[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 94 (Tuesday, July 18, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7694-S7739]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2005
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to S. 728, the Water Resources Development Act, under the
previous order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 728) to provide for the consideration 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.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
bill which had been reported from the Committee on Environment and
Public Works, with amendments, as follows:
(The parts intended to be stricken are shown in boldface brackets and
the parts intended to be inserted are shown in italic.)
S. 728
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.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary.
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
Sec. 1001. Project authorizations.
Sec. 1002. Enhanced navigation capacity improvements and ecosystem
restoration plan for the Upper Mississippi River and
Illinois Waterway System.
Sec. 1003. Louisiana coastal area ecosystem restoration, Louisiana.
Sec. 1004. Small projects for flood damage reduction.
Sec. 1005. Small projects for navigation.
Sec. 1006. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration.
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Provisions
Sec. 2001. Credit for in-kind contributions.
Sec. 2002. Interagency and international support authority.
Sec. 2003. Training funds.
Sec. 2004. Recreational areas and project sites.
Sec. 2005. Fiscal transparency report.
Sec. 2006. Planning.
Sec. 2007. Independent reviews.
Sec. 2008. Mitigation for fish and wildlife losses.
Sec. 2009. State technical assistance.
Sec. 2010. Access to water resource data.
Sec. 2011. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal
interests.
[[Page S7695]]
Sec. 2012. Regional sediment management.
Sec. 2013. National shoreline erosion control development program.
Sec. 2014. Shore protection projects.
Sec. 2015. Cost sharing for monitoring.
Sec. 2016. Ecosystem restoration benefits.
Sec. 2017. Funding to expedite the evaluation and processing of
permits.
Sec. 2018. Electronic submission of permit applications.
Sec. 2019. Improvement of water management at Corps of Engineers
reservoirs.
Sec. 2020. Corps of Engineers hydropower operation and maintenance
funding.
Sec. 2021. Federal hopper dredges.
Sec. 2022. Obstruction to navigation.
Subtitle B--Continuing authorities projects
Sec. 2031. Navigation enhancements for waterbourne transportation.
Sec. 2032. Protection and restoration due to emergencies at shores and
streambanks.
Sec. 2033. Restoration of the environment for protection of aquatic and
riparian ecosystems program.
Sec. 2034. Environmental modification of projects for improvement and
restoration of ecosystems program.
Sec. 2035. Projects to enhance estuaries and coastal habitats.
Sec. 2036. Remediation of abandoned mine sites.
Sec. 2037. Small projects for the rehabilitation or removal of dams.
Sec. 2038. Remote, maritime-dependent communities.
Sec. 2039. Agreements for water resource projects.
Sec. 2040. Program names.
TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
Sec. 3001. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska.
Sec. 3002. Sitka, Alaska.
Sec. 3003. Black Warrior-Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama.
Sec. 3004. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas.
Sec. 3005. St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.
Sec. 3006. St. Francis Basin land transfer, Arkansas and Missouri.
Sec. 3007. Red-Ouachita River Basin levees, Arkansas and Louisiana.
Sec. 3008. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River navigation system, Arkansas
and Oklahoma.
Sec. [3008] 3009. Cache Creek Basin, California.
Sec. [3009] 3010. Hamilton Airfield, California.
Sec. [3010] 3011. LA-3 dredged material ocean disposal site
designation, California.
Sec. [3011] 3012. Larkspur Ferry Channel, California.
Sec. [3012] 3013. Llagas Creek, California.
Sec. [3013] 3014. Los Angeles Harbor, California.
Sec. [3014] 3015. Magpie Creek, California.
Sec. [3015] 3016. Pine Flat Dam fish and wildlife habitat, California.
Sec. [3016] 3017. Redwood City navigation project, California.
Sec. [3017] 3018. Sacramento and American Rivers flood control,
California.
Sec. [3018] 3019. Conditional declaration of nonnavigability, Port of
San Francisco, California.
Sec. [3019] 3020. Salton Sea restoration, California.
Sec. [3020] 3021. Upper Guadalupe River, California.
Sec. [3021] 3022. Yuba River Basin project, California.
Sec. [3022] 3023. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, New Haven
Harbor, Connecticut.
Sec. [3023] 3024. Anchorage area, New London Harbor, Connecticut.
Sec. [3024] 3025. Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut.
Sec. [3025] 3026. St. George's Bridge, Delaware.
Sec. [3026] 3027. Christina River, Wilmington, Delaware.
Sec. [3027] 3028. Additional program authority, comprehensive
Everglades restoration, Florida.
Sec. [3028] 3029. Critical restoration projects, Everglades and south
Florida ecosystem restoration, Florida.
Sec. [3029] 3030. Jacksonville Harbor, Florida.
Sec. [3030] 3031. Lake Okeechobee and Hillsboro Aquifer pilot projects,
comprehensive Everglades restoration, Florida.
Sec. [3031] 3032. Lido Key, Sarasota County, Florida.
Sec. [3032] 3033. Tampa Harbor, Cut B, Tampa, Florida.
Sec. [3033] 3034. Allatoona Lake, Georgia.
Sec. [3034] 3035. Dworshak Reservoir improvements, Idaho.
Sec. [3035] 3036. Little Wood River, Gooding, Idaho.
Sec. [3036] 3037. Port of Lewiston, Idaho.
Sec. [3037] 3038. Cache River Levee, Illinois.
Sec. 3039. Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. [3038] 3040. Chicago River, Illinois.
Sec. [3039] 3041. Missouri and Illinois flood protection projects
reconstruction pilot program.
Sec. [3040] 3042. Spunky Bottom, Illinois.
Sec. [3041] 3043. Strawn Cemetery, John Redmond Lake, Kansas.
Sec. [3042] 3044. Harry S. Truman Reservoir, Milford, Kansas.
Sec. [3043] 3045. Ohio River, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.
Sec. [3044] 3046. Public access, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System,
Louisiana.
Sec. [3045] 3047. Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana.
Sec. 3048. Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana.
Sec. [3046] 3049. East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. [3047] 3050. Red River (J. Bennett Johnston) Waterway, Louisiana.
Sec. [3048] 3051. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine.
Sec. [3049] 3052. Union River, Maine.
Sec. [3050] 3053. Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and
protection program, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
Sec. [3051] 3054. Cumberland, Maryland.
Sec. [3052] 3055. Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
Sec. [3053] 3056. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan.
Sec. [3054] 3057. Duluth Harbor, Minnesota.
Sec. [3055] 3058. Land exchange, Pike County, Missouri.
Sec. [3056] 3059. Union Lake, Missouri.
Sec. [3057] 3060. Fort Peck Fish Hatchery, Montana.
Sec. 3061. Yellowstone River and tributaries, Montana and North Dakota.
Sec. [3058] 3062. Lower Truckee River, Mccarran Ranch, Nevada.
Sec. [3059] 3063. Middle Rio Grande restoration, New Mexico.
Sec. [3060] 3064. Long Island Sound oyster restoration, New York and
Connecticut.
Sec. [3061] 3065. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York.
Sec. [3062] 3066. New York Harbor, New York, New York.
Sec. [3063] 3067. Onondaga Lake, New York.
Sec. [3064] 3068. Missouri River restoration, North Dakota.
Sec. [3065] 3069. Lower Girard Lake Dam, Girard, Ohio.
Sec. [3066] 3070. Toussaint River navigation project, Carroll Township,
Ohio.
Sec. [3067] 3071. Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 3072. Oklahoma Lake demonstration, Oklahoma.
Sec. [3068] 3073. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. [3069] 3074. Lookout Point, Dexter Lake project, Lowell, Oregon.
Sec. [3070] 3075. Upper Willamette River Watershed ecosystem
restoration.
Sec. [3071] 3076. Tioga Township, Pennsylvania.
Sec. [3072] 3077. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New
York.
Sec. [3073] 3078. Cooper River Bridge demolition, Charleston, South
Carolina.
Sec. [3074] 3079. South Carolina Department of Commerce development
proposal at Richard B. Russell Lake, South Carolina.
Sec. [3075] 3080. Missouri River restoration, South Dakota.
Sec. [3076] 3081. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers enhancement
project.
Sec. [3077] 3082. Anderson Creek, Jackson and Madison Counties,
Tennessee.
Sec. [3078] 3083. Harris Fork Creek, Tennessee and Kentucky.
Sec. [3079] 3084. Nonconnah Weir, Memphis, Tennessee.
Sec. [3080] 3085. Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River,
Tennessee.
Sec. [3081] 3086. Sandy Creek, Jackson County, Tennessee.
Sec. [3082] 3087. Cedar Bayou, Texas.
Sec. [3083] 3088. Freeport Harbor, Texas.
Sec. [3084] 3089. Harris County, Texas.
Sec. [3085] 3090. Dam remediation, Vermont.
Sec. [3086] 3091. Lake Champlain eurasian milfoil, water chestnut, and
other nonnative plant control, Vermont.
Sec. [3087] 3092. Upper Connecticut River Basin wetland restoration,
Vermont and New Hampshire.
Sec. [3088] 3093. Upper Connecticut River Basin ecosystem restoration,
Vermont and New Hampshire.
Sec. [3089] 3094. Lake Champlain Watershed, Vermont and New York.
Sec. [3090] 3095. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration, Virginia and
Maryland.
Sec. [3091] 3096. Tangier Island Seawall, Virginia.
Sec. [3092] 3097. Erosion control, Puget Island, Wahkiakum County,
Washington.
Sec. [3093] 3098. Lower granite pool, Washington.
Sec. [3094] 3099. Mcnary Lock and Dam, Mcnary National Wildlife Refuge,
Washington and Idaho.
Sec. [3095] 3100. Snake River project, Washington and Idaho.
Sec. [3096] 3101. Marmet Lock, Kanawha River, West Virginia.
Sec. [3097] 3102. Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia.
Sec. 3103. Green Bay Harbor Project, Green Bay, Wisconsin.
Sec. [3098] 3104. Underwood Creek diversion facility project, Milwaukee
County, Wisconsin.
Sec. [3099] 3105. Mississippi River headwaters reservoirs.
Sec. [3100] 3106. Lower Mississippi River Museum and Riverfront
Interpretive Site.
[[Page S7696]]
Sec. [3101] 3107. Pilot program, Middle Mississippi River.
Sec. [3102] 3108. Upper Mississippi River system environmental
management program.
Sec. 3109. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration program.
Sec. 3110. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation.
Sec. 3111. Great Lakes tributary models.
TITLE IV--STUDIES
Sec. 4001. Eurasian milfoil.
Sec. 4002. National port study.
Sec. 4003. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation Channel.
Sec. 4004. Selenium study, Colorado.
Sec. 4005. Nicholas Canyon, Los Angeles, California.
Sec. 4006. Oceanside, California, shoreline special study.
Sec. 4007. Comprehensive flood protection project, St. Helena,
California.
Sec. 4008. San Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Sherman
Island, California.
Sec. 4009. South San Francisco Bay shoreline study, California.
Sec. 4010. San Pablo Bay Watershed restoration, California.
Sec. 4011. Bubbly Creek, South Fork of South Branch, Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 4012. Grand and Tiger Passes and Baptiste Collette Bayou,
Louisiana.
Sec. [4011] 4013. Lake Erie at Luna Pier, Michigan.
Sec. [4012] 4014. Middle Bass Island State Park, Middle Bass Island,
Ohio.
Sec. [4013] 4015. Jasper County port facility study, South Carolina.
Sec. [4014] 4016. Lake Champlain Canal study, Vermont and New York.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 5001. Lakes program.
Sec. 5002. Estuary restoration.
Sec. 5003. Delmarva conservation corridor, Delaware and Maryland.
Sec. 5004. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basins, Delaware,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
Sec. 5005. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barriers project,
Illinois.
Sec. 5006. Rio Grande environmental management program, New Mexico.
Sec. 5007. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and
Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration, South Dakota.
Sec. 5008. Connecticut River dams, Vermont.
TITLE VI--PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS
Sec. 6001. Little Cove Creek, Glencoe, Alabama.
Sec. 6002. Goleta and vicinity, California.
Sec. 6003. Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut.
Sec. 6004. Bridgeport, Connecticut.
Sec. 6005. Hartford, Connecticut.
Sec. 6006. New Haven, Connecticut.
Sec. 6007. Inland waterway from Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, Part
II, installation of fender protection for bridges,
Delaware and Maryland.
Sec. 6008. Central and southern Florida, Everglades National Park,
Florida.
Sec. 6009. Shingle Creek Basin, Florida.
Sec. 6010. Brevoort, Indiana.
Sec. 6011. Middle Wabash, Greenfield Bayou, Indiana.
Sec. 6012. Lake George, Hobart, Indiana.
Sec. 6013. Green Bay Levee and Drainage District No. 2, Iowa.
Sec. 6014. Muscatine Harbor, Iowa.
Sec. 6015. Big South Fork National River and Recreational Area,
Kentucky and Tennessee.
Sec. 6016. Eagle Creek Lake, Kentucky.
Sec. 6017. Hazard, Kentucky.
Sec. 6018. West Kentucky tributaries, Kentucky.
Sec. 6019. Bayou Cocodrie and tributaries, Louisiana.
Sec. 6020. Bayou Lafourche and Lafourche Jump, Louisiana.
Sec. 6021. Eastern Rapides and South-Central Avoyelles Parishes,
Louisiana.
Sec. 6022. Fort Livingston, Grand Terre Island, Louisiana.
Sec. 6023. Gulf Intercoastal Waterway, Lake Borgne and Chef Menteur,
Louisiana.
Sec. 6024. Red River Waterway, Shreveport, Louisiana to Daingerfield,
Texas.
Sec. 6025. Casco Bay, Portland, Maine.
Sec. 6026. Northeast Harbor, Maine.
Sec. 6027. Penobscot River, Bangor, Maine.
Sec. 6028. Saint John River Basin, Maine.
Sec. 6029. Tenants Harbor, Maine.
Sec. 6030. Grand Haven Harbor, Michigan.
Sec. 6031. Greenville Harbor, Mississippi.
Sec. 6032. Platte River flood and related streambank erosion control,
Nebraska.
Sec. 6033. Epping, New Hampshire.
Sec. 6034. Manchester, New Hampshire.
Sec. 6035. New York Harbor and adjacent channels, Claremont Terminal,
Jersey City, New Jersey.
Sec. 6036. Eisenhower and Snell Locks, New York.
Sec. 6037. Olcott Harbor, Lake Ontario, New York.
Sec. 6038. Outer Harbor, Buffalo, New York.
Sec. 6039. Sugar Creek Basin, North Carolina and South Carolina.
Sec. 6040. Cleveland Harbor 1958 Act, Ohio.
Sec. 6041. Cleveland Harbor 1960 Act, Ohio.
Sec. 6042. Cleveland Harbor, uncompleted portion of Cut #4, Ohio.
Sec. 6043. Columbia River, Seafarers Memorial, Hammond, Oregon.
Sec. 6044. Chartiers Creek, Cannonsburg (Houston Reach Unit 2b),
Pennsylvania.
Sec. 6045. Schuylkill River, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 6046. Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 6047. Tamaqua, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 6048. Narragansett Town Beach, Narragansett, Rhode Island.
Sec. 6049. Quonset Point-Davisville, Rhode Island.
Sec. 6050. Arroyo Colorado, Texas.
Sec. 6051. Cypress Creek-Structural, Texas.
Sec. 6052. East Fork Channel Improvement, Increment 2, east fork of the
Trinity River, Texas.
Sec. 6053. Falfurrias, Texas.
Sec. 6054. Pecan Bayou Lake, Texas.
Sec. 6055. Lake of the Pines, Texas.
Sec. 6056. Tennessee Colony Lake, Texas.
Sec. 6057. City Waterway, Tacoma, Washington.
Sec. 6058. Kanawha River, Charleston, West Virginia.
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.
(a) Projects With Chief's Reports.--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 harbor, alaska.--The project for navigation,
Akutan, Harbor, Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers,
dated December 20, 2004, at a total estimated cost of
$12,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $9,800,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,400,000.
(2) Haines harbor, alaska.--The project for navigation,
Haines Harbor, Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers,
dated December 20, 2004, at a total estimated cost of
$12,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $9,700,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,500,000.
(3) Rillito river (el rio antiguo), pima county, arizona.--
The project for ecosystem restoration, Rillito River (El Rio
Antiguo), Pima County, Arizona: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a total cost of
$67,457,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $43,421,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $24,036,000.
(4) Tanque verde creek, arizona.--The project for ecosystem
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.
(5) Salt river (va shlyay akimel), maricopa county,
arizona.--The project for ecosystem restoration, Salt River
(Va Shlyay Akimel), 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.
(6) 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.
(7) 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.
(8) 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 [$48,839,000]
$51,362,000.
(9) Middle creek, lake county, california.--The project for
flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, 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.
[(10) Napa river salt marsh, california.--The project for
ecosystem restoration, Napa River Salt Marsh, California:
Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at
a total cost of $58,412,000, with an estimated Federal cost
of $37,740,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$20,672,000.]
(10) Napa river salt marsh, california.--
(A) In general.--The project for ecosystem restoration,
Napa River Salt Marsh, California, 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, to be
carried out by the Secretary substantially in accordance
[[Page S7697]]
with the plans and subject to the conditions recommended in
the final report signed by the Chief of Engineers on December
22, 2004.
(B) Administration.--In carrying out the project authorized
by this paragraph, the Secretary shall--
(i) construct a recycled water pipeline extending from the
Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District Waste Water
Treatment Plant and the Napa Sanitation District Waste Water
Treatment Plant to the project; and
(ii) restore or enhance Salt Ponds 1, 1A, 2, and 3.
(C) Transfer of ownership.--On completion of salinity
reduction in the project area, the Secretary shall transfer
ownership of the pipeline to the non-Federal interest at the
fully depreciated value of the pipeline, less--
(i) the non-Federal cost-share contributed under
subparagraph (A); and
(ii) the estimated value of the water to be provided as
needed for maintenance of habitat values in the project area
throughout the life of the project.
(11) South platte river, denver, colorado.--The project for
ecosystem 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.
(12) Indian river lagoon, south florida.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary may carry out the project
for ecosystem restoration, water supply, flood control, and
protection of water quality, Indian River Lagoon, South
Florida, at a total cost of $1,210,608,000, with an estimated
first Federal cost of $605,304,000, and an estimated first
non-Federal cost of $605,304,000, in accordance with section
601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat.
2680) and the recommendations of the report of the Chief of
Engineers, dated August 6, 2004.
(B) Deauthorizations.--As of the date of enactment of this
Act, the following projects are not authorized:
(i) 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, at a total
cost of $112,562,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$56,281,000, and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$56,281,000.
(ii) The uncompleted portions of the project authorized by
section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-
483; 82 Stat. 740), Martin County, Florida, modifications to
Central and South Florida Project, as contained in Senate
Document 101, 90th Congress, 2d Session, at a total cost of
$15,471,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $8,073,000,
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,398,000.
(iii) The uncompleted portions of the project authorized by
section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-
483; 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, at a total cost of $77,118,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $55,124,000, and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $21,994,000.
(13) East st. louis and vicinity, illinois.--The project
for ecosystem restoration and recreation, 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.
(14) Peoria riverfront, illinois.--The project for
ecosystem 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.
(15) 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 are to
be paid [half] \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the
general fund of the Treasury and [half] \1/2\from amounts
appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
(16) 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) Operation and maintenance.--The operation, maintenance,
repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of the Houma
Navigation Canal lock complex and the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway floodgate features that provide for inland waterway
transportation shall be a Federal responsibility, in
accordance with section 102 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2212; Public Law 99-662).
(17) Smith island, maryland.--The project for ecosystem
restoration, Smith Island, Maryland: Report of the Chief of
Engineers, dated October 29, 2001, at a total cost of
$14,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $9,425,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,075,000.
(18) 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.
(19) Manasquan to barnegat inlets, new jersey.--The project
for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Manasquan to
Barnegat Inlets, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost of $64,872,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $42,168,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $22,704,000, and at an estimated total
cost of $107,990,000 for periodic beach nourishment over the
50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal cost
of $53,995,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$53,995,000.
(20) South river, new jersey.--The project for hurricane
and storm damage reduction and ecosystem 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.
(21) 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.
(22) Corpus christi ship channel, corpus christi, texas.--
(A) In general.--The project for navigation and ecosystem
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 $92,854,000.
(B) Navigational servitude.--In carrying out the project
under subsection (A), the Secretary shall enforce
navigational servitude in the Corpus Christi Ship Channel,
including, at the sole expense of the owner of the facility,
the removal or relocation of any facility obstructing the
project.
(23) Gulf intracoastal waterway, brazos river to port
o'connor, matagorda bay re-route, 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.
(24) 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.
(25) Riverside oxbow, fort worth, texas.--The project for
ecosystem 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.
(26) Deep creek, chesapeake, virginia.--The project for the
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge Replacement, Deep
Creek, Chesapeake, Virginia: Report of the Chief of
Engineers, dated March 3, 2003, at a total cost of
$35,573,000.
(27) Chehalis river, centralia, washington.--The project
for flood damage reduction, Centralia, Washington, authorized
by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (Public Law 99-662; 100 Stat. 4126)--
(A) is modified to be carried out at a total cost of
$109,850,000, with a Federal cost of $66,425,000, and a non-
Federal cost of $43,425,000; and
(B) shall be carried out by the Secretary substantially in
accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions,
recommended in the final report of the Chief of Engineers,
dated September 27, 2004.
(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) Miami harbor, miami, florida.--The project for
navigation, Miami Harbor, Miami, Florida, at a total cost of
$121,126,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $64,843,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $56,283,000.
(2) Picayune strand, florida.--The project for ecosystem
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, subject to
section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
(114 Stat. 2680).
(3) Des moines and raccoon rivers, des moines, iowa.--The
project for flood damage reduction, Des Moines and Raccoon
Rivers, Des Moines, 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.
[[Page S7698]]
(4) 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.
(5) Jamaica bay, marine park and plumb beach, queens and
brooklyn, new york.--The project for ecosystem restoration,
Jamaica Bay, Queens and Brooklyn, New York, at a total
estimated cost of $180,000,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $117,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$63,000,000.
(6) Raritan bay and sandy hook bay, union beach, new
jersey.--The project for hurricane and storm damage
reduction, Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Union Beach, New
Jersey, at a total cost of $105,544,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $68,603,600, and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $36,940,400, and at an estimated total cost of
$2,315,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of
the project, with an estimated Federal cost of $1,157,500,
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,157,500.
(7) Montauk point, new york.--The project for hurricane and
storm damage reduction, Montauk Point, Suffolk County, New
York, at a total cost of $12,000,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $7,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $4,200,000.
(8) Hocking river basin, monday creek, ohio.--The project
for ecosystem restoration, Hocking River Basin, Monday Creek,
Ohio, at a total cost of $20,000,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $13,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $7,000,000.
SEC. 1002. ENHANCED NAVIGATION CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS AND
ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PLAN FOR THE UPPER
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATERWAY SYSTEM.
(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
(1) Plan.--The term ``Plan'' means the preferred integrated
plan contained in the document entitled ``Integrated
Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement for the UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility
Study'' and dated September 24, 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.
(b) Authorization of Construction of Navigation
Improvements.--
(1) Small scale and nonstructural measures.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall, in general
conformance with the Plan--
(i) construct mooring facilities at Locks 12, 14, 18, 20,
22, 24, and LaGrange Lock;
(ii) provide switchboats at Locks 20 through 25; and
(iii) conduct development and testing of an appointment
scheduling system.
(B) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this paragraph $235,000,000
for fiscal years beginning October 1, 2004. 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. Such sums shall remain available until expended.
(2) New locks.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall, in general
conformance with the Plan, 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.
(B) Mitigation.--The Secretary shall conduct mitigation for
the new locks and small scale and nonstructural measures
authorized under paragraphs (1) and (2).
(C) Concurrence.--The mitigation required under
subparagraph (B) for the projects authorized under paragraphs
(1) and (2), including any acquisition of lands or interests
in lands, shall be undertaken or acquired concurrently with
lands and interests for the projects authorized under
paragraphs (1) and (2), and physical construction required
for the purposes of mitigation shall be undertaken
concurrently with the physical construction of such projects.
(D) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this paragraph $1,795,000,000
for fiscal years beginning October 1, 2004. The costs of
construction on 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. Such sums shall remain available until expended.
(c) Ecosystem Restoration Authorization.--
(1) 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.
(2) Ecosystem restoration projects.--
(A) 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.
(B) Projects included.--Ecosystem restoration projects may
include, but are not limited to--
(i) island building;
(ii) construction of fish passages;
(iii) floodplain restoration;
(iv) water level management (including water drawdown);
(v) backwater restoration;
(vi) side channel restoration;
(vii) wing dam and dike restoration and modification;
(viii) island and shoreline protection;
(ix) topographical diversity;
(x) dam point control;
(xi) use of dredged material for environmental purposes;
(xii) tributary confluence restoration;
(xiii) spillway, dam, and levee modification to benefit the
environment;
(xiv) land easement authority; and
(xv) land acquisition.
(C) Cost sharing.--
(i) In general.--Except as provided in clauses (ii) and
(iii), the Federal share of the cost of carrying out an
ecosystem restoration project under this paragraph shall be
65 percent.
(ii) Exception for certain restoration projects.--In the
case of a project under this subparagraph 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 or structures for navigation;
or
(III) is located on federally owned land.
(iii) Savings clause.--Nothing in this paragraph affects
the applicability of section 906(e) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283).
(iv) 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 section,
a non-Federal sponsor may include a nonprofit entity, with
the consent of the affected local government.
(D) Land acquisition.--The Secretary may acquire land or an
interest in land for an ecosystem restoration project from a
willing owner through conveyance of--
(i) fee title to the land; or
(ii) a flood plain conservation easement.
(3) Ecosystem restoration preconstruction engineering and
design.--
(A) Restoration design.--Before initiating the construction
of any individual ecosystem restoration project, the
Secretary shall--
(i) establish ecosystem restoration goals and identify
specific performance measures designed to demonstrate
ecosystem restoration;
(ii) establish the without-project condition or baseline
for each performance indicator; and
(iii) for each separable element of the ecosystem
restoration, identify specific target goals for each
performance indicator.
(B) Outcomes.--Performance measures identified under
subparagraph (A)(i) should comprise 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.
(C) Restoration design.--Restoration design carried out as
part of ecosystem restoration shall include a monitoring plan
for the performance measures identified under subparagraph
(A)(i), including--
(i) a timeline to achieve the identified target goals; and
(ii) a timeline for the demonstration of project
completion.
(4) Specific projects authorization.--
(A) In general.--There are authorized to carry out this
subsection for fiscal years beginning October 1, 2005,
$1,580,000,000, of which not more than $226,000,000 shall be
available for projects described in paragraph (2)(B)(ii) and
not more than $43,000,000 shall be available for projects
described in paragraph (2)(B)(x). Such sums shall remain
available until expended.
(B) Limitation on available funds.--Of the amounts made
available under subparagraph (A), not more than $35,000,000
for each fiscal year shall be available for land acquisition
under paragraph (2)(D).
(C) Individual project limit.--Other than for projects
described in clauses (ii) and (x) of paragraph (2)(B), the
total cost of any single project carried out under this
subsection shall not exceed $25,000,000.
(5) Implementation reports.--
(A) In general.--Not later than June 30, 2008, and every 5
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--
(i) includes baselines, milestones, goals, and priorities
for ecosystem restoration projects; and
(ii) measures the progress in meeting the goals.
[[Page S7699]]
(B) Advisory panel.--
(i) In general.--The Secretary shall appoint and convene an
advisory panel to provide independent guidance in the
development of each implementation report under subparagraph
(A).
(ii) 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.
(iii) Co-chairpersons.--The Secretary and the Secretary of
the Interior shall serve as co-chairpersons of the advisory
panel.
(iv) 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.).
(6) Ranking system.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Advisory Panel, shall develop a system to rank proposed
projects.
(B) Priority.--The ranking system shall give greater weight
to projects that restore natural river processes, including
those projects listed in paragraph (2)(B).
(d) Comparable Progress.--
(1) In general.--As the Secretary conducts pre-engineering,
design, and construction for projects authorized under this
section, the Secretary shall--
(A) select appropriate milestones; and
(B) determine, at the time of such selection, whether the
projects are being carried out at comparable rates.
(2) No comparable rate.--If the Secretary determines under
paragraph (1)(B) that projects authorized under this
subsection are not moving toward completion at a comparable
rate, annual funding requests for the projects will be
adjusted to ensure that the projects move toward completion
at a comparable rate in the future.
SEC. 1003. LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION,
LOUISIANA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out a program for
ecosystem restoration, Louisiana Coastal Area, Louisiana,
substantially in accordance with the report of the Chief of
Engineers, dated January 31, 2005.
(b) Priorities.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out the program under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall give priority to--
(A) any portion of the program identified in the report
described in subsection (a) as a critical restoration
feature;
(B) any Mississippi River diversion project that--
(i) protects a major population area of the Pontchartain,
Pearl, Breton Sound, Barataria, or Terrebonne Basin; and
(ii) produces an environmental benefit to the coastal area
of the State of Louisiana or the State of Mississippi; and
(C) any barrier island, or barrier shoreline, project
that--
(i) is carried out in conjunction with a Mississippi River
diversion project; and
(ii) protects a major population area.
(c) Nongovernmental Organizations.--A nongovernmental
organization shall be eligible to contribute all or a portion
of the non-Federal share of the cost of a project under this
section.
(d) Comprehensive Plan.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, in coordination with the
Governor of the State of Louisiana, shall--
(A) develop a plan for protecting, preserving, and
restoring the coastal Louisiana ecosystem; and
(B) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act, and every 5 years thereafter, submit to Congress
the plan, or an update of the plan.
(2) Inclusions.--The comprehensive plan shall include a
description of--
(A) the framework of a long-term program that provides for
the comprehensive protection, conservation, and restoration
of the wetlands, estuaries (including the Barataria-
Terrebonne estuary), barrier islands, shorelines, and related
land and features of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem,
including protection of a critical resource, habitat, or
infrastructure from the effects of a coastal storm, a
hurricane, erosion, or subsidence;
(B) the means by which a new technology, or an improved
technique, can be integrated into the program under
subsection (a); and
(C) the role of other Federal agencies and programs in
carrying out the program under subsection (a).
(3) Consideration.--In developing the comprehensive plan,
the Secretary shall consider the advisability of integrating
into the program under subsection (a)--
(A) a related Federal or State project carried out on the
date on which the plan is developed;
(B) an activity in the Louisiana Coastal Area; or
(C) any other project or activity identified in--
(i) the Mississippi River and Tributaries program;
(ii) the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation Plan;
(iii) the Louisiana Coastal Zone Management Plan; or
(iv) the plan of the State of Louisiana entitled ``Coast
2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana''.
(e) Task Force.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established a task force to be
known as the ``Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and
Restoration Task Force'' (referred to in this subsection as
the ``Task Force'').
(2) Membership.--The Task Force shall consist of the
following members (or, in the case of the head of a Federal
agency, a designee at the level of Assistant Secretary or an
equivalent level):
(A) The Secretary.
(B) The Secretary of the Interior.
(C) The Secretary of Commerce.
(D) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency.
(E) The Secretary of Agriculture.
(F) The Secretary of Transportation.
(G) The Secretary of Energy.
(H) The Secretary of Homeland Security.
(I) 3 representatives of the State of Louisiana appointed
by the Governor of that State.
(3) Duties.--The Task Force shall make recommendations to
the Secretary regarding--
(A) policies, strategies, plans, programs, projects, and
activities for addressing conservation, protection,
restoration, and maintenance of the coastal Louisiana
ecosystem;
(B) financial participation by each agency represented on
the Task Force in conserving, protecting, restoring, and
maintaining the coastal Louisiana ecosystem, including
recommendations--
(i) that identify funds from current agency missions and
budgets; and
(ii) for coordinating individual agency budget requests;
and
(C) the comprehensive plan under subsection (d).
(4) Working groups.--The Task Force may establish such
working groups as the Task Force determines to be necessary
to assist the Task Force in carrying out this subsection.
(5) Application of the federal advisory committee act.--The
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not
apply to the Task Force or any working group of the Task
Force.
(f) Mississippi River Gulf Outlet.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop a plan for
modifying the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet that addresses--
(A) wetland losses attributable to the Mississippi River
Gulf Outlet;
(B) channel bank erosion;
(C) hurricane storm surges;
(D) saltwater intrusion;
(E) navigation interests; and
(F) environmental restoration.
(2) Report.--[The] If necessary, the Secretary, in
conjunction with the Chief of Engineers, shall submit to
Congress a report recommending modifications to the
Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, including measures to prevent
the intrusion of saltwater into the Outlet.
(g) Science and Technology.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a coastal
Louisiana ecosystem science and technology program.
(2) Purposes.--The purposes of the program established by
paragraph (1) shall be--
(A) to identify any uncertainty relating to the physical,
chemical, geological, biological, and cultural baseline
conditions in coastal Louisiana;
(B) to improve knowledge of the physical, chemical,
geological, biological, and cultural baseline conditions in
coastal Louisiana; and
(C) to identify and develop technologies, models, and
methods to carry out this [subsection] section.
(3) Working groups.--The Secretary may establish such
working groups as the Secretary determines to be necessary to
assist the Secretary in carrying out this subsection.
(4) Contracts and cooperative agreements.--In carrying out
this subsection, the Secretary may enter into a contract or
cooperative agreement with an individual or entity (including
a consortium of academic institutions in Louisiana [and
Mississippi]) with scientific or engineering expertise in the
restoration of aquatic and marine ecosystems for coastal
restoration and enhancement through science and technology.
(h) Analysis of Benefits.--
(1) 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 an activity to conserve, protect,
restore, or maintain the coastal Louisiana ecosystem, the
Secretary may determine that the environmental benefits
provided by the program under this section outweigh the
disadvantage of an activity under this section.
(2) Determination of cost-effectiveness.--If the Secretary
determines that an activity under this section is cost-
effective, no further economic justification for the activity
shall be required.
[[Page S7700]]
[(i) Study.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with
the non-Federal interest, shall enter into a contract with
the National Academy of Sciences under which the National
Academy of Sciences shall carry out a study to identify the
cause of any degradation of the Louisiana Coastal Area
ecosystem that occurs as a result of an activity under this
section.
(j) Report.--Not later than July 1, 2006, the Secretary, in
conjunction with the Chief of Engineers, shall submit to
Congress a report describing the features included in table 3
of the report described in subsection (a).]
(i) Studies.--
(1) Degradation.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with
the non-Federal interest, shall enter into a contract with
the National Academy of Sciences under which the National
Academy of Sciences shall carry out a study to identify--
(A) the cause of any degradation of the Louisiana Coastal
Area ecosystem that occurred as a result of an activity
approved by the Secretary; and
(B) the sources of the degradation.
(2) Finance.--On completion, and taking into account the
results, of the study conducted under paragraph (1), the
Secretary, in consultation with the non-Federal interest,
shall study--
(A) financing alternatives for the program authorized under
subsection (a); and
(B) potential reductions in the expenditure of Federal
funds in emergency responses that would occur as a result of
ecosystem restoration in the Louisiana Coastal Area.
(j) Report.--Not later than July 1, 2006, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a feasibility report on the features
included in table 3 of the report described in subsection
(a).
(k) Project Modifications.--
(1) Review.--The Secretary, in cooperation with any non-
Federal interest, shall review each federally-authorized
water resources project in the coastal Louisiana area in
existence on the date of enactment of this Act to determine
whether--
(A) each project is in accordance with the program under
subsection (a); and
(B) the project could contribute to ecosystem restoration
under subsection (a) through modification of the operations
or features of the project.
(2) Authorization.--Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the
Secretary may carry out the modifications described in
paragraph (1)(B).
[(2)] (3) Public notice and comment.--Before [modifying an
operation or feature of a project under paragraph (1)(B),]
completing the report required under paragraph (4), the
Secretary shall provide an opportunity for public notice and
comment.
[(3)] (4) Report.--
(A) In general.--Before modifying an operation or feature
of a project under paragraph (1)(B), 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 a report
describing the modification.
(B) Inclusion.--A report under [paragraph (2)(B)]
subparagraph (A) shall include such information relating to
the timeline and cost of a modification as the Secretary
determines to be relevant.
[(4)] (5) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection
$10,000,000.
SEC. 1004. SMALL PROJECTS FOR FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study for
each of the following projects and, if the Secretary
determines that a project is feasible, may carry out the
project under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948
(33 U.S.C. 701s):
(1) Cache river basin, grubbs, arkansas.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Cache River basin, Grubbs, Arkansas.
SEC. 1005. SMALL PROJECTS FOR NAVIGATION.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a
project is feasible, may carry out the project under section
107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577):
(1) Little rock port, arkansas.--Project for navigation,
Little Rock Port, Arkansas River, Arkansas.
(2) Au sable river, michigan.--Project for navigation, Au
Sable River in the vicinity of Oscoda, Michigan.
(3) Outer channel and inner harbor, menominee harbor,
michigan and wisconsin.--Project for navigation, Outer
Channel and Inner Harbor, Menominee Harbor, Michigan and
Wisconsin.
(4) Middle bass island state park, middle bass island,
ohio.--Project for navigation, Middle Bass Island State Park,
Middle Bass Island, Ohio.
(5) Outer channel and inner harbor, menominee, wisconsin.--
Project for navigation, Menominee Harbor, Michigan and
Wisconsin.
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) San diego river, california.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, San Diego River, California, including
efforts to address invasive aquatic plant species.
(2) Suison marsh, san pablo bay, california.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, San Pablo Bay, California.
(3) Blackstone river, rhode island.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Blackstone River, Rhode Island.
TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Provisions
SEC. 2001. CREDIT FOR IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS.
Section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C.
1962d-5b) is amended--
[(1) by striking ``SEC. 221 (a) After'' and inserting the
following:
``SEC. 221. WRITTEN AGREEMENT REQUIREMENT FOR WATER RESOURCES
PROJECTS.
