[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 13, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1906-S1910]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. McCain):
  S. 564. A bill to modernize water resources planning, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce the Water Resources 
Planning and Modernization Act of 2007. I am pleased to be joined in 
introducing this legislation by the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. 
McCain. We have worked together for some time to modernize the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers and I thank Senator McCain for his continued 
commitment to this issue.
  I was pleased that the Senate made significant progress last Congress 
and included many key reforms in the Senate-passed Water Resources 
Development Act. I again thank my colleagues who cosponsored a 
successful independent peer review amendment: the Senator from 
Delaware, Mr. Carper; the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman; the 
former Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords; and the Senators from Maine, 
Ms. Collins and Ms. Snowe. I also want to acknowledge the Senator from 
California, Mrs. Boxer, for her support for this amendment. In 
addition, I appreciate the efforts to include reform provisions in the 
underlying bill by the then-Environment and Public Works Committee 
Chairs and Ranking Members: the former Senator from Vermont, Mr. 
Jeffords; the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus; the Senator from 
Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe; and the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond. After 
six years of efforts on this issue, we made significant progress. 
However, negotiations between the House and Senate stalled and no 
conference report was agreed to.
  By introducing this bill today, I am renewing my efforts to ensure 
that the Corps of Engineers' water resources planning is brought into 
the 21st century. As we all know, Hurricane Katrina produced one of the 
most tragic and costly natural disasters in our Nation's history. Water 
resources projects authorized by Congress and planned by the Corps of 
Engineers contributed to the loss of vital coastal wetlands (which can 
provide natural buffers from storm surge), intensified the storm surge 
into New Orleans, and encouraged development in flood-prone areas.
  The flawed project planning, however, did not end there. Floodwalls 
and levees that the Corps built to protect New Orleans failed 
catastrophically during Hurricane Katrina. It is now well recognized 
and indeed, the Corps has acknowledged--that flawed engineering and 
construction led to those failures and the flooding of much of New 
Orleans.
  Over the past decade, dozens of governmental and scientific studies 
have documented other flaws in Corps of Engineers' project planning. 
Most recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) testified 
that recent Corps studies ``did not provide a reasonable basis for 
decision-making'' because they were ``were fraught with errors, 
mistakes, and miscalculations, and used invalid assumptions and 
outdated data.'' The GAO found that the recurring problems at the 
agency were ``systemic in nature and therefore prevalent throughout the 
Corps' Civil Works portfolio.''
  We can, and must, do better.
  Congress should not authorize additional Army Corps projects until it 
has considered and passed the reforms included in the Water Resources 
Planning and Modernization Act. From ensuring large projects are sound 
to using natural resources to protect our communities, modernizing 
water resources policy is a national priority.
  The Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2007 represents 
a sensible effort to increase our environmental stewardship and 
significantly reduce the government waste inherent in poorly designed 
or low priority U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. It represents a 
way to both protect the environment and save taxpayer dollars. With 
support from Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, National Taxpayers 
Union, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, American Rivers, 
Association of State Wetland Managers, Defenders of Wildlife, 
Earthjustice, Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, National 
Wildlife Federation, Republicans for Environmental Protection, Sierra 
Club, Surfrider Foundation, and the World Wildlife Fund, the bill has 
the backing of a committed and diverse coalition.
  The Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2007 can be 
broadly divided into five parts: ensuring sound projects and 
responsible spending, valuing our natural resources, focusing our 
resources, identifying vulnerabilities, and updating the Army Corps of 
Engineer's planning guidelines.
  To ensure that Corps water resources projects are sound, the bill 
requires independent review of those projects estimated to cost over 
$40 million, those requested by a Governor of an affected state, those 
which the head of a federal agency has determined may lead to a 
significant adverse impact, or those that the Secretary of the Army has 
found to be controversial. As crafted in the bill, independent review 
should not increase the length of time required for project planning 
but would protect the public--both those in the vicinity of massive 
projects and those whose tax dollars are funding projects. The Director 
of Independent Review can also require independent review of the 
technical designs and construction of flood damage reduction projects 
to ensure public safety and welfare. The independent review provision 
is identical to that supported by a majority of my colleagues last 
Congress and included in the Senate-passed WRDA.
  We must do a better job of valuing our natural resources, such as 
wetlands, that provide important services. These resources can help 
buffer communities from storms, filter contaminants out of our water, 
support vibrant economies, and provide vital fish and wildlife habitat. 
Recognizing the role

