[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 78 (Thursday, May 22, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3267-S3272]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WRRDA CONFERENCE REPORT
Ecosystem Resiliency
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I am joined by the chair and ranking
member of the Environment and Public Works Committee to discuss a
provision of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act conference
report, which we will vote on shortly in the Senate. I thank them for
their leadership on this important legislation, and rise with them
today to discuss one of its provisions.
Section 4014 of the conference report, Ocean and Coastal Resiliency,
creates a new Army Corps authority to address ocean and coastal
ecosystem resiliency.
Subject to appropriations, this authority requires the Army Corps of
Engineers to work with the heads of other Federal agencies, like the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Fish and
Wildlife Service, State governors and other State officials, and
nonprofit organizations, to conduct a study identifying projects in
coastal zones to enhance ocean and coastal ecosystem resiliency. State
and local leaders often have the best information about the changing
conditions of their oceans and coastal zones, and participation by them
in the Army Corps' study process is intended to ensure the most
effective resiliency projects are identified in the study.
In Rhode Island there are numerous entities, from our Coastal Zone
Management Agency to our National Estuary Program, the University of
Rhode Island, and Save the Bay that would bring important information
and expertise to the process for identifying coastal resiliency
projects in Rhode Island. In other States I know there will be similar
interest.
Subject to appropriations, the study and project list will be updated
every 5 years, to ensure that best available science and policies are
informing project identification and selection.
When funding is provided for this program through the appropriations
process, the Army Corps may carry out identified projects in accordance
with the criteria for existing Corps Continuing Authority Program
authorities.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank Senator Whitehouse. As chair of the conference
committee for WRRDA, a committee on which the Senator from Rhode Island
and Senator Vitter also served, I agree with the Senator's
understanding of section 4014. Like Rhode Island, California also has
strong leadership on coastal and oceans issues and will benefit from
increased collaboration with the Corps of Engineers on coastal and
ocean resiliency issues.
Mr. VITTER. I share Chairman Boxer's and Senator Whitehouse's
understanding of section 4014, and will address subsection (d) of that
provision, ``Request for Projects.'' Subsection (d) is an important
provision because it requires approval by the governor or chief
executive officer of a State before the Corps can carry out any project
identified under this section.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. The conference committee's deliberations were
informed by a legal analysis prepared by the Corps of Engineers Counsel
regarding the interpretation of Section 4014.
I ask unanimous consent that the legal analysis prepared by Scott
Murphy, Senior Counsel for Project Agreements and Reports in the Office
of the Chief Counsel of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Headquarters,
which describes how the Corps would implement this provision, be
printed in the Record at the end of this colloquy.
The legal analysis, dated May 8, 2014, states that Section 4014
authorizes ``an independent coastal zone resiliency study and follow-on
construction authority for projects to the extent they satisfy criteria
for projects carried out under four named CAP authorities.'' In other
words, Section 4014 relies on the terms and conditions of four
preexisting authorities but it is not limited by the authorized levels
in those authorities.
Mrs. BOXER. The Army Corps was clear that when a project is
identified in the study associated with Section 4014, it may be carried
out in accordance with the criteria for one of the four existing CAPs
referenced in the section, but it will be not funded through or
authorized by those CAP authorities. Section 4014 provides its
[[Page S3268]]
own funding authorization, and accordingly any project authorized by
Section 4014 would be funded by appropriations for that authority.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank the chairman. I look forward to supporting
this program in the future and during the appropriations process.
Resiliency is important in our estuaries, bays, and barrier islands,
because we cannot just restore things the way they were and expect to
reap the benefits. These systems are changing too much. Resiliency
requires planning for future threats from extreme weather, from rising
sea levels and warming temperatures, from development pressure, and
from pollution. Coastal ecosystems act as filters, improving water
quality so we can swim and fish off our docks; they act as barriers
protecting property and lives from storms and storm surges; and they
provide habitat for commercially valuable fish, shellfish, and other
wildlife.
