[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.

                          ____________________