[[Page S1907]]

of these natural systems, the Water Resources Planning and 
Modernization Act of 2007 brings the Corps' 1986 mitigation standards 
into line with their regulatory program by requiring Corps water 
resources projects to meet the same mitigation standard that is 
required of all private citizens and other entities under the Clean 
Water Act. Where States have adopted stronger mitigation standards, the 
Corps must meet those standards. I feel very strongly that the Federal 
government should be able to live up to this requirement. 
Unfortunately, all too often, the Corps has not completed required 
mitigation. This legislation will make sure that mitigation is 
completed, that the true costs of mitigation are accounted for in Corps 
projects, and that the public is able to track the progress of 
mitigation projects.
  Our current prioritization process is not serving the public good. To 
address this problem, the bill reinvigorates the Water Resources 
Council, originally established in 1965, and charges it with providing 
Congress a prioritized list of authorized water resource projects 
within one year of enactment and then every two years following. The 
prioritized list would also be printed in the Federal Register for the 
public to see. The Water Resources Council described in the bill, 
comprised of cabinet-level officials, would bring together varied 
perspectives to shape a list of national needs. In short, the 
prioritization process would be improved to make sure Congress has the 
tools to more wisely invest limited resources while also increasing 
public transparency in decision making--both needed and reasonable 
improvements to the status quo.
  Taking stock of our vulnerabilities to natural disasters must also be 
a priority. For this reason, the bill also directs the Water Resources 
Council to identify and report to Congress on the nation's 
vulnerability to flood and related storm damage, including the risk to 
human life and property, and relative risks to different regions of the 
country. The Water Resources Council would also recommend improvements 
to the nation's various flood damage reduction programs to better 
address those risks. Many of these improvements were discussed in a 
government report following the 1993 floods so the building blocks are 
available; we just need to update the assessment. Then, of course, we 
must actually take action based on the assessment. To help speed such 
action, the legislation specifies that the Administration will submit a 
response to Congress, including legislative proposals to implement the 
recommendations, on the Water Resources Council report no later than 90 
days after the report has been made public. We cannot afford to have 
this report, which will outline improvements to our flood damage 
reduction programs, languish like others before it.
  The process by which the Army Corps of Engineers analyzes water 
projects should undergo periodic revision. Unfortunately, the Corps' 
principles and guidelines, which bind the planning process, have not 
been updated since 1983. This is why the bill requires that the Water 
Resources Council work in coordination with the National Academy of 
Sciences to propose periodic revisions to the Corps' planning 
principles and guidelines, regulations, and circulars. Updating the 
project planning process should involve consideration of a variety of 
issues, including the use of modern economic analysis and the same 
discount rates as used by all other Federal agencies. Simple steps such 
as these will lead to more precise estimates of project costs and 
benefits, a first step to considering whether a project should move 
forward.
  Modernizing all aspects of our water resources policy will help 
restore credibility to a Federal agency historically rocked by scandal 
and currently plagued by public skepticism. Congress has long used the 
Army Corps of Engineers to facilitate favored pork-barrel projects, 
while periodically expressing a desire to change its ways. Back in 
1836, a House Ways and Means Committee report referred to Congress 
ensuring that the Corps sought ``actual reform, in the further 
prosecution of public works.'' Over 150 years later, the need for 
actual reform is stronger than ever.
  My office has strong working relationships with the Detroit, Rock 
Island, and St. Paul District Offices that service Wisconsin, and I do 
not want this bill to be misconstrued as reflecting on the work of 
those district offices. What I do want is the fiscal and management 
cloud over the entire Army Corps to dissipate so that the Corps can 
better contribute to our environment and our economy--without wasting 
taxpayer dollars or endangering public safety.
  I wish the changes we are proposing today were not needed, but 
unfortunately that is not the case. In fact, if there were ever a need 
for the bill, it is now. We must make sure that future Corps projects 
produce predicted benefits, are in furtherance of national priorities, 
and do not have negative environmental impacts. This bill gives the 
Corps the tools it needs to do a better job and focuses the attention 
of Congress on national needs, which is what the American taxpayers and 
the environment deserve.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 564

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Water Resources Planning and 
     Modernization Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the Water 
     Resources Council established under section 101 of the Water 
     Resources Planning Act (42 U.S.C. 1962a).
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Army.