Coastal ecosystems support coastal economies, and I will continue
looking for avenues to support restoration and research in this area.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Legal Analysis--May 8, 2014
I've looked at the language and agree that it authorizes an
independent coastal zone resiliency study and follow-on
construction authority for projects to the extent they
satisfy criteria for projects carried out under four named
CAP authorities. Like other free standing study and
construction authorities, I'd expect us to carry projects
following the study to the extent they were separately
funded. In other words, to the extent the language cites to
CAP authorities, I would read that language as requiring
merely that we apply the same rules for those projects for
purposes of implementing projects (requiring agreement, cost
sharing, etc.) following this study, but not as an actual
direct expansion of those particular CAP program authorities
themselves that might thereby subject our implementation of
coastal zone resiliency projects after the study somehow
subject to the Corps discretionary use of its overall CAP
funding.
N. Scott Murphy,
Senior Counsel for Project Agreements and Reports Office of
the Chief Counsel Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
port and harbor maintenance
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am joined by the ranking member of the
Environment and Public Works Committee to discuss a provision of the
Water Resources Reform and Development Act conference report, which we
will vote on shortly in the Senate.
Title II, subtitle B includes a number of important provisions
related to port and harbor maintenance. In addition to setting annual
spending goals for funds from the harbor maintenance trust fund, HMTF,
and providing a set-aside for spending on emerging ports, the section
now authorizes new expanded uses of the HMTF. The expanded use
authority, which includes dredging of berths and disposal of
contaminated dredge material, is limited to those ports that collect
more HMTF taxes than they receive in HMTF spending.
I also want to note that these new uses are prioritized for the ports
that collect much larger amounts of the HMTF fees than they receive in
return because the many industries that pay these fees to access
American ports deserve to have some of those funds used to improve the
facilities they depend on for movement of goods.
These ports have unmet needs that shippers into these ports expect to
be addressed. In my home State, we have two large ports--Los Angeles
and Long Beach. These two ports collect over a quarter of all revenue
for the HMTF, but because of the natural conditions at these ports,
they require little to almost no traditional dredging to maintain the
federally authorized channels. They do have needs related to berth
dredging and disposal of some contaminated sediments.
These expanded use authorities are new and separate from the
traditional uses of the HMTF. These new, expanded uses are not limited
to the traditional HMTF focus--dredging of the Federal navigation
channel. Instead, these are designed to meet additional maintenance
needs beyond traditional cost-shared dredging projects.
Specifically, the conference agreement authorizes dredging of berths
that are accessible to a Federal navigation channel and that benefit
commercial navigation at the harbor. This permits expenditure of HMTF
revenues for maintenance of non-Federal berthing areas to a depth
required to access the federally authorized channel. The conference
agreement does not place any other restriction on the use of these
funds; therefore, these funds are eligible for maintenance dredging of
berths to any depths necessary to access the federally authorized
navigation channel as long as the berth is in a harbor that is
accessible to a Federal navigation channel and the dredging benefits
commercial navigation.
The conference report also authorizes dredging and disposal of
contaminated sediments if such activities provide a benefit to
commercial navigation and affect navigation of a Federal navigation
project or are located in a berth that is accessible to a Federal
navigation project. This provision will enable the HMTF to fund the
disposal of legacy-contaminated sediment and sediment unsuitable for
open water disposal that affect navigation at a Federal navigation
project. This could include a range of cost-effective contaminated
sediment removal and disposal activities as long as they provide a
benefit to commercial navigation. No limitation beyond the benefit to
commercial navigation and the linkage to a Federal navigation project
is included.
Mr. Vitter. I thank Senator Boxer for the discussion of expanded uses
of the HMTF. I agree with her understanding of the berth dredging and
contaminated sediment disposal eligibilities, which are important to
many of our Nation's major commercial ports. Expanding the uses of the
HMTF is critical to those ports that are major contributors to the
HMTF, yet receive minimal expenditures; therefore, the conference
agreement establishes specific criteria for use of this authority. I
look forward to working with the Senator more in the future on the
implementation of the HMTF provisions in this conference report,
including the expanded use provision we are discussing as well as
increased expenditures of harbor maintenance trust fund revenues and
prioritization of dredging at other key ports, such as the Port of New
Orleans.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank Senator Vitter for that response. It is important
that we are clear on how these new authorities should be implemented.
