[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 146 (Tuesday, September 27, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H5961-H5997]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2016
General Leave
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous materials on H.R. 5303.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stutzman). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 892 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 5303.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) to preside
over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1648
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 5303) to provide for improvements to the rivers and harbors of
the United States, to provide for the conservation and development of
water and related resources, and for other purposes, with Mr. Simpson
in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 5303, the Water
Resources Development Act of 2016. Subcommittee Chairman Gibbs and I
worked closely with Ranking Members DeFazio and Napolitano on this
vital water infrastructure bill. Thanks to their hard work, the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure unanimously approved
H.R. 5303 in May.
We tailored WRDA 2016 to address specific Federal responsibilities,
strengthening our infrastructure through the activities of the Army
Corps of Engineers to maintain competitiveness, create jobs, and grow
the economy. This legislation follows important reforms Congress put in
place in 2014 with the Water Resources Reform and Development Act.
Without those reforms, we wouldn't be here today to consider another
WRDA bill.
The 2014 bill and today's legislation restore regular order and the
2-year cycle of Congress considering these essential bills. This has
been one of my highest priorities as chairman, and I am pleased today
that in this Congress, as in last Congress, we have a WRDA bill on the
floor. WRDA 2016 maintains Congress' constitutional authority and
oversight in ensuring that we have a safe, effective infrastructure
system.
Following our authorization process reforms, every Corps activity in
this bill is locally driven; reviewed by the Corps according to strict,
congressionally established criteria; and presented to Congress for
consideration in the form of chief's reports and the Corps' new annual
report. Only proposals that followed this process were eligible for
inclusion in this bill.
If the manager's amendment is adopted, WRDA will authorize 31 chief's
reports and 29 feasibility studies. Each chief's report was reviewed by
the committee in a public hearing. These are critical regional
priorities that provide significant national economic and environmental
benefits.
For example, WRDA authorizes the long-delayed upgrades to the Upper
Ohio River's Emsworth, Dashields, and Montgomery, the EDM, locks and
dams. The EDM facilities provide critical access to the Port of
Pittsburgh, one of the Nation's busiest inland ports. This will provide
enormous benefits to the region and make our entire Nation more
competitive.
The same can be said for authorizations for the Port of Charleston,
Port Everglades, which has been under review by the Corps for 18
years--and it is finally going to be approved--and the Everglades
ecosystem, flood control along the Missouri River and around
Sacramento, and more.
The bill also increases flexibility and removes barriers for State,
local, and non-Federal interests to invest in their infrastructure.
Factoring in the manager's amendment, WRDA will authorize over $9
billion to cover the Federal share of these improvements to our ports,
channels, locks, dams, and other infrastructure. These investments are
fully offset--I repeat they are fully offset--with deauthorizations,
and the bill sunsets new authorizations to help prevent future project
backlogs.
WRDA has no earmarks and abides by all House rules. However, in order
to comply with House rules and call up this bill today, one section of
the bill, as reported by the committee, was removed. I want to say that
I agree with Ranking Member DeFazio that the user fees paid into the
harbor maintenance trust fund should be used to improve our
transportation system. It should be fundamental: When you pay a user
fee into a system, it should go to its intended purposes.
[[Page H5962]]
However, we found ourselves in a position where section 108
conflicted with House rules. We worked to find another resolution to
this one issue but were unable to do so within the rules of the House.
I appreciate the ranking member's passion for this provision and thank
him for his tireless efforts in support of infrastructure investment.
I want to continue working with him and others to find a solution as
we work with the Senate. However, we cannot lose sight of the larger,
more important issue. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
This bill is not perfect, but it is a good bill.
Only three WRDA bills were enacted between 2000 and 2014, and that
record is really unacceptable. Each delay placed America another step
behind our competitors. We simply cannot afford more delays. We must
pass this jobs and infrastructure bill and return to the regular 2-year
WRDA cycle to keep the Army Corps focused on these much-needed
investments. We cannot sacrifice these critical infrastructure
improvements because of one issue.
We have a wide range of stakeholder interests in this bill, and 75
letters of support for WRDA 2016, including: National Association of
Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Retail
Federation, National Conference of State Legislatures, and many other
local and regional groups.
WRDA 2016 is good public policy. This bill advances critical water
resources infrastructure improvements, restores regular order, and gets
Congress back on that 2-year WRDA cycle. I urge my colleagues to
support this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC, September 22, 2016.
Hon. Bill Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write regarding H.R. 5303, the Water
Resources Development Act of 2016. This bill contains
provisions under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural
Resources.
I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this bill
before the House of Representatives in an expeditious manner,
and accordingly, I will agree that the Committee on Natural
Resources be discharged from further consideration of the
bill. I do so with the understanding that this action does
not affect the jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural
Resources, and that the Committee expressly reserves its
authority to seek conferees on any provision within its
jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference that may be
convened on this, or any similar legislation. I ask that you
support any such request.
I also ask that a copy of this letter and your response be
included in the Congressional Record during consideration of
H.R. 5303 bill on the House floor.
Thank you for your work on this Important issue, and I look
forward to its enactment soon.
Sincerely,
Rob Bishop,
Chairman,
Committee on Natural Resources.
____
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of
Representatives,
Washington, DC, September 22, 2016.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bishop: Thank you for your letter regarding
H.R. 5303, the Water Resources Development Act of 2016. I
appreciate your willingness to support expediting the
consideration of this legislation on the House floor.
I acknowledge that by waiving consideration of this bill,
the Committee on Natural Resources does not waive any future
jurisdictional claim to provisions in this or similar
legislation. In addition, should a conference on the bill be
necessary, I would support your effort to seek appointment of
an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate
conference involving any provision within this legislation on
which the Committee on Natural Resources has a valid
jurisdictional claim.
I will include our letters on H.R. 5303 in the bill report
filed by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
as well as in the Congressional Record during House floor
consideration of the bill. I appreciate your cooperation
regarding this legislation, and I look forward to working
with the Committee on Natural Resources as the bill moves
through the legislative process.
Sincerely,
Bill Shuster,
Chairman.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The committee does have a great tradition of bipartisanship. It is
hard to get partisan about our crumbling infrastructure and the needs
for enhanced investment, but one of the keys toward enhancing the
investment and dealing with the $68 billion--B, billion--backlog of
authorized Corps projects--$68 billion--is to use a tax which is
collected from shippers and passed on to the American people. Every day
you buy a good from a foreign country, you are paying a little bit more
for that under an agreement that the money collected will be used to
maintain our harbors, our ports, keep them from silting in, and
construct critical infrastructure.
Unfortunately, for years Congress has been diverting part of that
money every year. Today there is a theoretical balance of over $9
billion in the nonexistent harbor maintenance trust fund. Look through
the entire budget of the United States. You won't find that money
anywhere on deposit. But they are saying: oh, don't worry, don't worry,
we will get around to spending it some day.
I have been working on this issue for 20 years, starting with Bud
Shuster in 1996. It was in the bill, and it passed out of committee
unanimously with a number of Republicans and Democrats supporting it,
obviously a majority of Republicans on the bill. The chairman and I had
an agreement that would bring this bill forward under a suspension of
the rules. His leadership objected to that. And then instead, they
dictated there should be a rule so that they could strip out the harbor
maintenance trust fund.
Now, what kind of rule is it that says we passed a law, we are
collecting money from the American people, every day they are paying a
little bit more for stuff, but the rules say we can't spend that money
for its lawful purpose, we are going to spend it on some other part of
government or disappear it into a lose-or-eat deficit reduction. We
need that money. We need those investments.
If this continues--right now it is about $400 million a year that is
being collected that isn't being spent, yet we have harbors shoaled in,
we have jetties that are failing all across America--it will grow up to
$20 billion in 10 years. Now tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow and
tomorrow we are going to fix this problem. No, this was the time to fix
it. It was in the bill. It was bipartisan. It was unanimous, and it was
stripped out. That is very, very unfortunate.
There are many good things in this bill. There are many projects that
are essential. But, again, the Corps of Engineers has a $68 billion
backlog. So all we are doing is putting people in an endless line--$68
billion backlog. We are collecting about $1.6 billion a year to make
those projects a reality except that $400-, $500 million of it is being
diverted over into other parts of the government. That is not a good
way to run the government like a business.
I have a letter from the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of
America concerned that this money is revenue from American business
that is not being used for its intended purpose in a timely manner, and
they will continue to advocate for this provision, among others. I am
very, very saddened that this was removed from the bill. It is not in
the Senate bill, so it becomes nonconferenceable, which means it will
be at least 2 years. That is another $800 million or $1 billion that
won't be spent, but taxes will still be collected from the American
people.
Secondly, we have made a big deal around here about not having any
earmarks. Big deal. Well, there are some ancient earmarks out there
still lingering in the darkness. One was for a $220 million project
which was earmarked in 2004 by the Committee on Appropriations, and
that would have required the Federal Government to spend $110 million.
This bill authorizes that project at a price of $526.5 million to the
U.S. taxpayers. It has gone from $220 million earmarked, $110 million
to the Feds, to a total project cost of $800 million.
Now, associated with that--and I am being told: don't worry, this
isn't Federal money. Well, whenever you enter into a project, you have
to have a local cost share. And they are saying: well, it will only be
local money. Except it is included in the project, meaning the local
entity isn't meeting its cost share for the authorized project which is
in this bill. In fact, they are diverting money locally from their cost
share into recreation projects.
[[Page H5963]]
Now, we have harbors silting in and jetties that are falling apart
all across the country. We are diverting money from the trust fund, and
yet somehow we are going to find $500 million for this project up from
a price tag of $110 million when it was first earmarked. It isn't
earmarked by any other name except that it is covered by the rule, and
it is in this bill.
I regret that this bill does not meet the high standards of the
committee and the historical standards of the committee.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1700
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Gibbs).
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, I thank the distinguished chairman from
Pennsylvania for yielding me the time and for his continued leadership
on restoring the normal biennial cycle for the Water Resource
Development Act.
Today I rise in strong support of H.R. 5303, the Water Resources
Development Act of 2016. By considering WRDA 2016 today, we are
returning to regular order and restoring the 2-year cycle for improving
water infrastructure projects critical to our economy.
Transportation and infrastructure is one of Congress' most important
responsibilities. This bill authorizes the construction of key water
infrastructure projects throughout the United States, creating jobs
here at home and directly contributing to our economic and national
security.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
our jurisdiction includes these water infrastructure projects carried
out by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. H.R. 5303 contains vitally
important Corps project authorizations for navigation, flood control,
shoreline protection, hydroelectric power, recreation, water supply,
environmental protection, restoration and enhancement, and fish and
wildlife management.
Each project authorization was proposed by local non-Federal sponsors
and underwent a rigorous planning process before congressional review.
Each Chief's Report was recommended to Congress by the Corps' Chief of
Engineers. In short, this was a bottom-up, grassroots-driven process.
In WRRDA 2014, we accelerated the delivery schedule for Corps of
Engineers projects. H.R. 5303 strengthens the numerous reforms made in
WRRDA 2014 by streamlining permitting for infrastructure projects.
The committee-passed version of H.R. 5303 contains 27 specific
project authorizations. My subcommittee held hearings to discuss the
Chief's Reports in depth and provide strong congressional oversight of
the proposed projects.
This bill further expedites nine feasibility studies to help locally
developed needs and contains study authorizations for future potential
Corps projects. More often than not, projects are delayed by study
after study, and sometimes literally studied to death. Because of the
reforms in WRRDA 2014, the 29 feasibility studies this bill is
authorizing are not intended to exceed 3 years in duration or exceed $3
million in Federal costs. We have reformed the process to save
taxpayers time and money.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 10 seconds to the
gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, this bill is fiscally responsible. The new
project authorizations are fully offset by de-authorizations of
projects that are outdated or no longer viable. H.R. 5303 contains no
earmarks, strengthens our water transportation networks, and increases
transparency for non-Federal sponsors and the public. This is a good,
commonsense bill, and I urge support of this bill.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Napolitano), the ranking member of the subcommittee of
jurisdiction.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I am very concerned that, after many
months of bipartisan work on this bill, we are bringing it to the floor
today under a partisan procedure where it stripped out in rules a very
important section. Also, it does not address the ongoing crisis in
Flint.
We have 100,000 people in Flint living without clean drinking water.
One million people in California live without clean drinking water. We
should be doing much more to address the drinking water crisis in this
country--we should not have problems with it--and investing in our
outdated infrastructure. I am glad that the Senate does include
provisions to address this crisis. I had hoped that the House would do
so as well.
I do appreciate the work that has been done to add many important
provisions to the bill. First, this bill includes 31 Army Corps of
Engineers' feasibility studies for projects to study water resource
projects across the country for a diverse array of purposes, including
flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, hurricane and storm
damage reduction, and navigation. This is really important, especially
in drought-prone areas like California.
Second, H.R. 5303 authorizes 29 Chief's Reports currently pending
before Congress. These reports include several of great importance to
my home State of California, including the Los Angeles River Ecosystem
Restoration and Recreation project, the West Sacramento flood risk
management project, the American River Common Features flood risk
management project, and the San Diego County hurricane and storm damage
risk reduction project. This is critical because storms are eroding our
beaches.
I am also pleased to see the inclusion of several provisions that
will assist communities experiencing drought and water supply
shortages. They include:
Promoting non-Federal efforts to remove sediment behind Army Corps'
dams and increase water supply. This has been one project that we have
been pushing for a long time in order to get the Corps to reduce that
sediment.
Also, authorizing the Secretary of the Army to evaluate and implement
water supply conservation measures of projects owned or managed by the
Corps in states with drought emergencies. In 17 Western States, this is
critical.
Further, encouraging the Corps to share the data the Corps collects
on operations and maintenance of its facilities and to improve
coordination with local stakeholders. My understanding is that they are
going to get the Library of Congress to do that.
Also, allowing environmental infrastructure and water supply projects
to be eligible for the 7001 process that authorizes Corps projects.
Lastly, creating a pilot program to encourage the beneficial use of
dredged material for shoreline restoration and environmental use.
I am very confident these provisions, if enacted, will provide
drought-ridden regions like mine with the tools necessary to increase
water supply and water conservation matters and be better prepared for
future storm events.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentlewoman from California.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I want to thank my constituent water
agencies for their input through the process, including the Upper San
Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, the Three Valleys Municipal
Water District, the San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, the
San Gabriel Valley Watermaster, the Los Angeles County Department of
Public Works, and my local Corps people, Colonel Gibbs and David Van
Dorpe.
I ask for a ``no'' vote since the Flint provision was not included in
this bill.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the vice chairman of the full committee.
Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for
yielding.
I, first of all, want to commend Chairman Shuster and Chairman Gibbs
for their outstanding leadership on this legislation.
I rise in support of this jobs and infrastructure legislation. It
will help create thousands of jobs and help improve our infrastructure.
I have the privilege of serving as the Republican chair of the Clean
Water Caucus in this Congress and I had the privilege of serving for 6
years as chairman of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee,
starting in
[[Page H5964]]
2001. So I know full well how important this bill is.
This bill provides the authorizations needed to improve water
transportation all across this Nation. Every day, many tons of goods
are transported across our waterways. Without basic water
infrastructure in good shape, most of these goods would be transported
on our already congested highways. According to the Inland Waterways
Foundation, a 15-barge tow can transport the same amount of goods as
1,050 tractor-trailers. Moving goods on the water is also the most
fuel-efficient and environmentally sound method of transportation.
This bill is, as others have said, a fiscally responsible one. It de-
authorizes $10 billion worth of inactive projects that are no longer
needed or feasible, which offsets the new authorizations made in this
legislation.
This bill also authorizes important flood control projects that we
need to help prevent natural disasters. We saw what can happen when
Katrina hit Louisiana and Mississippi a few years ago. That disaster
caused an estimated $150 billion in damage. Now we have new flooding in
Louisiana and Texas. We need to make smart investments today so that we
are not foolishly spending billions of dollars after a disaster
strikes.
I also want to thank Chairman Shuster for including language on
floating homes that was requested by Representative Meadows and myself.
I want to especially commend Representative Meadows, who led the way on
this issue. The TVA board had voted to remove privately owned homes, or
floating houses, from its reservoirs. This would have been essentially
a taking without any compensation being offered to the homeowners.
The language in this bill mirrors that included in the Senate-passed
bill that would allow these homeowners to keep their houses as long as
certain safety and health standards are met.
I urge passage of this very, very important legislation.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have worked closely with the gentleman from Tennessee, and he does
great work. In fact, he did great work in chairing a special committee
of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on
improving the Nation's freight transportation system.
One of the key recommendations in that report was: draw down the $7
billion balance of the harbor maintenance trust fund without adversely
affecting appropriations for other programs, projects, and activities
carried out by the Corps of Engineers for other authorized purposes.
Well, it is a little dated because this is 2 years ago. So now there
is $9.8 billion in the so-called harbor maintenance trust fund, which
doesn't exist. There is no line item, no account at the Treasury. The
money is poof, gone, unless we authorize the establishment of a trust
fund and begin to better invest in our harbors.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene
Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R.
5303, the Water Resource Development Act.
WRDA is usually a vehicle for bipartisan cooperation, but,
unfortunately, that is not the case this year. This is the only time in
my 23 years in Congress that I am unable to support WRDA.
In my area in Houston, we need WRDA. We need flood assistance. But my
particular issue with this is that I represent a large part of the Port
of Houston. As one of many Members that represents a major port, I know
firsthand that ports are enormous economic engines for growth. The jobs
and economic growth, including refining and manufacturing on the banks
of the Houston Ship Channel, supported by the Port of Houston, has
allowed Houston and Harris County to become the energy capital of the
world.
But this is about more than just the Port of Houston. This is about
all of America's ports, from LA-Long Beach to Miami and New Orleans.
This is $3 trillion in shipments in these ports.
The harbor maintenance tax is meant to fund critical projects to keep
our ports running at full capacity. Yet, only a fraction of that money
is appropriated each year, leaving billions of dollars sitting unused
while maintenance costs climb in the Port of Houston and around the
country.
Every day, ships are forced to idly wait for high tides or deeper
channels because we do not put enough of this money to work for them.
We need to ensure that we are investing for the future by investing in
vital infrastructure projects.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation until
the bipartisan harbor maintenance trust fund provision is included.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young), the former chairman of the full committee.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank Mr.
Shuster, Mr. Gibbs, and Mr. DeFazio for their work on this bill. This
bill is a good bill.
I just say to all of you: We are getting close to the end of this
session--and a lameduck, too. This isn't perfect for everyone. It is
not perfect for me in some cases, but let's get a piece of legislation
done without nitpicking it and saying: Well, I didn't get what I
wanted.
I don't disagree with Mr. DeFazio about the funding. That is
something we have to work on with the appropriators. They don't like
the idea there is a set-aside fund for repairing the harbors, but let's
address that battle at a later date.
This is a good piece of legislation. It will create a better system
of infrastructure for water, harbors, ports, and drinking water, too.
It is a legislative package that has been put together with a lot of
hard work with staff.
As we get in this battle, Well, I don't want it, it is a Democrat
bill, it is a Republican bill, we ought to think this is a House bill,
a bill that can do the job. It will come out of this House, it will go
over to the Senate, and we will have a conference. We have another
chance to finish this project for the people of America.
So I am asking us not to get into this little bit of nitpicking and
get good piece of legislation such as this done.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Curbelo).
Mr. CURBELO of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support
of the Water Resources Development Act containing the Central
Everglades Planning Project that is of critical importance to the
ecological health of the State of Florida.