``(a) Cooperation of Non-Federal Interest.--
``(1) In general.--After''; and
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``In any'' and inserting the following:
``(2) Future appropriations.--In any''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:]
(1) by striking ``SEC. 221'' and inserting the following:
``SEC. 221. WRITTEN AGREEMENT REQUIREMENT FOR WATER RESOURCES
PROJECTS.''
; and
(2) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) Cooperation of Non-Federal Interest.--
``(1) In general.--After December 31, 1970, the
construction of any water resources project, or an acceptable
separable element thereof, by the Secretary of the Army,
acting through the Chief of Engineers, or by a non-Federal
interest where such interest will be reimbursed for such
construction under any provision of law, shall not be
commenced until each non-Federal interest has entered into a
written partnership agreement with the district engineer for
the district in which the project will be carried out under
which each party agrees to carry out its responsibilities and
requirements for implementation or construction of the
project or the appropriate element of the project, as the
case may be; except that no such agreement shall be required
if the Secretary determines that the administrative costs
associated with negotiating, executing, or administering the
agreement would exceed the amount of the contribution
required from the non-Federal interest and are less than
$25,000.
``(2) Liquidated damages.--An agreement described in
paragraph (1) may include a provision for liquidated damages
in the event of a failure of 1 or more parties to perform.
``(3) Obligation of future appropriations.--In any such
agreement entered into by a State, or a body politic of the
State which derives its powers from the State constitution,
or a governmental entity created by the State legislature,
the agreement may reflect that it does not obligate future
appropriations for such performance and payment when
obligating future appropriations would be inconsistent with
constitutional or statutory limitations of the State or a
political subdivision of the State.
``[(3)] (4) Credit for in-kind contributions.--
``(A) In general.--An agreement under paragraph (1) shall
provide that the Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project, including a project
implemented under general continuing authority, the value of
in-kind contributions made by the non-Federal interest,
including--
``(i) the costs of planning (including data collection),
design, management, mitigation, construction, and
construction services that are provided by the non-Federal
interest for implementation of the project; and
``(ii) the value of materials or services provided before
execution of an agreement for the project, including--
``(I) efforts on constructed elements incorporated into the
project; and
``(II) materials and services provided after an agreement
is executed.
``(B) Condition.--The Secretary shall credit an in-kind
contribution under subparagraph (A) if the Secretary
determines that the property or service provided as an in-
kind contribution is integral to the project.
``(C) Limitations.--Credit authorized for a project--
``(i) shall not exceed the non-Federal share of the cost of
the project;
``(ii) shall not alter any other requirement that a non-
Federal interest provide land, an easement or right-of-way,
or an area for disposal of dredged material for the project;
and
``(iii) shall not exceed the actual and reasonable costs of
the materials, services, or other things provided by the non-
Federal interest, as determined by the Secretary.''.
SEC. 2002. INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT AUTHORITY.
Section 234 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(33 U.S.C. 2323a) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) In General.--The Secretary may engage in activities
(including contracting) in support of other Federal agencies,
international organizations, or foreign governments to
address problems of national significance to the United
States.'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``Secretary of State''
and inserting ``Department of State''; and
(3) in subsection (d)--
(A) by striking ``$250,000 for fiscal year 2001'' and
inserting ``$1,000,000 for fiscal year 2006''; and
(B) by striking ``or international organizations'' and
inserting ``, international organizations, or foreign
governments''.
[[Page S7701]]
SEC. 2003. TRAINING FUNDS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may include individuals from
the non-Federal interest, including the private sector, 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 from [the private sector] a
non-Federal interest 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. 2004. RECREATIONAL AREAS AND PROJECT SITES.
(a) Construction and Operation of Public Parks and
Recreational Facilities in Water Resource Development
Projects; Lease of Lands; Preference for Use; Penalty;
Application of Section 3401 of Title 18, United States Code;
Citations and Arrests With and Without Process; Limitations;
Disposition of Receipts.--Section 4 of the Act of December
22, 1944 (commonly known as the ``Flood Control Act of
1944'') (16 U.S.C. 460d) is amended--
(1) in the second sentence--
(A) by striking ``Provided, That leases'' and all that
follows through ``premises'' and inserting the following:
``Provided, That any new lease granted under this section to
a nonprofit organization for park and recreational purposes,
and any new lease or license granted to a Federal, State, or
local governmental agency for any public purpose, shall
include a provision requiring that consideration for the
grant of the lease or license shall be at least sufficient to
pay the costs of administering the grant, as determined by
the Secretary of the Army''; and
(B) by striking ``Provided further, That preference'' and
all that follows through ``And provided'' and inserting
``Provided''; and
(2) by striking the last sentence and inserting the
following: ``Any funds received by the United States for a
lease or privilege granted under this section shall be
deposited and made available in accordance with section 210
of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 460d-3).''.
(b) Recreational User Fees.--Section 210 of the Flood
Control Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 460d-3) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Army shall carry
out a recreation user fee program to recover from users of
recreation areas and project sites under the jurisdiction of
the Corps of Engineers the portion of costs associated with
operating and maintaining those recreation areas and project
sites.'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``Admission and
User'' before ``Fees'';
(B) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4);
(C) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);
(D) in paragraph (1), by striking ``but excluding'' and all
that follows and inserting the following: ``, including
fees--
``(A) for admission to the recreation area or project site
of an individual or group; and
``(B) for the use by an individual or group of an outdoor
recreation area, a facility, a visitors' center, a piece of
equipment, or a service at the recreation area or project
site.'';
(E) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) Amount.--The Secretary of the Army shall determine
the amount of a fee established and collected under paragraph
(1) based on the fair market value, taking into consideration
any comparable recreation fee for admission to, or use of,
the recreation area or project site.'';
(F) in paragraph (3) (as redesignated by subparagraph
(C))--
(i) by striking ``picnic tables'';
(ii) by striking ``surface water areas''; and
(iii) by striking ``or general visitor information'' and
inserting ``general visitor information, or a project site or
facility that includes only a boat launch ramp and a courtesy
dock''; and
(G) by inserting after paragraph (3) (as redesignated by
subparagraph (C)) the following:
``(4) Contracts and services.--The Secretary of the Army
may--
``(A) enter into a contract (including a contract that
provides for a reasonable commission, as determined by the
Secretary) with any public or private entity to provide a
visitor service for a recreation area or project site under
this section, including the taking of reservations and the
provision of information regarding the recreation area or
project site; and
``(B) accept the services of a volunteer to collect a fee
established and collected under paragraph (1).
``(5) Deposit into treasury account.--
``(A) In general.--Any fee collected under this subsection
shall--
``(i) be deposited into the Treasury account for the Corps
of Engineers established by section 4(i)(1)(A) of the Land
and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-
6a(i)(1)(A)); and
``(ii) be made available until expended to the Secretary of
the Army, without further appropriation, for use for the
purposes described in section 4(i)(3) of that Act (16 U.S.C.
460l-6a(i)(3)).
``(B) Limitation.--Not more than 80 percent of a fee
established and collected at a recreational area or project
site under this subsection shall be made available to pay the
costs of a water resources development project under the
jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers located at the
recreational area or project site.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Other Fees.--Any fee established and collected at a
recreational area or project site under subsection (b) shall
be considered to be established and collected in lieu of a
similar fee established and collected at the recreational
area or project site under any other provision of law.''.
(c) Admission and Use Fees; Establishment and
Regulations.--Section 4(i)(3) of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)(3)) is
amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``For'' and
inserting the following:
``(A) In general.--For'';
(2) by striking the second sentence and inserting the
following:
``(B) Use of funds.--To the maximum extent practicable,
funds under this subsection shall be used for a purpose
described in subparagraph (A) that is directly related to the
activity through which the funds were generated, including
water-based recreational activities and camping.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Department of army sites.--Any funds under this
subsection may be used at a project site of the Department of
the Army to pay the costs of--
``(i) a repair or maintenance project (including a project
relating to public health and safety);
``(ii) an interpretation project;
``(iii) signage;
``(iv) habitat or facility enhancement;
``(v) resource preservation;
``(vi) annual operation (including collection of fees and
costs of administering grants under section 4 of the Act of
December 22, 1944 (commonly known as the `Flood Control Act
of 1944') (16 U.S.C. 460d);
``(vii) law enforcement relating to public use; and
``(viii) planning.''.
(d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 225 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a note;
Public Law 106-53) is repealed.
SEC. 2005. 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 of Environment and Public Works of
the Senate and the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee of the House of Representatives a report on the
expenditures for the preceding fiscal year and estimated
expenditures for 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.
(9) With respect to permit applications and notifications,
a list of individual permit applications and nationwide
permit notifications, including--
[[Page S7702]]
(A) the date on which each permit application is filed;
(B) the date on which each permit application is determined
to be complete; and
(C) the date on which the Corps of Engineers grants,
withdraws, or denies each permit.
(10) With respect to the project backlog, a list of
authorized projects for which no funds have been allocated
for the 5 preceding fiscal years, including, for each
project--
(A) the authorization date;
(B) the last allocation date;
(C) the percentage of construction completed;
(D) the estimated cost remaining until completion of the
project; and
(E) a brief explanation of the reasons for the delay.
SEC. 2006. PLANNING.
(a) Matters to Be Addressed in Planning.--Section 904 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2281)
is amended--
(1) by striking ``Enhancing'' and inserting the following:
``(a) In General.--Enhancing''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Assessments.--For all feasibility reports completed
after December 31, 2005, the Secretary shall assess whether--
``(1) the water resource project and each separable element
is cost-effective; and
``(2) the water resource project complies with Federal,
State, and local laws (including regulations) and public
policies.''.
(b) Feasibility Reports.--Section 905 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting before ``This
subsection shall not apply'' the following: ``The Secretary
shall establish a plan and schedule to periodically update
and revise the planning guidelines, regulations, and
circulars of the Corps of Engineers to improve the analysis
of water resource projects, including the integration of new
and existing analytical techniques that properly reflect the
probability of project benefits and costs, as the Secretary
determines appropriate.''; and
(2) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
``(c) Cost-Benefit Analysis.--Recommendation of a
feasibility study shall be based on an analysis of the
benefits and costs, both quantified and unquantified, that--
``(1) identifies areas of risk and uncertainty in the
analysis;
``(2) clearly describes the degree of reliability of the
estimated benefits and costs of the effectiveness of
alternative plans, including an assessment of the credibility
of the physical project construction schedule as the schedule
affects the estimated benefits and costs;
``(3) identifies national, regional, and local economic
costs and benefits;
``(4) identifies environmental costs and benefits,
including the costs and benefits of protecting or degrading
natural systems;
``(5) identifies social costs and benefits, including a
risk analysis regarding potential loss of life that may
result from flooding and storm damage; and
``(6) identifies cultural and historical costs and
benefits.''.
(c) Planning Process Improvements.--The Chief of
Engineers--
(1) shall, not later than 2 years after the date on which
the feasibility study cost sharing agreement is signed for a
project, subject to the availability of appropriations--
(A) complete the feasibility study for the project; and
(B) sign the report of the Chief of Engineers for the
project;
(2) may, with the approval of the Secretary, extend the
deadline established under paragraph (1) for not to exceed 4
years, for a complex or controversial study;
(3)(A) shall adopt a risk analysis approach to project cost
estimates; and
(B) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act, shall--
(i) issue procedures for risk analysis for cost estimation;
and
(ii) submit to Congress a report that includes suggested
amendments to section 902 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280); and
(4) shall--
(A) identify and review all critical methods, models, and
procedures used in the planning process of the Corps of
Engineers to formulate and evaluate water resource projects;
(B) identify other existing or new methods, models, or
procedures that may enhance the water resource planning
process;
(C) establish a systematic process for evaluating and
validating the effectiveness and efficiency of all methods,
models, and procedures;
(D) develop and maintain a set of approved methods, models,
and procedures to be applied to the water resource planning
process across the Corps of Engineers;
(E) develop and maintain effective systems for technology
transfer and support to provide state-of-the-art skills and
knowledge to the workforce; and
(F) identify the discrete elements of studies and establish
benchmarks for the resources required to implement elements
to improve the timeliness and effectiveness of the water
resource planning process.
(d) Project Planning.--
(1) Objectives.--
(A) Flood and hurricane and storm damage reduction and
navigation projects.--The Federal objective of any study of
the feasibility of a water resource project carried out by
the Secretary for flood damage reduction, hurricane and storm
damage reduction, or navigation shall be to maximize the net
national economic development benefits associated with the
project, consistent with protecting the environment of the
United States.
(B) Ecosystem restoration projects.--The Federal objective
of any study of the feasibility of a water resource 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 of the United States.
(C) 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 subparagraphs (A)
and (B).
(D) Selection of project alternatives.--
(i) In general.--Notwithstanding the Federal objectives
identified in this paragraph, the Secretary may select a
project alternative that does not maximize net benefits if
there is an overriding reason for selection of the
alternative that is based on other Federal, State, local, or
international concerns.
(ii) Flood and hurricane and storm damage reduction and
navigation projects.--With respect to a water resource
project described in subparagraph (A), an overriding reason
for selecting a project alternative other than the
alternative that maximizes national economic development
benefits may be, as determined by the Secretary, with the
concurrence of the non-Federal interest, that the other
project alternative is feasible and achieves the project
purposes but provides greater ecosystem restoration benefits
or less adverse environmental impacts.
(iii) Ecosystem restoration projects.--With respect to a
water resource project described in subparagraph (B), an
overriding reason for selecting a project alternative other
than the project alternative that maximizes national
ecosystem restoration benefits may be, as determined by the
Secretary, with the concurrence of the non-Federal interest,
that the other project alternative is feasible and achieves
the project purpose but provides greater economic development
benefits or less adverse economic impacts.
(2) Identifying additional benefits and projects.--
(A) Primarily economic benefits.--In conducting a study of
the feasibility of a project the primary benefits of which
are expected to be economic, the Secretary may--
(i) identify ecosystem restoration benefits that may be
achieved in the study area; and
(ii) after obtaining the participation of a non-Federal
interest, study and recommend construction of additional
measures, a separate project, or separable element, to
achieve those benefits.
(B) Primarily ecosystem restoration benefits.--In
conducting a study of the feasibility of a project the
primary benefits of which are expected to be associated with
ecosystem restoration, the Secretary may--
(i) identify economic benefits that may be achieved in the
study area; and
(ii) after obtaining the participation of a non-Federal
interest, study and recommend construction of additional
measures, a separate project, or separable element, to
achieve those benefits.
(C) Rules applicable to identified separate projects and
elements.--
(i) In general.--Any additional measure, separable project,
or element identified under subparagraph (A) or (B) and
recommended for construction shall not be considered integral
to the underlying project under study unless the Secretary
determines, and the non-Federal interest agrees, that the
measure, project, or element, is integral.
(ii) Partnership agreement.--If authorized, the measure,
project, or element shall be subject to a separate
partnership agreement, unless the non-Federal interest agrees
to share in the cost of the additional measure, project, or
separable element.
(3) 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--
(A) a calculation of the residual risk of flooding
following completion of the proposed project;
(B) a calculation of any upstream or downstream impacts of
the proposed project; and
(C) calculations to ensure that the benefits and costs
associated with structural and nonstructural alternatives are
evaluated in an equitable manner.
(e) Centers of Specialized Planning Expertise.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary may establish centers of
expertise to provide specialized planning expertise for water
resource projects to be carried out by the Secretary in order
to enhance and supplement the capabilities of the districts
of the Corps of Engineers.
(2) Duties.--A center of expertise established under this
subsection shall--
(A) provide technical and managerial assistance to district
commanders of the Corps of Engineers for project planning,
development, and implementation;
(B) provide peer reviews of new major scientific,
engineering, or economic methods, models, or analyses that
will be used to support decisions of the Secretary with
respect to feasibility studies;
[[Page S7703]]
(C) provide support for external peer review panels
convened by the Secretary; and
(D) carry out such other duties as are prescribed by the
Secretary.
(f) Completion of Corps of Engineers Reports.--
(1) Alternatives.--
(A) In general.--Feasibility and other studies and
assessments of water resource problems and projects shall
include recommendations for alternatives--
(i) that, as determined by the non-Federal interests for
the projects, promote integrated water resources management;
and
(ii) for which the non-Federal interests are willing to
provide the non-Federal share for the studies or assessments.
(B) Scope and purposes.--The scope and purposes of studies
and assessments described in subparagraph (A) shall not be
constrained by budgetary or other policy as a result of the
inclusion of alternatives described in that subparagraph.
(C) No effect on authority of chief.--The Chief of
Engineers--
(i) shall not, in the completion of reports of the Chief of
Engineers to Congress, be subject to direction as to the
contents, findings, or recommendation of the reports; and
(ii) shall be solely responsible for--
(I) those reports; and
(II) any related recommendations, including evaluations and
recommendations for changes in law or policy that may be
appropriate to attain the best technical solutions to water
resource needs and problems.
(2) Report completion.--The completion of a report of the
Chief of Engineers for a project--
(A) shall not be delayed while consideration is being given
to potential changes in policy or priority for project
consideration; and
(B) shall be submitted, upon completion, to--
(i) the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the
Senate; and
(ii) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of
the House of Representatives.
(g) Completion Review.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), not
later than 90 days after the date of completion of a report
of the Chief of Engineers that recommends to Congress a water
resource project, the Secretary shall--
(A) review the report; and
(B) provide any recommendations of the Secretary regarding
the water resource project to Congress.
(2) Prior reports.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, with respect to any report of the
Chief of Engineers recommending a water resource project that
is complete prior to the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall complete review of, and provide
recommendations to Congress for, the report in accordance
with paragraph (1).
SEC. 2007. INDEPENDENT REVIEWS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) 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.
(2) Project study.--
(A) In general.--The term ``project study'' means a
feasibility study or reevaluation study for a project.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``project study'' includes any
other study associated with a modification or update of a
project that includes an environmental impact statement or an
environmental assessment.
(b) Peer Reviews.--
(1) Policy.--
(A) In general.--Major engineering, scientific, and
technical work products related to Corps of Engineers
decisions and recommendations to Congress should be peer
reviewed.
(B) Application.--This policy--
(i) applies to peer review of the scientific, engineering,
or technical basis of the decision or recommendation; and
(ii) does not apply to the decision or recommendation
itself.
(2) Guidelines.--
(A) In general.--Not later than the date that is 1 year
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Chief of
Engineers shall publish and implement guidelines to Corps of
Engineers Division and District Engineers for the use of peer
review (including external peer review) of major scientific,
engineering, and technical work products that support the
recommendations of the Chief to Congress for implementation
of water resources projects.
(B) Information quality act.--The guidelines shall be
consistent with the Information Quality Act (section 515 of
Public Law 106-554), as implemented in Office of Management
and Budget, Revised Information Quality Bulletin for Peer
Review, dated December 15, 2004.
(C) Requirements.--The guidelines shall adhere to the
following requirements:
(i) Application of peer review.--Peer review shall--
(I) be applied only to the engineering, scientific, and
technical basis for recommendations; and
(II) shall not be applied to--
(aa) a specific recommendation; or
(bb) the application of policy to recommendations.
(ii) Analyses and evaluations in multiple project
studies.--Guidelines shall provide for conducting and
documenting peer review of major scientific, technical, or
engineering methods, models, procedures, or data that are
used for conducting analyses and evaluations in multiple
project studies.
(iii) Inclusions.--Peer review applied to project studies
may include a review of--
(I) the economic and environmental assumptions and
projections;
(II) project evaluation data;
(III) economic or environmental analyses;
(IV) engineering analyses;
(V) methods for integrating risk and uncertainty;
(VI) models used in evaluation of economic or environmental
impacts of proposed projects; and
(VII) any related biological opinions.
(iv) Exclusion.--Peer review applied to project studies
shall exclude a review of any methods, models, procedures, or
data previously subjected to peer review.
(v) Timing of review.--Peer review related to the
engineering, scientific, or technical basis of any project
study shall be completed prior to the completion of any Chief
of Engineers report for a specific water resources project.
(vi) Delays; increased costs.--Peer reviews shall be
conducted in a manner that does not--
(I) cause a delay in study completion; or
(II) increase costs.
(vii) Record of recommendations.--
(I) In general.--After receiving a report from any peer
review panel, the Chief of Engineers shall prepare a record
that documents--
(aa) any recommendations contained in the report; and
(bb) any written response for any recommendation adopted or
not adopted and included in the study documentation.
(II) External review record.--If the panel is an external
peer review panel of a project study, the record of the
review shall be included with the report of the Chief of
Engineers to Congress.
(viii) External panel of experts.--
(I) In general.--Any external panel of experts assembled to
review the engineering, science, or technical basis for the
recommendations of a specific project study shall--
(aa) complete the peer review of the project study and
submit to the Chief of Engineers a report not later than 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) at the time established by the Chief, but in no
event later than 90 days after the date a draft project study
of the District Engineer is made available for public review;
and
(bb) terminate on the date of submission of the report by
the panel.
(II) Failure to complete review and report.--If an external
panel does not complete the peer review of a project study
and submit to the Chief of Engineers a report by the deadline
established by subclause (I), the Chief of Engineers shall
continue the project without delay.
(3) Costs.--
(A) In general.--The costs of a panel of experts
established for a peer review under this section--
(i) shall be a Federal expense; and
(ii) shall not exceed $500,000 for review of the
engineering, scientific, or technical basis for any single
water resources project study.
(B) Waiver.--The Chief of Engineers may waive the $500,000
limitation under subparagraph (A) if the Chief of Engineers
determines appropriate.
(4) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Chief of Engineers shall submit to
Congress a report describing the implementation of this
section.
(5) Nonapplicability of federal advisory committee act.--
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) does not
apply to any peer review panel established by the Chief of
Engineers.
(6) Panel of experts.--The Chief of Engineers may 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 for technical and scientific sufficiency.
(7) 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 the engineering,
scientific, or technical basis of any water resources project
in existence on the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 2008. MITIGATION FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE LOSSES.
(a) Completion of Mitigation.--Section 906(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(a)) is
amended by adding at the following:
``(3) Completion of mitigation.--In any case in which it is
not technically practicable to complete mitigation by the
last day of construction of the project or separable element
of the project because of the nature of the mitigation to be
undertaken, the Secretary shall complete the required
[[Page S7704]]
mitigation as expeditiously as practicable, but in no case
later than the last day of the first fiscal year beginning
after the last day of construction of the project or
separable element of the project.''.
(b) Use of Consolidated Mitigation.--Section 906(b) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(b))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Use of consolidated mitigation.--
``(A) In general.--If the Secretary determines that other
forms of compensatory mitigation are not practicable or are
less environmentally desirable, the Secretary may purchase
available credits from a mitigation bank or conservation bank
that is approved in accordance with the Federal Guidance for
the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigations Banks (60
Fed. Reg. 58605) or other applicable Federal laws (including
regulations).
``(B) Service area.--To the maximum extent practicable, the
service area of the mitigation bank or conservation bank
shall be in the same watershed as the affected habitat.
``(C) Responsibility relieved.--Purchase of credits from a
mitigation bank or conservation bank for a water resources
project relieves the Secretary and the non-Federal interest
from responsibility for monitoring or demonstrating
mitigation success.''.
(c) 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)(i) a description of the physical action to be
undertaken to achieve the mitigation objectives in the
watershed in which the losses occur; and
``(ii) 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 quantity of types of land or
interests in land that should be acquired for mitigation and
the basis for a determination that the land are available for
acquisition;
``(C) the type, quantity, and characteristics of the
habitat being restored; and
``(D) 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 the 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, the entity
shall be identified in the partnership agreement entered into
with the non-Federal interest.''.
(d) Status Report.--
(1) In general.--Concurrent with the submission of the
President to Congress of the request of the President for
appropriations for the Civil Works Program for a fiscal year,
the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on the
Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives a report describing the status of
construction of projects that require mitigation under
section 906 of Water Resources Development Act 1986 (33
U.S.C. 2283) and the status of that mitigation.
(2) Projects included.--The status report shall include the
status of--
(A) all projects that are under construction as of the date
of the report;
(B) all projects for which the President requests funding
for the next fiscal year; and
(C) all projects that have completed construction, but have
not completed the mitigation required under section 906 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283).
SEC. 2009. STATE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
Section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974
(42 U.S.C. 1962d-16) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Sec. 22. (a) The Secretary'' and
inserting the following:
``SEC. 22. PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES.
``(a) Federal State Cooperation.--
``(1) Comprehensive plans.--The Secretary'';
(2) in subsection (a), by adding at the end 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 the 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)--
(A) by striking ``(c) There is'' and inserting the
following:
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) Federal and state cooperation.--There is'';
(B) in paragraph (1) (as designated by subparagraph (A)),
by striking ``the provisions of this section except that not
more than $500,000 shall be expended in any one year in any
one State.'' and inserting ``subsection (a)(1).''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Technical assistance.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out subsection (a)(2) $10,000,000 for
each fiscal year, of which not more than $2,000,000 for each
fiscal year may be used by the Secretary to enter into
cooperative agreements with nonprofit organizations and State
agencies to provide assistance to rural and small
communities.''; and
(6) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Annual Submission.--For each fiscal year, based on
performance criteria developed by the Secretary, the
Secretary shall list in the annual civil works budget
submitted to Congress the individual activities proposed for
funding under subsection (a)(1) for the fiscal year.''.
SEC. 2010. ACCESS TO WATER RESOURCE DATA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, 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 resource 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. 2011. CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS BY NON-
FEDERAL INTERESTS.
(a) In General.--Section 211(e)(6) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 701b-13(e)(6)) is amended
by adding at the end following:
``(E) Budget priority.--
``(i) In general.--Budget priority for projects under this
section shall be proportionate to the percentage of project
completion.
``(ii) Completed project.--A completed project shall have
the same priority as a project with a contractor on site.''.
(b) 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) Thornton reservoir, cook county, illinois.--An
element of the project for flood control, Chicagoland
Underflow Plan, Illinois.
``(10) St. paul downtown airport (holman field), st. paul,
minnesota.--The project for flood damage reduction, St. Paul
Downtown Holman Field), St. Paul, Minnesota.
``(11) Buffalo bayou, texas.--The project for flood
control, Buffalo Bayou, Texas, authorized by the first
section of the Act of June 20, 1938 (52 Stat. 804, chapter
535) (commonly known as the `River and Harbor Act of 1938')
and modified by section 3a of the Act of August 11, 1939 (53
Stat. 1414, chapter 699) (commonly known as the `Flood
Control Act of 1939'), except that, subject to the approval
of the Secretary as provided by this section, the non-Federal
interest may design and construct an alternative to such
project.
``(12) Halls bayou, texas.--The Halls Bayou element of the
project for flood control, Buffalo Bayou and tributaries,
Texas, authorized by section 101(a)(21) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note),
except that, subject to the approval of the Secretary as
provided by this section, the non-Federal interest may design
and construct an alternative to such project.''.
SEC. 2012. REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT.
(a) In General.--Section 204 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326) is amended to read
as follows:
``(a) In General.--In connection with sediment obtained
through the construction, operation, or maintenance of an
authorized Federal water resources project, the Secretary,
acting through the Chief of Engineers, shall develop Regional
Sediment Management plans and carry out projects at locations
identified in the plan prepared under subsection (e), or
identified jointly by the non-Federal interest and the
Secretary, for use in the construction, repair, modification,
or rehabilitation of projects associated with Federal water
resources projects, for--
``(1) the protection of property;
``(2) the protection, restoration, and creation of aquatic
and ecologically related habitats, including wetlands; and
``(3) the transport and placement of suitable sediment
``(b) Secretarial Findings.--Subject to subsection (c),
projects carried out under subsection (a) may be carried out
in any case in which the Secretary finds that--
``(1) the environmental, economic, and social benefits of
the project, both monetary and nonmonetary, justify the cost
of the project; and
``(2) the project would not result in environmental
degradation.
``(c) Determination of Planning and Project Costs.--
[[Page S7705]]
``(1) In general.--In consultation and cooperation with the
appropriate Federal, State, regional, and local agencies, the
Secretary, acting through the Chief of Engineers, shall
develop at Federal expense plans and projects for regional
management of sediment obtained in conjunction with
construction, operation, and maintenance of Federal water
resources projects.
``(2) Costs of construction.--
``(A) In general.--Costs associated with construction of a
project under this section or identified in a Regional
Sediment Management plan 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 an authorized Federal water
resources project in the most cost-effective way, consistent
with economic, engineering, and environmental criteria.
``(B) Cost sharing.--The determination of any non-Federal
share of the construction cost shall be based on the cost
sharing as specified in subsections (a) through (d) of
section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 2213), for the type of Federal water resource
project using the dredged resource.
[``(3) Total cost.--Total Federal costs associated with
construction of a project under this section shall not exceed
$5,000,000 without Congressional approval.]
``(C) Total cost.--Total Federal costs associated with
construction of a project under this section shall not exceed
$5,000,000 without Congressional approval.
``[(4)] (3) Operation, maintenance, replacement, and
rehabilitation costs.--Operation, maintenance, replacement,
and rehabilitation costs associated with a project are a non-
Federal sponsor responsibility.
``(d) Selection of Sediment Disposal Method for
Environmental Purposes.--
``(1) In general.--In developing and carrying out a Federal
water resources project involving the disposal of material,
the Secretary may select, with the consent of the non-Federal
interest, a disposal method that is not the least-cost option
if the Secretary determines that the incremental costs of the
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.
``(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of such incremental
costs shall be determined in accordance with subsection (c).
``(e) State and Regional Plans.--The Secretary, acting
through the Chief of Engineers, may--
``(1) cooperate with any State in the preparation of a
comprehensive State or regional coastal sediment management
plan within the boundaries of the State;
``(2) encourage State participation in the implementation
of the plan; and
``(3) submit to Congress reports and recommendations with
respect to appropriate Federal participation in carrying out
the plan.
``(f) Priority Areas.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall give priority to regional sediment management
projects in the vicinity of--
``(1) Fire Island Inlet, Suffolk County, New York;
``(2) Fletcher Cove, California;
``(3) Delaware River Estuary, New Jersey and Pennsylvania;
and
``(4) Toledo Harbor, Lucas County, Ohio.
``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000
during each fiscal year, to remain available until expended,
for the Federal costs identified under subsection (c), of
which up to $5,000,000 shall be used for the development of
regional sediment management plans as provided in subsection
(e).
``(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.''.
(b) Repeal.--
(1) In general.--Section 145 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j) is repealed.
(2) Existing projects.--The Secretary, acting through the
Chief of Engineers, may complete any project being carried
out under section 145 on the day before the date of enactment
of this Act.
SEC. 2013. NATIONAL SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--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 to read as follows:
``SEC. 3. STORM AND HURRICANE RESTORATION AND IMPACT
MINIMIZATION PROGRAM.
``(a) Construction of Small Shore and Beach Restoration and
Protection Projects.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may carry out construction
of small shore and beach restoration and protection projects
not specifically authorized by Congress that otherwise comply
with the first section of this Act if the Secretary
determines that such construction is advisable.
``(2) Local cooperation.--The local cooperation requirement
under the first section of this Act shall apply to a project
under this section.
``(3) Completeness.--A project under this section--
``(A) shall be complete; and
``(B) shall not commit the United States to any additional
improvement to ensure the successful operation of the
project, except for participation in periodic beach
nourishment in accordance with--
``(i) the first section of this Act; and
``(ii) the procedure for projects authorized after
submission of a survey report.
``(b) National Shoreline Erosion Control Development and
Demonstration Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the Chief
of Engineers, shall conduct a national shoreline erosion
control development and demonstration program (referred to in
this section as the `program').
``(2) Requirements.--
``(A) In general.--The program shall include provisions
for--
``(i) projects consisting of planning, design,
construction, and adequate monitoring of prototype engineered
and native and naturalized vegetative shoreline erosion
control devices and methods;
``(ii) detailed engineering and environmental reports on
the results of each project carried out under the program;
and
``(iii) technology transfers, as appropriate, to private
property owners, State and local entities, nonprofit
educational institutions, and nongovernmental organizations.
``(B) Determination of feasibility.--A project under this
section shall not be carried out until the Secretary, acting
through the Chief of Engineers, determines that the project
is feasible.
``(C) Emphasis.--A project carried out under the program
shall emphasize, to the maximum extent practicable--
``(i) the development and demonstration of innovative
technologies;
``(ii) efficient designs to prevent erosion at a shoreline
site, taking into account the lifecycle cost of the design,
including cleanup, maintenance, and amortization;
``(iii) new and enhanced shore protection project design
and project formulation tools the purposes of which are to
improve the physical performance, and lower the lifecycle
costs, of the projects;
``(iv) natural designs, including the use of native and
naturalized vegetation or temporary structures that minimize
permanent structural alterations to the shoreline;
``(v) the avoidance of negative impacts to adjacent
shorefront communities;
``(vi) the potential for long-term protection afforded by
the technology; and
``(vii) recommendations developed from evaluations of the
program established under the Shoreline Erosion Control
Demonstration Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962-5 note; 88 Stat.
26), including--
``(I) adequate consideration of the subgrade;
``(II) proper filtration;
``(III) durable components;
``(IV) adequate connection between units; and
``(V) consideration of additional relevant information.
``(D) Sites.--
``(i) In general.--Each project under the program shall be
carried out at--
``(I) a privately owned site with substantial public
access; or
``(II) a publicly owned site on open coast or in tidal
waters.
``(ii) Selection.--The Secretary, acting through the Chief
of Engineers, shall develop criteria for the selection of
sites for projects under the program, including criteria
based on--
``(I) a variety of geographic and climatic conditions;
``(II) the size of the population that is dependent on the
beaches for recreation or the protection of private property
or public infrastructure;
``(III) the rate of erosion;
``(IV) significant natural resources or habitats and
environmentally sensitive areas; and
``(V) significant threatened historic structures or
landmarks.
``(3) Consultation.--The Secretary, acting through the
Chief of Engineers, shall carry out the program in
consultation with--
``(A) the Secretary of Agriculture, particularly with
respect to native and naturalized vegetative means of
preventing and controlling shoreline erosion;
``(B) Federal, State, and local agencies;
``(C) private organizations;
``(D) the Coastal Engineering Research Center established
by the first section of Public Law 88-172 (33 U.S.C. 426-1);
and
``(E) applicable university research facilities.
``(4) Completion of demonstration.--After carrying out the
initial construction and evaluation of the performance and
lifecycle cost of a demonstration project under this section,
the Secretary, acting through the Chief of Engineers, may--
``(A) at the request of a non-Federal interest of the
project, amend the agreement for a federally-authorized shore
protection project in existence on the date on which initial
construction of the demonstration project is complete to
incorporate the demonstration project as a feature of the
shore protection project, with the future cost of the
demonstration project to be determined by the cost-sharing
ratio of the shore protection project; or
``(B) transfer all interest in and responsibility for the
completed demonstration
[[Page S7706]]
project to the non-Federal or other Federal agency interest
of the project.
``(5) Agreements.--The Secretary, acting through the Chief
of Engineers, may enter into an agreement with the non-
Federal or other Federal agency interest of a project under
this section--
``(A) to share the costs of construction, operation,
maintenance, and monitoring of a project under the program;
``(B) to share the costs of removing a project or project
element constructed under the program, if the Secretary
determines that the project or project element is detrimental
to private property, public infrastructure, or public safety;
or
``(C) to specify ownership of a completed project that the
Chief of Engineers determines will not be part of a Corps of
Engineers project.
``(6) Report.--Not later than December 31 of each year
beginning after the date of enactment of this paragraph, the
Secretary shall prepare and 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 describing--
``(A) the activities carried out and accomplishments made
under the program during the preceding year; and
``(B) any recommendations of the Secretary relating to the
program.
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary
may expend, from any appropriations made available to the
Secretary for the purpose of carrying out civil works, not
more than $30,000,000 during any fiscal year to pay the
Federal share of the costs of construction of small shore and
beach restoration and protection projects or small projects
under the program.
``(2) Limitation.--The total amount expended for a project
under this section shall--
``(A) be sufficient to pay the cost of Federal
participation in the project (including periodic nourishment
as provided for under the first section of this Act), as
determined by the Secretary; and
``(B) be not more than $3,000,000.''.
(b) Repeal.--Section 5 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. 426e et seq.; 110 Stat. 3700) is repealed.
SEC. 2014. 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 shore
protection projects 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; 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
in existence on the date of enactment of this Act).
SEC. 2015. COST SHARING FOR MONITORING.
(a) In General.--Costs incurred for monitoring for an
ecosystem restoration project shall be cost-shared--
(1) in accordance with the formula relating to the
applicable original construction project; and
(2) for a maximum period of 10 years.
(b) Aggregate Limitation.--Monitoring costs for an
ecosystem restoration project--
(1) shall not exceed in the aggregate, for a 10-year
period, an amount equal to 5 percent of the cost of the
applicable original construction project; and
(2) after the 10-year period, shall be 100 percent non-
Federal.
SEC. 2016. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION BENEFITS.
For each of the following projects, the Corps of Engineers
shall include ecosystem restoration benefits in the
calculation of benefits for the project:
(1) Grayson's Creek, California.
(2) Seven Oaks, California.
(3) Oxford, California.
(4) Walnut Creek, California.
(5) Wildcat Phase II, California.
SEC. 2017. FUNDING TO EXPEDITE THE EVALUATION AND PROCESSING
OF PERMITS.
Section 214(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
2000 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note; 114 Stat. 2594) is amended by
striking ``In fiscal years 2001 through 2003, the'' and
inserting ``The''.
SEC. 2018. ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF PERMIT APPLICATIONS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall implement a
program to allow electronic submission of permit applications
for permits under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers.
(b) Limitations.--This section does not preclude the
submission of a hard copy, as required.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $3,000,000.
SEC. 2019. IMPROVEMENT OF WATER MANAGEMENT AT CORPS OF
ENGINEERS RESERVOIRS.
(a) In General.--As part of the operation and maintenance,
by the Corps of Engineers, of reservoirs in operation as of
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall carry
out the measures described in subsection (c) to support the
water resource needs of project sponsors and any affected
State, local, or tribal government for authorized project
purposes.
(b) Cooperation.--The Secretary shall carry out the
measures described in subsection (c) in cooperation and
coordination with project sponsors and any affected State,
local, or tribal government.