I also want to highlight how these authorities will benefit my home
State of California. In the case of the Port of Los Angeles, the main
channels and turning basins are authorized to at least 53-foot depth
and have been recently dredged to such depths. Most adjacent container
berths were also federally authorized at 53 feet and have been dredged
to that depth. As shoaling/siltation occurs, maintenance dredging must
be performed in order to keep adequate depth for the large container
ships. The new expanded use for berth dredging will permit the
maintenance dredging of these berth areas, down to the federally
authorized depth.
This new use for disposal of contaminated sediment is also important
for the Port of Los Angeles because legacy sediment contamination from
the Consolidated Slip at the port will migrate during storm events down
the Dominguez Channel and into the newly deepened Federal turning basin
and main channel. This new expanded use will now allow the HMTF to fund
the removal of this sediment.
I am glad that the conference agreement could address this important
need for California ports as well as many other ports around the
country. I am also very pleased with all of the other important reforms
to the harbor maintenance trust fund included in the conference report.
The proper and full maintenance of our nation's ports is of vital
importance as we seek to compete in the global economy. The HMTF
provisions and other important elements in the WRRDA 2014 help support
American jobs, while maintaining America's ability to compete in the
global economy.
Dam Optimization
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I am joined by the chair and ranking
member of the Environment and Public Works Committee to discuss section
1046 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act conference
report, which we will vote on shortly in the Senate. I would like to
thank the chair and ranking member for their
[[Page S3269]]
leadership on this important legislation and rise with them today to
discuss the provision and address my concerns about the effects on Army
Corps of Engineers' reservoirs in Texas.
It is important to remember that the long-term reliability of the
Corps' multipurpose reservoirs remains a critical economic issue for
many regions of our country. Cities, water districts, businesses, and
other users depend on these reservoirs both for hydropower generation
and to meet their larger water supply needs. That is especially true in
arid States such as Texas.
Indeed, the reservoirs have helped our States--and many others--to
mitigate the effects of serious droughts. For that matter, Texas
suffered the most intense drought in recorded State history just a few
years ago, and water levels at a number of reservoirs remain
dangerously low. Statewide, reservoirs are only at 64 percent of their
capacity, according to the Texas Water Development Board.
As one of America's fastest growing States, water supply management
is becoming more and more important to individual Texans and their
communities. Thankfully, local and State leaders have worked hard to
devise effective strategies.
Similar to other States, Texas has very specific laws on water rights
and environmental flows. Since 2007, we have had a legal process that
provides for a basin-specific scientific assessment, a formal review,
and then recommendations by interested stakeholders. The State
government oversees this process by working with stakeholders to
balance environmental flow needs with other public interests, such as
water needs.
It is crucial to understand that the water stored in these reservoirs
belongs to Texas and has been allocated to users in accordance with
Federal and State law. It is also crucial to understand that the non-
Federal sponsors of the reservoirs pay for storage, operations, and
maintenance. Any changes to the operations that affect the authorized
purposes of the reservoirs should never be made without their
involvement.
Section 1046(a) in the conference report requires the Corps to update
its operations of reservoirs report, and to include a plan for
reviewing the operations of individual projects, including a detailed
schedule for future reviews of project operations. In carrying out
these reviews, the Corps must coordinate with the appropriate Federal,
State, and local agencies, along with any public and private entities
that could be affected.
Going forward, during the deliberations over a project-specific
review, the Secretary must carefully weigh the use of limited Federal
operations and maintenance funding and may accept funds from other
agencies or non-Federal entities if necessary.
Furthermore, the Secretary must ensure that all recommendations
offered at the conclusion of the review, one, do not impinge on State
water rights; two, are consistent with State water plans, and, three,
do not affect any authority of a State to manage water resources within
that State.
The language is explicit: It does not change the authorized purpose
of any Corps dam or reservoir, and the Secretary may only carry out
recommendations and activities pursuant to existing law. Let me repeat:
There is no new authority to modify reservoir operations granted to the
Corps of Engineers.