This project will increase freshwater flows from Lake Okeechobee
through the Everglades and down into Florida Bay, providing critical
relief to our water reservoirs and to a stressed ecosystem in Florida
Bay.
{time} 1715
The health of Florida Bay, Mr. Chairman, is a moral issue, and it is
also vital to south Florida's multibillion-dollar tourism industry,
making Everglades restoration an important local issue as well as a
major national priority. Long-term restoration will be achieved
primarily by constructing projects for conveyance, treatment, and
storage of water and, ultimately, restoration of freshwater flow from
north to south. CEPP contributes to all of these goals.
I want to thank Chairman Shuster for working with me to include $1.9
billion for the Everglades Restoration program in the Water Resources
Development Act being considered today. This comprehensive bill
provides the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with authority to carry out
water projects through cost-sharing partnerships with non-Federal
sponsors. I am proud that, through bipartisan efforts, we were able to
include this much-needed funding for Everglades restoration, and I look
forward to getting this bill signed into law.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, could I ask how much time remains on both
sides.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 18\1/2\ minutes remaining.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 19\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I am waiting for more speakers, so I
reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H5965]]
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), a member of the committee.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
bill. I am very proud to be here today because this bill represents a
commitment our committee has made under the leadership of Chairman
Shuster to pass critical water resources legislation every 2 years.
One of my top priorities as a member of this committee and the Water
Resources and Environment Subcommittee is maintaining and improving our
navigation infrastructure on the upper Mississippi and Illinois
waterways. Most of the locks and dams on this system were built in the
1920s and 1930s and have far outlived their life expectancy.
Sixty percent of the grain exported from the United States goes
through these locks and dams before hitting the global marketplace. But
today, delays at navigation locks are frequent and are only getting
worse, lasting as long as 12 hours at a time.
In WRDA 2007, Congress authorized construction of seven new 1,200-
foot locks along the upper Mississippi and Illinois waterway system;
yet here we are, 9 years later, and the Corps still hasn't completed
preconstruction engineering and design for these projects because this
administration refuses to invest any money in the Navigation and
Ecosystem Sustainability Program, or NESP. That means that construction
for these projects may not be ready to begin when they are next on the
schedule.
When these projects are delayed, it costs farmers in my district
money; it costs the shippers who move commodities up and down the
rivers money; and it ultimately means increased grocery prices for
everyone. It also costs good-paying construction jobs.
During our committee's markup of this legislation in May, I offered
an amendment that requires a study analyzing alternative models of
managing the inland waterway trust fund. I appreciate Chairman Shuster
working with me to ensure its adoption.
This study, to be completed by the Comptroller General, will provide
some important options to address these longstanding issues with the
Corps. Maybe this will finally show the Corps that waiting 10 or even
20 years for movement on a project that is authorized by Congress is
completely unacceptable.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to support this underlying bill, and I want
to thank Chairman Shuster and the committee for their leadership on
this.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The last few speakers have made a great point--how critical this bill
is--and they have listed projects that are important to their districts
and the Nation. The gentleman from Alaska said we shouldn't quibble
over details.
Well, the bottom line is we have assessed a tax on all imported
goods. That tax is collected every day. It is essentially a sales tax.
It is added into the price of the goods that Americans buy. That tax
comes in at about $1.6 billion a year; and yet Congress sees fit to
spend somewhere around $1.1 billion a year, even though the Corps of
Engineers has a $64 billion backlog. So I guess, at some point, 100
years from now--well, no, because things will keep deteriorating. I
guess we will never catch up.
So taking out the creation of the harbor maintenance trust fund,
something I have been working on for 20 years--started with the
previous chairman, Bud Shuster, and now Bill Shuster supports the
concept--we keep hearing tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. Tomorrow
came. It came out of committee. But because some appropriators and the
chair of the Budget Committee object to using the taxes collected from
the American people for the only lawfully intended purpose and,
instead, disappearing it into the maw of the Federal Government, it got
stripped out of the bill--very, very unfortunate. That means these
critical projects you are talking about are going to the back of a
very, very, very long line. $64 billion today, pass the bill, another
$10 billion, $74 billion tomorrow; and we will chip away at it, and
very, very slowly if we continue to divert the trust funds.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer).
Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity to do a great
service for the country by passing H.R. 5303, the Water Resources
Development Act of 2016, otherwise known as WRDA. By building off
reforms made in the 2014 bill, WRDA 2016 reasserts congressional
authority and oversight on critical infrastructure issues.
I commend Chairman Shuster for his commitment to passing a WRDA bill
each Congress. It helps to ensure that America's water infrastructure
needs are continually addressed and reaffirms the will of the people on
these very important infrastructure matters.
Substantively, this legislation addresses the needs of America's
harbors, locks, dams, coastlines, and other water resource
infrastructure projects by authorizing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
activities. Passage of WRDA is vital to our Nation's economy and will
help ensure continued flow of commerce through our Nation's ports and
channels. Moreover, this bill also includes preventative measures that
will help serve and protect our infrastructure.
Along with these obvious benefits, WRDA 2016 is also fiscally
responsible and fully offset. In fact, failing to pass this critical
piece of legislation will cost the Treasury that much more.
Mr. Chairman, the time to pass this bill is now, and I urge my
colleagues to support this very important legislation.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the fine ranking member, Mr.
DeFazio, for yielding time, and I rise to discuss the important role of
the Great Lakes-Saint Lawrence Seaway as our Nation's freshwater
superhighway, a vital economic and security passageway for our Nation.
When the WRDA bill was considered by the Senate, an important
reference was included in that bill recognizing the role of the Seaway
in U.S.-Canadian maritime trade, as well as global commerce from the
heartland. That language authorizes a GAO study of the Seaway's
potential to expand economic activity envisioning increased exports,
expanded tourism, and a modernized transportation network in a secure
operational system.
As the bill moves forward, I would urge the House to incorporate, in
any final measure, the directive provisions relating to the Saint
Lawrence Seaway's unmet economic potential.
I thank my colleagues on the Great Lakes Task Force, particularly Co-
chair Mike Kelly, who was down here earlier, and David Joyce for their
continued hard work and commitment to our region of the country. I
thank Ranking Member DeFazio for his support of this effort. And I
thank Chairman Shuster for his leadership.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman and the other
advocates for this provision, in addition to, of course, the Senate.
The gentlewoman has worked tirelessly on this issue, approached me
many, many times about the fact that we have sort of neglected the
potential of the Seaway.
I think that this provision would be extraordinarily meritorious, and
I certainly intend to support it in conference and hope to garner
support from the chairman and others so that it can stay in the bill as
it finally goes to the President's desk.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Graves), one of the hardest working members on the
committee.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman
Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, and so many of the other Members who
worked on this bill. I think it is important that we get the Water
Resources Development Act back on a 2-year cycle. We got off to where
there were 7 years that passed on, in many cases, critical projects
that needed authorization that needed to move forward to construction.
I also want to echo a couple of things that the ranking member said.
Number one, on the harbor maintenance trust fund, I couldn't agree
more. We need to come up with a solution here. I think it is
disingenuous
[[Page H5966]]
that we are charging users the tax under the auspices of using it for
dredging, yet diverting those resources. I will say it again. I think
it is disingenuous, and I look forward to working together with
Congressman DeFazio in addressing this.
Number two, my friend from Oregon also noted the backlog in Corps of
Engineers projects. The reason we have a backlog in projects is because
this project delivery mechanism, development and delivery mechanism
used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, you can look at it, project
after project; it takes 40 years to get a project delivered. These are
projects for flood protection, for ecological restoration, for
hurricane protection. We don't have time to wait 40 years for this
project, and this bill moves in a direction of streamlining that
process.
We have a project, the West Shore project, that has been in the study
phase for over 40 years and is finally moving to authorization.
My friend from Louisiana, Congressman Boustany, was able to work to
get the Southwest project included in here to finally begin to bring
some protection to the Southwest communities that were so devastated by
Hurricane Rita and Hurricane Ike in previous years.
Importantly, Mr. Chairman, we are bringing forward an amendment to
further expedite the Comite project, Amite project, and other projects
that are critical to the areas that were just flooded in south
Louisiana.
I don't know how long we are going to continue this backwards policy
in the Federal Government of spending billions after a disaster rather
than spending millions before, making our communities and making our
ecosystems more resilient.
Again, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Back to the harbor maintenance trust fund issues and the allocations
to the Corps, the bill sets targets, which I fully agree with, that a
higher percentage of the harbor maintenance tax should be allocated
every year to O&M programs.
As I mentioned earlier, there is already a $2.5 billion backlog for
operations and maintenance, so we are dealing with that by mandating
that a higher percentage be spent every year. Unfortunately, if we
don't free up the harbor maintenance trust fund, there is only one
place that money can come from: new construction.
So I am all for the O&M, and I am all for these increases. But by
stripping the harbor maintenance trust fund provision out of the bill
and continuing to divert $400 to $500 million a year of the tax to the
maw of the Federal Government, they are creating an untenable position
for the Corps.
They are already saddled with a $64 billion backlog on construction.
They are saddled with a $2.5 billion backlog on operations and
maintenance. We are telling them you have to spend more on operations
and maintenance. Well, with the discretionary budget caps, that can
come out of only one place, and that is the construction projects.
Whether it is going to come out of Port Everglades or Charleston Harbor
or Brazos Island Harbor, I don't know; but the Corps is going to have
to make those decisions because they aren't going to be getting these
additional funds that they would have gotten had we freed up this money
and created a real trust fund.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time both
sides have left in debate.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 14 minutes remaining.
The gentleman from Oregon has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
water infrastructure bill, and I thank Chairman Shuster for his hard
work and dedication in getting us to this point.
As part of our Better Way agenda, House Republicans are putting
transparency and accountability front and center, especially when it
comes to how we spend the taxpayers' dollars.
Chairman Shuster approached this legislation the same way, increasing
congressional oversight and transparency to ensure that our tax dollars
are invested in the most pressing projects.
I also applaud Chairman Shuster's dedication for ensuring that the
long-delayed Upper Ohio Navigation project gets underway.
In the 21st century, we should have a state-of-the-art infrastructure
to build a thriving 21st century economy; yet the Emsworth, Dashields,
and Montgomery locks and dams along the upper Ohio River are aging and
in serious disrepair.
I often like to say that western Pennsylvania built this country.
This would not have been possible without the infrastructure that
turned our rivers into highways of commerce.
{time} 1730
This allowed Pennsylvania steel, machinery, petroleum projects, and
agricultural goods to travel to market efficiently and affordably along
the Ohio River and beyond. Completing much-needed renovations to the
upper Ohio locks and dams will allow us to continue to generate
billions of dollars in economic activity benefiting generations of
western Pennsylvania families, workers, and businesses in our region
and across the country.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this bipartisan
legislation. I again commend Chairman Shuster and thank him for his
great work on this legislation.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman, the
ranking member from the great State of Oregon, and the chairman, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
I would hope that as we look at these issues we really look at the
name of this bill, the Water Resources Development Act of 2016, and
know that we have, over the years, had common ground on infrastructure
issues that are so important to our respective communities.
Mr. Chairman, in April of 2016, we had the tax day flood. Shortly
thereafter, we had a flood on Memorial Day in Houston, Harris County.
It seems to me to be a constant refrain in our community and in my
congressional district. We are a community of bayous and, frankly, need
strong structures for the Army Corps of Engineers and a strong Federal
partnership on dealing with massive flooding and the loss of life.
Water takes on many other aspects. Just a few miles up the road,
Austin, Texas, and the surrounding areas are living in a constant
drought. They face a constant interaction and conflict with those who
are in the agriculture business.
It is concerning to me that programs in this bill have been
deauthorized. It is concerning to me that a very important issue of
pure water has been ignored, and that is funding for Flint. I should
think this would be a bipartisan issue. Many of us went to Flint. We
spoke to citizens in Flint. We listened to the Representatives from
Flint, in particular, Dan Kildee and others, Congresswoman Lawrence,
and we listened to stories about sores and the ability to have children
who have cognitive impact, and yet we come here today and that has not
been done.
So I want to raise a concern to find a way in which this can be a
bipartisan bill and not have projects that are deauthorized to make
sure the harbor maintenance trust fund is where it needs to be.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, we need to make sure that the harbor maintenance trust
fund ensures that revenues are collected from shippers that are used to
maintain U.S. coastal and Great Lakes harbors.
Right now, the State of Texas is dealing with their coastal area.
This very bill could have a great impact, but it cannot do so if the
moneys are undermined and the fees are used for something else. So I
would suggest to my colleagues if there is one place that we can be
bipartisan, it is on clean water, and it is on saving lives. I hope
that we
[[Page H5967]]
can do that going down the road in this legislation. I thank the
gentleman, Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2016. I want to thank Chairman Shuster for
bringing this bill to the floor.
The bill will authorize critically important projects for my home
State of Louisiana, including the Southwest Coastal Study.
Over this past weekend, we remembered the 11th anniversary of
Hurricane Rita making landfall. This storm, and subsequently Hurricane
Ike, demonstrated the dire need to implement greater measures to
protect our coastal communities, many of which were destroyed back
then.
Congressional authorization of the Southwest Coastal Study will open
the door for necessary hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and
coastal restoration projects for southwest Louisiana for the first
time.
Authorization language for this project was included in the manager's
amendment, and I want to thank Chairman Shuster for doing so.
Additionally, the bill includes vital funding for the Calcasieu Lock
project, which is the 10th busiest lock in the Nation, a vital feature
of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway system. The lock facilitates
navigation, controls flooding, and prevents saltwater intrusion from
the Calcasieu River into the Mermentau River basin, a major
agricultural area.
The bill also includes construction authorization for the West Shore
Lake Pontchartrain project, which will provide critical storm surge
protection for Louisiana's river parishes, something that has been in
the works for over 40 years; and additionally, the Comite diversion
project, which would have prevented a lot of the flooding we just saw
in Louisiana.
These and other reasons are really why we should support this very
important legislation, and I urge final passage.
To my friend from Oregon, I would say this: I have worked extremely
hard since I got here to fix the problem with the harbor maintenance
trust fund. We have made significant strides with last year's water
bill and the cooperation of our friends on the appropriations committee
to up the level of funding. But I agree that we should have included
this language, and I am committed to working in a bipartisan fashion to
ensure that we take those fees that are collected specifically for
operations and maintenance dredging and use them for that, period.
We will have more work to do there, but I urge adoption of this bill,
and I thank the chairman for his bringing it forward.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, it was mentioned earlier, and it will be mentioned
again later, that there is no funding for Flint in this bill. Now, the
simple answer would be, well, that is not jurisdictional, it is Energy
and Commerce Committee. The Senate, by a near unanimous vote, put
funding to help Flint and other cities which have serious health
problems with their water systems with a partnership with the Federal
Government like we used to do.
Historically, in these bills, the committee has included water
infrastructure projects. But during the committee consideration, Eddie
Bernice Johnson from Texas attempted to put in language that would help
with Flint, and it was ruled to not be germane to the bill, although
historically this is under section 219, Corps has authorization for
projects such as this. Donna Edwards from Maryland brought forward an
amendment again on clean water.
The crisis in Flint is beyond belief. But there are many, many other
systems around the country that are far from meeting Federal water
quality standards, and many of these are communities that lack the
resources themselves to deal with it. The Federal Government used to
partner significantly on water and wastewater projects. The Federal
Government has pretty much walked away from that responsibility.
There is an amendment right now, right up there, over there in the
powerful Rules Committee. The Rules Committee is meeting. It is a
committee that enforces the rules or waives the rules, whatever they
are in the mood to do. They could allow an amendment to this bill. They
could be debating it right now that would provide some assistance to
Flint and other communities.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) has offered an amendment
that is fully offset so it doesn't increase the budget deficit, and we
will see how that comes out. But many on this side are reluctant to
move forward.
Last week, I was pleased to hear Speaker Ryan say that Flint should
be taken care of in the Water Resources Development bill. The majority
leader has said the same thing. The question is: Will they do that in
the bill coming out of the House so that we don't have to be wondering
whether or not it is going to come out of a conference committee?
So that is yet to be seen. But I think a lot of votes on this side,
in addition to the concerns I have raised earlier, are pending upon the
resolution of whether or not funding for Flint is included in this
bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Granger).
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5303, the
Water Resources Development Act. I commend Chairman Shuster for his
work as Transportation and Infrastructure chairman.
As a former mayor, I can personally attest to how vital investing in
and maintaining our water infrastructure and flood control is. Over the
past year, we have seen devastating floods throughout our country. It
is more important than ever that we authorize critical flood control
projects to protect our communities. Chairman Shuster's bill builds on
the reforms established in the Water Resources bill 2 years ago.
I represent Fort Worth, Texas, a city that has had devastating floods
in its past. Fort Worth needs help to bring our river area up to
standards to prevent flooding and prepare for development. We are
asking for funding authorization from the Corps of Engineers. The Corps
has been working on this project along with the city and the water
district for over 5 years.
In this project, the city will have the opportunity to add amenities
for recreation paid for by the city, the water district, and private
developers. By law, the Corps of Engineers cannot pay for amenities
like basketball or soccer fields or water parks. Therefore, of course,
they have never been asked to. It is against the law for them to pay
for it. I repeat: it is against the law. The cooperation from the city,
private developers, and the water district will pay for those.
I thank the chairman for his time, and I appreciate his work.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the advocacy of the gentlewoman. She has
been incredibly persistent since she earmarked this project back in
2004 before the Republicans banned earmarks. Of course, then it was a
$220 million project. Now it is an $810 million project. The Federal
share has gone from $110 million to over $500 million, and included in
the total cost are the basketball courts, the splash pool, and all
that, but it is coming out of the local share. No, that is not the way
this is supposed to work.
If this is a Corps project, the only things which the Corps is
authorized to do would be in the calculated total cost, and then a
percentage of that goes to the local jurisdiction. In this case, they
are counting the contributions of the local developers as part of the
local cost share. So, essentially, it is coming out of the taxpayers'
pockets.
I include in the Record a letter from the Taxpayers for Common Sense
and the National Taxpayers Union.
September 27, 2016.
Dear Representative: While less expensive and problematic
than the Senate version of the Water Resources Development
Act (S. 2848), we urge you to oppose H.R. 5303, the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 2016.'' Instead of much needed
reform, this legislation piles billions of dollars in
additional water projects on the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' plate. The legislation also makes
[[Page H5968]]
policy changes that will be costly to taxpayers.
The largest challenge facing the Corps of Engineers water
resources program is the lack of a prioritization system for
allocating the limited available tax dollars. The legislation
directs the executive branch to better explain its budgeting
decisions, but this should not serve as an abdication of
congressional authority. Congress should develop the criteria
and metrics to prioritize Corps projects in the three primary
mission areas (navigation, flood/storm damage reduction, and
environmental restoration). The executive branch should be
required to allocate funds in the budget request in a
transparent manner through merit, competitive, or formula
systems developed by Congress. Lawmakers could then conduct
oversight, hold the administration accountable, and adjust
the systems, criteria, and metrics as needed.