(c) Measures.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary
may--
(1) conduct a study to identify unused, underused, or
additional water storage capacity at reservoirs;
(2) review an operational plan and identify any change to
maximize an authorized project purpose to improve water
storage capacity and enhance efficiency of releases and
withdrawal of water;
(3) improve and update data, data collection, and
forecasting models to maximize an authorized project purpose
and improve water storage capacity and delivery to water
users; and
(4) conduct a sediment study and implement any sediment
management or removal measure.
(d) Revenues.--
(1) In general.--Revenues collected in connection with
water storage for municipal or industrial water supply at a
reservoir operated by the Corps of Engineers for navigation,
flood control, or multiple purpose projects shall be credited
to the revolving fund established under section 101 of the
Civil Functions Appropriations Act, 1954 (33 U.S.C. 701b-10).
(2) Availability.--
(A) District from which revenue is received.--
(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), 80 percent of the
revenue received from each District of the Corps of Engineers
shall be available for defraying the costs of planning,
operation, maintenance, replacements, and upgrades of, and
emergency expenditures for, any facility of the Corps of
Engineers projects within that District.
(ii) Source of payments.--With respect to each activity
described in clause (i), costs of planning, operation,
maintenance, replacements, and upgrades of a facility of the
Corps of Engineers for the project shall be paid from
available revenues received from [the] that project.
(B) Agency-wide.--20 percent of the revenue received from
each District of the Corps of Engineers shall be available
agency-wide for defraying the costs of planning, operation,
maintenance, replacements, and upgrades of, and emergency
expenditures for, all Corps of Engineers projects.
(3) Special cases.--
(A) Costs of water supply storage.--In the case of a
reservoir operated or maintained by the Corps of Engineers on
the date of enactment of this Act, the storage charge for a
future contract or contract renewal for the first cost of
water supply storage at the reservoir shall be the lesser of
the estimated cost of purposes foregone, replacement costs,
or the updated cost of storage.
(B) Reallocation.--In the case of a water supply that is
reallocated from another project purpose to municipal or
industrial water supply, the joint use costs for the
reservoir shall be adjusted to reflect the reallocation of
project purposes.
(C) Credit for affected project purposes.--In the case of a
reallocation that adversely affects hydropower generation,
the Secretary shall defer to the Administrator of the
respective Power Marketing Administration to calculate the
impact of such a reallocation on the rates for hydroelectric
power.
SEC. 2020. CORPS OF ENGINEERS HYDROPOWER OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE FUNDING.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding the last sentence of
section 5 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (commonly known as
the ``Flood Control Act of 1944'') (58 Stat. 890, chapter
665; 16 U.S.C. 825s), the 11th paragraph under the heading
``Office of the Secretary'' in title I of the Act of October
12, 1949 (63 Stat. 767, chapter 680; 16 U.S.C. 825s-1), the
matter under the heading ``Continuing fund, southeastern
power administration'' in title I of the Act of August 31,
1951 (65 Stat. 249, chapter 375; 16 U.S.C. 825s-2), section
3302 of title 31, United States Code, or any other law, and
without further appropriation or fiscal year limitation, for
fiscal year 2005 as set forth in subsection (c) and each
fiscal year thereafter, the Administrator of the Southeastern
Power Administration, the Administrator of the Southwestern
Power Administration, and the Administrator of the Western
Area Power Administration may credit to the Secretary of the
Army (referred to in this section as the ``Secretary''),
receipts from the sale of power and related services, in an
amount determined under subsection (c).
(b) Use of Funds.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary--
(A) shall, except as provided in paragraph (2), use an
amount credited under subsection (a) to fund only the Corps
of Engineers annual operation and maintenance activities
[[Page S7707]]
that are allocated exclusively to the power function and
assigned to the respective power marketing administration and
respective project system as applicable for repayment; and
(B) shall not use an amount credited under subsection (a)
for any cost allocated to a non-power function of Corps of
Engineer operations.
(2) Exception.--The Secretary may use an amount credited by
the Southwestern Power Administration under subsection (a)
for capital and nonrecurring costs and may use an amount
credited by Southeastern Power Administration for capital and
nonrecurring costs, if no credit exceeds the rates on file at
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the Southeastern
Power Administration.
(c) Amount.--The amount credited under subsection (a) shall
be equal to an amount that--
(1) the Secretary requests; and
(2) the appropriate Administrator, in consultation with the
Secretary and the power customers of the power marketing
administration of the Administrator, determines to be
appropriate to apply to the costs referred to in subsection
(b).
(d) Consultation.--
(1) Time frame.--Not later than the date that is 20 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the appropriate
Administrator shall submit to the Appropriations Committee a
report describing the time frame during which the
consultation process described in subsection (c) shall be
completed.
(2) Failure to agree.--If the Secretary and the appropriate
Administrator and customer representatives cannot agree on
the amount to be credited under subsection (c), the
appropriate Administrator shall determine the amount to be
credited.
(e) Applicable Law.--An amount credited under subsection
(a) is exempt from sequestration under the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901 et
seq.).
SEC. 2021. FEDERAL HOPPER DREDGES.
(a) Elimination of Restriction on Use.--Section 3(c)(7)(B)
of the Act of August 11, 1888 (33 U.S.C. 622; 25 Stat. 423)
is amended by adding at the end the following: ``This
subparagraph shall not apply to the Federal hopper dredges
Essayons and Yaquina of the Corps of Engineers.''.
(b) Decommission.--Section 563 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3784) is amended to read
as follows:
``SEC. 563. HOPPER DREDGE MCFARLAND.
``Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2005, the Secretary shall
promulgate such regulations and take such actions as the
Secretary determines to be necessary to decommission the
Federal hopper dredge Mcfarland.''.
SEC. 2022. OBSTRUCTION TO NAVIGATION.
Section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403), is
amended by adding at the end the following: ``Nothing in this
section shall be construed as to provide for the regulation
of activities or structures on private property, unless the
Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the
department in which the Coast Guard is operating, determines
that such activity would pose a threat to the safe transit of
maritime traffic.''.
Subtitle B--Continuing Authorities Projects
SEC. 2031. NAVIGATION ENHANCEMENTS FOR WATERBOURNE
TRANSPORTATION.
Section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C.
577) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Sec. 107. (a) That the Secretary of the
Army is hereby authorized to'' and inserting the following:
``SEC. 107. NAVIGATION ENHANCEMENTS FOR WATERBOURNE
TRANSPORTATION.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Army may'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``(b) Not more'' and inserting the
following:
``(b) Allotment.--Not more''; and
(B) by striking ``$4,000,000'' and inserting
``$7,000,000'';
(3) in subsection (c), by striking ``(c) Local'' and
inserting the following:
``(c) Local Contributions.--Local'';
(4) in subsection (d), by striking ``(d) Non-Federal'' and
inserting the following:
``(d) Non-Federal Share.--Non-Federal'';
(5) in subsection (e), by striking ``(e) Each'' and
inserting the following:
``(e) Completion.--Each''; and
(6) in subsection (f), by striking ``(f) This'' and
inserting the following:
``(f) Applicability.--This''.
SEC. 2032. PROTECTION AND RESTORATION DUE TO EMERGENCIES AT
SHORES AND STREAMBANKS.
Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C.
701r) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$15,000,000'' and inserting
``$20,000,000''; and
(2) by striking ``$1,000,000'' and inserting
``$1,500,000''.
SEC. 2033. RESTORATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT FOR PROTECTION OF
AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEMS PROGRAM.
Section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(33 U.S.C. 2330) is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and inserting the
following:
``SEC. 206. RESTORATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT FOR PROTECTION OF
AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEMS PROGRAM.'';
(2) in subsection (a), by striking ``an aquatic'' and
inserting ``a freshwater aquatic''; and
(3) in subsection (e), by striking ``$25,000,000'' and
inserting ``$75,000,000''.
SEC. 2034. ENVIRONMENTAL MODIFICATION OF PROJECTS FOR
IMPROVEMENT AND RESTORATION OF ECOSYSTEMS
PROGRAM.
Section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 2309a) is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and inserting the
following:
``SEC. 1135. ENVIRONMENTAL MODIFICATION OF PROJECTS FOR
IMPROVEMENT AND RESTORATION OF ECOSYSTEMS
PROGRAM.'';
and
(2) in subsection (h), by striking ``25,000,000'' and
inserting ``$50,000,000''.
SEC. 2035. PROJECTS TO ENHANCE ESTUARIES AND COASTAL
HABITATS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out an estuary
habitat restoration project if the Secretary determines that
the project--
(1) will improve the elements and features of an estuary
(as defined in section 103 of the Estuaries and Clean Waters
Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2902));
(2) is in the public interest; and
(3) is cost-effective.
(b) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of
construction of any project under this section--
(1) shall be 35 percent; and
(2) shall include the costs of all land, easements, rights-
of-way, and necessary relocations.
(c) Agreements.--Construction of a project under this
section shall commence only after a non-Federal interest has
entered into a binding agreement with the Secretary to pay--
(1) the non-Federal share of the costs of construction
required under subsection (b); and
(2) in accordance with regulations promulgated by the
Secretary, 100 percent of the costs of any operation,
maintenance, replacement, or rehabilitation of the project.
(d) Limitation.--Not more than $5,000,000 in Federal funds
may be allocated under this section for a project at any 1
location.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000 for
each fiscal year beginning after the date of enactment of
this Act.
SEC. 2036. REMEDIATION OF ABANDONED MINE SITES.
Section 560 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(33 U.S.C. 2336; 113 Stat. 354-355) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (f);
(2) by redesignating subsections (a) through (e) as
subsections (b) through (f), respectively;
(3) by inserting before subsection (b) (as redesignated by
paragraph (2)) the following:
``(a) Definition of Non-Federal Interest.--In this section,
the term `non-Federal interest' includes, with the consent of
the affected local government, nonprofit entities,
notwithstanding section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970
(42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b).'';
(4) in subsection (b) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)),
by--
(A) by inserting ``, and construction'' before
``assistance''; and
(B) by inserting ``, including, with the consent of the
affected local government, nonprofit entities,'' after ``non-
Federal interests'';
(5) in paragraph (3) of subsection (c) (as redesignated by
paragraph (2))--
(A) by inserting ``physical hazards and'' after
``adverse''; and
(B) by striking ``drainage from'';
(6) in subsection (d) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)),
by striking ``50'' and inserting ``25''; and
(7) by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Operation and Maintenance.--The non-Federal share of
the costs of operation and maintenance for a project carried
out under this section shall be 100 percent.
``(h) No Effect on Liability.--The provision of assistance
under this section shall not relieve from liability any
person that would otherwise be liable under Federal or State
law for damages, response costs, natural resource damages,
restitution, equitable relief, or any other relief.
``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section for each fiscal
year $45,000,000, to remain available until expended.''.
SEC. 2037. SMALL PROJECTS FOR THE REHABILITATION OR REMOVAL
OF DAMS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out a small dam
removal or rehabilitation project if the Secretary determines
that the project will improve the quality of the environment
or is in the public interest.
(b) Cost Sharing.--A non-Federal interest shall provide 35
percent of the cost of the removal or remediation of any
project carried out under this section, including provision
of all land, easements, rights-of-way, and necessary
relocations.
(c) Agreements.--Construction of a project under this
section shall be commenced only after a non-Federal interest
has entered into a binding agreement with the Secretary to
pay--
(1) the non-Federal share of the costs of construction
required by this section; and
(2) 100 percent of any operation and maintenance cost.
(d) Cost Limitation.--Not more than $5,000,000 in Federal
funds may be allotted under this section for a project at any
single location.
(e) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section $25,000,000 for each fiscal year.
[[Page S7708]]
SEC. 2038. REMOTE, MARITIME-DEPENDENT COMMUNITIES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall develop eligibility
criteria for Federal participation in navigation projects
located in economically disadvantaged communities that are--
(1) dependent on water transportation for subsistence; and
(2) located in--
(A) remote areas of the United States;
(B) American Samoa;
(C) Guam;
(D) the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands;
(E) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; or
(F) the United States Virgin Islands.
(b) Administration.--The criteria developed under this
section--
(1) shall--
(A) provide for economic expansion; and
(B) identify opportunities for promoting economic growth;
and
(2) shall not require project justification solely on the
basis of National Economic Development benefits received.
SEC. 2039. AGREEMENTS FOR WATER RESOURCE PROJECTS.
(a) Partnership Agreements.--Section 221 of the Flood
Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) (as amended by
section 2001) is amended--
[(1) in subsection (a)--
[(A) by striking ``After the date of enactment'' and
inserting the following:
``[(1) In general.--After the date of enactment'';
[(B) by striking ``under the provisions'' and all that
follows through ``under any other'' and inserting ``under
any'';
[(C) by inserting ``partnership'' after ``written'';
[(D) by striking ``Secretary of the Army to furnish its
required cooperation for'' and inserting ``district engineer
for the district in which the project will be carried out
under which each party agrees to carry out its
responsibilities and requirements for implementation or
construction of'';
[(E) by inserting after ``$25,000.'' the following:
[``(2) Liquidated damages.--An agreement described in
paragraph (1) may include a provision for liquidated damages
in the event of a failure of 1 or more parties to perform.'';
and
[(F) by striking ``In any such agreement'' and inserting
the following:
[``(3) Obligation of future appropriations.--In any
agreement described in paragraph (1)'';]
[(2)] (1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection
(g); and
[(3)] (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
``(e) Public Health and Safety.--If the Secretary
determines that a project needs to be continued for the
purpose of public health and safety--
``(1) the non-Federal interest shall pay the increased
projects costs, up to an amount equal to 20 percent of the
original estimated project costs and in accordance with the
statutorily-determined cost share; and
``(2) notwithstanding the statutorily-determined Federal
share, the Secretary shall pay all increased costs remaining
after payment of 20 percent of the increased costs by the
non-Federal interest under paragraph (1).
``(f) Limitation.--Nothing in subsection (a) limits the
authority of the Secretary to ensure that a partnership
agreement meets the requirements of law and policies of the
Secretary in effect on the date of execution of the
partnership agreement.''.
(b) Local Cooperation.--Section 912(b) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4190) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``shall'' and
inserting ``may''; and
(B) by striking the second sentence; and
(2) in paragraph (4)--
(A) in the first sentence--
(i) by striking ``injunction, for'' and inserting the
following: ``injunction and payment of liquidated damages,
for''; and
(ii) by striking ``to collect a civil penalty imposed under
this section,''; and
(B) in the second sentence, by striking ``any civil penalty
imposed under this section,'' and inserting ``any liquidated
damages,''.
(c) Applicability.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) apply only to
partnership agreements entered into after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the district
engineer for the district in which a project is located may
amend the partnership agreement for the project entered into
on or before the date of enactment of this Act--
(A) at the request of a non-Federal interest for a project;
and
(B) if construction on the project has not been initiated
as of the date of enactment of this Act.
(d) References.--
(1) 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.
(2) Partnership agreements.--Any reference to a partnership
agreement or project partnership agreement in this Act (other
than in this section) shall be considered to be a reference
to a cooperation agreement or a project cooperation
agreement, respectively.
SEC. 2040. PROGRAM NAMES.
[(a) Storm and Hurricane Restoration and Impact
Minimization Program.--Section 3 of the Act of August 13,
1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g) is amended by striking ``Sec. 3. The
Secretary'' and inserting the following:
``SEC. 3. STORM AND HURRICANE RESTORATION AND IMPACT
MINIMIZATION PROGRAM.
[``The Secretary''.
[(b) Projects to Enhance Reduction of Flooding and Obtain
Risk Minimization.]--Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of
1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) is amended by striking ``Sec. 205. That
the'' and inserting the following:
``SEC. 205. PROJECTS TO ENHANCE REDUCTION OF FLOODING AND
OBTAIN RISK MINIMIZATION.
``The''.
TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
SEC. 3001. 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. 3002. 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 is necessary to correct
design deficiencies in the element, at a Federal cost of
$6,300,000.
SEC. 3003. BLACK WARRIOR-TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, ALABAMA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall construct a new
project management office located in the city of Tuscaloosa,
Alabama, at a location within the vicinity of the city, at
full Federal expense.
(b) Transfer of Land and Structures.--The Secretary shall
sell, convey, or otherwise transfer to the city of
Tuscaloosa, Alabama, at fair market value, the land and
structures associated with the existing project management
office, if the city agrees to assume full responsibility for
demolition of the existing project management office.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out subsection (a) $32,000,000.
SEC. 3004. AUGUSTA AND CLARENDON, ARKANSAS.
The Secretary may carry out rehabilitation of authorized
and completed levees on the White River between Augusta and
Clarendon, Arkansas, at a total estimated cost of $8,000,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $5,200,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $2,800,000.
SEC. 3005. ST. FRANCIS BASIN, ARKANSAS AND MISSOURI.
(a) In General.--The project for flood control, St. Francis
River Basin, Arkansas, and Missouri, authorized the Act of
June 15, 1936 (49 Stat. 1508, chapter 548), as modified, is
further modified to authorize the Secretary to undertake
channel stabilization and sediment removal measures on the
St. Francis River and tributaries as an integral part of the
original project.
(b) No Separable Element.--The measures undertaken under
subsection (a) shall not be considered to be a separable
element of the project.
SEC. 3006. ST. FRANCIS BASIN LAND TRANSFER, ARKANSAS AND
MISSOURI.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall convey to the State of
Arkansas, without monetary consideration and subject to
subsection (b), all right, title, and interest to land 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 Act of May
15, 1928 (33 U.S.C. 702a et seq.) (commonly known as the
``Flood Control Act of 1928'').
(b) Terms and Conditions.--
(1) In general.--The conveyance by the United States under
this section shall be subject to--
(A) the condition that the State of Arkansas (including the
successors and assigns of the State) agree to operate,
maintain, and manage the land at no cost or expense to the
United States and for fish and wildlife, recreation, and
environmental purposes; and
(B) such other terms and conditions as the Secretary
determines to be in the interest of the United States.
(2) Reversion.--If the State (or a successor or assign of
the State) ceases to operate, maintain, and manage the land
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.
SEC. 3007. RED-OUACHITA RIVER BASIN LEVEES, ARKANSAS AND
LOUISIANA.
(a) In General.--Section 204 of the Flood Control Act of
1950 (64 Stat. 170) is amended in the matter under the
heading ``Red-ouachita river basin'' by striking ``at Calion,
Arkansas'' and inserting ``improvements at Calion, Arkansas
(including authorization for the comprehensive flood-control
project for Ouachita River and tributaries, incorporating in
the project all flood control, drainage, and power
improvements
[[Page S7709]]
in the basin above the lower end of the left bank Ouachita
River levee)''.
(b) Modification.--Section 3 of the Act of August 18, 1941,
is amended in the second sentence of subsection (a) in the
matter under the heading ``Lower mississippi river'' (55
Stat. 642, chapter 377) by inserting before the period at the
end the following: ``Provided, That the Ouachita River
Levees, Louisiana, authorized under the first section of the
Act of May 15, 1928 (45 Stat. 534, chapter 569) shall remain
as a component of the Mississippi River and Tributaries
Project and afforded operation and maintenance
responsibilities as directed in section 3 of that Act (45
Stat. 535)''.
SEC. 3008. MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM,
ARKANSAS AND OKLAHOMA.
(a) Navigation Channel.--The Secretary shall continue
construction of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation
System, Arkansas and Oklahoma, to operate and maintain the
navigation channel to the authorized depth of the channel, in
accordance with section 136 of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-137; 117
Stat. 1842).
(b) Mitigation.--
(1) In general.--As mitigation for any incidental taking
relating to the McClellan-Kerr Navigation System, the
Secretary shall determine the need for, and construct
modifications in, the structures and operations of the
Arkansas River in the area of Tulsa County, Oklahoma,
including the construction of low water dams and islands to
provide nesting and foraging habitat for the interior least
tern, in accordance with the study entitled ``Arkansas River
Corridor Master Plan Planning Assistance to States''.
(2) Cost sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of a
project under this subsection shall be 35 percent.
(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $12,000,000.
SEC. [3008] 3009. CACHE CREEK BASIN, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--The project for flood control, Cache Creek
Basin, California, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4112), is
modified to direct the Secretary to mitigate the impacts of
the new south levee of the Cache Creek settling basin on the
storm drainage system of the city of Woodland, including all
appurtenant features, erosion control measures, and
environmental protection features.
(b) Objectives.--Mitigation under subsection (a) shall
restore the pre-project capacity of the city (1,360 cubic
feet per second) to release water to the Yolo Bypass,
including--
(1) channel improvements;
(2) an outlet work through the west levee of the Yolo
Bypass; and
(3) a new low flow cross channel to handle city and county
storm drainage and settling basin flows (1,760 cubic feet per
second) when the Yolo Bypass is in a low flow condition.
SEC. [3009] 3010. 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 include the diked bayland parcel known as ``Bel
Marin Keys Unit V '' at an estimated 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, as part of
the project to be carried out by the Secretary substantially
in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions,
recommended in the final report of the Chief of Engineers
dated July 19, 2004.
SEC. [3010] 3011. LA-3 DREDGED MATERIAL OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE
DESIGNATION, CALIFORNIA.
Section 102(c)(4) of the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1412(c)(4)) is amended in
the third sentence by striking ``January 1, 2003'' and
inserting ``January 1, 2007''.
SEC. [3011] 3012. LARKSPUR FERRY CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.
(a) Report.--The project for navigation, Larkspur Ferry
Channel, Larkspur, California, authorized by section 601(d)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat.
4148), is modified to direct the Secretary to prepare a
limited reevaluation report to determine whether maintenance
of the project is feasible.
(b) Authorization of Project.--If the Secretary determines
that maintenance of the project is feasible, the Secretary
shall carry out the maintenance.
SEC. [3012] 3013. 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 complete the project,
in accordance with the requirements of local cooperation as
specified in section 5 of the Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1005), at a total remaining cost of
$95,000,000, with an estimated remaining Federal cost of
$55,000,000, and an estimated remaining non-Federal cost of
$40,000,000.
SEC. [3013] 3014. LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CALIFORNIA.
Section 101(b)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of
2000 (114 Stat. 2577) is amended by striking ``$153,313,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $43,735,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $109,578,000'' and inserting
``$222,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $72,000,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $150,000,000''.
SEC. [3014] 3015. MAGPIE CREEK, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), 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
applicable to nonstructural flood control under 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) Crediting.--The crediting allowed under subsection (a)
shall not exceed the non-Federal share of the cost of the
project.
SEC. [3015] 3016. PINE FLAT DAM FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT,
CALIFORNIA.
(a) Cooperative Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall participate with
appropriate State and local agencies in the implementation of
a cooperative program to improve and manage fisheries and
aquatic habitat conditions in Pine Flat Reservoir and in the
14-mile reach of the Kings River immediately below Pine Flat
Dam, California, in a manner that--
(A) provides for long-term aquatic resource enhancement;
and
(B) avoids adverse effects on water storage and water
rights holders.
(2) Goals and principles.--The cooperative program
described in paragraph (1) shall be carried out--
(A) substantially in accordance with the goals and
principles of the document entitled ``Kings River Fisheries
Management Program Framework Agreement'' and dated May 29,
1999, between the California Department of Fish and Game and
the Kings River Water Association and the Kings River
Conservation District; and
(B) in cooperation with the parties to that agreement.
(b) Participation by Secretary.--
(1) In general.--In furtherance of the goals of the
agreement described in subsection (a)(2), the Secretary shall
participate in the planning, design, and construction of
projects and pilot projects on the Kings River and its
tributaries to enhance aquatic habitat and water availability
for fisheries purposes (including maintenance of a trout
fishery) in accordance with flood control operations, water
rights, and beneficial uses in existence as of the date of
enactment of this Act.
(2) Projects.--Projects referred to in paragraph (1) may
include--
(A) projects to construct or improve pumping, conveyance,
and storage facilities to enhance water transfers; and
(B) projects to carry out water exchanges and create
opportunities to use floodwater within and downstream of Pine
Flat Reservoir.
(c) No Authorization of Certain Dam-Related Projects.--
Nothing in this section authorizes any project for the
raising of Pine Flat Dam or the construction of a multilevel
intake structure at Pine Flat Dam.
(d) 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
document entitled ``Final Feasibility Report and Report of
the Chief of Engineers for Pine Flat Dam Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Restoration'' and dated July 19, 2002.
(e) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Project planning, design, and construction.--The
Federal share of the cost of planning, design, and
construction of a project under subsection (b) shall be 65
percent.
(2) Non-federal share.--
(A) Credit for land, easements, and rights-of-way.--The
Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the
cost of construction of any project under subsection (b) the
value, regardless of the date of acquisition, of any land,
easements, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal areas, or
relocations provided by the non-Federal interest for use in
carrying out the project.
[(A)] (B) Form.--The non-Federal interest may provide not
more than 50 percent of the non-Federal share required under
this clause in the form of services, materials, supplies, or
other in-kind contributions.
(f) Operation and Maintenance.--The operation, maintenance,
repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of projects carried
out under this section shall be a non-Federal responsibility.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000, to
remain available until expended.
SEC. [3016] 3017. REDWOOD CITY NAVIGATION PROJECT,
CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary may dredge the Redwood City Navigation
Channel, California, on an annual basis, to maintain the
authorized depth of -30 mean lower low water.
SEC. [3017] 3018. SACRAMENTO AND AMERICAN RIVERS FLOOD
CONTROL, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall credit toward that
portion of the non-Federal share of the costs of any flood
damage reduction project authorized before the date of
enactment of this Act that is to be paid by the Sacramento
Area Flood Control Agency an amount equal to the Federal
share of the flood control project authorized by section 9159
of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1993 (106
Stat. 1944).
[[Page S7710]]
(b) Federal Share.--In determining the Federal share of the
project authorized by section 9159(b) of that Act, the
Secretary shall include all audit verified costs for
planning, engineering, construction, acquisition of project
land, easements, right-of-way, relocations, and
environmental, mitigation for all project elements that the
Secretary determines to be cost-effective.
(c) Amount Credited.--The amount credited shall be equal to
the Federal share determined under this section, reduced by
the total of all reimbursements paid to the non-Federal
interests for work under section 9159(b) of that Act before
the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. [3018] 3019. CONDITIONAL DECLARATION OF NONNAVIGABILITY,
PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA.
(a) Conditional Declaration of Nonnavigability.--If the
Secretary determines, in consultation with appropriate
Federal and non-Federal entities, that projects proposed to
be carried out by non-Federal entities within the portions of
the San Francisco, California, waterfront described in
subsection (b) are not in the public interest, the portions
shall be declared not to be navigable water of the United
States for the purposes of section 9 of the Act of March 3,
1899 (33 U.S.C. 401) and the General Bridge Act of 1946 (33
U.S.C. 525 et seq.).
(b) Portions of Waterfront.--The portions of the San
Francisco, California, waterfront referred to in subsection
(a) are those that are, or will be, bulkheaded, filled, or
otherwise occupied by permanent structures and that are
located as follows: beginning at the intersection of the
northeasterly prolongation of the 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 from the existing southern boundary of Pier
40 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 Bryan Street northwesterly; thence
southwesterly along said northwesterly line of Bryant Street
to the point of beginning.
(c) Requirement That Area Be Improved.--If, by the date
that is 20 years after the date of enactment of this Act, any
portion of the San Francisco, California, waterfront
described in subsection (b) has not been bulkheaded, filled,
or otherwise occupied by 1 or more permanent structures, or
if work in connection with any activity carried out pursuant
to applicable Federal law requiring a permit, including
sections 9 and 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C.
401), is not commenced by the date that is 5 years after the
date of issuance of such a permit, the declaration of
nonnavigability for the portion under this section shall
cease to be effective.
SEC. [3019] 3020. SALTON SEA RESTORATION, CALIFORNIA.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Salton sea authority.--The term ``Salton Sea
Authority'' means the Joint Powers Authority established
under the laws of the State of California by a joint power
agreement signed on June 2, 1993.
(2) Salton sea science office.--The term ``Salton Sea
Science Office'' means the Office established by the United
States Geological Survey and currently located in La Quinta,
California.
(b) Pilot Projects.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall review the preferred
restoration concept plan approved by the Salton Sea Authority
to determine that the pilot projects are economically
justified, technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and
meet the objectives of the Salton Sea Reclamation Act (Public
Law 105-372). If the Secretary makes a positive
determination, the Secretary may enter into an agreement with
the Salton Sea Authority and, in consultation with the Salton
Sea Science Office, carry out the pilot project for
improvement of the environment in the Salton Sea, except that
the Secretary shall be a party to each contract for
construction under this subsection.
(2) Local participation.--In prioritizing pilot projects
under this section, the Secretary shall--
(A) consult with the Salton Sea Authority and the Salton
Sea Science Office; and
(B) consider the priorities of the Salton Sea Authority.
(3) Cost sharing.--Before carrying out a pilot project
under this section, the Secretary shall enter into a written
agreement with the Salton Sea Authority that requires the
non-Federal interest to--
(A) pay 35 percent of the total costs of the pilot project;
(B) acquire any land, easements, rights-of-way,
relocations, and dredged material disposal areas necessary to
carry out the pilot project; and
(C) hold the United States harmless from any claim or
damage that may arise from carrying out the pilot project,
except any claim or damage that may arise from the negligence
of the Federal Government or a contractor of the Federal
Government.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out subsection (b) $26,000,000,
of which not more than $5,000,000 may be used for any 1 pilot
project under this section.
SEC. [3020] 3021. UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CALIFORNIA.
The project for flood damage reduction and recreation,
Upper Guadalupe River, California, 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 generally in accordance with the Upper
Guadalupe River Flood Damage Reduction, San Jose, California,
Limited Reevaluation Report, dated March, 2004, at a total
cost of $212,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$113,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$98,800,000.
SEC. [3021] 3022. 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 to authorize the Secretary to construct the project
at a total cost of $107,700,000, with an estimated Federal
share of $70,000,000 and a non-Federal share of $37,700,000.
SEC. [3022] 3023. CHARLES HERVEY TOWNSHEND BREAKWATER, NEW
HAVEN HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.
The western breakwater for the project for navigation, New
Haven Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the first section of
the Act of September 19, 1890 (26 Stat. 426), shall be known
and designated as the ``Charles Hervey Townshend
Breakwater''.
SEC. [3023] 3024. ANCHORAGE AREA, NEW LONDON HARBOR,
CONNECTICUT.
(a) In General.--The portion of the project for navigation,
New London Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the Act of June
13, 1902 (32 Stat. 333), that consists of a 23-foot
waterfront channel described in subsection (b), is
redesignated as an anchorage area.
(b) Description of Channel.--The channel referred to in
subsection (a) may be described as beginning at a point along
the western limit of the existing project, N. 188, 802.75, E.
779, 462.81, thence running northeasterly about 1,373.88 feet
to a point N. 189, 554.87, E. 780, 612.53, thence running
southeasterly about 439.54 feet to a point N. 189, 319.88, E.
780, 983.98, thence running southwesterly about 831.58 feet
to a point N. 188, 864.63, E. 780, 288.08, thence running
southeasterly about 567.39 feet to a point N. 188, 301.88, E.
780, 360.49, thence running northwesterly about 1,027.96 feet
to the point of origin.
SEC. [3024] 3025. NORWALK HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.
(a) In General.--The portions of a 10-foot channel of the
project for navigation, Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut,
authorized by the first section of the Act of March 2, 1919
(40 Stat. 1276) and described in subsection (b), are not
authorized.
(b) Description of Portions.--The portions of the channel
referred to in subsection (a) are as follows:
(1) Rectangular portion.--An approximately rectangular-
shaped section along the northwesterly terminus of the
channel. The section is 35-feet wide and about 460-feet long
and is further described as commencing at a point N.
104,165.85, E. 417,662.71, thence running south 2406'55" E.
395.00 feet to a point N. 103,805.32, E. 417,824.10, thence
running south 0038'06" E. 87.84 feet to a point N.
103,717.49, E. 417,825.07, thence running north 2406'55" W.
480.00 feet, to a point N. 104,155.59, E. 417.628.96, thence
running north 7305'25" E. 35.28 feet to the point of origin.
(2) Parallelogram-shaped portion.--An area having the
approximate shape of a parallelogram along the northeasterly
portion of the channel, southeast of the area described in
paragraph (1), approximately 20 feet wide and 260 feet long,
and further described as commencing at a point N. 103,855.48,
E. 417,849.99, thence running south 3307'30" E. 133.40 feet
to a point N. 103,743.76, E. 417,922.89, thence running south
2407'04" E. 127.75 feet to a point N. 103,627.16, E.
417,975.09, thence running north 3307'30" W. 190.00 feet to
a point N. 103,786.28, E. 417,871.26, thence running north
1705'15" W. 72.39 feet to the point of origin.
(c) Modification.--The 10-foot channel portion of the
Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut navigation project described in
subsection (a) is modified to authorize the Secretary to
realign the channel to include, immediately north of the area
described in subsection (b)(2), a triangular section
described as commencing at a point N. 103,968.35, E.
417,815.29, thence running S. 1705'15" east 118.09 feet to a
point N. 103,855.48, E. 417,849.99, thence running N.
3307'30" west 36.76 feet to a point N. 103,886.27, E.
417,829.90, thence running N. 1005'26" west 83.37 feet to
the point of origin.
SEC. [3025] 3026. ST. GEORGE'S BRIDGE, DELAWARE.
Section 102(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1990 (104 Stat. 4612) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``The Secretary shall assume ownership
responsibility for the replacement bridge not later than the
date on which the construction of the bridge is completed and
the contractors are released of their responsibility
[[Page S7711]]
by the State. In addition, the Secretary may not carry out
any action to close or remove the St. George's Bridge,
Delaware, without specific congressional authorization.''.
SEC. [3026] 3027. CHRISTINA RIVER, WILMINGTON, DELAWARE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall remove the shipwrecked
vessel known as the ``State of Pennsylvania'', and any debris
associated with that vessel, from the Christina River at
Wilmington, Delaware, in accordance with section 202(b) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C.
426m(b)).
(b) No Recovery of Funds.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, in carrying out this section, the Secretary
shall not be required to recover funds from the owner of the
vessel described in subsection (a) or any other vessel.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $425,000, to
remain available until expended.
SEC. [3027] 3028. ADDITIONAL PROGRAM AUTHORITY, COMPREHENSIVE
EVERGLADES RESTORATION, FLORIDA.
Section 601(c)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of
2000 (114 Stat. 2684) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(C) Maximum cost of program authority.--Section 902 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280)
shall apply to the individual project funding limits in
subparagraph (A) and the aggregate cost limits in
subparagraph (B).''.
SEC. [3028] 3029. CRITICAL RESTORATION PROJECTS, EVERGLADES
AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION,
FLORIDA.
Section 528(b)(3)(C) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3769) is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by striking ``$75,000,000'' and all that
follows and inserting ``$95,000,000.''; and
(2) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following:
``(ii) Federal share.--
``(I) In general.--Except as provided in subclause (II),
the Federal share of the cost of carrying out a project under
subparagraph (A) shall not exceed $25,000,000.
``(II) Seminole water conservation plan.--The Federal share
of the cost of carrying out the Seminole Water Conservation
Plan shall not exceed $30,000,000.''.
SEC. [3029] 3030. JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FLORIDA.
The project for navigation, Jacksonville Harbor, Florida,
authorized by section 101(a)(17) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276), is modified to
authorize the Secretary to extend the navigation features in
accordance with the report of the Chief of Engineers dated
July 22, 2003, at an additional 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.
SEC. [3030] 3031. LAKE OKEECHOBEE AND HILLSBORO AQUIFER PILOT
PROJECTS, COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION,
FLORIDA.
Section 601(b)(2)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 2000 (114 Stat. 2681) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(v) Hillsboro and okeechobee aquifer, florida.--The pilot
projects 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 the purposes of this section as
being in the Plan and carried out in accordance with this
section, except that costs of operation and maintenance of
those projects shall remain 100 percent non-Federal.''.
SEC. [3031] 3032. LIDO KEY, SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA.
The Secretary shall carry out the project for hurricane and
storm damage reduction in Lido Key, Sarasota County, Florida,
based on 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 $63,606,000 for
periodic beach nourishment over the 50-year life of the
project, with an estimated Federal cost of $31,803,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $31,803,000.
SEC. [3032] 3033. TAMPA HARBOR, CUT B, TAMPA, FLORIDA.
The project for navigation, Tampa Harbor, Florida,
authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1970
(84 Stat. 1818), is modified to authorize the Secretary to
construct passing lanes in an area approximately 3.5 miles
long and centered on Tampa Bay Cut B, if the Secretary
determines that the improvements are necessary for navigation
safety.
SEC. [3033] 3034. ALLATOONA LAKE, GEORGIA.
(a) Land Exchange.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may exchange land 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 land on the north side of Allatoona Lake that is
required for wildlife management and 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 to
ensure that land exchanged is of equal value.
(b) Disposal and Acquisition of Land, Allatoona Lake,
Georgia.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may--
(A) sell land above 863 feet in elevation at Allatoona
Lake, Georgia, identified in the memorandum referred to in
subsection (a)(1); and
(B) use the proceeds of the sale, without further
appropriation, to pay costs associated with the purchase of
land required for wildlife management and protection of the
water quality and overall environment of Allatoona Lake.
(2) Terms and conditions.--
(A) Willing sellers.--Land acquired under this subsection
shall be by negotiated purchase from willing sellers only.
(B) Basis.--The basis for all transactions under this
subsection shall be a fair market value appraisal acceptable
to the Secretary.
(C) Sharing of costs.--Each purchaser of land under this
subsection shall share in the associated environmental and
real estate costs of the purchase, including surveys and
associated fees in accordance with the memorandum referred to
in subsection (a)(1).
(D) Other conditions.--The Secretary may impose on the sale
and purchase of land under this subsection such other
conditions as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
(c) Repeal.--Section 325 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4849) is repealed.
SEC. [3034] 3035. DWORSHAK RESERVOIR IMPROVEMENTS, IDAHO.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out additional
general construction measures to allow for operation at lower
pool levels to satisfy the recreation mission at Dworshak
Dam, Idaho.
