-feet per year of
storm flows that would otherwise be conveyed outside of the Chino
Groundwater Basin. Additionally, the project will provide the
opportunity to recharge approximately 2300 acre-feet per year of excess
imported water supplies or potentially recycled water for future
groundwater extraction and use during dry drought periods. Completion
of the project will increase water conservation and increase water
reliability for local water producers by utilizing the Chino
Groundwater Basin for water storage, reducing the dependence on
imported water during peak demands or drought periods.
Additionally, the bill authorizes $5 million for the Raymond Basin
Management Board's Southern California Foothill Communities Water
Supply Reliability Program. The Raymond Basin Management Board
encompasses the cities of La Canada, Sierra Madre, Pasadena,
Arcadia and Alhambra, six water companies, three water districts, and
three associations, and has brought together the communities along the
San Gabriel mountain range and four groundwater basins in meeting the
water needs in this region. The authorization will help in their
planning, design and construction of groundwater quality and supply
projects throughout the San Gabriel Mountain foothill region including
the Six Basins, Chino, San Gabriel and Raymond groundwater basins.
[[Page H5821]]
With the passage of the Water Resources Development Act, we can work
with the Senate to send a good bill to the President for his signature.
Again, I thank my colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee for their dedication to providing this foundation for sound
water management. I also want to applaud the hard work of the local
water agencies and local governments that do such terrific work in our
communities.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, the House of Representatives today passed
the Water Resources Development Act of 2005, a bill that will have
positive and lasting effects on communities throughout America,
including southern West Virginia. I commend T&I Chairman Young, Ranking
Member Oberstar, Subcommittee Chairman Duncan and Ranking Member
Johnson for moving this important bill.
WRDA, which traditionally follows a biannual schedule, was last
enacted in 2000. Therefore, the Corps of Engineers has been forced to
continue its work since then without any significant guidance from
Congress. This is not how the program is supposed to work and has
created considerable hardship for both local communities in need of
assistance and the Corps itself. I hope today's action will be the
first major step in reversing this five year trend.
Mr. Chairman, southern West Virginia has been ravaged by significant
flooding since WRDA was last enacted, and the people of southern West
Virginia have suffered. Many live in homes that were built well before
flood patterns and the risks associated were known. Absent action from
Congress in the form of WRDA, families have been forced to move from
their homes and businesses have picked up and moved out of the area. In
many cases, a simple authorization and appropriation would have
mitigated many of these problems.
I have worked tirelessly with the Army Corps of Engineers and the
Appalachian Regional Commission to combat flood damage, seeking to
prevent future flooding. WRDA will help us in that endeavor.
Mr. Chairman, the House today made a strong statement by
overwhelmingly passing WRDA. I urge the other body to take up and pass
the Water Resources Development Act of 2005, as further inaction by
Congress will continue to negatively affect our Nation's communities.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
underlying bill, the Water Resources Development Act. In particular, I
support the authorization given to the Army Corps of Engineers to begin
work on renovating the locks and dams on the Mississippi River and to
restore the diverse ecosystem of the river. I will oppose amendments
meant to stop this construction from moving forward.
I believe the bill's well-balanced approach will meet the needs of
those who depend on the river for commerce, restore and protect the
diverse natural environment, and enhance recreational opportunities.
Much of the American Midwest's economy is dependent on the
Mississippi river. In 1999, more than 151 million tons of commodities
moved on the river system with a combined value of nearly $24 billion.
The State of Minnesota sent about $1.4 billion worth of grain down the
river--most of it traveled to New Orleans and Baton Rouge for export to
foreign markets.
Approximately 70 percent of our nation's agricultural exports travel
along the Mississippi. A 2002 study determined that, if congestion
increases on the river, $562 million could be lost in farm income
alone. The Upper Mississippi supports more than 400,000 jobs in
manufacturing, agriculture, and shipping--all of which support local
businesses.
Unfortunately, the day-to-day wear and tear on the river has taken
its toll. The locks on the Mississippi river were built in the 1930s
with 1930's technology and standards and for 1930's needs. They were
designed for a 50-year life-span and are now more than 70 years old.
Today's barge traffic is significantly different than when the locks
were designed. The barges today average 1,100 feet in length while the
current locks were built for barges only 600 feet in length. Towboats
have to drop off half their barges in order to pass through the locks,
and then reconnect, and then repeat the procedure upon arriving at the
next lock. Building 1,200-foot locks will cut dock time and costs--and
those savings are passed on to farmers, manufacturers, and consumers,
creating jobs for our economy.
Not only will refurbishing and expanding the locks facilitate
commerce, but it will reduce stress on our roadways. A typical tow of
15 barges down the river can carry as much as 870 semi-trucks with 60
percent fewer emissions. One 15-barge tow can carry the same amount of
grain as a three mile long train or 35 miles of trucks lined end to
end. Clearly, using the River for transportation is much more efficient
and makes our air cleaner.
This project will not just benefit the transportation sector. I have
spent time on the river and have seen the amazing ecosystem restoration
projects that are underway and are sure to be continued under this
plan. The Upper Mississippi valley provides habitat for 305 species of
birds, 57 species of mammals, 45 species of amphibians and reptiles,
and 134 species of fish. There are even bald eagles in the area, which
can be seen year-round. In fact, the National Eagle Center is located
along the Mississippi River, in Wabasha, Minnesota.
The upper Mississippi is a haven for boating, fishing, hunting and
other forms of recreation. Locals and tourists alike enjoy year-round
fishing for walleye, northern pike, bass, perch, crappies, and catfish
up and down the river. On summer days, thousands of private boaters
enjoy the river, and hunters enjoy harvesting ducks in the fall.
The river is a beautiful place. The proper balance between commerce,
recreation, and the environment must be maintained. I ask for my
colleagues to support the bill and reject amendments that prevent the
modernization of the locks and dams from moving forward.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairmen Young
and Duncan, and Mr. Oberstar and Ms. Johnson for their hard work in
bringing this bill to the floor. Like the TEA-LU bill, we have been
waiting several years to pass this important legislation.
These water projects are extremely important for my home state of
Florida and for my District. I have port dredging project that has been
funded, but can not get started because the Corps of Engineers doesn't
have authorization to do it. We are also still recovering from the
ecological damage created by last year's hurricanes, and we can use
this funding to continue to restore our state's waterways.
Like all transportation projects, those included in this bill will
put people back to work, improve our communities, and creates economic
activity.
By delaying the passage of this much needed legislation any further,
we are doing a disservice to the people we represent.
I encourage my colleagues here in the House and in the Senate to pass
this legislation quickly so we can move forward with the critical
projects this bill contains.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Water Resources
Development Act, specifically the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois
Waterway.
This long overdue bill recommits the United States Government to the
enhancement of our greatest national wonder--the Mississippi River
basin. This national wonder is a kaleidoscope of beauty: birds, fish,
fowl, the landscape of plains and valleys rolling into creeks, small
rivers and other tributaries of a river that facilitates recreation as
well as commerce.
Our mightiest river demands our respect--for its beauty, for its
sport, and not incidentally for its commerce. It is true that man has
intruded with footprints on this river system with locks and dams. It
is also true that these footprints have been restrained, particularly
in relation to the commercial footprints that other transportation
techniques have wrought in other environments.
Indeed the introduction of a man-made channel has caused the river to
be more hospitable to fish-life than that which existed when parts of
the upper Mississippi were prone to persistent rapids and shallows. The
maintenance of a constant channel has made possible more lake-like
conditions for recreation boating and fishing. It has also made the
Mississippi River basin part of world commerce. Indeed it has not only
facilitated the marketing of grain to paying customers, but it has made
possible the transfer of gifted grain to impoverished parts of the
world to sustain lives that otherwise would have starved.
Commerce, it must be understood, is not a four-letter word. Efficient
transportation creates jobs. Barging grains, for instance, embellishes
the livelihood of farm producers as it enables citizens of the world to
be nourished. This bill which balances concern for the environment with
realistic upgrading and maintenance of our lock and dam infrastructure
deserves our support.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support
for H.R. 2864, the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2005. This
historic legislation will provide funding for valuable projects across
our Nation and the 11th Congressional District of Illinois.
I want to thank and commend the Committee for including three
projects specific to the 11th Congressional District of Illinois within
H.R. 2864. Legislative language was included in the bill which will
ensure the Army Corps continued commitment to the Village of Utica, the
Illinois and Michigan Canal, and Ballard's Island in the Illinois
River.
The Village of Utica, IL has experienced periodic flood damage
ranging from annual nuisance flooding to widespread flooding causing
major damage. A majority of the commercial development in the village
and multiple downtown municipal buildings are located in the 100-year
floodplain. The impacts of recurring flood damage, along with the
continuous risk of future damage, restrict the economic potential of
the area. Additionally, since
[[Page H5822]]
much of the downtown was destroyed in a massive tornado during April of
2004, rebuilding efforts have been hampered by having to adhere to
floodplain guidelines.
Changing the delineation of the 100-year floodplain is a complex
process, and there is no easy way to immediately remove the downtown
area from the plain as the post-tornado rebuilding proceeds. However,
long-range flood protection options do exist including the construction
of a flood control basin on Clark Run Creek upstream from downtown
Utica, or the construction of a high flow bypass that would channel
water typically flowing overland into downtown Utica into the Illinois
and Michigan Canal instead. I am pleased that the Army Corps will be
taking a closer look at these options.
The City of LaSalle, IL has taken an aggressive approach to promoting
itself as a historical tourism destination as a way to compensate for
the loss of manufacturing. The highpoint of this project is the Port of
LaSalle and the I & M Canal. The I & M Canal was integral to the
success of Chicago as a transportation hub back in the 19th century as
it connected the City to the Illinois River. While it fell into disuse
and disrepair, the Canal Corridor Association and the City of LaSalle
have remade a stretch at the Lock 14 site in LaSalle. A replica canal
boat is planned to be constructed and act a tourist attraction and also
a unique venue that can be rented for private functions to bring
further revenue to the community.
However, further contaminate testing (including cadmium and zinc)
needs to be completed so that dredging may take place in order to
create a long and deep enough channel for the canal boat to be
successfully operated. I thank the committee for their continued
support of this important project, and in making the Port of LaSalle
initiative an Army Corps priority.
Finally, I am pleased to thank the Committee for their support for
studying the opening up of the Ballard's Island Channel in the Illinois
River. The Army Corps completed its last dredging and stone removal at
the Ballard's Island site in October 2003 with the intent to study the
effects and ramifications. A significant time having passed, it is time
for the Corps to continue with opening up this channel which the Corps
closed almost 60 years ago. Cutting through the very large riparian bar
which has built up over 60 years and which now blocks the original
channel may be a means to this goal and I congratulate the Committee
for their willingness to look further at this possibility.
Passage of this all-important bill is not only important to the 11th
Congressional District, but it is also imperative to the
competitiveness and survival of Illinois and Midwestern agriculture
within the global market. WRDA 2005 funds the Upper Mississippi and
Illinois River Locks and Dams Restoration Project. This project will
replace seven key 600-foot navigation locks with seven new 1,200-foot
locks. Improvements to the inland water transportation system are long
past due. Many structures were built over 60 years ago, when barge tows
were less than 600 feet long. Today's barge tows are nearly 1,200 feet
long, creating vast backlogs at many locks, and slowing the speed with
which Illinois products can be shipped abroad.
In order for U.S. agriculture to compete globally, we must have an
updated water transportation system. Argentina, for example, has
invested over $650 million in agricultural transportation. Brazil is
reconstructing its waterway system in an effort to reduce the shipping
costs of agricultural commodities by 75 percent. Due in large part to
transportation advancements, these two countries have captured 50
percent of the total growth in world soybean sales during the past 3
years.
The price farmers receive at their local market is often largely
based on the price of transportation from the Mississippi River to the
export markets. The lower the cost of transportation, the lower the
cost of U.S. products on the world market; thus, the more demand for
U.S. products in the global marketplace.
Passage of H.R. 2864 with the inclusion of the Upper Mississippi and
Illinois River Locks and Dams Restoration Project is also a jobs
creation mechanism. According to the Army Corps of Engineers,
construction of the 7 locks will provide at least 3,000-6,000 jobs per
year for the construction period, estimated 12-20 years.
I thank the Committee for their hard work on this important bill and
strongly urge the Congress to join me in voting in support of WRDA
2005's final passage.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2864, the Water
Resources Development Act of 2005. This legislation fulfills the
commitment of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to
produce water resources legislation for the Nation on a biennial basis.
Unfortunately, while the Committee produced a bill in the last
Congress, it was not enacted into law.
We are now nearly 5 years since the last water resources bill was
enacted. That is too long.
The Corps of Engineers has served the Nation well for 230 years.
During those years it has established itself as the Nation's oldest,
largest, and most experienced government organization in the area of
water and related land engineering matters. From its early works during
the Revolutionary War, to navigation improvements, to the unrivaled
efforts to reduce the devastating floods in the Mississippi River
valley, to the current efforts to save the Everglades from extinction,
the Corps is the entity that the people call upon to solve the problems
facing the Nation's vast water resources.
Few people today know that the Corps of Engineers, among its many
responsibilities, had jurisdiction over Yellowstone National Park. The
Corps managed Yellowstone Park for 30 years. Lieutenant Dan Kingman of
the Corps, who would later become the chief of engineers, wrote:
The plan of development which I have submitted is given
upon the supposition and in the earnest hope that it will be
preserved as nearly as may be as the hand of nature left it,
a source of pleasure to all who visit and a source of wealth
to no one.
A few years later, John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club, said:
The best service in forest protection, almost the only
efficient service, is that rendered by the military. For many
years, they have guarded the great Yellowstone Park, and now
they are guarding Yosemite. They found it a desert as far as
underbrush, grass and flowers are concerned. But, in 2 years,
the skin of the mountains is healthy again, blessings on
Uncle Sam's soldiers, as they have done the job well, and
every pine tree is waving its arms for joy.
Another great American said: ``The military engineers are taking upon
their shoulders the job of making the Mississippi River over again, a
job transcended in size only by the original job of creating it.'' That
was Mark Twain.
Those statements together pay tribute to what the Corps of Engineers
has done so admirably, and the great legacy they have left for all
Americans protected in floods, enhanced with river navigation programs,
and, of immense importance to me, protecting the great resource of the
Great Lakes--one fifth of all the fresh water on the face of the Earth.
The bill before us today includes as great a variety of projects as
have ever been included in water resources legislation. The scope of
this bill includes projects and programs for the Nation's inland
navigation system, flood protection, shoreline protection, and
environmental protection and enhancement.
This bill both builds and rebuilds the Nation's infrastructure. It
will allow us to expand international trade through projects to improve
our coastal ports and inland navigation system. Flood control and
hurricane and storm damage reduction measures will help meet critical
needs to protect lives and property.
This legislation includes 30 projects for which the Chief of
Engineers has submitted a report to Congress.
In addition, the bill contains over 100 project modifications of
existing or on-going projects, over 100 requests for Corps of
Engineers' studies for future projects, and an equal number of requests
for the Corps to carry out projects consistent with the primary
missions of the Corps of navigation, flood control, and ecosystem
restoration.
All told, the bill, including additions adopted at Subcommittee,
contains roughly $10 billion in new and modified project
authorizations. This number should come as no surprise to those
familiar with the Corps process, because this bill represents
approximately 5\1/2\ years of requests since the last Water Resources
Development Act of 2000.
I am pleased that this legislation includes the legislative proposal
developed in the previous Congress to address programmatic issues in
the Corps program that have become collectively known as ``Corps
Reform.'' This bi-partisan agreement calling for independent review of
larger and more controversial projects will address many of the
concerns raised by stakeholders, and outside academics, and will
improve the process of moving project proposals from study to
completion.
There should be no doubt that I am a strong supporter of the Corps
and the valuable work that it does for this country. This Nation needs
the Corps of Engineers, but the Corps also needs to be free from
outside criticisms. That is why I believe Congress must act to
implement a few common sense revisions to the process by which the
Corps develops and implements projects.
Nothing in this bill hampers the ability of the Corps to study and
recommend new projects. To the contrary, the Corps study process is
improved by ensuring that completed studies can withstand outside
scrutiny or challenge.
This bill represents a fair effort to address the varied water
resources needs of the Nation. It is worthy of bipartisan support, and
I urge all Members to support the bill.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill which, among
other things, authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
sustainability plan for the upper Mississippi River.
[[Page H5823]]
The navigation and ecosystem sustainability in title VIII of the bill
is the product of the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System
Navigation feasibility study, which has had, unfortunately, a long and
controversial history.
As many will remember, a respected Army Corps economist filed a
whistleblower complaint about the Corps' use of faulty data to justify
lock and dam expansion. Partly in response to that incident, I
introduced legislation to revamp the project review and authorization
procedures at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The goals of my bill
were to increase transparency and accountability; ensure fiscal
responsibility; balance economic and environmental interests; and allow
greater stakeholder involvement in proposed projects.
Many elements of my reform measures are in this bill, though not to
the degree I believe is still needed. For example, I believe the Corps'
outdated principles and guidelines should be updated to reflect current
laws and public values, and much more should be done to strengthen the
peer review provisions--section 2030--to create a truly independent and
effective review process. It is my hope the other body will include the
full scope of these sensible reform measures in their version of this
important bill.
In addition, in the wake of the whistleblower scandal, my colleagues
and I in the Army Corps reform caucus called for the scientific,
nonpartisan, national research council to review the Corps' final
recommended plan. Regrettably the NRC's report concluded there remained
some questions about the Corps' commercial traffic predictions on the
Mississippi--but expressed support for the Corps' inclusion of adaptive
management ecosystem restoration components in their plan.
While I remain troubled by the Corps' inability to fully justify the
Model they used for their commercial traffic predictions, America
clearly has an aging lock and dam infrastructure on the Mississippi.
Most of the locks and dams on the upper Mississippi River system are
over 60 years old and many are in serious need of repair and
rehabilitation. For the past 19 years, the Corps has been undertaking
major rehabilitation of individual facilities throughout the navigation
system in an effort to extend their useful life. This work is critical
to ensuring navigation reliability and safety.
Furthermore, I represent a rural district where agriculture plays an
important role in the economy and the life of many of its citizens.
Updating this vital water transportation system by modernizing these
aging locks will mean greater export opportunities for our farmers, and
will create and sustain jobs throughout rural america which has been
hit hard by the sluggish economy.
Finally, the ecological health of the Mississippi River and its
economic importance to the many people that make their living or seek
their recreation is based on a healthy river system. Scientists
studying the river agree that without significant efforts to restore
habitat, this vital national resource will continue to decline. A
strong and consistent Federal role for ecosystem restoration is
necessary for the entire basin, both because of the large acreage of
Federal lands, including the upper Mississippi River National Wildlife
and Fish Refuge (the longest river refuge in the continental U.S.), as
well as its major importance as a continental and international flyway
for migratory birds, and as a habitat for federally listed threatened
and endangered species.
We must ensure Federal resources are balanced between lock
construction and ecosystem needs. That is why I offered an amendment to
this bill that seeks to do two things: First, it adds a new provision
requiring the secretary to make an annual report to congress
specifically on whether the lock and dam construction and ecosystem
restoration projects are being carried out at comparable rates. In
addition, the amendment makes it clear that congress intends to share
the authority with the secretary in determining if the projects are
moving forward at a comparable rate and adjust the annual funding
accordingly. Mississippi lock and dam modernization and ecosystem
restoration are an expensive provision of this bill and the American
taxpayer deserves to know it is being done right.
Mr. Chairman, the Mississippi River is one of America's national
treasures. People come from all over the U.S., and all over the world
come to its banks to see the natural splendor captured so well by
authors like Mark Twain.
As founder and co-chair of the upper Mississippi River Congressional
task force, I have long sought to preserve the river's health and
historical multiple uses, including as a natural waterway and a home to
wildlife, for the benefit of future generations of Americans. While
this is not a perfect bill, if implemented appropriately, I believe it
will benefit both rural economies and the wildlife that depend on a
healthy Mississippi River.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2864, the
Water Resources Development Act of 2005. I want to begin by applauding
Chairman Duncan for his continued effort to move this critical
legislation forward. As a Member of the Water Resource Subcommittee, I
have had the opportunity to see first hand his dedication to improving
our Nation's infrastructure.
I also want to express my thanks to Ranking Member Eddie Bernice
Johnson, as well as our Leadership on the Committee, Chairman Young and
Ranking Member Oberstar. They have always led our Committee in a
bipartisan manner which places our Nation's interest ahead of politics.
Mr. Chairman, wastewater infrastructure is not the flashiest of
issues, but it is absolutely fundamental to improving quality of life,
protecting the environment and enhancing economic development. My staff
frequently gives me a hard time as I like to point out that if you
cannot turn on the spicket and get clean and flush toilets you do not
have basic sewer infrastructure in place, you simply cannot have
economic development. It may not be the prettiest of analogies, but I
find it is one that rings very true. And Mr. Chairman, that is why the
bill we have before is so important.
To emphasize this point, I would point to a project that took place
in my home district in Pennsylvania. When I was first elected to this
body, community officials came to me seeking funding for a small
infrastructure project. A local creek, which flows into the Juniata
River and eventually into the Susquehanna, was being filled with sewage
from nearby houses because of lack of proper sewer lines. The health
concerns, as well as the harm to the environment terribly hampered the
quality of life for the local residents and prevented business from
settling there.
For the last four years, I have worked with officials to equip the
community with a proper sewer system. I am happy to report that now
roughly over 200 homes located in Broadtop Township are now properly
hooked up to sewer lines. That may not seem like a big deal to some,
but to my rural Pennsylvania district it means a great deal. And it
would not be possible if it were not for the bill before us today.
In short Mr. Chairman, the quality of life of the citizens of
Pennsylvania and indeed throughout this Nation has been improved by the
critical projects that are funded under this bill. Again, my
congratulations to Chairman Duncan and the staff which has worked so
diligently on this bill. I urge my colleagues to support the measure.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that today the House is considering the
Water Resources Development Act of 2005.
In this bill, 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 missions.
This negotiation involved a lot of give and take. The result does not
represent my initial positions, or Mr. Oberstar's. That is the nature
of a compromise.
The compromise language gives the Corps of Engineers the tools it
needs to improve and expedite water resources projects.
These provisions earned the support of all the members of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, received the support of
412 Members of the House last Congress, and deserve the support of all
the Members of the House this Congress.
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 and to improve our quality of
life.
Some complain about the cost of Corps of Engineers projects, but
these investments are critically important to our economy.
Over 13 million American 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 of our locks are over 50 years
old and two have been operating since the 19th century.
Many communities along rivers and shores are not protected from
hurricanes and flooding, even though the cost of recovering from a
flood is on average six times greater than the cost of investing in the
infrastructure needed to prevent those damages.
Finally, there are worthwhile environmental restoration projects that
provide both environmental and economic benefits.
The Water Resources Development Act of 2005 addresses these needs in
communities all over the country.
I want to thank the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Oberstar,
for his help in resolving some very contentious issues and I appreciate
his willingness to work together in a bipartisan fashion.
I want to commend Mr. Duncan and Ms. Johnson and the Water Resources
and Environment Subcommittee for their hard work in crafting this
legislation.
[[Page H5824]]
I urge all Members to support H.R. 2864 and join me in encouraging
the other body to act expeditiously once this bill has passed the
House.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Chairman
Young's exemplary work on the Water Resources Development Act. In
addition, I stand here to endorse The Chairman's Manager's Amendment--
which contains my bipartisan legislation--H.R. 1983.
H.R. 1983 called for a new flood mitigation study of the Delaware
River covering four states: Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New
York. I would like to thank the effort and support of my bipartisan
coalition of the Delaware River corridor: Representatives Dent,
Hinchey, Kelly, Menendez, Smith and Holt.
This is the first piece of legislation I introduced as a member of
Congress. I would like to thank Chairman Young again for including H.R.
1983 in the Manager's Amendment because this bill is needed for my
constituents who were devastated by two floods in only six months.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Latham). 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. 2864
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 2005''.
(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. Non-Federal contributions.
Sec. 2002. Harbor cost sharing.
Sec. 2003. Funding to process permits.
Sec. 2004. National shoreline erosion control development and
demonstration program.
Sec. 2005. Small shore and beach restoration and protection projects.
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.
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. Wildfire firefighting.
Sec. 2022. Credit for nonconstruction services.
Sec. 2023. Technical assistance.
Sec. 2024. Coordination and scheduling of Federal, State, and local
actions.
Sec. 2025. Project streamlining.
Sec. 2026. Lakes program.
Sec. 2027. Mitigation for fish and wildlife losses.
Sec. 2028. Cooperative agreements.
Sec. 2029. Project planning.
Sec. 2030. Independent peer review.
Sec. 2031. Training funds.
Sec. 2032. Access to water resource data.
Sec. 2033. Shore protection projects.
Sec. 2034. Ability to pay.
Sec. 2035. Aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 2036. Small flood damage reduction projects.
Sec. 2037. Leasing authority.
Sec. 2038. Cost estimates.
Sec. 2039. Studies and reports for water resources projects.
Sec. 2040. Fiscal transparency report.
TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
Sec. 3001. King Cove Harbor, Alaska.
Sec. 3002. St. Paul Harbor, St. Paul Island, Alaska.
Sec. 3003. Sitka, Alaska.
Sec. 3004. Tatitlek, Alaska.
Sec. 3005. Grand Prairie Region and Bayou Meto basin, Arkansas.
Sec. 3006. Osceola Harbor, Arkansas.
Sec. 3007. Pine Mountain Dam, Arkansas.
Sec. 3008. Saint Francis Basin, Arkansas.
Sec. 3009. American River Watershed, California.
Sec. 3010. Compton Creek, California.
Sec. 3011. Grayson Creek/Murderer's Creek, California.
Sec. 3012. Hamilton Airfield, California.
Sec. 3013. John F. Baldwin Ship Channel and Stockton Ship Channel,
California.
Sec. 3014. Kaweah River, California.
Sec. 3015. Larkspur Ferry Channel, Larkspur, California.
Sec. 3016. Llagas Creek, California.
Sec. 3017. Los Angeles Harbor, California.
Sec. 3018. Magpie Creek, California.
Sec. 3019. Pacific Flyway Center, Sacramento, California.
Sec. 3020. Pinole Creek, California.
Sec. 3021. Prado Dam, California.
Sec. 3022. Sacramento and American Rivers Flood Control, California.
Sec. 3023. Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California.
Sec. 3024. Sacramento River, Glenn-Colusa, California.
Sec. 3025. Santa Cruz Harbor, California.
Sec. 3026. Seven Oaks Dam, California.
Sec. 3027. Upper Guadalupe River, California.
Sec. 3028. Walnut Creek Channel, California.
Sec. 3029. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase I, California.
Sec. 3030. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase II, California.
Sec. 3031. Yuba River Basin project, California.
Sec. 3032. Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay,
Delaware and Maryland.
Sec. 3033. Brevard County, Florida.
Sec. 3034. Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet, Florida.
Sec. 3035. Canaveral Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 3036. Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida.
Sec. 3037. Jacksonville Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 3038. Lido Key Beach, Sarasota, Florida.
Sec. 3039. Miami Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 3040. Peanut Island, Florida.
Sec. 3041. Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida.
Sec. 3042. Tampa Harbor Cut B, Florida.
Sec. 3043. Allatoona Lake, Georgia.
Sec. 3044. Latham River, Glynn County, Georgia.
Sec. 3045. Dworshak Dam and Reservoir improvements, Idaho.
Sec. 3046. Beardstown Community Boat Harbor, Beardstown, Illinois.
Sec. 3047. Cache River Levee, Illinois.
Sec. 3048. Chicago River, Illinois.
Sec. 3049. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Illinois.
Sec. 3050. Emiquon, Illinois.
Sec. 3051. LaSalle, Illinois.
Sec. 3052. Spunky Bottoms, Illinois.
Sec. 3053. Fort Wayne and vicinity, Indiana.
Sec. 3054. Koontz Lake, Indiana.
Sec. 3055. Little Calumet River, Indiana.
Sec. 3056. White River, Indiana.
Sec. 3057. Des Moines River and Greenbelt, Iowa.
Sec. 3058. Prestonsburg, Kentucky.
Sec. 3059. Amite River and Tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge
Parish Watershed.
Sec. 3060. Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.
Sec. 3061. Bayou Plaquemine, Louisiana.
Sec. 3062. Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana.
Sec. 3063. J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to
Shreveport, Louisiana.
Sec. 3064. Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana.
Sec. 3065. New Orleans to Venice, Louisiana.
Sec. 3066. West bank of the Mississippi River (East of Harvey Canal),
Louisiana.
Sec. 3067. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine.
Sec. 3068. Union River, Maine.
Sec. 3069. Gwynns Falls Watershed, Baltimore, Maryland.
Sec. 3070. Boston Harbor, Massachusetts.
Sec. 3071. Detroit River Shoreline, Detroit, Michigan.
Sec. 3072. St. Joseph Harbor, Michigan.
Sec. 3073. Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan.
Sec. 3074. Ada, Minnesota.
Sec. 3075. Duluth Harbor, McQuade Road, Minnesota.
Sec. 3076. Grand Portage Harbor, Minnesota.
Sec. 3077. Granite Falls, Minnesota.
Sec. 3078. Knife River Harbor, Minnesota.
Sec. 3079. Red Lake River, Minnesota.
Sec. 3080. Silver Bay, Minnesota.
Sec. 3081. Taconite Harbor, Minnesota.
Sec. 3082. Two Harbors, Minnesota.
Sec. 3083. Deer Island, Harrison County, Mississippi.
Sec. 3084. Pearl River Basin, Mississippi.
Sec. 3085. Festus and Crystal City, Missouri.
Sec. 3086. Monarch-Chesterfield, Missouri.
Sec. 3087. River Des Peres, Missouri.
Sec. 3088. Antelope Creek, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Sec. 3089. Sand Creek watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska.
Sec. 3090. Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey.
Sec. 3091. Passaic River Basin flood management, New Jersey.
Sec. 3092. Buffalo Harbor, New York.
Sec. 3093. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York.
Sec. 3094. Port of New York and New Jersey, New York and New Jersey.
Sec. 3095. New York State Canal System.
Sec. 3096. Lower Girard Lake Dam, Ohio.
Sec. 3097. Mahoning River, Ohio.
[[Page H5825]]
Sec. 3098. Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 3099. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 3100. Willamette River temperature control, McKenzie Subbasin,
Oregon.
Sec. 3101. Delaware River, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware.
Sec. 3102. Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3103. Sheraden Park Stream and Chartiers Creek, Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3104. Solomon's Creek, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3105. South Central Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3106. Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3107. Cedar Bayou, Texas.
Sec. 3108. Freeport Harbor, Texas.
Sec. 3109. Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas.
Sec. 3110. Lake Kemp, Texas.
Sec. 3111. Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas.
Sec. 3112. North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay, Texas.
Sec. 3113. Pat Mayse Lake, Texas.
Sec. 3114. Proctor Lake, Texas.
Sec. 3115. San Antonio Channel, San Antonio, Texas.
Sec. 3116. James River, Virginia.
Sec. 3117. Lee, Russell, Scott, Smyth, Tazewell, and Wise Counties,
Virginia.
Sec. 3118. Tangier Island Seawall, Virginia.
Sec. 3119. Duwamish/Green, Washington.
Sec. 3120. Yakima River, Port of Sunnyside, Washington.
Sec. 3121. Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia.
Sec. 3122. Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp, West Virginia.
Sec. 3123. Northern West Virginia.
Sec. 3124. Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin.
Sec. 3125. Mississippi River headwaters reservoirs.
Sec. 3126. Continuation of project authorizations.
Sec. 3127. Project reauthorizations.
Sec. 3128. Project deauthorizations.
Sec. 3129. Land conveyances.
Sec. 3130. Extinguishment of reversionary interests and use
restrictions.
TITLE IV--STUDIES
Sec. 4001. John Glenn Great Lakes Basin program.
Sec. 4002. Lake Erie dredged material disposal sites.
Sec. 4003. Southwestern United States drought study.
Sec. 4004. Upper Mississippi River comprehensive plan.
Sec. 4005. Knik Arm, Cook Inlet, Alaska.
Sec. 4006. Kuskokwim River, Alaska.
Sec. 4007. St. George Harbor, Alaska.
Sec. 4008. Susitna River, Alaska.
Sec. 4009. Gila Bend, Maricopa, Arizona.
Sec. 4010. Searcy County, Arkansas.
Sec. 4011. Dry Creek Valley, California.
Sec. 4012. Elkhorn Slough estuary, California.
Sec. 4013. Fresno, Kings, and Kern Counties, California.
Sec. 4014. Los Angeles River, California.
Sec. 4015. Lytle Creek, Rialto, California.
Sec. 4016. Mokelumne River, San Joaquin County, California.
Sec. 4017. Napa River, St. Helena, California.
Sec. 4018. Orick, California.
Sec. 4019. Rialto, Fontana, and Colton, California.
Sec. 4020. Sacramento River, California.
Sec. 4021. San Diego County, California.
Sec. 4022. San Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California.
Sec. 4023. South San Francisco Bay shoreline study, California.
Sec. 4024. Twentynine Palms, California.
Sec. 4025. Yucca Valley, California.
Sec. 4026. Boulder Creek, Boulder, Colorado.
Sec. 4027. Roaring Fork River, Basalt, Colorado.
Sec. 4028. Delaware and Christina Rivers and Shellpot Creek,
Wilmington, Delaware.
Sec. 4029. Collier County beaches, Florida.
Sec. 4030. Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon, Florida.
Sec. 4031. Meriwether County, Georgia.
Sec. 4032. Tybee Island, Georgia.
Sec. 4033. Kaukonahua-Helemano watershed, Oahu, Hawaii.
Sec. 4034. West Maui, Maui, Hawaii.
Sec. 4035. Boise River, Idaho.
Sec. 4036. Ballard's Island Side Channel, Illinois.
Sec. 4037. Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 4038. South Branch, Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 4039. Utica, Illinois.
Sec. 4040. Lake and Porter Counties, Indiana.
Sec. 4041. Salem, Indiana.
Sec. 4042. Buckhorn Lake, Kentucky.
Sec. 4043. Dewey Lake, Kentucky.
Sec. 4044. Louisville, Kentucky.
Sec. 4045. Bastrop-Morehouse Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 4046. Offshore oil and gas fabrication ports, Louisiana.
Sec. 4047. Vermilion River, Louisiana.
Sec. 4048. West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 4049. Patapsco River, Maryland.
Sec. 4050. Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
Sec. 4051. Hamburg and Green Oak Townships, Michigan.
Sec. 4052. St. Clair River, Michigan.
Sec. 4053. Duluth-Superior Harbor, Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Sec. 4054. Wild Rice River, Minnesota.
Sec. 4055. Mississippi coastal area, Mississippi.
Sec. 4056. Northeast Mississippi.
Sec. 4057. St. Louis, Missouri.
Sec. 4058. Dredged material disposal, New Jersey.
Sec. 4059. Bayonne, New Jersey.
Sec. 4060. Carteret, New Jersey.
Sec. 4061. Elizabeth River, Elizabeth, New Jersey.
Sec. 4062. Gloucester County, New Jersey.
Sec. 4063. Perth Amboy, New Jersey.
Sec. 4064. Wreck Pond, Monmouth County, New Jersey.
Sec. 4065. Batavia, New York.
Sec. 4066. Big Sister Creek, Evans, New York.
Sec. 4067. East Chester Bay, Turtle Cove, New York.
Sec. 4068. Finger Lakes, New York.
Sec. 4069. Hudson-Raritan Estuary, New York and New Jersey.
Sec. 4070. Lake Erie Shoreline, Buffalo, New York.
Sec. 4071. Newtown Creek, New York.
Sec. 4072. Niagara River, New York.
Sec. 4073. Upper Delaware River watershed, New York.
Sec. 4074. Lincoln County, North Carolina.
Sec. 4075. Wilkes County, North Carolina.
Sec. 4076. Yadkinville, North Carolina.
Sec. 4077. Cincinnati, Ohio.
Sec. 4078. Euclid, Ohio.
Sec. 4079. Lake Erie, Ohio.
Sec. 4080. Ohio River, Ohio.
Sec. 4081. Sutherlin, Oregon.
Sec. 4082. Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon.
Sec. 4083. Ecosystem restoration and fish passage improvements, Oregon.
Sec. 4084. Walla Walla River Basin, Oregon.
Sec. 4085. Chartiers Creek watershed, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4086. Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4087. North Central Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4088. Northampton and Lehigh Counties streams, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4089. Western Pennsylvania flood damage reduction.
Sec. 4090. Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4091. Yardley Borough, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4092. Rio Valenciano, Juncos, Puerto Rico.
Sec. 4093. Crooked Creek, Bennettsville, South Carolina.
Sec. 4094. Broad River, York County, South Carolina.
Sec. 4095. Georgetown and Williamsburg Counties, South Carolina.
Sec. 4096. Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Sec. 4097. Cleveland, Tennessee.
Sec. 4098. Cumberland River, Nashville, Tennessee.
Sec. 4099. Lewis, Lawrence, and Wayne Counties, Tennessee.
Sec. 4100. Wolf River and Nonconnah Creek, Memphis Tennessee.
Sec. 4101. Abilene, Texas.
Sec. 4102. Coastal Texas ecosystem protection and restoration, Texas.
Sec. 4103. Fort Bend County, Texas.
Sec. 4104. Harris County, Texas.
Sec. 4105. Port of Galveston, Texas.
Sec. 4106. Roma Creek, Texas.