H.R. 5303 fails to include such a prioritization system. It
does many other things, however. Between committee
consideration and the floor, the bill grew by over $6
billion. A provision from the Water Resources Reform and
Development Act of 2014 dedicating maintenance dredging funds
to emerging ports is made permanent. It doesn't make sense to
invest in a port that is continually ``emerging.'' It also
extends set-asides for ``donor'' and ``energy'' ports without
reforming the massive cross-subsidies in the existing
maintenance dredging program. The legislation authorizes
funding for a project in Fort Worth, Texas, costing more than
$800 million. The Upper Trinity River project is portrayed as
a flood damage reduction effort, but is really a massive
economic development initiative that would divert precious
Corps resources to construct soccer and baseball fields,
basketball courts, and even a splash park. Money spent on a
splash park in Fort Worth is money that cannot be spent to
further the Corps' core mission areas. At the least we urge
you to remove or limit the funds for this project.
Again, we urge you to oppose H.R. 5303 the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 2016.''
Sincerely,
Ryan Alexander,
Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Pete Sepp,
National Taxpayers Union.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I will just read briefly: ``The
legislation authorizes funding for a project in Fort Worth, Texas,
costing more than $800 million. The Upper Trinity River project is
portrayed as a flood damage reduction effort, but is really a massive
economic development initiative that would divert precious Corps
resources to construct soccer and baseball fields, basketball courts,
and even a splash park. Money spent on a splash park in Fort Worth is
money that cannot be spent to further the Corps' core mission areas. At
the least, we urge you to remove or limit the funds for this project.''
That is from Taxpayers for Common Sense and the National Taxpayers
Union.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).
Mr. LANCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2016.
I thank Chairman Shuster for his championing this legislation and for
including authorization language for the Rahway River Basin Flood Risk
Management Feasibility Study in the bill.
The Rahway River Basin Flood Risk Management Feasibility Study will
create a lasting solution to protect the New Jersey municipalities that
include Cranford, Kenilworth, Maplewood, Millburn, Rahway, Springfield,
Union, and the surrounding areas from severe flooding.
For years, these municipalities have pursued this project based on
its great merits, and I have tried to be their champion at the Federal
level. This is a critical role for Federal representatives: effectively
helping municipal, county, and State officials to work with the Federal
Government to ensure efficient services to the areas we represent.
Throughout this entire process, local leaders have kept the focus on
consensus and collaboration, and they have united around a solution
that has strong public support. They deserve the completion of the
study and the implementation of a plan that will protect life and
property. I thank the Mayors' Council and local leaders for continuing
to advocate on behalf of their communities. I certainly reiterate my
thanks to Chairman Shuster.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the Water Resources Development Act
of 2016.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I am
prepared to close.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, first, I want to applaud Chairman Shuster and the
members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for bringing
the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 to the floor.
WRDA is a crucial piece of legislation which authorizes our Nation's
locks, dams, harbors, and many other water resources vital to our
Nation's economic competitiveness.
However, today, I rise to speak of an issue that is very close to
home. The Army Corps of Engineers' New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam is
only 13 miles south of my hometown of Augusta, Georgia, and is
essential to the towns of Augusta and North Augusta, South Carolina.
Authorization for the lock and dam has been changed numerous times
over the past few decades, and the Senate version of WRDA includes
broad language for additional needed changes. I understand the
complexities of changing authorizations or even deauthorizing projects
on a river as vital as the Savannah River.
{time} 1745
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the opportunity to work with Chairman
Shuster and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on language
to correct this process, working with the Senate to better serve our
community and our country.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First off, the provision to create a harbor maintenance trust fund to
begin to actually spend the tax, which we collect from the American
people for harbor maintenance, on harbor maintenance--it is shocking,
shocking, in Washington that we would do something like that.
There are those on the Appropriations Committee guarding their
fiefdoms, or the Budget Committee, who are opposed to this; but I heard
a number of my colleagues on the Republican side say tonight they
supported that concept. It came out of committee unanimously with
Republican support; yet the Republican leadership reached into this
bill and pulled out that provision because, I believe, they were afraid
if that provision came to the floor for a vote that it would pass, that
we would actually begin to spend the tax that we are collecting from
the American people for harbor maintenance on harbor maintenance and
begin to catch up with the backlog by spending another $400 million or
$500 million a year, which today is being spent on God knows what. It
is being just thrown into the air.
Someone said earlier, oh, that money hasn't been spent. Okay. Show me
what account that $9.8 billion is in. There is no account. There is no
account. The money has been collected and it has disappeared.
Now, we can keep that up, and we are going to keep it up now for
another 2 years. That will be another billion dollars that won't be
spent on harbor maintenance. So everybody waiting in line to get
dredged--and there are a lot of ports waiting in line to get dredged.
Everybody waiting in that really long line of now $74 billion of
backlogged authorized projects is just going to have to wait a little
longer. In fact, most of them will be dead before they get around to
their project.
So it is really a very sad day for the House of Representatives when
the House is not being allowed to work its will. We are not being
allowed to vote on something because a couple of chairmen of a couple
of committees that don't know much about this subject--they aren't the
authorizers; they don't understand the details; apparently, they don't
understand the massive need in backlog--don't want to spend the tax
that is collected for the purpose for which it is collected, which is
harbor maintenance and/or construction. It is a very sad day for the
House of Representatives.
I urge my colleagues to vote in opposition to the legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we are here today on the floor with the WRDA bill. We
are
[[Page H5969]]
back in regular order. This bill reasserts congressional authority,
making sure that Congress has its say on these matters. This bill
addresses specific Federal responsibilities that strengthen our
infrastructure and it is fiscally responsible.
If we pass the manager's amendment, there are 31 Chief's Reports and
29 feasibility studies which touch all corners of the United States. I
know Members on both sides of the aisle have projects in there that are
extremely important to their district, to their State, and, of course,
to the Nation.
It certainly was my goal for this to come to the floor in a
bipartisan manner just the way it came out of committee. Unfortunately,
it did violate a House rule, and we had to strip a part of that bill
out.
But I just want to say again, as I opened, I agree with Mr. DeFazio--
and you heard, as he just pointed out, there are many Members on our
side of the aisle that agree--we have got to figure out a way to move
this forward so that Congress continues to have a say, and that those
dollars that people pay to use the ports, they pay that fee, and when
it goes into that trust fund, it is spent on its intended purpose. It
is just wrong--it is absolutely wrong--that we don't do that.
We are going to pass this bill on the floor here tomorrow. I will
continue to work with the ranking member to find a solution, because it
is my goal to be here next Congress and to have another WRDA bill on
the floor and address this problem and continue to pass good
legislation that strengthens our infrastructure and strengthens
America's competitiveness in the world.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, printed in the
bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature
of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-65.
That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as
read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 5303
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 2016''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Secretary defined.
TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 101. Sense of Congress regarding Water Resources Development Acts.
Sec. 102. Training and employment for veterans and members of Armed
Forces in curation and historic preservation.
Sec. 103. Youth service and conservation corps organizations.
Sec. 104. Navigation safety.
Sec. 105. Emerging harbors.
Sec. 106. Federal breakwaters and jetties.
Sec. 107. Donor ports and energy transfer ports.
Sec. 108. Remote and subsistence harbors.
Sec. 109. Beneficial use of dredged material.
Sec. 110. Reservoir sediment.
Sec. 111. Contributed funds for reservoir operations.
Sec. 112. Water supply conservation.
Sec. 113. Interstate compacts.
Sec. 114. Nonstructural alternatives.
Sec. 115. Operation and maintenance of environmental protection and
restoration and aquatic ecosystem restoration projects.
Sec. 116. Estuary restoration.
Sec. 117. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 118. Agreements.
Sec. 119. Corps of Engineers operation of unmanned aircraft systems.
Sec. 120. Federal dredge fleet.
Sec. 121. Corps of Engineers assets.
Sec. 122. Funding to process permits.
Sec. 123. Credit in lieu of reimbursement.
Sec. 124. Clarification of contributions during emergency events.
Sec. 125. Study of water resources development projects by non-Federal
interests.
Sec. 126. Non-Federal construction of authorized flood damage reduction
projects.
Sec. 127. Multistate activities.
Sec. 128. Regional participation assurance for levee safety activities.
Sec. 129. Participation of non-Federal interests.
Sec. 130. Indian tribes.
Sec. 131. Dissemination of information on the annual report process.
Sec. 132. Scope of projects.
Sec. 133. Preliminary feasibility study activities.
Sec. 134. Post-authorization change reports.
Sec. 135. Maintenance dredging data.
Sec. 136. Electronic submission and tracking of permit applications.
Sec. 137. Data transparency.
Sec. 138. Backlog prevention.
Sec. 139. Quality control.
Sec. 140. Budget development and prioritization.
Sec. 141. Use of natural and nature-based features.
Sec. 142. Annual report on purchase of foreign manufactured articles.
Sec. 143. Integrated water resources planning.
Sec. 144. Evaluation of project partnership agreements.
Sec. 145. Additional measures at donor ports and energy transfer ports.
Sec. 146. Arctic deep draft port development partnerships.
Sec. 147. International outreach program.
Sec. 148. Comprehensive study.
Sec. 149. Alternative models for managing Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
Sec. 150. Alternative projects to maintenance dredging.
Sec. 151. Fish hatcheries.
Sec. 152. Environmental banks.
TITLE II--STUDIES
Sec. 201. Authorization of proposed feasibility studies.
Sec. 202. Expedited completion of reports for certain projects.
TITLE III--DEAUTHORIZATIONS AND RELATED PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Deauthorization of inactive projects.
Sec. 302. Valdez, Alaska.
Sec. 303. Los Angeles County Drainage Area, Los Angeles County,
California.
Sec. 304. Sutter Basin, California.
Sec. 305. Essex River, Massachusetts.
Sec. 306. Port of Cascade Locks, Oregon.
Sec. 307. Central Delaware River, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 308. Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 309. Rivercenter, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 310. Joe Pool Lake, Texas.
Sec. 311. Salt Creek, Graham, Texas.
Sec. 312. Texas City Ship Channel, Texas City, Texas.
TITLE IV--WATER RESOURCES INFRASTRUCTURE
Sec. 401. Project authorizations.
SEC. 2. SECRETARY DEFINED.
In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
the Army.
TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 101. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING WATER RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT ACTS.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The Corps of Engineers constructs projects for the
purposes of navigation, flood control, beach erosion control
and shoreline protection, hydroelectric power, recreation,
water supply, environmental protection, restoration, and
enhancement, and fish and wildlife mitigation.
(2) The Corps of Engineers is the primary Federal provider
of outdoor recreation in the United States.
(3) The Corps of Engineers owns and operates more than 600
dams.
(4) The Corps of Engineers operates and maintains 12,000
miles of commercial inland navigation channels.
(5) The Corps of Engineers manages the dredging of more
than 200,000,000 cubic yards of construction and maintenance
dredge material annually.
(6) The Corps of Engineers maintains 926 coastal, Great
Lakes, and inland harbors.
(7) The Corps of Engineers restores, creates, enhances, or
preserves tens of thousands of acres of wetlands annually
under the Corps' Regulatory Program.
(8) The Corps of Engineers provides a total water supply
storage capacity of 329,200,000 acre-feet in major Corps
lakes.
(9) The Corps of Engineers owns and operates 24 percent of
United States hydropower capacity or 3 percent of the total
electric capacity of the United States.
(10) The Corps of Engineers supports Army and Air Force
installations.
(11) The Corps of Engineers provides technical and
construction support to more than 100 countries.
(12) The Corps of Engineers manages an Army military
construction program that carried out approximately
$44,600,000,000 in construction projects (the largest
construction effort since World War II) between 2006 and
2013.
(13) The Corps of Engineers researches and develops
technologies to protect the environment and enhance quality
of life in the United States.
(14) The legislation for authorizing Corps of Engineers
projects is the Water Resources Development Act and, between
1986 and 2000, Congress typically enacted an authorization
bill every 2 years.
(15) Since 2000, only 3 Water Resources Development Acts
have been enacted.
(16) In 2014, the Water Resources Reform and Development
Act of 2014 was enacted, which accelerated the infrastructure
project delivery process, fostered fiscal responsibility, and
strengthened water transportation networks to promote the
competitiveness, prosperity, and economic growth of the
United States.
(17) Section 1001 of the Water Resources Reform and
Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282c) requires typical
Corps of Engineers project feasibility studies to be
completed in 3 years.
(18) Section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and
Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C.
[[Page H5970]]
2282d) requires the Corps of Engineers to submit annually a
Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development,
which ensures projects and activities proposed at the local,
regional, and State levels are considered for authorization.
(19) Passing Water Resources Development Acts on a routine
basis enables Congress to exercise oversight, ensures the
Corps of Engineers maintains an appropriately sized
portfolio, prevents project backlog, and keeps United States
infrastructure competitive.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the missions and authorities of the Corps of Engineers
are a unique function that benefits all Americans;
(2) water resources development projects are critical to
maintaining economic prosperity, national security, and
environmental protection;
(3) Congress has required timely delivery of project and
study authorization proposals from non-Federal project
sponsors and the Corps of Engineers; and
(4) Congress should consider a Water Resources Development
Act at least once every Congress.
SEC. 102. TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT FOR VETERANS AND MEMBERS OF
ARMED FORCES IN CURATION AND HISTORIC
PRESERVATION.
Using available funds, the Secretary, acting through the
Chief of Engineers, shall carry out a Veterans' Curation
Program to train and hire veterans and members of the Armed
Forces to assist the Secretary in carrying out curation and
historic preservation activities.
SEC. 103. YOUTH SERVICE AND CONSERVATION CORPS ORGANIZATIONS.
Section 213 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
(33 U.S.C. 2339) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Youth Service and Conservation Corps Organizations.--
The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, enter
into cooperative agreements with qualified youth service and
conservation corps organizations for services relating to
projects under the jurisdiction of the Secretary and shall do
so in a manner that ensures the maximum participation and
opportunities for such organizations.''.
SEC. 104. NAVIGATION SAFETY.
The Secretary shall use section 5 of the Act of March 4,
1915 (38 Stat. 1053, chapter 142; 33 U.S.C. 562), to carry
out navigation safety activities at those projects eligible
for operation and maintenance under section 204(f) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2232(f)).
SEC. 105. EMERGING HARBORS.
Section 210 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 2238) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)(3) by striking ``for each of fiscal
years 2015 through 2022'' and inserting ``for each fiscal
year''; and
(2) in subsection (d)(1)(A)--
(A) in the matter preceding clause (i) by striking ``For
each of fiscal years 2015 through 2024'' and inserting ``For
each fiscal year'';
(B) in clause (i) by striking ``90'' and inserting ``Not
more than 90''; and
(C) in clause (ii) by striking ``10'' and inserting ``At
least 10''.
SEC. 106. FEDERAL BREAKWATERS AND JETTIES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall, at Federal expense,
establish an inventory and conduct an assessment of the
general structural condition of all Federal breakwaters and
jetties protecting harbors and inland harbors within the
United States.
(b) Contents.--The inventory and assessment carried out
under subsection (a) shall include--
(1) compiling location information for all Federal
breakwaters and jetties protecting harbors and inland harbors
within the United States;
(2) determining the general structural condition of each
breakwater and jetty;
(3) analyzing the potential risks to navigational safety,
and the impact on the periodic maintenance dredging needs of
protected harbors and inland harbors, resulting from the
general structural condition of each breakwater and jetty;
and
(4) estimating the costs, for each breakwater and jetty, to
restore or maintain the breakwater or jetty to authorized
levels and the total of all such costs.
(c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress a report on the results of the inventory and
assessment carried out under subsection (a).
SEC. 107. DONOR PORTS AND ENERGY TRANSFER PORTS.
Section 2106(a)(2)(B) of the Water Resources Reform and
Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2238c(a)(2)(B)) is amended
by striking ``$15,000,000'' and inserting ``$5,000,000''.
SEC. 108. REMOTE AND SUBSISTENCE HARBORS.
Section 2006 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007
(33 U.S.C. 2242) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(3) by inserting ``in which the
project is located, or the long-term viability of a community
that is located in the region that is served by the project
and that will rely on the project,'' after ``community''; and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1) by inserting ``and communities that
are located in the region to be served by the project and
that will rely on the project'' after ``community'';
(B) in paragraph (4) by striking ``local population'' and
inserting ``regional population to be served by the
project''; and
(C) in paragraph (5) by striking ``community'' and
inserting ``local community and communities that are located
in the region to be served by the project and that will rely
on the project''.
SEC. 109. BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL.
(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a pilot
program to carry out projects for the beneficial use of
dredged material, including projects for the purposes of--
(1) reducing storm damage to property and infrastructure;
(2) promoting public safety;
(3) protecting, restoring, and creating aquatic ecosystem
habitats;
(4) stabilizing stream systems and enhancing shorelines;
(5) promoting recreation; and
(6) supporting risk management adaptation strategies.
(b) Project Selection.--In carrying out the pilot program,
the Secretary shall--
(1) identify for inclusion in the pilot program and carry
out 10 projects for the beneficial use of dredged material;
(2) consult with relevant State agencies in selecting
projects; and
(3) select projects solely on the basis of--
(A) the environmental, economic, and social benefits of the
projects, including monetary and nonmonetary benefits; and
(B) the need for a diversity of project types and
geographical project locations.
(c) Regional Beneficial Use Teams.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out the pilot program, the
Secretary shall establish regional beneficial use teams to
identify and assist in the implementation of projects under
the pilot program.
(2) Composition.--
(A) Leadership.--For each regional beneficial use team
established under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall appoint
the Commander of the relevant division of the Corps of
Engineers to serve as the head of the team.
(B) Membership.--The membership of each regional beneficial
use team shall include--
(i) representatives of relevant Corps of Engineers
districts and divisions;
(ii) representatives of relevant State and local agencies;
and
(iii) representatives of Federal agencies and such other
entities as the Secretary determines appropriate, consistent
with the purposes of this section.
(d) Considerations.--The Secretary shall carry out the
pilot program in a manner that--
(1) maximizes the beneficial placement of dredged material
from Federal and non-Federal navigation channels;
(2) incorporates, to the maximum extent practicable, 2 or
more Federal navigation, flood control, storm damage
reduction, or environmental restoration projects;
(3) coordinates the mobilization of dredges and related
equipment, including through the use of such efficiencies in
contracting and environmental permitting as can be
implemented under existing laws and regulations;
(4) fosters Federal, State, and local collaboration;
(5) implements best practices to maximize the beneficial
use of dredged sand and other sediments; and
(6) ensures that the use of dredged material is consistent
with all applicable environmental laws.
(e) Cost Sharing.--Projects carried out under this section
shall be subject to the cost-sharing requirements applicable
to projects carried out under section 204 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326).
(f) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary
shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works
of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report that
includes--
(1) a description of the projects selected to be carried
out under the pilot program;
(2) documentation supporting each of the projects selected;
(3) the findings of regional beneficial use teams regarding
project selection; and
(4) any recommendations of the Secretary or regional
beneficial use teams with respect to the pilot program.
(g) Termination.--The pilot program shall terminate after
completion of the 10 projects carried out pursuant to
subsection (b)(1).
(h) Exemption From Other Standards.--The projects carried
out under this section shall be carried out notwithstanding
the definition of the term ``Federal standard'' in section
335.7 of title 33, Code of Federal Regulations.
(i) Clarification.--Section 156(e) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5f(e)) is amended by
striking ``3'' and inserting ``6''.
SEC. 110. RESERVOIR SEDIMENT.
(a) In General.--Section 215 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2326c) is amended to read
as follows:
``SEC. 215. RESERVOIR SEDIMENT.
``(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016
and after providing public notice, the Secretary shall
establish, using available funds, a pilot program to accept
services provided by a non-Federal interest or commercial
entity for removal of sediment captured behind a dam owned or
operated by the United States and under the jurisdiction of
the Secretary for the purpose of restoring the authorized
storage capacity of the project concerned.