(b) Improvements.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Secretary shall provide for appropriate improvements to--
(1) facilities that are operated by the Corps of Engineers;
and
(2) facilities that, as of the date of enactment of this
Act, are leased, permitted, or licensed for use by others.
(c) Cost Sharing.--The Secretary shall carry out this
section through a cost-sharing program with Idaho State Parks
and Recreation Department, with a total estimated project
cost of $5,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$3,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,400,000.
SEC. [3035] 3036. LITTLE WOOD RIVER, GOODING, IDAHO.
The project for flood control, Gooding, Idaho, as
constructed under the emergency conservation work program
established under the Act of March 31, 1933 (16 U.S.C. 585 et
seq.) is modified to--
(1) direct the Secretary to rehabilitate the Gooding
Channel Project for the purposes of flood control and
ecosystem restoration, if the Secretary determines that the
rehabilitation and ecosystem restoration is feasible;
(2) authorize and direct the Secretary to plan, design, and
construct the project at a total cost of $9,000,000;
(3) authorize the non-Federal interest to provide any
portion of the non-Federal share of the cost of the project
in the form of services, materials, supplies, or other in-
kind contributions;
(4) authorize the non-Federal interest to use funds made
available under any other Federal program toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project if the use of the
funds is permitted under the other Federal program; and
(5) direct the Secretary, in calculating the non-Federal
share of the cost of the project, to make a determination
under section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) on the ability to pay of the non-
Federal interest.
SEC. [3036] 3037. PORT OF LEWISTON, IDAHO.
(a) Extinguishment of Reversionary Interests and Use
Restrictions.--With respect to property covered by each deed
described in subsection (b)--
(1) the reversionary interests and use restrictions
relating to industrial use purposes are extinguished;
(2) the restriction that no activity shall be permitted
that will compete with services and facilities offered by
public marinas is extinguished;
(3) the human habitation or other building structure use
restriction is extinguished in each area in which the
elevation is above the standard project flood elevation; and
(4) the use of fill material to raise low areas above the
standard project flood elevation is authorized, except in any
low area constituting wetland for which a permit under
section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1344) is required.
(b) Deeds.--The deeds referred to in subsection (a) are as
follows:
(1) Auditor's Instrument No. 399218 of Nez Perce County,
Idaho, 2.07 acres.
(2) Auditor's Instrument No. 487437 of Nez Perce County,
Idaho, 7.32 acres.
(c) No Effect on Other Rights.--Nothing in this section
affects the remaining rights and interests of the Corps of
Engineers for authorized project purposes with respect to
property covered by deeds described in subsection (b).
SEC. [3037] 3038. CACHE RIVER LEVEE, ILLINOIS.
The Cache River Levee created for flood control at the
Cache River, Illinois, and authorized under the Act of June
28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1215, chapter 795), is modified to add
environmental restoration as a project purpose.
SEC. 3039. 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''.
[[Page S7712]]
SEC. [3038] 3040. CHICAGO RIVER, ILLINOIS.
The Federal navigation channel for the North Branch Channel
portion of the Chicago River authorized by section 22 of the
Act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1156, chapter 425), extending
from 100 feet downstream of the Halsted Street Bridge to 100
feet upstream of the Division Street Bridge, Chicago,
Illinois, is redefined to be no wider than 66 feet.
SEC. [3039] 3041. MISSOURI AND ILLINOIS FLOOD PROTECTION
PROJECTS RECONSTRUCTION PILOT PROGRAM.
(a) Definition of Reconstruction.--In this section:
(1) In general.--The term ``reconstruction'' means any
action taken to address 1 or more major deficiencies of a
project 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 the authorized
purposes of the project.
(2) Inclusions.--The term ``reconstruction'' includes the
incorporation by the Secretary of current design standards
and efficiency improvements in a project if the incorporation
does not significantly change the authorized scope, function,
or purpose of the project.
(b) Participation by Secretary.--The Secretary may
participate in the reconstruction of flood control projects
within Missouri and Illinois as a pilot program if the
Secretary determines that such reconstruction is not required
as a result of improper operation and maintenance by the non-
Federal interest.
(c) Cost Sharing.--
(1) In general.--Costs for reconstruction of a project
under this section shall be shared by the Secretary and the
non-Federal interest in the same percentages as the costs of
construction of the original project were shared.
(2) Operation, maintenance, and repair costs.--The costs of
operation, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of a
project carried out under this section shall be a non-Federal
responsibility.
(d) Critical Projects.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall give priority to the following projects:
(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) City of St. Louis, Missouri.
(5) Missouri River Levee Drainage District, Missouri.
(e) Economic Justification.--Reconstruction efforts and
activities carried out under this section shall not require
economic justification.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $50,000,000, to
remain available until expended.
SEC. [3040] 3042. SPUNKY BOTTOM, ILLINOIS.
(a) In General.--The project for flood control, Illinois
and Des Plaines River Basin, between Beardstown, Illinois,
and the mouth of the Illinois River, authorized by section 5
of the Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1583, chapter 688), is
modified to authorize ecosystem restoration as a project
purpose.
(b) Modifications.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), notwithstanding
the limitation on the expenditure of Federal funds to carry
out project modifications in accordance with section 1135 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2309a), modifications to the project referred to in
subsection (a) shall be carried out at Spunky Bottoms,
Illinois, in accordance with subsection (a).
(2) Federal share.--Not more than $7,500,000 in Federal
funds may be expended under this section to carry out
modifications to the project referred to in subsection (a).
(3) Post-construction monitoring and management.--Of the
Federal funds expended under paragraph (2), not less than
$500,000 shall remain available for a period of 5 years after
the date of completion of construction of the modifications
for use in carrying out post-construction monitoring and
adaptive management.
(c) Emergency Repair Assistance.--Notwithstanding any
modifications carried out under subsection (b), the project
described in subsection (a) shall remain eligible for
emergency repair assistance under section 5 of the Act of
August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n), without consideration of
economic justification.
SEC. [3041] 3043. STRAWN CEMETERY, JOHN REDMOND LAKE, KANSAS.
(a) In General.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, acting through the
Tulsa District of the Corps of Engineers, shall transfer to
Pleasant Township, Coffey County, Kansas, for use as the New
Strawn Cemetery, all right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to the land described in subsection (c).
(b) Reversion.--If the land transferred under this section
ceases at any time to be used as a nonprofit cemetery or for
another public purpose, the land shall revert to the United
States.
(c) Description.--The land to be conveyed under this
section is a tract of land near John Redmond Lake, Kansas,
containing approximately 3 acres and lying adjacent to the
west line of the Strawn Cemetery located in the SE corner of
the NE\1/4\ of sec. 32, T. 20 S., R. 14 E., Coffey County,
Kansas.
(d) Consideration.--
(1) In general.--The conveyance under this section shall be
at fair market value.
(2) Costs.--All costs associated with the conveyance shall
be paid by Pleasant Township, Coffey County, Kansas.
(e) Other Terms and Conditions.--The conveyance under this
section shall be subject to such other terms and conditions
as the Secretary considers necessary to protect the interests
of the United States.
SEC. [3042] 3044. HARRY S. TRUMAN RESERVOIR, MILFORD, KANSAS.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsections (b) and (c), the
Secretary shall convey at fair market value by quitclaim deed
to the Geary County Fire Department, Milford, Kansas, all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to a
parcel of land consisting of approximately 7.4 acres located
in Geary County, Kansas, for construction, operation, and
maintenance of a fire station.
(b) Survey to Obtain Legal Description.--The exact acreage
and the description of the real property referred to in
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey that is
satisfactory to the Secretary.
(c) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the
property conveyed under subsection (a) 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.
SEC. [3043] 3045. OHIO RIVER, KENTUCKY, ILLINOIS, INDIANA,
OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, AND WEST VIRGINIA.
Section 101(16) of the Water Resources Development Act of
2000 (114 Stat. 2578) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(A) In general.--Projects for ecosystem
restoration, Ohio River Mainstem'' and inserting the
following:
``(A) Authorization.--
``(i) In general.--Projects for ecosystem restoration, Ohio
River Basin (excluding the Tennessee and Cumberland River
Basins)''; and
(2) in subparagraph (A), by adding at the end the
following:
``(ii) Nonprofit entity.--For any ecosystem restoration
project carried out under this paragraph, with the consent of
the affected local government, a nonprofit entity may be
considered to be a non-Federal interest.
``(iii) Program implementation plan.--There is authorized
to be developed a program implementation plan of the Ohio
River Basin (excluding the Tennessee and Cumberland River
Basins) at full Federal expense.
``(iv) Pilot program.--There is authorized to be initiated
a completed pilot program in Lower Scioto Basin, Ohio.''.
[SEC. 3044. PUBLIC ACCESS, ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM,
LOUISIANA.
[The public access features of the Atchafalaya Basin
Floodway System, Louisiana, project, authorized by the
section 601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(100 Stat. 4142), are 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
in the Lower Atchafalaya Basin Flood for the public access
feature of the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana,
to enhance fish and wildlife resources, at a total cost of
$4,000,000.]
SEC. 3046. PUBLIC ACCESS, ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM,
LOUISIANA.
(a) In General.--The public access feature of the
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana project,
authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 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 in the Lower Atchafalaya
Basin Floodway for the public access feature of the
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana project.
(b) Modification.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), effective
beginning November 17, 1986, the public access feature of the
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana project, is
modified to remove the $32,000,000 limitation on the maximum
Federal expenditure for the first costs of the public access
feature.
(2) First cost.--The authorized first cost of $250,000,000
for the total project (as defined in section 601(a) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142))
shall not be exceeded, except as authorized by section 902 of
that Act (100 Stat. 4183).
SEC. [3045] 3047. CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LOUISIANA.
The project for the Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana,
authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960
(74 Stat. 481), is modified to authorize the Secretary to
provide $3,000,000 for each fiscal year, in a total amount of
$15,000,000, for such rock bank protection of the Calcasieu
River from mile 5 to mile 16 as the Chief of Engineers
determines to be advisable to reduce maintenance dredging
needs and facilitate protection of valuable disposal areas
for the Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana.
SEC. 3048. LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LOUISIANA.
(a) In General.--For the project for hurricane protection,
Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana, authorized by section 204
of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1077), not later
than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall make the determination described in section
325 of the Water
[[Page S7713]]
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 304) regarding
the technical feasibility, environmental acceptability, and
economical justification of converting the Golden Meadow
floodgate into a navigation lock.
(b) Conversion.--If the Secretary makes a favorable
determination under subsection (a), or fails to make a
favorable or unfavorable determination by the date specified
in subsection (a), the conversion of the Golden Meadow
floodgate to a navigation lock shall be considered to be
authorized as a feature of the hurricane protection project
referred to in subsection (a).
SEC. [3046] 3049. EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LOUISIANA.
The project for flood damage reduction and recreation, East
Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, authorized by section
101(a)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 277), as amended by section 116 of the
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (117 Stat. 140),
is modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out the
project substantially in accordance with the Report of the
Chief of Engineers dated December 23, 1996, and the
subsequent Post Authorization Change Report dated [August]
December 2004, at a total cost of $178,000,000.
SEC. [3047] 3050. RED RIVER (J. BENNETT JOHNSTON) WATERWAY,
LOUISIANA.
The project for mitigation of fish and wildlife losses, Red
River Waterway, 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. 2604), is further
modified--
(1) to authorize the Secretary to carry out the project at
a total cost of $33,000,000;
[(1)] (2) to permit the purchase of marginal farmland for
reforestation (in addition to the purchase of bottomland
hardwood); and
[(2)] (3) to incorporate wildlife and forestry management
practices to improve species diversity on mitigation land
that meets habitat goals and objectives of the Corps of
Engineers and the State of Louisiana.
SEC. [3048] 3051. 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 $20,000,000.
SEC. [3049] 3052. UNION RIVER, MAINE.
The project for navigation, Union River, Maine, authorized
by the first section of the Act of June 3, 1896 (29 Stat.
215, chapter 314), 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 N. 315,975.13, E. 1,004,424.86, thence running N.
61 27' 20.71" W. about 132.34 feet to a point N. 316,038.37,
E. 1,004,308.61.
SEC. [3050] 3053. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
AND PROTECTION PROGRAM, MARYLAND, PENNSYLVANIA,
AND VIRGINIA.
Section 510(i) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3761) is amended by striking ``$10,000,000''
and inserting ``$30,000,000''.
SEC. [3051] 3054. CUMBERLAND, MARYLAND.
Section 580(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (113 Stat. 375) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$15,000,000'' and inserting
``$25,750,000'';
(2) by striking ``$9,750,000'' and inserting
``$16,738,000''; and
(3) by striking ``$5,250,000'' and inserting
``$9,012,000''.
SEC. [3052] 3055. FALL RIVER HARBOR, MASSACHUSETTS AND RHODE
ISLAND.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 1001(b)(2) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
579a(b)(2)), the project for navigation, Fall River Harbor,
Massachusetts and Rhode Island, authorized by section 101 of
the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731), shall remain
authorized to be carried out by the Secretary, 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.
(b) Feasibility.--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.
(c) Limitation.--The 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 that period, funds have been
obligated for construction (including planning and design) of
the project.
SEC. [3053] 3056. ST. CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST. CLAIR,
MICHIGAN.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means
the management plan for the St. Clair River and Lake St.
Clair, Michigan, that is in effect as of the date of
enactment of this section.
(2) Partnership.--The term ``Partnership'' means the
partnership established by the Secretary under subsection
(b)(1).
(b) Partnership.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish and lead a
partnership of appropriate Federal agencies (including the
Environmental Protection Agency) and the State of Michigan
(including political subdivisions of the State)--
(A) to promote cooperation among the Federal Government,
State and local governments, and other involved parties in
the management of the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair
watersheds; and
(B) develop and implement projects consistent with the
management plan.
(2) Coordination with actions under other law.--
(A) In general.--Actions taken under this section by the
Partnership shall be coordinated with actions to restore and
conserve the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair and
watersheds taken under other provisions of Federal and State
law.
(B) No effect on other law.--Nothing in this section
alters, modifies, or affects any other provision of Federal
or State law.
(c) Implementation of St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair
Management Plan.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
(A) develop a St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair strategic
implementation plan in accordance with the management plan;
(B) provide technical, planning, and engineering assistance
to non-Federal interests for developing and implementing
activities consistent with the management plan;
(C) plan, design, and implement projects consistent with
the management plan; and
(D) provide, in coordination with the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, financial and technical
assistance, including grants, to the State of Michigan
(including political subdivisions of the State) and
interested nonprofit entities for the planning, design, and
implementation of projects to restore, conserve, manage, and
sustain the St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair, and associated
watersheds.
(2) Specific measures.--Financial and technical assistance
provided under subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (1) may
be used in support of non-Federal activities consistent with
the management plan.
(d) Supplements to Management Plan and Strategic
Implementation Plan.--In consultation with the Partnership
and after providing an opportunity for public review and
comment, the Secretary shall develop information to
supplement--
(1) the management plan; and
(2) the strategic implementation plan developed under
subsection (c)(1)(A).
(e) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the cost
of technical assistance, or the cost of planning, design,
construction, and evaluation of a project under subsection
(c), and the cost of development of supplementary information
under subsection (d)--
(A) shall be 25 percent of the total cost of the project or
development; and
(B) may be provided through the provision of in-kind
services.
(2) Credit for land, easements, and rights-of-way.--The
Secretary shall credit the non-Federal sponsor for the value
of any land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged material
disposal areas, or relocations provided for use in carrying
out a project under subsection (c).
(3) Nonprofit entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of the
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), a non-Federal
sponsor for any project carried out under this section may
include a nonprofit entity.
(4) Operation and maintenance.--The operation, maintenance,
repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of projects carried
out under this section shall be non-Federal responsibilities.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for
each fiscal year.
SEC. [3054] 3057. DULUTH HARBOR, MINNESOTA.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding the cost limitation
described in section 107(b) of the River and Harbor Act of
1960 (33 U.S.C. 577(b)), the Secretary shall carry out the
project for navigation, Duluth Harbor, Minnesota, pursuant to
the authority provided under that section at a total Federal
cost of $9,000,000.
(b) Public Access and Recreational Facilities.--Section 321
of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat.
2605) is amended by inserting ``, and to provide public
access and recreational facilities'' after ``including any
required bridge construction''.
SEC. [3055] 3058. LAND EXCHANGE, PIKE COUNTY, MISSOURI.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means the 2
parcels of Corps of Engineers land totaling approximately 42
acres, located on Buffalo Island in Pike County, Missouri,
and consisting of Government Tract Numbers MIS-7 and a
portion of FM-46.
(2) Non-federal land.--The term ``non-Federal land'' means
the approximately 42 acres of land, subject to any existing
flowage easements situated in Pike County, Missouri, upstream
and northwest, about 200 feet from Drake Island (also known
as Grimes Island).
(b) Land Exchange.--Subject to subsection (c), on
conveyance by S.S.S., Inc., to the United States of all
right, title, and interest in and to the non-Federal land,
the Secretary shall convey to S.S.S., Inc., all right,
[[Page S7714]]
title, and interest of the United States in and to the
Federal land.
(c) Conditions.--
(1) Deeds.--
(A) Non-federal land.--The conveyance of the non-Federal
land to the Secretary shall be by a warranty deed acceptable
to the Secretary.
(B) Federal land.--The conveyance of the Federal land to
S.S.S., Inc., shall be--
(i) by quitclaim deed; and
(ii) subject to any reservations, terms, and conditions
that the Secretary determines to be necessary to allow the
United States to operate and maintain the Mississippi River
9-Foot Navigation Project.
(C) Legal descriptions.--The Secretary shall, subject to
approval of S.S.S., Inc., provide a legal description of the
Federal land and non-Federal land for inclusion in the deeds
referred to in subparagraphs (A) and (B).
(2) Removal of improvements.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary may require the removal of,
or S.S.S., Inc., may voluntarily remove, any improvements to
the non-Federal land before the completion of the exchange or
as a condition of the exchange.
(B) No liability.--If S.S.S., Inc., removes any
improvements to the non-Federal land under subparagraph (A)--
(i) S.S.S., Inc., shall have no claim against the United
States relating to the removal; and
(ii) the United States shall not incur or be liable for any
cost associated with the removal or relocation of the
improvements.
(3) Administrative costs.--The Secretary shall require
S.S.S., Inc. to pay reasonable administrative costs
associated with the exchange.
(4) Cash equalization payment.--If the appraised fair
market value, as determined by the Secretary, of the Federal
land exceeds the appraised fair market value, as determined
by the Secretary, of the non-Federal land, S.S.S., Inc.,
shall make a cash equalization payment to the United States.
(5) Deadline.--The land exchange under subsection (b) shall
be completed not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act.
SEC. [3056] 3059. UNION LAKE, MISSOURI.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall offer to convey to the
State of Missouri, before January 31, [2005] 2006, all right,
title, and interest in and to approximately 205.50 acres of
land described in subsection (b) purchased for the Union Lake
Project that was deauthorized as of January 1, 1990 (55 Fed.
Reg. 40906) in accordance with section 1001 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(a)).
(b) Land Description.--The land referred to in subsection
(a) is described as follows:
(1) Tract 500.--A tract of land situated in Franklin
County, Missouri, being part of the SW\1/4\ of sec. 7, and
the NW\1/4\ of the SW\1/4\ of sec. 8, T. 42 N., R. 2 W. of
the fifth principal meridian, consisting of approximately
112.50 acres.
(2) Tract 605.--A tract of land situated in Franklin
County, Missouri, being part of the N\1/2\ of the NE, and
part of the SE of the NE of sec. 18, T. 42 N., R. 2 W. of the
fifth principal meridian, consisting of approximately 93.00
acres.
(c) Conveyance.--Upon acceptance by the State of Missouri
of the offer by the Secretary under subsection (a), the land
described in subsection (b) shall immediately be conveyed, in
its current condition, by Secretary to the State of Missouri.
SEC. [3057] 3060. FORT PECK FISH HATCHERY, MONTANA.
Section 325(f)(1)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 2000 (114 Stat. 2607) is amended by striking
``$20,000,000'' and inserting ``$25,000,000''.
SEC. 3061. YELLOWSTONE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MONTANA AND
NORTH DAKOTA.
(a) Definition of Restoration Project.--In this section,
the term ``restoration project'' means a project that will
produce, in accordance with other Federal programs, projects,
and activities, substantial ecosystem restoration and related
benefits, as determined by the Secretary.
(b) Projects.--The Secretary shall carry out, in accordance
with other Federal programs, projects, and activities,
restoration projects in the watershed of the Yellowstone
River and tributaries in Montana, and in North Dakota, to
produce immediate and substantial ecosystem restoration and
recreation benefits.
(c) Local Participation.--In carrying out subsection (b),
the Secretary shall--
(1) consult with, and consider the activities being carried
out by--
(A) other Federal agencies;
(B) Indian tribes;
(C) conservation districts; and
(D) the Yellowstone River Conservation District Council;
and
(2) seek the full participation of the State of Montana.
(d) Cost Sharing.--Before carrying out any restoration
project under this section, the Secretary shall enter into an
agreement with the non-Federal interest for the restoration
project under which the non-Federal interest shall agree--
(1) to provide 35 percent of the total cost of the
restoration project, including necessary land, easements,
rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal sites;
(2) to pay the non-Federal share of the cost of feasibility
studies and design during construction following execution of
a project cooperation agreement;
(3) to pay 100 percent of the operation, maintenance,
repair, replacement, and rehabilitation costs incurred after
the date of enactment of this Act that are associated with
the restoration project; and
(4) to hold the United States harmless for any claim of
damage that arises from the negligence of the Federal
Government or a contractor of the Federal Government in
carrying out the restoration project.
(e) Form of Non-Federal Share.--Not more than 50 percent of
the non-Federal share of the cost of a restoration project
carried out under this section may be provided in the form of
in-kind credit for work performed during construction of the
restoration project.
(f) Non-Federal Interests.--Notwithstanding section 221 of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), with the
consent of the applicable local government, a nonprofit
entity may be a non-Federal interest for a restoration
project carried out under this section.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000.
SEC. [3058] 3062. LOWER TRUCKEE RIVER, MCCARRAN RANCH,
NEVADA.
The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended
for the project being carried out, as of the date of
enactment of this Act, under section 1135 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) for
environmental restoration of McCarran Ranch, Nevada, shall be
$5,775,000.
SEC. [3059] 3063. MIDDLE RIO GRANDE RESTORATION, NEW MEXICO.
(a) Restoration Projects.--
(1) Definition.--The term ``restoration project'' means a
project that will produce, consistent with other Federal
programs, projects, and activities, immediate and substantial
ecosystem restoration and recreation benefits.
(2) Projects.--The Secretary shall carry out restoration
projects in the Middle Rio Grande from Cochiti Dam to the
headwaters of Elephant Butte Reservoir, in the State of New
Mexico.
(b) Project Selection.--The Secretary shall select
restoration projects in the Middle Rio Grande.
(c) Local Participation.--In carrying out subsection (b),
the Secretary shall consult with, and consider the activities
being carried out by--
(1) the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Act
Collaborative Program; and
(2) the Bosque Improvement Group of the Middle Rio Grande
Bosque Initiative.
(d) Cost Sharing.--Before carrying out any restoration
project under this section, the Secretary shall enter into an
agreement with non-Federal interests that requires the non-
Federal interests to--
(1) provide 35 percent of the total cost of the restoration
projects including provisions for necessary lands, easements,
rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal sites;
(2) pay 100 percent of the operation, maintenance, repair,
replacement, and rehabilitation costs incurred after the date
of the enactment of this Act that are associated with the
restoration projects; and
(3) hold the United States harmless for any claim of damage
that arises from the negligence of the Federal Government or
a contractor of the Federal Government.
(e) Non-Federal Interests.--Not withstanding section 221 of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), a non-
Federal interest for any project carried out under this
section may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of
the local government.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $25,000,000 to carry out this section.
SEC. [3060] 3064. LONG ISLAND SOUND OYSTER RESTORATION, NEW
YORK AND CONNECTICUT.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall plan, design, and
construct projects to increase aquatic habitats within Long
Island Sound and adjacent waters, including the construction
and restoration of oyster beds and related shellfish habitat.
(b) Cost-Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of
activities carried out under this section shall be 25 percent
and may be provided through in-kind services and materials.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $25,000,000 to carry out this section.
SEC. [3061] 3065. ORCHARD BEACH, BRONX, NEW YORK.
Section 554 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(110 Stat. 3781) is amended by striking ``$5,200,000'' and
inserting ``$18,200,000''.
SEC. [3062] 3066. NEW YORK HARBOR, NEW YORK, NEW YORK.
Section 217 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(33 U.S.C. 2326a) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d);
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Dredged Material Facility.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may enter into cost-
sharing agreements with 1 or more non-Federal public
interests with respect to a project, or group of projects
within a geographic region, if appropriate, for the
acquisition, design, construction, management, or operation
of a dredged material processing, treatment, contaminant
reduction, or disposal facility (including any facility used
to demonstrate potential beneficial uses of dredged material,
which may include effective sediment contaminant reduction
technologies) using funds provided in whole or in part by the
Federal Government.
[[Page S7715]]
``(2) Performance.--One or more of the parties to the
agreement may perform the acquisition, design, construction,
management, or operation of a dredged material processing,
treatment, contaminant reduction, or disposal facility.
``(3) Multiple federal projects.--If appropriate, the
Secretary may combine portions of separate Federal projects
with appropriate combined cost-sharing between the various
projects, if the facility serves to manage dredged material
from multiple Federal projects located in the geographic
region of the facility.
``(4) Public financing.--
``(A) Agreements.--
``(i) Specified federal funding sources and cost sharing.--
The cost-sharing agreement used shall clearly specify--
``(I) the Federal funding sources and combined cost-sharing
when applicable to multiple Federal navigation projects; and
``(II) the responsibilities and risks of each of the
parties related to present and future dredged material
managed by the facility.
``(ii) Management of sediments.--
``(I) In general.--The cost-sharing agreement may include
the management of sediments from the maintenance dredging of
Federal navigation projects that do not have partnerships
agreements.
``(II) Payments.--The cost-sharing agreement may allow the
non-Federal interest to receive reimbursable payments from
the Federal Government for commitments made by the non-
Federal interest 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.--
``(i) Effect on existing agreements.--Nothing in this
subsection supersedes or modifies an agreement in effect on
the date of enactment of this paragraph between the Federal
Government and any other non-Federal interest for the cost-
sharing, construction, and operation and maintenance of a
Federal navigation project.
``(ii) Credit for funds.--Subject to the approval of the
Secretary and in accordance with law (including regulations
and policies) in effect on the date of enactment of this
paragraph, a non-Federal public interest of a Federal
navigation project may seek credit for funds provided for 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.
``(iii) Non-federal interest responsibilities.--The non-
Federal interest shall--
``(I) be responsible for providing all necessary land,
easement rights-of-way, or relocations associated with the
facility; and
``(II) receive credit for those items.''; and
(3) in paragraphs (1) and (2)(A) of subsection (d) (as so
redesignated)--
(A) by inserting ``and maintenance'' after ``operation''
each place it appears; and
(B) by inserting ``processing, treatment, or'' after
``dredged material'' the first place it appears in each of
those paragraphs.
SEC. [3063] 3067. 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. [3064] 3068. MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, NORTH DAKOTA.
Section 707(a) of the Water Resources Act of 2000 (114
Stat. 2699) is amended in the first sentence by striking
``2005'' and inserting ``2010''.
SEC. [3065] 3069. LOWER GIRARD LAKE DAM, GIRARD, OHIO.
Section 507(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3758) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$2,500,000'' and inserting
``$5,500,000''; and
(2) by adding before the period at the end the following:
``(which repair and rehabilitation shall include lowering the
crest of the Dam by not more than 12.5 feet)''.
SEC. [3066] 3070. TOUSSAINT RIVER NAVIGATION PROJECT, CARROLL
TOWNSHIP, OHIO.
Increased operation and maintenance activities for the
Toussaint River Federal Navigation Project, Carroll Township,
Ohio, that are carried out in accordance with section 107 of
the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) and relate
directly to the presence of unexploded ordnance, shall be
carried out at full Federal expense.
SEC. [3067] 3071. ARCADIA LAKE, OKLAHOMA.
Payments made by the city of Edmond, Oklahoma, to the
Secretary in October 1999 of all costs associated with
present and future water storage costs at Arcadia Lake,
Oklahoma, under Arcadia Lake Water Storage Contract Number
DACW56-79-C-002 shall satisfy the obligations of the city
under that contract.
SEC. 3072. OKLAHOMA LAKE DEMONSTRATION, OKLAHOMA.
(a) Release of Retained Rights, Interests, and
Reservations.--Each reversionary interest and use restriction
relating to public parks and recreation on the land conveyed
by the Secretary to the State of Oklahoma at Lake Texoma
pursuant to the Act entitled ``An Act to authorize the sale
of certain lands to the State of Oklahoma'' (67 Stat. 62,
chapter 118) is terminated.
(b) Instrument of Release.--As soon as practicable after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
execute and file in the appropriate office a deed of release,
an amended deed, or another appropriate instrument to release
each interest and use restriction described in subsection
(a).
SEC. [3068] 3073. 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--
(1) is set at the amounts, rates of interest, and payment
schedules that existed on June 3, 1986; and
(2) may not be adjusted, altered, or changed without a
specific, separate, and written agreement between the
District and the United States.
SEC. [3069] 3074. LOOKOUT POINT, DEXTER LAKE PROJECT, LOWELL,
OREGON.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsections (b) and (c), the
Secretary shall convey at fair market value to the community
of Lowell, Oregon, all right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to a parcel of land consisting of
approximately 0.98 acres located in Lane County, Oregon.
(b) Survey to Obtain Legal Description.--The exact acreage
and the description of the real property referred to in
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey that is
satisfactory to the Secretary.
(c) Condition.--The Secretary shall not complete the
conveyance under subsection (a) until such time as the United
States Forest Service--
(1) completes and certifies that necessary environmental
remediation associated with the structures located on the
property is complete; and
(2) transfers the structures to the Corps of Engineers.
SEC. [3070] 3075. UPPER WILLAMETTE RIVER WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM
RESTORATION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct studies and
ecosystem restoration projects for the upper Willamette River
watershed from Albany, Oregon, to the headwaters of the
Willamette River and tributaries.
(b) Consultation.--The Secretary shall carry out ecosystem
restoration projects under this section for the Upper
Willamette River watershed in consultation with the Governor
of the State of Oregon, the heads of appropriate Indian
tribes, the Environmental Protection Agency, the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine
Fisheries Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest
Service, and local entities.
(c) Authorized Activities.--In carrying out ecosystem
restoration projects under this section, the Secretary shall
undertake activities necessary to protect, monitor, and
restore fish and wildlife habitat.
(d) Cost Sharing Requirements.--
(1) Studies.--Studies conducted under this section shall be
subject to cost sharing in accordance with section 206 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330).
(2) Ecosystem restoration projects.--
(A) In general.--Non-Federal interests shall pay 35 percent
of the cost of any ecosystem restoration project carried out
under this section.
(B) Items provided by non-federal interests.--
(i) In general.--Non-Federal interests shall provide all
land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal
areas, and relocations necessary for ecosystem restoration
projects to be carried out under this section.
(ii) Credit toward payment.--The value of the land,
easements, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal areas,
and relocations provided under paragraph (1) shall be
credited toward the payment required under subsection (a).
(C) In-kind contributions.--100 percent of the non-Federal
share required under subsection (a) may be satisfied by the
provision of in-kind contributions.
(3) Operations and maintenance.--Non-Federal interests
shall be responsible for all costs associated with operating,
maintaining, replacing, repairing, and rehabilitating all
projects carried out under this section.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000.
SEC. [3071] 3076. TIOGA TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall convey to the Tioga
Township, Pennsylvania, at fair market value, all right,
title, and interest in and to the parcel of real property
located on the northeast end of Tract No. 226, a portion of
the Tioga-Hammond Lakes Floods Control Project, Tioga County,
Pennsylvania, consisting of approximately 8 acres, together
with any improvements on that property, in as-is condition,
for public
[[Page S7716]]
ownership and use as the site of the administrative offices
and road maintenance complex for the Township.
(b) Survey to Obtain Legal Description.--The exact acreage
and the legal description of the real property described in
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey that is
satisfactory to the Secretary.
(c) 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.
(d) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the
property conveyed under subsection (a) 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.
SEC. [3072] 3077. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, PENNSYLVANIA
AND NEW YORK.
Section 567 if the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(110 Stat. 3787) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
``(c) Cooperation Agreements.--
``(1) In general.--In conducting the study and implementing
the strategy under this section, the Secretary shall enter
into cost-sharing and project cooperation agreements with the
Federal Government, State and local governments (with the
consent of the State and local governments), land trusts, or
nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations with expertise in
wetland restoration.
``(2) Financial assistance.--Under the cooperation
agreement, the Secretary may provide assistance for
implementation of wetland restoration projects and soil and
water conservation measures.''; and
(2) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
``(d) Implementation of Strategy.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out the
development, demonstration, and implementation of the
strategy under this section in cooperation with local
landowners, local government officials, and land trusts.
``(2) Goals of projects.--Projects to implement the
strategy under this subsection shall be designed to take
advantage of ongoing or planned actions by other agencies,
local municipalities, or nonprofit, nongovernmental
organizations with expertise in wetland restoration that
would increase the effectiveness or decrease the overall cost
of implementing recommended projects.''.
SEC. [3073] 3078. COOPER RIVER BRIDGE DEMOLITION, CHARLESTON,
SOUTH CAROLINA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, at full Federal expense,
may carry out all planning, design, and construction for--
(1) the demolition and removal of the Grace and Pearman
Bridges over the Cooper River, South Carolina; and
(2) using the remnants from that demolition and removal,
the development of an aquatic reef off the shore of South
Carolina.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $39,000,000.
SEC. [3074] 3079. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AT RICHARD B. RUSSELL
LAKE, SOUTH CAROLINA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall convey to the State of
South Carolina, by quitclaim deed, all right, title, and
interest of the United States in and to the parcels of land
described in subsection (b)(1) that are 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).
(b) Land Description.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the
parcels of land referred to in subsection (a) are the parcels
contained in the portion of land described in Army Lease
Number DACW21-1-92-0500.
(2) Retention of interests.--The United States shall
retain--
(A) ownership of all land included in the lease referred to
in paragraph (1) 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 land as is determined by the Secretary to be
required for authorized project purposes, including easement
rights-of-way to remaining Federal land.
(3) Survey.--The exact acreage and legal description of the
land described in paragraph (1) shall be determined by a
survey satisfactory to the Secretary, with the cost of the
survey to be paid by the State.
(c) General Provisions.--
(1) Applicability of property screening provisions.--
Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply
to the conveyance under this section.
(2) Additional terms and conditions.--The Secretary may
require that the conveyance under this section be subject to
such additional terms and conditions as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.
(3) Costs of conveyance.--
(A) In general.--The State shall be responsible for all
costs, including real estate transaction and environmental
compliance costs, associated with the conveyance under this
section.
(B) Form of contribution.--As determined appropriate by the
Secretary, in lieu of payment of compensation to the United
States under subparagraph (A), the State may perform certain
environmental or real estate actions associated with the
conveyance under this section if those actions are performed
in close coordination with, and to the satisfaction of, the
United States.
(4) Liability.--The State 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 under this section.
(d) Additional Terms and Conditions.--
(1) In general.--The State shall pay fair market value
consideration, as determined by the United States, for any
land included in the conveyance under this section.
(2) No effect on shore management policy.--The Shoreline
Management Policy (ER-1130-2-406) of the Corps of Engineers
shall not be changed or altered for any proposed development
of land conveyed under this section.
(3) Federal statutes.--The conveyance under this section
shall be subject to the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (including public review under
that Act) and other Federal statutes.
(4) Cost sharing.--In carrying out the conveyance under
this section, the Secretary and the State shall comply with
all obligations of any cost sharing agreement between the
Secretary and the State in effect as of the date of the
conveyance.
(5) Land not conveyed.--The State shall continue to manage
the land not conveyed under this section in accordance with
the terms and conditions of Army Lease Number DACW21-1-92-
0500.
SEC. [3075] 3080. MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, SOUTH DAKOTA.
(a) Membership.--Section 904(b)(1)(B) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2708) is
amended--
(1) in clause (vii), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating clause (viii) as clause (ix); and
(3) by inserting after clause (vii) the following:
``(viii) rural water systems; and''.
(b) Reauthorization.--Section 907(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2712) is amended in the
first sentence by striking ``2005'' and inserting ``2010''.
SEC. [3076] 3081. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS
ENHANCEMENT PROJECT.
Section 514 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999
(113 Stat. 343; 117 Stat. 142) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections
(h) and (i), respectively;
(2) in subsection (h) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)),
by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) Non-federal share.--
``(A) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of
projects may be provided--
``(i) in cash;
``(ii) by the provision of land, easements, rights-of-way,
relocations, or disposal areas;
``(iii) by in-kind services to implement the project; or
``(iv) by any combination of the foregoing.
``(B) Private ownership.--Land needed for a project under
this authority may remain in private ownership subject to
easements that are--
``(i) satisfactory to the Secretary; and
``(ii) necessary to assure achievement of the project
purposes.'';
(3) in subsection (i) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)),
by striking ``for the period of fiscal years 2000 and 2001.''
and inserting ``per year, and that authority shall extend
until Federal fiscal year 2015.''; and
(4) 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 undertaken under this section, a non-Federal
interest may include a nonprofit entity with the consent of
the affected local government.
``(g) Cost Limitation.--Not more than $5,000,000 in Federal
funds may be allotted under this section for a project at any
single locality.''
SEC. [3077] 3082. ANDERSON CREEK, JACKSON AND MADISON
COUNTIES, TENNESSEE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out a project for
flood damage reduction under section 205 of the Flood Control
Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) at Anderson Creek, Jackson and
Madison Counties, Tennessee, if the Secretary determines that
the project is technically sound, environmentally acceptable,
and economically justified.