     SEC. 3. NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MODERNIZATION 
                   POLICY.

       It is the policy of the United States that all water 
     resources projects carried out by the Corps of Engineers 
     shall--
       (1) reflect national priorities for flood damage reduction, 
     navigation, and ecosystem restoration; and
       (2) seek to avoid the unwise use of floodplains, minimize 
     vulnerabilities in any case in which a floodplain must be 
     used, protect and restore the extent and functions of natural 
     systems, and mitigate any unavoidable damage to natural 
     systems.

     SEC. 4. MEETING THE NATION'S WATER RESOURCE PRIORITIES.

       (a) Report on the Nation's Flood Risks.--Not later than 18 
     months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Council 
     shall submit to the President and Congress a report 
     describing the vulnerability of the United States to damage 
     from flooding and related storm damage, including the risk to 
     human life, the risk to property, and the comparative risks 
     faced by different regions of the country. The report shall 
     assess the extent to which the Nation's programs relating to 
     flooding are addressing flood risk reduction priorities and 
     the extent to which those programs may unintentionally be 
     encouraging development and economic activity in floodprone 
     areas, and shall provide recommendations for improving those 
     programs in reducing and responding to flood risks. Not later 
     than 90 days after the report required by this subsection is 
     published in the Federal Register, the Administration shall 
     submit to Congress a report that responds to the 
     recommendations of the Council and includes proposals to 
     implement recommendations of the Council.
       (b) Prioritization of Water Resources Projects.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Council shall submit to Congress 
     an initial report containing a prioritized list of each water 
     resources project of the Corps of Engineers that is not being 
     carried out under a continuing authorities program, 
     categorized by project type and recommendations with respect 
     to a process to compare all water resources projects across 
     project type. The Council shall submit to Congress a 
     prioritized list of water resources projects of the Corps of 
     Engineers every 2 years following submission of the initial 
     report. In preparing the prioritization of projects, the 
     Council shall endeavor to balance stability in the rankings 
     from year to year with recognizing newly authorized projects. 
     Each report prepared under this paragraph shall provide 
     documentation and description of any criteria used in 
     addition to those set forth in paragraph (2) for comparing 
     water resources projects and the assumptions upon which those 
     criteria are based.
       (2) Project prioritization criteria.--In preparing a report 
     under paragraph (1), the Council shall prioritize each water 
     resource project of the Corps of Engineers based on the 
     extent to which the project meets at least the following 
     criteria:
       (A) For flood damage reduction projects, the extent to 
     which such a project--
       (i) addresses the most critical flood damage reduction 
     needs of the United States as identified by the Council;
       (ii) does not encourage new development or intensified 
     economic activity in flood prone areas and avoids adverse 
     environmental impacts; and

[[Page S1908]]