``(b) Requirements.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall--
``(1) review the services of the non-Federal interest or
commercial entity to ensure that the services are consistent
with the authorized purposes of the project concerned;
``(2) ensure that the non-Federal interest or commercial
entity will indemnify the United
[[Page H5971]]
States for, or has entered into an agreement approved by the
Secretary to address, any adverse impact to the dam as a
result of such services;
``(3) require the non-Federal interest or commercial
entity, prior to initiating the services and upon completion
of the services, to conduct sediment surveys to determine the
pre- and post-services sediment profile and sediment quality;
and
``(4) limit the number of dams for which services are
accepted to 10.
``(c) Limitation.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may not accept services
under subsection (a) if the Secretary, after consultation
with the Chief of Engineers, determines that accepting the
services is not advantageous to the United States.
``(2) Report to congress.--If the Secretary makes a
determination under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall
provide to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Environment and Public Works of the Senate written notice
describing the reasoning for the determination.
``(d) Disposition of Removed Sediment.--In exchange for
providing services under subsection (a), a non-Federal
interest or commercial entity is authorized to retain, use,
recycle, sell, or otherwise dispose of any sediment removed
in connection with the services and the Corps of Engineers
may not seek any compensation for the value of the sediment.
``(e) Congressional Notification.--Prior to accepting
services provided by a non-Federal interest or commercial
entity under this section, the Secretary shall provide to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate written notice of the acceptance
of the services.
``(f) Report to Congress.--Upon completion of services at
the 10 dams allowed under subsection (b)(4), the Secretary
shall make publicly available and submit to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public
Works of the Senate a report documenting the results of the
services.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 is
amended by striking the item relating to section 215 and
inserting the following:
``Sec. 215. Reservoir sediment.''.
SEC. 111. CONTRIBUTED FUNDS FOR RESERVOIR OPERATIONS.
Section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1572,
chapter 688; 33 U.S.C. 701h), is amended by inserting after
``authorized purposes of the project:'' the following:
``Provided further, That the Secretary is authorized to
receive and expend funds from a State or a political
subdivision thereof, and other non-Federal interests, to
formulate, review, or revise operational documents for any
reservoir for which the Secretary is authorized to prescribe
regulations for the use of storage allocated for flood risk
management or navigation pursuant to section 7 of the Act of
December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 890, chapter 665; 33 U.S.C.
709):''.
SEC. 112. WATER SUPPLY CONSERVATION.
(a) In General.--In a State in which a drought emergency
has been declared or was in effect during the 1-year period
ending on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary is
authorized--
(1) to conduct an evaluation for purposes of approving
water supply conservation measures that are consistent with
the authorized purposes of water resources development
projects under the jurisdiction of the Secretary; and
(2) to enter into written agreements pursuant to section
221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b)
with non-Federal interests to carry out the conservation
measures approved by such evaluations.
(b) Eligibility.--Water supply conservation measures
evaluated under subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Storm water capture.
(2) Releases for ground water replenishment or aquifer
storage and recovery.
(3) Releases to augment water supply at another Federal or
non-Federal storage facility.
(4) Other conservation measures that enhance usage of a
Corps of Engineers project for water supply.
(c) Costs.--A non-Federal interest shall pay only the
separable costs associated with the evaluation,
implementation, operation, and maintenance of an approved
water supply conservation measure, which payments may be
accepted and expended by the Corps of Engineers to cover such
costs.
(d) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section may be
construed to modify or alter the obligations of a non-Federal
interest under existing or future agreements for--
(1) water supply storage pursuant to section 301 of the
Water Supply Act of 1958 (43 U.S.C. 390b); or
(2) surplus water use pursuant to section 6 of the Act of
December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 890, chapter 665; 33 U.S.C. 708).
(e) Limitations.--Nothing in this section--
(1) affects, modifies, or changes the authorized purposes
of a Corps of Engineers project;
(2) affects existing Corps of Engineers authorities,
including its authorities with respect to navigation, flood
damage reduction, and environmental protection and
restoration;
(3) affects the Corps of Engineers ability to provide for
temporary deviations;
(4) affects the application of a cost-share requirement
under section 101, 102, or 103 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211, 2212, and 2213);
(5) supersedes or modifies any written agreement between
the Federal Government and a non-Federal interest that is in
effect on the date of enactment of this Act;
(6) supersedes or modifies any amendment to an existing
multistate water control plan, including those water control
plans along the Missouri River and those water control plans
in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint and Alabama-Coosa-
Tallapoosa basins;
(7) affects any water right in existence on the date of
enactment of this Act; or
(8) preempts or affects any State water law or interstate
compact governing water.
SEC. 113. INTERSTATE COMPACTS.
Section 301 of the Water Supply Act of 1958 (43 U.S.C.
390b) is amended by striking subsection (f).
SEC. 114. NONSTRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES.
Section 5(a)(1) of the Act of August 18, 1941 (55 Stat.
650, chapter 377; 33 U.S.C. 701n(a)(1)), is amended by
striking ``if requested'' each place it appears and inserting
``after consultation with the non-Federal sponsor and if
requested and agreed to''.
SEC. 115. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AND RESTORATION AND AQUATIC
ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECTS.
(a) Non-Federal Obligations.--Notwithstanding section
103(j) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33
U.S.C. 2213(j)), a non-Federal interest is released from any
obligation to operate and maintain the nonstructural and
nonmechanical components of a water resources development
project carried out for the purposes of environmental
protection and restoration or aquatic ecosystem restoration,
including a project carried out under section 206 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330) or
section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 2309a), if the Secretary determines that--
(1) the 50-year period that began on the date on which
project construction was completed has concluded; or
(2) the criteria identified in the guidance issued under
subsection (c) have been met with respect to the project.
(b) Federal Obligations.--The Secretary is not responsible
for the operation or maintenance of any components of a
project with respect to which a non-Federal interest is
released from obligations under subsection (a).
(c) Guidance.--In consultation with non-Federal interests,
and not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall issue guidance that identifies
criteria for determining, using the best available science,
when the purpose of a project for environmental protection
and restoration or aquatic ecosystem restoration has been
achieved, including criteria for determining when a project
has resulted in the return of the project location to a
condition where natural hydrologic and ecological functions
are the predominant factors in the condition, functionality,
and durability of the location.
SEC. 116. ESTUARY RESTORATION.
(a) Participation of Non-Federal Interests.--Section 104(f)
of the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2903(f)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Project agreements.--For a project carried out under
this title, the requirements of section 103(j)(1) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2213(j)(1)) may be fulfilled by a nongovernmental
organization serving as the non-Federal interest for the
project pursuant to paragraph (2).''.
(b) Extension.--Section 109(a) of the Estuary Restoration
Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2908(a)) is amended by striking
``2012'' each place it appears and inserting ``2021''.
SEC. 117. GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.
Section 506(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of
2000 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-22(g)) is repealed.
SEC. 118. AGREEMENTS.
Section 2036(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of
2007 (33 U.S.C. 2317b) is repealed.
SEC. 119. CORPS OF ENGINEERS OPERATION OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT
SYSTEMS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall designate an
individual, within the headquarters office of the Corps of
Engineers, who shall serve as the coordinator and principal
approving official for developing the process and procedures
by which the Corps of Engineers--
(1) operates and maintains small unmanned aircraft (as
defined in section 331 of the FAA Modernization and Reform
Act of 2012 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note)) systems in support of
civil works and emergency response missions of the Corps of
Engineers; and
(2) acquires, applies for, and receives any necessary
Federal Aviation Administration authorizations for such
operations and systems.
(b) Requirements.--A small unmanned aircraft system
acquired, operated, or maintained for carrying out the
missions specified in subsection (a) shall be operated in
accordance with regulations of the Federal Aviation
Administration as a civil aircraft or public aircraft, at the
discretion of the Secretary, and shall be exempt from
regulations of the Department of Defense, including the
Department of the Army, governing such system.
(c) Limitation.--A small unmanned aircraft system acquired,
operated, or maintained by the Corps of Engineers is excluded
from use by the Department of Defense, including the
Department of the Army, for any mission of the Department of
Defense other than a mission specified in subsection (a).
SEC. 120. FEDERAL DREDGE FLEET.
(a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study on the costs and benefits of expanding,
reducing, or maintaining the current configuration with
respect to the size and makeup of the federally owned hopper
dredge fleet.
[[Page H5972]]
(b) Factors.--In carrying out the study, the Comptroller
General shall evaluate--
(1) the current and anticipated configuration and capacity
of the Federal and private hopper dredge fleet;
(2) the current and anticipated trends for the volume and
type of dredge work required over the next 10 years, and the
alignment of the size of the existing Federal and private
hopper dredge fleet with future dredging needs;
(3) available historic data on the costs, efficiency, and
time required to initiate and complete dredging work carried
out by Federal and private hopper dredge fleets,
respectively;
(4) whether the requirements of section 3 of the Act of
August 11, 1888 (25 Stat. 423, chapter 860; 33 U.S.C. 622),
have any demonstrable impacts on the factors identified in
paragraphs (1) through (3), and whether such requirements are
most economical and advantageous to the United States; and
(5) other factors that the Comptroller General determines
are necessary to evaluate whether it is economical and
advantageous to the United States to expand, reduce, or
maintain the current configuration of the federally owned
hopper dredge fleet.
(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit
to Congress a report on the results of the study.
SEC. 121. CORPS OF ENGINEERS ASSETS.
Section 6002 of the Water Resources Reform and Development
Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-121; 128 Stat. 1349) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a) by striking ``the date of enactment
of this Act'' and inserting ``the date of enactment of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2016''; and
(2) in subsection (b) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) The extent to which the property has economic,
cultural, historic, or recreational significance, or impacts
at the national, State, or local level.''.
SEC. 122. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.
Section 214(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
2000 (33 U.S.C. 2352(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Railroad carrier.--The term `railroad carrier' has
the meaning given the term in section 20102 of title 49,
United States Code.'';
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``or natural gas company'' and inserting
``, natural gas company, or railroad carrier''; and
(B) by striking ``or company'' and inserting ``, company,
or carrier'';
(3) by striking paragraph (3);
(4) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs
(3) and (4), respectively; and
(5) in paragraph (4) (as so redesignated) by striking ``and
natural gas companies'' and inserting ``, natural gas
companies, and railroad carriers''.
SEC. 123. CREDIT IN LIEU OF REIMBURSEMENT.
Section 1022 of the Water Resources Reform and Development
Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2225) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a) by striking ``that has been
constructed by a non-Federal interest under section 211 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 701b-
13) before the date of enactment of this Act'' and inserting
``for which a written agreement with the Corps of Engineers
for construction was finalized on or before December 31,
2014, under section 211 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 701b-13)''; and
(2) in subsection (b) by striking ``share of the cost of
the non-Federal interest of carrying out other flood damage
reduction projects or studies'' and inserting ``non-Federal
share of the cost of carrying out other water resources
development projects or studies of the non-Federal
interest''.
SEC. 124. CLARIFICATION OF CONTRIBUTIONS DURING EMERGENCY
EVENTS.
Section 1024(a) of the Water Resources Reform and
Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2325a(a)) is amended by
inserting after ``emergency'' the following: ``, or that has
had or may have an equipment failure (including a failure
caused by a lack of or deferred maintenance),''.
SEC. 125. STUDY OF WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS BY
NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS.
Section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 2231) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(e) Technical Assistance.--At the request of a non-
Federal interest, the Secretary may provide to the non-
Federal interest technical assistance relating to any aspect
of a feasibility study if the non-Federal interest contracts
with the Secretary to pay all costs of providing such
technical assistance.''.
SEC. 126. NON-FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION OF AUTHORIZED FLOOD DAMAGE
REDUCTION PROJECTS.
Section 204(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2232(d)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(5) Discrete segments.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary may authorize credit or
reimbursement under this subsection for a discrete segment of
a flood damage reduction project, or separable element
thereof, before final completion of the project or separable
element if--
``(i) except as provided in clause (ii), the Secretary
determines that the discrete segment satisfies the
requirements of paragraphs (1) through (4) in the same manner
as the project or separable element; and
``(ii) notwithstanding paragraph (1)(A)(ii), the Secretary
determines, before the approval of the plans under paragraph
(1)(A)(i), that the discrete segment is technically feasible
and environmentally acceptable.
``(B) Determination.--Credit or reimbursement may not be
made available to a non-Federal interest pursuant to this
paragraph until the Secretary determines that--
``(i) the construction of the discrete segment for which
credit or reimbursement is requested is complete; and
``(ii) the construction is consistent with the
authorization of the applicable flood damage reduction
project, or separable element thereof, and the plans approved
under paragraph (1)(A)(i).
``(C) Written agreement.--
``(i) In general.--As part of the written agreement
required under paragraph (1)(A)(iii), a non-Federal interest
to be eligible for credit or reimbursement under this
paragraph shall--
``(I) identify any discrete segment that the non-Federal
interest may carry out; and
``(II) agree to the completion of the flood damage
reduction project, or separable element thereof, with respect
to which the discrete segment is a part and establish a
timeframe for such completion.
``(ii) Remittance.--If a non-Federal interest fails to
complete a flood damage reduction project, or separable
element thereof, that it agreed to complete under clause
(i)(II), the non-Federal interest shall remit any
reimbursements received under this paragraph for a discrete
segment of such project or separable element.
``(D) Discrete segment defined.--In this paragraph, the
term `discrete segment' means a physical portion of a flood
damage reduction project, or separable element thereof--
``(i) described by a non-Federal interest in a written
agreement required under paragraph (1)(A)(iii); and
``(ii) that the non-Federal interest can operate and
maintain, independently and without creating a hazard, in
advance of final completion of the flood damage reduction
project, or separable element thereof.''.
SEC. 127. MULTISTATE ACTIVITIES.
Section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974
(42 U.S.C. 1962d-16) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) by striking ``or other non-Federal interest'' and
inserting ``, group of States, or non-Federal interest'';
(B) by inserting ``or group of States'' after ``working
with a State''; and
(C) by inserting ``or group of States'' after ``boundaries
of such State''; and
(2) in subsection (c)(1) by adding at the end the
following: ``The Secretary may allow 2 or more States to
combine all or a portion of the funds that the Secretary
makes available to the States in carrying out subsection
(a)(1).''.
SEC. 128. REGIONAL PARTICIPATION ASSURANCE FOR LEVEE SAFETY
ACTIVITIES.
(a) National Levee Safety Program.--Section 9002 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 3301) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (11) by striking ``State or Indian tribe''
and inserting ``State, regional district, or Indian tribe'';
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (12) through (16) as
paragraphs (13) through (17), respectively; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (11) the following:
``(12) Regional district.--The term `regional district'
means a subdivision of a State government, or a subdivision
of multiple State governments, that is authorized to acquire,
construct, operate, and maintain projects for the purpose of
flood damage reduction.''.
(b) Inventory and Inspection of Levees.--Section 9004 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 3303)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1) by striking ``one year after the date
of enactment of this Act'' and inserting ``1 year after the
date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of
2016'';
(B) in paragraph (2)(A) by striking ``States, Indian
tribes, Federal agencies, and other entities'' and inserting
``States, regional districts, Indian tribes, Federal
agencies, and other entities''; and
(C) in paragraph (3)--
(i) in the heading for subparagraph (A) by striking
``federal, state, and local'' and inserting ``federal, state,
regional, tribal, and local''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``Federal, State, and
local'' and inserting ``Federal, State, regional, tribal, and
local''; and
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (4)--
(i) in the paragraph heading by striking ``State and
tribal'' and inserting ``State, regional, and tribal''; and
(ii) by striking ``State or Indian tribe'' each place it
appears and inserting ``State, regional district, or Indian
tribe''; and
(B) in paragraph (5)--
(i) by striking ``State or Indian tribe'' and inserting
``State, regional district, or Indian tribe''; and
(ii) by striking ``chief executive of the tribal
government'' and inserting ``chief executive of the regional
district or tribal government''.
(c) Levee Safety Initiative.--Section 9005 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 3303a) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)--
(I) by striking ``1 year after the date of enactment of
this subsection'' and inserting ``1 year after the date of
enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016'';
and
(II) by striking ``State, local, and tribal governments and
organizations'' and inserting ``State, regional, local, and
tribal governments and organizations''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``Federal, State,
tribal, and local agencies'' and inserting
[[Page H5973]]
``Federal, State, regional, local, and tribal agencies'';
(B) in paragraph (3)--
(i) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``State, local, and
tribal governments'' and inserting ``State, regional, local,
and tribal governments''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B) by inserting ``, regional, or
tribal'' after ``State'' each place it appears; and
(C) in paragraph (5)(A) by striking ``States, non-Federal
interests, and other appropriate stakeholders'' and inserting
``States, regional districts, Indian tribes, non-Federal
interests, and other appropriate stakeholders'';
(2) in subsection (e)(1) in the matter preceding
subparagraph (A) by striking ``States, communities, and levee
owners'' and inserting ``States, regional districts, Indian
tribes, communities, and levee owners'';
(3) in subsection (g)--
(A) in the subsection heading by striking ``State and
Tribal'' and inserting ``State, Regional, and Tribal'';
(B) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in subparagraph (A)--
(I) by striking ``1 year after the date of enactment of
this subsection'' and inserting ``1 year after the date of
enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016'';
and
(II) by striking ``State or tribal'' and inserting ``State,
regional, or tribal''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B)--
(I) by striking ``State and Indian tribe'' and inserting
``State, regional district, and Indian tribe''; and
(II) by striking ``State or Indian tribe'' and inserting
``State, regional district, or Indian tribe''; and
(C) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in the paragraph heading by striking ``states'' and
inserting ``states, regional districts, and indian tribes'';
(ii) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``States and Indian
tribes'' and inserting ``States, regional districts, and
Indian tribes'';
(iii) in subparagraph (B)--
(I) in the matter preceding clause (i) by striking ``State
or Indian tribe'' and inserting ``State, regional district,
or Indian tribe'';
(II) in clause (ii) by striking ``levees within the State''
and inserting ``levees within the State or regional
district''; and
(III) in clause (iii) by striking ``State or Indian tribe''
and inserting ``State, regional district, or Indian tribe'';
(iv) in subparagraph (C)(ii) in the matter preceding
subclause (I) by striking ``State or tribal'' and inserting
``State, regional, or tribal''; and
(v) in subparagraph (E)--
(I) by striking ``States and Indian tribes'' each place it
appears and inserting ``States, regional districts, and
Indian tribes'';
(II) in clause (ii)(II)--
(aa) in the matter preceding item (aa) by striking ``State
or Indian tribe'' and inserting ``State, regional district,
or Indian tribe'';
(bb) in item (aa) by striking ``miles of levees in the
State'' and inserting ``miles of levees in the State or
regional district''; and
(cc) in item (bb) by striking ``miles of levees in all
States'' and inserting ``miles of levees in all States and
regional districts''; and
(III) in clause (iii)--
(aa) by striking ``State or Indian tribe'' and inserting
``State, regional district, or Indian tribe''; and
(bb) by striking ``State or tribal'' and inserting ``State,
regional, or tribal''; and
(4) in subsection (h)--
(A) in paragraph (1) by striking ``States, Indian tribes,
and local governments'' and inserting ``States, regional
districts, Indian tribes, and local governments'';
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by striking
``State, Indian tribe, or local government'' and inserting
``State, regional district, Indian tribe, or local
government''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (E) in the matter preceding clause (i)
by striking ``State or tribal'' and inserting ``State,
regional, or tribal'';
(C) in paragraph (3)--
(i) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``State, Indian tribe,
or local government'' and inserting ``State, regional
district, Indian tribe, or local government''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``180 days after the
date of enactment of this subsection'' and inserting ``180
days after the date of enactment of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2016''; and
(D) in paragraph (4)(A)(i) by striking ``State or tribal''
and inserting ``State, regional, or tribal''.