(b) Relationship to West Tennessee Tributaries Project,
Tennessee.--Consistent with the report of the Chief of
Engineers dated March 24, 1948, on the West Tennessee
Tributaries project--
(1) Anderson Creek shall not be considered to be an
authorized channel of the West Tennessee Tributaries Project;
and
(2) the Anderson Creek flood damage reduction project shall
not be considered to be part of the West Tennessee
Tributaries Project.
SEC. [3078] 3083. HARRIS FORK CREEK, TENNESSEE AND KENTUCKY.
Notwithstanding section 1001(b)(1) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33
[[Page S7717]]
U.S.C. 579a), the project for flood control, Harris Fork
Creek, Tennessee and Kentucky, authorized by section 102 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 701c
note; 90 Stat. 2920) shall remain authorized to be carried
out by the Secretary for a period of 7 years beginning on the
date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. [3079] 3084. NONCONNAH WEIR, MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE.
The project for flood control, Nonconnah Creek, Tennessee
and Mississippi, authorized by section 401 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124) and
modified by the section 334 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2611), is modified to
authorize the Secretary--
(1) to reconstruct, at full Federal expense, the weir
originally constructed in the vicinity of the mouth of
Nonconnah Creek; and
(2) to make repairs and maintain the weir in the future so
that the weir functions properly.
SEC. [3080] 3085. OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, CUMBERLAND RIVER,
TENNESSEE.
(a) Release of Retained Rights, Interests, Reservations.--
With respect to land conveyed by the Secretary to the
Tennessee Society of Crippled Children and Adults,
Incorporated (commonly 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.
(b) Instrument of Release.--As soon as practicable after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
execute and file in the appropriate office a deed of release,
amended deed, or other appropriate instrument effectuating
the release of interests required by paragraph (1).
(c) No Effect on Other Rights.--Nothing in this section
affects any remaining right or interest of the Corps of
Engineers with respect to an authorized purpose of any
project.
SEC. [3081] 3086. SANDY CREEK, JACKSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out a project for
flood damage reduction under section 205 of the Flood Control
Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) at Sandy Creek, Jackson County,
Tennessee, if the Secretary determines that the project is
technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and
economically justified.
(b) Relationship to West Tennessee Tributaries Project,
Tennessee.--Consistent with the report of the Chief of
Engineers dated March 24, 1948, on the West Tennessee
Tributaries project--
(1) Sandy Creek shall not be considered to be an authorized
channel of the West Tennessee Tributaries Project; and
(2) the Sandy Creek flood damage reduction project shall
not be considered to be part of the West Tennessee
Tributaries Project.
SEC. [3082] 3087. CEDAR BAYOU, TEXAS.
Section 349(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of
2000 (114 Stat. 2632) is amended by striking ``except that
the project is authorized only for construction of a
navigation channel 12 feet deep by 125 feet wide'' and
inserting ``except that the project is authorized for
construction of a navigation channel that is 10 feet deep by
100 feet wide''.
SEC. [3083] 3088. FREEPORT HARBOR, TEXAS.
(a) In General.--The project for navigation, Freeport
Harbor, Texas, authorized by section 101 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1818), is modified to provide
that--
(1) all project costs incurred as a result of the discovery
of the sunken vessel COMSTOCK of the Corps of Engineers are a
Federal responsibility; and
(2) the Secretary shall not seek further obligation or
responsibility for removal of the vessel COMSTOCK, or costs
associated with a delay due to the discovery of the sunken
vessel COMSTOCK, from the Port of Freeport.
(b) Cost Sharing.--This section does not affect the
authorized cost sharing for the balance of the project
described in subsection (a).
SEC. [3084] 3089. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.
Section 575(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (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
(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. [3085] 3090. DAM REMEDIATION, VERMONT.
Section 543 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
(114 Stat. 2673) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) may carry out measures to restore, protect, and
preserve an ecosystem affected by a dam described in
subsection (b).''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
``(11) Camp Wapanacki, Hardwick.
``(12) Star Lake Dam, Mt. Holly.
``(13) Curtis Pond, Calais.
``(14) Weathersfield Reservoir, Springfield.
``(15) Burr Pond, Sudbury.
``(16) Maidstone Lake, Guildhall.
``(17) Upper and Lower Hurricane Dam.
``(18) Lake Fairlee.
``(19) West Charleston Dam.''.
SEC. [3086] 3091. LAKE CHAMPLAIN EURASIAN MILFOIL, WATER
CHESTNUT, AND OTHER NONNATIVE PLANT CONTROL,
VERMONT.
Under authority of section 104 of the River and Harbor Act
of 1958 (33 U.S.C. 610), the Secretary shall revise the
existing General Design Memorandum to permit the use of
chemical means of control, when appropriate, of Eurasian
milfoil, water chestnuts, and other nonnative plants in the
Lake Champlain basin, Vermont.
SEC. [3087] 3092. UPPER CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN WETLAND
RESTORATION, VERMONT AND NEW HAMPSHIRE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the
States of Vermont and New Hampshire, shall carry out a study
and develop a strategy for the use of wetland restoration,
soil and water conservation practices, and nonstructural
measures to reduce flood damage, improve water quality, and
create wildlife habitat in the Upper Connecticut River
watershed.
(b) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of the
study and development of the strategy under subsection (a)
shall be 65 percent.
(2) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the cost
of the study and development of the strategy may be provided
through the contribution of in-kind services and materials.
(c) Non-Federal Interest.--A nonprofit organization with
wetland restoration experience may serve as the non-Federal
interest for the study and development of the strategy under
this section.
(d) Cooperative Agreements.--In conducting the study and
developing the strategy under this section, the Secretary may
enter into 1 or more cooperative agreements to provide
technical assistance to appropriate Federal, State, and local
agencies and nonprofit organizations with wetland restoration
experience, including assistance for the implementation of
wetland restoration projects and soil and water conservation
measures.
(e) Implementation.--The Secretary shall carry out
development and implementation of the strategy under this
section in cooperation with local landowners and local
government officials.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000, to
remain available until expended.
SEC. [3088] 3093. UPPER CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN ECOSYSTEM
RESTORATION, VERMONT AND NEW HAMPSHIRE.
(a) General Management Plan Development.--
(1) The Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of
Agriculture and in consultation with the States of Vermont
and New Hampshire and the Connecticut River Joint Commission,
shall conduct a study and develop a general management plan
for ecosystem restoration of the Upper Connecticut River
ecosystem for the purposes of--
(A) habitat protection and restoration;
(B) streambank stabilization;
(C) restoration of stream stability;
(D) water quality improvement;
(E) invasive species control;
(F) wetland restoration;
(G) fish passage; and
(H) natural flow restoration.
(2) Existing plans.--In developing the general management
plan, the Secretary shall depend heavily on existing plans
for the restoration of the Upper Connecticut River.
(b) Critical Restoration Projects.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may participate in any
critical restoration project in the Upper Connecticut River
Basin in accordance with the general management plan
developed under subsection (a).
(2) Eligible projects.--A critical restoration project
shall be eligible for assistance under this section if the
project--
(A) meets the purposes described in the general management
plan developed under subsection (a); and
(B) with respect to the Upper Connecticut River and Upper
Connecticut River watershed, consists of--
(i) bank stabilization of the main stem, tributaries, and
streams;
(ii) wetland restoration and migratory bird habitat
restoration;
(iii) soil and water conservation;
(iv) restoration of natural flows;
(v) restoration of stream stability;
(vi) implementation of an intergovernmental agreement for
coordinating ecosystem restoration, fish passage
installation, streambank stabilization, wetland restoration,
habitat protection and restoration, or natural flow
restoration;
(vii) water quality improvement;
(viii) invasive species control;
(ix) wetland restoration and migratory bird habitat
restoration;
(x) improvements in fish migration; and
(xi) conduct of any other project or activity determined to
be appropriate by the Secretary.
(c) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of any
project carried out under this section shall not be less than
65 percent.
(d) Non-Federal Interest.--A nonprofit organization may
serve as the non-Federal
[[Page S7718]]
interest for a project carried out under this section.
(e) Crediting.--
(1) For work.--The Secretary shall provide credit,
including credit for in-kind contributions of up to 100
percent of the non-Federal share, for work (including design
work and materials) if the Secretary determines that the work
performed by the non-Federal interest is integral to the
product.
(2) For other contributions.--The non-Federal interest
shall receive credit for land, easements, rights-of-way,
dredged material disposal areas, and relocations necessary to
implement the projects.
(f) Cooperative Agreements.--In carrying out this section,
the Secretary may enter into 1 or more cooperative agreements
to provide financial assistance to appropriate Federal,
State, or local governments or nonprofit agencies, including
assistance for the implementation of projects to be carried
out under subsection (b).
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000, to
remain available until expended.
SEC. [3089] 3094. LAKE CHAMPLAIN WATERSHED, VERMONT AND NEW
YORK.
Section 542 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
(42 Stat. 2671) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(2)--
(A) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (G);
and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following:
``(E) river corridor assessment, protection, management,
and restoration for the purposes of ecosystem restoration;
``(F) geographic mapping conducted by the Secretary using
existing technical capacity to produce a high-resolution,
multispectral satellite imagery-based land use and cover data
set; or''; and
(2) in subsection (g), by striking ``$20,000,000'' and
inserting ``$32,000,000''.
SEC. [3090] 3095. CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RESTORATION, VIRGINIA
AND MARYLAND.
Section 704(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2263(b)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (4);
(2) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in the second sentence, by striking ``$20,000,000'' and
inserting ``$50,000,000''; and
(B) in the third sentence, by striking ``Such projects''
and inserting the following:
``(2) Inclusions.--Such projects'';
(3) by striking paragraph (2)(D) (as redesignated by
paragraph (2)(B)) and inserting the following:
``(D) the restoration and rehabilitation of habitat for
fish, including native oysters, in the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries in Virginia and Maryland, including--
``(i) the construction of oyster bars and reefs;
``(ii) the rehabilitation of existing marginal habitat;
``(iii) the use of appropriate alternative substrate
material in oyster bar and reef construction;
``(iv) the construction and upgrading of oyster hatcheries;
and
``(v) activities relating to increasing the output of
native oyster broodstock for seeding and monitoring of
restored sites to ensure ecological success.
``(3) Restoration and rehabilitation activities.--The
restoration and rehabilitation activities described in
paragraph (2)(D) shall be--
``(A) for the purpose of establishing permanent sanctuaries
and harvest management areas; and
``(B) consistent with plans and strategies for guiding the
restoration of the Chesapeake Bay oyster resource and
fishery.''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Definition of ecological success.--In this
subsection, the term `ecological success' means--
``(A) achieving a tenfold increase in native oyster biomass
by the year 2010, from a 1994 baseline; and
``(B) the establishment of a sustainable fishery as
determined by a broad scientific and economic consensus.''.
SEC. [3091] 3096. 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 $2,400,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $600,000.''.
SEC. [3092] 3097. EROSION CONTROL, PUGET ISLAND, WAHKIAKUM
COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
(a) In General.--The Lower Columbia River levees and bank
protection works authorized by section 204 of the Flood
Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 178) is modified with regard to
the Wahkiakum County diking districts No. 1 and 3, but
without regard to any cost ceiling authorized before the date
of enactment of this Act, to direct the Secretary to provide
a 1-time placement of dredged material along portions of the
Columbia River shoreline of Puget Island, Washington, between
river miles 38 to 47, to protect economic and environmental
resources in the area from further erosion.
(b) Coordination and Cost-Sharing Requirements.--The
Secretary shall carry out subsection (a)--
(1) in coordination with appropriate resource agencies;
(2) in accordance with all applicable Federal law
(including regulations); and
(3) at full Federal expense.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000.
SEC. [3093] 3098. LOWER GRANITE POOL, WASHINGTON.
(a) Extinguishment of Reversionary Interests and Use
Restrictions.--With respect to property covered by each deed
described in subsection (b)--
(1) the reversionary interests and use restrictions
relating to port or industrial purposes are extinguished;
(2) the human habitation or other building structure use
restriction is extinguished in each area in which the
elevation is above the standard project flood elevation; and
(3) the use of fill material to raise low areas above the
standard project flood elevation is authorized, except in any
low area constituting wetland for which a permit under
section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1344) would be required for the use of fill material.
(b) Deeds.--The deeds referred to in subsection (a) are as
follows:
(1) Auditor's File Numbers 432576, 443411, and 579771 of
Whitman County, Washington.
(2) Auditor's File Numbers 125806, 138801, 147888, 154511,
156928, and 176360 of Asotin County, Washington.
(c) No Effect on Other Rights.--Nothing in this section
affects any remaining rights and interests of the Corps of
Engineers for authorized project purposes in or to property
covered by a deed described in subsection (b).
SEC. [3094] 3099. MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, MCNARY NATIONAL
WILDLIFE REFUGE, WASHINGTON AND IDAHO.
(a) Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction.--
Administrative jurisdiction over the land acquired for the
McNary Lock and Dam Project and managed by the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service under Cooperative Agreement Number
DACW68-4-00-13 with the Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla
District, is transferred from the Secretary to the Secretary
of the Interior.
(b) Easements.--The transfer of administrative jurisdiction
under subsection (a) shall be subject to easements in
existence as of the date of enactment of this Act on land
subject to the transfer.
(c) Rights of Secretary.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), the
Secretary shall retain rights described in paragraph (2) with
respect to the land for which administrative jurisdiction is
transferred under subsection (a).
(2) Rights.--The rights of the Secretary referred to in
paragraph (1) are the rights--
(A) to flood land described in subsection (a) to the
standard project flood elevation;
(B) to manipulate the level of the McNary Project Pool;
(C) to access such land described in subsection (a) as may
be required to install, maintain, and inspect sediment ranges
and carry out similar activities;
(D) to construct and develop wetland, riparian habitat, or
other environmental restoration features authorized under
section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 2309a) and section 206 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330);
(E) to dredge and deposit fill materials; and
(F) to carry out management actions for the purpose of
reducing the take of juvenile salmonids by avian colonies
that inhabit, before, on, or after the date of enactment of
this Act, any island included in the land described in
subsection (a).
(3) Coordination.--Before exercising a right described in
any of subparagraphs (C) through (F) of paragraph (2), the
Secretary shall coordinate the exercise with the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service.
(d) Management.--
(1) In general.--The land described in subsection (a) shall
be managed by the Secretary of the Interior as part of the
McNary National Wildlife Refuge.
(2) Cummins property.--
(A) Retention of credits.--Habitat unit credits described
in the memorandum entitled ``Design Memorandum No. 6, LOWER
SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE COMPENSATION PLAN, Wildlife
Compensation and Fishing Access Site Selection, Letter
Supplement No. 15, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE WALLULA
HMU'' provided for the Lower Snake River Fish and Wildlife
Compensation Plan through development of the parcel of land
formerly known as the ``Cummins property'' shall be retained
by the Secretary despite any changes in management of the
parcel on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
(B) Site development plan.--The United States Fish and
Wildlife Service shall obtain prior approval of the
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife for any
change to the previously approved site development plan for
the parcel of land formerly known as the ``Cummins
property''.
(3) Madame dorian recreation area.--The United States Fish
and Wildlife Service shall continue operation of the Madame
Dorian Recreation Area for public use and boater access.
[[Page S7719]]
(e) Administrative Costs.--The United States Fish and
Wildlife Service shall be responsible for all survey,
environmental compliance, and other administrative costs
required to implement the transfer of administrative
jurisdiction under subsection (a).
SEC. [3095] 3100. SNAKE RIVER PROJECT, WASHINGTON AND IDAHO.
The Fish and Wildlife Compensation Plan for the Lower Snake
River, Washington and Idaho, as authorized by section 101 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2921),
is amended to authorize the Secretary to conduct studies and
implement aquatic and riparian ecosystem restorations and
improvements specifically for fisheries and wildlife.
SEC. [3096] 3101. MARMET LOCK, KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA.
Section 101(a)(31) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3666), is amended by striking
``$229,581,000'' and inserting ``$358,000,000''.
SEC. [3097] 3102. LOWER MUD RIVER, MILTON, WEST VIRGINIA.
The project for flood control at Milton, West Virginia,
authorized by section 580 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3790), as modified by section 340 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2612),
is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the
project substantially in accordance with the draft report of
the Corps of Engineers dated May 2004, at an estimated total
cost of $45,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$34,125,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,375,000.
SEC. 3103. GREEN BAY HARBOR PROJECT, GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN.
The portion of the inner harbor of the Federal navigation
channel of the Green Bay Harbor project, authorized under 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 July 5, 1884 (commonly known as the
``River and Harbor Act of 1884'') (23 Stat. 136, chapter
229), from Station 190+00 to Station 378+00 is authorized to
a width of 75 feet and a depth of 6 feet.
SEC. [3098] 3104. UNDERWOOD CREEK DIVERSION FACILITY PROJECT,
MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN.
Section 212(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (33 U.S.C. 2332) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (22), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (23), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(24) Underwood Creek Diversion Facility Project (County
Grounds), Milwaukee County, Wisconsin.''.
SEC. [3099] 3105. 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.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may operate the headwaters
reservoirs below the minimum or above the maximum water
levels established under subsection (a) in accordance with
water control regulation manuals (or revisions to those
manuals) developed by the Secretary, after consultation with
the Governor of Minnesota and affected tribal governments,
landowners, and commercial and recreational users.
``(2) Effective date of manuals.--The water control
regulation manuals referred to in paragraph (1) (and any
revisions to those manuals) shall be effective as of the date
on which the Secretary submits the manuals (or revisions) to
Congress.
``(3) Notification.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
not less than 14 days before operating any headwaters
reservoir below the minimum or above the maximum water level
limits specified in subsection (a), the Secretary shall
submit to Congress a notice of intent to operate the
headwaters reservoir.
``(B) Exception.--Notice under subparagraph (A) shall not
be required in any case in which--
``(i) the operation of a headwaters reservoir is necessary
to prevent the loss of life or to ensure the safety of a dam;
or
``(ii) the drawdown of the water level of the reservoir is
in anticipation of a flood control operation.''.
SEC. [3100] 3106. LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER MUSEUM AND
RIVERFRONT INTERPRETIVE SITE.
Section 103(c)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1992 (106 Stat. 4811) is amended by striking ``property
currently held by the Resolution Trust Corporation in the
vicinity of the Mississippi River Bridge'' and inserting
``riverfront property''.
SEC. [3101] 3107. PILOT PROGRAM, MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVER.
(a) In General.--In accordance with the project for
navigation, Mississippi River between the Ohio and Missouri
Rivers (Regulating Works), Missouri and Illinois, authorized
by the Act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 631, chapter 382)
(commonly known as the ``River and Harbor Act of 1910''), the
Act of January 1, 1927 (44 Stat. 1010, chapter 47) (commonly
known as the ``River and Harbor Act of 1927''), and the Act
of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 918), the Secretary shall carry out
over at least a 10-year period a pilot program to restore and
protect fish and wildlife habitat in the middle Mississippi
River.
(b) Authorized Activities.--
(1) In general.--As part of the pilot program carried out
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall conduct any
activities that are necessary to improve navigation through
the project referred to in subsection (a) while restoring and
protecting fish and wildlife habitat in the middle
Mississippi River system.
(2) Inclusions.--Activities authorized under paragraph (1)
shall include--
(A) the modification of navigation training structures;
(B) the modification and creation of side channels;
(C) the modification and creation of islands;
(D) any studies and analysis necessary to develop adaptive
management principles; and
(E) the acquisition from willing sellers of any land
associated with a riparian corridor needed to carry out the
goals of the pilot program.
(c) Cost-Sharing Requirement.--The cost-sharing requirement
required under the Act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 631,
chapter 382) (commonly known as the ``River and Harbor Act of
1910''), the Act of January 1, 1927 (44 Stat. 1010, chapter
47) (commonly known as the ``River and Harbor Act of 1927''),
and the Act of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 918), for the project
referred to in subsection (a) shall apply to any activities
carried out under this section.
SEC. [3102] 3108. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
Notwithstanding section 221 of the Flood Control Act of
1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), for any Upper Mississippi River
fish and wildlife habitat rehabilitation and enhancement
project carried out under section 1103(e) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 652(e)), with
the consent of the affected local government, a
nongovernmental organization may be considered to be a non-
Federal interest.
SEC. 3109. GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION
PROGRAM.
(a) Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration.--Section
506(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (42
U.S.C. 1962d-22(c)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(3) and (4), respectively;
(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) Reconnaissance studies.--Before planning, designing,
or constructing a project under paragraph (3), the Secretary
shall carry out a reconnaissance study--
``(A) to identify methods of restoring the fishery,
ecosystem, and beneficial uses of the Great Lakes; and
``(B) to determine whether planning of a project under
paragraph (3) should proceed.''; and
(3) in paragraph (4)(A) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)),
by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``paragraph
(3)''.
(b) Cost Sharing.--Section 506(f) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-22(f)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (5) as
paragraphs (3) through (6), respectively;
(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) Reconnaissance studies.--Any reconnaissance study
under subsection (c)(2) shall be carried out at full Federal
expense.'';
(3) in paragraph (3) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)), by
striking ``(2) or (3)'' and inserting ``(3) or (4)''; and
(4) in paragraph (4)(A) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)),
by striking ``subsection (c)(2)'' and inserting ``subsection
(c)(3)''.
SEC. 3110. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS AND SEDIMENT
REMEDIATION.
Section 401(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1990 (104 Stat. 4644; 33 U.S.C. 1268 note) is amended by
striking ``through 2006'' and inserting ``through 2011''.
SEC. 3111. GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODELS.
Section 516(g)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (33 U.S.C. 2326b(g)(2)) is amended by striking ``through
2006'' and inserting ``through 2011''.
TITLE IV--STUDIES
SEC. 4001. EURASIAN MILFOIL.
Under the authority of section 104 of the River and Harbor
Act of 1958 (33 U.S.C. 610), the Secretary shall carry out a
study, at full Federal expense, to develop national protocols
for the use of the Euhrychiopsis lecontei weevil for
biological control of Eurasian milfoil in the lakes of
Vermont and other northern tier States.
SEC. 4002. NATIONAL PORT STUDY.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation, shall conduct a study of the
ability of coastal or deepwater port infrastructure to meet
current and projected national economic needs.
(b) Components.--In conducting the study, the Secretary
shall--
(1) consider--
(A) the availability of alternate transportation
destinations and modes;
(B) the impact of larger cargo vessels on existing port
capacity; and
[[Page S7720]]
(C) practicable, cost-effective congestion management
alternatives; and
(2) give particular consideration to the benefits and
proximity of proposed and existing port, harbor, waterway,
and other transportation infrastructure.
(c) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, 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 a report that describes the results
of the study.
SEC. 4003. MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION CHANNEL.
(a) In General.--To determine with improved accuracy the
environmental impacts of the project on the McClellan-Kerr
Arkansas River Navigation Channel (referred to in this
section as the ``MKARN''), the Secretary shall carry out the
measures described in [subsections (b) and (c)] subsection
(b) in a timely manner.
[(b) National Environmental Policy Act Analysis.--In
carrying out the responsibility of the Secretary under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) under this section, the Secretary shall include
consideration of--
[(1) the environmental impacts associated with transporting
an equivalent quantity of goods on Federal, State, and county
roads and such other alternative modes of transportation and
alternative destinations as are estimated to be transported
on the MKARN;
[(2) the impacts associated with air quality;
[(3) other human health and safety information (including
premature deaths averted); and
[(4) the environmental and economic costs associated with
the dredging of any site on the MKARN, to the extent that the
site would be dredged if the MKARN were authorized to a 9-
foot depth.]
[c)] (b) Species Study.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, in conjunction with
Oklahoma State University, shall convene a panel of experts
with acknowledged expertise in wildlife biology and genetics
to review the available scientific information regarding the
genetic variation of various sturgeon species and possible
hybrids of those species that, as determined by the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, may exist in any portion of
the MKARN.
(2) Report.--The Secretary shall direct the panel to report
to the Secretary, not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act and in the best scientific judgment of
the panel--
(A) the level of genetic variation between populations of
sturgeon sufficient to determine or establish that a
population is a measurably distinct species, subspecies, or
population segment; and
(B) whether any pallid sturgeons that may be found in the
MKARN (including any tributary of the MKARN) would qualify as
such a distinct species, subspecies, or population segment.
SEC. 4004. SELENIUM STUDY, COLORADO.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with State
water quality and resource and conservation agencies, shall
conduct regional and watershed-wide studies to address
selenium concentrations in the State of Colorado, including
studies--
(1) to measure selenium on specific sites; and
(2) to determine whether specific selenium measures studied
should be recommended for use in demonstration projects.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000.
SEC. 4005. NICHOLAS CANYON, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall carry out a study for bank
stabilization and shore protection for Nicholas Canyon, Los
Angeles, California, under section 3 of the Act of August 13,
1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g).
SEC. 4006. OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA, SHORELINE SPECIAL STUDY.
Section 414 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
(114 Stat. 2636) is amended by striking ``32 months'' and
inserting ``44 months''.
SEC. 4007. COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT, ST.
HELENA, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall review the project for
flood control and environmental restoration at St. Helena,
California, generally in accordance with Enhanced Minimum
Plan A, as described in the Final Environmental Impact Report
prepared by the city of St. Helena, California, and certified
by the city to be in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act on February 24, 2004.
(b) Cost Sharing.--Cost sharing for the project described
in subsection (a) shall be in accordance with section 103 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213).
SEC. 4008. SAN FRANCISCO BAY, SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA,
SHERMAN ISLAND, CALIFORNIA.
The Secretary shall carry out a study of the feasibility of
a project to use Sherman Island, California, as a dredged
material rehandling facility for the beneficial use of
dredged material to enhance the environment and meet other
water resource needs on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,
California, under section 204 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326).
SEC. 4009. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SHORELINE STUDY,
CALIFORNIA.
In carrying out the feasibility phase of the South San
Francisco Bay shoreline study, the Secretary shall use
planning and design documents prepared by the California
State Coastal Conservancy, the Santa Clara Valley Water
District, and other local interests, in cooperation with the
Corps of Engineers (who shall provide technical assistance to
the local interests), as the basis for recommendations to
Congress for authorization of a project to provide for flood
protection of the South San Francisco Bay shoreline and
restoration of the South San Francisco Bay salt ponds.
SEC. 4010. SAN PABLO BAY WATERSHED RESTORATION, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall complete work as
expeditiously as practicable on the San Pablo watershed,
California, study authorized under section 209 of the Flood
Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1196) to determine the
feasibility of opportunities for restoring, preserving, and
protecting the San Pablo Bay Watershed.
(b) Report.--Not later than March 31, 2008, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a report that describes the results
of the study.
SEC. 4011. BUBBLY CREEK, SOUTH FORK OF SOUTH BRANCH, CHICAGO
RIVER, ILLINOIS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of the feasibility of
carrying out ecosystem restoration and any other related
activity along the South Fork of the South Branch of the
Chicago River, Illinois (commonly known as ``Bubbly Creek'').
SEC. 4012. GRAND AND TIGER PASSES AND BAPTISTE COLLETTE
BAYOU, LOUISIANA.
The Secretary shall conduct a study of the feasibility of
modifying the project in existence on the date of enactment
of this Act for enlargement of the navigation channels in the
Grand and Tiger Passes and Baptiste Collette Bayou,
Louisiana.
SEC. [4011] 4013. LAKE ERIE AT LUNA PIER, MICHIGAN.
The Secretary shall study the feasibility of storm damage
reduction and beach erosion protection and other related
purposes along Lake Erie at Luna Pier, Michigan.
SEC. [4012] 4014. MIDDLE BASS ISLAND STATE PARK, MIDDLE BASS
ISLAND, OHIO.
The Secretary shall carry out a study of the feasibility of
a project for navigation improvements, shoreline protection,
and other related purposes, including the rehabilitation the
harbor basin (including entrance breakwaters), interior
shoreline protection, dredging, and the development of a
public launch ramp facility, for Middle Bass Island State
Park, Middle Bass Island, Ohio.
SEC. [4013] 4015. JASPER COUNTY PORT FACILITY STUDY, SOUTH
CAROLINA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may determine the
feasibility of providing improvements to the Savannah River
for navigation and related purposes that may be necessary to
support the location of container cargo and other port
facilities to be located in Jasper County, South Carolina,
near the vicinity of mile 6 of the Savannah Harbor Entrance
Channel.
(b) Consideration.--In making a determination under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall take into consideration--
(1) landside infrastructure;
(2) the provision of any additional dredged material
disposal area for maintenance of the ongoing Savannah Harbor
Navigation project; and
(3) the results of a consultation with the Governor of the
State of [California] Georgia and the Governor of the State
of South Carolina.
SEC. [4014] 4016. LAKE CHAMPLAIN CANAL STUDY, VERMONT AND NEW
YORK.
(a) Dispersal Barrier Project.--The Secretary shall
determine, at full Federal expense, the feasibility of a
dispersal barrier project at the Lake Champlain Canal.
(b) Construction, Maintenance, and Operation.--If the
Secretary determines that the project described in subsection
(a) is feasible, the Secretary shall construct, maintain, and
operate a dispersal barrier at the Lake Champlain Canal at
full Federal expense.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 5001. 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) in paragraph (18), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (19), by striking the period at the end
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) Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota, removal of silt and
aquatic growth and measures to address excessive
sedimentation;
``(22) Lake Morley, Vermont, removal of silt and aquatic
growth and measures to address excessive sedimentation;
``(23) Lake Fairlee, Vermont, removal of silt and aquatic
growth and measures to address excessive sedimentation; and
``(24) Lake Rodgers, Creedmoor, North Carolina, removal of
silt and excessive nutrients and restoration of structural
integrity.''.
SEC. 5002. ESTUARY RESTORATION.
(a) Purposes.--Section 102 of the Estuary Restoration Act
of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2901) is amended--
[[Page S7721]]
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting before the semicolon the
following: ``by implementing a coordinated Federal approach
to estuary habitat restoration activities, including the use
of common monitoring standards and a common system for
tracking restoration acreage'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``and implement'' after
``to develop''; and
(3) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``through cooperative
agreements'' after ``restoration projects''.
(b) Definition of Estuary Habitat Restoration Plan.--
Section 103(6)(A) of the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (33
U.S.C. 2902(6)(A)) is amended by striking ``Federal or
State'' and inserting ``Federal, State, or regional''.
(c) Estuary Habitat Restoration Program.--Section 104 of
the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2903) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``through the award of
contracts and cooperative agreements'' after ``assistance'';
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (3)(A), by inserting ``or State'' after
``Federal''; and
(B) in paragraph (4)(B), by inserting ``or approach'' after
``technology'';
(3) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``Except'' and inserting the following:
``(i) In general.--Except''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) Monitoring.--
``(I) Costs.--The costs of monitoring an estuary habitat
restoration project funded under this title may be included
in the total cost of the estuary habitat restoration project.
``(II) Goals.--The goals of the monitoring are--
``(aa) to measure the effectiveness of the restoration
project; and
``(bb) to allow adaptive management to ensure project
success.'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or approach'' after
``technology''; and
(C) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``(including
monitoring)'' after ``services'';
(4) in subsection (f)(1)(B), by inserting ``long-term''
before ``maintenance''; and
(5) in subsection (g)--
(A) by striking ``In carrying'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--In carrying''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Small projects.--
``(A) Definition.--Small projects carried out under this
Act shall have a Federal share of less than $1,000,000.
``(B) Delegation of project implementation.--In carrying
out this section, the Secretary, on recommendation of the
Council, shall consider delegating implementation of the
small project to--
``(i) the Secretary of the Interior (acting through the
Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service);
``(ii) the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere of the
Department of Commerce;
``(iii) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency; or
``(iv) the Secretary of Agriculture.
``(C) Funding.--Small projects delegated to another Federal
department or agency may be funded from the responsible
department or appropriations of the agency authorized by
section 109(a)(1).
``(D) Agreements.--The Federal department or agency to
which a small project is delegated shall enter into an
agreement with the non-Federal interest generally in
conformance with the criteria in sections 104(d) and 104(e).
Cooperative agreements may be used for any delegated
project.''.
(d) Establishment of Estuary Habitat Restoration Council.--
Section 105(b) of the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (33
U.S.C. 2904(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) cooperating in the implementation of the strategy
developed under section 106;
``(7) recommending standards for monitoring for restoration
projects and contribution of project information to the
database developed under section 107; and
``(8) otherwise using the respective agency authorities of
the Council members to carry out this title.''.
(e) Monitoring of Estuary Habitat Restoration Projects.--
Section 107(d) of the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (33
U.S.C. 2906(d)) is amended by striking ``compile'' and
inserting ``have general data compilation, coordination, and
analysis responsibilities to carry out this title and in
support of the strategy developed under section 107,
including compilation of''.
(f) Reporting.--Section 108(a) of the Estuary Restoration
Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2907(a)) is amended by striking
``third and fifth'' and inserting ``sixth, eighth, and
tenth''.
(g) Funding.--Section 109(a) of the Estuary Restoration Act
of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2908(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking subparagraphs (A) through
(D) and inserting the following:
``(A) to the Secretary, $25,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2006 through 2010;
``(B) to the Secretary of the Interior (acting through the
Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service),
$2,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010;
``(C) to the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere of
the Department of Commerce, $2,500,000 for each of fiscal
years 2006 through 2010;
``(D) to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, $2,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through
2010; and
``(E) to the Secretary of Agriculture, $2,500,000 for each
of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.''; and
(2) in the first sentence of paragraph (2)--
(A) by inserting ``and other information compiled under
section 107'' after ``this title''; and
(B) by striking ``2005'' and inserting ``2010''.
(h) General Provisions.--Section 110 of the Estuary
Restoration Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2909) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(1)--
(A) by inserting ``or contracts'' after ``agreements''; and
(B) by inserting ``, nongovernmental organizations,'' after
``agencies''; and
(2) by striking subsections (d) and (e).
SEC. 5003. DELMARVA CONSERVATION CORRIDOR, DELAWARE AND
MARYLAND.
(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 the States 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. 5004. SUSQUEHANNA, DELAWARE, AND POTOMAC RIVER BASINS,
DELAWARE, MARYLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VIRGINIA.
(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 sections 2.2 of the Susquehanna River Basin Compact
(Public Law 91-575) and the Delaware River Basin Compact
(Public Law 87-328), beginning in fiscal year 2002, and each
fiscal year thereafter, the Division Engineer, North Atlantic
Division, Corps of Engineers--
(1) shall be the ex officio United States member under the
Susquehanna River Basin Compact, the Delaware River Basin
Compact, and the Potomac River Basin Compact;
(2) shall serve without additional compensation; and
(3) may designate an alternate member in accordance with
the terms of those compacts.
(b) Authorization to Allocate.--The Secretary shall
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 the respective interstate compacts.
(c) Water Supply and Conservation Storage, Delaware River
Basin.--
(1) In general.--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, for any period during
which the Commission has determined that a drought warning or
drought emergency exists.
(2) Limitation.--The agreement shall provide that the cost
for water supply and conservation storage under paragraph (1)
shall not exceed the incremental operating costs associated
with providing the storage.
(d) Water Supply and Conservation Storage, Susquehanna
River Basin.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into an
agreement with the Susquehanna River Basin Commission to
provide temporary water supply and conservation storage at
Federal facilities operated by the Corps of Engineers in the
Susquehanna River Basin, during any period in which the
Commission has determined that a drought warning or drought
emergency exists.
(2) Limitation.--The agreement shall provide that the cost
for water supply and conservation storage under paragraph (1)
shall not exceed the incremental operating costs associated
with providing the storage.
(e) Water Supply and Conservation Storage, Potomac River
Basin.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into an
agreement with the Potomac River Basin Commission to provide
temporary water supply and conservation storage at Federal
facilities operated by the Corps of Engineers in the Potomac
River Basin for any period during which the Commission has
determined that a drought warning or drought emergency
exists.
(2) Limitation.--The agreement shall provide that the cost
for water supply and conservation storage under paragraph (1)
shall not exceed the incremental operating costs associated
with providing the storage.
SEC. 5005. CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIERS
PROJECT, ILLINOIS.
(a) Existing Barrier.--The Secretary shall upgrade and make
permanent, at full Federal expense, the existing Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier Chicago, Illinois,
constructed as a demonstration project
[[Page S7722]]
under section 1202(i)(3) of the Nonindigenous Aquatic
Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C.
4722(i)(3)).
(b) New Barrier.--Notwithstanding the project cooperation
agreement dated November 21, 2003, with the State of
Illinois, the Secretary shall construct, at full Federal
expense, the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal
Barrier currently being implemented under section 1135 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a).
(c) Operation and Maintenance.--The Chicago Sanitary and
Ship Canal Dispersal Barriers described in subsections (a)
and (b) shall be operated and maintained, at full Federal
expense, as a system in a manner to optimize effectiveness.
(d) Credit.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall credit to each State
the proportion of funds that the State contributed to the
authorized dispersal barriers.
(2) Use.--A State may apply the credit to existing or
future projects of the Corps of Engineers.
SEC. 5006. RIO GRANDE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, NEW
MEXICO.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Rio
Grande Environmental Management Act of 2004''.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Rio grande compact.--The term ``Rio Grande Compact''
means the compact approved by Congress under the Act of May
31, 1939 (53 Stat. 785, chapter 155), and ratified by the
States of Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas.
(2) Rio grande system.--The term ``Rio Grande system''
means the headwaters of the Rio Chama River and the Rio
Grande River (including all tributaries of the Rivers), from
the border between the States of Colorado and New Mexico
downstream to the border between the States of New Mexico and
Texas.
(3) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of New
Mexico.
(c) Program Authority.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out, in the Rio
Grande system--
(A) a program for the planning, construction, and
evaluation of measures for fish and wildlife habitat
rehabilitation and enhancement; and
(B) implementation of a long-term monitoring, computerized
data inventory and analysis, applied research, and adaptive
management program.
(2) Reports.--Not later than December 31, 2008, and not
later than December 31 of every sixth year thereafter, the
Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior
and the State, shall submit to Congress a report that--
(A) contains an evaluation of the programs described in
paragraph (1);
(B) describes the accomplishments of each of the programs;
(C) provides updates of a systemic habitat needs
assessment; and
(D) identifies any needed adjustments in the authorization
of the programs.