Sec. 4107. Walnut Creek, Texas.
Sec. 4108. Grand County and Moab, Utah.
Sec. 4109. Southwestern Utah.
Sec. 4110. Chowan River Basin, Virginia and North Carolina.
Sec. 4111. James River, Richmond, Virginia.
Sec. 4112. Elliott Bay Seawall, Seattle, Washington.
Sec. 4113. Monongahela River Basin, Northern West Virginia.
Sec. 4114. Kenosha Harbor, Wisconsin.
Sec. 4115. 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. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 5013. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation.
Sec. 5014. Great Lakes tributary model.
Sec. 5015. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basins.
Sec. 5016. Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection
Program.
Sec. 5017. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration.
Sec. 5018. Hypoxia assessment.
Sec. 5019. Potomac River Watershed Assessment and Tributary Strategy
Evaluation and Monitoring Program.
Sec. 5020. Lock and dam security.
Sec. 5021. Pinhook Creek, Huntsville, Alabama.
Sec. 5022. Tallapoosa, Alabama.
Sec. 5023. Alaska.
Sec. 5024. Barrow, Alaska.
Sec. 5025. Coffman Cove, Alaska.
Sec. 5026. Fort Yukon, Alaska.
Sec. 5027. Kotzebue Harbor, Alaska.
Sec. 5028. Lowell Creek Tunnel, Seward, Alaska.
Sec. 5029. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska.
Sec. 5030. Tanana River, Alaska.
Sec. 5031. Valdez, Alaska.
Sec. 5032. Whittier, Alaska.
Sec. 5033. Wrangell Harbor, Alaska.
Sec. 5034. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas.
Sec. 5035. Des Arc levee protection, Arkansas.
Sec. 5036. Helena and vicinity, Arkansas.
Sec. 5037. Loomis Landing, Arkansas.
Sec. 5038. St. Francis River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.
Sec. 5039. White River basin, Arkansas.
Sec. 5040. Cambria, California.
Sec. 5041. Contra Costa Canal, Oakley and Knightsen, California;
Mallard Slough, Pittsburg, California.
[[Page H5826]]
Sec. 5042. Dana Point Harbor, California.
Sec. 5043. East San Joaquin County, California.
Sec. 5044. Eastern Santa Clara Basin, California.
Sec. 5045. Pine Flat Dam and Reservoir, California.
Sec. 5046. Sacramento deep water ship channel, California.
Sec. 5047. San Francisco, California.
Sec. 5048. San Francisco, California, waterfront area.
Sec. 5049. Santa Venetia, California.
Sec. 5050. Stockton, California.
Sec. 5051. Victor V. Veysey Dam, California.
Sec. 5052. Whittier, California.
Sec. 5053. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, New Haven Harbor,
Connecticut.
Sec. 5054. Christina River shipwreck, Delaware.
Sec. 5055. Anacostia River, District of Columbia, Maryland, and
Virginia.
Sec. 5056. Florida Keys water quality improvements.
Sec. 5057. Lake Worth, Florida.
Sec. 5058. Lake Lanier, Georgia.
Sec. 5059. Riley Creek Recreation Area, Idaho.
Sec. 5060. Reconstruction of Illinois flood protection projects.
Sec. 5061. Kaskaskia River Basin, Illinois, restoration.
Sec. 5062. Floodplain mapping, Little Calumet River, Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 5063. Natalie Creek, Midlothian and Oak Forest, Illinois.
Sec. 5064. Illinois River basin restoration.
Sec. 5065. Promontory Point, Lake Michigan, Illinois.
Sec. 5066. Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana.
Sec. 5067. Calumet region, Indiana.
Sec. 5068. Floodplain mapping, Missouri River, Iowa.
Sec. 5069. Rathbun Lake, Iowa.
Sec. 5070. Cumberland River basin, Kentucky.
Sec. 5071. Louisville, Kentucky.
Sec. 5072. Mayfield Creek and tributaries, Kentucky.
Sec. 5073. North Fork, Kentucky River, Breathitt County, Kentucky.
Sec. 5074. Paducah, Kentucky.
Sec. 5075. Southern and eastern Kentucky.
Sec. 5076. Winchester, Kentucky.
Sec. 5077. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Sec. 5078. Calcasieu Ship Channel, Louisiana.
Sec. 5079. Cross Lake, Shreveport, Louisiana.
Sec. 5080. West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 5081. Charlestown, Maryland.
Sec. 5082. Delmarva Conservation Corridor, Maryland and Delaware.
Sec. 5083. Massachusetts dredged material disposal sites.
Sec. 5084. Ontonagon Harbor, Michigan.
Sec. 5085. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan.
Sec. 5086. Crookston, Minnesota.
Sec. 5087. Garrison and Kathio Township, Minnesota.
Sec. 5088. Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Sec. 5089. Northeastern Minnesota.
Sec. 5090. Harrison, Hancock, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi.
Sec. 5091. Mississippi River, Missouri, and Illinois.
Sec. 5092. St. Louis, Missouri.
Sec. 5093. Acid Brook, Pompton Lakes, New Jersey.
Sec. 5094. Hackensack Meadowlands area, New Jersey.
Sec. 5095. Central New Mexico, New Mexico.
Sec. 5096. Atlantic Coast of New York.
Sec. 5097. College Point, New York City, New York.
Sec. 5098. Flushing Bay and Creek, New York City, New York.
Sec. 5099. Hudson River, New York.
Sec. 5100. Mount Morris Dam, New York.
Sec. 5101. Onondaga Lake, New York.
Sec. 5102. John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina.
Sec. 5103. Stanly County, North Carolina.
Sec. 5104. W. Kerr Scott Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina.
Sec. 5105. Ohio.
Sec. 5106. Toussaint River, Ohio.
Sec. 5107. Eugene, Oregon.
Sec. 5108. John Day Lock and Dam, Lake Umatilla, Oregon and Washington.
Sec. 5109. Lowell, Oregon.
Sec. 5110. Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 5111. Lehigh River, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 5112. Northeast Pennsylvania.
Sec. 5113. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York.
Sec. 5114. Cano Martin Pena, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Sec. 5115. Beaufort and Jasper Counties, South Carolina.
Sec. 5116. Fritz Landing, Tennessee.
Sec. 5117. J. Percy Priest Dam and Reservoir, Tennessee.
Sec. 5118. Town Creek, Lenoir City, Tennessee.
Sec. 5119. Tennessee River partnership.
Sec. 5120. Upper Mississippi Embayment, Tennessee, Arkansas, and
Mississippi.
Sec. 5121. Bosque River watershed, Texas.
Sec. 5122. Dallas Floodway, Dallas, Texas.
Sec. 5123. Harris County, Texas.
Sec. 5124. Onion Creek, Texas.
Sec. 5125. Dyke Marsh, Fairfax County, Virginia.
Sec. 5126. Eastern Shore and southwest Virginia.
Sec. 5127. James River, Virginia.
Sec. 5128. Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington.
Sec. 5129. Hamilton Island campground, Washington.
Sec. 5130. Puget Island, Washington.
Sec. 5131. Willapa Bay, Washington.
Sec. 5132. Bluestone, West Virginia.
Sec. 5133. West Virginia and Pennsylvania flood control.
Sec. 5134. Lower Kanawha River Basin, West Virginia.
Sec. 5135. Central West Virginia.
Sec. 5136. Southern West Virginia.
Sec. 5137. Johnsonville Dam, Johnsonville, Wisconsin.
Sec. 5138. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal
interests.
Sec. 5139. Use of Federal hopper dredge fleet.
TITLE VI--FLORIDA EVERGLADES
Sec. 6001. Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida.
Sec. 6002. Pilot projects.
Sec. 6003. Maximum cost of projects.
Sec. 6004. Project authorization.
Sec. 6005. Credit.
Sec. 6006. Outreach and assistance.
Sec. 6007. Critical restoration projects.
Sec. 6008. Deauthorizations.
Sec. 6009. Modified water delivery.
TITLE VII--LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA
Sec. 7001. Definitions.
Sec. 7002. Additional Reports.
Sec. 7003. Coastal Louisiana ecosystem protection and restoration task
force.
Sec. 7004. Investigations.
Sec. 7005. Construction.
Sec. 7006. Non-Federal cost share.
Sec. 7007. Project justification.
Sec. 7008. Statutory Construction.
TITLE VIII--UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATERWAY SYSTEM
Sec. 8001. Definitions.
Sec. 8002. Navigation improvements and restoration.
Sec. 8003. Authorization of construction of navigation improvements.
Sec. 8004. Ecosystem restoration authorization.
Sec. 8005. Comparable progress.
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) Akutan, alaska.--
(A) In general.--The project for navigation, Akutan,
Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 20,
2004, at a total cost of $19,700,000.
(B) Treatment of certain dredging.--The headlands dredging
for the mooring basin shall be considered a general
navigation feature for purposes of estimating the non-Federal
share of the cost of the project.
(2) Haines small boat harbor, haines, alaska.--The project
for navigation, Haines Small Boat Harbor, Haines, Alaska:
Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 20, 2004, at
a total of $12,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$9,700,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,500,000.
(3) 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 $4,978,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$3,236,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,742,000.
(4) Va shily' ay akimel, salt river restoration, arizona.--
The project for ecosystem restoration, Va Shily' Ay Akimel,
Salt River, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
January 3, 2005, at a total cost of $138,968,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $90,129,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $48,839,000.
(5) Hamilton city, california.--The project for flood
damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, Hamilton City,
California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December
22, 2004, at a total cost of $50,600,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $33,000,000 and estimated non-Federal cost of
$17,600,000.
(6) Imperial beach, california.--The project for storm
damage reduction, Imperial Beach, California: Report of the
Chief of Engineers, dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost
of $11,862,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,592,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,270,000, and at an
estimated total cost of $38,004,000 for periodic beach
nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an
estimated Federal cost of $19,002,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $19,002,000.
(7) Matilija dam, ventura county, california.--The project
for ecosystem restoration, Matilija Dam and Ventura River
Watershed, Ventura County, California: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated December 20, 2004, at a total cost of
$130,335,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $78,973,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $51,362,000.
(8) Middle creek, lake county, california.--The project for
ecosystem restoration and flood damage reduction, Middle
Creek, Lake County, California: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated November 29, 2004, at a total cost of
$41,793,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $27,256,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $14,537,000.
(9) Napa river salt marsh, california.--
(A) In general.--The project for ecosystem restoration,
Napa River Salt Marsh, Nap River, California: Report of the
Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a total cost
of $100,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$64,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $36,500,000.
(B) Project features.--In carrying out the project, the
Secretary shall include construction of a recycled water
pipeline extending from the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation
District
[[Page H5827]]
Waste Water Treatment Plant and the Napa Sanitation District
Waste Water Treatment Plant as part of the project and
restoration and enhancement of Salt Ponds 1, 1A, 2, and 3.
(10) 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 $18,824,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $12,236,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $6,588,000.
(11) Miami harbor, miami-dade county, florida.--
(A) In general.--The project for navigation, Miami Harbor,
Miami-Dade County, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated April 25, 2005, at a total cost of $121,127,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $64,843,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $56,284,000.
(B) General reevaluation report.--The non-Federal share of
the cost of the general reevaluation report that resulted in
the report of the Chief of Engineers referred to in
subparagraph (A) shall be the same percentage as the non-
Federal share of cost of construction of the project.
(C) Agreement.--The Secretary shall enter into a new
partnership with the non-Federal interest to reflect the cost
sharing required by subparagraph (B).
(12) East st. louis and vicinity, illinois.--The project
for ecosystem restoration, East St. Louis and vicinity,
Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 22,
2004, at a total cost of $191,158,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $123,807,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $67,351,000.
(13) 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 $16,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$10,400,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,600,000.
(14) Bayou sorrel lock, louisiana.--The project for
navigation, Bayou Sorrel Lock, Louisiana: Report of the Chief
of Engineers dated January 3, 2005, at a total cost of
$9,000,000. The costs of construction of the project shall 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.
(15) 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: Reports
of the Chief of Engineers, dated August 23, 2002, and July
22, 2003, at a total cost of $788,000,000 with an estimated
Federal cost of $512,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $275,800,000.
(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 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.
(16) Swope park industrial area, missouri.--The project for
flood damage reduction, Swope Park Industrial Area, Missouri:
Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated December 30, 2003, at
a total cost of $15,683,000, with an estimated Federal cost
of $10,194,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$5,489,000.
(17) Manasquan to barnegat inlet, new jersey.--The project
for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Manasquan to
Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost of $65,800,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $42,800,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $23,000,000, and at an estimated total
cost of $108,000,000 for periodic beach nourishment over the
50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal cost
of $54,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$54,000,000.
(18) 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 $112,623,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $73,205,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $39,418,000.
(19) Southwest valley, albuquerque, new mexico.--The
project for flood damage reduction, Southwest Valley,
Albuquerque, New Mexico: Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated November 29, 2004, at a total cost of $19,494,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $12,671,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $6,823,000.
(20) 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 $172,940,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $80,086,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$92,823,000.
(21) Gulf intracoastal waterway, high island to brazos
river, texas.--The project for navigation, Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway, Sabine River to Corpus Christi, Texas: Report of
the Chief of Engineers, dated April 16, 2004, at a total cost
of $13,104,000. 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.
(22) 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 24, 2002, at a total cost of
$15,960,000. 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.
(23) 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 $25,200,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $10,400,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $14,800,000.
(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.
(24) 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 Federal cost of
$35,573,000.
(25) Chehalis river, centralia, washington.--
(A) In general.--The project for flood damage reduction,
Chehalis River, Centralia, Washington: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated September 27, 2004, at a total cost of
$109,850,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $66,425,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $43,425,000.
(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall--
(i) credit up to $6,500,000 toward the non-Federal share of
the cost of the project for the cost of planning and design
work carried out by the non-Federal interest in accordance
with the project study plan dated November 28, 1999; and
(ii) credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the
project 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.
(C) Additional flood storage at skookumchuck dam.--The
Secretary shall integrate into the project the locally
preferred plan to provide an additional 9,000 acre-feet of
storage capacity at Skookumchuck Dam, Washington, upon a
determination by the Secretary that providing such additional
storage capacity is feasible.
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) Haleyville, alabama.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Haleyville, Alabama.
(2) Weiss lake, alabama.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Weiss Lake, Alabama.
(3) Chino valley wash, arizona.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Chino Valley Wash, Arizona.
(4) Little colorado river levee, arizona.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Little Colorado River Levee, Arizona.
(5) Cache river basin, grubbs, arkansas.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Cache River Basin, Grubbs, Arkansas.
(6) Barrel springs wash, palmdale, california.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Barrel Springs Wash, Palmdale,
California.
(7) Borrego springs, california.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Borrego Springs, California.
(8) Colton, california.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Colton, California.
(9) Dunlap stream, san bernardino, california.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Dunlap Stream, San Bernardino,
California.
(10) Hunts canyon wash, palmdale, california.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Hunts Canyon Wash, Palmdale,
California.
(11) Wildwood creek, yucaipa, california.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Wildwood Creek, Yucaipa, California.
(12) Utica and vicinity, illinois.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Utica and vicinity, Illinois.
(13) Des moines and raccoon rivers, iowa.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, Iowa.
(14) Peabody, massachusetts.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Peabody, Massachusetts.
(15) Salem, massachusetts.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Salem, Massachusetts.
(16) Cass river, michigan.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Cass River, Vassar and vicinity, Michigan.
(17) Crow river, rockford, minnesota.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Crow River, Rockford, Minnesota.
(18) Itasca county, minnesota.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Trout Lake and Canisteo Pit, Itasca County,
Minnesota.
(19) Marsh creek, minnesota.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Marsh Creek, Minnesota.
(20) Roseau river, roseau, minnesota.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Roseau River, Roseau, Minnesota.
(21) South branch of the wild rice river, borup,
minnesota.--Project for flood damage reduction, South Branch
of the Wild Rice River, Borup, Minnesota.
(22) Blacksnake creek, st. joseph, missouri.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Blacksnake Creek, St. Joseph,
Missouri.
(23) Cannisteo river, addison, new york.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Cannisteo River, Addison, New York.
(24) Cohocton river, campbell, new york.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Cohocton River, Campbell, New York.
(25) East river, silver beach, new york city, new york.--
Project for flood damage reduction, East River, Silver Beach,
New York City, New York.
(26) East valley creek, andover, new york.--Project for
flood damage reduction, East Valley Creek, Andover, New York.
[[Page H5828]]
(27) Sunnyside brook, westchester county, new york.--
Project for flood damage reduction, Sunnyside Brook,
Westchester County, New York.
(28) Little yankee run, ohio.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Little Yankee Run, Ohio.
(29) Little neshaminy creek, warrenton, pennsylvania.--
Project for flood damage reduction, Little Neshaminy Creek,
Warrenton, Pennsylvania.
(30) Southampton creek watershed, southampton,
pennsylvania.--Project for flood damage reduction,
Southampton Creek watershed, Southampton, Pennsylvania.
(31) Spring creek, lower macungie township, pennsylvania.--
Project for flood damage reduction, Spring Creek, Lower
Macungie Township, Pennsylvania.
(32) Yardley aqueduct, silver and brock creeks, yardley,
pennsylvania.--Project for flood damage reduction, Yardley
Aqueduct, Silver and Brock Creeks, Yardley, Pennsylvania.
(33) Surfside beach, south carolina.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Surfside Beach and vicinity, South
Carolina.
(34) Congelosi ditch, missouri city, texas.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Congelosi Ditch, Missouri City,
Texas.
(35) Dilley, texas.--Project for flood damage reduction,
Dilley, Texas.
(b) Special Rules.--
(1) Cache river basin, grubbs, arkansas.--The Secretary may
proceed with the project for the Cache River Basin, Grubbs,
Arkansas, referred to in subsection (a)(5), notwithstanding
that the project is located within the boundaries of the
flood control project, Cache River Basin, Arkansas and
Missouri, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act
of 1950, (64 Stat. 172) and modified by section 99 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 41).
(2) Wildwood creek, yucaipa, california.--The Secretary
shall review the locally prepared plan for the project for
flood damage, Wildwood Creek, California, referred to in
subsection (a)(11) 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, the Secretary may
use the plan to carry out the project and shall provide
credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the
project 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.
(3) Borup, minnesota.--In carrying out the project for
flood damage reduction, South Branch of the Wild Rice River,
Borup, Minnesota, referred to in subsection (a)(21) 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.
(4) Itasca county, minnesota.--In carrying out the project
for flood damage reduction, Itasca County, Minnesota,
referred to in subsection (a)(18) the Secretary may consider
national ecosystem restoration benefits in determining the
Federal interest in the project.
(5) Dilley, texas.--The Secretary shall carry out the
project for flood damage reduction, Dilley, Texas, referred
to in subsection (a)(35) if the Secretary determines that the
project is feasible.
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 and louisiana.--
Projects for emergency streambank protection, Ouachita and
Black Rivers, Arkansas and Louisiana.
(2) Franklin point park, anne arundel county, maryland.--
Project for emergency streambank protection, Franklin Point
Park, Anne Arundel County, Maryland.
(3) Mayo beach park, anne arundel county, maryland.--
Project for emergency streambank protection, Mayo Beach Park,
Anne Arundel County, Maryland.
(4) Piney point lighthouse, st. mary's county, maryland.--
Project for emergency streambank protection, Piney Point
Lighthouse, St. Mary's County, Maryland.
(5) St. joseph harbor, michigan.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, St. Joseph Harbor, Michigan.
(6) Pug hole lake, minnesota.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Pug Hole Lake, Minnesota.
(7) Middle fork grand river, gentry county, missouri.--
Project for emergency streambank protection, Middle Fork
Grand River, Gentry County, Missouri.
(8) Platte river, platte city, missouri.--Project for
emergency streambank protection, Platte River, Platte City,
Missouri.
(9) Rush creek, parkville, missouri.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Rush Creek, Parkville, Missouri,
including measures to address degradation of the creek bed.
(10) Keuka lake, hammondsport, new york.--Project for
emergency streambank protection, Keuka Lake, Hammondsport,
New York.
(11) 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.
(12) Howard road outfall, shelby county, tennessee.--
Project for emergency streambank protection, Howard Road
outfall, Shelby County, Tennessee.
(13) Mitch farm ditch and lateral d, shelby county,
tennessee.--Project for emergency streambank protection,
Mitch Farm Ditch and Lateral D, Shelby County, Tennessee.
(14) Wolf river tributaries, shelby county, tennessee.--
Project for emergency streambank protection, Wolf River
tributaries, Shelby County, Tennessee.
(15) Johnson creek, arlington, texas.--Project for
emergency streambank protection, Johnson Creek, Arlington,
Texas.
(16) Wells river, newbury, vermont.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Wells River, Newbury, Vermont.
SEC. 1004. SMALL PROJECTS FOR NAVIGATION.
(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 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) Mahukona beach park, hawaii.--Project for navigation,
Mahukona Beach Park, Hawaii.
(3) North kohala harbor, hawaii.--Project for navigation,
North Kohala Harbor in the vicinity of Kailua Kona, Hawaii.
(4) Wailoa small boat harbor, hawaii.--Project for
navigation, Wailoa Small Boat Harbor, Hawaii.
(5) Mississippi river ship channel, louisiana.--Project for
navigation, Mississippi River Ship Channel, Louisiana.
(6) Port tobacco river and goose creek, maryland.--Project
for navigation, Port Tobacco River and Goose Creek, Maryland.
(7) St. jerome creek, st. mary's county, maryland.--Project
for navigation, St. Jerome Creek, St. Mary's County,
Maryland.
(8) East basin, cape cod canal, sandwich, massachusetts.--
Project for navigation, East Basin, Cape Cod Canal, Sandwich,
Massachusetts.
(9) Lynn harbor, lynn, massachusetts.--Project for
navigation, Lynn Harbor, Lynn, Massachusetts.
(10) Merrimack river, haverhill, massachusetts.--Project
for navigation, Merrimack River, Haverhill, Massachusetts.
(11) Oak bluffs harbor, oak bluffs, massachusetts.--Project
for navigation, Oak Bluffs Harbor, Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts.
(12) Woods hole great harbor, falmouth, massachusetts.--
Project for navigation, Woods Hole Great Harbor, Falmouth,
Massachusetts.
(13) Au sable river, michigan.--Project for navigation, Au
Sable River in the vicinity of Oscoda, Michigan.
(14) Traverse city harbor, traverse city, michigan.--
Project for navigation, Traverse City Harbor, Traverse City,
Michigan.
(b) Special Rules.--
(1) Blytheville county harbor, arkansas.--The Secretary
shall carry out the project for navigation, Blytheville
County Harbor, Arkansas, referred to in subsection (a)(1) if
the Secretary determines that the project is feasible.
(2) Traverse city harbor, traverse city, michigan.--The
Secretary shall review the locally prepared plan for the
project for navigation, Traverse City Harbor, Michigan,
referred to in subsection (a)(14), 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, the Secretary may use the plan to carry out the
project and shall provide credit toward the non-Federal share
of the cost of the project 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. 1005. SMALL PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY OF
THE ENVIRONMENT.
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 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 2309a):
(1) Ballona creek, los angeles county, california.--Project
for improvement of the quality of the environment, Ballona
Creek, Los Angeles County, California.
(2) Ballona lagoon tide gates, marina del rey,
california.--Project for improvement of the quality of the
environment, Ballona Lagoon Tide Gates, Marina Del Rey,
California.
(3) Rathbun lake, iowa.--Project for improvement of the
quality of the environment, Rathbun Lake, Iowa.
(4) Smithville lake, missouri.--Project for improvement of
the quality of the environment, Smithville Lake, Missouri.
(5) Delaware bay, new jersey and delaware.--Project for
improvement of the quality of the environment, Delaware Bay,
New Jersey and Delaware, for the purpose of oyster
restoration.
(6) Tioga-hammond lakes, pennsylvania.--Project for
improvement of the quality of the environment, Tioga-Hammond
Lakes, Pennsylvania.
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) Cypress creek, montgomery, alabama.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Cypress Creek, Montgomery,
Alabama.
(2) Ben lomond dam, santa cruz, california.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Ben Lomond Dam, Santa Cruz,
California.
(3) Dockweiler bluffs, los angeles county, california.--
Project for aquatic ecosystem
[[Page H5829]]
restoration, Dockweiler Bluffs, Los Angeles County,
California.
(4) Salt river, california.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Salt River, California.
(5) Santa rosa creek, santa rosa, california.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Santa Rosa Creek in the
vicinity of the Prince Memorial Greenway, Santa Rosa,
California.
(6) 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.
(7) 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.
(8) Bayou texar, pensacola, florida.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Bayou Texar, Pensacola, Florida.
(9) Biscayne bay, florida.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Biscayne Bay, Key Biscayne, Florida.
(10) Clam bayou and dinkins bayou, sanibel island,
florida.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Clam
Bayou and Dinkins Bayou, Sanibel Island, Florida.
(11) Destin harbor, florida.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Destin Harbor, Florida.
(12) Chattahoochee fall line, georgia and alabama.--Project
for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Chattahoochee Fall Line,
Georgia and Alabama.
(13) Longwood cove, gainesville, georgia.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Longwood Cove, Gainesville,
Georgia.
(14) City park, university lakes, louisiana.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, City Park, University Lakes,
Louisiana.
(15) Mill pond, littleton, massachusetts.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Mill Pond, Littleton,
Massachusetts.
(16) Pine tree brook, milton, massachusetts.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Pine Tree Brook, Milton,
Massachusetts.
(17) Kalamazoo river watershed, battle creek, michigan.--
Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Kalamazoo River
watershed, Battle Creek, Michigan.
(18) Rush lake, minnesota.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Rush Lake, Minnesota.
(19) South fork of the crow river, hutchinson, minnesota.--
Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, South Fork of the
Crow River, Hutchinson, Minnesota.
(20) St. louis county, missouri.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, St. Louis County, Missouri.
(21) Truckee river, reno, nevada.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Truckee River, Reno, Nevada, including
features for fish passage.
(22) Grover's mill pond, new jersey.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Grover's Mill Pond, New Jersey.
(23) Dugway creek, bratenahl, ohio.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Dugway Creek, Bratenahl, Ohio.
(24) Johnson creek, gresham, oregon.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Johnson Creek, Gresham, Oregon.
(25) Beaver creek, beaver and salem, pennsylvania.--Project
for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Beaver Creek, Beaver and
Salem, Pennsylvania.
(26) Cementon dam, lehigh river, pennsylvania.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Cementon Dam, Lehigh River,
Pennsylvania.
(27) Delaware river, philadelphia naval shipyard,
pennsylvania.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
Delaware River in the vicinity of the Philadelphia Naval
Shipyard, Pennsylvania.
(28) Saucon creek, northampton county, pennsylvania.--
Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Saucon Creek,
Northampton County, Pennsylvania.
(29) Blackstone river, rhode island.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Blackstone River, Rhode Island.
(30) Wilson branch, cheraw, south carolina.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Wilson Branch, Cheraw, South
Carolina.
(31) White river, bethel, vermont.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, White River, Bethel, Vermont.
SEC. 1007. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SHORELINE 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
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):
(1) Nelson lagoon, alaska.--Project for shoreline
protection, Nelson Lagoon, Alaska.
(2) Sanibel island, florida.--Project for shoreline
protection, Sanibel Island, Florida.
(3) Apra harbor, guam.--Project for shoreline protection,
Apra Harbor, Guam.
(4) Piti, cabras island, guam.--Project for shoreline
protection, Piti, Cabras Island, Guam.
(5) Narrows and gravesend bay, upper new york bay,
brooklyn, new york.--Project for shoreline protection in the
vicinity of the confluence of the Narrows and Gravesend Bay,
Upper New York Bay, Brooklyn, New York.
(6) Delaware river, philadelphia naval shipyard,
pennsylvania.--Project for shoreline protection, Delaware
River in the vicinity of the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard,
Pennsylvania.
(7) Port aransas, texas.--Project for shoreline protection,
Port Aransas, Texas.
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. 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. 2002. 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 October 1, 2003.
(e) Revision of Partnership Agreement.--The Secretary shall
revise any partnership agreement entered into after October
1, 2003, for any project to which the amendments made by
subsections (a), (b), and (c) apply to take into account the
change in non-Federal participation in the project as a
result of such amendments.
SEC. 2003. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.
Section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
(33 U.S.C. 2201 note; 114 Stat. 2594; 117 Stat. 1836) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a) by striking ``In fiscal years 2001
through 2005, the'' and inserting ``The''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Duration of Authority.--The authority provided under
this section shall be in effect from October 1, 2000, through
December 31, 2007.''.
SEC. 2004. 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
(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. 2005. SMALL SHORE AND BEACH RESTORATION AND PROTECTION
PROJECTS.
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), is amended by striking ``$3,000,000'' and
inserting ``$5,000,000''.
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 striking ``to furnish its required cooperation for''
and inserting ``under which each party agrees to carry out
its responsibilities and requirements for implementation or
construction of''; and
(C) by inserting after ``$25,000.'' the following: ``Such
agreement may include a provision for damages in the event of
a failure of one or more parties to perform.'';
[[Page H5830]]
(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 an agreement under this section meets all
requirements of law and policies of the Secretary in effect
on the date of entry into the 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 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 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) Partnership and Cooperative Arrangements.--
(1) In general.--A goal of agreements entered into under
section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C.
1962d-5(b)) shall be to further partnership and cooperative
arrangements, and the agreements shall be referred to as
``partnership agreements''.
(2) References 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 considered to be a reference to a
partnership agreement or a project partnership agreement,
respectively.
(3) References to partnership agreements.--Any reference to
a partnership agreement or project partnership agreement in
this Act (other than this section) shall be considered as a
reference to a cooperation agreement or a project cooperation
agreement, respectively.
(e) Delegation of Authority.--Not later than September 30,
2006, the Secretary shall issue policies and guidelines for
partnership agreements that delegate 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) Report to Congress.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, and every year thereafter, the
Secretary shall submit to Congress a report detailing the
following:
(1) the number of partnership agreements signed by district
engineers and the number of partnership agreements signed by
the Secretary, and
(2) for any partnership agreement signed by the Secretary,
an explanation of why delegation to the district engineer was
not appropriate.
(g) 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.
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 2006 through 2010.
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, 2006, 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,
2006, 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. The
Secretary shall also ensure that such compilations are
available through electronic means, including the Internet.
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 one 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
[[Page H5831]]
(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;
(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 sediment obtained in connection with the
construction, operation, or maintenance of an authorized
water resources 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 one or more of the purposes of protection,
restoration, or creation 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
water resources project in the most cos- effective way,
consistent with economic, engineering, and environmental
criteria.
``(g) Selection of Sediment Disposal Method.--In developing
and carrying out a water resources project involving the
disposal of sediment, 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 subsections (d) and (f).
``(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 sediment obtained in conjunction with the
construction, operation, or maintenance of water resources
projects, including potential beneficial uses of sediment 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.
``(k) Use of Funds.--
``(1) Non-federal interest.--The non-Federal interest for a
project described in this section may use, and the Secretary
shall accept, funds provided under any other Federal program,
to satisfy, in whole or in part, the non-Federal share of the
cost of such project if such funds are authorized to be used
to carry out such project.
``(2) Other federal agencies.--The non-Federal share of the
cost of construction of a project under this section may be
met through contributions from a Federal agency made directly
to the Secretary, with the consent of the affected local
government, if such funds are authorized to be used to carry
out such project. Before initiating a project to which this
paragraph applies, the Secretary shall enter into an
agreement with a non-Federal interest in which the non-
Federal interest agrees to pay 100 percent of the cost of
operation, maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation of
the project.''.
(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 the following:
(1) A project at Little Rock Slackwater Harbor, Arkansas.
(2) A project at Egmont Key, Florida.
(3) A project in the vicinity of Calcasieu Ship Channel,
Louisiana.
(4) A project in the vicinity of the Smith Point Park
Pavilion and the TWA Flight 800 Memorial, Brookhaven, New
York.
(5) A project in the vicinity of Morehead City, North
Carolina.
(6) A project in the vicinity of Galveston Bay, Texas.
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.
``(a) In General.--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 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.
``(b) Use of Funds.--The non-Federal interest for a study
or project for an area described in subsection (a) may use,
and the Secretary shall accept, funds provided under any
other Federal program, to satisfy, in whole or in part, the
non-Federal share of such study or project if such funds are
authorized to be used to carry out such study or project.''.
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)--
(A) by striking ``During fiscal years 1999 through 2002,
the'' and inserting ``The''; and
(B) by striking ``$34,000,000'' and inserting
``$42,000,000''; 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) Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio;
[[Page H5832]]
``(7) Sauk River Basin, Snohomish and Skagit Counties,
Washington;
``(8) Niagara River Basin, New York; and
``(9) Genesee River Basin, New York.'';
(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.
(a) Scope.--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''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 203(e) of
such Act is amended by striking ``2006'' and inserting
``2010''.
SEC. 2021. 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,''.
SEC. 2022. 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 carrying out 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 integral to
the project.
SEC. 2023. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
Section 22 of the 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 (b)(2) by striking ``Up to 1/2 of the''
and inserting ``The'';
(5) in subsection (c) by striking ``(c) There is'' and
inserting the following:
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) Federal and state cooperation.--There is'';
(6) in subsection (c)(1) (as designated by paragraph (5))--
(A) by striking ``the provisions of this section'' and
inserting ``subsection (a)(1);''; and
(B) by striking ``$500,000'' and inserting ``$1,000,000'';
(7) 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.'';
(8) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
(9) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
``(d) Annual Submission of Proposed Activities.--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 Environment and
Public Works of the Senate a report describing the individual
activities proposed for funding under subsection (a)(1) for
that fiscal year.''.
SEC. 2024. 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, storm damage
reduction, ecosystem 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, storm damage reduction, ecosystem
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. 2025. PROJECT STREAMLINING.
(a) Policy.--The benefits of water resources projects are
important to the Nation's economy
[[Page H5833]]
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, 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. 2026. 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) McCarter Pond, Borough of Fairhaven, New Jersey,
removal of silt and measures to address water quality;
``(22) Rogers Pond, Franklin Township, New Jersey, removal
of silt and restoration of structural integrity;
``(23) Greenwood Lake, New York and New Jersey, removal of
silt and aquatic growth;
``(24) Lake Rodgers, Creedmoor, North Carolina, removal of
silt and excessive nutrients and restoration of structural
integrity; and
``(25) Lake Luxembourg, Pennsylvania.''.
SEC. 2027. MITIGATION FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE LOSSES.
(a) Mitigation Plan Contents.--Section 906(d) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (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.''.
(b) 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 Environment and Public Works of the Senate a
report on the status of construction of projects that require
mitigation under section 906 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 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. 2028. 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.
[[Page H5834]]
(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. 2029. PROJECT PLANNING.
(a) Objectives.--
(1) Flood damage reduction, 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 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 plan is feasible and achieves
the project purposes 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 additional
measures, 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 additional measures, a separate
project, or separable project element to achieve those
benefits.
(3) Rules applicable to certain measures, projects, and
elements.--Any additional measures, separate project, or
separable element identified under paragraph (1) or (2) and
recommended for construction shall not be considered integral
to the underlying project and, if authorized, shall be
subject to a separate partnership agreement, unless a non-
Federal interest agrees to share in the cost of the
additional measures, project, or separable element.
(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. 2030. 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
[[Page H5835]]
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 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.
SEC. 2031. TRAINING FUNDS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may include individuals not
employed by the Department of the Army in training classes
and courses offered by the Corps of Engineers in any case in
which the Secretary determines that it is in the best
interest of the Federal Government to include those
individuals as participants.
(b) Expenses.--
(1) In general.--An individual not employed by the
Department of the Army attending a training class or course
described in subsection (a) shall pay the full cost of the
training provided to the individual.
(2) Payments.--Payments made by an individual for training
received under paragraph (1), up to the actual cost of the
training--
(A) may be retained by the Secretary;
(B) shall be credited to an appropriation or account used
for paying training costs; and
(C) shall be available for use by the Secretary, without
further appropriation, for training purposes.
(3) Excess amounts.--Any payments received under paragraph
(2) that are in excess of the actual cost of training
provided shall be credited as miscellaneous receipts to the
Treasury of the United States.
SEC. 2032. ACCESS TO WATER RESOURCE DATA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a program to
provide public access to water resource and related water
quality data in the custody of the Corps of Engineers.
(b) Data.--Public access under subsection (a) shall--
(1) include, at a minimum, access to data generated in
water resources project development and regulation under
section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1344); and
(2) appropriately employ geographic information system
technology and linkages to water resource models and
analytical techniques.
(c) Partnerships.--To the maximum extent practicable, in
carrying out activities under this section, the Secretary
shall develop partnerships, including cooperative agreements
with State, tribal, and local governments and other Federal
agencies.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for
each fiscal year.
SEC. 2033. SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS.
(a) In General.--In accordance with the Act of July 3, 1930
(33 U.S.C. 426), and notwithstanding administrative actions,
it is the policy of the United States to promote beach
nourishment for the purposes of flood damage reduction and
hurricane and storm damage reduction and related research
that encourage the protection, restoration, and enhancement
of sandy beaches, including beach restoration and periodic
beach renourishment for a period of 50 years, on a
comprehensive and coordinated basis by the Federal
Government, States, localities, and private enterprises.
(b) Preference.--In carrying out the policy, preference
shall be given to--
(1) areas in which there has been a Federal investment of
funds for the purposes described in subsection (a); and
(2) areas with respect to which the need for prevention or
mitigation of damage to shores and beaches is attributable to
Federal navigation projects or other Federal activities.