(d) Reports.--Section 9006 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 3303b) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by striking
``1 year after the date of enactment of this subsection'' and
inserting ``1 year after the date of enactment of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2016''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``State and tribal''
and inserting ``State, regional, and tribal'';
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``2 years after the date of enactment of
this subsection'' and inserting ``2 years after the date of
enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016'';
and
(ii) by striking ``State, tribal, and local'' and inserting
``State, regional, tribal, and local'';
(B) in paragraph (2) by striking ``State and tribal'' and
inserting ``State, regional, and tribal''; and
(C) in paragraph (4) by striking ``State and local'' and
inserting ``State, regional, tribal, and local''; and
(3) in subsection (d)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking ``1
year after the date of enactment of this subsection'' and
inserting ``1 year after the date of enactment of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2016''; and
(B) in paragraph (2) by striking ``State or tribal'' and
inserting ``State, regional, or tribal''.
SEC. 129. PARTICIPATION OF NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS.
Section 221(b)(1) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42
U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)(1)) is amended by inserting ``and, as
defined in section 3 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act (43 U.S.C. 1602), a Native village, Regional Corporation,
and Village Corporation'' after ``Indian tribe''.
SEC. 130. INDIAN TRIBES.
Section 1156 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 2310) is amended--
(1) in the section heading by inserting ``and indian
tribes'' after ``territories''; and
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``projects in American'' and inserting
``projects--
``(1) in American'';
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) for a federally recognized Indian tribe.''.
SEC. 131. DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION ON THE ANNUAL REPORT
PROCESS.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Congress plays a central role in identifying,
prioritizing, and authorizing vital water resources
infrastructure activities throughout the United States.
(2) The Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014
(Public Law 113-121) established a new and transparent
process to review and prioritize the water resources
development activities of the Corps of Engineers with strong
congressional oversight.
(3) Section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and
Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d) requires the
Secretary to develop and submit to Congress each year a
Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development and,
as part of the annual report process, to--
(A) publish a notice in the Federal Register that requests
from non-Federal interests proposed feasibility studies and
proposed modifications to authorized water resources
development projects and feasibility studies for inclusion in
the report; and
(B) review the proposals submitted and include in the
report those proposed feasibility studies and proposed
modifications that meet the criteria for inclusion
established under section 7001.
(4) Congress will use the information provided in the
annual Report to Congress on Future Water Resources
Development to determine authorization needs and priorities
for purposes of water resources development legislation.
(5) To ensure that Congress can gain a thorough
understanding of the water resources development needs and
priorities of the United States, it is important that the
Secretary take sufficient steps to ensure that non-Federal
interests are made aware of the new annual report process,
including the need for non-Federal interests to submit
proposals during the Secretary's annual request for proposals
in order for such proposals to be eligible for consideration
by Congress.
(b) Dissemination of Process Information.--The Secretary
shall develop, support, and implement education and awareness
efforts for non-Federal interests with respect to the annual
Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development
required under section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and
Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d), including efforts
to--
(1) develop and disseminate technical assistance materials,
seminars, and guidance on the annual process as it relates to
non-Federal interests;
(2) provide written notice to previous and potential non-
Federal interests and local elected officials on the annual
process and on opportunities to address local water resources
challenges through the missions and authorities of the Corps
of Engineers;
(3) issue guidance for non-Federal interests to assist such
interests in developing proposals for water resources
development projects that satisfy the requirements of section
7001; and
(4) provide, at the request of a non-Federal interest,
assistance with researching and identifying existing project
authorizations and Corps of Engineers decision documents.
SEC. 132. SCOPE OF PROJECTS.
Section 7001(f) of the Water Resources Reform and
Development Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2282d(f)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(5) Water resources development project.--The term `water
resources development project' includes a project under an
environmental infrastructure assistance program.''.
SEC. 133. PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY ACTIVITIES.
At the request of a non-Federal interest with respect to a
proposed water resources development project, the Secretary
shall meet with the non-Federal interest, prior to initiating
a feasibility study relating to the proposed project, to
review a preliminary analysis of the Federal interest in the
proposed project and the costs, benefits, and environmental
impacts of the proposed project, including an estimate of the
costs of preparing a feasibility report.
SEC. 134. POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORTS.
(a) In General.--The completion of a post-authorization
change report prepared by the Corps of Engineers for a water
resources development project--
(1) may not be delayed as a result of consideration being
given to changes in policy or priority with respect to
project consideration; and
(2) shall be submitted, upon completion, to--
[[Page H5974]]
(A) the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the
Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of
the House of Representatives.
(b) Completion Review.--With respect to a post-
authorization change report subject to review by the
Secretary, the Secretary shall, not later than 120 days after
the date of completion of such report--
(1) review the report; and
(2) provide to Congress any recommendations of the
Secretary regarding modification of the applicable water
resources development project.
(c) Prior Reports.--Not later than 120 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, with respect to any post-
authorization change report that was completed prior to the
date of enactment of this Act and is subject to a review by
the Secretary that has yet to be completed, the Secretary
shall complete review of, and provide recommendations to
Congress with respect to, the report.
(d) Post-Authorization Change Report Inclusions.--In this
section, the term ``post-authorization change report''
includes--
(1) a general reevaluation report;
(2) a limited reevaluation report; and
(3) any other report that recommends the modification of an
authorized water resources development project.
SEC. 135. MAINTENANCE DREDGING DATA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish, maintain,
and make publicly available a database on maintenance
dredging carried out by the Secretary, which shall include
information on maintenance dredging carried out by Federal
and non-Federal vessels.
(b) Scope.--The Secretary shall include in the database
maintained under subsection (a), for each maintenance
dredging project and contract, data on--
(1) the volume of dredged material removed;
(2) the initial cost estimate of the Corps of Engineers;
(3) the total cost;
(4) the party and vessel carrying out the work; and
(5) the number of private contractor bids received and the
bid amounts, including bids that did not win the final
contract award.
SEC. 136. ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION AND TRACKING OF PERMIT
APPLICATIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 2040 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2345) is amended to read
as follows:
``SEC. 2040. ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION AND TRACKING OF PERMIT
APPLICATIONS.
``(a) Development of Electronic System.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall research, develop,
and implement an electronic system to allow the electronic
preparation and submission of applications for permits and
requests for jurisdictional determinations under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary.
``(2) Inclusion.--The electronic system required under
paragraph (1) shall address--
``(A) applications for standard individual permits;
``(B) applications for letters of permission;
``(C) joint applications with States for State and Federal
permits;
``(D) applications for emergency permits;
``(E) applications or requests for jurisdictional
determinations; and
``(F) preconstruction notification submissions, when
required for a nationwide or other general permit.
``(3) Improving existing data systems.--The Secretary shall
seek to incorporate the electronic system required under
paragraph (1) into existing systems and databases of the
Corps of Engineers to the maximum extent practicable.
``(4) Protection of information.--The electronic system
required under paragraph (1) shall provide for the protection
of personal, private, privileged, confidential, and
proprietary information, and information the disclosure of
which is otherwise prohibited by law.
``(b) System Requirements.--The electronic system required
under subsection (a) shall--
``(1) enable an applicant or requester to prepare
electronically an application for a permit or request;
``(2) enable an applicant or requester to submit to the
Secretary, by email or other means through the Internet, the
completed application form or request;
``(3) enable an applicant or requester to submit to the
Secretary, by email or other means through the Internet, data
and other information in support of the permit application or
request;
``(4) provide an online interactive guide to provide
assistance to an applicant or requester at any time while
filling out the permit application or request; and
``(5) enable an applicant or requester (or a designated
agent) to track the status of a permit application or request
in a manner that will--
``(A) allow the applicant or requester to determine whether
the application is pending or final and the disposition of
the request;
``(B) allow the applicant or requester to research
previously submitted permit applications and requests within
a given geographic area and the results of such applications
or requests; and
``(C) allow identification and display of the location of
the activities subject to a permit or request through a map-
based interface.
``(c) Documentation.--All permit decisions and
jurisdictional determinations made by the Secretary shall be
in writing and include documentation supporting the basis for
the decision or determination. The Secretary shall prescribe
means for documenting all decisions or determinations to be
made by the Secretary.
``(d) Record of Determinations.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall maintain, for a
minimum of 5 years, a record of all permit decisions and
jurisdictional determinations made by the Secretary,
including documentation supporting the basis of the decisions
and determinations.
``(2) Archiving of information.--The Secretary shall
explore and implement an appropriate mechanism for archiving
records of permit decisions and jurisdictional
determinations, including documentation supporting the basis
of the decisions and determinations, after the 5-year
maintenance period described in paragraph (1).
``(e) Availability of Determinations.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make the records of
all permit decisions and jurisdictional determinations made
by the Secretary available to the public for review and
reproduction.
``(2) Protection of information.--The Secretary shall
provide for the protection of personal, private, privileged,
confidential, and proprietary information, and information
the disclosure of which is prohibited by law, which may be
excluded from disclosure.
``(f) Deadline for Electronic System Implementation.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall develop and
implement, to the maximum extent practicable, the electronic
system required under subsection (a) not later than 2 years
after the date of enactment of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2016.
``(2) Report on electronic system implementation.--Not
later than 180 days after the expiration of the deadline
under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate a report describing the measures
implemented and barriers faced in carrying out this section.
``(g) Applicability.--The requirements described in
subsections (c), (d), and (e) shall apply to permit
applications and requests for jurisdictional determinations
submitted to the Secretary after the date of enactment of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2016.
``(h) Limitation.--This section shall not preclude the
submission to the Secretary, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, of a physical copy of a permit application or a
request for a jurisdictional determination.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 is
amended by striking the item relating to section 2040 and
inserting the following:
``Sec. 2040. Electronic submission and tracking of permit
applications.''.
SEC. 137. DATA TRANSPARENCY.
Section 2017 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007
(33 U.S.C. 2342) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 2017. ACCESS TO WATER RESOURCE DATA.
``(a) In General.--Using available funds, the Secretary
shall make publicly available, including on the Internet, all
data in the custody of the Corps of Engineers on--
``(1) the planning, design, construction, operation, and
maintenance of water resources development projects; and
``(2) water quality and water management of projects owned,
operated, or managed by the Corps of Engineers.
``(b) Limitation.--Nothing in this section may be construed
to compel or authorize the disclosure of data or other
information determined by the Secretary to be confidential
information, privileged information, law enforcement
information, national security information, infrastructure
security information, personal information, or information
the disclosure of which is otherwise prohibited by law.
``(c) Timing.--The Secretary shall ensure that data is made
publicly available under subsection (a) as quickly as
practicable after the data is generated by the Corps of
Engineers.
``(d) Partnerships.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary may develop partnerships, including through
cooperative agreements, with State, tribal, and local
governments and other Federal agencies.''.
SEC. 138. BACKLOG PREVENTION.
(a) Project Deauthorization.--
(1) In general.--A water resources development project, or
separable element of such a project, authorized for
construction by this Act shall not be authorized after the
last day of the 7-year period beginning on the date of
enactment of this Act unless funds have been obligated for
construction of such project during that period.
(2) Identification of projects.--Not later than 60 days
after the expiration of the 7-year period referred to in
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives a report that identifies the projects
deauthorized under paragraph (1).
(b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 60 days after the
expiration of the 12-year period beginning on the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives, and make available to the public, a
report that contains--
(1) a list of any water resources development projects
authorized by this Act for which construction has not been
completed during that period;
(2) a description of the reasons the projects were not
completed;
(3) a schedule for the completion of the projects based on
expected levels of appropriations; and
(4) a 5-year and 10-year projection of construction backlog
and any recommendations to
[[Page H5975]]
Congress regarding how to mitigate current problems and the
backlog.
SEC. 139. QUALITY CONTROL.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (a) of the first section of the
Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 888, chapter 665; 33
U.S.C. 701-1(a)), is amended by inserting ``and shall be made
publicly available'' before the period at the end.
(b) Project Administration.--Section 2041(b)(1) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C.
2346(b)(1)) is amended by inserting ``final post-
authorization change report,'' after ``final reevaluation
report,''.
SEC. 140. BUDGET DEVELOPMENT AND PRIORITIZATION.
(a) In General.--In conjunction with the President's budget
submission to Congress with respect to fiscal year 2018 under
section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, and
biennially thereafter in conjunction with the President's
budget submission, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Committee
on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives a report that
describes--
(1) the metrics used in developing the civil works budget
for the applicable fiscal year;
(2) the metrics used in developing each business line in
the civil works budget; and
(3) how projects are prioritized in the applicable budget
submission, including how the Secretary determines those
projects for which construction initiation is recommended.
(b) Notification.--
(1) Requirement.--If the Secretary proposes a covered
revised budget estimate, the Secretary shall notify, in
writing, each Member of Congress representing a congressional
district affected by the study, project, or activity subject
to the revised estimate.
(2) Covered revised budget estimate defined.--In this
subsection, the term ``covered revised budget estimate''
means a budget estimate for a water resources development
study, project, or activity that differs from the estimate
most recently specified for that study, project, or activity
in a budget of the President submitted under section 1105(a)
of title 31, United States Code.
SEC. 141. USE OF NATURAL AND NATURE-BASED FEATURES.
(a) Report.--Not later than February 1, 2017, and
biennially thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate a report on the use of natural and
nature-based features in water resources development
projects, including flood risk reduction, coastal resiliency,
and ecosystem restoration projects.
(b) Contents.--The report shall include, at a minimum, the
following:
(1) An assessment of the observed and potential impacts of
the use of natural and nature-based features on the cost and
effectiveness of water resources development projects and any
co-benefits resulting from the use of such features.
(2) A description of any statutory, fiscal, or regulatory
barrier to the appropriate consideration and use of natural
and nature-based features in carrying out water resources
development projects.
SEC. 142. ANNUAL REPORT ON PURCHASE OF FOREIGN MANUFACTURED
ARTICLES.
Section 213(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1992 (Public Law 102-580; 106 Stat. 4831) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(4) Annual report on purchase of foreign manufactured
articles.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the last
day of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress a report on the amount of acquisitions in such
fiscal year made by the Corps of Engineers for civil works
projects from entities that manufactured the articles,
materials, or supplies outside of the United States.
``(B) Contents.--The report required under subparagraph (A)
shall indicate, for each acquisition--
``(i) the dollar value of any articles, materials, or
supplies purchased that were manufactured outside of the
United States; and
``(ii) a summary of the total procurement funds spent on
goods manufactured in the United States and the total
procurement funds spent on goods manufactured outside of the
United States.
``(C) Public availability.--Not later than 30 days after
the submission of a report under subparagraph (A), the
Secretary shall make such report publicly available on the
agency's Web site.''.
SEC. 143. INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES PLANNING.
In carrying out a feasibility study for a water resources
development project, the Secretary shall coordinate with
communities in the watershed covered by such study to
determine if a local or regional water management plan exists
or is under development for the purposes of stormwater
management, water quality improvement, aquifer recharge, or
water reuse. If such a local or regional water management
plan exists for the watershed, the Secretary shall, in
cooperation with the non-Federal sponsor for the plan and
affected local public entities, avoid adversely affecting the
purposes of the plan and, where feasible, incorporate the
purposes of the plan into the Secretary's feasibility study.
SEC. 144. EVALUATION OF PROJECT PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.
To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary shall
prioritize and complete the activities required of the
Secretary under section 1013 of the Water Resources Reform
and Development Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-121; 128 Stat.
1218).
SEC. 145. ADDITIONAL MEASURES AT DONOR PORTS AND ENERGY
TRANSFER PORTS.
Section 2106 of the Water Resources Reform and Development
Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2238c) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(4)(A) by striking ``Code of Federal
Regulation'' and inserting ``Code of Federal Regulations'';
and
(2) in subsection (f)--
(A) in paragraph (1) by striking ``2018'' and inserting
``2020''; and
(B) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by striking ``2015 through 2018'' and inserting ``2016
through 2020''; and
(ii) by striking ``2019 through 2022'' and inserting ``2021
through 2025''.
SEC. 146. ARCTIC DEEP DRAFT PORT DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIPS.
Section 2105 of the Water Resources Reform and Development
Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2243) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(25 U.S.C. 450b))'' each place it appears
and inserting ``(25 U.S.C. 450b)) and Native villages,
Regional Corporations, and Village Corporations (as those
terms are defined in section 3 of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602))'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
(3) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
``(d) Consideration of National Security Interests.--In
carrying out a study of the feasibility of an Arctic deep
draft port, the Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of
Homeland Security and the Secretary of Defense to identify
national security benefits associated with the Arctic deep
draft port.''.
SEC. 147. INTERNATIONAL OUTREACH PROGRAM.
Section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1992 (33 U.S.C. 2329(a)) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Authorization.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may engage in activities
to inform the United States of technological innovations
abroad that could significantly improve water resources
development in the United States.
``(2) Inclusions.--Activities under paragraph (1) may
include--
``(A) development, monitoring, assessment, and
dissemination of information about foreign water resources
projects that could significantly improve water resources
development in the United States;
``(B) research, development, training, and other forms of
technology transfer and exchange; and
``(C) offering technical services that cannot be readily
obtained in the private sector to be incorporated into water
resources projects if the costs for assistance will be
recovered under the terms of each project.''.
SEC. 148. COMPREHENSIVE STUDY.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a
comprehensive study on the flood risks for vulnerable coastal
populations in areas within the boundaries of the South
Atlantic Division of the Corps of Engineers.
(b) Inclusions.--In carrying out the study, the Secretary
shall identify--
(1) activities that warrant additional analysis by the
Corps of Engineers; and
(2) institutional and other barriers to providing
protection to the vulnerable coastal populations.
(c) Coordination.--The Secretary shall conduct the study in
coordination with appropriate Federal agencies and State,
local, and tribal entities to ensure consistency with related
plans.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $6,000,000 to carry out this section.
SEC. 149. ALTERNATIVE MODELS FOR MANAGING INLAND WATERWAYS
TRUST FUND.
(a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study to analyze alternative models for
managing the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, including the
management of--
(1) project schedules for projects receiving assistance
from the fund; and
(2) expenditures from the fund.
(b) Contents.--In conducting the study, the Comptroller
General shall examine, at a minimum, the costs and benefits
of transferring management of the fund to a not-for-profit
corporation or government-owned corporation.
(c) Considerations.--In assessing costs and benefits under
subsection (b), the Comptroller General shall consider, among
other factors--
(1) the benefits to the taxpayer;
(2) the impact on project delivery; and
(3) the impact on jobs.
(d) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit
to Congress a report on the results of the study.
SEC. 150. ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS TO MAINTENANCE DREDGING.
The Secretary may enter into agreements to assume the
operation and maintenance costs of an alternative project to
maintenance dredging for a channel if the alternative project
would lower the overall costs of maintaining the channel.
SEC. 151. FISH HATCHERIES.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary may operate a fish hatchery for the
purpose of restoring a population of fish species located in
the region surrounding the fish hatchery that is listed as a
threatened species or an endangered species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) or a
similar State law.