(d) State and Local Consultation and Cooperative Effort.--
For the purpose of ensuring the coordinated planning and
implementation of the programs authorized under subsection
(c), the Secretary shall--
(1) consult with the State and other appropriate entities
in the State the rights and interests of which might be
affected by specific program activities; and
(2) enter into an interagency agreement with the Secretary
of the Interior to provide for the direct participation of,
and transfer of funds to, the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service and any other agency or bureau of the Department of
the Interior for the planning, design, implementation, and
evaluation of those programs.
(e) Cost Sharing.--
(1) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of a
project carried out under subsection (c)(1)(A)--
(A) shall be 35 percent;
(B) may be provided through in-kind services or direct cash
contributions; and
(C) shall include provision of necessary land, easements,
relocations, and disposal sites.
(3) (2) Operation and maintenance.--The costs of operation
and maintenance of a project located on Federal land, or land
owned or operated by a State or local government, shall be
borne by the Federal, State, or local agency that has
jurisdiction over fish and wildlife activities on the land.
(f) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of the
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), with the
consent of the affected local government, a nonprofit entity
may be included as a non-Federal interest for any project
carried out under subsection (c)(1)(A).
(g) Effect on Other Law.--
(1) Water law.--Nothing in this section preempts any State
water law.
(2) Compacts and decrees.--In carrying out this section,
the Secretary shall comply with the Rio Grande Compact, and
any applicable court decrees or Federal and State laws,
affecting water or water rights in the Rio Grande system.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section
$25,000,000 for fiscal year 2005 and each subsequent fiscal
year.
SEC. 5007. CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX
TRIBE, AND TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT
RESTORATION, SOUTH DAKOTA.
(a) Disbursement Provisions of the State of South Dakota
and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux
Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Funds.--
Section 602(a)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (113 Stat. 386) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) in clause (i), by inserting ``and the Secretary of the
Treasury'' after ``Secretary''; and
(B) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following:
``(ii) Availability of funds.--On notification in
accordance with clause (i), the Secretary of the Treasury
shall make available to the State of South Dakota funds from
the State of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat
Restoration Trust Fund established under section 603, to be
used to carry out the plan for terrestrial wildlife habitat
restoration submitted by the State of South Dakota after the
State certifies to the Secretary of the Treasury that the
funds to be disbursed will be used in accordance with section
603(d)(3) and only after the Trust Fund is fully
capitalized.''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking clause (ii) and
inserting the following:
``(ii) Availability of funds.--On notification in
accordance with clause (i), the Secretary of the Treasury
shall make available to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and
the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe funds from the Cheyenne River
Sioux Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund and
the Lower Brule Sioux Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat
Restoration Trust Fund, respectively, established under
section 604, to be used to carry out the plans for
terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration submitted by the
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe,
respectively, after the respective tribe certifies to the
Secretary of the Treasury that the funds to be disbursed will
be used in accordance with section 604(d)(3) and only after
the Trust Fund is fully capitalized.''.
(b) Investment Provisions of the State of South Dakota
Terrestrial Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund.--Section 603 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 388)
is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
``(c) Investments.--
``(1) Eligible obligations.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary of the Treasury shall invest
the amounts deposited under subsection (b) and the interest
earned on those amounts only in interest-bearing obligations
of the United States issued directly to the Fund.
``(2) Investment requirements.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
invest the Fund in accordance with all of the requirements of
this paragraph.
``(B) Separate investments of principal and interest.--
``(i) Principal account.--The amounts deposited in the Fund
under subsection (b) shall be credited to an account within
the Fund (referred to in this paragraph as the `principal
account') and invested as provided in subparagraph (C).
``(ii) Interest account.--The interest earned from
investing amounts in the principal account of the Fund shall
be transferred to a separate account within the Fund
(referred to in this paragraph as the `interest account') and
invested as provided in subparagraph (D).
``(iii) Crediting.--The interest earned from investing
amounts in the interest account of the Fund shall be credited
to the interest account.
``(C) Investment of principal account.--
``(i) Initial investment.--Each amount deposited in the
principal account of the Fund shall be invested initially in
eligible obligations having the shortest maturity then
available until the date on which the amount is divided into
3 substantially equal portions and those portions are
invested in eligible obligations that are identical (except
for transferability) to the next-issued publicly issued
Treasury obligations having a 2-year maturity, a 5-year
maturity, and a 10-year maturity, respectively.
``(ii) Subsequent investment.--As each 2-year, 5-year, and
10-year eligible obligation matures, the principal of the
maturing eligible obligation shall also be invested initially
in the shortest-maturity eligible obligation then available
until the principal is reinvested substantially equally in
the eligible obligations that are identical (except for
transferability) to the next-issued publicly issued Treasury
obligations having 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year maturities.
``(iii) Discontinuance of issuance of obligations.--If the
Department of the Treasury discontinues issuing to the public
obligations having 2-year, 5-year, or 10-year maturities, the
principal of any maturing eligible obligation shall be
reinvested substantially equally in eligible obligations that
are identical (except for transferability) to the next-issued
publicly issued Treasury obligations of the maturities longer
than 1 year then available.
``(D) Investment of interest account.--
``(i) Before full capitalization.--Until the date on which
the Fund is fully capitalized, amounts in the interest
account of the Fund shall be invested in eligible obligations
that are identical (except for transferability) to publicly
issued Treasury obligations that have maturities that
coincide, to the maximum extent practicable, with the date on
[[Page S7723]]
which the Fund is expected to be fully capitalized.
``(ii) After full capitalization.--On and after the date on
which the Fund is fully capitalized, amounts in the interest
account of the Fund shall be invested and reinvested in
eligible obligations having the shortest maturity then
available until the amounts are withdrawn and transferred to
fund the activities authorized under subsection (d)(3).
``(E) Par purchase price.--The price to be paid for
eligible obligations purchased as investments of the
principal account shall not exceed the par value of the
obligations so that the amount of the principal account shall
be preserved in perpetuity.
``(F) Highest yield.--Among eligible obligations having the
same maturity and purchase price, the obligation to be
purchased shall be the obligation having the highest yield.
``(G) Holding to maturity.--Eligible obligations purchased
shall generally be held to their maturities.
``(3) Annual review of investment activities.--Not less
frequently than once each calendar year, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall review with the State of South Dakota the
results of the investment activities and financial status of
the Fund during the preceding 12-month period.'';
(2) in subsection (d)(2), by inserting ``of the Treasury''
after Secretary''; and
(3) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following:
``(f) Administrative Expenses.--There are authorized to be
appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, to the Secretary of the Treasury, to pay
expenses associated with investing the Fund and auditing the
uses of amounts withdrawn from the Fund--
``(1) up to $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and
2007; and
``(2) such sums as are necessary for each subsequent fiscal
year.''.
(c) Investment Provisions for the Cheyenne River Sioux
Tribe and Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Trust Funds.--Section 604
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat.
389) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
``(c) Investments.--
``(1) Eligible obligations.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary of the Treasury shall invest
the amounts deposited under subsection (b) and the interest
earned on those amounts only in interest-bearing obligations
of the United States issued directly to the Funds.
``(2) Investment requirements.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
invest each of the Funds in accordance with all of the
requirements of this paragraph.
``(B) Separate investments of principal and interest.--
``(i) Principal account.--The amounts deposited in each
Fund under subsection (b) shall be credited to an account
within the Fund (referred to in this paragraph as the
`principal account') and invested as provided in subparagraph
(C).
``(ii) Interest account.--The interest earned from
investing amounts in the principal account of each Fund shall
be transferred to a separate account within the Fund
(referred to in this paragraph as the `interest account') and
invested as provided in subparagraph (D).
``(iii) Crediting.--The interest earned from investing
amounts in the interest account of each Fund shall be
credited to the interest account.
``(C) Investment of principal account.--
``(i) Initial investment.--Each amount deposited in the
principal account of each Fund shall be invested initially in
eligible obligations having the shortest maturity then
available until the date on which the amount is divided into
3 substantially equal portions and those portions are
invested in eligible obligations that are identical (except
for transferability) to the next-issued publicly issued
Treasury obligations having a 2-year maturity, a 5-year
maturity, and a 10-year maturity, respectively.
``(ii) Subsequent investment.--As each 2-year, 5-year, and
10-year eligible obligation matures, the principal of the
maturing eligible obligation shall also be invested initially
in the shortest-maturity eligible obligation then available
until the principal is reinvested substantially equally in
the eligible obligations that are identical (except for
transferability) to the next-issued publicly issued Treasury
obligations having 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year maturities.
``(iii) Discontinuation of issuance of obligations.--If the
Department of the Treasury discontinues issuing to the public
obligations having 2-year, 5-year, or 10-year maturities, the
principal of any maturing eligible obligation shall be
reinvested substantially equally in eligible obligations that
are identical (except for transferability) to the next-issued
publicly issued Treasury obligations of the maturities longer
than 1 year then available.
``(D) Investment of the interest account.--
``(i) Before full capitalization.--Until the date on which
each Fund is fully capitalized, amounts in the interest
account of the Fund shall be invested in eligible obligations
that are identical (except for transferability) to publicly
issued Treasury obligations that have maturities that
coincide, to the maximum extent practicable, with the date on
which the Fund is expected to be fully capitalized.
``(ii) After full capitalization.--On and after the date on
which each Fund is fully capitalized, amounts in the interest
account of the Fund shall be invested and reinvested in
eligible obligations having the shortest maturity then
available until the amounts are withdrawn and transferred to
fund the activities authorized under subsection (d)(3).
``(E) Par purchase price.--The price to be paid for
eligible obligations purchased as investments of the
principal account shall not exceed the par value of the
obligations so that the amount of the principal account shall
be preserved in perpetuity.
``(F) Highest yield.--Among eligible obligations having the
same maturity and purchase price, the obligation to be
purchased shall be the obligation having the highest yield.
``(G) Holding to maturity.--Eligible obligations purchased
shall generally be held to their maturities.
``(3) Annual review of investment activities.--Not less
frequently than once each calendar year, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall review with the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and
the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe the results of the investment
activities and financial status of the Funds during the
preceding 12-month period.''; and
(2) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following:
``(f) Administrative Expenses.--There are authorized to be
appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, to the Secretary of the Treasury to pay
expenses associated with investing the Funds and auditing the
uses of amounts withdrawn from the Funds--
``(1) up to $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and
2007; and
``(2) such sums as are necessary for each subsequent fiscal
year.''.
SEC. 5008. CONNECTICUT RIVER DAMS, VERMONT.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall evaluate, design, and
construct structural modifications at full Federal cost to
the Union Village Dam (Ompompanoosuc River), North Hartland
Dam (Ottauquechee River), North Springfield Dam (Black
River), Ball Mountain Dam (West River), and Townshend Dam
(West River), Vermont, to regulate flow and temperature to
mitigate downstream impacts on aquatic habitat and fisheries.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000.
TITLE VI--PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS
SEC. 6001. LITTLE COVE CREEK, GLENCOE, ALABAMA.
The project for flood damage reduction, Little Cove Creek,
Glencoe, Alabama, authorized by the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1985 (99 Stat. 312), is not authorized.
SEC. 6002. GOLETA AND VICINITY, CALIFORNIA.
The project for flood control, Goleta and Vicinity,
California, authorized by section 201 of the Flood Control
Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1826), is not authorized.
SEC. 6003. BRIDGEPORT HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.
(a) In General.--The portion of the project for navigation,
Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the Act of July
3, 1930 (46 Stat. 919), consisting of an 18-foot channel in
Yellow Mill River and described in subsection (b), is not
authorized.
(b) Description of Project.--The project referred to in
subsection (a) is described as beginning at a point along the
eastern limit of the existing project, N. 123,649.75, E.
481,920.54, thence running northwesterly about 52.64 feet to
a point N. 123,683.03, E. 481,879.75, thence running
northeasterly about 1,442.21 feet to a point N. 125,030.08,
E. 482,394.96, thence running northeasterly about 139.52 feet
to a point along the east limit of the existing channel, N.
125,133.87, E. 482,488.19, thence running southwesterly about
1,588.98 feet to the point of origin.
SEC. 6004. BRIDGEPORT, CONNECTICUT.
The project for environmental infrastructure, Bridgeport,
Connecticut, authorized by section 219(f)(26) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat.
336), is not authorized.
SEC. 6005. HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT.
The project for environmental infrastructure, Hartford,
Connecticut, authorized by section 219(f)(27) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat.
336), is not authorized.
SEC. 6006. NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT.
The project for environmental infrastructure, New Haven,
Connecticut, authorized by section 219(f)(28) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat.
336), is not authorized.
SEC. 6007. INLAND WATERWAY FROM DELAWARE RIVER TO CHESAPEAKE
BAY, PART II, INSTALLATION OF FENDER PROTECTION
FOR BRIDGES, DELAWARE AND MARYLAND.
The project for the construction of bridge fenders for the
Summit and St. Georges Bridge for the Inland Waterway of the
Delaware River to the C & D Canal of the Chesapeake Bay
authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1954 (68 Stat.
1249) is not authorized.
SEC. 6008. CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, EVERGLADES NATIONAL
PARK, FLORIDA.
The project to modify the Central and Southern Florida
project to improve water supply to the Everglades National
Park, Florida, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control
Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1257) and the Flood Control Act of 1968
(82 Stat. 740), is not authorized.
[[Page S7724]]
SEC. 6009. SHINGLE CREEK BASIN, FLORIDA.
The project for flood control, Central and Southern Florida
Project, Shingle Creek Basin, Florida, authorized by section
203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1182), is not
authorized.
SEC. 6010. BREVOORT, INDIANA.
The project for flood control, Brevoort, Indiana,
authorized under section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1936
(49 Stat. 1587), is not authorized.
SEC. 6011. MIDDLE WABASH, GREENFIELD BAYOU, INDIANA.
The project for flood control, Middle Wabash, Greenfield
Bayou, Indiana, authorized by section 10 of the Flood Control
Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 649), is not authorized.
SEC. 6012. LAKE GEORGE, HOBART, INDIANA.
The project for flood damage reduction, Lake George,
Hobart, Indiana, authorized by section 602 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148), is not
authorized.
SEC. 6013. GREEN BAY LEVEE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 2, IOWA.
The project for flood damage reduction, 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)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1992 (106 Stat. 4821), is not authorized.
SEC. 6014. MUSCATINE HARBOR, IOWA.
The project for navigation at the Muscatine Harbor on the
Mississippi River at Muscatine, Iowa, authorized by section
101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 166), is
not authorized.
SEC. 6015. BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATIONAL
AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE.
The project for recreation facilities at Big South Fork
National River and Recreational Area, Kentucky and Tennessee,
authorized by section 108 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 43), is not authorized.
SEC. 6016. EAGLE CREEK LAKE, KENTUCKY.
The project for flood control and water supply, Eagle Creek
Lake, Kentucky, authorized by section 203 of the Flood
Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1188), is not authorized.
SEC. 6017. HAZARD, KENTUCKY.
The project for flood damage reduction, Hazard, Kentucky,
authorized by section 3 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014) and section 108 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4621), is not
authorized.
SEC. 6018. WEST KENTUCKY TRIBUTARIES, KENTUCKY.
The project for flood control, West Kentucky Tributaries,
Kentucky, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act
of 1965 (79 Stat. 1081), section 201 of the Flood Control Act
of 1970 (84 Stat. 1825), and section 401(b) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4129), is not
authorized.
SEC. 6019. BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LOUISIANA.
The project for flood damage reduction, Bayou Cocodrie and
Tributaries, Louisiana, authorized by section 3 of the 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 (55 Stat. 644),
and section 1(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1974 (88 Stat. 12), is not authorized.
SEC. 6020. BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP, LOUISIANA.
The uncompleted portions of the project for navigation
improvement for Bayou LaFourche and LaFourche Jump,
Louisiana, authorized by the Act of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat.
1033, chapter 831) and the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74
Stat. 481), are not authorized.
SEC. 6021. EASTERN RAPIDES AND SOUTH-CENTRAL AVOYELLES
PARISHES, LOUISIANA.
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), is not
authorized.
SEC. 6022. FORT LIVINGSTON, GRAND TERRE ISLAND, LOUISIANA.
The project for erosion protection and recreation, Fort
Livingston, Grande Terre Island, Louisiana, authorized by the
Act of August 13, 1946 (commonly known as the ``Flood Control
Act of 1946'') (33 U.S.C. 426e et seq.), is not authorized.
SEC. 6023. GULF INTERCOASTAL WATERWAY, LAKE BORGNE AND CHEF
MENTEUR, LOUISIANA.
The project for the construction of bulkheads and jetties
at Lake Borgne and Chef Menteur, Louisiana, as part of the
Gulf Intercoastal Waterway authorized by the first section of
the River and Harbor Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 635) is not
authorized.
SEC. 6024. RED RIVER WATERWAY, SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA TO
DAINGERFIELD, TEXAS.
The project for the Red River Waterway, Shreveport,
Louisiana to Daingerfield, Texas, authorized by section 101
of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731), is not
authorized.
SEC. 6025. CASCO BAY, PORTLAND, MAINE.
The project for environmental infrastructure, Casco Bay in
the Vicinity of Portland, Maine, authorized by section 307 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4841),
is not authorized.
SEC. 6026. NORTHEAST HARBOR, MAINE.
The project for navigation, Northeast Harbor, Maine,
authorized by section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (59 Stat.
12, chapter 19), is not authorized.
SEC. 6027. PENOBSCOT RIVER, BANGOR, MAINE.
The project for environmental infrastructure, Penobscot
River in the Vicinity of Bangor, Maine, authorized by section
307 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat.
4841), is not authorized.
SEC. 6028. SAINT JOHN RIVER BASIN, MAINE.
The project for research and demonstration program of
cropland irrigation and soil conservation techniques, Saint
John River Basin, Maine, authorized by section 1108 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (106 Stat. 4230), is
not authorized.
SEC. 6029. TENANTS HARBOR, MAINE.
The project for navigation, Tenants Harbor, Maine,
authorized by the first section of the Act of March 2, 1919
(40 Stat. 1275, chapter 95), is not authorized.
SEC. 6030. GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MICHIGAN.
The project for navigation, Grand Haven Harbor, Michigan,
authorized by section 202(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4093), is not authorized.
SEC. 6031. GREENVILLE HARBOR, MISSISSIPPI.
The project for navigation, Greenville Harbor, Mississippi,
authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142), is not authorized.
SEC. 6032. PLATTE RIVER FLOOD AND RELATED STREAMBANK EROSION
CONTROL, NEBRASKA.
The project for flood damage reduction, Platte River Flood
and Related Streambank Erosion Control, Nebraska, authorized
by section 603 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(100 Stat. 4149), is not authorized.
SEC. 6033. EPPING, NEW HAMPSHIRE.
The project for environmental infrastructure, Epping, New
Hampshire, authorized by section 219(c)(6) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835), is not
authorized.
SEC. 6034. MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE.
The project for environmental infrastructure, Manchester,
New Hampshire, authorized by section 219(c)(7) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4836), is not
authorized.
SEC. 6035. NEW YORK HARBOR AND ADJACENT CHANNELS, CLAREMONT
TERMINAL, JERSEY CITY, NEW JERSEY.
The project for navigation, New York Harbor and adjacent
channels, Claremont Terminal, Jersey City, New Jersey,
authorized by section 202(b) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4098), is not authorized.
SEC. 6036. EISENHOWER AND SNELL LOCKS, NEW YORK.
The project for navigation, Eisenhower and Snell Locks, New
York, authorized by section 1163 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4258), is not authorized.
SEC. 6037. OLCOTT HARBOR, LAKE ONTARIO, NEW YORK.
The project for navigation, Olcott Harbor, Lake Ontario,
New York, authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4143), is not authorized.
SEC. 6038. OUTER HARBOR, BUFFALO, NEW YORK.
The project for navigation, Outer Harbor, Buffalo, New
York, authorized by section 110 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4817), is not authorized.
SEC. 6039. SUGAR CREEK BASIN, NORTH CAROLINA AND SOUTH
CAROLINA.
The project for flood damage reduction, Sugar Creek Basin,
North Carolina and South Carolina, authorized by section
401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
Stat. 4121), is not authorized.
SEC. 6040. CLEVELAND HARBOR 1958 ACT, OHIO.
The project for navigation, Cleveland Harbor (Uncompleted
Portion), Ohio, authorized by section 101 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 299), is not authorized.
SEC. 6041. CLEVELAND HARBOR 1960 ACT, OHIO.
The project for navigation, Cleveland Harbor (Uncompleted
Portion), Ohio, authorized by section 101 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 482), is not authorized.
SEC. 6042. CLEVELAND HARBOR, UNCOMPLETED PORTION OF CUT #4,
OHIO.
The project for navigation, Cleveland Harbor (Uncompleted
Portion of Cut #4), Ohio, authorized by the first section of
the Act of July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 636, chapter 595), is not
authorized.
SEC. 6043. COLUMBIA RIVER, SEAFARERS MEMORIAL, HAMMOND,
OREGON.
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),
is not authorized.
SEC. 6044. CHARTIERS CREEK, CANNONSBURG (HOUSTON REACH UNIT
2B), PENNSYLVANIA.
The project for flood control, Chartiers Creek, Cannonsburg
(Houston Reach Unit 2B), Pennsylvania, authorized by section
204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1081), is not
authorized.
SEC. 6045. SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA.
The project for navigation, Schuylkill River (Mouth to
Penrose Avenue), Pennsylvania, authorized by section 3(a)(12)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat.
4013), is not authorized.
SEC. 6046. TIOGA-HAMMOND LAKES, PENNSYLVANIA.
The project for flood control and recreation, Tioga-Hammond
Lakes, Mill Creek
[[Page S7725]]
Recreation, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 203 of the
Flood Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 313), is not authorized.
SEC. 6047. TAMAQUA, PENNSYLVANIA.
The project for flood control, Tamaqua, Pennsylvania,
authorized by section 1(a) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 14), is not authorized.
SEC. 6048. NARRAGANSETT TOWN BEACH, NARRAGANSETT, RHODE
ISLAND.
The project for navigation, Narragansett Town Beach,
Narragansett, Rhode Island, authorized by section 361 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4861), is
not authorized.
SEC. 6049. QUONSET POINT-DAVISVILLE, RHODE ISLAND.
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), is not
authorized.
SEC. 6050. ARROYO COLORADO, TEXAS.
The project for flood damage reduction, Arroyo Colorado,
Texas, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4125), is not authorized.
SEC. 6051. CYPRESS CREEK-STRUCTURAL, TEXAS.
The project for flood damage reduction, Cypress Creek-
Structural, Texas, authorized by section 3(a)(13) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014), is
not authorized.
SEC. 6052. EAST FORK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, INCREMENT 2, EAST
FORK OF THE TRINITY RIVER, TEXAS.
The project for flood damage reduction, East Fork Channel
Improvement, Increment 2, East Fork of the Trinity River,
Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of
1962 (76 Stat. 1185), is not authorized.
SEC. 6053. FALFURRIAS, TEXAS.
The project for flood damage reduction, Falfurrias, Texas,
authorized by section 3(a)(14) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014), is not authorized.
SEC. 6054. PECAN BAYOU LAKE, TEXAS.
The project for flood control, Pecan Bayou Lake, Texas,
authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968
(82 Stat. 742), is not authorized.
SEC. 6055. LAKE OF THE PINES, TEXAS.
The project for navigation improvements affecting Lake of
the Pines, Texas, for the portion of the Red River below
Fulton, Arkansas, authorized by the Act of July 13, 1892 (27
Stat. 88, chapter 158), as amended by the Act of July 24,
1946 (60 Stat. 635, chapter 595), the Act of May 17, 1950 (64
Stat. 163, chapter 188), and the River and Harbor Act of 1968
(82 Stat. 731), is not authorized.
SEC. 6056. TENNESSEE COLONY LAKE, TEXAS.
The project for navigation, Tennessee Colony Lake, Trinity
River, Texas, authorized by section 204 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1091), is not authorized.
SEC. 6057. CITY WATERWAY, TACOMA, WASHINGTON.
The portion of the project for navigation, City Waterway,
Tacoma, Washington, authorized by the first section of the
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, is
not authorized.
SEC. 6058. KANAWHA RIVER, CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA.
The project for bank erosion, Kanawha River, Charleston,
West Virginia, authorized by section 603(f)(13) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4153), is not
authorized.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, last Thursday Senator Jeffords and I took
some time to thank the members of our committee and many on the outside
for cooperation in bringing to the Senate the Water Resources
Development Act. This is a very big bill. It is a very significant
bill. It involved the cooperation of quite a number of people. I would
say every member of our committee has been very cooperative. I talked a
little bit about Senator Feingold and the fact he had some objections.
He was very good to work with, along with Senator McCain and others.
We finally are at the point now where, after a lot of negotiation,
the Senate is considering today S. 728, the Water Resources Development
Act of 2006.
As the world's leading maritime and trading nation, the United States
relies on an efficient maritime transportation system to maintain its
role as a global power. The bill we debate today is the cornerstone of
that system.
The Water Resources Development Act, or WRDA, sets out the Federal
policy of procedure for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to maintain
and build our inland and intracoastal waterway system, which carries
one-sixth of the Nation's volume of intercity cargo.
In addition, the Corps is responsible for maintaining approximate
channel depths in ports along our coasts and the Great Lakes to handle
95 percent of all foreign trade into and out of the country. In fact,
more than 67 percent of all consumer goods pass through harbors
maintained by the Corps of Engineers. WRDA also authorizes the Corps to
work with communities on flood damage reduction and hurricane and storm
damage reduction projects designed to protect human life and property.
Inland and intracoastal waterways, which serve States on the Atlantic
seaboard, the gulf coast, and the Pacific Northwest, move about 630
million tons of cargo valued at over $70 billion annually. Furthermore,
it is estimated that the average transportation cost savings to users
of the system is $10.67 per ton, or $7 billion annually over other
modes of transportation.
The nearly 12,000 miles of inland and intracoastal waterways include
192 commercially active lock and dam sites. I might add, a lot of
people are surprised these are in my State of Oklahoma. Over 50 percent
of the locks and dams operated by the Corps are more than 50 years old
and consequently are approaching the end of their design life and are
in need of modernization or major rehabilitation. This bill authorizes
ongoing work to modernize and rehabilitate our inland and intracoastal
waterway system.
In the 1800s, the Corps was first called upon to address flood
problems along the Mississippi River. Since then, the Corps has
continued to provide flood damage reduction along the Mississippi River
and in other regions of the country. These efforts range from small
local protection to projects such as levees, or nonstructural measures,
to major dams. Today, most of the structures are owned by sponsoring
cities, towns, and agricultural districts. Although the Corps cannot
prevent all damage from floods, the efforts of the Corps do
significantly reduce the cost of the flood events.
To illustrate this point, consider that during the 10 years from 1991
to 2000, the decade of the 1990s, the country suffered $45 billion in
property damage from floods. If Corps flood damage reduction measures
had not been in place, however, that figure would have been more than
$208 billion in damage. Clearly, flood control is a wise investment.
According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the flood control
structures on average prevent $22 billion in flood damage each year, a
savings of $6 per every $1 spent.
Second, similarly, the Corps also participates in and this bill
authorizes hurricane and storm damage reduction projects along our
Nation's coast as well as projects to combat shoreline erosion. So we
are talking now about three aspects: navigation, the hurricanes, and
the erosion problem.
And then the third Corps mission is ecosystems restoration. Working
with non-Federal sponsors, the Corps implements single-purpose
ecosystems, restoration projects, multipurpose projects with ecosystems
restoration components, or projects for flood protection or navigation
that incorporate environmental features as good engineering. The Corps
has restored, created, and protected over 500,000 acres of wetlands and
other habitats between 1988 and 2004. In some cases, existing water
resources projects are modified to achieve restoration benefits.
This bill includes authorization of several such projects, including
quickly approaching the crisis that, if ignored, would dramatically
stunt continued economic growth.
We have to understand right now, with what is happening in this
country, the increase in economic activity is what has brought us out
of this recession. The deficits people in this Senate like to talk
about are being addressed by the fact that, for each additional 1
percent of economic activity, it increases revenues about $45 billion.
This bill is going to be very helpful in increasing economic activity.
As one of the most fiscally conservative Members of this Senate, I
have long argued that the two most important functions of the Federal
Government are to provide for national defense and public
infrastructure. A lot of my conservative colleagues are going to be
talking about projects and maybe earmarks. That is not in this bill we
are talking about. They might be surprised to know that I, with a
rating of 100 percent by the American Conservative Union, this year and
last year, am proposing this bill, which is a big spending bill, but we
are not spending. We are authorizing. We have an orderly procedure to
reach those projects which would enjoy the most support.
[[Page S7726]]
I say to my conservative friends, I am one who is not for wasteful
spending. I have maintained the perfect record in terms of my
conservative leanings. In fact, it is exactly what being a fiscal
conservative is all about.
The primary purpose of government spending is to provide for the
national defense and to provide for critical infrastructure. Think how
chaotic the system would be if each individual would build and maintain
their own infrastructure system. Society simply would not function.
Every first-year political science student learns that the function of
the body politic is to provide resources that are used by all.
Efficiency and economics require the Government not only plan but
construct and maintain public infrastructure. So I am not shy about
voting for increased authorization on national defense needs or public
infrastructure.
At the same time, we have to spend limited tax dollars wisely, with
that in mind, on three major restoration projects in Louisiana,
Florida, and the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Unfortunately, as other
infrastructure bills, WRDA has been decried in the press perhaps as a
pork bill. During the debate in the Senate we may hear from some who
will agree with that. It is the popular thing to say. As one of the
primary authors of the bill, allow me to explain why this charge, if
raised, is not accurate.
First, contrary to public belief, this bill is not just project
authorization. It contains also significant policy changes designed to
ensure an efficient and effective process for addressing our Nation's
water resources needs. Later in this debate, Senators will have an
opportunity to consider several amendments on further policy reforms.
The bill does have project authorizations. It is an unfortunate fact
of life when infrastructure bills are debated we first have to battle
back the charge that all we are doing is funding unneeded projects.
Look at the facts. According to the American Society of Civil
Engineers 2005 report cards on America's infrastructure, none of the
Nation's primary infrastructure such as roads, airports, drinking water
facilities, wastewater management systems, gets above a C, and most
receive a D. That is without exception. None. And every project
authorization is quickly approaching a crisis that, if ignored, will
dramatically stunt continued economic growth. We are at the point now
where we need to do something.
With that in mind, the committee established a very firm policy of
what types of project requests we would consider. Every project
authorization included in this bill is based on a report of the Chief
of Engineers verifying that the project is technically feasible,
economical, economically justified, and environmentally accepted.
I will talk a little bit about the types of engineering reports that
are necessary. We did not include environmental infrastructure projects
such as water treatment facilities or riverfront development projects
because neither of these are a Corps of Engineers mission. Finally, we
did not authorize cost-share waivers on existing or new projects. We
have always felt the local community has to have an investment and has
to have the support of the State, county, or city in order to come
forth with the project.
At the present time, Senator Bond and I will be offering two
amendments, one on prioritization of projects, and another establishing
a procedure of independent peer review. Both of these issues are
important reforms to the program. We agree that Congress needs better
analysis so we can more easily compare individual projects, thereby
ensuring the most needed projects are addressed in a timely manner.
Independent peer review fulfills a critical function to ensure that
policymakers are using accurate information to make decisions.
Therefore, Senator Bond and I will be offering an amendment to clarify
which projects should undergo independent peer review.
Finally, some have expressed a concern about the size of the bill. I
understand and appreciate these concerns. However, I point out that it
has been 6 years since the last WRDA bill was signed into law.
Traditionally, WRDA is done every 2 years. Given the 6-year timelag,
what the Senate is being asked to consider represents what would be
three WRDAs if we had kept to the 2-year schedule. Given that, I
believe the cost is reasonable.
The amount of this bill would be eventually about $7 billion in
authorization. However, if we were to follow the pattern set in 2000,
for a 2-year bill, it was 5.07, so it is considerably less than if we
had been doing it every 2 years as we did in the year 2000.
For the benefit of those who may not be familiar with the Army Corps
of Engineers program, let me explain. The program does include
planning, design, construction, maintenance, and operation of water
projects that give improved flood damage reduction, hurricane and storm
damage reduction, shore protection, navigation, ecosystems restoration,
hydroelectric power, recreation, and other various water resources
needed. Virtually all water resources projects are cost shared with a
local sponsor. The statutory cost share varies depending on the size of
the project. Generally speaking, the local share is about 35 percent;
the Federal share is about 65 percent.
Projects generally originate with a request for assistance from a
community or local government entity with the water resource need that
is beyond its capability to alleviate. A study authority allows the
Corps to investigate a problem and determine if there is a Federal
interest in proceeding further.
If the Corps has performed a study in the geographic area before this
time--in other words, if it has already done it--a new study can be
authorized by a resolution of either the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works, the committee I chair, or the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. If the Corps has not
previously investigated the area, the study needs to be authorized by
an act of Congress, typically through what we are considering today, a
WRDA bill.
Army Corps studies are usually conducted in two stages: the first,
called a reconnaissance study, or the recon study, is a general
investigation, including an overview of the problem, identification of
potential local sponsors--that could be State, tribal, county, or local
agencies or governments or nonprofit organizations--and an initial
determination of a Federal interest. A recon study is done at full
Federal expense and usually costs $100,000 to $200,000 and usually can
be completed in about a year.
The second stage is a feasibility study, which is the detailed
analysis of alternatives, costs, benefits, and environmental and other
impacts. A feasibility study is cost-shared 50-50 with a local sponsor,
usually costing upwards of $1 million and takes up to several years to
complete.
Congress must provide authorization for the Corps to begin the recon
study, but the Corps can move from the recon to feasibility stage
without further authorization. Based on the results of the study, the
chief of engineers may--this is the significant part--may sign a final
recommendation on the project, known as the Chief's Report.
Accordingly, the committee has used a favorable Chief's Report as the
basis for authorizing projects.
I am going through this process so people will understand this has
been thoughtfully considered in each one of these, and the Corps has
gone into them and actually come out with a final Chief's Report. I
have to say, individuals who sometimes complain about the way the Corps
is working might remember in the late 1990s when we had the Everglades
Restoration Act. I happen to be the only Member who voted against it.
It was 99 to 1, I say to the Presiding Officer. The reason I voted
against it is because it did not have a Chief's Report. We have to stay
with this system.
Before I yield the floor to my colleagues, I want to point out some
other provisions in the managers' substitute amendment that were added
to the committee-reported bill. The primary changes were made in
response to the devastating hurricanes that hit the gulf coast last
year.
We are proposing a new National Levee Safety Program designed after
the National Dam Safety Program. The new Levee Safety Program requires
that a national inventory be made of all levees and that those levees
that protect human life and public safety be inspected. As with the Dam
Safety Program, the provision establishes a State grant program to
encourage States to establish their own safety program, as
[[Page S7727]]
these activities are best handled at the local level.
We also made some changes to language already in the bill to
authorize a project for coastal wetlands restoration in Louisiana.
These changes are intended to address the two main suggestions for
process improvements that the Environment and Public Works Committee
heard from a broad range of stakeholders following Hurricane Katrina.
First, we try to do a better job of addressing our water resources
needs in a comprehensive, integrated manner, rather than in the
traditional stovepipe manner of separate missions areas.
Secondly, the time it takes between identifying a water resources
need to completing a solution is significantly longer than it should
be. Our substitute amendment addresses the time from identification of
need to solution.
So we are going to proceed with this bill. I have a request from a
well-respected Senator, but I am going to ask if the Senator could
withhold until we have the opening statements done.
Let me say, in closing, I have a special interest in this bill
because--a lot of people do not realize it, and I am sure the Chair
does because he is aware of these things--my State of Oklahoma is in
that way navigable. We have a navigation way that comes all the way to
the Port of Catoosa. That is in Tulsa, OK. It was put together by a
State authorization in legislation that was passed by my father-in-law,
the late Arthur Patrick, in the early 1930s. And you might have heard
of the McClellan-Kerr Dam. That is the one that is there. So we have
that history, and I have that bias that I bring to this floor with my
opening remarks.
With that, let me thank the ranking minority member, Senator
Jeffords, who has been so cooperative throughout the development of
this legislation.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I say thank you to the Senator. It is a
pleasure to work with you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend briefly.
Amendment No. 4676
Under the previous order, the reported committee amendments are
withdrawn. The managers' substitute at the desk, amendment No. 4676, is
agreed to, and the bill, as so amended, is original text for further
amendment.
The amendment (No. 4676) was agreed to.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I am very pleased to see the Water Resources
Development Act of 2006 finally being considered on the Senate floor.
This critical water resources bill is long overdue. The last one was
completed 6 years ago.
Despite never receiving a water resources proposal from the
administration, we are here today with a good, comprehensive bill, and
I hope we can work together to finally get it enacted this year.
With this legislation, we maintain our commitment to the protection
of our rivers, streams, and lakes. We also protect our aquatic
ecosystems, which are so delicate and yet so vital to critical species.
We help our States and local communities manage their water resources
through navigation and shoreline protection projects, as well as
provide flood and storm damage protection.
This bill includes the authorization of key coastal restoration and
hurricane protection projects to help the State of Louisiana recover
from Hurricane Katrina.
There are also some very important project authorizations for my
State of Vermont, including ecosystem restoration for the Upper
Connecticut River and small dam removal and remediation throughout the
State.
In addition, I am pleased this bill updates to the Army Corps of
Engineers principles and guidelines to improve the efficiency of the
Corps. I am disappointed, however, that some important Corps reform
provisions were not included in this bill, such as stronger provisions
for independent peer review.
Hurricane Katrina tragically reminded us of the importance of
comprehensive reform of the Army Corps of Engineers. I am cosponsoring
Senator Feingold's amendment on this topic and encourage my colleagues
to join us in support of this reform.
In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the Corps has a tarnished record in
many people's minds. The independent review language that will be
offered by Senators Feingold and McCain, coupled with the other reforms
we have included in the underlying bill, are critical first steps in
our efforts to ensure that the Corps has adequate tools and appropriate
oversight of its programs.
This water resources bill represents a step forward in our efforts to
protect our water resources, enhance environmental restoration, and
spur economic development.