(c) Applicability.--The Secretary shall apply the policy to
each shore protection and beach renourishment project
(including shore protection and beach renourishment projects
constructed before the date of enactment of this Act).
SEC. 2034. ABILITY TO PAY.
(a) Criteria and Procedures.--Section 103(m)(2) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2213(m)(2)) is amended by striking ``180 days after such date
of enactment'' and inserting ``August 31, 2005''.
(b) Projects.--The Secretary shall apply the criteria and
procedures referred to in section 103(m) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) to the
following projects:
(1) St. johns bayou and new madrid floodway, missouri.--The
project for flood control, St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid
Floodway, Missouri, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4118).
(2) 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).
(3) West virginia and pennsylvania projects.--The projects
for flood control authorized by section 581 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3790-3791).
SEC. 2035. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.
Section 206(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330) is amended by striking ``$25,000,000''
and inserting ``$40,000,000''.
SEC. 2036. SMALL FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECTS.
Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C.
701s) is amended by striking ``$50,000,000'' and inserting
``$60,000,000''.
SEC. 2037. LEASING AUTHORITY.
Section 4 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the
construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors
for flood control, and other purposes'', approved December
22, 1944 (16 U.S.C. 460d) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``federally-recognized Indian tribes and''
before ``Federal'' the first place it appears;
[[Page H5836]]
(2) by inserting ``Indian tribes or'' after
``considerations, to such''; and
(3) by inserting ``federally-recognized Indian tribe''
after ``That in any such lease or license to a''.
SEC. 2038. COST ESTIMATES.
The estimated Federal and non-Federal costs of projects
authorized to be carried out by the Secretary before, on, or
after the date of enactment of this Act are for informational
purposes only and shall not be interpreted as affecting the
cost sharing responsibilities established by law.
SEC. 2039. STUDIES AND REPORTS FOR WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS.
(a) Studies.--
(1) Cost-sharing requirements.--Section 105(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2215(a)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Detailed project reports.--The requirements of this
subsection that apply to a feasibility study also shall apply
to a study that results in a detailed project report, except
that--
``(A) the first $100,000 of the costs of a study that
results in a detailed project report shall be a Federal
expense; and
``(B) paragraph (1)(C)(ii) shall not apply to such a
study.''.
(2) Planning and engineering.--Section 105(b) of such Act
(33 U.S.C. 2215(b)) is amended by striking ``authorized by
this Act''.
(3) Definitions.--Section 105 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2215)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
``(1) Detailed project report.--The term `detailed project
report' means a report for a project not specifically
authorized by Congress in law or otherwise that determines
the feasibility of the project with a level of detail
appropriate to the scope and complexity of the recommended
solution and sufficient to proceed directly to the
preparation of contract plans and specifications. The term
includes any associated environmental impact statement and
mitigation plan. For a project for which the Federal cost
does not exceed $1,000,000, the term includes a planning and
design analysis document.
``(2) Feasibility study.--The term `feasibility study'
means a study that results in a feasibility report under
section 905, and any associated environmental impact
statement and mitigation plan, prepared by the Corps of
Engineers for a water resources project. The term includes a
study that results in a project implementation report
prepared under title VI of the Water Resources Development
Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680-2694), a general reevaluation
report, and a limited reevaluation report.''.
(b) Reports.--
(1) Preparation.--Section 905(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282(a); 100 Stat. 4185)
is amended--
(A) by striking ``(a) In the case of any'' and inserting
the following:
``(a) Preparation of Reports.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of any'';
(B) by striking ``the Secretary, the Secretary shall'' and
inserting ``the Secretary that results in recommendations
concerning a project or the operation of a project and that
requires specific authorization by Congress in law or
otherwise, the Secretary shall perform a reconnaissance study
and'';
(C) by striking ``Such feasibility report'' and inserting
the following:
``(2) Contents of feasibility reports.--A feasibility
report'';
(D) by striking ``The feasibility report'' and inserting
``A feasibility report''; and
(E) by striking the last sentence and inserting the
following:
``(3) Applicability.--This subsection shall not apply to--
``(A) any study with respect to which a report has been
submitted to Congress before the date of enactment of this
Act;
``(B) any study for a project, which project is authorized
for construction by this Act and is not subject to section
903(b);
``(C) any study for a project which does not require
specific authorization by Congress in law or otherwise; and
``(D) general studies not intended to lead to
recommendation of a specific water resources project.
``(4) Feasibility report defined.--In this subsection, the
term `feasibility report' means each feasibility report, and
any associated environmental impact statement and mitigation
plan, prepared by the Corps of Engineers for a water
resources project. The term includes a project implementation
report prepared under title VI of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680-2694), a general
reevaluation report, and a limited reevaluation report.''.
(2) Projects not specicially authorized by congress.--
Section 905 of such Act is further amended--
(A) in subsection (b) by inserting ``Reconnaissance
Studies.--'' before ``Before initiating'';
(B) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), and (e) as
subsections (d), (e), and (f), respectively;
(C) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Projects not Specifically Authorized by Congress.--In
the case of any water resources project-related study
authorized to be undertaken by the Secretary without specific
authorization by Congress in law or otherwise, the Secretary
shall prepare a detailed project report.'';
(D) in subsection (d) (as so redesignated) by inserting
``Indian Tribes.--'' before ``For purposes of''; and
(E) in subsection (e) (as so redesignated) by inserting
``Standard and Uniform Procedures and Practices.--'' before
``The Secretary shall'' .
SEC. 2040. FISCAL TRANSPARENCY REPORT.
(a) In General.--On the third Tuesday of January of each
year beginning January 2006, the Chief of Engineers shall
submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of
the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report on
the expenditures for the preceding fiscal year and estimated
expenditures for the current fiscal year and, for projects
and activities that are not scheduled for completion in the
current fiscal year, the estimated expenditures necessary in
the following fiscal year for each project or activity to
maintain the same level of effort being achieved in the
current fiscal year.
(b) Contents.--In addition to the information described in
subsection (a), the report shall contain a detailed
accounting of the following information:
(1) With respect to general construction, information on--
(A) projects currently under construction, including--
(i) allocations to date;
(ii) the number of years remaining to complete
construction;
(iii) the estimated annual Federal cost to maintain that
construction schedule; and
(iv) a list of projects the Corps of Engineers expects to
complete during the current fiscal year; and
(B) projects for which there is a signed cost-sharing
agreement and completed planning, engineering, and design,
including--
(i) the number of years the project is expected to require
for completion; and
(ii) estimated annual Federal cost to maintain that
construction schedule.
(2) With respect to operation and maintenance of the inland
and intracoastal waterways under section 206 of Public Law
95-502 (33 U.S.C. 1804)--
(A) the estimated annual cost to maintain each waterway for
the authorized reach and at the authorized depth; and
(B) the estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance
of locks and dams to ensure navigation without interruption.
(3) With respect to general investigations and
reconnaissance and feasibility studies--
(A) the number of active studies;
(B) the number of completed studies not yet authorized for
construction;
(C) the number of initiated studies; and
(D) the number of studies expected to be completed during
the fiscal year.
(4) Funding received and estimates of funds to be received
for interagency and international support activities under
section 318(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990
(33 U.S.C. 2323(a)).
(5) Recreation fees and lease payments.
(6) Hydropower and water storage fees.
(7) Deposits into the Inland Waterway Trust Fund and the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
(8) Other revenues and fees collected.
TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
SEC. 3001. 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 and Harbor
Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), shall be $8,000,000.
SEC. 3002. ST. PAUL HARBOR, ST. PAUL ISLAND, ALASKA.
(a) Small Boat Harbor.--No elements of the project for
navigation, St. Paul Harbor, St. Paul Island, Alaska,
authorized by section 101(b)(3) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3667) and modified by
section 303 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 298) and section 105 of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 2003 (117 Stat. 139), shall
be treated by the Secretary as separable.
(b) Limitation on Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share
for the project shall not exceed $14,400,000.
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. TATITLEK, ALASKA.
The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended
for the project for navigation, Tatitlek, 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. 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. 3006. OSCEOLA HARBOR, ARKANSAS.
(a) In General.--The project for navigation, Osceola
Harbor, Arkansas, constructed under section 107 of the River
and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified to allow
non-Federal interests to construct a mooring facility within
the existing authorized harbor channel, subject to all
necessary permits, certifications, and other requirements.
(b) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed as affecting the responsibility of
the Secretary to maintain the general navigation features of
the project at a bottom width of 250 feet.
SEC. 3007. PINE MOUNTAIN DAM, ARKANSAS.
The Pine Mountain Dam feature of the project for flood
protection, Lee Creek, Arkansas
[[Page H5837]]
and Oklahoma, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control
Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1078), is modified--
(1) to add environmental restoration as a project purpose;
and
(2) to direct the Secretary to finance the non-Federal
share of the cost of the project over a 30-year period in
accordance with section 103(k) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(k)).
SEC. 3008. 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. 3009. AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CALIFORNIA.
Section 128 of Public Law 108-137 (117 Stat. 1838) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Dam Safety Modifications at L.L. Anderson Dam.--In
determining improvements for dam safety that are necessary at
the L.L. Anderson Dam, the Secretary shall consider the
without-project condition to be the dam as it existed on
December 1, 2003.
``(d) Cost Allocation.--In allocating costs for the project
authorized in subsection (a), the Secretary shall use the
project cost allocations for flood damage reduction and dam
safety that are contained in the American River Watershed,
California, long-term study final supplemental plan
formulation report dated February 2002.''.
SEC. 3010. COMPTON CREEK, CALIFORNIA.
The project for flood control, Los Angeles Drainage Area,
California, authorized by section 101(b) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4611), is
modified to add environmental restoration and recreation as
project purposes.
SEC. 3011. 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. 3012. HAMILTON AIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA.
The project for environmental restoration, Hamilton
Airfield, California, authorized by section 101(b)(3) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 279), is
modified to direct the Secretary to construct the project
substantially in accordance with the report of the Chief of
Engineers dated July 19, 2004, at a total cost of
$205,226,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $153,840,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $51,386,000.
SEC. 3013. 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 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. 3014. KAWEAH RIVER, CALIFORNIA.
The project for flood control, Terminus Dam, Kaweah River,
California, authorized by section 101(b)(5) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3658), is
modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project, or provide
reimbursement not to exceed $800,000, for the costs of any
work carried out by the non-Federal interest before, on, or
after the date of the project partnership agreement if the
Secretary determines that the work is integral to the
project.
SEC. 3015. 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 determine whether
maintenance of the project is feasible, and if the Secretary
determines that maintenance of the project is feasible, to
carry out such maintenance.
SEC. 3016. LLAGAS CREEK, CALIFORNIA.
The project for flood damage reduction, Llagas Creek,
California, authorized by section 501(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 333), is
modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out the project
at a total cost of $105,000,000.
SEC. 3017. LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CALIFORNIA.
The project for navigation, Los Angeles Harbor, California,
authorized by section 101(b)(5) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2577), is modified to
authorize the Secretary to carry out the project at a total
cost of $222,000,000.
SEC. 3018. MAGPIE CREEK, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--The project for Magpie Creek, California,
authorized under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948
(33 U.S.C. 701s), is modified to direct the Secretary to
apply the cost-sharing requirements of section 103(b) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4085) for
the portion of the project consisting of land acquisition to
preserve and enhance existing floodwater storage.
(b) Credit.--The Secretary shall 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. 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. 3020. 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. 3021. 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. 3022. SACRAMENTO AND AMERICAN RIVERS FLOOD CONTROL,
CALIFORNIA.
(a) Determination of Federal Costs Paid by Non-Federal
Interest.--
(1) Federal costs paid by non-federal interest.--The
Secretary shall determine the amount paid by the Sacramento
Area Flood Control Agency towards the Federal share of the
cost of the project for the Natomas levee features authorized
by section 9159(b) of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 1993 (106 Stat. 1944) of the project for
flood control and recreation, Sacramento and American Rivers,
California.
(2) Reimbursements to non-federal interest.--The Secretary
shall determine the amount of reimbursements paid to the
Sacramento Flood Control Agency for payment of the Federal
share of the cost of the project referred to in paragraph
(1).
(3) Determination of federal share.--In carrying out
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall include in the total cost
of the project all costs of the following activities that the
Secretary determines to be integral to the project:
(A) Planning, engineering, and construction.
(B) Acquisition of project lands, easements, and rights-of-
way.
(C) Performance of relocations.
(D) Environmental mitigation for all project elements.
(b) Credit.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of any flood damage reduction
project, authorized before the date of enactment of this Act,
for which the non-Federal interest is the Sacramento Area
Flood Control Agency an amount equal to the total amount
determined under subsection (a)(1) reduced by the amount
determined under subsection (a)(2).
(2) Allocation of credit.--The Secretary shall allocate the
amount to be credited under paragraph (1) toward the non-
Federal share of such projects as are requested by the
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency.
SEC. 3023. 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. 3024. 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,
[[Page H5838]]
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. 3025. SANTA CRUZ HARBOR, CALIFORNIA.
The project of navigation, Santa Cruz Harbor, California,
authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958
(72 Stat. 300) and modified by section 809 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4168) and
section 526 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 346), is modified to direct the Secretary--
(1) to renegotiate the memorandum of agreement with the
non-Federal interest to increase the annual payment to
reflect the updated cost of operation and maintenance that is
the Federal and non-Federal share as provided by law based on
the project purpose; and
(2) to revise the memorandum of agreement to include terms
that revise such payments for inflation.
SEC. 3026. SEVEN OAKS DAM, CALIFORNIA.
The project for flood control, Santa Ana Mainstem,
authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4113) and modified by
section 104 of the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 1988 (101 Stat. 1329-11), section 102(e)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat.
4611), and section 311 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3713), is further modified to direct the
Secretary to conduct a study for the reallocation of water
storage at the Seven Oaks Dam, California, for water
conservation.
SEC. 3027. 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 $212,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$106,050,000, and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$106,050,000. 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. 3028. 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. 3029. 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. 3030. 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. 3031. YUBA RIVER BASIN PROJECT, CALIFORNIA.
The project for flood damage reduction, Yuba River Basin,
California, authorized by section 101(a)(10) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 275), is
modified--
(1) to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at
a total cost of $107,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost
of $70,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$37,700,000; and
(2) 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. 3032. INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE RIVER TO
CHESAPEAKE BAY, DELAWARE AND MARYLAND.
The project for navigation, Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware
River to Chesapeake Bay, Delaware and Maryland, authorized by
the first section of the Rivers and Harbors Act of August 30,
1935 (49 Stat. 1030), and section 101 of the River and Harbor
Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1249), is modified to add recreation as
a project purpose.
SEC. 3033. BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA.
(a) Shoreline.--The project for shoreline protection,
Brevard County, Florida, authorized by section 101(b)(7) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3667),
is modified--
(1) to direct the Secretary to establish the reach of the
project as the reach between the Florida department of
environmental protection monuments 75.4 to 118.3, a distance
of 7.6 miles; and
(2) to direct the Secretary to expedite the general
reevaluation report required by section 418 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2637).
(b) Credit.--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. 3034. 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. 3035. CANAVERAL HARBOR, FLORIDA.
In carrying out the project for navigation, Canaveral
Harbor, Florida, authorized by section 101 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1174), the Secretary shall
construct a sediment trap.
SEC. 3036. 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. 3037. JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FLORIDA.
(a) In General.--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.
(b) General Reevaluation Reports.--The non-Federal share of
the cost of the general reevaluation report that resulted in
the report of the Chief of Engineers for the project and the
non-Federal share of the cost of the general reevaluation
report for Jacksonville Harbor, Florida, being conducted on
June 1, 2005, shall each be the same percentage as the non-
Federal share of the cost of construction of the project.
(c) Agreement.--The Secretary shall enter into new
partnership agreements with the non-Federal interest to
reflect the cost sharing required by subsection (b).
SEC. 3038. LIDO KEY BEACH, SARASOTA, FLORIDA.
(a) In General.--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 substantially in accordance with the report of
the Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a total
cost of $14,809,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$9,088,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,721,000,
and at an estimated total cost of $58,635,000 for periodic
nourishment over the 50-year life of the project.
(b) Construction of Shoreline Protection Projects by Non-
Federal Interests.--The Secretary shall enter into a
partnership agreement with the non-Federal sponsor in
accordance with section 206 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 426i-1) for the modified
project.
SEC. 3039. 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--
(1) to include as a project purpose environmental
mitigation required before July 18, 2003, by a Federal,
State, or local environmental agency for unauthorized or
unanticipated environmental impacts within, or in the
vicinity of, the authorized project; and
(2) to direct the Secretary to reimburse the non-Federal
interest for costs it has incurred in construction of the
project in accordance with section 204 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2232).
SEC. 3040. PEANUT ISLAND, FLORIDA.
The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended
for the project for improvement of the quality of the
environment, Peanut Island, Palm Beach County, Florida, being
carried out under section 1135 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) shall be
$9,750,000.
[[Page H5839]]
SEC. 3041. 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. 3042. TAMPA HARBOR CUT B, FLORIDA.
(a) In General.--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 Harbor Cut B if the
Secretary determines that such improvements are necessary for
navigation safety.
(b) General Reevaulation Report.--The non-Federal share of
the cost of the general reevaluation report for Tampa Harbor,
Florida, being conducted on June 1, 2005, shall be the same
percentage as the non-Federal share of the cost of
construction of the project.
(c) Agreement.--The Secretary shall enter into a new
partnership agreement with the non-Federal interest to
reflect the cost sharing required by subsection (b).
SEC. 3043. 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.
SEC. 3044. LATHAM RIVER, GLYNN COUNTY, GEORGIA.
The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended
for the project for improvement of the quality of the
environment, Latham River, Glynn County, Georgia, being
carried out under section 1135 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) shall be
$6,175,000.
SEC. 3045. DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR IMPROVEMENTS, IDAHO.
The Secretary may carry out improvements to recreational
facilities at the Dworshak Dam and Reservoir, North Fork,
Clearwater River, Idaho, authorized by section 203 of the
Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1193), to accommodate
lower pool levels.
SEC. 3046. BEARDSTOWN COMMUNITY BOAT HARBOR, BEARDSTOWN,
ILLINOIS.
(a) Partnership Agreement.--The project for navigation,
Muscooten Bay, Illinois River, Beardstown Community Boat
Harbor, Beardstown, Illinois, constructed under section 107
of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is
modified to direct the Secretary to enter into a partnership
agreement with the city of Beardstown to replace the August
18, 1983, local cooperation agreement with the Beardstown
Community Park District. The partnership agreement shall
include the same rights and responsibilities as the
agreement, changing only the identity of the non-Federal
sponsor.
(b) Maintenance.--Following execution of the partnership
agreement referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary may
carry out maintenance of the project referred to in
subsection (a) on an annual basis.
SEC. 3047. CACHE RIVER LEVEE, ILLINOIS.
The Cache River Levee portion of the project for flood
control, Cache River, Illinois, authorized by the Act of June
28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1215), is modified to add environmental
restoration as a project purpose.
SEC. 3048. CHICAGO RIVER, ILLINOIS.
The navigation channel for the North Branch Canal portion
of the Chicago River, authorized by the first section of the
Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of March 3, 1899 (30
Stat. 1129), extending from 100 feet downstream of the
Halsted Street Bridge to 100 feet upstream of the Division
Street Bridge is modified to be no wider than 66 feet.
SEC. 3049. CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL, ILLINOIS.
(a) Existing Barrier.--The Secretary shall upgrade and make
permanent, at Federal expense, the existing Chicago Sanitary
and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier Chicago, Illinois,
constructed as a demonstration project under section
1202(i)(3) of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention
and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4722(i)(3)).
(b) Operation and Maintenance.--The barrier referred to in
subsection (a) and the barrier in the Chicago Sanitary and
Ship Canal being constructed under section 1135 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) shall be
operated and maintained, at Federal expense, as a system in a
manner to optimize effectiveness. Operation and maintenance
includes investigating and eliminating potential pathways
that may allow aquatic species in the Des Plaines River and
Illinois and Michigan Canal to bypass the barriers in the
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.
(c) Feasibility Study.--The Secretary, in consultation with
appropriate Federal, State, local, and nongovernmental
entities, shall conduct a feasibility study, at Federal
expense, of the range of options and technologies available
to prevent the spread of aquatic species between the Great
Lakes and Mississippi River Basins through the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal and other pathways.
SEC. 3050. 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. 3051. LASALLE, ILLINOIS.
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 the vicinity of LaSalle,
Illinois, on the Illinois and Michigan Canal.
SEC. 3052. SPUNKY BOTTOMS, ILLINOIS.
(a) Project Purpose.--The project for flood control, 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. 3053. FORT WAYNE AND VICINITY, INDIANA.
The project for flood control Fort Wayne, St. Mary's and
Maumee Rivers, Indiana, authorized by section 101(a)(11) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4604),
is modified--
(1) to direct the Secretary to provide a 100-year level of
flood protection at the Berry-Thieme, Park-Thompson,
Woodhurst, and Tillman sites along the St. Mary's River, Fort
Wayne and vicinity, Indiana, at a total cost of $5,300,000;
and
(2) to 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. 3054. KOONTZ LAKE, INDIANA.
The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Koontz Lake,
Indiana, being carried out under section 206 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330) and
modified by section 520 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2655), is further modified to direct
the Secretary to seek to reduce the cost of the project by
using innovative technologies and cost reduction measures
determined from a review of non-Federal lake dredging
projects in the vicinity of Koontz Lake.
SEC. 3055. 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 $198,000,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $148,500,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $49,500,000.
SEC. 3056. 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 for
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--
(1) 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
[[Page H5840]]
(2) 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. 3057. DES MOINES RIVER AND GREENBELT, IOWA.
The project for the Des Moines Recreational River and
Greenbelt, Iowa, authorized by Public Law 99-88 and modified
by section 604 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(100 Stat. 4153), is modified to include enhanced public
access and recreational enhancements, at a Federal cost of
$3,000,000.
SEC. 3058. 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. 3059. 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--
(1) 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;
(2) to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at
a total cost of $178,000,000; and
(3) 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. 3060. 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:
``(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. 3061. BAYOU PLAQUEMINE, LOUISIANA.
The project for the improvement of the quality of the
environment, Bayou Plaquemine, Louisiana, being carried out
under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309(a)), 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. 3062. ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LOUISIANA.
The public access feature of the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway
System project, Louisiana, authorized by section 601(a) of
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. 3063. 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--
(1) to authorize the purchase and reforesting lands that
have been cleared or converted to agricultural uses; and
(2) to incorporate current wildlife and forestry management
practices for the purpose of improving species diversity on
mitigation lands that meet Federal and State of Louisiana
habitat goals and objectives.
SEC. 3064. 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. 3065. 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. 3066. 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. 3067. 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 $25,000,000.
SEC. 3068. 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. 3069. GWYNNS FALLS WATERSHED, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out the project
for ecosystem restoration, Gwynns Falls, Maryland, in
accordance with the Baltimore Metropolitan Water Resources
Gwynns Falls Watershed Study-Draft Feasibility Report and
Integrated Environmental Assessment prepared by the Corps of
Engineers and the city of Baltimore, Maryland, dated April
2004.
(b) Special Rule for Gwynns Falls, Maryland.--The report on
the project for environmental restoration at Gwynns Falls,
Maryland, 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.
(c) Repeal.--Section 123 of Public Law 108-137 (117 Stat.
1837) is repealed.
SEC. 3070. BOSTON HARBOR, MASSACHUSETTS.
The project for navigation, Boston Harbor, Massachusetts,
authorized by section 101(a)(13) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4607), is modified to
provide that no funds may be expended for the dredging of
Chelsea Creek until the city of Boston and the United States
Coast Guard complete the replacement of the Chelsea Street
Bridge, as identified in the limited reevaluation report for
the project dated June 1996.
SEC. 3071. 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. 3072. ST. JOSEPH HARBOR, MICHIGAN.
The Secretary shall expedite development of the dredged
material management plan for the project for navigation St.
Joseph Harbor, Michigan, authorized by section 101 of the
River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 299).
SEC. 3073. SAULT SAINTE MARIE, MICHIGAN.
(a) In General.--The text of section 1149 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4254) is amended
to read as follows:
``The Secretary shall construct at Federal expense a second
lock, of the same dimensions as the existing Poe Lock,
adjacent to the existing lock at Sault Sainte Marie,
Michigan, generally in accordance with the report of the
Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, dated May 19,
1986, and the limited reevaluation report dated February 2004
at a total cost of $341,714,000.''.
(b) Conforming Repeals.--The following provisoins are
repealed:
(1) Section 107(a)(8) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4620).
(2) Section 330 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3717-3718).
(3) Section 330 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (113 Stat. 305).
SEC. 3074. 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
[[Page H5841]]
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. 3075. 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. 3076. 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. 3077. 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. 3078. KNIFE RIVER HARBOR, MINNESOTA.
The project for navigation, Harbor at Knife River,
Minnesota, authorized by section 2 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act of March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 19), is modified to direct the
Secretary to develop a final design and prepare plans and
specifications to correct the harbor entrance and mooring
conditions at the project.
SEC. 3079. RED LAKE RIVER, MINNESOTA.
The project for flood control, Red Lake River, Crookston,
Minnesota, authorized by section 101(a)(23) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 278), is
modified to include 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 $17,000,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $11,000,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $6,000,000.
SEC. 3080. 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. 3081. 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. 3082. 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. 3083. 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 in-kind services and materials.
SEC. 3084. PEARL RIVER BASIN, MISSISSIPPI.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall complete a feasibility
study for the project for flood damage reduction, Pearl River
Watershed, Mississippi.
(b) Comparison of Alternatives.--The feasibility study
shall identify both the plan that maximizes national economic
development benefits and the locally preferred plan and shall
compare the level of flood damage reduction provided by each
plan to that portion of Jackson, Mississippi, located below
the Ross Barnett Reservoir Dam.
(c) Recommended Plan.--If the Secretary determines that the
locally preferred plan provides a level of flood damage
reduction that is equal to or greater than the level of flood
damage reduction provided by the national economic
development plan, and the locally preferred plan is
technically feasible and environmentally protective, the
Secretary shall recommend construction of the locally
preferred plan.
(d) Evaluation of Project Cost.--For the purposes of
determining compliance with the first section of the Flood
Control Act of June 22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701a), the Secretary
shall consider only the costs of the national economic
development plan, and shall exclude incremental costs
associated with the locally preferred plan that are in excess
of such costs, if the non-Federal interest agrees to pay 100
percent of such incremental costs.
(e) Non-Federal Cost Share.--If the locally preferred plan
is authorized for construction, the non-Federal share of the
cost of the project shall be the same percentage as the non-
Federal share of the cost of the national economic
development plan plus all additional costs of construction
associated with the locally preferred plan.
SEC. 3085. FESTUS AND CRYSTAL CITY, MISSOURI.
Section 102(b)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (113 Stat. 282) is amended by striking ``$10,000,000''
and inserting ``$12,000,000''.
SEC. 3086. MONARCH-CHESTERFIELD, MISSOURI.
The project for flood damage reduction, Monarch-
Chesterfield, Missouri, authorized by section 101(b)(18) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2578),
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 that
the work is integral to the project.
SEC. 3087. RIVER DES PERES, MISSOURI.
The projects for flood control, River Des Peres, Missouri,
authorized by section 101(a)(17) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4607) and section 102(13)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3668), are each 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. 3088. ANTELOPE CREEK, LINCOLN, NEBRASKA.
The project for flood damage reduction, Antelope Creek,
Lincoln, Nebraska, authorized by section 101(b)(19) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2578), is
modified--
(1) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project 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
(2) to allow the non-Federal sponsor for the project to
use, and to direct the Secretary to accept, funds provided
under any other Federal program, to satisfy, in whole or in
part, the non-Federal share of the project if such funds are
authorized to be used to carry out the project.
SEC. 3089. 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.
[[Page H5842]]
SEC. 3090. LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY POINT, NEW
JERSEY.
The project for navigation mitigation, ecosystem
restoration, shore protection, and hurricane and storm damage
reduction, Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New
Jersey, authorized by section 101(a)(25) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 278), is
modified to incorporate the project for shoreline erosion
control, Cape May Point, New Jersey, carried out under
section 5 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), if the Secretary determines that such
incorporation is feasible.
SEC. 3091. PASSAIC RIVER BASIN FLOOD MANAGEMENT, NEW JERSEY.
The project for flood control, Passaic River, New Jersey
and New York, authorized by section 101(a)(18) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4607) and
modified by section 327 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2607), is further modified to direct
the Secretary to include the benefits and costs of preserving
natural flood storage in any future economic analysis of the
project.
SEC. 3092. BUFFALO HARBOR, NEW YORK.
The project for navigation, Buffalo Harbor, New York,
authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962
(76 Stat. 1176), is modified to include measures to enhance
public access, at Federal cost of $500,000.
SEC. 3093. 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 $20,000,000.
SEC. 3094. 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. 3095. 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. 3096. LOWER GIRARD LAKE DAM, OHIO.
Section 507(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3758) is amended by striking ``$2,500,000''
and inserting ``$6,000,000''.
SEC. 3097. MAHONING RIVER, OHIO.
In carrying out the project for environmental dredging,
authorized by section 312(f)(4) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 1272(f)(4)), the Secretary
is directed 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. 3098. ARCADIA LAKE, OKLAHOMA.
Payments made by the city of Edmond, Oklahoma, to the
Secretary in October 1999 of costs associated with present
and future water storage at Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma, under
Arcadia Lake Water Storage Contract Number DACW56-79-C-0072
shall satisfy the obligations of the city under that contract
for such costs, including accrued interest.
SEC. 3099. 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, separate, and written agreement between the
District and the United States Government.
SEC. 3100. 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. 3101. DELAWARE RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA, NEW JERSEY, AND
DELAWARE.
The Secretary may remove debris from the project for
navigation, Delaware River, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and
Delaware, Philadelphia to the Sea.
SEC. 3102. RAYSTOWN LAKE, PENNSYLVANIA.
The Secretary may take such action as may be necessary,
including construction of a breakwater, to prevent shoreline
erosion between .07 and 2.7 miles south of Pennsylvania State
route 994 on the east shore of Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.
SEC. 3103. 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. 3104. 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. 3105. SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA.
Section 313 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(106 Stat. 4845; 109 Stat. 407; 110 Stat. 3723; 113 Stat.
310; 117 Stat. 142) is amended--
(1) in subsection (g)(1) by striking ``$180,000,000'' and
inserting ``$200,000,000''; and
(2) in subsection (h)(2) 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. 3106. 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. 3107. 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 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. 3108. FREEPORT HARBOR, TEXAS.
The project for navigation, Freeport Harbor, Texas,
authorized by section 101 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1970 (84 Stat. 1818), is modified.--
[[Page H5843]]
(1) 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 that
the work is integral to the project; and
(2) to direct the Secretary to remove the sunken vessel
``COMSTOCK'' at Federal expense.
SEC. 3109. JOHNSON CREEK, ARLINGTON, TEXAS.
The project for flood damage reduction, environmental
restoration, and recreation, authorized by section 101(b)(14)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat.
280), is modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out the
project at a total cost of $29,717,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $20,670,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
$9,047,000.
SEC. 3110. 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. 3111. 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 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 of Edinburg, Texas, if the Secretary determines that
such work meets feasibility requirements;
(2) 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
(3) to direct the Secretary, in calculating the non-Federal
share of the cost of the project, to make a determination
within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act 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. 3112. 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. 3113. PAT MAYSE LAKE, TEXAS.
The Secretary is directed to accept from the city of Paris,
Texas, $3,461,432 as payment in full of monies owed to the
United States for water supply storage space in Pat Mayse
Lake, Texas, under contract number DA-34-066-CIVENG-65-1272,
including accrued interest.
SEC. 3114. PROCTOR LAKE, TEXAS.
The Secretary is authorized to purchase fee simple title to
all properties located within the boundaries, and necessary
for the operation, of the Proctor Lake project, Texas,
authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1954
(68 Stat. 1259).
SEC. 3115. 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 design and construction work carried out by the non-
Federal interest for the project if the Secretary determines
that the work is integral to the project.
SEC. 3116. JAMES RIVER, VIRGINIA.
The project for navigation, James River, Virginia,
authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor
Appropriations Act of July 5, 1884 (23 Stat. 138), is further
modified to authorize the Secretary to enlarge the turning
basin adjacent to the Richmond Deepwater Terminal at a total
cost of $1,511,000 if the Secretary determines that the such
enlargement is necessary for navigation safety.
SEC. 3117. LEE, RUSSELL, SCOTT, SMYTH, TAZEWELL, AND WISE
COUNTIES, VIRGINIA.
The project for flood control, Levisa and Tug Forks of the
Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River, authorized by
section 202 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriation
Act, 1981 (94 Stat. 1339) and modified by section 352 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3724-3725)
and section 336 of the Water Resources Development Act of
2000 (114 Stat. 2611), is further modified to direct the
Secretary to determine the ability of Lee, Russell, Scott,
Smyth, Tazewell, and Wise Counties, Virginia, to pay the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project based solely on the
criterion specified in section 103(m)(3)(A)(i) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2213(m)(3)(A)(i)).
SEC. 3118. TANGIER ISLAND SEAWALL, VIRGINIA.
Section 577(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3789) is amended by striking ``at a total
cost of $1,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $300,000.'' and
inserting ``at a total cost of $3,000,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $2,250,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $750,000.''.
SEC. 3119. DUWAMISH/GREEN, WASHINGTON.
The project for ecosystem restoration, Duwamish/Green,
Washington, authorized by section 101(b)(26) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2579), is
modified--
(1) 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, 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
(2) 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 in-kind services and materials.
SEC. 3120. YAKIMA RIVER, PORT OF SUNNYSIDE, WASHINGTON.
The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Yakima
River, Port of Sunnyside, Washington, 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.
SEC. 3121. 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 ``$99,000,000''.
SEC. 3122. LESAGE/GREENBOTTOM SWAMP, WEST VIRGINIA.
Section 30(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1988 (102 Stat. 4030; 114 Stat. 2678) is amended to read as
follows:
``(d) Historic Structure.--The Secretary shall ensure the
preservation and restoration of the structure known as the
`Jenkins House', and the reconstruction of associated
buildings and landscape features of such structure located
within the Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp in accordance with the
Secretary of the Interior's standards for the treatment of
historic properties. Amounts made available for expenditure
for the project authorized by section 301(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4110) shall be
available for the purposes of this subsection.''.
SEC. 3123. NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.
Section 557 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 353) is amended in the first sentence by striking
``favorable''.
SEC. 3124. 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. 3125. 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. 3126. 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 flood control, Agana River, Guam,
authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4127).
(2) The project for navigation, Fall River Harbor,
Massachusetts, authorized by section 101 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731); 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 H5844]]
(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. 3127. 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. 3128. 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 first section of 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 eastern
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) Mystic river, connecticut.--The portion of the project
for navigation, Mystic River, Connecticut, authorized by the
first section of the River and Harbor Approriations Act of
September 19, 1890 (26 Stat. 436) consisting of a 12-foot-
deep channel, approximately 7,554 square feet in area,
starting at a point N193,086.51, E815,092.78, thence running
north 59 degrees 21 minutes 46.63 seconds west about 138.05
feet to a point N193,156.86, E814,974.00, thence running
north 51 degrees 04 minutes 39.00 seconds west about 166.57
feet to a point N193,261.51, E814,844.41, thence running
north 43 degrees 01 minutes 34.90 seconds west about 86.23
feet to a point N193,324.55, E814,785.57, thence running
north 06 degrees 42 minutes 03.86 seconds west about 156.57
feet to a point N193,480.05, E814,767.30, thence running
south 21 degrees 21 minutes 17.94 seconds east about 231.42
feet to a point N193,264.52, E814,851.57, thence running
south 53 degrees 34 minutes 23.28 seconds east about 299.78
feet to the point of origin.
(3) 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.
(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) Southport Harbor, Fairfield, Connecticut.--The project
for navigation, Southport Harbor, Fairfield, Connecticut,
authorized by section 2 of the River and Harbor Act of March
2, 1829, and by the first section of the River and Harbor Act
of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1029), and section 364 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3733-
3734), is further modified to redesignate a portion of the 9-
foot-deep channel to an anchorage area, approximately 900
feet in length and 90,000 square feet in area, and lying
generally north of a line with points at coordinates
N108,043.45, E452,252.04 and N107938.74, E452265.74.
(d) Mystic River, Massachusetts.--The portion of the
project for navigation, Mystic River, Massachusetts,
authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor
Appropriations Act of July 13, 1892 (27 Stat. 96), between a
line starting at a point N515,683.77, E707,035.45 and ending
at a point N515,721.28, E707,069.85 and a line starting at a
point N514,595.15, E707,746.15 and ending at a point
N514,732.94, E707,658.38 shall be relocated and reduced from
100 foot to a 50-foot wide channel after the date of
enactment of this Act described as follows: Beginning at a
point N515,721.28, E707,069.85, thence running southeasterly
about 840.50 feet to a point N515,070.16, E707,601.27, thence
running southeasterly about 177.54 feet to a point
N514,904.84, E707,665.98, thence running southeasterly about
319.90 feet to a point with coordinates N514,595.15,
E707,746.15, thence running northwesterly about 163.37 feet
to a point N514,732.94, E707,658.38, thence running
northwesterly about 161.58 feet to a point N514.889.47,
E707,618.30, thence running northwesterly about 166.61 feet
to a point N515.044.62, E707,557.58, thence running
northwesterly about 825.31 feet to a point N515,683.77,
E707,035.45, thence running northeasterly about 50.90 feet
returning to a point N515,721.28, E707,069.85.