Of course, the Secretary has always had the authority to review the
operations of these reservoirs and to improve their efficiency. As they
undertake these reviews and carry out activities, this conference
report language is clear that all authorized project purposes are
maintained.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I would like to thank my friend from
Texas, Senator Cornyn. As the top Senate Republican member of the
conference committee for WRRDA, I agree with his understanding and
interpretation of the language in section 1046(a) of the WRRDA
conference report. Multipurpose dams and reservoirs in Texas are
crucial to the well-being and economic viability of Texas, particularly
in areas that have experienced severe droughts over the past several
years. This provision is explicit in that the Secretary shall
coordinate with appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, as well
as public and private entities that may be affected by those reviews
and activities. This provision also prohibits any changes to the
authorized purposes of any Corps dam or reservoir and only allows the
Secretary to carry out recommendations or activities pursuant to
existing law. As the Corps implements this provision, I will work with
my colleague from Texas to monitor the Corps' activities and ensure
there are no adverse effects to dams and reservoirs in his State.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I thank Ranking Member Vitter and
Senator Cornyn for the discussion of section 1046(a) in the WRRDA
conference report. I agree with their understanding and interpretation
of this section and wish to address the importance of this provision.
In my home State, which is currently facing a historic drought, it is
critical that the Corps examine its reservoir operations to increase
flexibility so that it can better meet all of the State's water needs,
including agriculture, municipal uses, and the environment.
Unfortunately, in California, the Corps does not look often enough at
how it can better operate its reservoirs to meet multiple needs. This
provision does not change the authorized purpose of any reservoir and
paragraph (6), ``Effects of subsection,'' makes this clear. The
provision simply creates a more transparent process under existing law
so that Congress and local communities can work with the Corps to
improve management of Federal reservoirs that provide important
benefits to local communities.
ACF and ACT River Systems
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I am joined by the chair and ranking
member of the Environment and Public Works Committee to discuss section
1051 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act--WRRDA--
conference report, which we will vote on shortly in the Senate. I thank
the chair and ranking member for their leadership on this bipartisan
and important legislation. I rise today to discuss a provision within
the legislation pertaining to a long-running regional dispute in the
Southeastern United States over the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
operations within the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint, ACF and
Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa, ACT, river systems. At the heart of the
conflict are concerns from downstream stakeholders about the amount of
water withdrawals--and the legal authority for those withdrawals--from
Lake Allatoona and Lake Lanier.
A similar provision was included in the Senate-passed version of this
bill, S. 601, which was reported favorably out of the Environment and
Public Works Committee after careful consideration. Part of that
consideration was a July 22, 2013, hearing focused on this dispute
among the Army Corps and other stakeholders in the region. That hearing
examined issues related to the withdrawal of water from Lake Allatoona
and Lake Lanier; the authorized purposes of those two reservoirs; the
Corps' actions in light of the 1958 Water Supply Act; the legislative
history of the reservoirs; and the Corps' management of water storage
contracts in the river systems.
While it highlighted a number of concerns related to Army Corps of
Engineers authority under the Water Supply Act, the hearing brought to
light a point of agreement that all stakeholders share. The best way to
resolve the conflict is through a negotiated interstate water compact.
Section 1051 highlights Congress's concerns with the Corps' actions
under the Water Supply Act related to the allocation of storage at
Corps projects to local water supply without congressional approval.
While it notes these concerns, it urges the agreed-upon best resolution
to the conflict: an interstate water compact negotiated by the
Governors of Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. The provision adds that the
committees of jurisdiction should consider further legislation on the
issue absent such an agreement.
Mr. VITTER. I thank my friend from Alabama, Senator Sessions, for his
work on the WRRDA conference report and on this long-running dispute in
the Southeastern United States. As the top Republican on the Committee
on Environment and Public Works and the lead Republican Senate conferee
on the conference committee for WRRDA, I agree with his understanding
and interpretation of the language in section 1051 of
[[Page S3270]]
the WRRDA conference report. Senator Sessions' work through the
development of the Senate version of this bill to investigate and
document this conflict provided useful clarity throughout the
conference committee's deliberations. As we await the development of a
water compact that is satisfactory to Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, I
will work with my friend from Alabama to continue oversight of the
Corps' implementation of the Water Supply Act.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, today the Senate is considering the
conference agreement for the Water Resources Reform and Development Act
of 2014, WRRDA. This bill contains roughly $12.3 billion in additional
authorized spending for a variety of water projects that fall under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works division.