       (iii) provides significantly increased benefits to the 
     United States through the protection of human life, property, 
     economic activity, or ecosystem services.
       (B) For navigation projects, the extent to which such a 
     project--
       (i) produces a net economic benefit to the United States 
     based on a high level of certainty that any projected trends 
     upon which the project is based will be realized;
       (ii) addresses priority navigation needs of the United 
     States identified through comprehensive, regional port 
     planning; and
       (iii) minimizes adverse environmental impacts.
       (C) For environmental restoration projects, the extent to 
     which such a project--
       (i) restores the natural hydrologic processes and spatial 
     extent of an aquatic habitat;
       (ii) is self-sustaining; and
       (iii) is cost-effective or produces economic benefits.
       (3) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that to 
     promote effective prioritization of water resources projects, 
     no project should be authorized for construction unless a 
     final Chief's report recommending construction has been 
     submitted to Congress, and annual appropriations for the 
     Corps of Engineers' Continuing Authorities Programs should be 
     distributed by the Corps of Engineers to those projects with 
     the highest degree of design merit and the greatest degree of 
     need, consistent with the applicable criteria established 
     under paragraph (2).
       (c) Modernizing Water Resources Planning Guidelines.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and every 5 years thereafter, the 
     Council, in coordination with the National Academy of 
     Sciences, shall propose revisions to the planning principles 
     and guidelines, regulations, and circulars of the Corps of 
     Engineers to improve the process by which the Corps of 
     Engineers analyzes and evaluates water projects.
       (2) Public participation.--The Council shall solicit public 
     and expert comment and testimony regarding proposed revisions 
     and shall subject proposed revisions to public notice and 
     comment.
       (3) Revisions.--Revisions proposed by the Council shall 
     improve water resources project planning through, among other 
     things--
       (A) focusing Federal dollars on the highest water resources 
     priorities of the United States;
       (B) requiring the use of modern economic principles and 
     analytical techniques, credible schedules for project 
     construction, and current discount rates as used by all other 
     Federal agencies;
       (C) discouraging any project that induces new development 
     or intensified economic activity in flood prone areas, and 
     eliminating biases and disincentives to providing projects to 
     low-income communities, including fully accounting for the 
     prevention of loss of life as required by section 904 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2281);
       (D) eliminating biases and disincentives that discourage 
     the use of nonstructural approaches to water resources 
     development and management, and fully accounting for the 
     flood protection and other values of healthy natural systems;
       (E) utilizing a comprehensive, regional approach to port 
     planning;
       (F) promoting environmental restoration projects that 
     reestablish natural processes;
       (G) analyzing and incorporating lessons learned from recent 
     studies of Corps of Engineers programs and recent disasters 
     such as Hurricane Katrina and the Great Midwest Flood of 
     1993; and
       (H) ensuring the effective implementation of the National 
     Water Resources Planning and Modernization Policy established 
     by this Act.
       (d) Revision of Planning Guidelines.--Not later than 180 
     days after submission of the proposed revisions required by 
     subsection (b), the Secretary shall implement the 
     recommendations of the Council by incorporating the proposed 
     revisions into the planning principles and guidelines, 
     regulations, and circulars of the Corps of Engineers. These 
     revisions shall be subject to public notice and comment 
     pursuant to subchapter II of chapter 5, and chapter 7, of 
     title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the 
     ``Administrative Procedure Act''). Effective beginning on the 
     date on which the Secretary carries out the first revision 
     under this paragraph, the Corps of Engineers shall not be 
     subject to--
       (1) subsections (a) and (b) of section 80 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-17); and
       (2) any provision of the guidelines entitled ``Economic and 
     Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related 
     Land Resources Implementation Studies'' and dated 1983, to 
     the extent that such a provision conflicts with a guideline 
     revised by the Secretary.
       (e) Availability.--Each report prepared under this section 
     shall be published in the Federal Register and submitted to 
     the Committees on Environment and Public Works and 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the Committees on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure and Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (f) Water Resources Council.--Section 101 of the Water 
     Resources Planning Act (42 U.S.C. 1962a) is amended in the 
     first sentence by inserting ``the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, the Chairperson of the Council on Environmental 
     Quality,'' after ``Secretary of Transportation,''.
       (g) Funding.--In carrying out this section, the Council 
     shall use funds made available for the general operating 
     expenses of the Corps of Engineers.