(e) Green Bay Harbor, Green Bay, Wisconsin.--The portion of
the inner harbor of the Federal navigation channel, Green Bay
Harbor, Green Bay, Wisconsin, authorized by the first section
of the River and Harbor Act of June 23, 1866, beginning at
station 190+00 to station 378+00 is authorized to a width of
75 feet and a depth of 6 feet.
(f) 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 control, Cache Creek Basin, Clear
Lake Outlet Channel, California, authorized by section 401(a)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat.
4112).
(2) The project for flood protection on Atascadero Creek
and its tributaries of Goleta, California, authorized by
section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1826).
(3) The project for flood control, central and southern
Florida, Shingle Creek basin, Florida, authorized by section
203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1182).
(4) The project for flood control, Middle Wabash,
Greenfield Bayou, Indiana, authorized by section 10 of the
Flood Control Act of July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 649).
(5) The project for flood damage reduction, Lake George,
Hobart, Indiana, authorized by section 602(a)(2) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148).
(6) The project for flood control, Green Bay Levee and
Drainage District No. 2, Iowa, authorized by section 401(a)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat.
4115), deauthorized in fiscal year 1991, and reauthorized by
section 115(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(106 Stat. 4821).
(7) The project for flood control, Hazard, Kentucky,
authorized by section 3(a)(7) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1988 (100 Stat. 4014) and section 108 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4621).
(8) The recreation portion of the project for flood
control, Taylorsville Lake, Kentucky, authorized by section
203 of the Flood Control Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 1421).
(9) The project for flood control, western Kentucky
tributaries, Kentucky, authorized by section 204 of the Flood
Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1076) and modified by section
210 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1829).
(10) The project for flood damage reduction, Tensas-
Cocodrie area, Louisiana, authorized by section 3 of the
Flood Control Act of August 18, 1941 (55 Stat. 643).
(11) The project for flood control, Eastern Rapides and
South-Central Avoyelles Parishes, Louisiana, authorized by
section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1825).
(12) The bulkhead and jetty features at Lake Borgne and
Chef Menteur, Louisiana, of the project for navigation,
Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf of Mexico, barge
channel through Devils Swamp, Louisiana, authorized by the
first section of the River and Harbor Act of July 24, 1946
(60 Stat. 635).
(13) The project for navigation Red River Waterway,
Shreveport, Louisiana to Daingerfield, Texas, authorized by
the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731).
(14) The project for flood damage reduction Brockton,
Massachusetts, authorized by section 401(c) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4129).
(15) The project for navigation, Grand Haven Harbor,
Michigan, authorized by section 202 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4093).
(16) The project for hydropower, Libby Dam, Montana, (Units
6-8), authorized by section 549 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3779).
(17) The project for flood damage reduction, Platte River
Flood and Related Streambank Erosion Control, Nebraska,
authorized by section 603(f)(6) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4150).
[[Page H5845]]
(18) The project for navigation, Outer Harbor, Buffalo, New
York, authorized by section 110 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4817).
(19) The project for flood control, Sugar Creek Basin,
North Carolina and South Carolina, authorized by section
401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
Stat. 4121).
(20) The project for flood control, Miami River, Fairfield,
Ohio, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4122).
(21) The project for shoreline protection, Maumee Bay, Lake
Erie, Ohio, authorized by section 501(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4135).
(22) The project for flood control and water supply, Parker
Lake, Muddy Boggy Creek, Oklahoma, authorized by section 601
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat.
4144).
(23) The project for the Columbia River, Seafarers
Memorial, Hammond, Oregon, authorized by title I of the
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1991 (104
Stat. 2078).
(24) The project for bulkhead repairs, Quonset Point-
Davisville, Rhode Island, authorized by section 571 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3788).
(25) The project for flood damage reduction, Harris Fork
Creek, Tennessee and Kentucky, authorized by section 102 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2921).
(26) The Arroyo Colorado, Texas, feature of the project for
flood control Lower Rio Grande, Texas, authorized by section
401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
Stat. 4125).
(27) The structural portion of the project for flood
control, Cypress Creek, Texas, authorized by section 3(a)(13)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat.
4014).
(28) The project for flood protection, East Fork Channel
Improvement, Increment 2, East Fork of the Trinity River,
Texas, authorized by section 202 of the Flood Control Act of
1962 (76 Stat. 1185).
(29) The project for flood control, Falfurrias, Texas,
authorized by section 3(a)(14) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014).
(30) The project for streambank erosion, Kanawha River,
Charleston, West Virginia, authorized by section 603(f)(13)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat.
4153).
(g) 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. 3129. LAND CONVEYANCES.
(a) St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey to the State of
Arkansas, without monetary consideration and subject to
paragraph (2), all right, title, and interest to real
property within the State acquired by the Federal Government
as mitigation land for the project for flood control, St.
Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri Project, authorized by
the Flood Control Act of May 15, 1928 (33 U.S.C. 702a et
seq.)
(2) Terms and conditions.--
(A) In general.--The conveyance by the United States under
this subsection shall be subject to--
(i) the condition that the State of Arkansas agree to
operate, maintain, and manage the real property for fish and
wildlife, recreation, and environmental purposes at no cost
or expense to the United States; and
(ii) such other terms and conditions as the Secretary
determines to be in the interest of the United States.
(B) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the real
property conveyed under paragraph (1) ceases to be held in
public ownership or the State ceases to operate, maintain,
and manage the real property in accordance with this
subsection, all right, title, and interest in and to the
property shall revert to the United States, at the option of
the Secretary.
(3) Mitigation.--Nothing in this subsection extinguishes
the responsibility of the Federal Government or the non-
Federal interest for the project referred to in paragraph (1)
from the obligation to implement mitigation for such project
that existed on the day prior to the transfer authorized by
this subsection.
(b) Milford, Kansas.--
(1) In general.--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 real property consisting of
approximately 7.4 acres located in Geary County, Kansas, for
construction, operation, and maintenance of a fire station.
(2) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the real
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.
(c) Pike County, Missouri.--
(1) In general.--At such time as S.S.S., Inc., conveys all
right, title and interest in and to the real property
described in paragraph (2)(A) to the United States, the
Secretary shall convey all right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to the real property described in
paragraph (2)(B) to S.S.S., Inc.
(2) Land description.--The parcels of land referred to in
paragraph (1) are the following:
(A) Non-federal land.--Approximately 42 acres, the exact
legal description to be determined by mutual agreement of
S.S.S., Inc., and the Secretary, subject to any existing
flowage easements situated in Pike County, Missouri, upstream
and northwest, about a 200-foot distance from Drake Island
(also known as Grimes Island).
(B) Federal land.--Approximately 42 acres, the exact legal
description to be determined by mutual agreement of S.S.S.
Inc., and the Secretary, situated in Pike County, Missouri,
known as Government Tract Numbers MIs-7 and a portion of FM-
46 (both tracts on Buffalo Island), administered by the Corps
of Engineers.
(3) Conditions.--The exchange of real property under
paragraph (1) shall be subject to the following conditions:
(A) Deeds.--
(i) Non-federal land.--The conveyance of the real property
described in paragraph (2)(A) to the Secretary shall be by a
warranty deed acceptable to the Secretary.
(ii) Federal land.--The instrument of conveyance used to
convey the real property described in paragraph (2)(B) to
S.S.S., Inc., shall be by quitclaim deed and contain such
reservations, terms, and conditions as the Secretary
considers necessary to allow the United States to operate and
maintain the Mississippi River 9-Foot Navigation Project.
(B) Removal of improvements.--S.S.S., Inc., may remove, and
the Secretary may require S.S.S., Inc., to remove, any
improvements on the land described in paragraph (2)(A).
(C) Time limit for exchange.--The land exchange under
paragraph (1) shall be completed not later than 2 years after
the date of enactment of this Act.
(4) Value of properties.--If the appraised fair market
value, as determined by the Secretary, of the real property
conveyed to S.S.S., Inc., by the Secretary under paragraph
(1) exceeds the appraised fair market value, as determined by
the Secretary, of the real property conveyed to the United
States by S.S.S., Inc., under paragraph (1), S.S.S., Inc.,
shall make a payment to the United States equal to the excess
in cash or a cash equivalent that is satisfactory to the
Secretary.
(d) 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''.
(e) Tioga Township, Pennsylvania.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey by quitclaim
deed to the Tioga Township, Pennsylvania, without
consideration, all right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to the parcel of real property located on the
northeast end of Tract No. 226, a portion of the Tioga-
Hammond Lakes flood control project, Tioga County,
Pennsylvania, consisting of approximately 8 acres, together
with any improvements on that property, for public ownership
and use as the site of the administrative offices and road
maintenance complex for the Township.
(2) Reservation of interests.--The Secretary shall reserve
such rights and interests in and to the property to be
conveyed as the Secretary considers necessary to preserve the
operational integrity and security of the Tioga-Hammond Lakes
flood control project.
(3) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the
property conveyed under paragraph (1) ceases to be held in
public ownership, or to be used as a site for the Tioga
Township administrative offices and road maintenance complex
or for related public purposes, all right, title, and
interest in and to the property shall revert to the United
States, at the option of the United States.
(f) Richard B. Russell Lake, South Carolina.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey to the State of
South Carolina, by quitclaim deed, at fair market value, all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the
real property described in paragraph (2) that is managed, as
of the date of enactment of this Act, by the South Carolina
department of commerce for public recreation purposes for the
Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake, South Carolina, project
authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1966
(80 Stat. 1420).
(2) Land description.--Subject to paragraph (3), the real
property referred to in paragraph (1) is the parcel contained
in the portion of real property described in Army Lease
Number DACW21-1-92-0500.
(3) Reservation of interests.--The United States shall
reserve--
(A) ownership of all real property included in the lease
referred to in paragraph (2) that would have been acquired
for operational purposes in accordance with the 1971
implementation of the 1962 Army/Interior Joint Acquisition
Policy; and
(B) such other rights and interests in and to the real
property to be conveyed as the Secretary considers necessary
for authorized project purposes, including easement rights-
of-way to remaining Federal land.
(4) No effect on shore management policy.--The Shoreline
Management Policy (ER-1130-2-406) of the Corps of Engineer
shall not be changed or altered for any proposed development
of land conveyed under this subsection.
(5) Cost sharing.--In carrying out the conveyance under
this subsection, the Secretary and the State shall comply
with all obligations of any cost-sharing agreement between
the Secretary and the State with respect to the real property
described in paragraph (2) in effect as of the date of the
conveyance.
(6) Land not conveyed.--The State shall continue to manage
the real property described in paragraph (3) not conveyed
under this subsection in accordance with the terms and
conditions of Army Lease Number DACW21-1-92-0500.
(g) Generally Applicable Provisions.--
(1) Survey to obtain legal description.--The exact acreage
and the legal description of any real property to be conveyed
under this section shall be determined by a survey that is
satisfactory to the Secretary.
[[Page H5846]]
(2) Applicability of property screening provisions.--
Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply
to any conveyance under this section.
(3) 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.
(4) 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 documentation costs, associated
with the conveyance.
(5) 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. 3130. EXTINGUISHMENT OF REVERSIONARY INTERESTS AND USE
RESTRICTIONS.
(a) Idaho.--
(1) In general.--With respect to the property covered by
each deed in paragraph (2)--
(A) the reversionary interests and use restrictions
relating to port and industrial use purposes are
extinguished;
(B) the restriction that no activity shall be permitted
that will compete with services and facilities offered by
public marinas is extinguished;
(C) the human habitation or other building structure use
restriction is extinguished if the elevation of the property
is above the standard project flood elevation; and
(D) the use of fill material to raise areas of the property
above the standard project flood elevation is authorized,
except in any area for which a permit under section 404 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) is
required.
(2) Affected deeds.--The deeds with the following county
auditor's file numbers are referred to in paragraph (1):
(A) Auditor's Instruments No. 399218 and No. 399341 of Nez
Perce County, Idaho--2.07 acres.
(B) Auditor's Instruments No. 487437 and No. 339341 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) Port of Pasco, Washington.--
(1) Extinguishment of use restrictions and flowage
easement.--With respect to the property covered by the deed
in paragraph (3)(A)--
(A) the flowage easement and human habitation or other
building structure use restriction is extinguished if the
elevation of the property is above the standard project flood
elevation; and
(B) the use of fill material to raise areas of the property
above the standard project flood elevation is authorized,
except in any area for which a permit under section 404 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) is
required.
(2) Extinguishment of flowage easement.--With respect to
the property covered by each deed in paragraph (3)(B), the
flowage easement is extinguished if the elevation of the
property is above the standard project flood elevation.
(3) Affected deeds.--The deeds referred to in paragraphs
(1) and (2) are as follows:
(A) Auditor's File Number 262980 of Franklin County,
Washington.
(B) Auditor's File Numbers 263334 and 404398 of Franklin
County, Washington.
(d) No Effect on Other Rights.--Nothing in this section
affects the remaining rights and interests of the Corps of
Engineers for authorized project purposes.
TITLE IV--STUDIES
SEC. 4001. JOHN GLENN GREAT LAKES BASIN PROGRAM.
Section 455 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(42 U.S.C. 1962d-21) 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 in-kind
services and materials.''.
SEC. 4002. 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.
SEC. 4003. SOUTHWESTERN UNITED STATES DROUGHT STUDY.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, in coordination with the
Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agri- culture,
the Secretary of Commerce, and other appropriate agencies,
shall conduct, at Federal expense, a comprehensive study
of drought conditions in the southwestern United States,
with a particular emphasis on the Colorado River basin,
the Rio Grande River basin, and the Great Basin.
(b) Inventory of Actions.--In conducting the study, the
Secretary shall assemble an inventory of actions taken or
planned to be taken to address drought-related situations in
the southwestern United States.
(c) Purpose.--The purpose of the study shall be to develop
recommendations to more effectively address current and
future drought conditions in the southwestern United States.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section
$7,000,000. Such funds shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 4004. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Section 459(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (113 Stat. 333; 114 Stat. 2635) is amended by striking
``3 years after the first date on which funds are
appropriated to carry out this section'' and inserting
``December 30, 2006''.
SEC. 4005. KNIK ARM, COOK INLET, ALASKA.
The Secretary shall conduct, at Federal expense, a study
to determine the potential impacts on navigation of
construction of a bridge across Knik Arm, Cook Inlet, Alaska.
SEC. 4006. KUSKOKWIM RIVER, ALASKA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation,
Kuskokwim River, Alaska, in the vicinity of the village of
Crooked Creek.
SEC. 4007. ST. GEORGE HARBOR, ALASKA.
The Secretary shall conduct, at Federal expense, a study to
determine the feasibility of providing navigation
improvements at St. George Harbor, Alaska.
SEC. 4008. 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. 4009. GILA BEND, MARICOPA, ARIZONA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction, Gila Bend, Maricopa, Arizona. 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 if the Secretary determines
that such plans and designs are consistent with Federal
standards.
SEC. 4010. 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. 4011. DRY CREEK VALLEY, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project to provide recycled
water for agricultural water supply, Dry Creek Valley,
California, including a review of the feasibility of
expanding the Geysers recharge project north of Healdsburg,
California.
SEC. 4012. ELKHORN SLOUGH ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of the Elkhorn Slough
estuary, California, to determine the feasibility of
conserving, enhancing, and restoring estuarine habitats by
developing strategies to address hydrological management
issues.
SEC. 4013. FRESNO, KINGS, AND KERN COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply for
Fresno, Kings, and Kern Counties, California.
SEC. 4014. LOS ANGELES RIVER, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, Los Angeles
River, California.
(b) Revitalization Plan.--In conducting the study, the
Secretary shall review the Los Angeles River revitalization
plan developed by non-Federal interests and shall incorporate
such plan into the Federal study if the Secretary determines
that such plan is consistent with Federal standards.
SEC. 4015. LYTLE CREEK, RIALTO, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction and groundwater recharge, Lytle Creek, Rialto,
California.
SEC. 4016. MOKELUMNE RIVER, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for water
supply along the Mokelumne River, San Joaquin County,
California.
(b) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed to invalidate, preempt, or create
any exception to State water law, State water rights, or
Federal or State permitted activities or agreements.
SEC. 4017. NAPA RIVER, ST. HELENA, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--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.
(b) Plans and Designs.--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 if the Secretary determines
that such plans and designs are consistent with Federal
standards.
SEC. 4018. ORICK, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction and ecosystem restoration, Orick, California. In
conducting the study,
[[Page H5847]]
the Secretary shall determine the feasibility of restoring or
rehabilitating the Redwood Creek Levees, Humboldt County,
California.
SEC. 4019. RIALTO, FONTANA, AND COLTON, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply for
Rialto, Fontana, and Colton, California.
SEC. 4020. 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. 4021. SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, San
Diego County, California, including a review of the
feasibility of connecting 4 existing reservoirs to increase
usable storage capacity.
SEC. 4022. 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 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. 4023. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SHORELINE STUDY,
CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--In conducting the South San Francisco Bay
shoreline study, the Secretary shall--
(1) review the planning, design, and land acquisition
documents prepared by the California State Coastal
Conservancy, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and other
local interests in developing recommendations for measures to
provide flood protection of the South San Francisco Bay
shoreline, restoration of the South San Francisco Bay salt
ponds (including lands owned by the Department of the
Interior), and other related purposes; and
(2) incorporate such planning, design, and land acquisition
documents into the Federal study if the Secretary determines
that such documents are consistent with Federal standards.
(b) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2008, the
Secretary shall transmit a feasibility report for the South
San Francisco Bay shoreline study to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public
Works of the Senate.
(c) Credit.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of any project authorized by law as
a result of the South San Francisco Bay shoreline study 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.
(2) Limitation.--In no case may work that was carried out
more than 5 years before the date of enactment of this Act be
eligible for credit under this subsection.
SEC. 4024. TWENTYNINE PALMS, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction, Pinto Cove Wash, in the vicinity of Twentynine
Palms, California.
SEC. 4025. YUCCA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction, West Burnt Mountain basin, in the vicinity of
Yucca Valley, California.
SEC. 4026. BOULDER CREEK, BOULDER, COLORADO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction in the Boulder Creek floodplain, Colorado.
SEC. 4027. ROARING FORK RIVER, BASALT, COLORADO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction and other purposes for the Roaring Fork River,
Basalt, Colorado.
SEC. 4028. DELAWARE AND CHRISTINA RIVERS AND SHELLPOT CREEK,
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction and related purposes along the Delaware and
Christina Rivers and Shellpot Creek, Wilmington, Delaware.
SEC. 4029. COLLIER COUNTY BEACHES, FLORIDA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for hurricane and storm
damage reduction and flood damage reduction in the vicinity
of Vanderbilt, Park Shore, and Naples beaches, Collier
County, Florida.
SEC. 4030. VANDERBILT BEACH LAGOON, FLORIDA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental
restoration, water supply, and improvement of water quality
at Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon, Florida.
SEC. 4031. MERIWETHER COUNTY, GEORGIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply,
Meriwether County, Georgia.
SEC. 4032. 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. 4033. KAUKONAHUA-HELEMANO WATERSHED, OAHU, HAWAII.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction, Kaukonahua-Helemano watershed, Oahu, Hawaii.
SEC. 4034. WEST MAUI, MAUI, HAWAII.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out projects for water resources
development, environmental restoration, and natural resources
protection, West Maui, Maui, Hawaii.
SEC. 4035. BOISE RIVER, IDAHO.
The study for flood control, Boise River, Idaho, authorized
by section 414 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 324), is modified--
(1) to add ecosystem restoration and water supply as
project purposes to be studied; and
(2) to require the Secretary to credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the study the cost, not to
exceed $500,000, 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. 4036. BALLARD'S ISLAND SIDE CHANNEL, ILLINOIS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for ecosystem
restoration, Ballard's Island, Illinois.
SEC. 4037. 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. 4038. 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. 4039. UTICA, ILLINOIS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction in the vicinity of Utica, Illinois.
SEC. 4040. LAKE AND PORTER COUNTIES, INDIANA.
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 along Lake Michigan, Hammond,
Whiting, East Chicago, Gary, and Portage, Indiana.
SEC. 4041. SALEM, INDIANA.
The Secreatry shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project to provide an
additional water supply source for Salem, Indiana.
SEC. 4042. BUCKHORN LAKE, KENTUCKY.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of modifying the project for flood
damage reduction, Buckhorn Lake, Kentucky, authorized by
section 2 of the Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat.
1217), to add ecosystem restoration, recreation, and improved
access as project purposes, including permanently raising the
winter pool elevation of the project.
(b) In-Kind Contributions.--The non-Federal interest may
provide the non-Federal share of the cost of the study in the
form of services, materials, supplies, or other in-kind
contributions.
SEC. 4043. DEWEY LAKE, KENTUCKY.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of modifying the project for Dewey Lake,
Kentucky, to add water supply as a project purpose.
SEC. 4044. LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of the project for
flood control, Louisville, Kentucky, authorized by section 4
of the Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1217), to
investigate measures to address the rehabilitation of the
project.
SEC. 4045. 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. 4046. OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS FABRICATION PORTS, LOUISIANA.
(a) Benefits.--In conducting a feasibility study for each
of the following projects for navigation, the Secretary shall
include in the calculation of national economic development
benefits all economic benefits associated with contracts for
new energy exploration and contracts for the fabrication of
energy infrastructure that would result from carrying out the
project:
(1) Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black,
Louisiana, being conducted under
[[Page H5848]]
section 430 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
(114 Stat. 2639).
(2) Iberia Port, Louisiana, being conducted under section
431 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat.
2639).
(b) Repeal.--Section 6009 of the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and
Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 109-13; 119 Stat. 282) is
repealed.
SEC. 4047. VERMILION RIVER, LOUISIANA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation on the
Vermilion River, Louisiana, from the intersection of the
Vermilion River and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to the
industrial area north of the Vermilion River.
SEC. 4048. 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. 4049. PATAPSCO RIVER, MARYLAND.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine and assess
the impact of debris in the Patapsco River basin, Maryland,
on wetlands, water quality, and public health and to identify
management measures to reduce the inflow of debris into the
Patapsco River.
SEC. 4050. FALL RIVER HARBOR, MASSACHUSETTS AND RHODE ISLAND.
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.
SEC. 4051. HAMBURG AND GREEN OAK TOWNSHIPS, MICHIGAN.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction on Ore Lake and the Huron River for Hamburg and
Green Oak Townships, Michigan.
SEC. 4052. ST. CLAIR RIVER, MICHIGAN.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a study of
the relationships among dredging of the St. Clair River for
navigation, erosion in the river, and declining water levels
in the river and in Lake Michigan and Lake Huron.
(b) Recommendations.--The report on the results of the
study may include recommendations to address water level
declines in Lake Michigan and Lake Huron.
SEC. 4053. DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR, MINNESOTA AND WISCONSIN.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study and
prepare a report to evaluate the integrity of the bulkhead
system located on and in the vicinity of Duluth-Superior
Harbor, Duluth, Minnesota, and Superior, Wisconsin.
(b) Contents.--The report shall include--
(1) a determination of causes of corrosion of the bulkhead
system;
(2) recommendations to reduce corrosion of the bulkhead
system;
(3) a description of the necessary repairs to the bulkhead
system; and
(4) an estimate of the cost of addressing the causes of the
corrosion and carrying out necessary repairs.
SEC. 4054. WILD RICE RIVER, MINNESOTA.
The Secretary shall review the project for flood protection
and other purposes on Wild Rice River, Minnesota, authorized
by section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat.
1825), to develop alternatives to the Twin Valley Lake
feature.
SEC. 4055. MISSISSIPPI COASTAL AREA, MISSISSIPPI.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of making improvements or modifications to
existing improvements in the coastal area of Mississippi in
the interest of hurricane and storm damage reduction,
prevention of saltwater intrusion, preservation of fish and
wildlife, prevention of erosion, and other related water
resource purposes.
SEC. 4056. 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. 4057. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction, St. Louis, Missouri, to restore or rehabilitate
the levee system feature of the project for flood protection,
St. Louis, Missouri, authorized by the first section of the
Act entitled ``An Act authorizing construction of certain
public works on the Mississippi River for the protection of
Saint Louis, Missouri'', approved August 9, 1955 (69 Stat.
540).
SEC. 4058. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL, NEW JERSEY.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project in the vicinity of the
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, New Jersey, for the
construction of a dredged material disposal transfer facility
to make dredged material available for beneficial reuse.
SEC. 4059. BAYONNE, NEW JERSEY.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental
restoration, including improved water quality, enhanced
public access, and recreation, on the Kill Van Kull, Bayonne,
New Jersey.
SEC. 4060. CARTERET, NEW JERSEY.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental
restoration, including improved water quality, enhanced
public access, and recreation, on the Raritan River,
Carteret, New Jersey.
SEC. 4061. ELIZABETH RIVER, ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out ecosystem restoration
improvements in the Elizabeth River watershed, Elizabeth, New
Jersey.
SEC. 4062. GLOUCESTER COUNTY, NEW JERSEY.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction, Gloucester, New Jersey, including the feasibility
of restoring the flood protection dikes in Gibbstown, New
Jersey, and the associated tidegates in Gloucester, New
Jersey.
SEC. 4063. PERTH AMBOY, NEW JERSEY.
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 Arthur Kill, Perth
Amboy, New Jersey.
SEC. 4064. WRECK POND, MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental
restoration at Wreck Pond, New Jersey, including Black Creek
and associated waters.
SEC. 4065. BATAVIA, NEW YORK.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for hydropower and
related purposes in the vicinity of Batavia, New York.
SEC. 4066. BIG SISTER CREEK, EVANS, NEW YORK.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction, Big Sister Creek, Evans, New York.
(b) Evaluation of Potential Solutions.--In conducting the
study, the Secretary shall evaluate potential solutions to
flooding from all sources, including flooding that results
from ice jams.
SEC. 4067. EAST CHESTER BAY, TURTLE COVE, NEW YORK.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation, East
Chester Creek, Chester Bay, Turtle Cove, New York.
SEC. 4068. FINGER LAKES, NEW YORK.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration and protection, Finger Lakes, New York, to
address water quality and invasive species.
SEC. 4069. HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY.
In conducting 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. 4070. LAKE ERIE SHORELINE, BUFFALO, NEW YORK.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for storm damage
reduction and shoreline protection in the vicinity of
Gallagher Beach, Lake Erie Shoreline, Buffalo, New York.
SEC. 4071. NEWTOWN CREEK, NEW YORK.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out ecosystem restoration
improvements on Newtown Creek, Brooklyn and Queens, New York.
SEC. 4072. NIAGARA RIVER, NEW YORK.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for a low-head
hydroelectric generating facility in the Niagara River, New
York.
SEC. 4073. UPPER DELAWARE RIVER WATERSHED, NEW YORK.
Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of
1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)) and with the consent of the
affected local government, a nonprofit organization may serve
as the non-Federal interest for a study for the Upper
Delaware River watershed, New York, being carried out under
Committee Resolution 2495 of the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, adopted
May 9, 1996.
SEC. 4074. LINCOLN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of existing water and
water quality-related infrastructure in Lincoln County, North
Carolina, to assist local interests in determining the most
efficient and effective way to connect county infrastructure.
SEC. 4075. WILKES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply,
Wilkes County, North Carolina.
SEC. 4076. YADKINVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply,
Yadkinville, North Carolina.
SEC. 4077. CINCINNATI, OHIO.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
ecosystem restoration and recreation on the Ohio River,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
(b) Design.--While conducting the study, the Secretary may
continue to carry out design work for the project as
authorized by section 118 of division H of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2004 (118 Stat. 439).
(c) Existing Plans.--In conducting the study, the Secretary
shall review the Central Riverfront Park Master Plan, dated
December 1999,
[[Page H5849]]
and incorporate any components of the plan that the Secretary
determines are consistent with Federal standards.
(d) Credit.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of any project authorized by law as
a result of the study 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.
(2) Limitation.--In no case may work that was carried out
more than 5 years before the date of enactment of this Act be
eligible for credit under this subsection.
SEC. 4078. EUCLID, OHIO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation,
ecosystem restoration, and recreation on Lake Erie, in the
vicinity of the Euclid Lakefront, Euclid, Ohio.
SEC. 4079. LAKE ERIE, OHIO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out projects for power generation at
confined disposal facilities along Lake Erie, Ohio.
SEC. 4080. OHIO RIVER, OHIO.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage
reduction on the Ohio River in Mahoning, Columbiana,
Jefferson, Belmont, Noble, Monroe, Washington, Athens, Meigs,
Gallia, Lawrence, and Scioto Counties, Ohio.
SEC. 4081. 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, the
Secretary may carry out the project.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $2,500,000.
SEC. 4082. TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, OREGON.
The Secretary shall conduct 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. 4083. 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. 4084. WALLA WALLA RIVER BASIN, OREGON.
In conducting the study of determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for ecosystem restoration, Walla Walla
River Basin, Oregon, the Secretary shall--
(1) credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the
study 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
(2) allow the non-Federal interest to provide the non-
Federal share of the cost of the study in the form of in-kind
services and materials.
SEC. 4085. CHARTIERS CREEK WATERSHED, PENNSYLVANIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction, Chartiers Creek watershed, Pennsylvania.
SEC. 4086. KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PENNSYLVANIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of the project for
flood control, Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir, Warren,
Pennsylvania, authorized by section 5 of the Flood Control
Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1570), and modified by section
2 of the Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1215),
section 2 of the Flood Control Act of August 18, 1941 (55
Stat. 646), and section 4 of the Flood Control Act of
December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887), to review operations of and
identify modifications to the project to expand recreational
opportunities.
SEC. 4087. NORTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration and protection in Warren, McKean, Potter, Tioga,
Lycoming, Centre, Cameron, Elk, Clearfield, Jefferson,
Clarion, Venango, Forest, Clinton, Crawford, and Mifflin
Counties, Pennsylvania, particularly as related to abandoned
mine drainage abatement and reestablishment of stream and
river channels.
SEC. 4088. NORTHAMPTON AND LEHIGH COUNTIES STREAMS,
PENNSYLVANIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for ecosystem
restoration, floodplain management, flood damage reduction,
water quality control, and watershed management, for the
streams of Northampton and Lehigh Counties, Pennsylvania.
SEC. 4089. WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of
structural and nonstructural flood damage reduction, stream
bank protection, storm water management, channel clearing and
modification, and watershed coordination measures in the
Mahoning River basin, Pennsylvania, the Allegheny River
basin, Pennsylvania, and the Upper Ohio River basin,
Pennsylvania, to provide a level of flood protection
sufficient to prevent future losses to communities located in
such basins from flooding such as occurred in September 2004,
but not less than a 100-year level of flood protection.
(b) Priority Communities.--In carrying out this section,
the Secretary shall give priority to the following
Pennsylvania communities: Marshall Township, Ross Township,
Shaler Township, Jackson Township, Harmony, Zelienople,
Darlington Township, Houston Borough, Chartiers Township,
Washington, Canton Township, Tarentum Borough, and East Deer
Township.
SEC. 4090. WILLIAMSPORT, PENNSYLVANIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of the project for
flood control, Williamsport, Pennsylvania, authorized by
section 5 of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat.
1570), to investigate measures to rehabilitate the project.
SEC. 4091. YARDLEY BOROUGH, PENNSYLVANIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction, at Yardley Borough, Pennsylvania, including the
alternative of raising River Road.
SEC. 4092. RIO VALENCIANO, JUNCOS, PUERTO RICO.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
reevaluate the project for flood damage reduction and water
supply, Rio Valenciano, Juncos, Puerto Rico, authorized by
section 209 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1197)
and section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat.
1828), to determine the feasibility of carrying out the
project.
(b) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the study 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. 4093. CROOKED CREEK, BENNETTSVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply,
Crooked Creek, Bennettsville, South Carolina.
SEC. 4094. BROAD RIVER, YORK COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, Broad
River, York County, South Carolina.
SEC. 4095. 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. 4096. CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction, Chattanooga Creek, Dobbs Branch, Chattanooga,
Tennessee.
SEC. 4097. CLEVELAND, TENNESSEE.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction, Cleveland, Tennessee.
SEC. 4098. CUMBERLAND RIVER, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for recreation on,
riverbank protection for, and environmental protection of,
the Cumberland River and riparian habitats in the city of
Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee.
SEC. 4099. LEWIS, LAWRENCE, AND WAYNE COUNTIES, TENNESSEE.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply for
Lewis, Lawrence, and Wayne Counties, Tennessee.
SEC. 4100. WOLF RIVER AND NONCONNAH CREEK, MEMPHIS TENNESSEE.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction along Wolf River and Nonconnah Creek, in the
vicinity of Memphis, Tennessee, to include the repair,
replacement, rehabilitation, and restoration of the following
pumping stations: Cypress Creek, Nonconnah Creek, Ensley,
Marble Bayou, and Bayou Gayoso.
SEC. 4101. ABILENE, TEXAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply,
Abilene, Texas.
SEC. 4102. COASTAL TEXAS ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION AND
RESTORATION, TEXAS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall develop a
comprehensive plan to determine the feasibility of carrying
out projects for flood damage reduction, hurricane and storm
damage reduction, and ecosystem restoration in the coastal
areas of the State of Texas.
(b) Scope.--The comprehensive plan shall provide for the
protection, conservation, and
[[Page H5850]]
restoration of 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.
(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``coastal areas in the State of Texas'' means the coastal
areas of the State of Texas from the Sabine River on the east
to the Rio Grande River on the west and includes tidal
waters, barrier islands, marches, coastal wetlands, rivers
and streams, and adjacent areas.
SEC. 4103. FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction, Fort Bend County, Texas.
SEC. 4104. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction, Harris County, Texas.
SEC. 4105. PORT OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of the feasibility of
carrying out a project for dredged material disposal in the
vicinity of the project for navigation and environmental
restoration, Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas,
authorized by section 101(a)(30) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3666).
SEC. 4106. ROMA CREEK, TEXAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction, Roma Creek, Texas.
SEC. 4107. WALNUT CREEK, TEXAS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction, environmental restoration, and erosion control,
Walnut Creek, Texas.
SEC. 4108. 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. 4109. SOUTHWESTERN UTAH.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction, Santa Clara River, Washington, Iron, and Kane
Counties, Utah.
SEC. 4110. CHOWAN RIVER BASIN, VIRGINIA AND NORTH CAROLINA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction, environmental restoration, navigation, and erosion
control, Chowan River basin, Virginia and North Carolina.
SEC. 4111. JAMES RIVER, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
reduction for the James River in the vicinity of Richmond,
Virginia, including the Shockoe Bottom area.
SEC. 4112. ELLIOTT BAY SEAWALL, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON.
(a) In General.--The study for rehabilitation of the
Elliott Bay Seawall, Seattle, Washington, being carried out
under Committee Resolution 2704 of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives adopted September 25, 2002, is modified to
include a determination of the feasibility of reducing future
damage to the seawall from seismic activity.
(b) Acceptance of Contributions.--In carrying out the
study, the Secretary may accept contributions in excess of
the non-Federal share of the cost of the study from the non-
Federal interest to the extent that the Secretary determines
that the contributions will facilitate completion of the
study.
(c) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of any project authorized by law as
a result of the study the value of contributions accepted by
the Secretary under subsection (b).
SEC. 4113. 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. 4114. KENOSHA HARBOR, WISCONSIN.
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation, Kenosha
Harbor, Wisconsin, including the extension of existing piers.
SEC. 4115. 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, and greater Milwaukee
watersheds, 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) Manatee Harbor basin, Florida.
(2) Bayou LaFourche Channel, Port Fourchon, Louisiana.
(3) Calcasieu River at Devil's Elbow, Louisiana.
(4) Pidgeon Industrial Harbor, Pidgeon Industrial Park,
Memphis Harbor, Tennessee.
(5) Pix Bayou Navigation Channel, Chambers County, Texas.
(6) 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.
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).
(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) Cucamonga basin, Upland, California.
(2) Charlotte Harbor watershed, Florida.
(3) Big Creek watershed, Roswell, Georgia.
(4) Those portions of the watersheds of the Chattahoochee,
Etowah, Flint, Ocmulgee, and Oconee Rivers lying within the
counties of Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb,
Douglas, Fayette, Fulton, Forsyth, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry,
Paulding, Rockdale, and Walton, Georgia.
(5) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois.
(6) Amite River basin, Louisiana.
(7) East Atchafalaya River basin, Iberville Parish and
Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana.
(8) Red River watershed, Louisiana.
(9) Taunton River basin, Massachusetts.
(10) Lower Platte River watershed, Nebraska.
(11) Rio Grande watershed, New Mexico.
(12) Marlboro Township, New Jersey.
(13) Buffalo River watershed, New York.
(14) Cattaragus Creek watershed, New York.
(15) Eighteenmile Creek watershed, Niagara County, New
York.
(16) Esopus, Plattekill, and Rondout Creeks, Greene,
Sullivan, and Ulster Counties, New York.
(17) Genesee River watershed, New York.
(18) Greenwood Lake watershed, New York and New Jersey.
(19) Long Island Sound watershed, New York.
(20) Oswego River basin, New York.
(21) Ramapo River watershed, New York.