This bill supports the construction and maintenance of many of our
Nation's dams, levees, harbors, ports, and river ways to name a few.
For being such an important bill, the American people may wonder why
the last time Congress passed a WRDA law was 7 years ago in 2007.
The reason is that it took Congress 7 straight years to finally
respond to public pressure demanding Army Corps reform. As my
colleagues know, the Corps has long been criticized by government
auditors, taxpayer watchdogs and environmental groups for employing
highly questionable economic models and environmental studies to
justify its construction projects. A large number of Army Corps
projects have been pegged as government boondoggles flush with waste,
fraud, and abuse due to cost-overruns and cut-corner construction.
Perhaps the best known example is the flooding of New Orleans during
the Hurricane Katrina disaster that was traced back to substandard
Corps levees, poor planning, and gutted coastal wetlands. Years later
an independent study by the American Society of Engineers commissioned
by the Corps concluded that, ``a large portion of the destruction from
Hurricane Katrina was caused by . . . engineering and engineering-
policy failures made over many years at almost all levels of
responsibility.''
But as much as the Corps' bad management practices are to blame, the
truth is that we in Congress are not without fault. For decades,
Congress has used each WRDA bill to pile on construction project on top
of construction project as a way for members to ``bring home the
bacon'' in their States. Layers of these pork projects have created a
$60 billion construction backlog, and the Army Corps simply can not
complete them all with their $2 billion annual construction
appropriation. Cutting corners and cooking their books is simply one
way they bend to political priorities set by Congress.
I appreciate that the conference agreement implements some modest
Corps reforms, particularly addressing the agency's $60 billion
construction backlog. This bill requires the the Army Corps to ``de-
authorize'' up to $18 billion in Corps projects, most of which have
never received construction funding to begin with. This is a step in
the right direction, but unfortunately this bill's ``savings'' are
washed away by the $12 billion in new authorized spending included in
this bill. Additionally, the conference agreement makes it impossible
to de-authorize $28 billion in projects that were authorized in the
2007 WRDA law--a bill that was vetoed by President Bush for containing
too much government waste but was subsequently overridden by Congress.
This bill also falls short by not giving the Army Corps clear
parameters on what projects should be treated as national priorities.
The conferees even eliminated a law that requires the Corps to send
their most costly and controversial projects to undergo an
``Independent Peer Review'' process. All of this means there will be
less transparency and oversight into the Corps decision making process.
So I am sorry to say I must question the veracity of ``reform'' in this
conference agreement.
I worry that ultimately this WRRDA conference agreement means that
Army Corps projects of lower-priority will continue to supersede
projects that address serious, life-threatening issues across the
Nation and in my home State of Arizona. This lack of prioritization
with Corps projects comes at a real cost to the American taxpayer. Take
for example the Rio de Flag Flood Control Project in Flagstaff, AZ. The
Army Corps knows that a single large flood event along the Rio de Flag
River could easily wipe out the city's downtown area and Northern
Arizona University, affecting half their population and causing $93
million in economic damage. After undergoing the appropriate
feasibility studies, Congress authorized $24 million in 2000 to
construct a 1.6-mile flood water channel and a detention basin to
redirect the water away from the community. For 14 years, this
project--- again, just 1.6 miles--has languished partially because of
the Corps' $60 billion construction backlog. The Corps spends less than
$3 million a year on Rio de Flag while Congress plays favorites with
other projects on their plate. This approach of funding Army Corps
projects piecemeal over the years has inflated the total estimated cost
of Rio de Flag from $24 million to $101.5 million.
Rio de Flag is a serious public safety project and yet it is behind
schedule and way over budget. In fact, the only completed portion of
the project is a 4,000-foot levee, which is cracked due to shoddy
construction by an Army Corps contractor. I am told that the Army Corps
recently ordered the contractor to repair the broken levee, of course
at the added expense of the American taxpayer and the City of
Flagstaff. Now the project faces more delays because the Army Corps has
been slowly dragging out its ``updated economic analysis'' for Rio De
Flag for the past 3 years, leaving the city unnecessarily vulnerable to
disaster and causing the project's price tag to rise even higher.