(b) Costs.--A non-Federal entity, a Federal agency other
than the Department of Defense, or a group of non-Federal
entities or such Federal agencies shall be responsible for
100 percent
[[Page H5976]]
of the costs associated with managing a fish hatchery for the
purpose described in subsection (a) that are not authorized
as of the date of enactment of this Act for the fish
hatchery.
SEC. 152. ENVIRONMENTAL BANKS.
(a) Establishment.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Chairperson of the Gulf Coast
Ecosystem Restoration Council, with the concurrence of two-
thirds of the Council, shall issue such regulations as are
necessary for the establishment of procedures and processes
for the use, maintenance, and oversight of environmental
banks for purposes of mitigating adverse environmental
impacts sustained by construction or other activities as
required by law or regulation.
(b) Requirements.--The regulations issued pursuant to
subsection (a) shall--
(1) set forth procedures for certification of environmental
banks, including criteria for adoption of an environmental
banking instrument;
(2) provide a mechanism for the transfer of environmental
credits;
(3) provide for priority certification to environmental
banks that enhance the resilience of coastal resources to
inundation and coastal erosion, including the restoration of
resources within the scope of a project authorized for
construction;
(4) ensure certification is given only to banks with
secured adequate financial assurance and appropriate legally
enforceable protection for restored lands or resources;
(5) stipulate conditions under which cross-crediting of
environmental services may occur and provide standards for
the conversion of such crediting;
(6) establish performance criteria for environmental banks;
(7) establish criteria for the operation and monitoring of
environmental banks; and
(8) establish a framework whereby the purchase of credit
from an environmental bank may be used to offset or satisfy
past, current, or future adverse environmental impacts or
liability under law to wetlands, water, wildlife, or other
natural resources.
(c) Consideration.--In developing the regulations required
under subsection (a), the Chairperson shall take into
consideration habitat equivalency analysis.
(d) Modifications.--The Chairperson may modify or update
the regulations issued pursuant to this section, subject to
appropriate consultation and public participation, provided
that two-thirds of the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration
Council approves the modification or update.
(e) Definition of Environmental Bank.--In this section, the
term ``environmental bank'' means a project, project
increment, or projects for purposes of restoring, creating,
enhancing, or preserving natural resources in a designated
site to provide for credits to offset adverse environmental
impacts.
(f) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section--
(1) affects the requirements of section 906 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283); or
(2) affects the obligations or requirements of any Federal
environmental law.
TITLE II--STUDIES
SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF PROPOSED FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
The Secretary is authorized to conduct a feasibility study
for the following projects for water resources development
and conservation and other purposes, as identified in the
reports titled ``Report to Congress on Future Water Resources
Development'' submitted to Congress on January 29, 2015, and
January 29, 2016, respectively, pursuant to section 7001 of
the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33
U.S.C. 2282d) or otherwise reviewed by Congress:
(1) Ouachita-black rivers, arkansas and louisiana.--Project
for navigation, Ouachita-Black Rivers, Arkansas and
Louisiana.
(2) Cache creek settling basin, california.--Project for
flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, Cache Creek
Settling Basin, California.
(3) Coyote valley dam, california.--Project for flood
damage reduction, environmental restoration, and water
supply, Coyote Valley Dam, California.
(4) Del rosa channel, city of san bernardino, california.--
Project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration,
Del Rosa Channel, city of San Bernardino, California.
(5) Merced county streams, california.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Merced County Streams, California.
(6) Mission-zanja channel, cities of san bernardino and
redlands, california.--Project for flood damage reduction and
ecosystem restoration, Mission-Zanja Channel, cities of San
Bernardino and Redlands, California.
(7) Soboba indian reservation, california.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Soboba Indian Reservation,
California.
(8) Indian river inlet, delaware.--Project for hurricane
and storm damage reduction, Indian River Inlet, Delaware.
(9) Lewes beach, delaware.--Project for hurricane and storm
damage reduction, Lewes Beach, Delaware.
(10) Mispillion complex, kent and sussex counties,
delaware.--Project for hurricane and storm damage reduction,
Mispillion Complex, Kent and Sussex Counties, Delaware.
(11) Daytona beach, florida.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Daytona Beach, Florida.
(12) Brunswick harbor, georgia.--Project for navigation,
Brunswick Harbor, Georgia.
(13) Dubuque, iowa.--Project for flood damage reduction,
Dubuque, Iowa.
(14) St. tammany parish, louisiana.--Project for flood
damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, St. Tammany
Parish, Louisiana.
(15) Cattaraugus creek, new york.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Cattaraugus Creek, New York.
(16) Cayuga inlet, ithaca, new york.--Project for
navigation and flood damage reduction, Cayuga Inlet, Ithaca,
New York.
(17) Delaware river basin, new york, new jersey,
pennsylvania, and delaware.--Projects for flood control,
Delaware River Basin, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and
Delaware, authorized by section 408 of the Act of July 24,
1946 (60 Stat. 644, chapter 596), and section 203 of the
Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1182), to review
operations of the projects to enhance opportunities for
ecosystem restoration and water supply.
(18) Silver creek, hanover, new york.--Project for flood
damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, Silver Creek,
Hanover, New York.
(19) Tulsa and west tulsa levees, tulsa, oklahoma.--Project
for flood damage reduction, Tulsa and West Tulsa Levees,
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
(20) Stonycreek and little conemaugh rivers,
pennsylvania.--Project for flood damage reduction and
recreation, Stonycreek and Little Conemaugh Rivers,
Pennsylvania.
(21) Tioga-hammond lake, pennsylvania.--Project for
ecosystem restoration, Tioga-Hammond Lake, Pennsylvania.
(22) Brazos river, fort bend county, texas.--Project for
flood damage reduction in the vicinity of the Brazos River,
Fort Bend County, Texas.
(23) Chacon creek, city of laredo, texas.--Project for
flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, and
recreation, Chacon Creek, city of Laredo, Texas.
(24) Corpus christi ship channel, texas.--Project for
navigation, Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Texas.
(25) City of el paso, texas.--Project for flood damage
reduction, city of El Paso, Texas.
(26) Gulf intracoastal waterway, brazoria and matagorda
counties, texas.--Project for navigation and hurricane and
storm damage reduction, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Brazoria
and Matagorda Counties, Texas.
(27) Port of bay city, texas.--Project for navigation, Port
of Bay City, Texas.
(28) Chincoteague island, virginia.--Project for hurricane
and storm damage reduction, navigation, and ecosystem
restoration, Chincoteague Island, Virginia.
(29) Burley creek watershed, kitsap county, washington.--
Project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration,
Burley Creek Watershed, Kitsap County, Washington.
SEC. 202. EXPEDITED COMPLETION OF REPORTS FOR CERTAIN
PROJECTS.
(a) Feasibility Reports.--The Secretary shall expedite the
completion of a feasibility study for each of the following
projects, and if the Secretary determines that the project is
justified in a completed report, may proceed directly to
preconstruction planning, engineering, and design of the
project:
(1) Project for flood risk management, Little Colorado
River at Winslow, Navajo County, Arizona.
(2) Project for flood risk management, Lower San Joaquin
River, California. In carrying out the feasibility study for
the project, the Secretary shall include Reclamation District
17 as part of the study.
(3) Project for flood risk management and ecosystem
restoration, Sacramento River Flood Control System,
California.
(4) Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction,
Ft. Pierce, Florida.
(5) Project for flood risk management, Des Moines and
Raccoon Rivers, Iowa.
(6) Project for navigation, Mississippi River Ship Channel,
Louisiana.
(7) Project for flood risk management, North Branch Ecorse
Creek, Wayne County, Michigan.
(8) Project for flood risk management, Rahway River Basin
(Upper Basin), New Jersey.
(9) Project for navigation, Upper Ohio River, Pennsylvania.
(b) Post-Authorization Change Reports.--The Secretary shall
expedite completion of a post-authorization change report for
each of the following projects:
(1) Project for flood risk management, Swope Park
Industrial Area, Kansas City, Missouri.
(2) Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction,
New Hanover County, North Carolina.
TITLE III--DEAUTHORIZATIONS AND RELATED PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. DEAUTHORIZATION OF INACTIVE PROJECTS.
(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
(1) to identify $5,000,000,000 in water resources
development projects authorized by Congress that are no
longer viable for construction due to--
(A) a lack of local support;
(B) a lack of available Federal or non-Federal resources;
or
(C) an authorizing purpose that is no longer relevant or
feasible;
(2) to create an expedited and definitive process for
Congress to deauthorize water resources development projects
that are no longer viable for construction; and
(3) to allow the continued authorization of water resources
development projects that are viable for construction.
(b) Interim Deauthorization List.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall develop an interim
deauthorization list that identifies--
(A) each water resources development project, or separable
element of a project, authorized for construction before
November 8, 2007, for which--
(i) planning, design, or construction was not initiated
before the date of enactment of this Act; or
[[Page H5977]]
(ii) planning, design, or construction was initiated before
the date of enactment of this Act, but for which no funds,
Federal or non-Federal, were obligated for planning, design,
or construction of the project or separable element of the
project during the current fiscal year or any of the 6
preceding fiscal years; and
(B) each project or separable element identified and
included on a list to Congress for deauthorization pursuant
to section 1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)).
(2) Public comment and consultation.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall solicit comments from
the public and the Governors of each applicable State on the
interim deauthorization list developed under paragraph (1).
(B) Comment period.--The public comment period shall be 90
days.
(3) Submission to congress; publication.--Not later than 90
days after the date of the close of the comment period under
paragraph (2), the Secretary shall--
(A) submit a revised interim deauthorization list to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives; and
(B) publish the revised interim deauthorization list in the
Federal Register.
(c) Final Deauthorization List.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall develop a final
deauthorization list of water resources development projects,
or separable elements of projects, from the revised interim
deauthorization list described in subsection (b)(3).
(2) Deauthorization amount.--
(A) Proposed final list.--The Secretary shall prepare a
proposed final deauthorization list of projects and separable
elements of projects that have, in the aggregate, an
estimated Federal cost to complete that is at least
$5,000,000,000.
(B) Determination of federal cost to complete.--For
purposes of subparagraph (A), the Federal cost to complete
shall take into account any allowances authorized by section
902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2280), as applied to the most recent project schedule and
cost estimate.
(3) Identification of projects.--
(A) Sequencing of projects.--
(i) In general.--The Secretary shall identify projects and
separable elements of projects for inclusion on the proposed
final deauthorization list according to the order in which
the projects and separable elements of the projects were
authorized, beginning with the earliest authorized projects
and separable elements of projects and ending with the latest
project or separable element of a project necessary to meet
the aggregate amount under paragraph (2).
(ii) Factors to consider.--The Secretary may identify
projects and separable elements of projects in an order other
than that established by clause (i) if the Secretary
determines, on a case-by-case basis, that a project or
separable element of a project is critical for interests of
the United States, based on the possible impact of the
project or separable element of the project on public health
and safety, the national economy, or the environment.
(iii) Consideration of public comments.--In making
determinations under clause (ii), the Secretary shall
consider any comments received under subsection (b)(3).
(B) Appendix.--The Secretary shall include as part of the
proposed final deauthorization list an appendix that--
(i) identifies each project or separable element of a
project on the interim deauthorization list developed under
subsection (b) that is not included on the proposed final
deauthorization list; and
(ii) describes the reasons why the project or separable
element is not included on the proposed final list.
(4) Public comment and consultation.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall solicit comments from
the public and the Governor of each applicable State on the
proposed final deauthorization list and appendix developed
under paragraphs (2) and (3).
(B) Comment period.--The public comment period shall be 90
days.
(5) Submission of final list to congress; publication.--Not
later than 120 days after the date of the close of the
comment period under paragraph (4), the Secretary shall--
(A) submit a final deauthorization list and an appendix to
the final deauthorization list in a report to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives; and
(B) publish the final deauthorization list and the appendix
to the final deauthorization list in the Federal Register.
(d) Deauthorization; Congressional Review.--
(1) In general.--After the expiration of the 180-day period
beginning on the date of submission of the final
deauthorization list and appendix under subsection (c), a
project or separable element of a project identified in the
final deauthorization list is hereby deauthorized, unless
Congress passes a joint resolution disapproving the final
deauthorization list prior to the end of such period.
(2) Non-federal contributions.--
(A) In general.--A project or separable element of a
project identified in the final deauthorization list under
subsection (c) shall not be deauthorized under this
subsection if, before the expiration of the 180-day period
referred to in paragraph (1), the non-Federal interest for
the project or separable element of the project provides
sufficient funds to complete the project or separable element
of the project.
(B) Treatment of projects.--Notwithstanding subparagraph
(A), each project and separable element of a project
identified in the final deauthorization list shall be treated
as deauthorized for purposes of the aggregate deauthorization
amount specified in subsection (c)(2).
(3) Projects identified in appendix.--A project or
separable element of a project identified in the appendix to
the final deauthorization list shall remain subject to future
deauthorization by Congress.
(e) Special Rule for Projects Receiving Funds for Post-
Authorization Study.--A project or separable element of a
project may not be identified on the interim deauthorization
list developed under subsection (b), or the final
deauthorization list developed under subsection (c), if the
project or separable element received funding for a post-
authorization study during the current fiscal year or any of
the 6 preceding fiscal years.
(f) General Provisions.--
(1) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
(A) Post-authorization study.--The term ``post-
authorization study'' means--
(i) a feasibility report developed under section 905 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282);
(ii) a feasibility study, as defined in section 105(d) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2215(d)); or
(iii) a review conducted under section 216 of the Flood
Control Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 549a), including an initial
appraisal that--
(I) demonstrates a Federal interest; and
(II) requires additional analysis for the project or
separable element.
(B) Water resources development project.--The term ``water
resources development project'' includes an environmental
infrastructure assistance project or program of the Corps of
Engineers.
(2) Treatment of project modifications.--For purposes of
this section, if an authorized water resources development
project or separable element of the project has been modified
by an Act of Congress, the date of the authorization of the
project or separable element shall be deemed to be the date
of the most recent such modification.
SEC. 302. VALDEZ, ALASKA.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the portion of
the project for navigation, Valdez, Alaska, identified as
Tract G, Harbor Subdivision, shall not be subject to
navigational servitude beginning on the date of enactment of
this Act.
(b) Entry by Federal Government.--The Federal Government
may enter upon the property referred to in subsection (a) to
carry out any required operation and maintenance of the
general navigation features of the project referred to in
subsection (a).
SEC. 303. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, LOS ANGELES
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall--
(1) prioritize the updating of the Water Control Manuals
for control structures in the Los Angeles County Drainage
Area, Los Angeles County, California, authorized by section
101(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (Public
Law 101-640; 104 Stat. 4611); and
(2) integrate and incorporate into the project seasonal
operations for water conservation and water supply.
(b) Participation.--The update referred to in subsection
(a) shall be done in coordination with all appropriate
Federal agencies, elected officials, and members of the
public.
SEC. 304. SUTTER BASIN, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--The separable element constituting the
locally preferred plan increment reflected in the report of
the Chief of Engineers dated March 12, 2014, and authorized
for construction in item 8 of the table contained in section
7002(2) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of
2014 (Public Law 113-121; 128 Stat. 1366) is no longer
authorized beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Savings Provisions.--The deauthorization under
subsection (a) does not affect--
(1) the national economic development plan separable
element reflected in the report of the Chief of Engineers
dated March 12, 2014, and authorized for construction in item
8 of the table contained in section 7002(2) of the Water
Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-
121; 128 Stat. 1366); or
(2) previous authorizations providing for the Sacramento
River and major and minor tributaries project, including--
(A) section 2 of the Act of March 1, 1917 (39 Stat. 949,
chapter 144);
(B) section 12 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat.
900, chapter 665);
(C) section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat.
177, chapter 188); and
(D) any other Acts relating to the authorization for the
Sacramento River and major and minor tributaries project
along the Feather River right bank between levee stationing
1483+33 and levee stationing 2368+00.
SEC. 305. ESSEX RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS.
(a) Deauthorization.--The portions of the project for
navigation, Essex River, Massachusetts, authorized by the Act
of July 13, 1892 (27 Stat. 88, chapter 158), and modified by
the Act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1121, chapter 425), and
the Act of March 2, 1907 (34 Stat. 1073, chapter 2509), that
do not lie within the areas described in subsection (b) are
no longer authorized beginning on the date of enactment of
this Act.
(b) Description of Project Areas.--The areas described in
this subsection are as follows: Beginning at a point
N3056139.82 E851780.21, thence southwesterly about 156.88
feet to a point N3055997.75 E851713.67; thence southwesterly
about 64.59 feet to a point N3055959.37 E851661.72; thence
southwesterly about 145.14 feet to a point N3055887.10
E851535.85; thence southwesterly about 204.91 feet to a point
N3055855.12 E851333.45; thence northwesterly
[[Page H5978]]
about 423.50 feet to a point N3055976.70 E850927.78; thence
northwesterly about 58.77 feet to a point N3056002.99
E850875.21; thence northwesterly about 240.57 feet to a point
N3056232.82 E850804.14; thence northwesterly about 203.60
feet to a point N3056435.41 E850783.93; thence northwesterly
about 78.63 feet to a point N3056499.63 E850738.56; thence
northwesterly about 60.00 feet to a point N3056526.30
E850684.81; thence southwesterly about 85.56 feet to a point
N3056523.33 E850599.31; thence southwesterly about 36.20 feet
to a point N3056512.37 E850564.81; thence southwesterly about
80.10 feet to a point N3056467.08 E850498.74; thence
southwesterly about 169.05 feet to a point N3056334.36
E850394.03; thence northwesterly about 48.52 feet to a point
N3056354.38 E850349.83; thence northeasterly about 83.71 feet
to a point N3056436.35 E850366.84; thence northeasterly about
212.38 feet to a point N3056548.70 E850547.07; thence
northeasterly about 47.60 feet to a point N3056563.12
E850592.43; thence northeasterly about 101.16 feet to a point
N3056566.62 E850693.53; thence southeasterly about 80.22 feet
to a point N3056530.97 E850765.40; thence southeasterly about
99.29 feet to a point N3056449.88 E850822.69; thence
southeasterly about 210.12 feet to a point N3056240.79
E850843.54; thence southeasterly about 219.46 feet to a point
N3056031.13 E850908.38; thence southeasterly about 38.23 feet
to a point N3056014.02 E850942.57; thence southeasterly about
410.93 feet to a point N3055896.06 E851336.21; thence
northeasterly about 188.43 feet to a point N3055925.46
E851522.33; thence northeasterly about 135.47 feet to a point
N3055992.91 E851639.80; thence northeasterly about 52.15 feet
to a point N3056023.90 E851681.75; thence northeasterly about
91.57 feet to a point N3056106.82 E851720.59.
SEC. 306. PORT OF CASCADE LOCKS, OREGON.
(a) Extinguishment of Portions of Existing Flowage
Easement.--With respect to the properties described in
subsection (b), beginning on the date of enactment of this
Act, the flowage easements described in subsection (c) are
extinguished above elevation 82.2 feet (NGVD29), the ordinary
high water line.
(b) Affected Properties.--The properties described in this
subsection, as recorded in Hood River County, Oregon, are as
follows:
(1) Lots 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the ``Port of Cascade Locks
Business Park'' subdivision, Instrument Number 2014-00436.
(2) Parcels 1, 2, and 3 of Hood River County Partition,
Plat Number 2008-25P.