(22) Tonawanda Creek watershed, New York.
(23) Tuscarawas River basin, Ohio.
(24) Western Lake Erie basin, Ohio.
(25) 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.
(26) Otter Creek watershed, Pennsylvania.
(27) Unami Creek watershed, Milford Township, Pennsylvania.
(28) Sauk River basin, Washington.
(29) Greater Milwaukee watersheds, Wisconsin.
(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) Fish Creek Dam, Blaine County, Idaho.
(A) Hamilton Dam, Saginaw River, Flint, Michigan.
(B) Candor Dam, Candor, New York.
(C) State Dam, Auburn, New York.
(D) Whaley Lake Dam, Pawling, New York.
(E) Ingham Spring Dam, Solebury Township, Pennsylvania.
(F) Leaser Lake Dam, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.
(G) Stillwater Dam, Monroe County, Pennsylvania.
(H) Wissahickon Creek Dam, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.
(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 immediately carry out a project to
remedy the situation at Fern Ridge Dam, Oregon, due to the
rapid deterioration of the dam. Cost sharing for the project
shall be as provided by section 1203 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 467n).
(d) Kehly Run Dams, Pennsylvania.--Section 504(a)(2) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 338; 117
Stat. 1842) is amended by striking ``Dams'' and inserting
``Dams No. 1-5''.
[[Page H5851]]
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out subsection (a) $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, Nonconnah Creek,
Tennessee.
SEC. 5005. FLOOD MITIGATION PRIORITY AREAS.
(a) In General.--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 paragraphs (23) and
(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) Ascension Parish, Louisiana;
``(30) East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana;
``(31) Iberville Parish, Louisiana;
``(32) Livingston Parish, Louisiana; and
``(33) Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 212(i)(1) of
such Act (33 U.S.C. 2332(i)(1)) is amended by striking
``section--'' and all that follows before the period at the
end and inserting ``section $20,000,000''.
SEC. 5006. ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR AUTHORIZED PROJECTS.
(a) In General.--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) $35,000,000 for the project described in subsection
(c)(18);
``(10) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection
(c)(20);
``(11) $35,000,000 for the project described in subsection
(c)(23);
``(12) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection
(c)(25);
``(13) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection
(c)(26);
``(14) $35,000,000 for the project described in subsection
(c)(27);
``(15) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection
(c)(28); and
``(16) $30,000,000 for the project described in subsection
(c)(40).''.
(b) East Arkansas Enterprise Community, Arkansas.--Federal
assistance made available under the rural enterprise zone
program of the Department of Agriculture may be used toward
payment of the non-Federal share of the costs of the project
described in section 219(c)(20) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A-219) if such
assistance is authorized to be used for such purposes.
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) 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).
(2) 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).
(3) 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).
(4) 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).
(5) 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).
(6) Newton Creek, Bainbridge, New York, being carried out
under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C.
701r).
(7) 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).
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 water supply, Little Red River, Arkansas.
(2) Project for shoreline stabilization at Egmont Key,
Florida.
(3) Project for ecosystem restoration, University Lake,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
(4) Project for hurricane and storm damage reduction,
Montauk Point, New York.
(b) Special Rule for Egmont Key, Florida.--In carrying out
the project for shoreline stabilization at Egmont Key,
Florida, referred to in subsection (a)(2), 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) Special Rule for Montauk Point, New York.--The
Secretary shall complete the report for the project referred
to in subsection (a)(4) not later than September 30, 2005,
notwithstanding the ownership of the property to be
protected.
SEC. 5009. SOUTHEASTERN WATER RESOURCES ASSESSMENT.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct, at Federal
expense, an assessment of the water resources needs of the
river basins and watersheds of the southeastern United
States.
(b) Cooperative Agreements.--In carrying out the
assessment, the Secretary may enter into cooperative
agreements with State and local agencies, non-Federal and
nonprofit entities, and regional researchers.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $7,000,000 to carry out this section.
SEC. 5010. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
Section 1103(e)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 652(e)(7)) is amended--
(1) by adding at the end of subparagraph (A) the following:
``The non-Federal interest may provide the non-Federal share
of the cost of the project in the form of in-kind services
and materials.''; and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
``(C) Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the Flood Control
Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5(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. 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''.
SEC. 5012. 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. 5013. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS AND SEDIMENT
REMEDIATION.
Section 401(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1990 (33 U.S.C. 1268 note; 114 Stat. 2613) is amended by
striking ``2006'' and inserting ``2011''.
SEC. 5014. GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODEL.
Section 516(g)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (33 U.S.C. 2326b(g)(2)) is amended by striking ``2006''
and inserting ``2011''.
SEC. 5015. 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 2005
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. 5016. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND
PROTECTION PROGRAM.
(a) Form of Assistance.--Section 510(a)(2) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3759) is amended
by striking ``, and beneficial uses of dredged material'' and
inserting ``, beneficial uses of dredged material, and
restoration of submerged aquatic vegetation''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 510(i) of
such Act (110 Stat. 3761) is amended by striking
``$10,000,000'' and inserting ``$50,000,000''.
SEC. 5017. CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RESTORATION.
The second sentence of section 704(b) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2263(b)) is
amended by striking ``$20,000,000'' and inserting
``$30,000,000''.
SEC. 5018. HYPOXIA ASSESSMENT.
The Secretary may participate with Federal, State, and
local agencies, non-Federal and nonprofit entities, regional
researchers, and other interested parties to assess hypoxia
in the Gulf of Mexico.
SEC. 5019. POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT AND TRIBUTARY
STRATEGY EVALUATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM.
The Secretary may participate in the Potomac River
Watershed Assessment and Tributary Strategy Evaluation and
Monitoring Program to identify a series of resource
management indicators to accurately monitor the effectiveness
of
[[Page H5852]]
the implementation of the agreed upon tributary strategies
and other public policies that pertain to natural resource
protection of the Potomac River watershed.
SEC. 5020. LOCK AND DAM SECURITY.
(a) Standards.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Tennessee Valley
Authority, and the Coast Guard, shall develop standards for
the security of locks and dams, including the testing and
certification of vessel exclusion barriers.
(b) Site Surveys.--At the request of a lock or dam owner,
the Secretary shall provide technical assistance, on a
reimbursible basis, to improve lock or dam security.
(c) Cooperative Agreement.--The Secretary may enter into a
cooperative agreement with a nonprofit alliance of public and
private organizations that has the mission of promoting safe
waterways and seaports to carry out testing and certification
activities, and to perform site surveys, under this section.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $3,000,000 to carry out this section.
SEC. 5021. 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. 5022. TALLAPOOSA, ALABAMA.
The Secretary may provide technical assistance relating to
water supply to the Middle Tallapoosa Water Supply District,
Alabama. There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 to
carry out this section.
SEC. 5023. ALASKA.
Section 570 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 369) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c) by inserting ``environmental
restoration,'' after ``water supply and related
facilities,'';
(2) in subsection (e)(3)(B) by striking the last sentence;
(3) in subsection (h) by striking ``$25,000,000'' and
inserting ``$45,000,000''; and
(4) 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. 5024. BARROW, ALASKA.
The Secretary shall carry out, under section 117 of the
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005 (118
Stat. 2944), a nonstructural project for coastal erosion and
storm damage prevention and reduction at Barrow, Alaska,
including relocation of infrastructure.
SEC. 5025. COFFMAN COVE, ALASKA.
The Secretary is authorized to carry out a project for
navigation, Coffman Cove, Alaska, at a total cost of
$3,000,000.
SEC. 5026. FORT YUKON, ALASKA.
The Secretary shall make repairs to the dike at Fort Yukon,
Alaska, so that the dike meets Corps of Engineers standards.
SEC. 5027. KOTZEBUE HARBOR, ALASKA.
The Secretary is authorized to carry out a project for
navigation, Kotzebue Harbor, Kotzebue, Alaska, at at total
cost of $2,200,000.
SEC. 5028. 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. 5029. ST. HERMAN AND ST. PAUL HARBORS, KODIAK, ALASKA.
The Secretary shall carry out, on an emergency basis,
necessary removal of rubble, sediment, and rock impeding the
entrance to the St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak,
Alaska, at a Federal cost of $2,000,000.
SEC. 5030. TANANA RIVER, ALASKA.
The Secretary shall carry out, on an emergency basis, the
removal of the hazard to navigation on the Tanana River,
Alaska, near the mouth of the Chena River, as described in
the January 3, 2005, memorandum from the Commander,
Seventeenth Coast Guard District, to the Corps of Engineers,
Alaska District, Anchorage, Alaska.
SEC. 5031. VALDEZ, ALASKA.
The Secretary is authorized to construct a small boat
harbor in Valdez, Alaska, at a total cost of $20,000,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $10,500,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $9,500,000.
SEC. 5032. WHITTIER, ALASKA.
(a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct, at Federal
expense, a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out
projects for navigation at Whittier, Alaska, to construct a
new boat harbor at the head of Whittier Bay and to expand the
existing harbor and, if the Secretary determines that a
project is feasible, the Secretary may carry out the project.
(b) Non-Federal Cost Share.--The non-Federal interest may
use, and the Secretary shall accept, funds provided under any
other Federal program to satisfy, in whole or in part, the
non-Federal share of the construction of any project carried
out under this section if such funds are authorized to be
used to carry out such project.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $35,200,000.
SEC. 5033. WRANGELL HARBOR, ALASKA.
(a) General Navigation Features.--In carrying out the
project for navigation, Wrangell Harbor, Alaska, authorized
by section 101(b)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1999 (113 Stat. 279), the Secretary shall consider the
dredging of the mooring basin and construction of the inner
harbor facilities to be general navigation features for
purposes of estimating the non-Federal share of project
costs.
(b) Revision of Partnership Agreement.--The Secretary shall
revise the partnership agreement for the project to reflect
the change required by subsection (a).
SEC. 5034. 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. 5035. DES ARC LEVEE PROTECTION, ARKANSAS.
The Secretary shall review the project for flood control,
Des Arc, Arkansas, to determine whether bank and channel
scour along the White River threaten the existing project and
whether the scour is as a result of a design deficiency. If
the Secretary determines that such conditions exist as a
result of a deficiency, the Secretary shall carry out
measures to eliminate the deficiency.
SEC. 5036. 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).
SEC. 5037. 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. 5038. 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. 5039. WHITE RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS.
(a) Minimum Flows.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out section 304 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2601), the
Secretary shall implement alternatives BS-3 and NF-7, as
described in the White River Minimum Flows Reallocation Study
Report, Arkansas and Missouri, dated July 2004.
(2) Cost sharing.--Reallocation of storage and installation
of facilities under this subsection shall be considered fish
and wildlife enhancement that provides national benefits and
shall be a Federal expense in accordance with section
906(e)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33
U.S.C. 2283(e)(1)).
(3) Offset.--In carrying out this subsection, losses to
hydropower shall be offset by a reduction, not to exceed
$17,000,000, in the costs allocated to hydropower, as
determined by the present value of the estimated replacement
cost of the electrical energy and capacity at the time of the
implementation.
(b) Fish Hatchery.--In operating the fish hatchery at
Beaver Lake, Arkansas, authorized by section 105 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2921), losses to
hydropower shall be offset by a reduction, not to exceed
$2,200,000, in the costs allocated to hydropower, as
determined by the present value of the estimated replacement
cost of the electrical energy and capacity at the time of the
implementation.
(c) Repeal.--Section 374 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 321) is repealed.
SEC. 5040. 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
[[Page H5853]]
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. 5041. 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. 5042. DANA POINT HARBOR, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of the causes of water
quality degradation within Dana Point Harbor, California, to
determine if the degradation is the result of a Federal
navigation project, and, if the Secretary determines that the
degradation is the result of a Federal navigation project,
the Secretary shall carry out a project to mitigate the
degradation at Federal expense.
SEC. 5043. EAST SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
Section 219(f)(22) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1992 (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, 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 (ii) the cost of
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 in-kind services and materials.'';
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. 5044. EASTERN SANTA CLARA BASIN, CALIFORNIA.
Section 111(c) of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act,
2001 (as enacted into law by Public Law 106-554; 114 Stat.
2763A-224) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$25,000,000'' and inserting
``$28,000,000''; and
(2) by striking ``$7,000,000'' and inserting
``$10,000,000''.
SEC. 5045. PINE FLAT DAM AND RESERVOIR, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall review the Kings River
Fisheries Management Program Framework Agreement, dated May
29, 1999, among the California Department of Fish and Game,
the Kings River Water Association, and the Kings River
Conservation District and, if the Secretary determines that
the management program is feasible, the Secretary may
participate in the management program.
(b) Prohibition.--Nothing in this section authorizes any
project for the raising of, or the construction of, a
multilevel intake structure at Pine Flat Dam, California.
(c) Use of Existing Studies.--In carrying out this section,
the Secretary shall use, to the maximum extent practicable,
studies in existence on the date of enactment of this Act,
including data and environmental documentation in the Report
of the Chief of Engineers, Pine Flat Dam and Reservoir,
Fresno County, California, dated July 19, 2002.
(d) 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
the work is integral to the project.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to $20,000,000 to carry out this section.
SEC. 5046. 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. 5047. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the
Port of San Francisco, California, may carry out the project
for repair and removal, as appropriate, of Piers 35, 36, and
80 in San Francisco, California, substantially in accordance
with the Port's redevelopment plan.
(1) Authorization of Appropriation.--There is authorized to
be appropriated $20,000,000 to carry out this subsection.
SEC. 5048. 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 northeasterly prolongation of that
portion of the northwesterly line of Bryant Street lying
between Beale Street and Main Street with the southwesterly
line of Spear Street, which intersection lies on the line of
jurisdiction of the San Francisco Port Commission; following
thence southerly along said line of jurisdiction as described
in the State of California Harbor and Navigation Code Section
1770, as amended in 1961, to its intersection with the
easterly line of Townsend Street along a line that is
parallel and distant 10 feet distant from the existing
southern boundary of Pier 40 produced to its point of
intersection with the United States Government pier-head
line; thence northerly along said pier-head line to its
intersection with a line parallel with, and distant 10 feet
easterly from, the existing easterly boundary line of Pier
30-32; thence northerly along said parallel line and its
northerly prolongation, to a point of intersection with a
line parallel with, and distant 10 feet northerly from, the
existing northerly boundary of Pier 30-32, thence westerly
along last said parallel line to its intersection with the
United States Government pier-head line; 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. 5049. SANTA VENETIA, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a project
for flood damage reduction under section 205 of the Flood
Control Act of 1958 (33 U.S.C. 701s), Santa Venetia,
California, if the Secretary determines that the project is
feasible.
(b) Project Financing.--In carrying out 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 Secretary's evaluation indicates that applying such
section is necessary to implement the project.
SEC. 5050. 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 one or more of
the 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. 5051. VICTOR V. VEYSEY DAM, CALIFORNIA.
(a) Designation.--The Prado Dam, authorized by the Flood
Control Act of 1936 (49 Stat. 1570), shall be known and
designated as the ``Victor V. Veysey Dam''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
dam referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a
reference to the ``Victor V. Veysey Dam''.
SEC. 5052. WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA.
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) in the vicinity of Whittier, California, if
the Secretary determines that the project is feasible.
SEC. 5053. CHARLES HERVEY TOWNSHEND BREAKWATER, NEW HAVEN
HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.
(a) Designation.--The western breakwater for the project
for navigation, New Haven Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by
the first section
[[Page H5854]]
of the Act of September 19, 1890 (26 Stat. 426), shall be
known and designated as the ``Charles Hervey Townshend
Breakwater''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
breakwater referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to
be a reference to the ``Charles Hervey Townshend
Breakwater''.
SEC. 5054. CHRISTINA RIVER SHIPWRECK, DELAWARE.
The Secretary may carry out the removal of the debris
associated with the steamship ``STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA'' and
other derelict vessels from the Christina River, Delaware,
under section 202 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1976 (90 Stat. 2945).
SEC. 5055. ANACOSTIA RIVER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MARYLAND,
AND VIRGINIA.
(a) Comprehensive Action Plan.--Not later than 1 year after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in
coordination with the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the
Governor of Maryland, the Governor of Virginia, the County
Executives of Montgomery County and Prince George's County,
Maryland, and other interested persons, shall develop a 10-
year comprehensive action plan for the restoration and
protection of the ecological integrity of the Anacostia River
and its tributaries.
(b) Public Availability.--Upon completion of the plan, the
Secretary shall make the plan available to the public.
SEC. 5056. FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS.
Section 109(e)(2) 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. 5057. 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. 5058. LAKE LANIER, GEORGIA.
The Secretary may assist local interests with planning,
design, and construction of facilities at the Lake Lanier
Olympic Center, Georgia, at a total cost of $5,300,000.
SEC. 5059. 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. 5060. 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 non-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 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) Clear Creek Drainage and Levee District, Illinois.
(2) Fort Chartres and Ivy Landing Drainage District,
Illinois.
(3) Wood River Drainage and Levee District, Illinois.
(4) Cairo, Illinois Mainline Levee, Cairo, Illinois.
(5) Goose Pond Pump Station, Cairo, Illinois.
(6) Cottonwood Slough Pump Station, Alexander County,
Illinois.
(7) 10th and 28th Street Pump Stations, Cairo, Illinois.
(8) Flood control levee projects in Brookport, Shawneetown,
Old Shawneetown, Golconda, Rosiclare, Harrisburg, and
Reevesville, Illinois.
(e) Justification.--The reconstruction of a project
authorized by this section shall not be considered a
separable element of the project.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated--
(1) $15,000,000 to carry out the projects described in
paragraphs (1) through (7) of subsection (d); and
(2) $15,000,000 to carry out the projects described in
subsection (d)(8).
Such sums shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 5061. 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. 5062. FLOODPLAIN MAPPING, LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, CHICAGO,
ILLINOIS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide assistance for
a project to develop maps identifying 100- and 500-year flood
inundation areas along the Little Calumet River, Chicago,
Illinois.
(b) Requirements.--Maps developed under the project shall
include hydrologic and hydraulic information and shall
accurately show the flood inundation of each property by
flood risk in the floodplain. The maps shall be produced in a
high resolution format and shall be made available to all
flood prone areas along the Little Calumet River, Chicago,
Illinois, in an electronic format.
(c) Participation of FEMA.--The Secretary and the non-
Federal interests for the project shall work with the
Director of the Federal
[[Page H5855]]
Emergency Management Agency to ensure the validity of the
maps developed under the project for flood insurance
purposes.
(d) Forms of Assistance.--In carrying out the project, the
Secretary may enter into contracts or cooperative agreements
with the non-Federal interests or provide reimbursements of
project costs.
(e) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the
project shall be 50 percent.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $2,000,000.
SEC. 5063. 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. 5064. 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''.
(c) Nonprofit Entities and Monitoring.--Section 519 of such
Act (114 Stat. 2654) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(h) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b)
of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), a
non-Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity with the
consent of the affected local government.
``(i) Monitoring.--The Secretary shall develop an Illinois
river basin monitoring program to support the plan referred
to in subsection (b). Data collected under the monitoring
program shall incorporate data provided by the State of
Illinois and shall be publicly accessible through electronic
means.''.
SEC. 5065. PROMONTORY POINT, LAKE MICHIGAN, ILLINOIS.
In carrying out the project for storm damage reduction and
shoreline erosion protection, Lake Michigan, authorized by
section 101(a)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3664), the Secretary shall reevaluate the
feasibility of reconstructing the Promontory Point section
consistent with the original limestone step design.
SEC. 5066. BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, INDIANA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of shoaling in the
vicinity of Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana, to determine if
the shoaling is the result of a Federal navigation project,
and, if the Secretary determines that the shoaling is the
result of a Federal navigation project, the Secretary shall
carry out a project to mitigate the shoaling under section
111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426).
SEC. 5067. CALUMET REGION, INDIANA.
Section 219(f)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1992 (113 Stat. 335; 117 Stat. 1843) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$30,000,000'' and inserting the
following:
``(A) In general.--$30,000,000'';
(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 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).
SEC. 5068. FLOODPLAIN MAPPING, MISSOURI RIVER, IOWA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide assistance for
a project to develop maps identifying 100- and 500-year flood
inundation areas in the State of Iowa, along the Missouri
River.
(b) Requirements.--Maps developed under the project shall
include hydrologic and hydraulic information and shall
accurately portray the flood hazard areas in the floodplain.
The maps shall be produced in a high resolution format and
shall be made available to the State of Iowa in an electronic
format.
(c) Participation of FEMA.--The Secretary and the non-
Federal interests for the project shall work with the
Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to ensure
the validity of the maps developed under the project for
flood insurance purposes.
(d) Forms of Assistance.--In carrying out the project, the
Secretary may enter into contracts or cooperative agreements
with the non-Federal interests or provide reimbursements of
project costs.
(e) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the
project shall be 50 percent.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $3,000,000.
SEC. 5069. 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. 5070. CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KENTUCKY.
At reservoirs managed by the Secretary above Cumberland
River mile 385.5 within the Cumberland River basin, Kentucky,
the Secretary shall charge fees associated with storage and
maintenance of water supply that do not exceed the fees in
effect on October 1, 2002.
SEC. 5071. LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY.
(a) In General.--Section 557 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 353) is amended--
(1) in the section heading by inserting ``kentucky
and'' before ``northern west
virginia''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Louisville, kentucky.--Report of the Corps of
Engineers entitled `Louisville Waterfront Park, Phase II,
Kentucky, Master Plan', dated July 22, 2002, at a total cost
of $32,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $16,000,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $16,000,000.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--In the table of contents
contained in section 1(b) of such Act strike the item
relating to section 557 and insert the following:
``Sec. 557. Kentucky and Northern West Virginia.''.
SEC. 5072. 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. 5073. 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. 5074. PADUCAH, KENTUCKY.
The Secretary shall complete a feasibility report for
rehabilitation of the project for flood damage reduction,
Paducah, Kentucky, and, if the Secretary determines that the
project is feasible, the Secretary shall carry out the
project at a total cost of $3,000,000.
SEC. 5075. SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY.
Section 531 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(110 Stat. 3773; 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 may be used by
the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer
projects under this section at 100 percent Federal
expense.''.
SEC. 5076. WINCHESTER, KENTUCKY.
Section 219(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 114 Stat. 2763A-219) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(41) Winchester, kentucky.--Wastewater infrastructure,
Winchester, Kentucky.''.
SEC. 5077. 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. 5078. CALCASIEU SHIP CHANNEL, LOUISIANA.
The Secretary shall expedite completion of a dredged
material management plan for the Calcasieu Ship Channel,
Louisiana, and may take interim measures to increase the
capacity of existing disposal areas, or to construct new
confined or beneficial use disposal areas, for the channel.
SEC. 5079. CROSS LAKE, SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA.
The Secretary may accept from the Department of the Air
Force, and may use, not to exceed $4,500,000 to assist the
city of Shreveport, Louisiana, with its plan to construct a
water intake facility.
SEC. 5080. 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
[[Page H5856]]
riverine preservation, restoration, enhancement
modifications, and interpretive center development.''.
SEC. 5081. CHARLESTOWN, MARYLAND.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out a project for
nonstructural flood damage reduction and ecosystem
restoration at Charlestown, Maryland.
(b) Land Acquisition.--The flood damage reduction component
of the project may include the acquisition of private
property from willing sellers.
(c) Justification.--Any nonstructural flood damage
reduction project to be carried out under this section that
will result in the conversion of property to use for
ecosystem restoration and wildlife habitat shall be justified
based on national ecosystem restoration benefits.
(d) Use of Acquired Property.--Property acquired under this
section shall be maintained in public ownership for ecosystem
restoration and wildlife habitat.
(e) Ability to Pay.--In determining the appropriate non-
Federal cost share for the project, the Secretary shall
determine the ability of Cecil County, Maryland, to
participate as a cost-sharing non-Federal interest in
accordance with section 103(m) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)).
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $2,000,000 to carry out this section.
SEC. 5082. DELMARVA CONSERVATION CORRIDOR, MARYLAND AND
DELAWARE.
(a) Assistance.--The Secretary may provide technical
assistance to the Secretary of Agriculture for use in
carrying out the Conservation Corridor Demonstration Program
established under subtitle G of title II of the Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (16 U.S.C. 3801 note; 116
Stat. 275).
(b) Coordination and Integration.--In carrying out water
resources projects in Maryland and Delaware on the Delmarva
Peninsula, the Secretary shall coordinate and integrate those
projects, to the maximum extent practicable, with any
activities carried out to implement a conservation corridor
plan approved by the Secretary of Agriculture under section
2602 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
(16 U.S.C. 3801 note; 116 Stat. 275).
SEC. 5083. MASSACHUSETTS DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES.
The Secretary may cooperate with Massachusetts in the
management and long-term monitoring of aquatic dredged
material disposal sites within the State, and is authorized
to accept funds from the State to carry out such activities.
SEC. 5084. ONTONAGON HARBOR, MICHIGAN.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of shore damage in the
vicinity of the project for navigation, Ontonagon Harbor,
Ontonagon County, Michigan, authorized by section 101 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1176, 100 Stat.
4213, 110 Stat. 3730), 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. 5085. ST. CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST. CLAIR, MICHIGAN.
(a) Ecosystem Restoration.--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.
(b) Plan.--Section 426(d) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 326) is amended by
striking ``$400,000'' and inserting ``$475,000''.
SEC. 5086. CROOKSTON, MINNESOTA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for a project for
emergency streambank protection along the Red Lake River in
Crookston, Minnesota, and, if the Secretary determines that
the project is feasible, the Secretary 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.
SEC. 5087. 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 ``township and crow wing and mille lacs counties'';
(2) by striking ``$11,000,000'' and inserting
``$17,000,000'';
(3) by inserting ``, Crow Wing County, Mille Lacs County,''
after ``Garrison''; and
(4) 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 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. 5088. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA.
(a) Conveyance.--The Secretary shall convey to the city of
Minneapolis by quitclaim deed and without consideration all
right, title, and interest of the United States to the
property known as the War Department (Fort Snelling
Interceptor) Tunnel in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
(b) Applicability of Property Screening Provisions.--
Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply
to the conveyance under this section.
SEC. 5089. 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), 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. 5090. 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 in-kind services and materials.
SEC. 5091. 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. 5092. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.
Section 219(f)(32) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1992 (113 Stat. 337) is amended by striking
``$15,000,000'' and inserting ``$35,000,000''.
SEC. 5093. ACID BROOK, POMPTON LAKES, NEW JERSEY.
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), Acid Brook, Pompton Lakes, New Jersey, if
the Secretary determines that the project is feasible.
SEC. 5094. 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 the non-Federal share 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. 5095. CENTRAL NEW MEXICO, NEW MEXICO.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 593(h) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 381) is
amended by striking ``$25,000,000'' and inserting
``$40,000,000''.
(b) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Section 593 of such Act
(113 Stat. 381) is amended 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.''.
[[Page H5857]]
SEC. 5096. 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 adding 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
2004, and $7,500,000 for fiscal years beginning after
September 30, 2004,''.
(d) Tsunami Warning System.--Section 404 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4863) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Tsunami Warning System.--There is authorized to be
appropriated $800,000 for the Secretary to carry out a
project for a tsunami warning system, Atlantic Coast of New
York.''.
SEC. 5097. COLLEGE POINT, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK.
In carrying out section 312 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4639), the Secretary shall
give priority to work in College Point, New York City, New
York.
SEC. 5098. 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. 5099. HUDSON RIVER, NEW YORK.
The Secretary may participate with the State of New York,
New York City, and the Hudson River Park Trust in carrying
out activities to restore critical marine habitat, improve
safety, and protect and rehabilitate critical infrastructure.
There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry
out this section.
SEC. 5100. MOUNT MORRIS DAM, NEW YORK.
As part of the operation and maintenance of the Mount
Morris Dam, New York, the Secretary may make improvements to
the access road for the dam to provide safe access to a
Federal visitor's center.
SEC. 5101. ONONDAGA LAKE, NEW YORK.
Section 573 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 372) 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
interest may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of
the affected local government.''.
SEC. 5102. 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. 5103. 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. 5104. W. KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NORTH CAROLINA.
The Secretary shall remove debris from the joint intake at
the W. Kerr Scott Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina.
SEC. 5105. OHIO.
Section 594 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 381) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b) by striking ``design and
construction'' and inserting ``planning, design, and
construction'';
(2) in subsection (g) by striking ``$60,000,000'' and
inserting ``$100,000,000''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b)
of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5(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. 5106. TOUSSAINT RIVER, OHIO.
(a) In General.--The project for navigation, Toussaint
River, Carroll Township, Ohio, authorized by section 107 of
the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified
to authorize the Secretary to enter into an agreement with
the non-Federal interest under which the Secretary may--
(1) acquire, and transfer to the non-Federal interest, a
dredge and associated equipment with the capacity to perform
operation and maintenance of the project; and
(2) provide the non-Federal interest with a lump-sum
payment to cover all future costs of operation and
maintenance of the project.
(b) Agreement.--The Secretary may carry out subsection
(a)(1) by entering into an agreement with the non-Federal
interest under which the non-Federal interest may acquire the
dredge and associated equipment directly and be reimbursed by
the Secretary.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $1,800,000 to carry out this section. Of
such funds, $500,000 may be used to carry out
subsection (a)(1).
(d) Release.--Upon the acquisition and transfer of a dredge
and associated equipment under subsection (a)(1), and the
payment of funds under subsection (a)(2), all future Federal
responsibility for operation and maintenance of the project
is extinguished.
SEC. 5107. 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, the Secretary 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. 5108. JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, LAKE UMATILLA, OREGON AND
WASHINGTON.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall pay not more than
$2,500,000 to the provider of research and curation support
previously provided to the Federal Government as a result
of--
(1) the multipurpose project at 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
(2) 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. 5109. 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
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) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the
property conveyed under subsection (a) ceases to be held in
public ownership, all right, title, and interest in and to
the property shall revert to the United States, at the option
of the United States.
(e) 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. 5110. ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.
Section 219(f)(66) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A-221) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$20,000,000'' and inserting the
following:
``(A) In general.--$20,000,000'';
(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 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
(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. 5111. LEHIGH RIVER, LEHIGH COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.
The Secretary shall use existing water quality data to
model the effects of the Francis E. Walter Dam, at different
water levels, to determine
[[Page H5858]]
its impact on water and related resources in and along the
Lehigh River in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. There is
authorized to be appropriated $500,000 to carry out this
section.
SEC. 5112. 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. 5113. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND
NEW YORK.
(a) Study and Strategy Development.--Section 567(a) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3787; 114
Stat. 2662) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by inserting
``and carry out'' after ``develop''; and
(2) in paragraph (2) by striking ``$10,000,000.'' and
inserting ``$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.''.
(b) Cooperative Agreements.--Section 567(c) of such Act
(114 Stat. 2662) is amended--
(1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Cooperation''
and inserting ``Cooperative''; and
(2) in the first sentence--
(A) by inserting ``and carrying out'' after ``developing'';
and
(B) by striking ``cooperation'' and inserting ``cost-
sharing and cooperative''.
(c) Implementation of Strategy.--Section 567(d) of such Act
(114 Stat. 2663) is amended--
(1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--The Secretary'';
(2) in the second sentence of paragraph (1) (as so
designated)--
(A) by striking ``implement'' and inserting ``carry out'';
and
(B) by striking ``implementing'' and inserting ``carrying
out'';
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Priority project.--In carrying out projects to
implement the strategy, the Secretary shall give priority to
the project for ecosystem restoration, Cooperstown, New York,
described in the Upper Susquehanna River Basin--Cooperstown
Area Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study, dated December
2004, prepared by the Corps of Engineers and the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation.''; and
(4) 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 (3) of this subsection).
(d) Credit.--Section 567 of such Act (110 Stat. 3787; 114
Stat. 2662) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of a project under this section--
``(1) 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
``(2) the cost of in-kind services and materials provided
for the project by the non-Federal interest.''.
SEC. 5114. 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, the Secretary 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. 5115. 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. 5116. 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. 5117. J. PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TENNESSEE.
The Secretary shall plan, design, and construct a trail
system at the J. Percy Priest Dam and Reservoir, 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.
SEC. 5118. 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 County, 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. 5119. 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 River and Harbor 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.
SEC. 5120. UPPER MISSISSIPPI EMBAYMENT, TENNESSEE, ARKANSAS,
AND MISSISSIPPI.
The Secretary may participate with non-Federal and
nonprofit entities to address issues concerning managing
groundwater as a sustainable resource through the Upper
Mississippi Embayment, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Mississippi,
and coordinating the protection of groundwater supply and
groundwater quality with local surface water protection
programs. There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000
to carry out this section.
SEC. 5121. BOSQUE RIVER WATERSHED, TEXAS.
(a) Comprehensive Plan.--The Secretary, in consultation
with appropriate Federal, State, and local entities, shall
develop, as expeditiously as practicable, a comprehensive
plan for development of new technologies and innovative
approaches for restoring, preserving, and protecting the
Bosque River watershed within Bosque, Hamilton, McLennan, and
Erath Counties, Texas. The Secretary, in cooperation with the
Secretary of Agriculture, may carry out activities identified
in the comprehensive plan to demonstrate practicable
alternatives for stabilization and enhancement of land and
water resources in the basin.
(b) Services of Public Non-Profit Institutions and Other
Entities.--In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary may
utilize, through contracts or other means, the services of
public non-profit institutions and such other entities as the
Secretary considers appropriate.
(c) Non-Federal Share.--
(1) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of
activities carried out under this section shall be 35
percent.
(2) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of activities carried out under
this section the cost of planning, design, and construction
work completed by or on behalf of the non-Federal interests
for implementation of measures constructed with assistance
provided under this section. The amount of such credit shall
not exceed the non-Federal share of the cost of such
activities.
(3) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal share of
the cost of operation and maintenance for measures
constructed with assistance provided under this section shall
be 100 percent.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000.
SEC. 5122. DALLAS FLOODWAY, DALLAS, TEXAS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall review the Balanced
Vision Plan for the Trinity River Corridor, Dallas, Texas,
dated December 2003 and amended in March 2004, prepared by
the non-Federal interest for the project for flood damage
reduction and other purposes, Dallas Floodway, Dallas, Texas,
and, if the Secretary determines that the project is
technically sound and environmentally acceptable, shall carry
out the project at a total cost of $194,000,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $126,100,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $67,900,000.
(b) Credit.--
(1) In-kind contributions.--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 the work is integral to the project.
(2) Cash contributions.--The Secretary shall accept funds
provided by the non-Federal interests for use in carrying out
planning, engineering, and design for the project. The
Federal share of such planning, engineering, and design
carried out with non-Federal contributions shall be credited
against the non-Federal share of project costs.
SEC. 5123. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.
(a) In General.--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''.
(b) Specific Projects.--Section 575(b) of such Act (110
Stat. 3789; 113 Stat. 311) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (4) by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
[[Page H5859]]
(3) by adding the following:
``(5) the project for flood control, Upper White Oak Bayou,
Texas, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4125).''.
SEC. 5124. 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 in the period
beginning 2 years before the date of initiation of the study
and ending on the date of execution of the partnership
agreement for construction of the project 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. 5125. DYKE MARSH, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA.
The Secretary shall accept funds from the National Park
Service to restore Dyke Marsh, Fairfax County, Virginia.
SEC. 5126. EASTERN SHORE AND SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA.
Section 219(f)(10) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$20,000,000 for water supply and
wastewater infrastructure'' and inserting the following:
``(A) In general.--$20,000,000 for water supply, wastewater
infrastructure, and environmental restoration'';
(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 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
(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. 5127. JAMES RIVER, VIRGINIA.
The Secretary shall accept funds from the National Park
Service to provide technical and project management
assistance for the James River, Virginia, with a particular
emphasis on locations along the shoreline adversely impacted
by Hurricane Isabel.
SEC. 5128. 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. 5129. 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. 5130. 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. 5131. WILLAPA BAY, WASHINGTON.
Section 545 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
(114 Stat. 2675) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ``may construct'' and
inserting ``shall construct''; and
(2) by inserting ``and ecosystem restoration'' after
``erosion protection'' each place it appears.
SEC. 5132. 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. 5133. 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--
(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) Priority Communities.--Section 581(b) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3791) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) Etna, Pennsylvania, in the Pine Creek watershed; and
``(8) Millvale, Pennsylvania, in the Girty's Run River
basin.''.
(c) 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. 5134. 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. 5135. 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. 5136. 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 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:
[[Page H5860]]
``(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. 5137. JOHNSONVILLE DAM, JOHNSONVILLE, WISCONSIN.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of the Johnsonville
Dam, Johnsonville, Wisconsin, to determine if the structure
prevents ice jams on the Sheboygan River.
SEC. 5138. 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 Airport (Holman Field), St. Paul, Minnesota.
``(12) Thornton reservoir, cook county, illinois.--The
project for flood control, Chicago Underflow Plan, Thornton
Reservoir, Cook County, Illinois.
``(13) Larose to golden meadow, louisiana.--The project for
flood control, Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana.
``(14) Perris, california.--The project for flood control,
Perris, California.''.
SEC. 5139. 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.
TITLE VI--FLORIDA EVERGLADES
SEC. 6001. HILLSBORO AND OKEECHOBEE AQUIFER, FLORIDA.
(a) Modification.--The project for Hillsboro and Okeechobee
Aquifer, Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(16) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276), is
modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out the project
at a total cost of $39,200,000.