I have a longstanding practice of abstaining from legislating
projects to WRDA bills out of principle that each project should be
prioritized based on national need, but it's hard to argue that
Flagstaff isn't one of these national priorities, or that the current
practice of piling on Army Corps projects isn't contributing to the
mismanagement across the entire agency. Ultimately, this conference
agreement does little to change the Corps' culture of bad decisions
that affect Rio de Flag and similar projects. Congress will not be
blameless if a flood event larger than what Flagstaff occasionally sees
inundates the city, destroys property, or claims innocent lives.
I appreciate the need to pass a WRDA bill after 7 years, but I am
concerned that this bill is just a new coat of paint on the same broken
system. I urge my colleagues to oppose this conference agreement.
Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I am here to speak in support of the
conference report for the Water Resources Reform and Development Act or
WRRDA. I congratulate Senator Boxer and Senator Vitter for their
combined leadership and their working together to send this bill to the
President's desk. The last time Congress passed a WRDA bill was in
2007.
Gridlock and controversy over earmarks have delayed action on the
WRRDA bill. This inaction puts our ports, beaches, and massive
environmental restoration projects, like the Everglades, in jeopardy.
I support WRRDA because it moves forward with port construction, new
flood protection, navigation, and environmental restoration projects,
while instituting a number of reforms to the Army Corps of Engineers.
Our ports provide good jobs and are critical the economy,
facilitating trade and commerce. These projects have been vetted,
studied, and recommended by the Army Corps. Now, it is time for
Congress to do its part and pass the WRRDA bill.
The WRRDA bill means good news for Florida's beaches, waterways,
ports, and the Everglades. Not only does Florida have nine projects
with a chief's report that are ready to go, but we also have several
coastal communities anxiously waiting for the reauthorization of beach
nourishment programs.
The WRRDA bill extends the authorization for beach renourishment
projects so that the Corps can continue repairing and restoring
Florida's coastlines. The WRRDA bill authorizes a 3-year extension of
coastal storm damage projects which are scheduled to expire in the next
5 years. This means that the Treasure Island project in Pinellas County
will now be authorized through 2022. In addition, it creates a
[[Page S3271]]
process by which projects can be extended by up to 15 years with the
help of Federal funds. Strengthening the coastline by replenishing
eroding sand will help defend against sea-level rise and storm surge.
Congress made a promise 14 years ago to restore the Everglades, and
WRRDA puts us on the path to finally fulfill the promise of Everglades
restoration. The Everglades are a national treasure, and together,
Congress and President Harry Truman recognized it when they dedicated
Everglades National Park back in 1947. But it took another major act of
Congress to fund Everglades restoration to repair and restore the
natural sheet flow of water into the park and into Florida Bay.
The original Everglades Restoration legislation, also known as the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, or CERP, was the result of
years of work and study, was authorized in 2000 and was written with
the intent of frequent WRDA bills.
However, only one WRDA bill has been enacted since--in 2007. The
first era of Everglades restoration is underway. We have been able to
fund construction and make significant progress on three major
projects, build a bridge over the Tamiami Trail, create jobs, and
provide fresh water for urban and agricultural water supply.
As we restore the Everglades, we create jobs and improve the water
quality for a critical habitat. In fact, a Mather Economics study found
that restoring the Everglades will result in the creation of over
440,000 jobs in sectors like real estate, tourism, fishing, and
agriculture--many of those permanent jobs. This study also concluded
that there is a $4 return on investment for every dollar spent
restoring the Everglades.
This bill contains four new project authorizations that are part of
the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. For example, the C-43
Reservoir near La Belle, FL, will help store water during the rainy
season along the Caloosahatchee River and protect our coastal areas
from too much freshwater, which can drastically disrupt the delicate
salinity balance in the Caloosahatchee Estuary. In addition, the C-111
Spreader Canal will redirect water into Everglades National Park that
will eventually make its way down to benefit Florida Bay.
The first era of Everglades restoration projects, including the
Indian River Lagoon and the Picayune Strand, increase water quality and
preserve the natural areas to reverse the draining and bulldozing that
happened decades ago. This is one of the last areas of the State where
the Florida panther has the land it needs to roam and hunt. In
addition, Picayune Strand restores habitat and ecological connections
that will directly affect the Florida Panthers National Wildlife
Refuge, the Belle Meade State Conservation and Recreation Lands Project
Area, and the Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve.