     SEC. 5. INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Construction activities.--The term ``construction 
     activities'' means development of detailed engineering and 
     design specifications during the preconstruction engineering 
     and design phase and the engineering and design phase of a 
     water resources project carried out by the Corps of 
     Engineers, and other activities carried out on a water 
     resources project prior to completion of the construction and 
     to turning the project over to the local cost-share partner.
       (2) Project study.--The term ``project study'' means a 
     feasibility report, reevaluation report, or environmental 
     impact statement prepared by the Corps of Engineers.
       (b) Director of Independent Peer Review.--The Secretary 
     shall appoint in the Office of the Secretary a Director of 
     Independent Review. The Director shall be selected from among 
     individuals who are distinguished experts in engineering, 
     hydrology, biology, economics, or another discipline related 
     to water resources management. The Secretary shall ensure, to 
     the maximum extent practicable, that the Director does not 
     have a financial, professional, or other conflict of interest 
     with projects subject to review. The Director of Independent 
     Review shall carry out the duties set forth in this section 
     and such other duties as the Secretary deems appropriate.
       (c) Sound Project Planning.--
       (1) Projects subject to planning review.--The Secretary 
     shall ensure that each project study for a water resources 
     project shall be reviewed by an independent panel of experts 
     established under this subsection if--
       (A) the project has an estimated total cost of more than 
     $40,000,000, including mitigation costs;
       (B) the Governor of a State in which the water resources 
     project is located in whole or in part, or the Governor of a 
     State within the drainage basin in which a water resources 
     project is located and that would be directly affected 
     economically or environmentally as a result of the project, 
     requests in writing to the Secretary the establishment of an 
     independent panel of experts for the project;
       (C) the head of a Federal agency with authority to review 
     the project determines that the project is likely to have a 
     significant adverse impact on public safety, or on 
     environmental, fish and wildlife, historical, cultural, or 
     other resources under the jurisdiction of the agency, and 
     requests in writing to the Secretary the establishment of an 
     independent panel of experts for the project; or
       (D) the Secretary determines on his or her own initiative, 
     or shall determine within 30 days of receipt of a written 
     request for a controversy determination by any party, that 
     the project is controversial because--
       (i) there is a significant dispute regarding the size, 
     nature, potential safety risks, or effects of the project; or
       (ii) there is a significant dispute regarding the economic, 
     or environmental costs or benefits of the project.
       (2) Project planning review panels.--
       (A) Project planning review panel membership.--For each 
     water resources project subject to review under this 
     subsection, the Director of Independent Review shall 
     establish a panel of independent experts that shall be 
     composed of not less than 5 nor more than 9 independent 
     experts (including at least 1 engineer, 1 hydrologist, 1 
     biologist, and 1 economist) who represent a range of areas of 
     expertise. The Director of Independent Review shall apply the 
     National Academy of Science's policy for selecting committee 
     members to ensure that members have no conflict with the 
     project being reviewed, and shall consult with the National 
     Academy of Sciences in developing lists of individuals to 
     serve on panels of experts under this subsection. An 
     individual serving on a panel under this subsection shall be 
     compensated at a rate of pay to be determined by the 
     Secretary, and shall be allowed travel expenses.
       (B) Duties of project planning review panels.--An 
     independent panel of experts established under this 
     subsection shall review the project study, receive from the 
     public written and oral comments concerning the project 
     study, and submit a written report to the Secretary that 
     shall contain the panel's conclusions and recommendations 
     regarding project study issues identified as significant by 
     the panel, including issues such as--
       (i) economic and environmental assumptions and projections;
       (ii) project evaluation data;
       (iii) economic or environmental analyses;
       (iv) engineering analyses;
       (v) formulation of alternative plans;
       (vi) methods for integrating risk and uncertainty;
       (vii) models used in evaluation of economic or 
     environmental impacts of proposed projects; and
       (viii) any related biological opinions.
       (C) Project planning review record.--
       (i) In general.--After receiving a report from an 
     independent panel of experts established under this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall take into consideration any 
     recommendations contained in the report and

[[Page S1909]]