(b) Treatment.--Section 601(b)(2)(A) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2681) is amended--
(1) 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, except that operation and maintenance costs of
the project shall remain a non-Federal responsibility.''; and
(2) in clause (iii) by inserting after ``subparagraph (B)''
the following: ``and the project for aquifer storage and
recovery, Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer''.
SEC. 6002. PILOT PROJECTS.
Section 601(b)(2)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 2000 (114 Stat. 2681) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding clause (i)--
(A) by striking ``$69,000,000'' and inserting
``$71,200,000''; and
(B) by striking ``$34,500,000'' each place it appears and
inserting ``$35,600,000''; and
(2) in clause (i)--
(A) by striking ``$6,000,000'' and inserting
``$8,200,000''; and
(B) by striking ``$3,000,000'' each place it appears and
inserting ``$4,100,000''.
SEC. 6003. MAXIMUM COST OF PROJECTS.
Section 601(b)(2)(E) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 2000 (114 Stat. 2683) is amended by inserting ``and
section (d)'' before the period at the end.
SEC. 6004. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION.
Section 601(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of
2000 (114 Stat. 2684) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(3) Project authorization.--The following project for
water resources development and conservation and other
purposes is authorized to be carried out by the Secretary
substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to
the conditions, described in the report designated in this
paragraph:
``(A) Indian river lagoon south, florida.--The project for
ecosystem restoration, water supply, flood damage reduction,
and protection of water quality, Indian River Lagoon South,
Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated August 6,
2004, at a total cost of $1,210,608,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $605,304,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $605,304,000.''.
SEC. 6005. CREDIT.
Section 601(e)(5)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 2000 (114 Stat. 2685) is amended--
(1) in clause (i)--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (I);
(B) by adding ``or'' at the end of subclause (II); and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(III) the credit is provided for work carried out before
the date of the partnership agreement between the Secretary
and the non-Federal sponsor, as defined in an agreement
between the Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor providing
for such credit;''; and
(2) in clause (ii)--
(A) by striking ``design agreement or the project
cooperation''; and
(B) by inserting before the semicolon the following: ``,
including in the case of credit provided under clause
(i)(III) conditions relating to design and construction''.
SEC. 6006. OUTREACH AND ASSISTANCE.
Section 601(k) of the Water Resources Development Act of
2000 (114 Stat. 2691) 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, 2004, to carry out this subsection.''.
SEC. 6007. 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. 6008. DEAUTHORIZATIONS.
As of the date of enactment of this Act, the following
projects are not authorized:
(1) The uncompleted portions of the project authorized by
section 601(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2682), C-44 Basin Storage Reservoir of
the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
(2) The uncompleted portions of the project authorized by
section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740),
Martin County, Florida modifications to the Central and South
Florida Project, as contained in Senate Document 101, 90th
Congress, 2d Session.
(3) The uncompleted portions of the project authorized by
section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740),
East Coast Backpumping, St. Lucie--Martin County, Spillway
Structure S-311 of the Central and South Florida Project, as
contained in House Document 369, 90th Congress, 2d Session.
SEC. 6009. MODIFIED WATER DELIVERY.
(a) Tamiami Trail.--The Secretary shall not carry out a
project for raising Tamiami Trail, Florida, until such date
as the project is specifically authorized by law.
(b) Reports.--The Secretary shall submit to Congress
reports recommending specific authorizations in law for--
(1) changes to the project to improve water deliveries to
Everglades National Park, authorized by section 104 of the
Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989
(16 U.S.C. 410r-8), if necessary;
(2) a project to raise Tamiami Trail, Florida, if
necessary; and
(3) a combined structural and operational plan for the C-
111 Canal Project, authorized by section 203 of the Flood
Control Act of 1948 (62 Stat. 1176), and modified by section
203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740), and
further modified by section 316 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3715), and the project to
improve water deliveries to Everglades National Park.
TITLE VII--LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA
SEC. 7001. DEFINITIONS.
In this title, 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 and the Pearl River on the
east, including those parts of the Deltaic Plain and the
Chenier Plain included within the study area of the Plan.
(2) Governor.--The term ``Governor'' means the Governor of
the State of Louisiana.
(3) Plan.--The term ``Plan'' means the report of the Chief
of Engineers for ecosystem restoration for the Louisiana
Coastal Area dated January 31, 2005.
(4) Task force.--The term ``Task Force'' means the Coastal
Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task Force
established by section 7003.
SEC. 7002. ADDITIONAL REPORTS.
(a) Mississippi River Gulf Outlet.--Not later than 2 years
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
submit to Congress a report recommending modifications to the
Mississippi River Gulf Outlet to address navigation, salt
water intrusion, channel bank erosion, mitigation, and
threats to life and property.
(b) Chenier Plain.--Not later than July 1, 2006, the
Secretary shall submit to Congress a report recommending
near-term ecosystem restoration measures for the Chenier
Plain, Louisiana.
(c) Long-Term Plan.--
(1) Comprehensive framework.--Not later than one year after
the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall
submit to Congress a recommended framework for developing a
long-term program that provides for the comprehensive
protection, conservation, and restoration of the wetlands,
estuaries (including Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary), barrier
islands, and related land and features that protect critical
resources, habitat, and infrastructure in the coastal
Louisiana ecosystem from the impacts of coastal storms,
hurricanes, erosion, and subsidence.
(2) Consideration.--In developing the recommended
framework, the Secretary shall consider integrating other
Federal or State projects
[[Page H5861]]
or activities within the coastal Louisiana ecosystem into the
long-term restoration program.
(3) Comprehensive plan.--
(A) Deadline.--Not later than five years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a feasibility study recommending a comprehensive, long-term,
plan for the protection, conservation, and restoration of the
coastal Louisiana ecosystem.
(B) Integration.--The comprehensive, long-term, plan shall
include recommendations for the integration of ongoing
Federal and State projects, programs, and activities.
SEC. 7003. COASTAL LOUISIANA ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION AND
RESTORATION TASK FORCE.
(a) 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):
(1) The Secretary.
(2) The Secretary of the Interior.
(3) The Secretary of Commerce.
(4) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency.
(5) The Secretary of Agriculture.
(6) The Secretary of Transportation.
(7) The Secretary of Energy.
(8) The Director of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency.
(9) The Commandant of the Coast Guard.
(10) The Coastal Advisor to the Governor.
(11) The Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources.
(12) A representative of the Louisiana Governor's Advisory
Commission on Coastal Restoration and Conservation.
(b) Duties of Task Force.--The Task Force shall--
(1) make recommendations to the Secretary regarding
policies, strategies, plans, programs, projects, and
activities for addressing protection, conservation, and
restoration of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem;
(2) prepare financial plans for each of the agencies
represented on the Task Force for funds proposed for the
protection, conservation, and restoration of the coastal
Louisiana ecosystem under authorities of each agency,
including--
(A) recommendations that identify funds from current agency
missions and budgets; and
(B) recommendations for coordinating individual agency
budget requests; and
(3) submit to Congress a biennial report that summarizes
the activities of the Task Force and progress towards the
purposes set forth in section 7002(c)(1).
(c) Procedures and Advice.--The Task Force shall--
(1) implement procedures to facilitate public participation
with regard to Task Force activities, including--
(A) providing advance notice of meetings;
(B) providing adequate opportunity for public input and
comment;
(C) maintaining appropriate records; and
(D) making a record of proceedings available for public
inspection; and
(2) establish such working groups as are necessary to
assist the Task Force in carrying out its duties.
(d) Compensation.--Members of the Task Force or any
associated working group may not receive compensation for
their services as members of the Task Force or working group.
(e) Travel Expenses.--Travel expenses incurred by members
of the Task Force, or members of an associated working group,
in the performance of their service on the Task Force or
working group shall be paid by the agency or entity that the
member represents.
(f) Application of Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The
Task Force and any working group established by the Task
Force shall not be considered an advisory committee under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
SEC. 7004. INVESTIGATIONS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct feasibility
studies for future authorization and large-scale studies
substantially in accordance with the Plan at a total cost
$130,000,000.
(b) Existing Federally Authorized Water Resources
Projects.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall review existing
federally authorized water resources projects in the coastal
Louisiana ecosystem in order to determine their consistency
with the purposes of this section and whether the projects
have the potential to contribute to ecosystem restoration
through revised operations or modified project features.
(2) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated
$10,000,000 to carry out this subsection.
SEC. 7005. CONSTRUCTION.
(a) Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a coastal
Louisiana ecosystem program substantially in accordance with
the Plan, at a total cost of $50,000,000.
(2) Objectives.--The objectives of the program shall be
to--
(A) identify uncertainties about the physical, chemical,
geological, biological, and cultural baseline conditions in
the coastal Louisiana ecosystem;
(B) improve the State of knowledge of the physical,
chemical, geological, biological, and cultural baseline
conditions in the coastal Louisiana ecosystem; and
(C) identify and develop technologies, models, and methods
that could be useful in carrying out the purposes of this
title.
(3) Working groups.--The Secretary may establish such
working groups as are necessary to assist in carrying out
this subsection.
(4) Procedures and advice.--In carrying out this
subsection, the Secretary is authorized to enter into
contracts and cooperative agreements with scientific and
engineering experts in the restoration of aquatic and marine
ecosystems, including a consortium of academic institutions
in Louisiana and Mississippi for coastal restoration and
enhancement through science and technology.
(b) Demonstration Projects.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the
Secretary may carry out projects substantially in accordance
with the Plan for the purpose of resolving critical areas of
scientific or technological uncertainty related to the
implementation of the comprehensive plan to be developed
under section 7002(c)(3).
(2) Maximum cost.--
(A) Total cost.--The total cost for planning, design, and
construction of all demonstration projects under this
subsection shall not exceed $100,000,000.
(B) Individual project.--The total cost of an individual
demonstration project under this subsection shall not exceed
$25,000,000.
(c) Initial Projects.--The Secretary is authorized to carry
out the following projects substantially in accordance with
the Plan:
(1) Mississippi River Gulf Outlet Environmental Restoration
at a total cost of $105,300,000.
(2) Small Diversion at Hope Canal at a total cost of
$68,600,000.
(3) Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline Restoration at a
total cost of $242,600,000.
(4) Small Bayou Lafourche Reintroduction at a total cost of
$133,500,000.
(5) Medium Diversion at Myrtle Grove with Dedicated
Dredging at a total cost of $278,300,000.
(d) Beneficial Use of Dredged Material.--The Secretary,
substantially in accordance with the Plan, shall implement in
the coastal Louisiana ecosystem a program for the beneficial
use of material dredged from federally maintained waterways
at a total cost of $100,000,000.
SEC. 7006. NON-FEDERAL COST SHARE.
(a) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of a study authorized by section
7004 or a project authorized by section 7005 the cost of work
carried out in the coastal Louisiana ecosystem by the non-
Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement
for the study or project, as the case may be, if the
Secretary determines that the work is integral to the study
or project, as the case may be.
(b) Treatment of Credit Between Projects.--Any credit
provided under this section toward the non-Federal share of
the cost of a study authorized by section 7004 or a project
authorized by section 7005 may be applied toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of any other study authorized by
section 7004 or any other project authorized by section 7005,
as the case may be.
(c) Periodic Monitoring.--
(1) In general.--To ensure that the contributions of the
non-Federal interest equal the non-Federal share of the cost
of a study authorized by section 7004 or a project authorized
by section 7005, during each 5-year period beginning after
the date of commencement of the first study under section
7004 or construction of the first project under section 7005,
as the case may be, the Secretary shall--
(A) monitor the non-Federal provision for each study
authorized by section 7004 or each project authorized by
section 7005, as the case may be, of cash, in-kind services
and materials, and land, easements, rights-of-way,
relocations, and disposal areas; and
(B) manage, to the extent practicable, the requirement of
the non-Federal interest to provide for each such project
cash, in-kind services and materials, and land, easements,
rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal areas.
(2) Other monitoring.--The Secretary shall conduct
monitoring separately for the study phase, construction
phase, the preconstruction engineering and design phase, and
the planning phase for each project authorized on or after
date of enactment of this Act for all or any portion of the
coastal Louisiana ecosystem.
(d) Audits.--Credit for land, easements, rights-of-way,
relocations, and disposal areas (including land value and
incidental costs) provided under this section, and the cost
of work provided under this section, shall be subject to
audit by the Secretary.
SEC. 7007. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 209 of the Flood
Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962-2) or any other provision
of law, in carrying out any project or activity authorized by
or under this title or any other provision of law to protect,
conserve, and restore the coastal Louisiana ecosystem, the
Secretary may determine that--
(1) the project or activity is justified by the
environmental benefits derived by the coastal Louisiana
ecosystem; and
(2) no further economic justification for the project or
activity is required if the Secretary determines that the
project or activity is cost effective.
(b) Limitation on Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall not
apply to any separable element intended to produce benefits
that are predominantly unrelated to the protection,
conservation, and restoration of the coastal Louisiana
ecosystem.
SEC. 7008. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.
(a) Existing Authority.--Except as otherwise provided in
this title, nothing in this title affects any authority in
effect on the date of enactment of this Act, or any
requirement relating to the participation in protection,
conservation, and restoration projects and activities in the
coastal Louisiana ecosystem, including projects and
activities referred to in subsection (a) of--
(1) the Department of the Army;
[[Page H5862]]
(2) the Department of the Interior;
(3) the Department of Commerce;
(4) the Environmental Protection Agency;
(5) the Department of Agriculture;
(6) the Department of Transportation;
(7) the Department of Energy;
(8) the Federal Emergency Management Agency;
(9) the Coast Guard; and
(10) the State of Louisiana.
(b) New Authority.--Nothing in this title confers any new
regulatory authority on any Federal or non-Federal entity
that carries out any project or activity authorized by or
under this title.
TITLE VIII--UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATERWAY SYSTEM
SEC. 8001. DEFINITIONS.
In this title, the following definitions apply:
(1) Plan.--The term ``Plan'' means the project for
navigation and ecosystem improvements for the Upper
Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System: Report of the
Chief of Engineers, dated December 15, 2004.
(2) Upper mississippi river and illinois waterway system.--
The term ``Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway
System'' means the projects for navigation and ecosystem
restoration authorized by Congress for--
(A) the segment of the Mississippi River from the
confluence with the Ohio River, River Mile 0.0, to Upper St.
Anthony Falls Lock in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, River
Mile 854.0; and
(B) the Illinois Waterway from its confluence with the
Mississippi River at Grafton, Illinois, River Mile 0.0, to
T.J. O'Brien Lock in Chicago, Illinois, River Mile 327.0.
SEC. 8002. NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS AND RESTORATION.
Except as modified by this title, the Secretary shall
undertake navigation improvements and restoration of the
ecosystem for the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Water
System substantially in accordance with the Plan and subject
to the conditions described therein.
SEC. 8003. AUTHORIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION OF NAVIGATION
IMPROVEMENTS.
(a) Small Scale and Nonstructural Measures.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
(A) construct mooring facilities at Locks 12, 14, 18, 20,
22, 24, and LaGrange Lock;
(B) provide switchboats at Locks 20 through 25; and
(C) conduct development and testing of an appointment
scheduling system.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--The total cost of
projects authorized under this subsection shall be
$235,000,000. Such costs shall 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.
(b) New Locks.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall construct new 1,200-
foot locks at Locks 20, 21, 22, 24, and 25 on the Upper
Mississippi River and at LaGrange Lock and Peoria Lock on the
Illinois Waterway.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--The total cost of
projects authorized under this subsection shall be
$1,795,000,000. Such costs shall 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.
(c) Concurrence.--The mitigation required for the projects
authorized under subsections (a) and (b), including any
acquisition of lands or interests in lands, shall be
undertaken or acquired concurrently with lands and interests
in lands for the projects authorized under subsections (a)
and (b), and physical construction required for the purposes
of mitigation shall be undertaken concurrently with the
physical construction of such projects.
SEC. 8004. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AUTHORIZATION.
(a) Operation.--To ensure the environmental sustainability
of the existing Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway
System, the Secretary shall modify, consistent with
requirements to avoid adverse effects on navigation, the
operation of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois
Waterway System to address the cumulative environmental
impacts of operation of the system and improve the ecological
integrity of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River.
(b) Ecosystem Restoration Projects.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out, consistent
with requirements to avoid adverse effects on navigation,
ecosystem restoration projects to attain and maintain the
sustainability of the ecosystem of the Upper Mississippi
River and Illinois River in accordance with the general
framework outlined in the Plan.
(2) Projects included.--Ecosystem restoration projects may
include--
(A) island building;
(B) construction of fish passages;
(C) floodplain restoration;
(D) water level management (including water drawdown);
(E) backwater restoration;
(F) side channel restoration;
(G) wing dam and dike restoration and modification;
(H) island and shoreline protection;
(I) topographical diversity;
(J) dam point control;
(K) use of dredged material for environmental purposes;
(L) tributary confluence restoration;
(M) spillway, dam, and levee modification; and
(N) land and easement acquisition.
(3) Cost sharing.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B)
and (C), the Federal share of the cost of carrying out an
ecosystem restoration project under this subsection shall be
65 percent.
(B) Exception for certain restoration projects.--In the
case of a project under this section for ecosystem
restoration, the Federal share of the cost of carrying out
the project shall be 100 percent if the project--
(i) is located below the ordinary high water mark or in a
connected backwater;
(ii) modifies the operation of structures for navigation;
or
(iii) is located on federally owned land.
(C) Savings clause.--Nothing in this subsection affects the
applicability of section 906(e) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(e)).
(D) Nongovernmental organizations.--Notwithstanding section
221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-
5(b)), for any project carried out under this title, a non-
Federal sponsor may include a nonprofit entity, with the
consent of the affected local government.
(4) Land acquisition.--The Secretary may acquire land or an
interest in land for an ecosystem restoration project from a
willing seller through conveyance of--
(A) fee title to the land; or
(B) a flood plain conservation easement.
(c) Ecosystem Restoration Preconstruction Engineering and
Design.--
(1) Restoration design.--Before initiating the construction
of any individual ecosystem restoration project, the
Secretary shall--
(A) establish ecosystem restoration goals and identify
specific performance measures designed to demonstrate
ecosystem restoration;
(B) establish the without-project condition or baseline for
each performance indicator; and
(C) for each separable element of the ecosystem
restoration, identify specific target goals for each
performance indicator.
(2) Outcomes.--Performance measures identified under
paragraph (1)(A) shall include specific measurable
environmental outcomes, such as changes in water quality,
hydrology, or the well-being of indicator species the
population and distribution of which are representative of
the abundance and diversity of ecosystem-dependent aquatic
and terrestrial species.
(3) Restoration design.--Restoration design carried out as
part of ecosystem restoration shall include a monitoring plan
for the performance measures identified under paragraph
(1)(A), including--
(A) a timeline to achieve the identified target goals; and
(B) a timeline for the demonstration of project completion.
(d) Specific Projects Authorization.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this subsection $1,580,000,000, of which not more
than $226,000,000 shall be available for projects described
in subsection (b)(2)(B) and not more than $43,000,000 shall
be available for projects described in subsection (b)(2)(J).
(2) Limitation on available funds.--Of the amounts made
available under paragraph (1), not more than $35,000,000 in
any fiscal year may be used for land acquisition under
subsection (b)(4).
(3) Individual project limit.--Other than for projects
described in subparagraphs (B) and (J) of subsection (b)(2),
the total cost of any single project carried out under this
subsection shall not exceed $25,000,000.
(e) Implementation Reports.--
(1) In general.--Not later than June 30, 2007, and every 4
years thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives an implementation report that--
(A) includes baselines, milestones, goals, and priorities
for ecosystem restoration projects; and
(B) measures the progress in meeting the goals.
(2) Advisory panel.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall appoint and convene an
advisory panel to provide independent guidance in the
development of each implementation report under paragraph
(1).
(B) Panel members.--Panel members shall include--
(i) 1 representative of each of the State resource agencies
(or a designee of the Governor of the State) from each of the
States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin;
(ii) 1 representative of the Department of Agriculture;
(iii) 1 representative of the Department of Transportation;
(iv) 1 representative of the United States Geological
Survey;
(v) 1 representative of the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service;
(vi) 1 representative of the Environmental Protection
Agency;
(vii) 1 representative of affected landowners;
(viii) 2 representatives of conservation and environmental
advocacy groups; and
(ix) 2 representatives of agriculture and industry advocacy
groups.
(C) Chairperson.--The Secretary shall serve as chairperson
of the advisory panel.
(D) Application of federal advisory committee act.--The
Advisory Panel and any working group established by the
Advisory Panel shall not be considered an advisory committee
under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
(f) Ranking System.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Advisory Panel, shall develop a system to rank proposed
projects.
(2) Priority.--The ranking system shall give greater weight
to projects that restore natural river processes, including
those projects listed in subsection (b)(2).
SEC. 8005. COMPARABLE PROGRESS.
(a) In General.--As the Secretary conducts pre-engineering,
design, and construction for
[[Page H5863]]
projects authorized under this title, the Secretary shall--
(1) select appropriate milestones; and
(2) determine, at the time of such selection, whether the
projects are being carried out at comparable rates.
(b) No Comparable Rate.--If the Secretary determines under
subsection (a)(2) that projects authorized under this
subsection are not moving toward completion at a comparable
rate, annual funding requests for the projects shall be
adjusted to ensure that the projects move toward completion
at a comparable rate in the future.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in
order except those printed in House Report 109-160. 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.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House
Report 109-160.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Duncan
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Duncan:
Page 11, line 7, insert ``(a) Projects With Chief's
Report.--'' before ``Except as''.
Page 12, line 16, strike ``shily''' and insert ``shly'''.
Page 12, line 18, strike ``Shily' '' and insert ``Shly' ''.
Page 21, after line 21, 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, 2005:
(1) Des moines/raccoon rivers, iowa.-- The project for
flood damage reduction, Des Moines/Raccoon Rivers, Iowa, at a
total cost of $10,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$6,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,500,000.
(2) Port of iberia, louisiana.--The project for navigation,
Port of Iberia, Louisiana, at a total cost of $194,000,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $123,000,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $71,000,000.
(3) Raritan and sandy hook bays, union beach, new jersey.--
The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Raritan
and Sandy Hook Bays, Union Beach, New Jersey, at a total cost
of $99,095,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $64,412,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $34,683,000.
(4) Hocking river, monday creek sub-basin, ohio.--The
project for environmental restoration, Hocking River, Monday
Creek Sub-basin, Ohio, at a total cost of $20,000,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $17,000,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $3,000,000.
(5) Pawley's island, south carolina.--The project for
hurricane and storm damage reduction, Pawley's Island, South
Carolina, at a total cost of $8,813,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $4,133,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $4,680,000.
Page 23, strike lines 9 through 13 and redesignate
subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
Page 24, after line 18, insert the following:
(25) Dry and otter creeks, cortland, new york.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Dry and Otter Creeks, Cortland, New
York.
Page 27, line 8, strike ``(a)(21)'' and insert ``(a)(19)''.
Page 27, line 19, strike ``(a)(18)'' and insert
``(a)(16)''.
Page 28, line 1, strike ``(a)(35)'' and insert ``(a)(34)''.
Page 29, after line 17, insert the following:
(10) Dry and otter creeks, cortland county, new york.--
Project for emergency streambank protection, Dry and Otter
Creeks, Cortland County, New York.
Page 29, after line 24, insert the following:
(12) Owego creek, tioga county, new york.--Project for
emergency streambank protection, Owego Creek, Tioga County,
New York.
Page 40, line 1, after the second comma, insert ``Shore
Parkway Greenway,''.
Page 83, strike line 20 and all that follows through line
18 on page 85 and insert the following:
(a) Determination of Certain National Benefits.--
(1) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that,
consistent with the Economic and Environmental Principles and
Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources
Implementation Studies (1983), the Secretary may select a
water resources project alternative that does not maximize
net national economic development benefits or net national
ecosystem restoration benefits if there is an overriding
reason based on other Federal, State, local, or international
concerns.
(2) Flood damage reduction, navigation, and hurricane storm
damage reduction projects.--With respect to a water resources
project the primary purpose of which is flood damage
reduction, navigation, or hurricane and storm damage
reduction, an overriding reason for selecting a plan other
than the plan that maximizes net 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.
(3) Ecosystem restoration projects.--With respect to a
water resources project the primary purpose of which is
ecosystem restoration, an overriding reason for selecting a
plan other than the plan that maximizes net national
ecosystem restoration 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 economic development
benefits.
Page 110, after line 20, insert the following:
SECTION 2041. 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;
(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; and
(3) the University of Texas at Dallas for support and
operation of the International Center for Decision and Risk
Analysis to study risk analysis and control methods for
transboundary water resources management in the southwestern
United States and other international water resources
management problems.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out subsection
(a)(1) $5,000,000, to carry out subsection (a)(2) $5,000,000,
and to carry out subsection (a)(3) $5,000,000. Such sums
shall remain available until expended.
Page 110, after line 22, insert the following (and
redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):
SEC. 3001. COOK INLET, ALASKA.
Section 118(a)(2) of the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 2005 (title I of division C of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005; 118 Stat. 2945) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``maximum navigational'' before ``draft'';
(2) by striking ``greater than''; and
(3) by inserting ``or greater'' after ``35 feet''.
Page 125, after line 23, insert the following (and
redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):
SEC. 3032. SOUTH PLATTE RIVER BASIN, COLORADO.
Section 808 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(100 Stat. 4168) is amended by striking ``agriculture,'' and
inserting ``agriculture, environmental restoration,''.
Page 130, line 17, strike ``costs it'' and insert ``the
Federal share of the costs the non-Federal interest''.
Page 130, line 18, after ``project'' insert ``(including
environmental mitigation costs and costs incurred for
incomplete usable increments of the project)''.
Page 134, strike lines 10 through 22 and insert the
following:
SEC. 3046. BEARDSTOWN COMMUNITY BOAT HARBOR, BEARDSTOWN,
ILLINOIS.
(a) In General.--The project for navigation, Muscooten Bay,
Illinois River, Beardstown Community Boat Harbor, Beardstown,
Illinois, constructed under section 107 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified--
(1) to include the channel between the harbor and the
Illinois River; and
(2) to direct the Secretary to enter into a partnership
agreement with the city of Beardstown to replace the local
cooperation agreement dated August 18, 1983, with the
Beardstown Community Park District.
(b) Terms of Partnership Agreement.--The partnership
agreement referred to in subsection (a) shall include the
same rights and responsibilities as the local cooperation
agreement dated August 18, 1983, changing only the identity
of the non-Federal sponsor.
Page 134, line 23, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''.
Page 159, strike section 3093 and insert the following:
SEC. 3093. ORCHARD BEACH, BRONX, NEW YORK.
Section 554 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(110 Stat. 3781) is amended by striking ``maximum Federal
cost of $5,200,000'' and inserting ``total cost of
$20,000,000''.
Page 190, after line 8, insert the following (and
redesignate subsequent subsections accordingly):
[[Page H5864]]
(c) Calcasieu Ship Channel, Louisiana.--
(1) In general.--At such time as Pujo Heirs and Westland
Corporation conveys all right, title, and interest in and to
the real property described in paragraph (2)(A) to the United
States, the Secretary shall convey all right, title, and
interest of the United States in and to the real property
described in paragraph (2)(B) to Pujo Heirs and Westland
Corporation.
(2) Land description.--The parcels of land referred to in
paragraph (1) are the following:
(A) Non-federal land.--An equivalent area to the real
property described in subparagraph (B). The parcels that may
be exchanged include Tract 128E, Tract 129E, Tract 131E,
Tract 41A, Tract 42, Tract 132E, Tract 130E, Tract 134E,
Tract 133E-3, Tract 140E, or some combination thereof.
(B) Federal land.--An area in Cameron Parish, Louisiana,
known as portions of Government Tract Numbers 139E-2 and 48
(both tracts on the west shore of the Calcasieu Ship
Channel), and known as Corps of Engineers Dredge Material
Placement Area O.
(3) Conditions.--The exchange of real property under
paragraph (1) shall be subject to the following conditions:
(A) Deeds.--
(i) Non-federal land.--The conveyance of the real property
described in paragraph (2)(A) to the Secretary shall be by a
warranty deed acceptable to the Secretary.
(ii) Federal land.--The conveyance of the real property
described in paragraph (2)(B) to Pujo Heirs and Westland
Corporation shall be by quitclaim deed.
(B) Time limit for exchange.--The land exchange under
paragraph (1) shall be completed not later than 1 year after
the date of enactment of this Act.
(4) Value of properties.--If the appraised fair market
value, as determined by the Secretary, of the real property
conveyed to Pujo Heirs and Westland Corporation by the
Secretary under paragraph (1) exceeds the appraised fair
market value, as determined by the Secretary, of the real
property conveyed to the United States by Pujo Heirs and
Westland Corporation under paragraph (1), Pujo Heirs and
Westland Corporation shall make a payment to the United
States equal to the excess in cash or a cash equivalent that
is satisfactory to the Secretary.
Page 201, after line 24, insert the following (and
redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):
SEC. 4005. DELAWARE RIVER.
The Secretary shall review, in consultation with the
Delaware River Basin Commission and the States of Delaware,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, the report of the
Chief of Engineers on the Delaware River, published as House
Document Numbered 522, 87th Congress, Second Session, as it
relates to the Mid-Delaware River Basin from Wilmington to
Port Jervis, and any other pertinent reports (including the
strategy for resolution of interstate flow management issues
in the Delaware River Basin dated August 2004 and the
National Park Service Lower Delaware River Management Plan
(1997-1999)), with a view to determining whether any
modifications of recommendations contained in the first
report referred to are advisable at the present time, in the
interest of flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration,
and other related problems.
Page 213, lines 11 and 12, strike ``services, materials,
supplies, or other in-kind contributions'' and insert ``in-
kind services and materials''.
Page 221, after line 20, insert the following (and
redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):
SEC. 4073. SHORE PARKWAY GREENWAY, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of the feasibility of
carrying out a project for shoreline protection in the
vicinity of the confluence of the Narrows and Gravesend Bay,
Upper New York Bay, Shore Parkway Greenway, Brooklyn, New
York.
Page 233, after line 4, insert the following (and
redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):
SEC. 4105. JOHNSON CREEK, ARLINGTON, TEXAS.
(a) Reevaluation of Environmental Restoration Features.--
The Secretary shall reevaluate the project for flood damage
reduction, environmental restoration, and recreation,
authorized by section 101(b)(14) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 280), to develop
alternatives to the separable environmental restoration
element of the project.
(b) Study of Additional Flood Damage Reduction Measures.--
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of additional flood damage reduction measures and
erosion control measures within the boundaries of the project
referred to in subsection (a).
(c) Plans and Designs.--In conducting the studies referred
to in subsections (a) and (b), the Secretary shall review
plans and designs developed by non-Federal interests and
shall use such plans and designs to the extent that the
Secretary determines that such plans and designs are
consistent with Federal standards.
(d) Credit Toward Federal Share.--If an alternative
environmental restoration element is authorized by law, the
Secretary shall credit toward the Federal share of the cost
of that project the costs incurred by the Secretary to carry
out the separable environmental restoration element of the
project referred to in subsection (a). The non-Federal
interest shall not be responsible for reimbursing the
Secretary for any amount credited under this subsection.
(e) Credit Toward the Non-Federal Share.--The Secretary
shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the
studies under subsections (a) and (b), and the cost of any
project carried out as a result of such studies the cost of
work carried out by the non-Federal interest.
Page 238, strike line 9 and redesignate subsequent
paragraphs accordingly.
Page 241, strike lines 4 through 10 and insert the
following:
(c) Fern Ridge Dam, Oregon.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall plan, design, and
complete emergency corrective actions to repair the
embankment dam at the Fern Ridge Lake project, Oregon.
(2) Treatment.--The Secretary may treat work to be carried
out under this subsection as a dam safety project, and the
cost of the work may be recovered in accordance with section
1203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33
U.S.C. 467n; 100 Stat. 4263).
Page 242, line 6, strike ``river mile 205 to river mile
308.4,''.
Page 243, after line 14, insert the following (and
redesignate subsequent quoted paragraphs accordingly):
``(10) $27,000,000 for the project described in subsection
(c)(19);
Page 245, after line 11, insert the following (and
redesignate subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
(6) North River, Peabody, Massachusetts, being carried out
under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C.
701s).
Page 249, line 19, strike ``The Secretary'' and insert the
following:
``(1) Delaware river.--The Secretary''.
Page 250, after line 2, insert the following:
(2) Susquehanna river.--The Secretary may enter into an
agreement with the Susquehanna River Basin Commission to
provide temporary water supply and conservation storage at
Corps of Engineers facilities in the Susquehanna River Basin
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.
Page 252, after line 3, insert the following (and
redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):
SEC. 5021. REHABILITATION.
The Secretary, at Federal expense and not to exceed
$1,000,000, shall rehabilitate and improve the water-related
infrastructure and the transportation infrastructure for the
historic property in the Anacostia River Watershed located in
the District of Columbia, including measures to address wet
weather conditions. To carry out this section, the Secretary
shall accept funds provided for such project under any other
Federal program.
SEC. 5022. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR COLUMBIA AND
SNAKE RIVER SALMON SURVIVAL.
Section 511 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(16 U.S.C. 3301 note; 110 Stat. 3761; 113 Stat. 375) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(6) by striking ``$10,000,000'' and
inserting ``$25,000,000''; and
(2) in subsection (c)(2) by striking ``$1,000,000'' and
inserting ``$10,000,000''.
SEC. 5023. 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.
Page 253, after line 25, insert the following (and
redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):
SEC. 5026. FIRE ISLAND, ALASKA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to provide
planning, design, and construction assistance to the non-
Federal interest for the construction of a causeway between
Point Campbell and Fire Island, Alaska, including the
beneficial use of dredged material in the construction of the
causeway.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section.
Page 257, strike lines 6 through 19 (and redesignate
subsequent sections accordingly).
Page 262, after line 12, insert the following (and
redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):
SEC. 5045. LA-3 DREDGED MATERIAL OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE
DESIGNATION, CALIFORNIA.
The third sentence of section 102(c)(4) of the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C.
1412(c)(4)) is amended by striking ``January 1, 2003'' and
inserting ``January 1, 2007''.
SEC. 5046. LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA.
Section 219(f)(50) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A-220) is amended--
(1) by inserting after ``water'' the following: ``and
wastewater'';
(2) by striking ``$14,500,000'' and inserting
``$24,500,000''.
[[Page H5865]]
SEC. 5047. ONTARIO AND CHINO, CALIFORNIA.
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), in the vicinity of Ontario and Chino,
California, if the Secretary determines that the project is
feasible.
Page 263, after line 16, insert the following (and
redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):
SEC. 5046. RAYMOND BASIN, SIX BASINS, CHINO BASIN, AND SAN
GABRIEL BASIN, CALIFORNIA.
(a) Comprehensive Plan.--The Secretary, in consultation and
coordination with appropriate Federal, State, and local
entities, shall develop a comprehensive plan for the
management of water resources in the Raymond Basin, Six
Basins, Chino Basin, and San Gabriel Basin, California. The
Secretary may carry out activities identified in the
comprehensive plan to demonstrate practicable alternatives
for water resources management.
(b) Non-Federal Share.--
(1) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of
activities carried out under this section shall be 35
percent.
(2) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of activities carried out under
this section the cost of planning, design, and construction
work completed by or on behalf of the non-Federal interests
for implementation of measures under this section. The amount
of such credit shall not exceed the non-Federal share of the
cost of such activities.
(3) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal share of
the cost of operation and maintenance of any measures
constructed under this section shall be 100 percent.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000.
Page 267, after line 2, insert the following (and
redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):
SEC. 5049. SAN PABLO BAY, CALIFORNIA, 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 submit to Congress a report on the results of the
study.
(b) 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.
(c) 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, and 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.
(2) Types of assistance.--Participation in critical
restoration projects under this subsection may include
assistance for planning, design, or construction.
(d) 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
interest for a project undertaken under this section.
(e) 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--
(1) to pay 35 percent of the cost of construction for the
project;
(2) to provide any lands, easements, rights-of-way, dredged
material disposal areas, and relocations necessary to carry
out the project; and
(3) to pay 100 percent of the operation, maintenance,
repair, replacement, and rehabilitation costs associated with
the project.
(f) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of construction of a project under
this section--
(1) the value of any lands, easements, rights-of-way,
dredged material disposal areas, or relocations provided by
the non-Federal interest for carrying out the project,
regardless of the date of acquisition;
(2) funds received from the CALFED Bay-Delta program; and
(3) 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.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000.
Page 270, strike lines 10 through 14 and insert the
following:
SEC. 5056. FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS.
Section 109 of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2001
(enacted into law by Public Law 106-554) (114 Stat. 2763A-
222) is amended--
(1) by adding at the end of subsection (e)(2) the
following:
Page 270, line 25, strike the final period and insert ``;
and''.
Page 270, after line 25, insert the following:
(2) in subsection (f) by striking ``$100,000,000'' and
inserting ``$100,000,000, of which not more than $15,000,000
may be used to provide planning, design, and construction
assistance to the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority for a water
treatment plant, Florida City, Florida''.
Page 274, after line 17, insert the following (and
redesignate subsequent subparagraphs accordingly):
(D) to ensure aquatic integrity of sidechannels and
backwaters and their connectivity with the mainstem river;
Page 275, after line 12, insert the following (and
redesignate subsequent subparagraphs accordingly):
(D) a conveyance study of the Kaskaskia River floodplain
from Vandalia, Illinois, to Carlyle Lake to determine the
impacts of existing and future waterfowl improvements on
flood stages, including detailed surveys and mapping
information to ensure proper hydraulic and hydrological
analysis;
Page 275, line 22, strike ``Coordinating Council'' and
insert ``Watershed Association''.