(c) Flowage Easements.--The flowage easements described in
this subsection are identified as Tracts 302E-1 and 304E-1 on
the easement deeds recorded as instruments in Hood River
County, Oregon, and described as follows:
(1) A flowage easement dated October 3, 1936, recorded
December 1, 1936, book 25, page 531 (Records of Hood River
County, Oregon), in favor of the United States (302E-1-
Perpetual Flowage Easement from 10/5/37, 10/5/36, and 10/3/
36; previously acquired as Tracts OH-36 and OH-41 and a
portion of Tract OH-47).
(2) A flowage easement dated October 5, 1936, recorded
October 17, 1936, book 25, page 476 (Records of Hood River
County, Oregon), in favor of the United States, affecting
that portion below the 94-foot contour line above main sea
level (304 E1-Perpetual Flowage Easement from 8/10/37 and 10/
3/36; previously acquired as Tract OH-042 and a portion of
Tract OH-47).
(d) Federal Liabilities; Cultural, Environmental, and Other
Regulatory Reviews.--
(1) Federal liability.--The United States shall not be
liable for any injury caused by the extinguishment of an
easement under this section.
(2) Cultural and environmental regulatory actions.--Nothing
in this section establishes any cultural or environmental
regulation relating to the properties described in subsection
(b).
(e) Effect on Other Rights.--Nothing in this section
affects any remaining right or interest of the Corps of
Engineers in the properties described in subsection (b).
SEC. 307. CENTRAL DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA.
(a) Area To Be Declared Nonnavigable.--Subject to
subsection (c), unless the Secretary finds, after
consultation with local and regional public officials
(including local and regional public planning organizations),
that there are substantive objections, those portions of the
Delaware River, bounded by the former bulkhead and pierhead
lines that were established by the Secretary of War and
successors and described as follows, are declared to be
nonnavigable waters of the United States:
(1) Piers 70 South through 38 South, encompassing an area
bounded by the southern line of Moore Street extended to the
northern line of Catherine Street extended, including the
following piers: Piers 70, 68, 67, 64, 61-63, 60, 57, 55, 53,
48, 46, 40, and 38.
(2) Piers 24 North through 72 North, encompassing an area
bounded by the southern line of Callowhill Street extended to
the northern line of East Fletcher Street extended, including
the following piers: Piers 24, 25, 27-35, 35.5, 36, 37, 38,
39, 49, 51-52, 53-57, 58-65, 66, 67, 69, 70-72, and
Rivercenter.
(b) Public Interest Determination.--The Secretary shall
make the public interest determination under subsection (a)
separately for each proposed project to be undertaken within
the boundaries described in subsection (a), using reasonable
discretion, not later than 150 days after the date of
submission of appropriate plans for the proposed project.
(c) Limits on Applicability; Regulatory Requirements.--The
declaration under subsection (a) shall apply only to those
parts of the areas described in subsection (a) that are or
will be bulkheaded and filled or otherwise occupied by
permanent structures, including marina and recreation
facilities. All such work is subject to all applicable
Federal statutes and regulations, including sections 9 and 10
of the Act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1151, chapter 425; 33
U.S.C. 401 and 403), section 404 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), and the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
SEC. 308. HUNTINGDON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall--
(1) prioritize the updating of the Master Plan for the
Juniata River and tributaries project, Huntingdon County,
Pennsylvania, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control
Act of 1962 (Public Law 87-874; 76 Stat. 1182); and
(2) ensure that alternatives for additional recreation
access and development at the project are fully assessed,
evaluated, and incorporated as a part of the update.
(b) Participation.--The update referred to in subsection
(a) shall be done in coordination with all appropriate
Federal agencies, elected officials, and members of the
public.
SEC. 309. RIVERCENTER, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA.
Section 38(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1988 (33 U.S.C. 59j-1(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(except 30 years from such date of
enactment, in the case of the area or any part thereof
described in subsection (a)(5))''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``Notwithstanding
the preceding sentence, the declaration of nonnavigability
for the area described in subsection (a)(5), or any part
thereof, shall not expire.''.
SEC. 310. JOE POOL LAKE, TEXAS.
The Secretary shall accept from the Trinity River Authority
of Texas, if received by September 30, 2016, $31,233,401 as
payment in full of amounts owed to the United States,
including any accrued interest, for the approximately
61,747.1 acre-feet of water supply storage space in Joe Pool
Lake, Texas (previously known as Lakeview Lake), for which
payment has not commenced under Article 5.a. (relating to
project investment costs) of contract number DACW63-76-C-
0106, as of the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 311. SALT CREEK, GRAHAM, TEXAS.
(a) In General.--The project for flood control,
environmental restoration, and recreation, Salt Creek,
Graham, Texas, authorized by section 101(a)(30) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-53; 113
Stat. 278), is no longer authorized as a Federal project
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Certain Project-Related Claims.--The non-Federal
interest for the project shall hold and save the United
States harmless from any claim that has arisen, or that may
arise, in connection with the project.
(c) Transfer.--The Secretary is authorized to transfer any
land acquired by the Federal Government for the project on
behalf of the non-Federal interest that remains in Federal
ownership on or after the date of enactment of this Act to
the non-Federal interest.
(d) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that land
transferred under subsection (c) ceases to be owned by the
public, all right, title, and interest in and to the land and
improvements thereon shall revert, at the discretion of the
Secretary, to the United States.
SEC. 312. TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TEXAS CITY, TEXAS.
(a) In General.--The portion of the Texas City Ship
Channel, Texas City, Texas, described in subsection (b) shall
not be subject to navigational servitude beginning on the
date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Description.--The portion of the Texas City Ship
Channel described in this subsection is a tract or parcel
containing 393.53 acres (17,142,111 square feet) of land
situated in the City of Texas City Survey, Abstract Number
681, and State of Texas Submerged Lands Tracts 98A and 99A,
Galveston County, Texas, said 393.53 acre tract being more
particularly described as follows:
(1) Beginning at the intersection of an edge of fill along
Galveston Bay with the most northerly east survey line of
said City of Texas City Survey, Abstract No. 681, the same
being a called 375.75 acre tract patented by the State of
Texas to the City of Texas City and recorded in Volume 1941,
Page 750 of the Galveston County Deed Records (G.C.D.R.),
from which a found U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Brass Cap
stamped ``R 4-3'' set in the top of the Texas City Dike along
the east side of Bay Street bears North 56 14' 32" West, a
distance of 6,045.31 feet and from which a found U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Brass Cap stamped ``R 4-2'' set in the top
of the Texas City Dike along the east side of Bay Street
bears North 49 13' 20" West, a distance of 6,693.64 feet.
(2) Thence, over and across said State Tracts 98A and 99A
and along the edge of fill along said Galveston Bay, the
following eight (8) courses and distances:
(A) South 75 49' 13" East, a distance of 298.08 feet to an
angle point of the tract herein described.
(B) South 81 16' 26" East, a distance of 170.58 feet to an
angle point of the tract herein described.
(C) South 79 20' 31" East, a distance of 802.34 feet to an
angle point of the tract herein described.
(D) South 75 57' 32" East, a distance of 869.68 feet to a
point for the beginning of a non-tangent curve to the right.
(E) Easterly along said non-tangent curve to the right
having a radius of 736.80 feet, a central angle of 24 55'
59", a chord of South 68 47'
[[Page H5979]]
35" East - 318.10 feet, and an arc length of 320.63 feet to a
point for the beginning of a non-tangent curve to the left.
(F) Easterly along said non-tangent curve to the left
having a radius of 373.30 feet, a central angle of 31 57'
42", a chord of South 66 10' 42" East - 205.55 feet, and an
arc length of 208.24 feet to a point for the beginning of a
non-tangent curve to the right.
(G) Easterly along said non-tangent curve to the right
having a radius of 15,450.89 feet, a central angle of 02 04'
10", a chord of South 81 56' 20" East - 558.04 feet, and an
arc length of 558.07 feet to a point for the beginning of a
compound curve to the right and the northeasterly corner of
the tract herein described.
(H) Southerly along said compound curve to the right and
the easterly line of the tract herein described, having a
radius of 1,425.00 feet, a central angle of 133 08' 00", a
chord of South 14 20' 15" East - 2,614.94 feet, and an arc
length of 3,311.15 feet to a point on a line lying 125.00
feet northerly of and parallel with the centerline of an
existing levee for the southeasterly corner of the tract
herein described.
(3) Thence, continuing over and across said State Tracts
98A and 99A and along lines lying 125.00 feet northerly of,
parallel, and concentric with the centerline of said existing
levee, the following twelve (12) courses and distances:
(A) North 78 01' 58" West, a distance of 840.90 feet to an
angle point of the tract herein described.
(B) North 76 58' 35" West, a distance of 976.66 feet to an
angle point of the tract herein described.
(C) North 76 44' 33" West, a distance of 1,757.03 feet to
a point for the beginning of a tangent curve to the left.
(D) Southwesterly, along said tangent curve to the left
having a radius of 185.00 feet, a central angle of 82 27'
32", a chord of South 62 01' 41" West - 243.86 feet, and an
arc length of 266.25 feet to a point for the beginning of a
compound curve to the left.
(E) Southerly, along said compound curve to the left having
a radius of 4,535.58 feet, a central angle of 11 06' 58", a
chord of South 15 14' 26" West - 878.59 feet, and an arc
length of 879.97 feet to an angle point of the tract herein
described.
(F) South 64 37' 11" West, a distance of 146.03 feet to an
angle point of the tract herein described.
(G) South 67 08' 21" West, a distance of 194.42 feet to an
angle point of the tract herein described.
(H) North 34 48' 22" West, a distance of 789.69 feet to an
angle point of the tract herein described.
(I) South 42 47' 10" West, a distance of 161.01 feet to an
angle point of the tract herein described.
(J) South 42 47' 10" West, a distance of 144.66 feet to a
point for the beginning of a tangent curve to the right.
(K) Westerly, along said tangent curve to the right having
a radius of 310.00 feet, a central angle of 59 50' 28", a
chord of South 72 42' 24" West - 309.26 feet, and an arc
length of 323.77 feet to an angle point of the tract herein
described.
(L) North 77 22' 21" West, a distance of 591.41 feet to
the intersection of said parallel line with the edge of fill
adjacent to the easterly edge of the Texas City Turning Basin
for the southwesterly corner of the tract herein described,
from which a found U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Brass Cap
stamped ``SWAN 2'' set in the top of a concrete column set
flush in the ground along the north bank of Swan Lake bears
South 20 51' 58" West, a distance of 4,862.67 feet.
(4) Thence, over and across said City of Texas City Survey
and along the edge of fill adjacent to the easterly edge of
said Texas City Turning Basin, the following eighteen (18)
courses and distances:
(A) North 01 34' 19" East, a distance of 57.40 feet to an
angle point of the tract herein described.
(B) North 05 02' 13" West, a distance of 161.85 feet to an
angle point of the tract herein described.
(C) North 06 01' 56" East, a distance of 297.75 feet to an
angle point of the tract herein described.
(D) North 06 18' 07" West, a distance of 71.33 feet to an
angle point of the tract herein described.
(E) North 07 21' 09" West, a distance of 122.45 feet to an
angle point of the tract herein described.
(F) North 26 41' 15" West, a distance of 46.02 feet to an
angle point of the tract herein described.
(G) North 01 31' 59" West, a distance of 219.78 feet to an
angle point of the tract herein described.
(H) North 15 54' 07" West, a distance of 104.89 feet to an
angle point of the tract herein described.
(I) North 04 00' 34" East, a distance of 72.94 feet to an
angle point of the tract herein described.
(J) North 06 46' 38" West, a distance of 78.89 feet to an
angle point of the tract herein described.
(K) North 12 07' 59" West, a distance of 182.79 feet to an
angle point of the tract herein described.
(L) North 20 50' 47" West, a distance of 105.74 feet to an
angle point of the tract herein described.
(M) North 02 02' 04" West, a distance of 184.50 feet to an
angle point of the tract herein described.
(N) North 08 07' 11" East, a distance of 102.23 feet to an
angle point of the tract herein described.
(O) North 08 16' 00" West, a distance of 213.45 feet to an
angle point of the tract herein described.
(P) North 03 15' 16" West, a distance of 336.45 feet to a
point for the beginning of a non-tangent curve to the left.
(Q) Northerly along said non-tangent curve to the left
having a radius of 896.08 feet, a central angle of 14 00'
05", a chord of North 09 36' 03" West - 218.43 feet, and an
arc length of 218.97 feet to a point for the beginning of a
non-tangent curve to the right.
(R) Northerly along said non-tangent curve to the right
having a radius of 483.33 feet, a central angle of 19 13'
34", a chord of North 13 52' 03" East - 161.43 feet, and an
arc length of 162.18 feet to a point for the northwesterly
corner of the tract herein described.
(5) Thence, continuing over and across said City of Texas
City Survey, and along the edge of fill along said Galveston
Bay, the following fifteen (15) courses and distances:
(A) North 30 45' 02" East, a distance of 189.03 feet to an
angle point of the tract herein described.
(B) North 34 20' 49" East, a distance of 174.16 feet to a
point for the beginning of a non-tangent curve to the right.
(C) Northeasterly along said non-tangent curve to the right
having a radius of 202.01 feet, a central angle of 25 53'
37", a chord of North 33 14' 58" East - 90.52 feet, and an
arc length of 91.29 feet to a point for the beginning of a
non-tangent curve to the left.
(D) Northeasterly along said non-tangent curve to the left
having a radius of 463.30 feet, a central angle of 23 23'
57", a chord of North 48 02' 53" East - 187.90 feet, and an
arc length of 189.21 feet to a point for the beginning of a
non-tangent curve to the right.
(E) Northeasterly along said non-tangent curve to the right
having a radius of 768.99 feet, a central angle of 16 24'
19", a chord of North 43 01' 40" East - 219.43 feet, and an
arc length of 220.18 feet to an angle point of the tract
herein described.
(F) North 38 56' 50" East, a distance of 126.41 feet to an
angle point of the tract herein described.
(G) North 42 59' 50" East, a distance of 128.28 feet to a
point for the beginning of a non-tangent curve to the right.
(H) Northerly along said non-tangent curve to the right
having a radius of 151.96 feet, a central angle of 68 36'
31", a chord of North 57 59' 42" East - 171.29 feet, and an
arc length of 181.96 feet to a point for the most northerly
corner of the tract herein described.
(I) South 77 14' 49" East, a distance of 131.60 feet to an
angle point of the tract herein described.
(J) South 84 44' 18" East, a distance of 86.58 feet to an
angle point of the tract herein described.
(K) South 58 14' 45" East, a distance of 69.62 feet to an
angle point of the tract herein described.
(L) South 49 44' 51" East, a distance of 149.00 feet to an
angle point of the tract herein described.
(M) South 44 47' 21" East, a distance of 353.77 feet to a
point for the beginning of a non-tangent curve to the left.
(N) Easterly along said non-tangent curve to the left
having a radius of 253.99 feet, a central angle of 98 53'
23", a chord of South 83 28' 51" East - 385.96 feet, and an
arc length of 438.38 feet to an angle point of the tract
herein described.
(O) South 75 49' 13" East, a distance of 321.52 feet to
the point of beginning and containing 393.53 acres
(17,142,111 square feet) of land.
TITLE IV--WATER RESOURCES INFRASTRUCTURE
SEC. 401. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
The following projects for water resources development and
conservation and other purposes, as identified in the reports
titled ``Report to Congress on Future Water Resources
Development'' submitted to Congress on January 29, 2015, and
January 29, 2016, respectively, pursuant to section 7001 of
the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (33
U.S.C. 2282d) or otherwise reviewed by Congress, are
authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially
in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions,
described in the respective reports designated in this
section:
(1) Navigation.--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Date of
A. Report of
State B. Name Chief of D. Estimated Costs
Engineers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TX Brazos Island Nov. 3, 2014 Federal: $116,116,000
Harbor Non-Federal: $88,471,000
Total: $204,587,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page H5980]]
2. LA Calcasieu Lock Dec. 2, 2014 Total: $16,700,000 (to be
derived \1/2\ from the
general fund of the
Treasury and \1/2\ from
the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. NH, Portsmouth Harbor Feb. 8, 2015 Federal: $15,580,000
ME and Piscataqua Non-Federal: $5,190,000
River Total: $20,770,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. FL Port Everglades Jun. 25, 2015 Federal: $220,200,000
Non-Federal: $102,500,000
Total: $322,700,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. AK Little Diomede Aug. 10, 2015 Federal: $26,015,000
Harbor Non-Federal: $2,945,000
Total: $28,960,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. SC Charleston Harbor Sep. 8, 2015 Federal: $224,300,000
Non-Federal: $269,000,000
Total: $493,300,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. AK Craig Harbor March 16, Federal: $29,062,000
2016 Non-Federal: $3,255,000
Total: $32,317,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Flood risk management.--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Date of
A. Report of
State B. Name Chief of D. Estimated Costs
Engineers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TX Leon Creek Jun. 30, 2014 Federal: $18,314,000
Watershed Non-Federal: $9,861,000
Total: $28,175,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. MO, Armourdale and Jan. 27, 2015 Federal: $207,036,000
KS Central Non-Federal: $111,481,000
Industrial Total: $318,517,000
District Levee
Units, Missouri
River and
Tributaries at
Kansas Citys
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. KS City of Manhattan Apr. 30, 2015 Federal: $15,440,100
Non-Federal: $8,313,900
Total: $23,754,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. TN Mill Creek Oct. 16, 2015 Federal: $17,759,000
Non-Federal: $10,745,000
Total: $28,504,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. KS Upper Turkey Creek Dec. 22, Federal: $24,584,000
Basin 2015 Non-Federal: $13,238,000
Total: $37,822,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. NC Princeville Feb. 23, 2016 Federal: $14,001,000
Non-Federal: $7,539,000
Total: $21,540,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. CA American River Apr. 26, 2016 Federal: $876,478,000
Common Features Non-Federal: $689,272,000
Total: $1,565,750,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. CA West Sacramento Apr. 26, 2016 Federal: $776,517,000
Non-Federal: $414,011,000
Total: $1,190,528,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Hurricane and storm damage risk reduction.--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Date of
A. Report of D. Estimated Initial
State B. Name Chief of Costs and Estimated
Engineers Renourishment Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. SC Colleton County Sep. 5, 2014 Initial Federal:
$13,733,850
Initial Non-Federal:
$7,395,150
Initial Total: $21,129,000
Renourishment Federal:
$16,371,000
Renourishment Non-Federal:
$16,371,000
Renourishment Total:
$32,742,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page H5981]]
2. FL Flagler County Dec. 23, 2014 Initial Federal: $9,218,300
Initial Non-Federal:
$4,963,700
Initial Total: $14,182,000
Renourishment Federal:
$15,390,000
Renourishment Non-Federal:
$15,390,000
Renourishment Total:
$30,780,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. NC Carteret County Dec. 23, Initial Federal:
2014 $24,263,000
Initial Non-Federal:
$13,064,000
Initial Total: $37,327,000
Renourishment Federal:
$114,728,000
Renourishment Non-Federal:
$114,728,000
Renourishment Total:
$229,456,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. NJ Hereford Inlet to Jan. 23, 2015 Initial Federal:
Cape May Inlet, $14,040,000
Cape May County Initial Non-Federal:
$7,560,000
Initial Total: $21,600,000
Renourishment Federal:
$41,215,000
Renourishment Non-Federal:
$41,215,000
Renourishment Total:
$82,430,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. LA West Shore Lake Jun. 12, 2015 Federal: $466,760,000
Pontchartrain Non-Federal: $251,330,000
Total: $718,090,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. CA San Diego County Apr. 26, 2016 Initial Federal:
$20,166,000
Initial Non-Federal:
$10,858,000
Initial Total: $31,024,000
Renourishment Federal:
$68,215,000
Renourishment Non-Federal:
$68,215,000
Renourishment Total:
$136,430,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Ecosystem restoration.--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Date of
A. Report of
State B. Name Chief of D. Estimated Costs
Engineers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. FL Central Everglades Dec. 23, 2014 Federal: $976,375,000
Non-Federal: $974,625,000
Total: $1,951,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. WA Skokomish River Dec. 14, 2015 Federal: $12,782,000
Non-Federal: $6,882,000
Total: $19,664,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) Flood risk management and ecosystem restoration.--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Date of
A. Report of
State B. Name Chief of D. Estimated Costs
Engineers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. IL, Upper Des Plaines Jun. 8, 2015 Federal: $199,393,000
WI River and Non-Federal: $107,694,000
Tributaries Total: $307,087,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(6) Flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, and
recreation.--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Date of
A. Report of
State B. Name Chief of D. Estimated Costs
Engineers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CA South San Dec. 18, 2015 Federal: $69,521,000
Francisco Bay Non-Federal: $104,379,000
Shoreline Total: $173,900,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(7) Ecosystem restoration and recreation.--
[[Page H5982]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Date of
A. Report of
State B. Name Chief of D. Estimated Costs
Engineers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. OR Willamette River Dec. 14, 2015 Federal: $19,143,000
Non-Federal: $10,631,000
Total: $29,774,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. CA Los Angeles River Dec. 18, 2015 Federal: $375,773,000
Non-Federal: $980,835,000
Total: $1,356,608,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(8) Deauthorizations, modifications, and other projects.--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Date of
A. B. Name Decision D. Estimated Costs
State Document
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TX Upper Trinity May 21, 2008 Federal: $526,500,000
River Non-Federal: $283,500,000
Total: $810,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. KY Green River Locks Apr. 30, 2015 Federal: $0
and Dams 3, 4, 5, Non-Federal: $0
6 and Barren Total: $0
River Lock and
Dam 1 Disposition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. KS Turkey Creek Basin May 13, 2016 Federal: $97,067,750
Non-Federal: $55,465,250
Total: $152,533,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. KY Ohio River May 13, 2016 Federal: $20,309,900
Shoreline Non-Federal: $10,936,100
Total: $31,246,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. MO Blue River Basin May 13, 2016 Federal: $34,860,000
Non-Federal: $11,620,000
Total: $46,480,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 114-
790. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered
read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Shuster
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
House Report 114-790.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 7, strike lines 1 through 8.