     shall immediately make the report available to the public on 
     the Internet.
       (ii) Recommendations.--The Secretary shall prepare a 
     written explanation of any recommendations of the independent 
     panel of experts established under this subsection not 
     adopted by the Secretary. Recommendations and findings of the 
     independent panel of experts rejected without good cause 
     shown, as determined by judicial review, shall be given equal 
     deference as the recommendations and findings of the 
     Secretary during a judicial proceeding relating to the water 
     resources project.
       (iii) Submission to congress and public availability.--The 
     report of the independent panel of experts established under 
     this subsection and the written explanation of the Secretary 
     required by clause (ii) shall be included with the report of 
     the Chief of Engineers to Congress, shall be published in the 
     Federal Register, and shall be made available to the public 
     on the Internet.
       (D) Deadlines for project planning reviews.--
       (i) In general.--Independent review of a project study 
     shall be completed prior to the completion of any Chief of 
     Engineers report for a specific water resources project.
       (ii) Deadline for project planning review panel studies.--
     An independent panel of experts established under this 
     subsection shall complete its review of the project study and 
     submit to the Secretary a report not later than 180 days 
     after the date of establishment of the panel, or not later 
     than 90 days after the close of the public comment period on 
     a draft project study that includes a preferred alternative, 
     whichever is later. The Secretary may extend these deadlines 
     for good cause.
       (iii) Failure to complete review and report.--If an 
     independent panel of experts established under this 
     subsection does not submit to the Secretary a report by the 
     deadline established by clause (ii), the Chief of Engineers 
     may continue project planning without delay.
       (iv) Duration of panels.--An independent panel of experts 
     established under this subsection shall terminate on the date 
     of submission of the report by the panel. Panels may be 
     established as early in the planning process as deemed 
     appropriate by the Director of Independent Review, but shall 
     be appointed no later than 90 days before the release for 
     public comment of a draft study subject to review under 
     subsection (c)(1)(A), and not later than 30 days after a 
     determination that review is necessary under subsection 
     (c)(1)(B), (c)(1)(C), or (c)(1)(D).
       (E) Effect on existing guidance.--The project planning 
     review required by this subsection shall be deemed to satisfy 
     any external review required by Engineering Circular 1105-2-
     408 (31 May 2005) on Peer Review of Decision Documents.
       (d) Safety Assurance.--
       (1) Projects subject to safety assurance review.--The 
     Secretary shall ensure that the construction activities for 
     any flood damage reduction project shall be reviewed by an 
     independent panel of experts established under this 
     subsection if the Director of Independent Review makes a 
     determination that an independent review is necessary to 
     ensure public health, safety, and welfare on any project--
       (A) for which the reliability of performance under 
     emergency conditions is critical;
       (B) that uses innovative materials or techniques;
       (C) for which the project design is lacking in redundancy, 
     or that has a unique construction sequencing or a short or 
     overlapping design construction schedule; or
       (D) other than a project described in subparagraphs (A) 
     through (C), as the Director of Independent Review determines 
     to be appropriate.
       (2) Safety assurance review panels.--At the appropriate 
     point in the development of detailed engineering and design 
     specifications for each water resources project subject to 
     review under this subsection, the Director of Independent 
     Review shall establish an independent panel of experts to 
     review and report to the Secretary on the adequacy of 
     construction activities for the project. An independent panel 
     of experts under this subsection shall be composed of not 
     less than 5 nor more than 9 independent experts selected from 
     among individuals who are distinguished experts in 
     engineering, hydrology, or other pertinent disciplines. The 
     Director of Independent Review shall apply the National 
     Academy of Science's policy for selecting committee members 
     to ensure that panel members have no conflict with the 
     project being reviewed. An individual serving on a panel of 
     experts under this subsection shall be compensated at a rate 
     of pay to be determined by the Secretary, and shall be 
     allowed travel expenses.
       (3) Deadlines for safety assurance reviews.--An independent 
     panel of experts established under this subsection shall 
     submit a written report to the Secretary on the adequacy of 
     the construction activities prior to the initiation of 
     physical construction and periodically thereafter until 
     construction activities are completed on a publicly available 
     schedule determined by the Director of Independent Review for 
     the purposes of assuring the public safety. The Director of 
     Independent Review shall ensure that these reviews be carried 
     out in a way to protect the public health, safety, and 
     welfare, while not causing unnecessary delays in construction 
     activities.
       (4) Safety assurance review record.--After receiving a 
     written report from an independent panel of experts 
     established under this subsection, the Secretary shall--
       (A) take into consideration recommendations contained in 
     the report, provide a written explanation of recommendations 
     not adopted, and immediately make the report and explanation 
     available to the public on the Internet; and
       (B) submit the report to the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (e) Expenses.--
       (1) In general.--The costs of an independent panel of 
     experts established under subsection (c) or (d) shall be a 
     Federal expense and shall not exceed--
       (A) $250,000, if the total cost of the project in current 
     year dollars is less than $50,000,000; and
       (B) 0.5 percent of the total cost of the project in current 
     year dollars, if the total cost is $50,000,000 or more.
       (2) Waiver.--The Secretary, at the written request of the 
     Director of Independent Review, may waive the cost 
     limitations under paragraph (1) if the Secretary determines 
     appropriate.
       (f) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report describing the implementation of this section.
       (g) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to affect any authority of the Secretary 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. 6. MITIGATION.