Mr. President, I look forward to our debate on this bill. I urge my
colleagues to support its passage.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the minority leader of our
committee who has done such a good job.
Let me announce what I would like to do and see if there is any
objection. I will not pose this as a UC, but I will mention we have
some people who do have to leave. We had announced earlier we would go
straight to the Boxer amendment. I am in support of the Boxer
amendment, and that is not going to take a long time. However, she has
graciously agreed to let the Senator from Michigan go in advance of her
for 10 minutes.
The question I would like to ask the Senator from Michigan is, would
it be permissible, and not counted against the time of the Senator from
California, if Senator Santorum went for 3 minutes prior to you? This
is at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Missouri. Would
that be all right? It would put you off only 3 minutes.
Ms. STABENOW. Yes. Through the Presiding Officer to the chairman,
thank you very much for including me in this process. My question would
only be, how much time does the Senator from Missouri require?
Mr. INHOFE. How much time?
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am, regretfully, limited by having to be
at a markup in a subcommittee I chair, and I will limit my remarks to
about 15 to 18 minutes.
Ms. STABENOW. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, I would have no objection.
Mr. INHOFE. After the conclusion of his remarks---
Mrs. BOXER. Can you do a unanimous consent request?
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Missouri be first recognized for 15 to 18 minutes, immediately
followed by Senator Santorum for not to exceed 4 minutes, and then
Senator Stabenow for not to exceed 10 minutes. And then we will proceed
on to the Boxer amendment.
Mrs. BOXER. For 20 minutes.
Mr. INHOFE. For whatever time she wants to use.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I particularly thank
our leader, Senator Frist, and the minority leader, Senator Reid, for
bringing WRDA to the floor. This is a long and arduous process, and we
are grateful they were able to bring together this tremendously
important bill.
I pay special thanks to the chairman of the committee, Senator
Inhofe, and his staff, and the ranking member, Senator Jeffords, and
his staff. This has been a truly bipartisan process--a lot longer
process than we intended because this was supposed to have been the
2002 WRDA bill. Nevertheless, we have the much needed Water Resources
Development Act before us, authorizing projects under the jurisdiction
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
These projects are of tremendous value to the entire Nation. They
provide drinking water, electric power production, river
transportation, recreation, flood protection, environmental protection
and restoration, and emergency response.
Few agencies in the Federal Government touch as many citizens as the
Corps does. The Corps provides one-quarter of our Nation's total
hydropower output, operates 463 lake recreation areas, moves 630
million tons of cargo valued at over $73 billion annually through our
inland system, manages over 12 million acres of land and
[[Page S7728]]
water, provides 3 trillion gallons of water for use by local
communities and businesses, and has prevented an estimated $706 billion
in flood damage within the past 25 years with an investment of less
than one-seventh that value.
During the 1993 flood, which we experienced in Missouri with great
devastation, an estimated $19.1 billion in flood damage was prevented
by flood control facilities in place at the time.
WRDA, as I indicated, is a bipartisan bill, traditionally produced by
Congress every 2 years, making possible America's major flood control
projects, coastal protection, environmental protection and restoration,
transportation, and recreation on our major waterways.
Despite its importance, we have not passed a bill since 2000. The
longer we wait, the more unmet needs pile up and the more complicated
the demands upon the bill become, making it harder and harder to win
approval.
The public voice is loud, clear, and spoken often regarding how they
feel about the need for our long-overdue and much needed WRDA
legislation.
We believe the bill before the Senate is a good one that balances the
needs of States for environmental restoration of key waterways and for
navigation projects that create economic growth.
The bill before us will create jobs, spur economic development and
trade competitiveness, and improve the environment. And it is
financially responsible.
To say it is widely supported is an understatement. It passed the EPW
Committee by voice vote. Eighty of our colleagues signed a letter to
leadership urging floor action--80 out of 100. It is tough for us to
get 80 together on anything, but they said: We want this bill. The
House cleared it with an overwhelming vote of 406 for it.
Environmental restoration, in the last 20 years, has become a primary
Corps mission.
Our water resources perform a variety of functions simultaneously.
They can provide transportation and protection from floods and habitats
for many species. Similarly, when it comes to Corps projects,
navigational and flood control projects can and should be
environmentally sound. Environmental restoration can help prevent or
minimize flooding during the next major storm, and many other benefits.
The Corps is leading some of the world's largest ecosystem
restoration projects. And the commanding feature of this bill is its
landmark environmental and ecosystem restoration authorities. More than
half of the cost of the bill consists of authorization for
environmental restoration projects.
Think of all the major waterways that are important to America--to
our environmental heritage, to recreation, and to commerce. This bill
affects all of them.
Among the projects in this bill are those that will restore wetlands
in the Upper Connecticut River Basin in Vermont and New Hampshire;
restore oyster habitat in the Chesapeake Bay; restore fisheries in the
Great Lakes; implement an environmental management program for the Rio
Grande River; continue restoration of the Everglades; restore areas of
coastal Louisiana damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita; restore
habitat on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois waterways; restore oyster
habitat on Long Island Sound.
Flood control is also important. If we have learned anything from
Mother Nature in the last 15 years, it is that we frequently need
protection from her storms. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita are just two of
the latest devastating examples.
As I said, the good news is Corps projects had an estimated $706
billion in flood damage within the past 25 years with an investment
one-seventh that value. This legislation authorizes flood control
projects in California, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,
Maryland, West Virginia, Minnesota, Kentucky, South Carolina, Idaho,
Washington, and Missouri, to name a few.
While the majority of this legislation is for environmental
protection and restoration, a key bipartisan economic initiative
included provides transportation efficiency and environmental
sustainability on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers.
As the world becomes more competitive, America must also become more
competitive. Between 1970 and 2003, the value of U.S. trade increased
24-fold and 70 percent since 1994. That is an average annual growth of
10.2 percent--nearly double the pace of the GDP growth for the same
period. We can expect demand for U.S. exports to continue increasing
dramatically over many years.
We have to ask ourselves where the growth in transportation will
occur in the next 20 to 50 years to accommodate the growth in demand
for commercial shipping. The Department of Transportation suggests that
congestion on our roads and rails will double in the next quarter
century.
Now, those who drive on the highways know how crowded they are. How
would you like to see all of the transportation that we now put on
water go on the roads? Ask any farmer who has found difficulty getting
rail availability to ship product, commodities, because there is heavy
demand. Water transportation is a great untapped capacity.
One medium-sized barge tow carries the freight of 870 trucks. On the
road are 2.25 100-car unit trains, 250-car unit trains, and 1 barge
carries the equivalent of 15 jumbo hopper cars. Now, how does that
translate into the use of energy? We ought to be concerned about energy
conservation. Well, the good news is that water transportation
conserves fuel and protects the air and environment. How? How far will
one gallon of fuel move one ton of freight? If you are going by truck,
one gallon of fuel can move a ton of freight 59 miles. If you are going
by rail, it can move it 386 miles. But if you are going by water, it
can move it 522 miles. That is almost 10-to-1 more efficient than
trucks and 1.5 times as efficient as rail. The rail just isn't there.
The rail system is overcrowded already.
Over the past 35 years, waterborne commerce on the Upper Mississippi
River has more than tripled. The system currently carries 60 percent of
our Nation's corn exports and 45 percent of our Nation's soybean
exports, and it does so at two-thirds the cost of rail--when rail is
available.
In Missouri alone, we ship 34.7 million tons of commodities with a
combined value of more than $4 billion. That is not just farm products.
It includes coal, petroleum, aggregates, grain, chemicals, iron, steel,
minerals, and other commodities, and, yes, the corn, soybean, and wheat
that we export overseas.
Our navigable waterways are in environmental and economic decline.
Jobs and markets and the availability of habitat for fish and wildlife
are at stake. The American Society for Civil Engineers grades navigable
waterways infrastructure D- with over 50 percent of the locks
``functionally obsolete'' despite increased demand.
So we have developed a plan that gets the Corps back in the business
of building the future, rather than just haggling about predicting the
future.
This legislation contains authorization for funding to improve
navigation on a number of our major waterways in several States,
including Louisiana, Texas, Alaska, Virginia, Delaware, and Maine.
A key piece of the bill modernizes locks and dams on the Upper
Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. We authorize capacity expansion on
locks 20 to 25 on the Mississippi River and Peoria and LaGrange on the
Illinois.
New 1,200-foot locks on the Mississippi River will provide equal
capacity in the bottleneck region. Upstream from the Keokuk, there is a
lock 19 which is 1,200 feet, and below them at St. Louis are locks 26
and 27. They are also 1,200 feet. These 600-foot locks serve as major
water roadblocks to transportation of our products to the world markets
and inputs to users upstream.
One-half of the cost of the new locks will be paid for by private
users who pay into the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Additional funds
will be provided for mitigation and small scale and nonstructural
measurements to improve efficiency.
If you are for increased trade, commercial growth, and job creation,
you cannot get there without supporting the basic transportation
infrastructure, as our chairman has so eloquently pointed out. New
efficiency helps give our producers an edge that can make or break
opportunities in the international marketplace.
[[Page S7729]]
As we look 50 years into the future, we have to ask ourselves a
fundamental question: Should we have a system that promotes growth or
should we be confined to a transportation straitjacket designed not for
2050 but for 1950 with paddle wheel boats?
We must ask ourselves if dramatic investments should be made to
address environmental problems and opportunities that exist on these
great waterways?
In both cases, the answer, to me, is simple. Of course we should
improve and modernize. The choice is a very important one today as we
have a global economy. Our farmers are the most efficient in the world,
but transportation costs can knock them out of the world market. We
know our competitors are modernizing their water transportation.
Here is a very troubling picture. This is one of our foremost exports
right now. You know what they are exporting? Not renewable crops that
come from our fields. These are 2 towboats and 30 barges headed for
Argentina. Argentina and Brazil and other Latin American countries are
taking imports from our water transportation system because they have
the waterways to use them and we don't. Do you want to make a one-time
sale of the barges or towboats, or do you want to have sales every year
on the goods and commodities these can produce?
Seventy years ago, some argued that a transportation system on the
Mississippi River was not justified. Congress, fortunately, decided
that its role was not to try to predict the future but to shape it and
decided to invest in a system despite the naysayers. Over 84 million
tons per year later, it is clear that the decision was wise.
The veteran chief economist at USDA testified that transportation
efficiency and the ability of farmers to win markets and higher prices
are ``fundamentally related.'' He predicts that corn exports over the
next 10 years will rise 45 percent, 70 percent of which will travel
down the Mississippi River--if the river has the capacity to carry it.
The decision to improve these waterways has not been taken lightly.
As has already been pointed out, all decisions and procedures have been
documented and coordinated with an interagency Federal Principals
Group, independent technical reviews and stakeholders, and have been
made available for public review and comment.
The Corps of Engineers spent $70 million completing a study that was
anticipated to take 6 years and cost $12 million, but it actually took
14 years to complete. During that period, there have been 35 meetings
of the Governors Liaison Committee, 28 meetings on the Economic
Coordinating Committee, among the States along the Upper Mississippi
and Illinois waterways, 44 meetings of the Navigation and Environmental
Coordination Committee; and there have been 3,879 public involvement
activities concerning the Upper Mississippi River alone.
Additionally, there have been 130 briefings for special interest
groups and 24 newsletters. There have been 6 sets of public meetings in
46 locations, with over 4,000 people in attendance. To say the least,
this has been a very long, very transparent, and very representative
process.
While we have been studying, our competitors have been building.
Given the extraordinary delay so far, and given the reality that large-
scale construction takes decades, further delay is no longer an option.
That is why I am pleased to join the bipartisan group of Senators who
agree that we must improve the efficiency and the environmental
sustainability of our great resources.
The transportation efficiency provisions are supported by a broad-
based group of the States, farm groups, shippers, labor, and those who
pay taxes into the trust fund for improvements.
Of particular note, I appreciate the strong support from the
carpenters, laborers, operating engineers, Iron Workers, Teamsters, the
Nature Conservancy, the Audubon Group, and the construction and energy
and agriculture people.
Also, I mention specifically the good efforts of Senators Talent,
Durbin, Obama, Grassley, and Harkin, who have given strong bipartisan
support.
For some, the bill is too small; for others, it is too big. It is
important to understand the budget implications in the real world. We
are contending with difficult budget realities. It is critical to be
mindful of those realities as we make investments in the infrastructure
that support those who make and grow and buy and sell things so that we
can expand our economy, create jobs, and, yes, pay taxes and secure our
future.
This is an authorization bill that doesn't spend a single dollar, not
one. Like other authorization bills, it makes projects eligible for
funding under constraints administered by Congress. The Appropriations
Committee and the President will have final say. Those who don't make
it won't be funded.
The WRDA process simply allows for projects to be considered during
the process of appropriations. I hear some suggest we should not
authorize anything new until everything previously authorized has been
funded. That is nonsense because it falsely assumes that all projects
authorized 5, 10, 15 years ago are higher priority than those we have
now. That is not true.
In fact, we have eliminated the authorization for 56 projects
totaling over $500 million in savings. The remaining projects will be
subject to the appropriations process.
People have talked about Corps reform. I want to make sure we reform
it and don't kill it. I agree that we need to be sure every project is
authorized, is needed, and is economically justifiable.
The Corps continues to make agency-wide planning improvements that
are responsive to stakeholders' needs and responsible to taxpayers.
The Corps includes independent review in all project studies and
review by outside independent experts for larger, higher risk and
complex projects. Peer review is integrated into project development.
The Corps is developing new tools to examine regional and watershed
issues that will allow a broader view of complex water resource issues.
The bill contains provisions that will further improve the
reliability of Corps analyses of projects.
Now, there are many--particularly community leaders around the
country--who believe there is already too much redtape, delay, cost,
and uncertainty. There are those who want less redtape. I strongly
agree with them. Others want more redtape. But I think we strike a
necessary balance in the bill.
We have embraced a commonsense, bipartisan proposal by Senators
Landrieu and Cochran that requires major projects to be subject to
independent review.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 18 minutes.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 more minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the Landrieu-Cochran proposal requires that
necessary mitigation for projects be completed at the same time the
project is completed or no longer than 1 year afterward. This will
impose a cost on communities, particularly smaller ones, but it is not
as onerous as regulations proposed 2 years ago which ultimately
prevented a final agreement between the House and Senate. For some, the
new regulations are too onerous; for others, not enough. As I said, I
believe we strike a balance.
This legislation is supported by over 250 organizations representing
the environment, agriculture, labor, and chambers of commerce. I ask
unanimous consent that the letter from the National Waterways Alliance
listing these groups be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Waterways Alliance,
Arlington, VA, June 30, 2006.
Hon. Christopher S. Bond,
Senate Russell Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bond: After six long years, we finally have
hope for passage of the Water Resources Development Act of
2006 (WRDA). Our country cannot afford further delay. Clearly
the time has come, particularly in light of the lessons
learned from Hurricane Katrina, for Congress to complete its
work on this crucial legislation for our nation's water
resources.
As Senate leaders prepare the bill for floor consideration,
we urge you to: (a) Request that the Majority Leader bring
the bill to the floor quickly; (b) Accept the Inhofe-Bond
Amendments and Reject the Feingold-
[[Page S7730]]
McCain ``Corps reform'' amendments. (See attachment.)
S. 728, much like its House of Representatives counterpart,
represents a workable compromise to address and provide
guidance on a number of policy issues, including the need to
strengthen the Army Corps of Engineers' feasibility study
process, provide meaningful project peer reviews and refine
mitigation standards to embody sound ecological science. In
addition, S. 728 provides authorization for many important
projects with the potential to improve our economy, ease our
nation's growing problem of congestion and dependence on
foreign oil, and enrich our quality of life and environment.
Our water resources system contributes mightily to our
nation's well-being. Ports and waterways are the backbone of
our transportation system--ensuring domestic and
international trade opportunities and a safe, economical and
eco-friendly transportation alternative--for products such as
steel, coal, fertilizer, salt, sand and gravel, cement,
petroleum, chemicals, etc. In addition, the U.S. maritime
transportation system moves more than 60 percent of the
nation's grain exports. Our flood damage reduction program
saves lives and prevents almost $8 in property losses for
each dollar spent. Corps' hydropower facilities supply 24% of
the hydropower generated in the United States. Projects for
water supply, irrigation, recreation, beach nourishment and
wildlife habitat provide innumerable benefits.
We solidly support expeditious passage of S. 728 as a
balanced and responsive Water Resources Development Act, and
urge you to do the same. The Senate must act now to move us
closer to achieving and preserving an economically and
environmentally sustainable water resources development
program for the nation's future.
Sincerely,
Agricultural Retailers Association; AGC of St. Louis; Ag
Processing Inc.; Agribusiness Association of Iowa;
Agriculture Ocean Transportation Coalition;
AGRIServices of Brunswick, LLC; Agrium; All American
Coop; Alter Barge Line; Ameren; American Association of
Port Authorities; American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO); American Farm
Bureau Federation; American Feed Industry Association;
American Public Works Association; American Shore and
Beach Preservation Association; American Soybean
Association; American Waterways Operators, Inc.; Aon
Risk Services; Arch Coal, Inc.; Arkansas Basin
Development Association; Arkansas Waterways
Association; Arkansas Waterways Commission; The
Associated General Contractors of America.
Association of California Water Agencies; Association of
Equipment Manufacturers; Association of Marina
Industries; Association of Ship Brokers and Agents
(U.S.A.), Inc.; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
Association; Bay Planning Coalition (San Francisco Bay-
Delta); Ben C. Gerwick, Inc.; Bergmann Associates; Boat
Owners Association of The United States (BoatUS);
Boaters are Voters; J.F. Brennan Marine, Inc.; Bunge
North America, Inc.; Bussen Terminal; Buzzi Unicem USA;
Caddo-Bossier Port Commission (LA); Cahokia Marine
Service; California Coastal Coalition; California
Marine Affairs and Navigation Conference; Cargo
Carriers/Cargill; Caver and Associates, Inc.; Ceres
Consulting, LLC; CF Industries, Inc.; Cherokee Barge &
Boat, LLC; City of Carolina Beach, NC.
Carpenters' District Council of Greater Saint Louis and
Vicinity; CEMEX, Inc.; CH2MHill, Inc.; CHS, Inc.;
Columbiana County Port Authority (OH); Colusa Elevator
Co., Inc.; Consolidated Blenders, Inc.; Construction
Management Association of America; Continental Cement
Company, Inc.; Dairyland Power Cooperative; Dakota,
Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Company; DeBruce Grain,
Inc.; Determann Industries, Inc.; Dredging Contractors
of America; Dyno Nobel, Inc.; Eagle Marine Industries,
Inc.; Fabick Power Systems; Farmers Coop Association;
Farmers Cooperative Elevator Company; The Fertilizer
Institute; Fire Island Association (NY); J. Russell
Flowers, Inc.; Gahagan & Bryant Associates, Inc.; City
of Galveston, TX.
Galveston County, TX; Garick Corporation; Garvey Marine,
Inc.; Gateway Arch Riverboats; Gateway FS, Inc.; Grain
& Feed Association of Illinois; Grain Processing
Corporation; Grampa Wood Excursions; Great River
Economic Development Association; Green Bay Farms,
L.P.; Growmark, Inc.; Grundy County Farm Bureau;
Hampton Roads Maritime Association; Harber, Inc.;
Harmony/Preston Agri Services, Inc.; Harris County
Flood Control District (TX); Hatch Mott MacDonald, Inc
Hawkins Chemical Company, Inc.; HDR; Heart of Illinois
Regional Port District; HNTB, Inc.; Holcim (US) Inc.;
IEI Barge Serivces; Illinois Chamber of Commerce;
Illinois Corn Growers Association.
Illinois Farm Bureau Federation; Illinois Fertilizer &
Chemical Association; Illinois Grain and Feed
Association; Illinois Soybean Association; City of
Imperial Beach, CA; INCA Engineers, Inc.; Ingram Barge
Lines, Inc.; Inland Rivers, Ports & Terminals, Inc.;
International Union of Operating Engineers; Iowa Corn
Growers Association; Iowa Farm Bureau Federation; Iowa
Renewable Fuels Association; James Marine, Inc.;
Jeppeson Marine; Jersey County Grain Company; Johnson
Machine Works; Johnston Enterprises Inc.; Johnston Port
33; W.B. Johnston Grain Co.; Johnston Seed Co.;
Johnston Terminal, Muskogee, OK; Kansas City Power &
Light; Kansas Corn Growers; Kaskaskia Regional Port
(IL).
Kentucky Corn Growers Association; City of Keokuk, IA;
Kindra Lake Towing, L.P.; Kirby Corporation; Lake
Carriers' Association; Lake Providence Port Authority
(LA); Limited Leasing Company; Linwood Mining &
Materials Corp.; Little River Drainage District (MO);
Long Island Coastal Alliance (NY); Louisiana Department
of Transportation and Development--Public Works,
Hurricane Flood Protection & lntermodal Transportation;
Luhr Bros.; Magnolia Marine Transport Company; MARC
2000; Maritime Association of the Port of New York/New
Jersey; Maritime Exchange for the Delaware River and
Bay; Marquette Transportation Co., Inc.; Marquis Inc./
Terminal Express; Maryland Grain Producers Association;
Massman Construction Company; McCallie Marine Service,
LLC; MEMCO Barge Line/AEP River Operations; Merrill
Marine Services; MFA, Inc.
Michigan Corn Growers Association; Mid-Central Illinois
Regional Council of Carpenters; Midwest Foundation
Corporation; Midwest Industrial Fuels, Inc.;
Minneapolis Grain Exchange; Minnesota Agri-Growth
Council, Inc.; Minnesota Crop Production Retailers;
Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation; Minnesota Grain and
Feed Association; Minnesota Soybean Growers
Association; Mississippi River Citizen Commission;
Mississippi Welders Supply Co., Inc.; Missouri Ag
Industry Council; Missouri Barge Line Company, Inc.;
Missouri Corn Growers Association; Missouri Corn
Merchandising Council; Missouri Farm Bureau Federation;
Missouri Levee & Drainage District Association;
Missouri Port Authority Association; Missouri Soybean
Association; MO-ARK Association; Monsanto; Morrow Group
USA; National Association of Manufacturers.
National Association of Maritime Organizations; National
Association of Waterfront Employers; National
Association of Wheat Growers; National Corn Growers
Association; National Grain & Feed Association;
National Grain Trade Council; National Grange; National
Heavy & Highway Alliance: Laborers' International Union
of North America, International Union of Operating
Engineers, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners,
International Association of Bridge, Structural,
Ornamental & Reinforcing Iron Works of America,
Operative Plasterers' & Cement Mason International
Association, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
International Union, Brickyard Layers & Allied
Craftworkers; National Industrial Transportation
League; National Marine Manufacturers Association;
National Mining Association; National Oilseed
Processors Association; NSA Agencies, Inc.; National
Stone, Sand and Gravel Association; National Water
Resources Association; National Waterways Conference,
Inc.; New Madrid County Port Authority; Norman Bros.,
Inc.
The North American Export Grain Association; City of
North Topsail Beach, NC; Ohio Corn Growers Association;
Ohio Council of Port Authorities; Oklahoma Department
of Transportation Advisory Board; Oklahoma Department
of Transportation, Waterways Branch; Olympic Marine
Company; Ouachita River Valley Association; Pacific
Northwest Waterways Association; Pattison Bros.
Mississippi River Terminal, Inc.; Pemiscot County Port
Authority (MO); Personal Watercraft Industry
Association; Port of Alexandria (LA); Port of Alsea
(OR); Port of Bandon (OR); Port of Brookings Harbor
(OR); Port of Coos Bay (OR); Port of Corpus Christi
(TX); Port of The Dalles (OR); Port of Depot Bay (OR);
Port of Garibaldi (OR); Port of Gold Beach (OR); Port
of Galveston (TX); Port of Humboldt Bay (OR).
Port of Ilwaco (WA); Port of Memphis (TN); Port of Morrow
(OR); Port of Muskogee (OK); Port of New Orleans (LA);
Port of Newport (OR); Port of Palacios (TX); Port of
Port Orford (OR); Port of Redwood City (CA); Port of
Siuslaw (OR); Port of Toledo (OR); Port of Umatilla
(OR); Port of Umpqua (OR); Port of Vancouver USA (WA);
Port of Victoria (TX); Portland Cement Association;
Ports of Indiana; Providence Grain Company; Quad City
Development Group; Red River Valley Association; Red
River Waterway Commission; Red Wing Port Authority;
River Barge Excursion Lines, Inc.; River Navigation
Coalition; River Resource Alliance.
Riverway Company; Salt Institute; Sargeant Grain Company;
Schutte
[[Page S7731]]
Lumber Company; The Scoular Company; Seneca; Shattuck
Grain Co.; J.R. Simpson & Associates, Inc.; Smurfit
Stone Container Corporation; Southeast Grain & Feed
Dealers Association; Southern Illinois Construction
Advancement Program; SSA Marine; St. Louis City Port
Authority/Economic Council; St. Lucie County, FL; Stone
Oil Distributor, Inc.; Texas Water Conservation
Association; TPG Marine Enterprises, LLC; Topsail
Island Shore Protection Commission (NC);
Transportation, Elevator & Grain Merchants Association;
Transportation Institute; Tri-City Regional Port
District; Trinity Marine Products, Inc.; Tri-Oak Foods,
Inc.; Tulsa Port of Catoosa (OK).
Tulsa's Port of Catoosa Facilities Authority; Twomey
Company; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; U.S. Great Lakes
Shipping Association; Upper Monongahela River
Association Incorporated; Upper Mississippi, Illinois &
Missouri Rivers Association; Upper Mississippi
Waterways Association; United Soybean Board; Upper
River Services, LLC; City of Venice, FL; Volunteer
Barge & Transport, Inc.; Waterways Council, Inc.; The
Waterways Journal, Inc.; Wayne B. Smith, Inc.; Weeks
Marine, Inc.; Western Kentucky Navigation, Inc.; White
River Coalition; Winona River & Trail; Wisconsin Agri-
Service Association; Wisconsin Corn Growers
Association.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, anybody who wants to know if this is broadly
based can look at the list of all of these groups. As I said, they
include environmental, labor, agriculture, chambers of commerce,
construction, energy, local entities. MARC 2000 in my State has been a
very strong supporter.
I thank all of these people who support the bill. I thank my
colleagues and their staffs for the hard work devoted to this bill and
the difficult issues it presents. I particularly thank Chairman Inhofe
for his forbearance. I look forward to the debate on this bill and
final passage.
I hope my colleagues listen carefully to the debate because we have
included significant Corps reform that will achieve all the benefits
that legitimate requests for Corps reform entail, but it will not
subject the process to unending, wasteful delays and further redtape
that sank the bill the last time we tried to send it to the House.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized
for 4 minutes.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member
and the Senator from Michigan for providing me this opportunity to
speak for a few minutes about the importance of this legislation to my
State.
As many know, the State of Pennsylvania over the last several weeks
has experienced catastrophic floods. FEMA has now issued individual
assistance declarations for 22 of our 67 counties and declarations of
public assistance for 24 counties. It could have been a lot worse but
for flood control projects that this Congress authorized and approved
in the WRDA process in the past, particularly the Wyoming Valley levee-
raising project, which I will address in a moment.
I thank the chairman and ranking member for including a provision for
a flood control project for the town of Bloomsburg. It is the only town
in Pennsylvania. What you see was 25 percent underwater from the
Susquehanna River just a couple weeks ago. Bloomsburg State University
is there. It is a beautiful little town. It was completely submerged as
a result of the flash flooding and then the raising of the Susquehanna
River subsequent to the rains. So I appreciate the fact there is a
flood control project in this legislation for the town of Bloomsburg.
In addition, we have had another problem upstream from Bloomsburg, an
area where we have had a tremendous success, and that is the Wyoming
Valley levee-raising project which is almost completed, but there is an
area in Wilkes-Barre in particular called Solomon Creek. It is a
tributary to the Susquehanna River.
This picture shows a little bridge that goes over Solomon Creek. This
bridge is virtually dry most of the time. You can see it is up 12, 14
feet from the bottom. It is a horrible problem in the city of Wilkes-
Barre. It backs up into the river and causes all sorts of damage in the
city of Wilkes-Barre and south Wilkes-Barre right near a hospital which
is hoping to expand--but will not expand if we can't fix this problem--
to serve the residents of the area.
What I have asked the chairman to do--there is a provision that
Congressman Kanjorski got into the House WRDA bill which puts this
flood control project underneath the Wyoming Valley levee-raising
project which is authorized for over $400 million. Believe it or not,
the levee-raising project came in at well under $400 million, about
$250 million. So there is room under that cap to bring in this
tributary which really does need to be fixed to address this major
flooding problem.
The Senator from Oklahoma, when I explained this project to him, said
he would support us in conference in making sure this project is
included in the final bill. I will tell you, the people of south
Wilkes-Barre are very pleased to hear tonight that as a result of this
bill passing, and we get it through conference, the chairman of the
committee will support the Solomon Creek project in conference, which
will mean that literally within the next 12 months, we can begin to
work on making sure that south Wilkes-Barre doesn't experience this
kind of tragic flooding in the future.
With that, I thank the chairman for his assurance and his support. It
is deeply appreciated by me and I know by Senator Specter and by the
people of Wilkes-Barre.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, I thank the distinguished
chairman of this important bill and the ranking member for allowing me
to speak about a different subject for a few moments. This is a very
important bill which is before the Senate. It is very important to
Michigan. I very much appreciate all the hard work they have put into
bringing this bill to the floor.
I also thank my friend and colleague from California for allowing me
to use a few moments of her time.
(The remarks of Ms. Stabenow are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I was pleased to yield time to Senator
Stabenow who had a very pressing matter regarding some of her
constituents who are stuck in Lebanon with no way out, and a very
vulnerable time for many of the families in her district and in her
State.
Let me start out by saying thank you to my chairman, Senator Inhofe,
and to our ranking member, Senator Jeffords, and, of course, Senators
Bond and Baucus, and the array of Senators who have worked so hard on
this very bipartisan bill. We have all worked together, and I believe
it is an excellent bill. I thank the staffs for their commitment to
this product, particularly Let Mon Lee with Senator Bond, Angie
Giancarlo and Stephen Aaron with Senator Inhofe, and Catharine Ransom
and Jo-Ellen Darcy with Senator Jeffords. They put in very long hours,
many of them, to help all of us, and for that I thank them.
All together, this bill represents the collective work of nearly 6
long years. That is how long it has taken to get this water resources
bill to the Senate. I think we all agree that 6 years is far too long
to wait for a bill that authorizes essential flood control, navigation,
and ecosystem restoration projects, projects that help protect
thousands of homes and the lives of millions from catastrophic
flooding; projects that help restore the great wetlands and the rivers
of our Nation. What we learned during Katrina is what happens when we
lose the wetlands in our country, and we have been losing them. As a
result of that, we lose the natural flood protection that we so
desperately need. So restoring the great wetlands we have lost in
California--I think it is about 90 percent of our wetlands, and
nationwide I think it is even more than that. So we really have lost a
great deal of our wetlands, and this bill helps to correct that. It
protects the rivers of our Nation, also very important and is addressed
here.
We have projects that help increase our port capacity and projects
that make shipping easier and safer. Specifically, for my State of
California, there are many great and valuable provisions in this bill,
essential flood control provisions that more than double the amount of
current funds authorized to improve and upgrade levees in the San
Joaquin River Delta, levees that
[[Page S7732]]
will help protect two-thirds of California's water supply.
I remind my colleagues--I know you are aware of this--we have almost
37 million people in my State. So when we talk about flood control
protecting the population, we are talking about quite a sizable
population.
We have included ecosystem restoration pilot projects to help improve
and restore the Salton Sea, which has been steadily shrinking into the
deserts of southern California. The Salton Sea is a remarkable--
remarkable--body of water.
The bill also includes authorization to restore vast salt marshes and
wetlands around the Napa River.
I want to highlight one final provision in this bill for California.
Earlier this year, I introduced the Los Angeles River Revitalization
Act. When I tell my colleagues that there was a river in Los Angeles--
there still is--they look at me and say: Well, where is this river?
Well, you can take it from me, there is a river. It has been
destroyed over time. The local people, with a wonderful project, are
trying to restore this river and continue to protect the residents of
the area from flooding, but also to provide recreational opportunities
for the communities on the riverbanks.
The 2006 WRDA bill before us contains key provisions from that bill,
including a feasibility study and provisions authorizing demonstration
projects to help get this great restoration effort going. If you have
time to come with me to Los Angeles, I say to my colleagues, I will
show you the amazing possibilities we have for recreation and for the
young people in an area that is in great need, desperate need of
recreation, because it is so populated and so crowded.
So in short, Mr. President, this is a great and important bill for my
State. We cannot ignore our water infrastructure. We learned that from
Hurricane Katrina. We cannot allow long periods of time to elapse
without reauthorizing such a vital and important bill. Most of our
colleagues agree, earlier this year, more than 80 Senators signed a
letter requesting full Senate consideration of this bill. I have worked
with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, particularly Senators
Inhofe and Jeffords, in trying to address every colleague's concerns so
that we could get to this moment, and here we are.
I look forward to discussing and debating several key policy issues
relating to this bill. We have a couple of controversial ones, and I
will be on the Senate floor as these issues come before us.
Amendment No. 4679
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, at this time, I call up my amendment No.
4679, which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an
amendment numbered 4679.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To modify the project for Folsom Dam, California)
Beginning on page 164, strike line 21 and all that follows
through page 165, line 5, and insert the following:
(b) Folsom Dam.--Section 128(a) of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-103; 119
Stat. 2259), is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``The Secretary''
and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--The Secretary'';
(2) in the second sentence, by striking ``The Secretaries''
and inserting the following:
``(2) Technical reviews.--The Secretaries'';
(3) in the third sentence, by striking ``In developing''
and inserting the following:
``(3) Improvements.--
``(A) In general.--In developing'';
(4) in the fourth sentence, by striking ``In conducting''
and inserting the following:
``(B) Use of funds.--In conducting''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Project alternative solutions study.--The
Secretaries, in cooperation with non-Federal agencies, are
directed to expedite their respective activities, including
the formulation of all necessary studies and decision
documents, in furtherance of the collaborative effort known
as the `Project Alternative Solutions Study', as well as
planning, engineering, and design, including preparation of
plans and specifications, of any features recommended for
authorization by the Secretary of the Army under paragraph
(6).
``(5) Consolidation of technical reviews and design
activities.--The Secretary of the Army shall consolidate
technical reviews and design activities for--
``(A) the project for flood damage reduction authorized by
section 101(a)(6) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (113 Stat. 274); and
``(B) the project for flood damage reduction, dam safety,
and environmental restoration authorized by sections 128 and
134 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act,
2004 (117 Stat. 1838, 1842).
``(6) Report.--The recommendations of the Secretary of the
Army, along with the views of the Secretary of the Interior
and relevant non-Federal agencies resulting from the
activities directed in paragraphs (4) and (5), shall be
forwarded to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of
the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives by not later
than June 30, 2007, and shall provide status reports by not
later than September 30, 2006, and quarterly thereafter.
``(7) Effect.--Nothing in this section shall be deemed as
deauthorizing the full range of project features and
parameters of the projects listed in paragraph (5), nor shall
it limit any previous authorizations granted by Congress.''.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on Sacramento flood
control at the Folsom Dam, and I want to speak on behalf of my
amendment. My statement will be brief because I am very pleased that my
amendment has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. Again, I thank
Senators Inhofe and Jeffords and their staffs. We will be voice-voting
this amendment, and it means a great deal to Senator Feinstein and to
me and the people from California, be they Republicans or Democrats or
Independents. I again extend my thanks to Letmon Lee with Senator Bond,
Angie Giancarlo and Stephen Aaron, Catherine Ransom and Jo-Ellen Darcy.
I am saying their names again because I think all too often staff just
don't get the credit they deserve for the long hours they put in. Their
work on this amendment, like so many others in this bill, has been
invaluable.
I thank Senator Feinstein for being a cosponsor of this amendment. I
offer my appreciation for her help in this effort. Very briefly, I want
to talk about why this amendment is so important, and then we will have
a voice vote and we can move on to Senator Specter's amendment.
Sacramento is one of America's largest metropolitan areas that has
less than 100-year flood protection, less than 100-year flood control
protection. The Sacramento-American Rivers floodplain contains 165,000
homes--I want my colleagues to think about that--nearly 500,000
residents, the State Capitol is there, and many businesses providing
200,000 jobs. It is also the hub of the six-county regional economy,
providing hundreds of thousands of jobs.
A major flood would cripple the Sacramento region's economy,
significantly impair the operations of our government in Sacramento,
and cause up to $15 billion in direct damage and up to $30 billion in
total economic losses, and it would likely result in significant loss
of life.
As the capital of the world's sixth largest economy--the world's
sixth largest economy--no one can deny it is important to protect the
Sacramento region and, fortunately, no one today is denying that. Yet
Sacramento is terribly vulnerable to catastrophic flooding, so
vulnerable that parts of the Sacramento area were under serious flood
threat earlier this year. I remember well, when Senator Feinstein and I
came to the floor and we showed you the pictures. We are not going to
go through those again tonight because I think you remember those
pictures. There was that whole area where you have homes below sea
level at risk every single day.
To protect this region from flooding, Folsom Dam was completed in
1956. It is located 15 miles northeast of Sacramento on the American
River. To improve the dam's flood control capabilities, Congress
authorized two projects to increase the dam's capacity and waterflow
control. Over the past year, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau
of Reclamation have been working to refine and improve these plans.
My amendment ensures that this important process continues
expeditiously and without interruption. This is what it does. It sets a
strict timeframe of June 2007 for the Corps and
[[Page S7733]]
the Bureau to complete their report, so that design work can proceed
without delay.
We all know bureaucracy. They will figure out one way to delay and
another way to delay, and before long we have real serious questions of
the costs for the project and having to pay more for the project. We
pray during that time there will not be a catastrophic flood.
We are so pleased that this amendment has been signed off on, on both
sides. It also calls for quarterly reports on the progress of the
Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps.
The bill as agreed to by the managers of the bill today is an
important next step to provide the region of Sacramento the level of
flood protection it deserves. The Corps, the Bureau, and their non-
Federal partners are continuing to work on designing the best solution
for Folsom Dam, and the outlook is very promising.