Page 277, after line 14, add the following:
(6) Other programs that may be developed by the State of
Illinois or the Federal Government, or that are carried out
by non-profit organizations, to carry out the objectives of
the Kaskaskia River Basin Comprehensive Plan.
Page 280, strike lines 14 through 20 and insert the
following:
SEC. 5065. PROMONTORY POINT, LAKE MICHIGAN, ILLINOIS.
In carrying out the project for storm damage reduction and
shoreline erosion protection, Lake Michigan, authorized by
section 101(a)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3664), the Secretary shall reconstruct the
Promontory Point section consistent with the original
limestone step design. Additional costs associated with such
reconstruction shall be a non-Federal responsibility. The
costs of reconstruction not consistent with the original
limestone step design shall be a non-Federal responsibility.
SEC. 5066. SOUTHWEST ILLINOIS.
(a) Southwest Illinois Defined.--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
[[Page H5866]]
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 287, after line 11, insert the following (and
redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):
SEC. 5080. 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, 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 287, after line 12, insert the following:
(a) Modification of Study.--The study for waterfront and
riverine preservation, restoration, and enhancement,
Mississippi River, West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, being
carried out under Committee Resolution 2570 of the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives adopted July 23, 1998, is modified--
(1) to add West Feliciana Parish and East Baton Rouge
Parish to the geographic scope of the study; and
(2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
Federal share the cost of the study and the non-Federal share
of the cost of any project authorized by law as a result of
the study 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 study or project, as the case may be.
Page 287, line 13, before ``Section'' insert ``(b)
Expedited Consideration.--''.
Page 287, lines 15 and 16, strike ``Parish'' and insert ``,
West Feliciana, and East Baton Rouge Parishes''.
Page 287, line 17, after the second comma insert ``and''.
Page 287, lines 17 and 18, strike ``, and interpretive
center development''.
Page 306, after line 4, insert the following (and
redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):
SEC. 5111. CLINTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.
Section 219(f)(13) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1992 (113 Stat. 335) is amended by striking ``$1,000,000''
and inserting ``$2,000,000''.
Page 309, after line 24, insert the following (and
redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):
SEC. 5116. EAST TENNESSEE.
(a) East Tennessee Defined.--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,
environmental restoration, 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 cost
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 cost.
(D) Land, easements, and rights-of-way credit.--The non-
Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements,
rights-of-way, and relocations toward the non-Federal share
of project cost (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 cost.
(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 314, line 3, strike ``$5,000,000'' and insert
``$10,000,000''.
Page 314, after line 3, insert the following (and
redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):
SEC. 5122. DALLAS COUNTY REGION, TEXAS.
(a) Dallas County Region Defined.--In this section, the
term ``Dallas County region'' means the city of Dallas, and
the municipalities of DeSoto, Duncanville, Lancaster, Wilmer,
Hutchins, Balch Springs, Cedar Hill, Glenn Heights, and
Ferris, Texas.
(b) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary may establish
a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal
interests in the Dallas County region.
(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 the Dallas County
region, including projects for wastewater treatment and
related facilities, water supply and related facilities,
environmental restoration, 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-
[[Page H5867]]
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 such credit may not 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 325, strike lines 22 through 25 and insert the
following:
``(9) Buffalo bayou, texas.--A project for flood control,
Buffalo Bayou, Texas, to provide an alternative to the
project authorized by the first section of the River and
Harbor Act of June 20, 1938 (52 Stat. 804) and modified by
section 3a of the Flood Control Act of August 11, 1939 (53
Stat. 1414).
``(10) Halls bayou, texas.--A project for flood control,
Halls Bayou, Texas, to provide an alternative to the project
for flood control, Buffalo Bayou and tributaries, Texas,
authorized by section 101(a)(21) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4610).
Page 327, after line 9, insert the following:
SEC. 5140. 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--
(1) by striking the undesignated paragraph relating to
Charleston, South Carolina, and inserting the following:
``(72) Charleston, south carolina.--$20,000,000 for
wastewater infrastructure, including wastewater collection
systems, and stormwater system improvements, Charleston,
South Carolina.'';
(2) by redesignating the paragraph (71) relating to Placer
and El Dorado Counties, California, as paragraph (73);
(3) by redesignating the paragraph (72) relating to Lassen,
Plumas, Butte, Sierra, and Nevada Counties, California, as
paragraph (74);
(4) by striking the paragraph (71) relating to
Indianapolis, Indiana, and inserting the following:
``(75) Indianapolis, indiana.--$6,430,000 for environmental
infrastructure for Indianapolis, Indiana.'';
(5) by redesignating the paragraph (73) relating to St.
Croix Falls, Wisconsin, as paragraph (76); and
(6) by adding at the end the following:
``(77) St. clair county, alabama.--$5,000,000 for water
related infrastructure, St. Clair County, Alabama.
``(78) Crawford county, arkansas.--$35,000,000 for water
supply infrastructure, Crawford County, Arkansas.
``(79) Brawley colonia, imperial county, california.--
$1,400,000 for water infrastructure to improve water quality
in the Brawley Colonia Water District, Imperial County,
California.
``(80) Contra costa water district, california.--
$23,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure for the
Contra Costa Water District, California.
``(81) 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.
``(82) Imperial county, california.--$10,000,000 for
wastewater infrastructure, including a wastewater
disinfection facility and polishing system, to improve water
quality in the vicinity of Calexico, California, on the
southern New River, Imperial County, California.
``(83) Richmond, california.--$25,000,000 for a recycled
water treatment facility, Richmond, California.
``(84) Santa clara county, california.--$5,500,000 for an
advanced recycling water treatment plant in Santa Clara
County, California.
``(85) Southern los angeles county, california.--
$15,000,000 for environmental infrastructure for the
groundwater basin optimization pipeline, Southern Los Angeles
County, California.
``(86) Sweetwater reservoir, san diego county,
california.--$375,000 to improve water quality, and remove
nonnative aquatic species from the Sweetwater Reservoir, San
Diego County, California.
``(87) Whittier, california.--$8,000,000 for water,
wastewater, and water related infrastructure, Whittier,
California.
``(88) Montezuma and la plata counties, colorado.--
$1,000,000 for water and wastewater related infrastructure
for the Ute Mountain project, Montezuma and La Plata
Counties, Colorado.
``(89) Pueblo and otero counties, colorado.--$34,000,000
for water transmission infrastructure, Pueblo and Otero
Counties, Colorado.
``(90) Ledyard and montville, connecticut.--$7,113,000 for
water infrastructure, Ledyard and Montville, Connecticut.
``(91) 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.
``(92) Washington, district of columbia.--$35,000,000 for
implementation of a combined sewer overflow long-term control
plan, Washington, District of Columbia.
``(93) Charlotte county, florida.--$3,000,000 for water
supply infrastructure, Charlotte County, Florida.
``(94) Charlotte, lee, and collier counties, florida.--
$20,000,000 for water supply interconnectivity
infrastructure, Charlotte, Lee, and Collier Counties,
Florida.
``(95) Collier county, florida.--$5,000,000 for water
infrastructure to improve water quality in the vicinity of
the Gordon River, Collier County, Florida.
``(96) Jacksonville, florida.--$25,000,000 for wastewater
related infrastructure, including septic tank replacements,
Jacksonville, Florida.
``(97) North vernon and butlerville, indiana.--$1,700,000
for wastewater infrastructure, North Vernon and Butlerville,
Indiana.
``(98) Salem, washington county, indiana.--$3,200,000 for
water supply infrastructure, Salem, Washington County,
Indiana.
``(99) Central kentucky.--$10,000,000 for water related
infrastructure and resource protection and development,
Scott, Franklin, Woodford, Anderson, Fayette, Mercer,
Jessamine, Boyle, Lincoln, Garrard, Madison, Estill, Powell,
Clark, Montgomery, and Bourbon Counties, Kentucky.
``(100) Plaquemine, louisiana.--$7,000,000 for sanitary
sewer and wastewater infrastructure, Plaquemine, Louisiana.
``(101) City of biloxi, city of gulfport, and harrison
county, mississippi.--$15,000,000 for water and wastewater
related infrastructure, city of Biloxi, city of Gulfport, and
Harrison County, Mississippi.
``(102) Clark county, nevada.--$30,000,000 for wastewater
infrastructure, Clark County, Nevada.
``(103) Henderson, nevada.--$5,000,000 for wastewater
infrastructure, Henderson, Nevada.
``(104) Paterson, new jersey.--$35,000,000 for wastewater
infrastructure, Paterson, New Jersey.
``(105) Sennett, new york.--$1,500,000 for water
infrastructure, Town of Sennett, New York.
``(106) Springport and fleming, new york.--$10,000,000 for
water related infrastructure, including water mains, pump
stations, and water storage tanks, Springport and Fleming,
New York.
``(107) Cabarrus county, north carolina.--$4,500,000 for
water related infrastructure, Cabarrus County, North
Carolina.
``(108) Richmond county, north carolina.--$8,000,000 for
water related infrastructure, Richmond County, North
Carolina.
``(109) Union county, north carolina.--$6,000,000 for
wastewater infrastructure, Union County, North Carolina.
``(110) Lake county, ohio.--$1,500,000 for wastewater
infrastructure, Lake County, Ohio.
``(111) Mentor-on-lake, ohio.--$625,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure, Mentor-on-Lake, Ohio.
``(112) Willowick, ohio.--$665,000 for water and wastewater
infrastructure, Willowick, Ohio.
``(113) Albany, oregon.--$35,000,000 for wastewater
infrastructure to improve water quality, Albany, Oregon.
``(114) Borough of stockerton, borough of tatamy, and
palmer township, pennsylvania.--$10,000,000 for stormwater
control measures, particularly to address sinkholes, in the
vicinity of the Borough of Stockerton, the Borough of Tatamy,
and Palmer Township, Pennsylvania.
``(115) Hatfield borough, pennsylvania.--$310,000 for
wastewater related infrastructure for Hatfield Borough,
Pennsylvania.
``(116) Lehigh county, pennsylvania.--$5,000,000 for
stormwater control measures and storm sewer improvements,
Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.
``(117) North wales borough, pennsylvania.--$1,516,584 for
wastewater related infrastructure for North Wales Borough,
Pennsylvania.
``(118) Pen argyl, pennsylvania.--$5,250,000 for wastewater
infrastructure, Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania.
``(119) Philadelphia, pennsylvania.--$1,600,000 for
wastewater related infrastructure for Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
``(120) Vera cruz, pennsylvania.--$5,500,000 for wastewater
infrastructure, Vera Cruz, Pennsylvania.
``(121) Commonwealth of puerto rico.--$35,000,000 for water
and wastewater infrastructure in the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico.
``(122) Cross, south carolina.--$2,000,000 for water
related environmental infrastructure, Cross, South Carolina.
``(123) Myrtle beach, south carolina.--$6,000,000 for
environmental infrastructure, including ocean outfalls,
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
[[Page H5868]]
``(124) North myrtle beach, south carolina.--$6,000,000 for
environmental infrastructure, including ocean outfalls, North
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
``(125) Surfside, south carolina.--$6,000,000 for
environmental infrastructure, including stormwater system
improvements and ocean outfalls, Surfside, South Carolina.
``(126) Athens, tennessee.--$16,000,000 for wastewater
infrastructure, Athens, Tennessee.
``(127) Duchesne, iron, and uintah counties, utah.--
$10,800,000 for water related infrastructure, Duchesne, Iron,
and Uintah Counties, Utah.
``(128) Monroe, north carolina.--$11,500,000 for water
related infrastructure, including water supply reservoir
dredging, Monroe, North Carolina.
``(129) Charlotte, north carolina.--$5,000,000 for phase II
of the Briar Creek wastewater project, Charlotte, North
Carolina.
``(130) Los angeles county, california.--$3,000,000 for
wastewater and water related infrastructure, Diamond Bar, La
Habra Heights, and Rowland Heights, Los Angeles County,
California.
``(131) Orange county, california.--$15,000,000 for
wastewater and water related infrastructure, Anaheim, Brea,
La Habra, Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, and Yorba
Linda, Orange County, California.
``(132) San bernadino county, california.--$9,000,000 for
wastewater and water related infrastructure, Chino and Chino
Hills, San Bernadino County, California.
``(133) Fayetteville, grantville, lagrange, pine mountain
(harris county), douglasville, and carrollton, georgia.--
$24,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure,
Fayetteville, Grantville, LaGrange, Pine Mountain (Harris
County), Douglasville, and Carrollton, Georgia.
``(134) Meriwether and spalding counties, georgia.--
$7,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure,
Meriwether and Spalding Counties, Georgia.
``(135) Arcadia, sierra madre, and upland, california.--
$33,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, Arcadia,
Sierra Madre, and Upland, California, including $13,000,000
for stormwater infrastructure for Upland, California.
``(136) Ft. bend county, texas.--$20,000,000 for wastewater
infrastructure, Ft. Bend County, Texas.
``(137) New river, california.--$10,000,000 for wastewater
infrastructure to improve water quality in the New River,
California.
``(138) Big bear area regional wastewater agency,
california.--$15,000,000 for water reclamation and
distribution, Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency,
California.
``(139) Lake nacimiento, california.--$25,000,000 for water
supply infrastructure for the communities of Atascadero, Paso
Robles, Templeton, and San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo
County, California.
``(140) Otero, bent, crowley, kiowa, and prowers counties,
colorado.--$35,000,000 for water transmission infrastructure,
Otero, Bent, Crowley, Kiowa, and Prowers Counties, Colorado.
``(141) Saipan, northern mariana islands.--$20,000,000 for
water related infrastructure, Saipan, Northern Mariana
Islands.
``(142) Stockton, california.--$33,000,000 for water
treatment and distribution infrastructure, Stockton,
California.
``(143) Jackson, mississippi.--$25,000,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure, Jackson, Mississippi.
``(144) Crooked creek, marlboro county, south carolina.--
$25,000,000 for a project for water storage and water supply
infrastructure on Crooked Creek, Marlboro County, South
Carolina.
``(145) Central texas.--$20,000,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure in Bosque, Brazos, Burleson,
Grimes, Hill, Hood, Johnson, Madison, McLennan, Limestone,
Robertson, and Somervell Counties, Texas.
``(146) El paso county, texas.--$25,000,000 for water
related infrastructure and resource protection and
development, El Paso County, Texas.
``(147) Northern west virginia.--$20,000,000 for water and
wastewater infrastructure in Hancock, Ohio, Marshall, Wetzel,
Tyler, Pleasants, Wood, Doddridge, Monongalia, Marion,
Harrison, Taylor, Barbour, Preston, Tucker, Mineral, Grant,
Gilmer, Brooke, Ritchie Counties, West Virginia.''.
Page 329, line 19, strike the closing quotation marks and
the final period and insert the following:
``(4) Project subject to a final report.--The following
project for water resources development and conservation and
other purposes is authorized to be carried out by the
Secretary substantially in accordance with a final report of
the Chief of Engineers:
``(A) Picayune strand, florida.--The project for
environmental restoration, Picayune Strand, Florida, at a
total cost of $349,422,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$174,711,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$174,711,000, if a favorable report of the Chief is completed
not later than December 31, 2005.''.
Page 355, line 6, strike ``this subsection'' and insert
``this title''.
Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 346, the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and a Member opposed each will control 5
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 informed the committee that
six additional chief's reports recommending that Congress authorize a
water resources project will be completed by December 31, 2005.
The amendment also directs the Corps of Engineers to carry out a
number of small projects under existing corps authority to provide
flood damage reduction and emergency streambank protection.
For other projects that have not been studied, the amendment
authorizes for new Corps of Engineers' projects. The amendment
authorizes one land transfer for a navigation project. Finally, the
amendment authorizes a number of activities or programs for water
resources management.
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 rules. This means not every project could
be addressed, but within these constraints we did the best to meet the
needs of all communities. I urge all Members to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent to control the time in opposition to this amendment, although I
am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Texas is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume, and I rise to support the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan). This amendment is a
bipartisan amendment addressing technical changes and modifications
that have come to the attention of the subcommittee since the bill was
considered at markup time.
The manager's amendment also contains a few new items, including the
contingent authorization of five additional large-scale projects,
provided that a favorable report of the chief of engineers is completed
by the end of 2005.
These five projects are a project for flood damage reduction along
the Des Moines and Raccoon rivers in Iowa; a project of navigation for
the Port Iberia, Louisiana; a project for hurricane and storm damage
reduction, Union Beach, New Jersey; a project for environmental
restoration along the Hocking River, Ohio; and a project for hurricane
and storm damage reduction in Pawley's Island, South Carolina.
Among the additional new items in the manager's amendment are
authorizations for small flood damage reduction and emergency
streambank protection projects in New York State, the authorization of
a transfer of properties in the State of Louisiana, three additional
Corps of Engineers' studies, and the authorization for the corps to
participate in the restoration of the San Pablo Bay watershed in
California.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), an outstanding member of the committee.
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I support the underlying bill, which is of great importance
to U.S. commerce. The upper Mississippi and Illinois waterway project
contained in the bill is critical to U.S. agriculture.
It is my understanding that an amendment will be offered that will
cripple the modernization of the lock and dam system on the Mississippi
River. Due to an increase in unscheduled maintenance closures, shippers
have been forced to choose other higher-priced modes of transportation
for their goods, resulting in less barge traffic and more cost for
producers.
[[Page H5869]]
The upper Mississippi and Illinois river system is critically
important to grain producers across the Nation because the price of
grain nationwide is largely based on the price of grain that moves on
the Mississippi River to our export markets. Over 1 billion bushels of
grain, which is about 60 percent of all grain exports, move to export
markets each year via the Mississippi River.
According to the National Corn Growers Association, the failure to
build the seven new 1,200 foot locks will result in a $562 million loss
in farm income annually by 2020. Of that amount, $264 million will be
lost to exports and $316 million will be from lower prices and
decreased domestic demand.
In addition to the economic impact on our country's farmers, shipping
using waterways is one of the cheapest, safest, and most
environmentally friendly ways to ship goods. The lock and dam system
benefits the environment by creating backwaters and side channels that
support habitat, recreation areas, and municipal water supplies. The
backwaters created by the lock and dam system are estimated to support
over 40 percent of the migratory waterfowl and fish breeding grounds
and are home to over 500 miles of wildlife refuge.
So I certainly hope we will support the lock and dam system as part
of the bill. It is a good bill, and I urge support.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
manager's amendment, which I think demonstrates the work that has been
done by our ranking member and our Chair and the staff to be able to
work through some of these complex issues.
I especially appreciate the work to incorporate planning language
that will give more flexibility to the corps' planning process and
starts the conversation about updating the principles and guidelines
that are so desperately in need of revision.
I would also at this time, in addition to thanking our Chair and
ranking member, acknowledge the hard work of our staff, Susan Bodine
and Ken Kopocis, who have been putting long hours into producing what I
think is very important legislation. I appreciate their cooperation and
the progress that it represents.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I think a picture takes the place of a
thousand words. This is what we get a chance to do with modernizing our
lock and dams. We take one tow of 15 barges and we displace 870
tractor-trailer rigs on our Nation's highways. What this does is use
the best means of transportation to get goods like coal, rock quarry
goods, corn, and soybeans from New Orleans up to Chicago, or from
Chicago down to New Orleans.
Now, if you want to take that same load up there now without the
locks and dams, one load takes 870 tractor-trailer trucks. That is 870
trucks that are using diesel fuel. That is 870 trucks that are clogging
our highways and our roads and our bridges. That is 870 trucks actually
destroying or hurting the roadways that we spend a lot of money to
build.
So there are a lot of important reasons why the corrections here in
this bill are so critical. If we want an environmentally sound policy,
we need to support this bill.
{time} 1300
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), a member of the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment under
consideration. I also want to say that I am pleased to work on language
that was included to authorize the Army Corps to study ways to provide
additional flood relief in southwestern Pennsylvania, particularly the
Chartiers Creek watershed.
Over the years, many flood control projects have been built to
minimize flood damage. However, as Hurricane Frances and Ivan made so
clear, existing projects are inadequate. Last year's floods caused more
than $260 million in damage in Pennsylvania, with Allegheny County the
unwilling victim of most of it. Towns in my district incurred an
estimated $60 million in damage; floodwaters killed one person and
damaged more than 30,000 homes and businesses.
To this day, many of my constituents in an already depressed area
struggle to rebuild. Seventeen existing flood control projects have yet
to be repaired or restored, and just this week, many of my local
communities met to discuss leftover debris. Our towns cannot wait any
longer for the projects authorized in this bill, and I encourage my
colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I support the bipartisan managers'
amendment offered on behalf of the Committee.
This amendment addresses several issues that were brought to the
attention of the committee following the committee markup of a
technical or clarifying nature. It also adds six new projects
contingent upon the completion of a report of the Chief of Engineers by
December 31, 2005, These contingent authorizations are consistent with
the criteria used by the committee in developing water resources
legislation over the past several Congresses.
The managers' amendment also reflects a failure of the current
administration and the Congress to address the water and wastewater
infrastructure needs of communities across the Nation.
The amendment includes authorization for 73 new projects totaling
$1.6 billion for water and wastewater related infrastructure. These are
the types of projects that for many years had been financed through the
Construction Grants and State Revolving Loan programs of the
Environmental Protection Agency, the grant and loan programs of the
Rural Utilities Service of the Department of Agriculture, and other
Federal financial assistance programs.
Unfortunately for communities, this administration continues to put
forward budget requests that cut these vital programs, and this House
continues to accede to those cuts.
Just last month, this House approved funding for EPA's State
revolving loan fund grants at $850 million. This compares to EPA
funding 18 years ago of nearly $2.4 billion. This 65 percent cut in
funding, is actually 80 percent when adjusted for inflation. The needs
of communities have not declined, just the willingness of the
Republican majority to help them.
Where do these communities turn for help? To the Corps of Engineers,
America's premier water resource agency. I know that the Corps is up to
the task of addressing these pressing needs; I only hope that the
administration and the Congress can find the will to adequately fund
the Nation's infrastructure needs.
I urge approval of the managers' amendment.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Latham). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 109-160.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Menendez
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Menendez:
After section 1001(b)(2) of the bill (as added by the
manager's amendment), add the following (and redesignate
subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
(3) Hudson-raritan estuary, liberty state park, new
jersey.--The project for environmental restoration, Hudson-
Raritan Estuary, Liberty State Park, New Jersey, at a total
cost of $32,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$20,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,200,000.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 346, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I understand this amendment is going to
be accepted by the committee so I will keep my remarks brief.
This is an amendment that would authorize the Army Corps to perform
environmental restoration activities at
[[Page H5870]]
Liberty State Park in Jersey City, New Jersey, provided a favorable
report is issued by the Chief of Engineers.
Liberty State Park is one of the crown jewels of the State of New
Jersey. It is an oasis in an urban setting right by the Statute of
Liberty and Ellis Island, a gateway to a lot of America's history, but
at the same time there are the remnants of the history of industrial
use in the vast interior section of the park which is currently fenced
off from the public because of residual contamination.
There is a restoration plan that would return 230 acres of the park
to a state of ecological health. It is vital not only to the people of
my State, but to literally tens of thousands of Americans who visit the
park as a portal to the Statute of Liberty and Ellis Island.
I thank the leadership of the committee for working with me to clear
up some confusion between our district corps office and headquarters,
and I commend the leadership of the committee for putting this bill
together. I look forward to working with the committee as we go to
conference and as the bill is signed into law.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that would authorize
the Army Corps to perform environmental restoration activities at
Liberty State Park in Jersey City, New Jersey, provided a favorable
report is issued by the Chief of Engineers. This amendment is very
simple and straightforward, and I thank the leadership of the committee
for working with me as we cleared up some confusion between our
district Corps office and headquarters.
Liberty State Park is one of the jewels of the State of New Jersey. A
reclaimed rail yard in the shadow of Ellis Island and the Statue of
Liberty, the Park is rich in both history and scenic beauty. For over
60 years, the Central Railroad of New Jersey train terminal was the
first stop for immigrants after passing through Ellis Island. It was
from this historic terminal that they caught trains that would bring
them throughout the country to begin their new lives. In more recent
times and under a less joyful setting, the park hosted thousands of
evacuees from Lower Manhattan on September 11, 2001.
As railroad traffic declined in the middle of the 20th Century, the
area fell into disrepair. But through a tremendous amount of hard work,
Liberty State Park was born, and has become an oasis in the heart of a
densely packed metropolitan area, visited by over 4 million people each
year. The residents of my district don't have a lot of open space to
enjoy, but at Liberty State Park they have miles of walkways and bike
paths, educational centers, over 100 acres of green space, and sweeping
views of the Statue of Liberty and lower Manhattan.
However, the remnants of a history of industrial use remain over the
vast interior section of the park, which is currently fenced off from
the public because of residual contamination. The Army Corps is
currently finishing the study of a restoration plan that would return
over 230 acres of the park to a state of ecological health. New tidal
wetlands will be created, invasive species will be removed, and the
Park will become a prototype for ecological restoration in an urban
environment.
Liberty State Park is just one example of why the Army Corps is
getting a good reputation in my district for their environmental
protection and restoration work. Their work on the Lower Passaic River,
the Hudson-Raritan Estuary, at Minish Park and elsewhere has the
potential to make a major difference in the quality of the land and
water throughout New Jersey. This bill will help them continue and
expand their environmental restoration work, and I appreciate the
chairman and ranking member including so many projects that are
important to my district.
This bill is also about economic growth. The ongoing deepening
project in New York Harbor and Newark Bay will ensure that the world's
largest container ships can continue to dock at the east coast's
largest port. These ships carry far more than just products for store
shelves. They bring jobs and economic growth, and help fuel an economic
engine whose power is felt up and down the eastern seaboard, and deep
into the nation's heartland.
There are a number of provisions in this bill that will be very
helpful for the Harbor Deepening project, particularly in the handling
and use of dredged material. The bill includes new financing tools for
non-Federal agencies to create dredged material storage and handling
facilities, and expands the allowed beneficial uses of that material to
include environmental protection and restoration projects. New Jersey
has thousands of sites--particularly Brownfields sites--that could
benefit from this provision.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, and I commend the chairman and
ranking member for their work on it. I also thank them for their
willingness to accept this amendment which is so important to my
district, and look forward to working with them to move this bill
forward through what I hope will be an imminent conference.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition, although I do not intend to speak in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Tennessee?
There was no objection.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would authorize an
environmental restoration project in New Jersey contingent upon the
Chief of Engineers completing a final report not later than December
31, 2005.
The chief's report is the final technical document submitted by the
Corps of Engineers for a project. It describes the analysis done, the
alternatives considered, and the recommended plan.
In putting this bill together, the committee included those projects
that had favorable chief's reports. With passage of the manager's
amendment, we have added additional projects that the corps tells us
will soon have completed chief's reports. These projects are authorized
contingent on there being a completed chief's report by December 31,
2005.
Although the Liberty State Park project was not on the list of nearly
completed studies provided earlier by the Corps, we now understand that
this report is expected to be completed by the end of this year.
Therefore, I have no objection to the gentleman's amendment to include
his project as a contingent authorization.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment of the gentleman
from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez to add the environmental restoration
project in Liberty State Park, New Jersey to the list of projects that
can proceed, contingent upon the completion of the Chief of Engineers
report no later than December 31, 2005.
This is a non-controversial amendment, and would have been included
in the Committee amendment had the Corps of Engineers acknowledged
earlier that the report will be finished this year.
I commend the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez for his hard
work and persistence to ensure that the study for this project stayed
on track for completion this year. Without his efforts, we would not be
able to include this authorization in this year's bill.
I support the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in House Report 109-160.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Stupak
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Stupak:
Page 110, after line 20, insert the following (and conform
the table of contents accordingly):
SEC. 2041. CRITERIA FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF HARBOR
DREDGING PROJECTS.
The Secretary shall budget and request appropriations for
operation and maintenance of harbor dredging projects based
only upon criteria used for such projects in fiscal year
2004.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 346, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this important amendment along with the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra). Our amendment directs the Army Corps of
Engineers to budget and request appropriations for operation and
maintenance harbor dredging based upon criteria used in fiscal year
2004.
[[Page H5871]]
Beginning in fiscal year 2005, OMB and the Army Corps began
implementing new guidelines and criteria for determining whether a
harbor is eligible to be considered to be funded for dredging in the
President's budget. According to the Corps, in order for a commercial
harbor to be considered high use and therefore eligible to be included
in the budget, it must now move at least 1 million tons of cargo
annually.
As a result of this tonnage requirement, a number of routine Army
Corps operations and maintenance harbor dredging projects will not be
carried out this year or in fiscal year 2007. There are 293 harbors in
the U.S. classified as low use. Thus, barring exceptional
circumstances, these harbors are not eligible to be included in the
Corps budget next year simply because of this tonnage requirement.
These highly inadequate guidelines are unfairly biased against rural
communities and will have a detrimental effect on 19 communities in my
Northern Michigan district, and to 274 other communities across this
country. If these harbors are not dredged, small town, rural America
will suffer more job losses, businesses will struggle, and
infrastructure could be damaged.
Members only need to look at the community of Ontonagon in my
district for an example of the devastating effect this policy will
have. Ontonagon was taken by surprise when they were not included in
the President's budget for the first time in more than 5 years. Just
last year, Ontonagon was dredged to approximately 19 feet. Today, it
has silted back to 6 feet. In less than a year, two-thirds of this
harbor has been silted back in. This happens each and every year
because of a silting problem unique to this harbor. While the Army
Corps has recognized Ontonagon's unique problem in the past, the new
tonnage requirement fails to recognize the unique circumstances around
the country some of these harbors face.
If this harbor is not dredged, the future of SmurfitStone Container
Corporation, which relies on the harbor for coal and limestone
deliveries, and the White Pine Power Company, a revitalized coal plant
that depends on the harbor for coal deliveries by ship for its power
generation, will be in jeopardy.
Imagine the consequences for small towns like Ontonagon if their
largest businesses are unable to receive the goods they need to remain
competitive. This is just one example of many harbors that have been or
will be shortchanged.
Rural communities already have limited resources available to them,
and this will just add an additional hardship. The Army Corps must
develop requirements to determine whether a harbor is to be included in
the President's budget for a yearly dredge that does not unfairly
impact small harbors and rural communities. We need to ensure the Corps
is putting forth guidelines and policies that are as fair as possible
to all communities across the country. I urge my colleagues to support
the Stupak-Delahunt-Hoekstra amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition, although I do not intend to speak in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Tennessee?
There was no objection.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the administration has issued performance-based
budgeting criteria based on tonnage being moved. That method places a
very low priority on maintaining small ports.
This process ignores the fact that two-thirds of all cargo on major
waterways either start or finish at small ports. If we abandon our
small harbors, we adversely affect the entire waterway system that is
already plagued with deferred maintenance and crumbling infrastructure.
The gentleman's amendment would ask the Corps to prepare its budget
using its previous criteria that were based on maintaining an
acceptable level of service at least cost for a commercial port. It is
not primarily based on the tonnage in transit. Using this previous
method would not ignore the contributions of our small harbors to the
Nation's commercial transportation system.
I believe the administration's current method of budgeting could
adversely affect commercial navigation. Therefore, I support the
gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, for my district--coastal Massachusetts--
our waterways are as important as our roadways. They are a vital part
of the Nation's transportation infrastructure.
It is the responsibility of the Army Corps of Engineers to help keep
our harbors, rivers and other channels in navigable condition. Out of
the blue, the rules have been changed to dramatically favor larger,
commercial waterways. This constitutes complete abandonment of Federal
responsibility and quite simply, is an assault on smaller communities
all over the country, putting lives and livelihoods at risk.
The rationale for these changes is that financial constraints require
us to abruptly change Army Corps' priorities to favor projects with
``true value to the Nation.'' This sounds good--but is dangerously
misleading. The changed formula focuses only on commercial tonnage and
mileage, so smaller projects do not have a chance--even though they are
critical to the economy and public safety.
When waterways close due to sediment build-up, the commercial fishing
industry suffers. Tourism is compromised. And our transport stops--
sometimes dead in the water. The Coast Guard can't undertake ``search
and rescue'' because they can't move--literally.
Just as a deteriorating highway or bridge needs repair, our waterways
need maintenance. If the traffic through a harbor requires an eight-
foot draft and sediment builds up, leaving only five feet available,
vessels cannot pass. It is larger, commercial vessels like tankers,
fishing boats and barges that face the greatest difficulty and are most
likely to run aground.
Entire portions of our local economy are organized around the sea and
the easy transport of people and products in and out of our harbors.
When you consider our island communities--such as Martha's Vineyard and
Nantucket--the waterways carry all the necessities for local citizens,
everything from food and water to lumber and heating oil.
In Chatham Harbor, which hosts the largest fleet of commercial
fishing vessels in my district, we face a constant problem with
shoaling. It is a 900-foot channel and when it is not clear, millions
of dollars are at risk. For the first time in many years, the FY06
budget does not include dredging for Chatham because it does not meet
these new criteria.
Then there's Green Harbor in Marshfield, the second highest lobster
catch harbor in New England. Green Harbor would be shut down next year,
costing millions of lost dollars in lobster catch alone, and untold
tourist and other fisheries revenue.
In Woods Hole, we have a major Coast Guard station which launches
many cutter search-and-rescue missions a year. Without regular
dredging, that emergency equipment is land-bound. Tell that to the
family of a fishing boat crew that can't reach shore. In that same
harbor, the Federal government has invested millions in a state-of-the-
art NOAA research vessel. It currently cannot dock at its home station,
the world-renowned Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, because the
harbor is clogged with sediment.
For coastal communities, waterways are the arteries. Dredging is
vital for the lifeblood of commerce to flow through these arteries for
the economic health and safety of our coastal communities.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment of the gentleman
from Michigan, Mr. Stupak.
The gentleman's amendment requires the administration to adequately
budget for Federal maintenance of smaller or low-use harbors. It
reflects the growing frustration of the Members of this House, and the
people they represent with the Administration's continuing efforts to
deny communities Federal support for navigation at smaller harbors.
When the administration submitted its budget request for fiscal year
2006, it once again sought to eliminate or reduce funding for
maintenance activities at smaller, less busy harbors. By abandoning
Federal maintenance of these harbors, the administration places lives
and livelihoods at risk.
Lives are at risk since many of these smaller harbors serve as
harbors of refuge during inclement weather in many areas of the
country, including the Great Lakes. Failure to adequately maintain
harbors also creates unsafe navigation conditions, increasing the
incidence of groundings and capsizing.
Livelihoods are at risk since many of these smaller harbors serve an
important economic role in moving cargo, commercial fishing, and
recreational opportunities.
Smaller harbors may not move hundreds or thousands of containers or
tons of bulk cargo, but such harbors can be vital to the local
community they serve. I hope that the message of
[[Page H5872]]
the gentleman's amendment is heard by the administration, and that the
budgetary priorities for fiscal year 2007 reflect this serious concern.
I support the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Duncan) for his support, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 109-160.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Rohrabacher:
Page 110, after line 20, insert the following (and
redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of
contents, of the bill accordingly):
SEC. 2041. AUTHORITY OF NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS TO LEVY HARBOR
FEES.
Section 208(a) of Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 2236(a)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking
``tonnage duties or fees'' and inserting ``one or more of
tonnage duties, tonnage fees, and container fees''; and
(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''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 346, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Duncan) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 2864 that will expand the scope
of section 208 in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. My
amendment will allow our ports to levy a fee on containers and use that
fee to pay for security and infrastructure at the ports.
The Rohrabacher amendment will facilitate the effort to modernize and
secure American ports. In my district, the ports of Long Beach and Los
Angeles handle approximately 44 percent of all of the goods delivered
to American shores, yet they are in constant need of revenue for
facilities, improvements and upgrades to roads and bridges and rails.
Our marine terminals are invaluable commerce infrastructure, not only
to our country but also for the many foreign manufacturers who sell
primarily in the U.S. market. This is the portal through which foreign
manufacturers deliver their goods to our markets. Yet these
manufacturers provide almost none of the costs of operation or upkeep
of these vital assets. This system, as it currently operates, is a
subsidy to foreign manufacturers, paid by the American taxpayer,
concealing the true cost of imported goods. What we have here is all
backwards. What we are in effect doing, as the system works, is putting
a tariff on products that are made in America.
Section 208 of WRDA currently allows ports to charge fees on tonnage
and use those fees to fund infrastructure improvements. This section is
hardly, if ever, invoked by the ports to raise funds due to the fact
that it is complicated to collect and tends to be too unwieldy to be
used effectively.
My amendment allows the ports to use a simpler and more efficient
method: Fees on containers. The market-based fee in my amendment is
simple to implement and to track, should be more widely used to raise
funds for port projects. My amendment will also permit these fees to be
used for homeland security projects at the ports, as well as
infrastructure.
And let us be frank, the security threats that emanate from our ports
come from foreign cargo. Why are we paying for their threat? If they
want access to our markets, overseas manufacturers should pay the cost
to ensure the safety of their deliveries. For too long the funding of
marine terminals has been a one-way street with the American taxpayer
footing the bill for the factory owners of Shanghai, Beijing and Macau
while American manufacturers have been subsidizing their own
competition.
Our port facilities should have the freedom to levy a market-based
container fee which will provide new revenue and make our system more
equitable to the American taxpayer and American manufacturers. The
Rohrabacher amendment is the most efficient way to achieve these goals.