       (a) Mitigation.--Section 906(d) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``to the Congress'' and 
     inserting ``to Congress, and shall not choose a project 
     alternative in any final record of decision, environmental 
     impact statement, or environmental assessment,'', and by 
     inserting in the second sentence ``and other habitat types'' 
     after ``bottomland hardwood forests''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Mitigation requirements.--
       ``(A) Mitigation.--To mitigate losses to flood damage 
     reduction capabilities and fish and wildlife resulting from a 
     water resources project, the Secretary shall ensure that 
     mitigation for each water resources project complies fully 
     with the mitigation standards and policies established by 
     each State in which the project is located. Under no 
     circumstances shall the mitigation required for a water 
     resources project be less than would be required of a private 
     party or other entity under section 404 of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
       ``(B) Mitigation plan.--The specific mitigation plan for a 
     water resources project required under paragraph (1) shall 
     include, at a minimum--
       ``(i) a detailed plan to monitor mitigation implementation 
     and ecological success, including the designation of the 
     entities that will be responsible for monitoring;
       ``(ii) specific ecological success criteria by which the 
     mitigation will be evaluated and determined to be successful, 
     prepared in consultation with the Director of the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service or the Director of the 
     National Marine Fisheries Service, as appropriate, and each 
     State in which the project is located;
       ``(iii) a detailed description of the land and interests in 
     land to be acquired for mitigation, and the basis for a 
     determination that land and interests are available for 
     acquisition;
       ``(iv) sufficient detail regarding the chosen mitigation 
     sites, and types and amount of restoration activities to be 
     conducted, to permit a thorough evaluation of the likelihood 
     of the ecological success and aquatic and terrestrial 
     resource functions and habitat values that will result from 
     the plan; and
       ``(v) a contingency plan for taking corrective actions if 
     monitoring demonstrates that mitigation efforts are not 
     achieving ecological success as described in the ecological 
     success criteria.
       ``(4) Determination of mitigation success.--
       ``(A) In general.--Mitigation under this subsection shall 
     be considered to be successful at the time at which 
     monitoring demonstrates that the mitigation has met the 
     ecological success criteria established in the mitigation 
     plan.
       ``(B) Evaluation and reporting.--The Secretary shall 
     consult annually with the Director of the United States Fish 
     and Wildlife Service and the Director of the National Marine 
     Fisheries Service, as appropriate, and each State in which 
     the project is located, on each water resources project 
     requiring mitigation to determine whether mitigation 
     monitoring for that project demonstrates that the project is 
     achieving, or has achieved, ecological success. Not later 
     than 60 days after the date of completion of the annual 
     consultation, the Director of the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service or the Director of the National Marine 
     Fisheries Service, as appropriate, shall, and each State in 
     which the project is located may, submit to the Secretary a 
     report that describes--
       ``(i) the ecological success of the mitigation as of the 
     date of the report;
       ``(ii) the likelihood that the mitigation will achieve 
     ecological success, as defined in the mitigation plan;

[[Page S1910]]

       ``(iii) the projected timeline for achieving that success; 
     and
       ``(iv) any recommendations for improving the likelihood of 
     success.
     The Secretary shall respond in writing to the substance and 
     recommendations contained in such reports not later than 30 
     days after the date of receipt. Mitigation monitoring shall 
     continue until it has been demonstrated that the mitigation 
     has met the ecological success criteria.''.
       (b) Mitigation Tracking System.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a 
     recordkeeping system to track, for each water resources 
     project constructed, operated, or maintained by the Secretary 
     and for each permit issued under section 404 of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344)--
       (A) the quantity and type of wetland and other habitat 
     types affected by the project, project operation, or 
     permitted activity;
       (B) the quantity and type of mitigation required for the 
     project, project operation, or permitted activity;
       (C) the quantity and type of mitigation that has been 
     completed for the project, project operation, or permitted 
     activity; and
       (D) the status of monitoring for the mitigation carried out 
     for the project, project operation, or permitted activity.
       (2) Required information and organization.--The 
     recordkeeping system shall--
       (A) include information on impacts and mitigation described 
     in paragraph (1) that occur after December 31, 1969; and
       (B) be organized by watershed, project, permit application, 
     and zip code.
       (3) Availability of information.--The Secretary shall make 
     information contained in the recordkeeping system available 
     to the public on the Internet.

     SEC. 7. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Chief's Reports.--The Chief of Engineers shall not 
     submit a Chief's report to Congress recommending construction 
     of a water resources project until that Chief's report has 
     been reviewed and approved by the Secretary of the Army.
       (b) Project Tracking.--The Secretary shall assign a unique 
     tracking number to each water resources project, to be used 
     by each Federal agency throughout the life of the project.
       (c) Report Repository.--The Secretary shall maintain at the 
     Library of Congress a copy of each final feasibility study, 
     final environmental impact statement, final reevaluation 
     report, record of decision, and report to Congress prepared 
     by the Corps of Engineers. These documents shall be made 
     available to the public for review, and electronic copies of 
     those documents shall be permanently available, through the 
     Internet website of the Corps of Engineers.
                                 ______