As S. 728 moves to conference with the other body, I intend to work
with my colleagues in any way needed to support this project. Again, I
thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for agreeing with this
important amendment, and I hope the day will soon come when we will
have that report ready for you and move forward.
I ask unanimous consent that all of my time and the time of Senator
Stabenow be charged against my amendment. I think that will clear up
the time confusion with the Chair. Is that correct? Mr. Chairman, is
that making you happy?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. We are done. I hope now we can voice vote this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment by
Senator Boxer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. This amendment has simple goals: to consolidate some
ongoing work on the Folsom Dam and get the Corps to finish in a timely
manner. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, in my opening statement, I talked about
the rather difficult process we go through in this WRDA process and the
Corps of Engineers starting off with a reconnaissance or a recon
setting and then going to a feasibility study. I would like to say the
project, as discussed by the Senator from California, has already gone
through all this. It has already been authorized twice. So I join her
in wanting to get this done.
I would like to make the comment, though, that at the conclusion of
this voice vote, I think we are going to be going to the Specter
amendment. It is the intention of the chairman, anyway, to go ahead and
have that as a recorded vote this evening.
I support the Boxer amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question
is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 4679) was agreed to.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INHOFE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: We have 1 hour
equally divided?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Amendment No. 4680
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] for himself and
Mr. Carper, proposes an amendment numbered 4680.
Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To modify a provision relating to Federal hopper dredges)
Strike section 2020 and insert the following:
SEC. 2020. FEDERAL HOPPER DREDGES.
Section 3(c)(7)(B) of the Act of August 11, 1888 (33 U.S.C.
622; 25 Stat. 423), is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``This subparagraph shall not apply to the Federal
hopper dredges Essayons and Yaquina of the Corps of
Engineers.''.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment is to delete a provision
in the bill which would prohibit the hopper dredge McFarland from
remaining in operation. I submit this bipartisan amendment on behalf of
myself and Senator Carper, of Delaware.
It is a little hard to understand why this pending bill seeks to
retire this vessel, which does important dredging work, on a bill which
is denominated to provide for the consideration of the development of
water and related resources and authorizes the Secretary of the Army to
construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of
the United States, because this dredger is very important for the
specific stated purposes of the bill.
I would start with the important role this dredging vessel, the
McFarland, plays with respect to the Nation's military operations. The
McFarland is one of only three active dredging vessels owned by the
U.S. Government, with one other held in reserve. The other two active
vessels are on the west coast. The McFarland is available to respond
immediately to emergency blockages at the Department of Defense-
designated strategic military seaports.
At a time when terrorism is a major threat in this country, it is
hard to understand why we would want to give up the only dredger which
is available on the east coast and on the gulf coast. I think there may
be many Senators whose States will be adversely affected, as will
Pennsylvania and Delaware and New Jersey--the States in our region--
when you take a look at the Defense-designated ``Strategic Military
Seaports'' within the operating range of the McFarland, which covers
New York and New Jersey; Hampton Roads, VA; Morehead City, NC;
Wilmington, NC; Charleston, SC, Savannah, GA; Jacksonville, FL;
Gulfport, MS; Beaumont, TX; Corpus Christi, TX; the Earle Naval Weapons
Station, NJ and Sunny Point, NC.
Senators from those States, beware about what is going to happen to
your State if you don't have this dredger available to perform
strategic military seaport operations at a time when there is a
significant risk of terrorism.
The McFarland has also played a key role in responding to severe
weather events and natural disasters. Most recently, the vessel was
dispatched to the gulf coast to assist in Hurricane Katrina response
efforts. So, Senators of Louisiana and Mississippi and Texas and
Alabama, beware if this vessel is not available. There are two on the
west coast. They can't get to these areas to perform needed rescue
efforts.
There has been no plan put forward to address the void in the
Nation's dredging capacity that will be created in the absence of the
McFarland. The GAO has been critical of restricting the Federal hopper
dredge fleet. It made a finding in a March 2003 report that the
decreased utilization of the Federal fleet has imposed additional costs
on the Corps and not produced significant benefits. That is because
those in the private sector are on notice, with a Federal dredger
available they are not in a position to raise their costs without the
competition that would be supplied by the Federal dredger.
It isn't exactly a matter of having a great Federal fleet and looking
to privatize or looking to help the private sector. You have 15 private
dredgers, and they are interested in eliminating competition so they
can raise the prices.
There was a report by the Corps of Engineers on June 3, 2005. That
report does not provide sufficient support for its recommendation to
eliminate the McFarland. You would think, if the committee was going to
come forward and wanted to eliminate the McFarland, they would have
some Federal report with verified data to rely upon, but they do not.
The GAO, in 2003, says we ought not eliminate the limited Federal
dredgers. The Corps of Engineers' report of 2005 doesn't give
sufficient reasons for what the committee report seeks to accomplish.
[[Page S7734]]
There has been some suggestion that the McFarland is in need of
repairs. That is contrary to fact. That is a scare tactic. The fact is
that the McFarland is capable of operating for the next 10 to 12 years
without undergoing any major rehabilitation work. As of March 23 of
this year, just a few months ago, it was fully certified by the Coast
Guard and the American Bureau of Shipping. The McFarland is able to be
dispatched immediately to these areas.
Again, the availability of the McFarland ensures that prices will be
reasonable when the Corps of Engineers contracts with private industry
to perform dredge work. If the McFarland were to be decommissioned,
maintenance dredging costs on the Atlantic and gulf coast will be
entirely at the hands of the private dredge industry, and the Corps of
Engineers' dredging costs will likely increase during peak work
periods, when the availability of private bidders is limited.
The McFarland facilitates the safe and reliable movement of
commercial goods. On the Delaware River alone, the McFarland helps
maintain a shipping channel which supports 38 million metric tons of
cargo per year at a total value of $14 billion--amounts which rank
second and eighth in the Nation respectively. It is a big economic blow
to my State and a big economic blow to Delaware and a big economic blow
to New Jersey and a big economic blow to other States to have this
McFarland phased out.
I am at a loss to see the motivation for the committee to come
forward with this recommendation and in effect to pick a fight with
half the States in the country. I will be anxious to see what the
committee has by way of argument to justify eliminating the McFarland.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my printed remarks be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce
an amendment to the pending bill, along with my colleagues,
the Senators from Delaware, regarding the Federal Hopper
Dredge McFarland. This amendment would strike language
included in the bill to decommission the McFarland within 2
years of enactment. The McFarland is a 300 foot-long,
oceangoing hopper dredge crewed by approximately 80 employees
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District.
The Federal Government operates a total of four dredges--two
on the West Coast and one in ``Ready Reserve'' status on the
Gulf Coast. The McFarland is the only ``active'' Federal
hopper dredge available to perform critical emergency and
maintenance dredging work along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts.
I am advised that nearly 80 percent of the national hopper
dredging workload occurs along these shores, and that no
viable plan has been put forth to fill the void in our
Nation's dredge capacity if the McFarland were to be
decommissioned. Accordingly, I believe that reducing the
Federal hopper dredge fleet at this time would be unwise
considering its importance to both our national dredging
capacity and a maritime industry that relies on prompt,
reliable and cost-effective dredge service.
I am advised that the recommendation to decommission the
McFarland was based on two contentious assertions: that $20
million in major rehabilitation work is required to support
the McFarland's continued operation; and that the private
dredge industry can perform comparable dredge work at a lower
rate than the McFarland. It is my understanding, however,
that the McFarland is capable of operating for the next 10-12
years without undergoing any major rehabilitation work. The
McFarland has benefitted from routine scheduled servicing and
both major and minor overhauls over the past 6 years. The
vessel maintains a full oceangoing certification from both
the United States Coast Guard as well as the American Bureau
of Shipping. I am advised that these inspections are
performed on a yearly basis and that the McFarland passed
both as recently as March 23, 2006. It is my understanding
that no extraordinary funding source nor direct appropriation
is required to keep the McFarland operational and available
to perform emergency and maintenance dredging along the
Atlantic and gulf coasts. Rather, the McFarland can perform
dredge work for the remainder of its useful life supported
only by a portion of the overall cost of the project on which
it is working and routine maintenance.
The assertion that private industry can provide comparable
dredge service at a lower rate than the McFarland is also
questionable. The Corps of Engineers' June 3, 2005 Report to
Congress does not sufficiently verify private industry data
used to recommend the McFarland's retirement, and there are
no assurances that private industry will be able to fill the
void created by decommissioning the McFarland. For one,
private industry may also not have the capability to respond
to dredging requirements in as timely a fashion as the
McFarland. Being a Federal dredge, the McFarland is able to
be dispatched immediately to respond to emergency situations
that occur within its operating range. By contrast, it is my
understanding that the bid solicitation and contract award
process necessary to dispatch a private dredge typically
requires a minimum of 2 weeks. If the McFarland is
decommissioned, our national ability to respond to emergency
dredging requirements in a timely manner will be jeopardized.
Additionally, the cost of dredging contracts could actually
increase if the McFarland were decommissioned. I am advised
that the mere availability of the McFarland to perform
dredging work ensures that costs will be reasonable in
times of high demand or when there are limited bids for
dredging projects. The McFarland's presence serves as a
check to keep private industry pricing in-line on non-
Federal dredging contracts. The GAO recognized this in a
March 2003 report noting that the decreased utilization of
the Federal fleet has imposed additional costs on the
Corps and not produced significant benefits. If the
McFarland is decommissioned, maintenance dredging costs on
the Atlantic and gulf coast will be entirely at the hands
of the private dredge industry, and costs will likely
increase during peak work periods when limited bidders are
available.
Further, the McFarland dredges areas that private industry
has historically avoided, such as environmental restoration
projects which require strict adherence to potentially
burdensome guidelines. The McFarland is also available to
respond to small jobs which may not be attractive to private
industry. Costly shipping delays could occur if private
industry declined a dredge job that was economically
unattractive, and a Federal fleet must be maintained to
ensure the availability of dredge services in such
situations.
The availability of prompt, cost-effective dredge services
on both profitable and non-profitable projects helps ensure
the safe and reliable movement of goods coming to and from
Atlantic and gulf coast ports. The reliable movement of
maritime cargo is vital to the economy and preserving our
current dredging capacity is indispensable to maintaining the
authorized water depths necessary to support the Nation's
commercial navigation activity. Port stakeholders are deeply
concerned that costly shipping disruptions could occur if our
national dredging capacity is reduced.
Reliable, cost-effective dredge service is also very
important to the continued success of our Nation's military.
The McFarland is available to respond immediately to
emergency blockages at Department of Defense-designated
``Strategic Military Seaports'' within its operating range,
including Philadelphia, New York/New Jersey, Hampton Roads,
Morehead City, Wilmington, Charleston, Savannah,
Jacksonville, Gulfport, Beaumont, Corpus Christi, Earle Naval
Weapons Station and Sunny Point. Thousands of pieces of
military equipment and cargo are shipped to Iraq and depots
throughout the Nation from these ports and retaining the
existing hopper dredge fleet is essential to ensuring that
military cargo arrives at its destination on time.
In addition to supporting commercial and military
navigation activities, the McFarland plays an important role
in responding to severe weather events and natural disasters,
including being dispatched to the gulf coast to assist in the
Hurricane Katrina response efforts. Seasonal events and
natural disasters place great demands on our Nation's already
limited dredging capacity. Given the number of weather-
related events experienced annually along the Atlantic and
gulf coasts, all available dredge resources, including the
McFarland, are essential and must be retained. Our Nation's
ability to respond to natural disasters and weather-related
events will be even more limited if the McFarland is
decommissioned.
In conclusion, no plan has been put forth to address the
void that will be created in the McFarland's absence. Absent
a viable plan to replace her dredging capacity,
decommissioning the McFarland is dangerously premature and
could have devastating impacts on our Nation's commercial,
military and emergency response capabilities. The ability of
the private dredge industry to replace the services provided
by the McFarland at a reasonable rate has not been proved.
The continued operation of the McFarland will ensure that
emergency and maintenance dredging work on both the Atlantic
and gulf coasts remains responsive, reliable and cost-
effective. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to adopt this
amendment.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am reserving 10 minutes for Senator
Carper, but I am waiting with interest to see what the chairman of this
committee has to say.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, at this time I will not give my full
statement in opposition. I will say I would like, at this point, to
have printed in the Record a couple of letters, one from the
Transportation Institute and the other from the Seafarers International
Union of North America, AFL-CIO, both saying essentially the same
thing; that is, $165 million has been spent for
[[Page S7735]]
hoppers to be able to have modern dredges work in the same areas. The
capacity is there to bring the McFarland up to date. It would be,
according to the Corps of Engineers, a cost of about $20 million. For
all these reasons, they oppose it.
I ask unanimous consent that these two letters be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Transportation Institute,
Camp Springs, MD, July 17, 2006.
Hon. James M. Jeffords,
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Environment & Public
Works, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Ranking Member Jeffords: The Transportation Institute
is of the understanding that the Senate is about to take up
consideration of the Energy and Water Resources Act of 2005.
We would like to take this opportunity to respectfully
request that the Senate reject any attempt that might be
offered during floor consideration of this bill that would
modify the language contained in Sections 2021 and 563 of the
bill.
These sections would decommission the 39 year-old Federal
dredge McFarland. The Corps of Engineers is in support of the
decommissioning, citing the private sector's aggressive $165
million investment in hopper dredge capacity over the past
eight years. Moreover, it is our understanding that the Corps
of Engineers has calculated an annual savings of some $10
million as a direct result of decommissioning the McFarland.
Given the fact that the continued operation of the McFarland
would only duplicate existing private sector capacity, it
would seem fiscally prudent to take advantage of such a cost-
saving opportunity.
The Transportation is in strong support of the passage of
the Water Resources Development Act of 2005 with the language
of Sections 2021 and 563 intact. Passage of this legislation
would protect the commercial and environmental interests of
our national waterway transportation system while
concurrently reflecting the proven capability of our private
hopper dredge industry.
Sincerely,
James L. Henry.
____
Seafarers International Union
of North America,
Camp Springs, MD, July 16, 2006.
Hon. James M. Inhofe, Chairman, Hon. James M. Jeffords,
Ranking,
Committee on Environment and Public Works, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Jeffords: It is our
understanding that the Senate is about to consider S.728, the
Energy and Water Resources Development Act of 2005. The
Seafarers International Union, along with a broad coalition
or union, industry, agriculture, aggregate and other
interests, has corresponded with Congress in support of this
long overdue legislation critical to maintaining and
protecting the commercial and environmental integrity of this
vital national transportation system.
We would like to take this opportunity to recommend your
opposition to any potential amendment that might be offered
during floor consideration that would modify the intent of
Section 2021 and Section 563 of this bill. This provision, as
presently worded, decommissions the 39 year-old Federal
hopper dredge McFarland The decommissioning of this dredge
has the support of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers citing an
anticipated annual savings of $10 million. Furthermore, over
the past 8 years, the private sector has invested some $165
million in capital to expand and modernize the private sector
hopper dredge fleet. In fact, I participated in the
christening ceremony of the SIU-crewed hopper dredge Liberty
Island, the newest addition to the Great Lakes Dredge and
Dock hopper dredge fleet.
In closing, the Seafarers International Union supports
passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 2005 with
Section 563 fully intact. To do so would be cost effective
and entirely appropriate given the private sector's
demonstrated hopper dredge capability. Once again, we
appreciate the opportunity to comment on this matter.
Sincerely,
Michael Sacco.
Mr. INHOFE. I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Could I interrupt just for a moment? I would like at this
point to yield a few minutes, whatever time is necessary off of our
time, to the Senator from Missouri who has another committee hearing
and would like to take his time now. Would that be acceptable?
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I will be glad to yield to the
distinguished Senator from Missouri if I may ask one question that was
raised by what the Senator from Oklahoma has just said. He has made the
assertion that it would cost $20 million to bring the McFarland up to
shape. I ask him, what is the source for that and how does that square
with the fact that on March 23 of this year, just a few months ago, the
McFarland was fully certified by the Coast Guard and the American
Bureau of Shipping, so that it is in good shape and would require no
funding to keep it in operation?
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it doesn't need the $20 million to bring
it up to standard for it to compete. The Corps of Engineers has stated
that its operational costs are almost double that of the private sector
dredging that has been taking place. This has been agreed to by the
Seafarers International Union of North America. So it is the Corps of
Engineers that is making that assertion, and it is agreed to by both
the Seafarers International Union and the Transportation Institute.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I may make one statement before
yielding to the Senator from Missouri, that is in direct variance with
a report of the Corps of Engineers on June 3 that did not sufficiently
justify its recommendation to retire the McFarland. And they found
further that there are no assurances that private industry will be able
to fill the void created by the decommissioning of McFarland.
I yield now to the Senator from Missouri.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank our chairman and manager of the bill
for yielding time. I join him in urging that my colleagues oppose the
amendment to strike the provision to decommission the Hopper Dredge
McFarland.
As has already been stated, the McFarland is an expensive, 39-year-
old hopper dredge which costs $79,000 a day to operate, more than
double what a more technologically capable commercial dredge would
cost. The McFarland imposes a wasteful expenditure of scarce resources
on Corps dredging projects.
The Energy and Water bill will provide money for removing asbestos
from the McFarland, another expense we don't need. In addition, it
needs between $20 million and $40 million in upgrades to bring its
safety and operational efficiency to minimal levels of acceptability in
comparison with state-of-the-art private sector dredges.
Since 1978 the dredging industry has developed the capability to
perform the majority of the Corps' dredging work.
This came as a result of Public Law 95-269, which directed the
Secretary of the Army to dredge by contract, if he determines private
industry has the capability to do such work and it can be done at
reasonable prices and in a timely manner.
Under the law the Secretary ``shall retain only the minimum federally
owned fleet'' to ``carry out emergency and national defense work'' and
may set aside ``such amount of work as he determines to be reasonably
necessary to keep such fleet fully operational . . . for as long as he
determines necessary.''
During the last decade the Corps has successfully followed a ``use
industry first'' policy.
Today's facts: industry is more capable; has provided more than
reasonable prices; and responds routinely in a timely manner and
successfully to emergencies.
All four government dredges, including the ready reserve dredge
Wheeler, are fully operational.
The data does not support the continued operation of the 39-year-old
McFarland or spending an additional $20-40 million on its
modernization. The vision provided by Congress and implemented by the
Corps has resulted in a vibrant and competitive marketplace.
As the Corps' November 2005 Hopper Dredge Report to Congress points
out, generally, the combined industry/Corps hopper fleet has been able
to meet demand.
With the January 2006 launching of the hopper dredge Glenn Edwards,
industry has added 18 percent additional hopper capacity to the
combined Federal/private hopper dredge fleet.
With a hopper capacity in excess of 13,000 CY, the Glenn Edwards is
configured to dredge in all deep draft commercial ports in a highly
effective manner. Therefore, ability to meet the Nation's hopper
dredging needs has been greatly enhanced since the Corps' Hopper Dredge
Report to Congress was released.
Industry by and large does most of its work for the Corps under
contract.
[[Page S7736]]
Therefore, if an emergency arises and industry dredges are all working,
the Corps has the ability to reassign a private dredge working
elsewhere under Corps contract to do an emergency dredging job.
Most of the dredging requirements on the Delaware River, particularly
in the upper reaches near Philadelphia and Wilmington, can be
accomplished through the use of nonhopper dredges. In fact, it is more
efficient to dredge with a nonhopper dredge in the case of the
McFarland because material must be pumped out of the hopper by private
pumping equipment in the upper reaches of the Delaware River.
The Corps hopper dredge Wheeler was placed in ``Ready Reserve'' by
the Congress in WRDA in 1996 as insurance that a hopper dredge would be
available to respond to urgent and emergency dredging needs in the
gulf, on the Mississippi River, and on the east coast.
The Wheeler has actually been used on the east coast to respond to
emergencies when a private hopper dredge is not available. Therefore,
the Wheeler is working exactly as Congress intended--as insurance for
use during emergencies.
We should be looking for ways to make the operation of our major
activities more efficient by using private sector facilities where they
can be done more reasonably and more effectively rather than spending
large amounts of Federal dollars just to keep the dredge in operational
capability. Paying a very high charge for it every day when there are
better rates available warrants the recommendation in the WRDA bill
that we decommission the Hopper Dredge McFarland.
I urge my colleagues not to support the striking motion.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, by way of brief reply to the comments of
the Senator from Missouri, the Corps of Engineers has put a $20 million
figure for putting the McFarland into Ready Reserve. But that doesn't
deal with having the McFarland operational. That estimate was disputed
by the Maritime Exchange for the Delaware River and others presenting
factual information.
I have just checked to find out if there was any hearing held on this
matter. But I am advised that there was not. The rest of the Corps of
Engineers report did not provide assurances that private industry would
be able to fill the void created by decommissioning the McFarland. When
you come to the issue as to whether it is capable of proceeding
operationally, no one has disputed the facts that the McFarland is
capable of functioning for 10 to 12 years without undergoing any major
rehabilitation work being fully certified by the Coast Guard and the
American Bureau of Shipping as of March 23 of this year, an undisputed
fact.
How much time remains on my side, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 19 minutes remaining.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask if Senator Carper would await the
arguments of the chairman.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me comment.
I was asked the question by the Senator from Pennsylvania as to
clarification on this Army Corps of Engineers report. It was the Energy
and Water appropriations that made a request of the Corps of Engineers
on June 3, 2005. The Corps report states:
From the above discussion, the most reasonable option would
be to retire the McFarland.
It goes on to state:
It is expected that sufficient industry hopper dredging
capability exists to perform the requirements that may occur
on the Delaware River.
Finally, it states:
McFarland would have to be rehabilitated and repowered at
the cost of approximately $20 million.
It says that on page 22 of the report.
I will go ahead.
I ask the Senator from Delaware to take his time and I will elaborate
a little bit more on this on my time.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the argument that the Senator from
Oklahoma makes about a 2005 report by the Corps of Engineers is flatly
contradicted by the certification by the Coast Guard and the American
Bureau of Shipping as of March 23, 2006, after the 2005 report referred
to by the Senator from Oklahoma, that the McFarland requires no
rehabilitation and remains operational and available to perform dredge
work.
I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Specter, one, for yielding
time, and, second, I thank him for offering an amendment to give me an
opportunity to join him in offering this amendment.
Before I get to my remarks, for folks who are listening to the debate
tonight, it might be confusing. There is a question as to whether this
dredge called the McFarland is seaworthy. There is a question about
whether the enormous investment--as much as $20 million--is required
for it to be seaworthy or to become seaworthy or remain seaworthy. This
is the deal.
The Coast Guard has said as recently as 4 months ago that the
McFarland is seaworthy. There is no suggestion--at least that I am
aware of--on behalf of the Coast Guard that says $20 million or $2
million has to be spent now or next year to make it continue to be
seaworthy.
The question is, What kind of investments would be needed to be made
in the McFarland if it were to be transitioned to the Ready Reserve? In
that case, I am told that an investment--as much as $20 million--might
be needed in order to transition this vessel to the Ready Reserve. We
are not proposing that the vessel be transitioned to the Ready Reserve.
We are simply proposing that it be allowed to continue the work it does
along the east coast and not long ago down on the gulf coast as well.
I think maybe that is clarifying and maybe a little bit illuminating
for some of the people who are listening to this debate on the edge of
their seats to determine the future of the McFarland.
The McFarland is based in Philadelphia and is one of the four hopper
dredges currently owned and operated by the Army Corps of Engineers. It
is the only Federal dredge stationed on the Atlantic coast.
The McFarland is used for maintenance dredging on the Delaware River
and the Delaware Bay as well as on the east coast and the gulf coast of
our country. It is also used for emergency and for national defense
dredging wherever that might be needed.
The McFarland has been used to restore navigation after major
emergencies, such as along the gulf coast after Hurricane Katrina, and
after the four hurricanes that hit Florida in 2004. This dredge is also
utilized when no private dredge is available and no reasonable bid is
made by private industry.
In 1979, Congress passed a law instructing the Corps to use private
industry dredges when industry has the capability to do the work at
reasonable prices and in a timely manner. Congress also directed the
Corps to retire Federal dredges when private industry demonstrated the
capability to do the work. At the same time, the Corps was charged with
maintaining a federally owned fleet to carry out emergency and national
defense work.
In attempting to balance these responsibilities, the Army Corps
produced a report in 2004 calling for the decommissioning of the
McFarland dredge, saying that private dredgers had increased their
capacity to do the same job for less. But the Corps report was sharply
criticized subsequently by the Government Accountability Office for
flaws in its analysis and its cost estimates.
As a result, a new report was produced last year by the Army Corps.
While it still called for the decommissioning of the McFarland, it
raised several troubling questions about private industry's capacity
and the Army Corps' ability to respond to emergencies without the
McFarland.
The report indicated that the Corps' dredge fleet is still sometimes
needed, saying ``industry alone has not been able to meet peak
demands.''
The report goes on further to say that when private capacity is
[[Page S7737]]
stretched, the Corps fleet is needed to protect the taxpayers' dollars
and ensure reasonable bids. It states:
With such a limited number of vessels in the fleet, and
during peak workload periods when only one bidder may be
available, there is a tendency to exercise the principles of
supply and demand, and costs will rise. The Corps' presence
will serve as a deterrent for potential cost increases.
Without the McFarland, when private industry is at capacity and
unable to respond to dredging needs on the east coast, we will have to
turn to the Wheeler dredge, which is stationed in New Orleans. But this
dredge is already in high demand. And in recent years, both dredges
have been needed to respond to natural emergencies.
Emergency situations were considered by the Corps. They looked at a
``worst case scenario'' in their report, using the 2004 hurricane
season as a good example of a worst case scenario. That year, private
industry's capacity was stretched and natural disasters created an
emergency need for still further dredge work.
The Army Corps pointed out in their report that the McFarland was
needed in 2004 to respond to the four hurricanes that hit Florida. But
the report downplayed the likelihood of a worst case scenario occurring
again, saying:
Having four hurricanes in a row with the extent and
magnitude of damages experienced is not a common occurrence.
I wish that were true. Sadly, the following year, demonstrated that
the worst Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma case scenario can come in
different forms. And more active hurricane seasons are predicted to
continue to occur this year, next year, and the year after that.
We would all love to believe that this type of disaster will not
happen again and that we do not have to plan for that possibility. But
we have no choice.
Active hurricane seasons should be expected, and we cannot fail to
clear our navigation channels after a disaster--they are too important
to our economy and our national security.
Finally, the Corps has found that smaller channels and smaller jobs
sometimes do not attract as many bids from private industry. The Corps
expressed concern about this in their report.
In discussing the industry's lack of ability to meet peak demands, it
pointed out that private industry may not always have the right kind of
dredge available to serve a smaller channel.
These same concerns can apply to smaller jobs, where it is not cost
effective to move a private industry dredge to perform the work. In
fact, without the McFarland, it might not be economical to use the
remaining federal dredges to respond to such jobs. It could cost as
much to move the Wheeler to the northeast Atlantic coast and back to
the gulf as it would cost to operate it for 2 weeks.
In this case, it would be more economical to keep the McFarland where
it is. This way it can be used when there is not enough private dredge
capacity to meet the needs along the east coast.
We must ensure that we can maintain our waterways and access to our
ports, whether small or large.
We should also continue to support the growing private dredge
industry. However, we cannot and should not expect private industry to
do work that is not profitable or beyond their capacity.
Nor can we plan for only the best case scenarios. Recent hurricane
seasons have proven that we don't have that luxury.
To my colleagues, I urge support for this amendment. I thank Senator
Specter for offering it. I am pleased, again, to join him in doing so.
I yield back whatever time I have not consumed.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Democrat
manager of the bill, Senator Jeffords.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Specter-Carper
amendment of the hopper dredge McFarland.
The Corps of Engineers maintains a fleet of four hopper dredges, and
according to the GAO the Corps needs to maintain its own fleet, even
when there are commercial dredges available.
One reason the Corps needs to maintain a hopper dredge fleet is that
changes in annual weather patterns and severe weather events, such as
hurricanes and floods, can create a wide disparity in the demand for
hopper dredges from year to year.
The McFarland is the only hopper dredge on the East coast. If it were
retired, it is not certain that the needs of the East coast during an
emergency could be met by the private sector.
I support the amendment by Senators Specter and Carper that would
keep the McFarland in the hopper dredge fleet.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont, the
ranking member of the committee, for those comments.
I think he puts his finger on the critical spot. That is, if the
McFarland is decommissioned, we may well have a need which will not be
fulfilled. That was a big hole in the report of the Corps of Engineers
that there were no assurances that the private sector would be able to
handle the workload.
The fact is, as outlined in the report by the Corps of Engineers, the
Corps' hopper dredges serve to ensure that costs will be reasonable,
but with a limited number of vessels in the fleet and during peak
workload periods when only one bidder may be available, there is a
tendency to exercise the principles of supply and demand and costs will
rise.
The Corps' presence will serve as a deterrent for potential cost
increases. That means we need to keep the McFarland in operation.
The report goes on to say that a current example is the Wheeler being
called out in February to perform work in the Mississippi River when a
single industry bid exceeded the award amount. The Corps report further
points out during the peak workload scenario, the largest industry
hopper dredge, the Stuyvesant, experienced engine trouble and had to
stop work, creating a capability shortfall. Subsequent to this event,
increased shoaling in the Mobile Harbor created the need for an
additional hopper dredge resulting in calling out the Wheeler, as the
McFarland was also fully engaged.
When there has been talk about the daily rate of the McFarland, it is
unsupported by the fine print. The McFarland's estimated daily rate
includes a payment the Corps has to make into a ``dredge replacement
fund'' even though the Corps has no intention of replacing the
McFarland with another federal dredge. Therefore, the daily rate which
has been cited is inflated, unrealistic, and does not support
decommissioning the McFarland.
How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SPECTER. I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I know no Senator on this floor would
misrepresent the facts in a case like this. We have an opportunity with
an agreed-to provision of our bill, which I thought we all agreed to,
that we are able to save a lot of money and finally put this thing to
rest.
Every year we go through this same exercise. Everyone wants to keep
this old relic called the McFarland. I cannot figure out for the life
of me why they want to do it other than the fact maybe this is some
kind of an emotional institution that exists that we want to hold on
to. If that is the case, maybe we should let the Historical Society
have that and they can see what dredging used to be like in the old
days.
The McFarland is the oldest and most expensive hopper dredge owned
and operated by the Corps. The Corps did a study in the hopper fleet
and concluded that the McFarland should be retired. The WRDA bill does
that. The pending amendment would prevent the retirement of the
McFarland.
The Corps found the McFarland operates at almost double the daily
cost of a private-sector dredge, and there is sufficient private dredge
capacity to cover the work of the McFarland.
Proponents of keeping the McFarland in service argue that it is
necessary for two main reasons. No. 1, to keep the Delaware River free
from navigational hazards and to be ready for emergency dredging. Both
are incorrect.
The Corps found they have more than enough capacity to handle dredge
for
[[Page S7738]]
the Delaware River. Private dredges currently do over 80 percent of the
dredging in the McFarland service area and still have idle capacity.
The McFarland is the wrong type of dredge for much of the work on the
Delaware.
The Corps and private industry have an agreement whereby the Corps
can pull any private dredge off of any Corps project to send to an
emergency. Since this agreement, the McFarland has not done any
emergency work on the Delaware. Not only is the McFarland dramatically
more expensive to operate than the private dredges, its age
necessitates a rehabilitation that would cost over $20 million to
remain in service. Even after updating, it would still be far more
expensive to operate than those private dredges.
Since 1978, Corps policy has been to use industry first. This policy
has been very successful. We need to retire this inefficient dredge. It
will save the taxpayers a lot of dollars and get the Government out of
the business of competing with the private sector.
I retain the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this effort to retain the McFarland is
not being undertaken for historical reasons. To talk about placing the
McFarland in a museum is making light of an issue which is very, very
serious for my State. It is potentially serious for about two-thirds of
the other States in the United States which are affected by hurricanes
and which have very important national security areas.
This amendment is being pursued at the request of the Governor of
Pennsylvania and the Maritime Exchange. They are deadly serious about
the adverse impact of retiring the McFarland.
On the Delaware River alone the McFarland helps maintain a shipping
channel that supports 38 million metric tons of cargo per year, a total
value of $14 million. That ranks second and eighth in the Nation.
We are not talking about a museum piece. We are talking about a
dredge which is vital for jobs and the economy of the region. We are
talking about the McFarland's availability to respond to emergency
blockades at the Department of Defense designated strategic military
seaports. You are not talking about an antique. You are talking about
an era where terrorism is an ongoing threat; where, within the past 2
weeks, we had a threat by terrorists to blow up the Holland Tunnel;
where the President has a terrorist surveillance program which has
superseded the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and is viewed
under the President's article II powers as a wartime precedent because
of the threat of terrorism.
We are talking about Department of Defense interests in New Jersey,
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida,
Mississippi, and Texas. We are talking about a dredge which played a
key role in responding to severe weather events and natural disasters
and was dispatched to the gulf coast to assist in Hurricane Katrina.
We have a report by the Corps of Engineers which relies upon industry
data. The Corps report concedes that ``to verify the industry data
would require extensive auditing and is beyond the scope or need of
this report.''
Beyond the scope of the report; we ought to rely on a Corps of
Engineers report that relies upon industry data where the industry has
a vested interest in having the McFarland retired so they can make more
money, and you have a national defense interest?
There has been no case made by the committee to replace the
McFarland.
How much time remains on my side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeMint). The Senator has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. SPECTER. I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have listened to these arguments. We
keep going back and refuting the arguments. We have it documented.
There is no question about that.
As far as the national security ramifications are concerned, I tell
my good friend from Pennsylvania I have served for 20 years either on
the House or the Senate Committee on Armed Services and I have watched
these things very carefully.
The Senator has mentioned San Diego and San Francisco, all these
areas for national security purposes.
I suggest to my good friend from Pennsylvania that these do not use
the Corps dredges. They use private-sector dredges in these areas, in
all of them you mentioned.
Again, going back to the arguments, as I quoted from institutions
such as the Transportation Institute and the Seafarers International
Union of North America, AFL-CIO, they all say the same thing, which I
could repeat as many times as we need to tonight--and I have quite a
bit of time left, so I guess I could do it several times--that it would
take $20 million or so to refurbish this thing, to get it so it can
operate.
The report that was quoted by the Senator from Pennsylvania of the
American Bureau of Shipping, that was, as I understand it, only
referring to the hull, that the hull has some problems and that the
hull is not cracked. So again, I just repeat these arguments, as I have
done before.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I did not refer to San Francisco and I
did not refer to San Diego. The long list of States affected were on
the east coast and on the gulf. There are two other Federal dredgers on
the west coast.
I have great respect for the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma and
his 20 years of service on the Armed Services Committee. But I have
been, for 26 years, on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and have
some familiarity with these issues. I was on the Intelligence Committee
for 8 years and chaired it in the 104th Congress and have some
appreciation of the problems of terrorism. And I have served on the
Judiciary Committee for 26 years, now chair it, and have been very
deeply involved in the President's electronics surveillance program
which has superseded the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act because
of the threat of terrorism.
We are talking here about having the McFarland available in many,
many ports and in many, many States--not the State of California and
San Francisco or San Diego, but in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York,
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Texas, and
others; and the gulf coast States affected by the hurricane, again,
Texas and Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama and Florida.
We are dealing here with a very flimsy Corps of Engineers report
which is based on industry data which is not verified--a concession
they make in this report. And it is provided by industry sources which
have a vested interest and a bias in eliminating the McFarland as a
competitor.
Mr. President, I think it is fair to say that if the committee's
point on decommissioning the McFarland is to stand, they have a burden
of proof. And they have not established it. There has not been a
hearing on this subject. There has not been reliable evidence. And I
would say that in the face of the threat of terrorism, and the work
that the McFarland does in that area, and the work that the McFarland
did in Hurricane Katrina, that their burden of proof is more than a
preponderance of the evidence; it ought to be clear and convincing. And
it has not been either clear or convincing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that his time has
expired. Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
The Senator from Oklahoma has 16 minutes.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I will just take a couple minutes.
Let me say, if the argument is that it is the industry influencing
these reports, I think it is rather strange that the Seafarers
International Union of North America, the AFL-CIO, are the ones that
agree with this report and strongly recommend that we vote against this
amendment to keep us from retiring this--as I referred to several
times--this relic.
Now, the Senator has a couple of arguments I had not responded to.
One was he states that it went down and performed some type of a
function in Katrina. It is my information they took it down to Katrina,
but it would not work, so they used it as an office.
As far as the ``flimsy'' report is concerned, I do not think I have
actually
[[Page S7739]]
read from the report, but this says this is in response to the Energy
and Water appropriations bill. They requested the Corps of Engineers to
clear this up so once and for all we can get rid of this relic. This
was June 3 of 2005. They said, reading from that report:
[I]t is expected that sufficient industry hopper dredge
capability exists to perform the requirements. . . .
It further says:
Even if the scheduled work for the McFarland were
maximized, the reduction in daily rate would still be almost
double the daily rate of a comparable industry hopper dredge.
. . .the McFarland is the oldest dredge in the fleet, and
operates at a daily rate that substantially exceeds
comparable industry medium class hopper dredges. If the
McFarland were to be kept in the Minimum Fleet it would have
to be rehabilitated and repowered at a cost of approximately
$20 million.
So what you are saying is, you want to spend public funds of $20
million more to get something to compete with the private sector, that
costs twice as much to operate as the private sector. I think this is
absurd. I think we have been trying to do this for a number of years.
Now, we have the labor unions joining other interests in saying that
we need to get rid of this thing and start saving money in our
dredging. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment by the Senator
from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 36, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 207 Leg.]
YEAS--63
Akaka
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Dayton
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Martinez
McCain
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Vitter
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--36
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bayh
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Coburn
Coleman
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Inhofe
Kyl
Lugar
McConnell
Obama
Roberts
Smith
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Voinovich
NOT VOTING--1
Dodd
The amendment (No. 4680) was agreed to.
Mr. SPECTER. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CARPER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________