The Rohrabacher amendment says we are on the side of the American
taxpayer, and those people who run overseas to manufacture in China and
elsewhere should be paying their part of the cost to make sure that
that system, our port system, is working.
{time} 1315
I would expect that people on both sides of the aisle would be
supporting this. Unfortunately, our port systems, our ports, the people
who run them, would rather come to the American taxpayer and get
stipends from us rather than asking for a just fee to those
manufacturers in China to pay for some of the costs that are required
to ship their goods through our ports.
This is an American versus foreign vote here. Whose side are we on?
Who is going to pay the bill? Right now if our people go overseas and
build their manufacturing plants, we end up subsidizing that by
permitting them low-cost ways of getting their goods right into our
market and undercutting the American producers who stayed behind to
hire American people.
I would ask people on both sides of the aisle to seriously consider
this. Do not listen to the ports who simply want more taxpayer
subsidies. Let us let the people who use this system, the foreign
manufacturers, pay their fair share.
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 California is one of the best friends I have in
this Congress, and I certainly have great admiration and respect for
him, and I sympathize with everything that he has just said; but I must
regretfully state the position of the committee at this point, which is
in opposition to this amendment.
The civil works program of the Army Corps of Engineers provides
Federal assistance for dredging entrance channels and harbors and the
Department of Homeland Security now offers grants for security
projects.
But, generally, capital improvements to port infrastructure are a
non-Federal responsibility. The gentleman's amendment would permit a
non-Federal interest, which could be the port authority or the State
generally, to collect a fee per container that moves through the harbor
and to use those funds for security purposes or for infrastructure
projects within the port or any transportation infrastructure outside
the harbor.
First, if the goal is to help ports, this amendment is unnecessary.
Ports can already charge fees for services under the authority of
section 208 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, which they
can use to help them with the cost of security and port infrastructure.
Second, this amendment goes too far by allowing the collected funds
to be used for transportation projects outside the port. This could
mean potentially a State fee paid by shippers of containers at ports
being used to pay for highway and rail projects elsewhere in the State.
This is why the American Association of Port Authorities and even the
gentleman's home port of LA/Long Beach oppose this amendment.
The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment held a hearing on
this bill in November 2003. The American Association of Port
Authorities, the Waterfront Coalition, and the World Shipping Council
all testified in opposition to this proposal.
This amendment is the same as the amendment the gentleman from
California brought to the House floor last
[[Page H5873]]
Congress. It was defeated by a vote of 359-65. The committee believes
that the ports can and should charge whatever fees they believe are
necessary to cover their security needs and infrastructure projects.
They have the authority to do that now, and Congress should not dictate
how they make this business decision.
I can assure the gentleman that I would like to work with him on some
of the broader section 208 issues to see if we can better address his
very legitimate concerns. We certainly sympathize with the gentleman's
amendment. The gentleman's amendment is well-intentioned, but at this
point the committee position is to urge our colleagues to oppose this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Eddie Bernice Johnson).
(Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
This amendment is virtually the same as the amendment offered by the
gentleman to the Water Resources Development Act of 2003, and which was
defeated by a vote of 65 to 359.
The arguments against this amendment are the same, and unfortunately
the gentleman from California has not addressed the concerns raised by
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure the last time this
amendment was offered.
I can understand the gentleman's interest in supporting additional
investment in our Nation's ports and harbor infrastructure, but I do
not believe that this amendment is the best way to achieve that goal.
Port authorities currently have the authority to collect fees for the
services they provide, as provided by section 208 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986, and decisions of the Supreme Court.
These fees can be used for services provided, and the construction,
and operation and maintenance of, or emergency response services for
navigation projects for a harbor.
The fees contemplated by the Rohrabacher amendment would be available
for ports and 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 airport project associated with
the harbor.
It could also include the locks and dams on the inland waterway
system.
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.
While I support the efforts of our Nation's port facilities to
provide intermodal connections between the ports and the highways and
rail systems that move goods to their final destinations, I believe
that it is inappropriate to establish a fee system where the
containerized cargo industry could be supporting other transportation
modes.
In addition, this amendment is described as a way to pay for much-
needed security enhancements at our Nation's ports.
However, in effect, the revenue raised by this amendment would be
limited to only those in conjunction with the construction, operation,
and maintenance of a navigation project or other infrastructure, and
would cease to exist once these projects were complete.
It would not provide a long-term solution to reducing the
vulnerability of our Nation's ports.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The establishment has set up a system that we have built a
Frankenstein monster in China by ensuring that jobs and manufacturing
are going to China. I do not know why that is, I think that was a
horrible decision, but it is time for us to start backing away from
that policy. The most important way to start backing away from the
policy of taking American jobs and shipping them to China, building the
economic strength of China, the first step to take is to make sure that
those people who go to China to manufacture are paying the cost of
shipping their goods into America's markets rather than having the
taxpayer provide that for them at the expense of our own manufacturers.
I would ask people on both sides of the aisle, let us turn around
this policy, change the basic policy on China, vote ``yes'' on the
Rohrabacher amendment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I must oppose the amendment of the
gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, in its current form.
While I congratulate the gentleman for seeking ways to enhance the
availability of resources to address security and infrastructure needs,
I believe that his proposal is too broad.
The proposal would amend the authority contained in the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 for ports to charge fees to recover a
portion of their costs associated with port deepening projects. That
authority was carefully crafted to ensure that the fees that were
charged on a vessel were associated with improvements and activities at
the port. This amendment allows for fees to finance activities well
beyond the confines of the port.
The amendment specifically allows for the imposition of fees on
containers and for those proceeds to be used for financing the cost of
construction and operation and maintenance of infrastructure outside
the boundaries of the harbor. This is simply too broad.
The amendment would allow for the imposition of container fees to
finance highways or rail expansion, with the only requirement being
that the project go to, from, or through the harbor. This could
certainly benefit other transportation modes, but it would do so on the
back of container traffic.
This proposal needs further review. We can look at the passenger
facility charges currently used in the aviation program as a model.
There, Congress working in collaboration with aviation interests
developed a financing mechanism that has benefited airports, the
airline industry, and air passengers. But, we did not allow these
revenues to become the financing mechanism for a wide variety of
infrastructure projects.
I would be pleased to work with the gentleman on his proposal,
participate in hearings, and work with interested parties. But, in its
current form, I oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Rohrabacher) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in House
Report 109-160.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in House
Report 109-160.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Flake:
Page 346, strike lines 19 and 20 and insert the following:
(C) implement not later than January 1, 2006, an
appointment system to schedule and prioritize, based upon the
average lockage time of each barge company, traffic movements
at each lock on the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois
Waterway.
Page 347, strike lines 4 through 7 and insert the
following:
(1) In General.--The Secretary shall construct new 1,200-
foot-long locks at Locks 20, 21, 22, 24 and 25 on the Upper
Mississippi River and at Lagrange Lock and Peoria Lock on the
Illinois Waterway if the combined, 3-year average of the
number of total tons of commodities processed at these 7
locks in calender years 2007, 2008, and 2009 exceeds
35,000,000 tons.
(2) Reporting Requirements.--The Secretary shall submit to
Congress--
(A) before December 31, 2010, a notification report,
prepared in consultation with the National Research Council
of the National Academy of Sciences, indicating a
recommendation on whether to proceed with new lock
construction described in paragraph (1) based on a cost-
benefit analysis and on activities undertaken under
subsection (a)(1); and
(B) before December 31, 2013, a reevaluation report on
whether to proceed with new lock construction described in
paragraph (1) taking into account regional, national, and
world market conditions and the development and application
of new peer-reviewed models.
Page 347, line 8, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(3)''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 346, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan)
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
This amendment, contrary to what has been said on the floor earlier,
in
[[Page H5874]]
fact, a Dear Colleague just went around that somebody brought my
attention to that says that this project would prevent this critical
piece of infrastructure modernization from going forward, this
amendment would do nothing of the sort, unless the tonnage requirements
that the corps has actually put forward on its own are not met that
would justify the project. This simply says that this project only goes
forward if the benefits outweigh the costs. It will not go forward
under this amendment if the costs outweigh the benefits. It is a simple
amendment. I would encourage my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Akin).
Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment for
several reasons. The first thing, it is a very basic kind of principle
of politics and how we do government, that is, the idea of a use tax.
When we buy gasoline at the gas pump, there is a tax on it and the
purpose of that tax is to be able to build roads.
In this case, there are tow boats and barges and they pay a gasoline
tax and the purpose of that tax is to help build our infrastructure.
Through the years, the people that have been going up and down the
Mississippi and the Ohio river valleys with the barges and the tow
boats have been paying this tax. The tax, I believe, should be used to
rebuild these locks.
I am from the St. Louis area, and some of these locks are just
antiques. We do not even know when they are going to break sometimes.
We have to move goods up and down the river. There are some critical
supplies that have to get to various cities, such as fuel oil to
Chicago and other things like that, not to mention the grain that is
going out of the country. That is why it is very important to rebuild
these locks. We are using a gasoline tax effectively to do that.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the previous colleague who was
concerned about this said it was time to rebuild the locks. It betrays
a fundamental misunderstanding of what the project is. The project is
not about rebuilding the locks. We have been doing that over the last
25 years. In fact, there is an $88 million project going right now for
Lock 24. This is a $1.8 billion addition, building new locks in
addition to what we already have there.
In that regard, the proposal that the gentleman from Arizona and I
have offered up, saying we do not do a new one unless it is justified,
seems reasonable, modest and important.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Costello).
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for
yielding me this time.
I said previously, and I will say again, that I am in opposition to
this amendment. Almost 70 percent of U.S. ag exports travel the upper
Mississippi River and the Illinois waterway system. The current locks
are 50 to 70 years old. They were built to handle 600-foot barges, not
the 1,200-foot barges today. We are spending millions of dollars in
emergency repairs. I have four pages of a computer printout in small
print where we have spent $65 million in repairs, emergency repairs, to
the current locks. Taxpayers are spending millions of dollars to put a
Band-Aid on a system that is antiquated. We must modernize these locks.
We cannot waste time. We cannot delay the project.
There is not another bill that has come to this floor this session
that I am aware of that has had the support of the business community
and labor unions. The building trades as well as the American Chamber
of Commerce and a number of other groups and organizations have come
together in support of this bill. I ask that our colleagues reject this
amendment and vote ``yes'' on final passage.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Again, I am going
to sound like a broken record by the time this is through. All this
amendment says is that based on the corps' own assumptions, river
traffic is going to have to reach 35 million tons. That would be
required to justify the project. If that is not met, the project will
not go forward. If it is met, it will go forward.
We are simply saying that the corps' own assumptions need to be met,
need to be satisfied, in order for the project to go forward. Again,
this is not scuttle the project. This simply says it needs to be
justified by their own figures.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to the Flake-Blumenauer amendment. The gentleman
from Oregon is one of the most active and one of the finest members of
our Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment. The gentleman
from Arizona and I vote alike on probably 98 or 99 percent of the
issues that come before this Congress, so I cannot overstate my respect
and admiration for both of these gentlemen; but I do have to oppose
this amendment.
Failure to upgrade our infrastructure is not fiscally conservative.
Not constructing the upper Mississippi navigation improvement project,
according to the National Corn Growers Association, will result in a
loss of $562 million in annual farm income by 2020. Of this, $246
million would be lost in reduced exports to other countries. Navigation
on the upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway provides for more than
400,000 jobs, including 90,000 high-paying manufacturing jobs. The
navigation improvement project in H.R. 2864 would create an additional
48 million man-hours of work. There is a critical Federal interest in
navigation. The vast array of navigation infrastructure is important to
the Nation's economy and a secure economy is a necessary part of a
secure Nation.
Right now, increased transportation costs mean that some of our
farmers and manufacturers will not be able to compete in the world
market and may go out of business. This means the shipment of cargo on
these rivers will decrease, not increase. So it is sort of a self-
fulfilling prophecy that we have been discussing. Right now, traffic on
these rivers is constrained, very constrained, by small aging locks. It
is not fiscally conservative to constrain the United States economy
with outdated and obsolete infrastructure. If you do not improve or
maintain buildings and homes, they deteriorate. That is not a fiscally
conservative thing to do. We could say the same about our locks and our
dams.
The language contained in title 8 of the bill is compromise language.
This language was negotiated last year with the other body. The WRDA
bill pending in the other body contains virtually identical language.
The Flake-Blumenauer amendment will either delay or halt the project,
costing U.S. taxpayers much, much more in the future. As a fiscal
conservative, I try to be a careful steward of taxpayer dollars. This
project is an investment in America, and I support it. Voting against
the Flake-Blumenauer amendment is the fiscally conservative thing to
do. Accordingly, I must oppose this amendment and urge a ``no'' vote on
it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I would make two brief points. First,
what is not being focused on is where the traffic is going in this
corridor. Some products that previously had gone out the mouth of the
Mississippi River are now going north to Canada by rail, south to
Mexico by rail, they are going west for export, or they are being
consumed domestically.
That is why, and it comes to the second point: traffic on the river
is not going up as these studies have shown. It has been flat for the
last 20 years. It has been going down for the last 3 years. What the
gentleman from Arizona and I have offered is a modest compromise. If 3
years is not enough, take 4 years. But look at where the trend line is
going and justify a project before you start new construction, $1.8
billion, for something that frankly does not appear to be warranted
according to the independent estimates, CRS, three studies from the
National Academy of Science, and we have already seen that the corps'
process has been severely discredited according to an investigation by
the Inspector General.
[[Page H5875]]
{time} 1330
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Let me just say, again, I am sympathetic to the needs, and I have
seen the locks. In fact, last week I was in Keokuk, Iowa and saw a lock
not unlike the ones that are going to be funded by this project. And
they are old. They do need maintenance. We are providing a lot of money
for that now. We have been ongoing for the past several decades.
But this is new dollars, new money for new locks. And it seems to me
that if we are fiscally conservative, we ought to say there ought to be
a justification. There are ways one can justify it. They could say it
is going to create a lot of jobs, a lot of people are going to be
working on that project, but that all makes sense if we are all
Keynesians now, and I hope we are not. I hope that we believe that
taxpayers ought to be protected, and they spend their money best,
unless there is a justified need. And here all we are saying, as the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) said, this is a carefully
constructed compromise saying that it should move forward if there is
an economic justification for it. If there is not, then it should not
move forward. That is all we are saying here.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake) is saying. I think it is important to have this
safety valve. Nobody is suggesting that we close the locks, stop the
rehabilitation, and shove all this stuff on trucks. That is not what we
are talking about. There is plenty of time, plenty of money that can be
spent boosting the local economy by doing this right. But concentrate
on the priorities. Make sure what we have got works, scale it to
traffic, give it a fair test, see if the experts are right. If the
experts are all wrong, then the project will go forward. If the experts
are right, we will have saved $1.8 billion.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the debate that has been had on this topic. Again, we
have this year over a $300 billion deficit. It is better than we
thought it was going to be, but it is still over $300 billion. We have
a debt near $8 trillion now. If we, as stewards of the taxpayers'
money, cannot step in and when a project does not meet its own goals to
move forward, if we cannot step in and say we are not going to do this,
we are not going to spend the taxpayers' money on this, we are going to
wait and get a project that is justified, then who are we as Members of
Congress? We will never get a handle on this debt or deficit.
I would say that, if one is fiscally conservative, this amendment is
a lock.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield for a unanimous consent request to
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
(Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to this amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Flake) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
This amendment would prohibit the construction of new locks for the
Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway navigation project unless
the volume of cargo moving along the system increases at a pre-
determined rate.
I understand the concerns of the authors of this amendment.
The Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway navigation project
has a history of being the longest, the most costly, and the most
controversial study by the Corps of Engineers that anyone can recall.
During the formulation of the navigation and ecosystem restoration
components of this project, numerous outside groups, including the
National Research Council, expressed concern with the economic
justification for the project, including the predicted increases in
grain shipments and other commodities that will utilize the new locks
called for in the report of the Chief of Engineers.
However, the way to address these concerns is not to restrict the
Corps' capability to carry out its mission, but to commit to the
necessary congressional oversight on this project as each component
proceeds towards implementation.
As with every major project carried out by the Corps, including the
restoration of the Florida Everglades, the restoration of Coastal
Louisiana, and the construction of the new locks on the Upper
Mississippi River, it is the Congress that must ensure that Federal
dollars are wisely spent.
As keepers of the Federal purse, we must commit to careful oversight
of these major projects over the coming decades to ensure that taxpayer
dollars are not wasted.
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure stands ready to
keep careful watch over this project, as well as other programs of the
Corps of Engineers.
For this reason, I must oppose the amendment offered by Mr. Flake and
Mr. Blumenauer.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).
Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time.
In the remaining time, first of all, to my friend from Arizona, this
is an authorization, not an appropriation. Half of the cost is going to
be borne by those that use it, $900 million from the inland waterway
trust fund. To my friend from Oregon, the trends on the inland waterway
system have gone up except in this area where the locks and dams are
crumbling because we are losing the reliability of these antiquated
structures that were built in the 1930s with a 50-year useful life. And
would they put the same sort of requirement on our national highway
system?
The fact is that the Inland Waterway Structure and these locks and
dams on the Upper Mississippi do have national significance. That is
why we must modernize them and reject this amendment.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to
express my opposition to the Flake amendment.
I know many following this debate today are not from Wisconsin--or
the Upper Midwest for that matter. You may look at this amendment and
wonder--``is this investment in our infrastructure really worth the
cost?'' I can assure you, the answer to that question is ``yes.''
The Mississippi River is critical to Wisconsin's economic viability.
Whether it is providing an efficient, cost-effective transportation
system for Wisconsin agricultural products or helping bring lower-cost
coal to Wisconsin power plants, the Mississippi River is the engine
that keeps many communities in Wisconsin running. Unfortunately, this
essential engine is aging--at times even sputtering. The infrastructure
on the river is nearly 70 years old. Unplanned lock closures are
increasing by 10 percent each year and the waiting time at critical
locks continues to increase.
The proposal we have before us today is what is needed to ensure that
the Mississippi River continues to be a vital economic link for
American commerce and exports. Waiting three more years will only
marginalize this waterway system. The proposal we have before us today
is over 12 years and $75 million dollars in the making. It is a sound
proposal and has the strong support of states in the basin as well as
85% of participants at recent public meetings.
Frankly, I think this issue really boils down to this: if you think
shutting down access to our export markets is good for America's
farmers, you should vote for this amendment. If you think Congress
should abandon its commitment to rural communities, then you should
vote for this amendment. If you oppose efficient, reliable,
environmentally-friendly, low-cost transportation, then you should vote
for this amendment.
Modernization of the Upper Mississippi River System is good for our
economy and good for our environment. If you support agriculture; if
you support rural communities; if you support efficient infrastructure,
then you should oppose the Flake amendment and support the bill we have
before us today.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
An efficient, modern, intermodal transportation system is vital to
the economic well being of the Nation. Our inland waterways are a
critical component of that system. This amendment sacrifices any hope
of regaining a leadership role in world grain markets for Midwest
producers.
I can appreciate the concerns of the gentlemen that offer this
amendment. The Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway Navigation
Study has been the costliest and most controversial study ever
undertaken by the Corps of Engineers. It has had whistleblower
complaints, an investigation by the Office of Special Counsel, an
investigation by the Army Inspector General, three National Academy of
Sciences reviews, Congressional hearings, and more newspaper articles
and editorials
[[Page H5876]]
than one could imagine. Throughout all this, the Corps remained
thorough, professional, and exemplary in its review of alternatives and
its willingness to adapt to new information presented to it.
The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and its
predecessors, has consistently supported a diverse and efficient
national transportation system. This includes ports, highways, rail,
aviation, and the inland waterway system. Each of these modes
contributes to the overall transportation system that fuels the world's
leading economy.
In pursuing the national transportation system, we cannot stand
still. We did not build the Interstate Highway System and then walk
away. We continue to expand and modernize the system to meet evolving
needs--the House/Senate conference intends to conclude its work on a
reauthorization bill this month. The same is true for ports, rail and
aviation. The inland waterway system is no different.
The Corps recommends the construction of five new locks on the Upper
Mississippi River, and two new locks on the Illinois Waterway. At 1,200
feet, these locks will accommodate today's common 15-barge tows.
Instead of having to break the tows into two sections to pass through
the locks, a 1,200-foot lock allows passage as a single unit. This can
save an hour or more of transit time, resulting in lower transportation
costs, and grain exports that are more competitive on world markets.
There are the small-scale structural and non-structural measures that
should be pursued immediately. Initially, the Corps plans to implement
mooring facilities and switchboats over the next 15 years. The Corps
should also continue to explore options to improve the utilization of
existing facilities through improved scheduling techniques and river
traffic management. The Nation constantly explores improvements in
managing air traffic congestion; the inland transportation sector could
benefit from lessons learned in aviation traffic management. After all,
the Corps will have to aggressively pursue nonstructural traffic
management techniques during any construction period. It is never too
early to explore what works.
While the Corps is implementing the small-scale structural and
nonstructural changes, the Corps should continue its efforts in
planning the construction of the new locks. These are the large-scale
improvements calling for the construction of 7 new 1,200-foot locks.
These components should stay on track. The Nation's grain producers,
the transportation industry, and our export customers need to have a
stable, reliable economic environment in which to grow and develop. In
the meantime, the Corps and the Congress will have the opportunity to
evaluate the effectiveness of the small-scale measures, monitor grain
trade patterns, and proceed with the most current and accurate
information available.
The amendment before the Committee would simply add delay for no
benefit. A contributing cause of stagnant traffic patterns is the very
congestion that these locks would alleviate. By requiring traffic to
grow before the locks can proceed will forever doom the locks. The
proponents of the amendment fail to acknowledge that these new locks
are desperately needed to allow traffic to grow.
Grain sales occur in world markets based on extremely small
variations in price. I recall instances when as little as one-eighth of
a cent per bushel was enough to be the deciding factor. By reducing
congestion and lowering transportation costs, we can do our part to
ensure that U.S. grain products can successfully compete on world
markets. Requiring more traffic, more congestion, and higher prices
before the locks can proceed will only further harm the Midwest
agricultural economy.
The small-scale and large-scale construction components will require
significant mitigation components. Let me be clear to the Corps and the
other Federal agencies involved that the Corps must adhere to the
requirements of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and ensure
that all required mitigation is undertaken either in advance, or
concurrent with the construction. Too often, mitigation becomes the
orphan of the project and the environment suffers. That cannot be the
case here, or elsewhere in the Corps program.
The remaining critical element of the proposal is the recommendation
for a large-scale ecosystem restoration program for the area. While the
total $5.3 billion cost is large, the value to the United States of the
Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway navigation system justifies the
costs.
Since 1940, the Nation has benefited from the efficient and safe
transportation of goods by barge. Waterborne transportation remains the
most fuel-efficient way to transfer bulk commodities. Yet, this highly
efficient system has exacted a price on the ecosystem of the Upper
Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway.
This ecosystem comprises 2.6 million acres in parts of five States.
It includes hundreds of thousands of acres of bottomland forest,
islands, backwaters, side channels, and wetlands. The region supports
270 species of birds, 57 species of mammals, 45 species of reptiles and
amphibians, 113 species of fish, and nearly 50 species of mussels. More
than 40 percent of North America's migratory waterfowl and shorebirds
depend on the resources, shelter, and habitat that the region provides.
We must do our part to restore this precious resource.
Mr. Chairman, I support the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers
to enhance the Nation's inland waterway transportation system, and to
restore the ecosystem of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois
Waterway.
I strongly oppose the amendment offered by Mr. Flake and Mr.
Blumenauer, and urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, with great respect for the two members who
have offered this amendment, I rise in opposition to its content.
What is at issue is whether we want a first or second class
transportation infrastructure. The locks are designed to last at least
fifty years. It is impossible to predict what goods will be transported
up or down the river fifty years from now. Will it be corn or some new
fiber that is either calorie or energy intensive? Will it be steel,
aluminum, iron ore, fertilizer, or a refined corn or plastic product?
Accordingly, I am extremely doubtful of capacity testing approaches
that fit a couple year time frame which would put the future economic
viability of the Midwest in jeopardy. Unlike the coasts with their
spacious oceans--we are landlocked. The Mississippi River and its locks
are our doors to the world. The question with the Blumenauer and Flake
Amendment is whether these doors will be small or constraining or
somewhat larger and more hospitable to commerce.
There are environmental as well as humanitarian questions that must
be pondered. To the surprise of some, the environmental and
humanitarian case for somewhat larger locks is compelling. After all,
all forms of transportation cause environmental disruption. But barges
use less energy than other forms of transportation. Indeed, logically,
upgrading our locks and dams should be part of the Energy bill. Barges
are fuel efficient moving goods upstream; and when they travel
downstream they are partly gravity driven. Gravity is analogous to cost
free, solar energy. Barges, with their waves and physical interactions
with the river cause interruptions with nature. But so do trucks,
trains and airplanes, and it is quite possible that barges are the
least nature-intrusive technique to move commercial goods. They are
also the cheapest in many circumstances. At great risk, this Congress
turns a cold shoulder to infrastructure investments that improve
American competitiveness.
As for the humanitarian issue, the great American breadbasket has
provided food at minimal cost to the American people. It has also
provided foodstuffs to a starving world. To trim the doors of commerce
in food is to trim our humanitarian obligations to impoverished peoples
throughout the world.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say that the lock system of the
Mississippi River is a vibrant part of the American transportation
infrastructure. This is the first amendment that I have encountered in
this body that suggests our infrastructure should be second rate. The
history of this country has been one of opening, not closing, the
heartland. That is why we built the Erie Canal. That is why we built
the St. Lawrence Seaway. That is why we should not constrain the future
and narrow the valves of our heartland's greatest artery.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Flake) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in House
report 109-160.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Kind
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Kind:
Page 354, line 23, strike ``and'';
Page 355, line 3, strike ``rates.'' and insert ``rates;
and''.
Page 355, after line (3), insert the following:
``(3) make an annual report to Congress, beginning in
fiscal year 2008, regarding whether the projects are being
carried out at a comparable rate.''.
Page 355 line 4, after ``Secretary'' insert ``or
Congress''.
[[Page H5877]]
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 346, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this legislation. I think it
is a very positive step forward and a very balanced approach.
The amendment I am offering is a friendly amendment. It is not an
amendment that is calling for a retraction or cutback of any programs.
It is not an amendment asking for more money or less money for any
project. It is not an amendment that changes the definition of anything
in the bill. It is an amendment that appreciates the approach in
regards to the management of the Upper Mississippi River basin,
especially under title VIII.
Title VIII contains two major features: One, as the previous
amendment spoke to, is the modernization of the lock and dam system for
a certain number of locks in the middle part of the Mississippi and
along the Illinois River. But the other component of all that, that
really has not received that much attention, is the ecosystem
restoration plan that was also a part of the navigation study and one
that has been put forward with us today.
In the underlying bill, I think the authors of the legislation, those
in support of it, understand the use of the Mississippi River. Yes,
there is commercial navigation on it, and there will be tomorrow. It is
an important feature of economic development and for our regional
economy in the Midwest area. But it is also a river that is used for
recreational purposes and tourism purposes. And what is being proposed
in the ecosystem restoration portion of the bill is one of the most
major investments in the ecosystem of the Mississippi River Basin. And
the language actually asks for a comparable rate of progress being made
in both the modernization of the lock and dam system along with the
investment in the ecosystem restoration, an adaptive management
approach that the Corps of Engineers along with other outside experts
have recommended in regards to the management of the river system.
My amendment does two very simple things. One is, the Secretary of
Army, under the current bill, is required every 4 years to submit a
report to Congress showing the progress being made in both the
ecosystem restoration and lock and dam modernization. My amendment asks
for an annual report by the Secretary to do that so that the taxpayers
can determine whether or not the investment is being well spent, so we
can determine here in Congress whether the comparable rate of progress
is being met, and so that there is that continuing underlying
justification that the authors of the previous amendment were alluding
to previously.
But my amendment also just clarifies that Congress also has a role in
regards to making sure that we do have a comparable rate of progress
being made in both the ecosystem portion of the underlying bill and the
lock and dam modernization.
Those who grew up on the Mississippi, as I did, and I would probably
call myself a river rat, having grown up in western Wisconsin and spent
my youth on the river and now enjoy it immensely with my own family and
two little boys, understand the importance of maintaining the balance
of this vitally important national treasure that we have called the
Mississippi River Basin. That area has been the key to the fertile
lands that we now call the bread basket of America. It is now a multi-
billion dollar industry, the agricultural production that occurs in the
upper Midwest. But it is also a multi-billion dollar industry in
regards to the recreational and tourism use of the upper Mississippi
area. In fact, the Upper Mississippi Wildlife Refuge, the largest
refuge in the Nation, has more visitors to it than Yellowstone National
Park every year. This river basin is the primary drinking source of
over 33 million Americans. It is North America's largest migratory
route. Forty percent of water foul species, and any person who loves to
duck hunt, as I do, will tell Members how vitally important that
Mississippi River corridor is to the duck populations in the North
American continent. And it is a tremendous economic value to our
regional economies, not just the commercial navigation that is vital
but also the recreational and the tourism value that it brings to the
region.
So all we are asking in this amendment is having an annual report by
the Secretary of the Army so we can track the progress being made on
both fronts and also this clarification that Congress is going to play
a role in making sure that we do maintain balance in regards to lock
and dam modernization but also the important investment that has to go
into ecosystem restoration.
Both components are expensive, and that is why we need to come back,
I think, on a much more frequent basis to review the progress that is
being made and be able to justify this to the American taxpayer.
My friend from Arizona is exactly right. We are running budget
deficits. These are expensive projects. We should be held accountable.
And I think having an annual report to do that is a step forward in
that direction.
I just want to conclude by commending and thanking the work that the
committee has done in putting together, I think, a very fair and
balanced bill; the work that the staff has put in to try to reach
consensus. Obviously, it is not without controversy. The NAFF study is
something that has been around for over 10 years. It has cost us close
to $100 million to conclude before the Corps of Engineers submitted
their final report to Congress for our consideration. And my guess is,
we are probably going to have to continue working on lock and
modernization and the ecosystem portion of the river in years to come.
But I think it is an important first step. I think my amendment does
add some value to the underlying bill, and I encourage my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Tennessee?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I will not oppose the amendment. I will simply say, the gentleman's
amendment relates to the project for navigation improvements and
ecosystem restoration on the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois
Waterway System. This framework for what will be multiple projects is
authorized in title VIII of the reported bill.
Section 8005 of H.R. 2864, as reported, requires that the Secretary
make a determination whether or not the projects are being carried out
at comparable rates. This amendment directs the Secretary to submit an
annual report to Congress on this determination that is already
required by the reported bill. I have no objection to the Secretary's
reporting to Congress on this issue, and therefore, I have no objection
to this amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment relates
to the many projects that make up Title 8 of the bill, the Upper
Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System. The amendment has two
parts.
The first part requires that the Secretary report to Congress on his
determination of whether the projects are being carried out at
comparable rates. I have no objection to the Secretary reporting to
Congress on his findings.
The second part of the amendment has no meaning since it suggests
that the Congress shall be making adjustments to annual funding
requests for the various projects under this Title. Congress does not
make funding requests.
Therefore, the only operative part of this amendment is the report to
Congress, and on that point, I have no objection.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment of the gentleman
from Wisconsin, Mr. Kind.
This amendment seeks to ensure that the navigation project for the
Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway proceeds in tandem with
the environmental restoration program that this bill simultaneously
authorizes. It also calls for the budgetary process to be adjusted to
accomplish this goal.
I believe that this amendment reflects the original intent of the
interested parties and the Corps of Engineers. When the environmental
component was added to the navigation study, it was in recognition that
the two programs needed to complement each other.
[[Page H5878]]
The Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway are a multi-purpose
system. They serve important navigation needs yet are a vital part of
the Nation's environmental ecosystem. The Mississippi River, its
sidechannels, and tributaries constitute the central flyway for
millions of migrating waterfowl. It also serves as the home for a
variety of fish and shellfish.
I support the twin goals of improving navigation on the Upper
Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway and conducting environmental
restoration. This amendment is consistent with these goals. I support
the amendment.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
The amendment was agreed to.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I take this
opportunity to acknowledge the strong bipartisanship that is the
hallmark of this bill, and I especially acknowledge the bipartisanship
of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), subcommittee chairman;
and the cooperation of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), committee
chairman; and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), ranking
member.
This bill demonstrates the kind of cooperation that too often is
lacking in this House. We on the Democratic side do not agree with
everything that is in this bill. We might have written it differently
had we written it alone. I am sure that any colleagues on the
Republican side feel the same way. But working together, listening to
each other, we developed a bill that I am sure will have broad
bipartisan support in this House when the vote is taken in just a few
minutes.
I also take this time to acknowledge the highly professional and
skilled work of Susan Bodine, the Republican staff director and counsel
for the subcommittee. This will be her last water resources bill. She
has been nominated to become the assistant administrator for Solid
Waste and Emergency Response at the Environmental Protection Agency,
and I am sure that she will soon be confirmed and will do a wonderful
job. She has served the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
in this House with the knowledge, professionalism, advocacy and
pragmatism that exemplifies the best of the legislative process.
On behalf of the Democrats on the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, we congratulate Ms. Bodine and wish her every success
in her new position.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Tennessee?
There was no objection.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for those very kind remarks, and I
could say everything back to her that she just said. And we appreciate
the cooperation and the hard work of the staff on both sides.
I had the privilege to introduce Susan Bodine to the Senate committee
this morning, and I said so many good things about her at that time
that I would not want to repeat those again or her head would get so
big, she would not be able to get out of this room here today.
But we do appreciate so much the work that she has done over the
years for our subcommittee, and she has been one of the finest staffers
that this Congress has ever had, and we want to congratulate her. We
hate to lose her to the EPA, but certainly she is moving onward and
upward and we wish her the very best.
With that, I urge passage of this bill.
Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed in the following order: amendment No. 4 by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher), amendment No. 6 by the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for the second electronic
vote in this series.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Rohrabacher) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 111,
noes 310, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 376]
AYES--111
Abercrombie
Akin
Bachus
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bono
Brown (OH)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Case
Coble
Costa
Costello
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Duncan
Emerson
Engel
Evans
Farr
Flake
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Harman
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Herseth
Hinchey
Hooley
Hostettler
Hunter
Issa
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
King (IA)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lungren, Daniel E.
Maloney
Marshall
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Mica
Moore (WI)
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Olver
Otter
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pitts
Pombo
Renzi
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Sherman
Sherwood
Shuster
Slaughter
Sodrel
Stearns
Strickland
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Walsh
Watt
Wilson (SC)
NOES--310
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doggett
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hensarling
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Musgrave
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Poe
Pomeroy
[[Page H5879]]
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--12
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Cubin
Cunningham
Gallegly
Kilpatrick (MI)
McIntyre
Miller (FL)
Oberstar
Platts
Young (FL)
{time} 1411
Messrs. ISRAEL, LoBIONDO, KOLBE, CASTLE, MOORE of Kansas, BARRETT of
South Carolina, MEEK of Florida, CONAWAY, KUHL of New York, MELANCON,
Mrs. TAUSCHER and Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Messrs. McDERMOTT, PETRI, BROWN of Ohio, WATT, GUTKNECHT, SHUSTER,
BURTON of Indiana, ISSA, ISTOOK, LARSON of Connecticut, MURTHA, EVANS,
DELAHUNT, MEEHAN, SHADEGG, HERGER, KENNEDY of Rhode Island, LANGEVIN,
DOYLE, RENZI, FARR, Ms. DeLAURO, Ms. BALDWIN, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin,
Ms. DeGETTE, and Ms. McCOLLUM changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Flake
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The pending business is the demand
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 105,
noes 315, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 377]
AYES--105
Andrews
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Berkley
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bono
Bradley (NH)
Brown (OH)
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Cooper
Crowley
Davis (CA)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Eshoo
Farr
Feeney
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Harman
Hayworth
Hensarling
Hoekstra
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Johnson (CT)
Kennedy (RI)
Kind
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Langevin
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lofgren, Zoe
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Myrick
Obey
Olver
Otter
Pallone
Paul
Payne
Pence
Ramstad
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Royce
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Sherman
Smith (WA)
Stark
Stearns
Tancredo
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Watson
Waxman
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
NOES--315
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barton (TX)
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carter
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
LaHood
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McDermott
McKeon
McMorris
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pascrell
Pastor
Pearce
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Towns
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--13
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Cubin
Cunningham
Gallegly
Kilpatrick (MI)
McIntyre
Miller (FL)
Oberstar
Pelosi
Sanders
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson)(during the vote). Members are
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1418
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. There being no other amendments, the question is
on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Bass) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Acting Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2864) 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, pursuant to House Resolution 346, he reported
the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee
of the Whole.
[[Page H5880]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read a third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on passage of H.R. 2864 will be followed by a 5-minute vote
on the motion to suspend the rules on H. Con. Res. 191.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 406,
nays 14, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 378]
YEAS--406
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
NAYS--14
Boehner
Cooper
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Flake
Franks (AZ)
Hensarling
Inglis (SC)
Paul
Royce
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Stearns
Tancredo
NOT VOTING--13
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Cubin
Cunningham
Gallegly
Hall
Kilpatrick (MI)
McIntyre
Miller (FL)
Oberstar
Pelosi
Young (FL)
{time} 1437
Mr. ROYCE and Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mrs. JONES of Ohio changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________