All of this works toward the goal of moving water through the
historic River of Grass. But progress has been delayed because the
second era of projects has been waiting for the WRDA bill for several
years. I know Florida is not alone with this type of complaint. The
lack of project authorizations has caused delays and significant cost
overruns for too long. For this very reason, I have introduced a bill
called the Everglades for the Next Generation Act. This legislation
provides a programmatic authorization for 5 years for all projects
associated with the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. It
authorizes projects that the Army Corps has completed the planning,
engineering, and design work for and allows the Corps to expedite the
process on other projects that would provide greater ecosystem or water
supply benefits when done sooner.
The WRRDA bill updates our ports and makes them more economically
competitive. WRRDA authorizes a number of projects for ports in Florida
and other States. These authorizations are a crucial step forward for
the improvements our ports need to attract more ships and cargo and
take full advantage of the Panama Canal expansion. For example, WRRDA
authorizes $600.9 million for a project to deepen Jacksonville Harbor.
This will economically transform Jacksonville into a major port that
can receive big ships from Asia through an expanded Panama Canal.
Projects for Port Canaveral and the Port of Palm Beach that will create
new jobs were also included in WRRDA. Overall, I am very pleased that
the WRRDA bill accomplishes so much for ports in Florida. Improving and
updating our ports will be an economic boon for the country that will
create new jobs and opportunities for people across the country.
Mr. President, it is clear that without the WRRDA bill, Florida is in
trouble. It is important not just to Florida but for this entire
Nation. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I will support this legislation to
strengthen our Nation's water infrastructure. For Michigan, the Water
Resources Reform and Development Act, WRRDA, means that harbors,
channels, breakwaters, and locks in the Great Lakes will be better
maintained; Federal assistance for wastewater system upgrades will be
more flexible and affordable; and the Great Lakes fishery will be
better protected from destructive invasive species. Surrounded by water
on all but one side, Michigan is a water state and our waters fuel our
economy, create jobs, offer a vast array of recreational opportunities,
and provide drinking water to millions. I am pleased this bill will
help protect our waters and improve their navigability.
The report makes progress on increasing funding for harbor
maintenance, with the goal of aligning revenues collected in the harbor
maintenance trust fund with those expended for this purpose. Over 5
years have passed since I led a bipartisan and multiregional group of
Senators to call to the attention of the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee the imbalance in collections and spending for harbor
maintenance. I am pleased the committee worked with us to reduce this
disparity. This conference report aims to increase spending on harbor
maintenance so that it is more in line with the fees collected for
maintaining our Nation's navigation infrastructure. I am also pleased
the Great Lakes navigation system is prioritized for the increased
funds through a specific set-aside of 10 percent. Also, Great Lakes
projects are eligible for other types of prioritized funds, which will
position us to compete for this additional assistance.
The conference report authorizes the Great Lakes as a single
navigational system, recognizing the interconnectedness of its 140
harbor projects. During Senate consideration of the water resources
bill, I entered into a colloquy with Chairman Boxer to discuss the
system's interdependence. I am pleased the conference committee
included this Great Lakes authorization, as it should help allow all of
our harbors--both large and small--to be recognized for Federal
assistance.
While the harbor maintenance provisions in the report are good, we
will still need to continue to fight for appropriations and ensure that
budget requests reflect the true needs of the Great Lakes Navigation
System. This vital transportation network carries about 130 million
tons of critical commodities to supply raw materials to our
manufacturing sector, power homes and businesses, build roads and
bridges, and provide food for people around the world. Surely it should
be maintained so that it can carry these critical commodities
effectively and efficiently.
In addition to carrying millions of tons of goods, the Great Lakes
also boast a $7 billion fishery. To protect this significant resource,
destructive invasive species need to be kept out of the lakes. I am
pleased the conferees retained an important provision I worked with my
colleagues to include in the Senate bill, an authorization for the
Corps of Engineers to implement emergency measures to prevent invasive
species, including the destructive Asian carp, from dispersing into the
Great Lakes. This authorization makes clear that such emergency
authority can be implemented at any hydrologic connection between the
Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins which will provide important
flexibility to the Corps to respond to emergencies.
Our Nation's economy, health, and well-being depend on a strong water
infrastructure. WRRDA makes progress in authorizing programs to
strengthen our navigation systems, flood control, drinking water and
wastewater systems, and natural resources. We now
[[Page S3272]]
need to make sure that appropriations are provided for these
improvements to be made real.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, today the Senate will act to make major
improvements to our water infrastructure for commercial and
recreational navigation while protecting and maintaining many
environmental treasures for future generations.
The Water Resources Reform and Development Act--which the House
passed 412 to 4--is one of the few bipartisan accomplishments of this
Congress. I wish there were more.
Nevertheless, I would like to thank Chairman Barbara Boxer and
Senator Vitter of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and
Chairman Bill Shuster and Congressman Nick Rahall on the House side for
their hard work in getting this bill to us today.
I would also like to thank my Illinois delegation colleagues on both
sides of the Capitol and on both sides of the aisle for their
assistance in advancing Illinois priorities in this bill.
I am pleased that in the final bill there are many provisions that
will benefit our home State.
It was just a little over a year ago that we dealt with a major
drought in the Midwest that caused record low water levels on the
Mississippi River and threatened to disrupt the crucial transport of
millions of dollars in goods and commodities on the river.
After the initial threat had passed, thanks to better-than-expected
rainfall and quick action by the Army Corps of Engineers at the behest
of Congress, Representative Bill Enyart and I introduced the
Mississippi River Navigation Sustainment Act. The major provisions of
this measure are included in the bill we will pass today.
These provisions will improve water level and river forecasting
abilities along the Mississippi and give the Corps greater flexibility
to respond to low water events that threaten navigation. The bill also
authorizes the Corps to conduct, for the first time, a study of the
entire Mississippi River Basin--which spans 40 percent of the
continental United States--to determine how we can better manage the
system during extreme weather. Finally, we create an environmental
management program for the middle Mississippi--recognizing the
importance of preserving and restoring fish and wildlife habitats while
undertaking important navigation improvements.
River commerce in America's heartland depends on the system of locks
and dams on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers.
I was pleased to work with my colleagues in the 2007 reauthorization
of the Water Resources Development Act to authorize modernization and
expansion of the locks on these important Illinois waterways.
These improvements make commerce more efficient and guard against
catastrophic failures of current locks and dams as most of them reach
80 or so years old. At the same time, with current project delivery
schedules and the tight Federal budget, these improvements are not
expected to be realized until 2090 by some estimates.
With that in mind, Senator Mark Kirk and I, along with our colleagues
Representatives Cheri Bustos and Rodney Davis in the House, introduced
the Water Infrastructure Now Public Private Partnership Act or WIN-P3.
A version of our proposal is included in the final conference report.
It includes a pilot program that would decentralize project planning,
design, and construction from the Corps and provide an opportunity for
private financing to come to the table. We are hopeful that it will
speed project delivery of nationally significant water infrastructure
projects like the locks and dams on the Mississippi and Illinois
Rivers.
Along with the economic and recreational benefits of the Mississippi
River comes the annual threat of devastating floods for many Illinois
communities.
In Illinois' Metro East region the community has stepped up to
improve flood protection after their levees were decertified. They have
taxed themselves to help pay for this improved protection and have
endured a long and often frustrating partnership with the Army Corps.
My hope is that the provisions we secured in this bill will go a long
way to improving their situation.
The bill would combine several separately authorized levee projects
into one. That means that the money Congress appropriates for these
projects will be more flexible and can be used where it is most needed.
Additionally, the bill would allow the Metro East levee projects to
qualify for work-in-kind credit with the Army Corps. This will help
make the work the locals are doing go farther towards the completion of
the final levels of protection.
The conference report will also allow much needed restoration of the
Chicago shoreline along Lake Michigan to continue. The project was
facing delay as it got closer to hitting its original authorization
cap. This bill increased that authorization.
I would like to thank again all those who worked on this bill. I look
forward to this bipartisan accomplishment being soon signed into law by
President Obama.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________