Page 11, line 14, strike ``and'' at the end.
Page 11, line 16, strike the period at the end and insert
``; and''.
Page 11, after line 16, insert the following:
(7) reducing the costs of dredging and dredged material
placement or disposal, such as projects that use dredged
material for--
(A) construction or fill material;
(B) civic improvement objectives; and
(C) other innovative uses and placement alternatives that
produce public economic or environmental benefits.
Page 69, after line 17, insert the following:
SEC. __. COST SHARE REQUIREMENT.
The Secretary shall carry out the project for ecosystem
restoration and recreation, Los Angeles River, California, as
authorized by this Act, substantially in accordance with the
terms and conditions described in the Report of the Chief of
Engineers, dated December 18, 2015, including,
notwithstanding section 2008(c) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1074), the recommended
cost sharing.
SEC. __. PUBLIC ACCESS.
(a) Recreational Access Permitted.--The Board of Directors
of the Tennessee Valley Authority may approve and allow the
construction and use of a floating cabin on waters under the
jurisdiction of the Tennessee Valley Authority if--
(1) the floating cabin is maintained by the owner to
reasonable health, safety, and environmental standards, as
required by the Board of Directors; and
(2) the Tennessee Valley Authority has authorized the use
of recreational vessels on such waters.
(b) Fees.--The Board of Directors may levy fees on the
owner of a floating cabin on waters under the jurisdiction of
the Tennessee Valley Authority for purposes of ensuring
compliance with subsection (a), so long as such fees are
necessary and reasonable for such purposes.
(c) Continued Recreational Use.--With respect to a floating
cabin located on waters under the jurisdiction of the
Tennessee Valley Authority on the date of enactment of this
Act, the Board of Directors--
(1) may not require the removal of such floating cabin--
(A) in the case of a floating cabin that was granted a
permit by the Tennessee Valley Authority before the date of
enactment of this Act, for a period of 15 years beginning on
such date; and
(B) in the case of a floating cabin not granted a permit by
the Tennessee Valley Authority before the date of enactment
of this Act, for a period of 5 years beginning on such date;
and
(2) shall approve and allow the use of the floating cabin
on waters under the jurisdiction of the Tennessee Valley
Authority at such time, and for such duration, as the
floating cabin meets the requirements of subsection (a) and
the owner of such cabin has paid any fee levied pursuant to
subsection (b).
(d) New Construction.--The Tennessee Valley Authority may
establish regulations to prevent the construction of new
floating cabins.
(e) Floating Cabin Defined.--In this section, the term
``floating cabin'' means every description of watercraft or
other floating structure primarily designed and used for
human habitation or occupation and not primarily designed or
used for navigation or transportation on water.
(f) Savings Provision.--Nothing in this section restricts
the ability of the Tennessee Valley Authority to enforce
reasonable health, safety, or environmental standards.
SEC. __. TRIBAL DISPLACEMENT.
(a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a study related to any remaining Federal
obligations to Indian people displaced by the construction of
the Bonneville Dam, the Dalles Dam, or the John Day Dam on
the Columbia River in Oregon and Washington.
(b) Factors.--The study shall include--
(1) a determination as to the number and location of Indian
people displaced by the construction of the Bonneville Dam,
the Dalles Dam, or the John Day Dam;
(2) a determination of the amounts and types of assistance
provided by the Federal Government to Indian people displaced
by the construction of such dams to the present; and
(3) a determination of whether and how much assistance is
necessary to meet any remaining Federal obligations to
compensate Indian people displaced by the construction of
such dams.
[[Page H5983]]
(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit
to Congress a report on the results of the study.
SEC. __. DROUGHT EMERGENCIES.
(a) Authorized Activities.--With respect to a State in
which a drought emergency is in effect on the date of
enactment of this Act, or was in effect at any time during
the 1-year period ending on such date of enactment, and upon
the request of the Governor of the State, the Secretary is
authorized to--
(1) prioritize the updating of the water control manuals
for control structures under the jurisdiction of the
Secretary that are located in the State; and
(2) incorporate into the update seasonal operations for
water conservation and water supply for such control
structures.
(b) Coordination.--The Secretary shall carry out the update
under subsection (a) in coordination with all appropriate
Federal agencies, elected officials, and members of the
public.
SEC. __. GAO STUDY.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives an analysis of the President's budget
requests for the Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program for
each of fiscal years 2008 through 2017.
(b) Considerations.--The analysis to be submitted under
subsection (a) shall evaluate--
(1) the extent to which there is geographic diversity among
the projects included in such budget requests; and
(2) whether the methodologies used by the Corps of
Engineers to calculate benefit-cost ratios for projects
impact the geographic diversity of projects included in such
budget requests.
Page 75, strike lines 9 and 10.
Page 75, strike lines 14 and 15 and insert the following:
(1) Project for flood damage reduction and environmental
restoration, Hamilton City, California.
Page 75, line 23, strike ``$5,000,000,000'' and insert
``$10,000,000,000''.
Page 78, line 17, strike ``$5,000,000,000'' and insert
``$10,000,000,000''.
Page 92, after line 25, insert the following:
(c) Inventory.--In carrying out the update under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall include an inventory of those lands
that are not necessary to carry out the authorized purposes
of the project.
Page 93, lines 14 and 15, strike ``September 30, 2016,
$31,233,401'' and insert ``December 31, 2016,
$31,344,841.65''.
Page 106, strike line 6 and all that follows before line 7
and insert the following:
(1) Navigation.--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Date of
Report of
A. State B. Name Chief of D. Estimated Costs
Engineers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TX Brazos Island Nov. 3, 2014 Federal: $116,116,000
Harbor Non-Federal: $88,471,000
Total: $204,587,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. LA Calcasieu Lock Dec. 2, 2014 Total: $16,700,000 (to be
derived \1/2\ from the
general fund of the
Treasury and \1/2\ from
the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. NH, Portsmouth Harbor Feb. 8, 2015 Federal: $15,580,000
ME and Piscataqua Non-Federal: $5,190,000
River Total: $20,770,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. FL Port Everglades Jun. 25, 2015 Federal: $220,200,000
Non-Federal: $102,500,000
Total: $322,700,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. AK Little Diomede Aug. 10, 2015 Federal: $26,015,000
Harbor Non-Federal: $2,945,000
Total: $28,960,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. SC Charleston Harbor Sep. 8, 2015 Federal: $224,300,000
Non-Federal: $269,000,000
Total: $493,300,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. AK Craig Harbor Mar. 16, 2016 Federal: $29,062,000
Non-Federal: $3,255,000
Total: $32,317,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. PA Upper Ohio Sep. 12, 2016 Federal: $1,324,235,500
Non-Federal: $1,324,235,500
Total: $2,648,471,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 109, strike line 1 and all that follows before line 2
and insert the following:
(4) Ecosystem restoration.--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Date of
Report of
A. State B. Name Chief of D. Estimated Costs
Engineers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. FL Central Everglades Dec. 23, 2014 Federal: $976,375,000
Non-Federal: $974,625,000
Total: $1,951,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. WA Skokomish River Dec. 14, 2015 Federal: $12,782,000
Non-Federal: $6,882,000
Total: $19,664,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. WA Puget Sound Sep. 16, 2016 Federal: $293,558,000
Non-Federal: $158,069,000
Total: $451,627,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 110, before line 3, insert the following:
(8) Hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and ecosystem
restoration.--
[[Page H5984]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Date of
Report of
A. State B. Name Chief of D. Estimated Costs
Engineers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. LA Southwest Coastal Jul. 29, 2016 Federal: $2,011,280,000
Louisiana Non-Federal: $1,082,997,000
Total: $3,094,277,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 110, strike line 3 and all that follows through the
end of the table following line 4 and insert the following:
(9) Deauthorizations, modifications, and other projects.--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Date of
A. State B. Name Decision D. Estimated Costs
Document
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TX Upper Trinity May 21, 2008 Federal: $526,500,000
River Non-Federal: $283,500,000
Total: $810,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. KY Green River Locks Apr. 30, 2015 Federal: $0
and Dams 3, 4, 5, Non-Federal: $0
6 and Barren Total: $0
River Lock and
Dam 1 Disposition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. KS, Turkey Creek Basin May 13, 2016 Federal: $97,067,750
MO Non-Federal: $55,465,250
Total: $152,533,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. KY Ohio River May 13, 2016 Federal: $20,309,900
Shoreline Non-Federal: $10,936,100
Total: $31,246,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. MO Blue River Basin May 13, 2016 Federal: $34,860,000
Non-Federal: $11,620,000
Total: $46,480,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. FL Picayune Strand Jul. 15, 2016 Federal: $308,983,500
Non-Federal: $308,983,500
Total: $617,967,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. MO Swope Park Jul. 15, 2016 Federal: $20,205,250
Industrial Area, Non-Federal: $10,879,750
Blue River Total: $31,085,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The manager's amendment that I am offering makes technical and
conforming changes to the Rules Committee print. Specifically, this
amendment includes a provision to ensure homeowners can assess their
property on TVA lakes.
This amendment includes a provision that ensures the appropriate cost
share is carried out for the Los Angeles River chief's report we are
authorizing in this bill specifically at the request of my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle.
It also has a provision to have the Government Accountability Office
carry out a study to determine what Federal obligations are required
for tribal property affected by the construction of several dams on the
Columbia River in Washington and Oregon.
It requires and expedites revisions to water control manuals in
States in which drought has occurred in the last year.
Lastly, this amendment contains three chief's reports and two post-
authorization change reports that have been delivered to Congress since
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure marked up the bill
in May 2016.
I urge all Members to support my amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. Lawrence
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
House Report 114-790.
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 29, line 7, strike ``, or that'' and insert ``or gross
negligence, or that''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
My amendment would insert gross negligence as a reason for the
Secretary of the Army to accept and implement non-Federal funding to
repair, restore, or replace faulty equipment.
According to the Cornell Law Dictionary, ``gross negligence'' is
defined as a lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the
safety or lives of others.
I believe what happened in Flint, Michigan, is a good example of
another reason that projects could require additional funding--gross
negligence, gross negligence by individuals entrusted by the public to
maintain and uphold the proper functioning of water programs.
Mr. Chairman, the tragedy that happened in my home State of Michigan,
in Flint, where thousands of innocent citizens were poisoned by the
negligence of the people they trusted to supply them with clean water
shows the importance of this amendment.
Our primary responsibility as Members of Congress is to advocate for
the best interest of our constituents. How can we say we are doing that
when an entire city is suffering from the negligence of public figures
who made bad decisions?
Residents and individuals affected by an emergency should not be
penalized for negligent actions taken by those expected to do what is
best for them. Moving forward, the careless actions of a few
individuals should never result in
[[Page H5985]]
the public being endangered as a result of the Federal Government being
unable to assist.
This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of the Army could
quickly and efficiently use resources provided by non-Federal entities
to assist in the maintenance of a defective project. This amendment
would ensure just that. Gross negligence should never prevent citizens
from receiving the funding necessary during their time of need.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
The CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Babin
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
House Report 114-790.
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title I, add the following:
SEC. __. WORK DEFINED.
Section 14 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1152,
chapter 425; 33 U.S.C. 408), is amended--
(1) by striking ``It shall not be lawful'' and inserting
the following:
``(a) In General.--It shall not be lawful''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Work Defined.--
``(1) In general.--In this section, the term `work' means
engineered structures that serve a particular function.
``(2) Inclusions.--In this section, the term `work'
includes only structures of like kind with those identified
in subsection (a).
``(3) Exclusions.--In this section, the term `work' does
not include--
``(A) the river channel as such, whether or not dredging is
necessary to maintain navigational depths;
``(B) unimproved real estate; or
``(C) a particular feature or structure merely because the
feature or structure is present within a Federal project.''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Babin) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment to direct the
Corps of Engineers to focus on the tasks that it can do, and should do,
when it comes to section 408 reviews.
The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, enacted in the final days of the
55th Congress, first established the process we know today as a section
408 review, which I have here in my hand. The provision was intended to
protect engineered structures built by the Corps that serve particular
functions, such as seawalls, dikes, levees, and piers, by requiring the
Corps of Engineers to authorize any requests for substantial work on
these and similar assets.
Over time, however, the Corps has expanded its regulatory authority
far beyond the scope of that statute. Specifically, the Corps now
requires a review of any proposal for a physical modification or
structure that touches a Corps project, even if it has no bearing at
all on navigation or flood control. This has resulted in an overlay of
additional administrative procedures, delays, and unnecessary costs.
In my district, at the Port of Houston, the Corps of Engineers is
currently requiring users to go through the section 408 process, in
addition to regulatory and real estate protocols, for access to dredge
material placement sites. In plain English, this means that, for a
small business to fill up a dump truck full of muck excavated from the
bottom of a ship channel and carry it off somewhere else, they have to
fully comply with the same section 408 review that would affect the 10-
mile-long Galveston Seawall.
These projects, which have no direct impact on the Corps' structures,
are undertaken by private users, including many small businesses from
the area who are investing in their facilities, expanding commerce and
exports, and providing jobs and economic benefits to our State and the
Nation.
The additional time and cost as a result of an unnecessary 408
process, which is borne entirely by private entities or non-Federal
partners, delays and increases the cost of these critical projects.
My amendment reinforces the original intent of the Rivers and Harbors
Act by focusing the Corps on actual navigation and flood control
assets, allowing them to devote their full attention and resources to
important safety evaluations and the expedited review and execution of
project modification requests.
Mr. Chairman, since 1775, the Army Corps of Engineers has performed
critical work, ensuring the safety and reliability of America's ports
and harbors. My amendment supports their mission and the good work they
do by focusing their resources and attention where it belongs.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, section 408 authorizes the Secretary of
the Army to grant permission for the alteration of the Corps project if
the Secretary determines that the proposed alteration would not harm
the public interest or impair the usefulness of the project.
I think it is good that we know that proposed modifications do not
impair the usefulness of the project or harm the public interest.
{time} 1800
Now, I share some of the concerns the gentleman has raised. The Corps
is woefully slow in going through these approvals. I have one pending
in my own district; and, basically, they say there is not enough money
in our budget, which was discussed rather exhaustively at the beginning
here.
We could help the Corps out if we had a real harbor maintenance trust
fund and if we were using the taxpayers' dollars for the purposes for
which they were intended, which would take the pressure off of all
parts of the Corps' budget. The Corps does have authority to accept--
and I would hope the Corps would be listening to this--local
contributions to speed up, with contractors or others or over time with
their own employees, 408 projects. They have been loath to use that
authority. They should use it.
I am not certain of the implications of this amendment as to whether
it truly does protect the integrity of some of these critical projects,
so that causes me concern. I think that this is worthy of attention,
but in its current form, I am not quite certain of the impact.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Shuster).
Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a good amendment. I support it. This
amendment sets guidelines for the scope of work under the section 408
process, which has been misinterpreted by the Corps of Engineers. It
takes years for this to be approved.
Mr. DeFazio just stood up and said he hopes the Corps is listening. I
hope it is listening, too, but too many times they just don't listen to
us. They don't take the direction that the Congress puts in front of
them. They stonewall and drag their feet. Mr. Babin's amendment
clarifies this, and I believe it is a good government reform amendment.
I thank the gentleman for offering it, and I urge all Members to
support it.
Mr. BABIN. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Carter of Georgia). The gentleman from Texas
has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to say, for a private business entity
to get muck off the bottom of a slip or a channel's having to go
through this, this is what this is all about.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I urge the passage of my amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Babin
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 114-790.
[[Page H5986]]
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title I, add the following:
SEC. __. AUTHORIZATION OF FEDERALLY MAINTAINED TRIBUTARY
CHANNELS AS PART OF CHANNEL SYSTEM.
A project that has been assumed for maintenance by the
Secretary under any authority granted by Congress shall--
(1) be treated as a project authorized by Congress; and
(2) be planned, operated, managed, or modified in a manner
consistent with authorized projects.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Babin) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, one of the great honors I have here in
Congress is to represent four great ports--Orange, Beaumont, Cedar
Bayou, and the biggest port in Texas and one of the largest in the
world: the Port of Houston.
When America's astronauts who serve in space look out of their
windows down at Houston, it is probably hard for them to make out their
home away from home at Johnson Space Center; but what they can't miss
is the scale and the strategic importance of the Port of Houston, which
is right down the road from Johnson Space Center.
The Greater Houston area is the energy production and chemical
manufacturing capital of the world, and the Port of Houston's ability
to ship those goods is directly responsible for billions of dollars in
economic activity and for hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs in
our State and across the country; but like the city of Houston itself,
not all of the port's important channels, tributaries, and other
navigation assets that fall under the purview of the Corps of Engineers
are within the footprint of what was originally authorized by Congress.
Instead, many of these channels have been assumed for maintenance by
the Corps of Engineers over the years. Each one has met the
requirements of being environmentally acceptable, economically
justified, and constructed in accordance with Federal permits and
appropriate engineering and design standards.
This, in itself, is not a bad thing. In many cases, the construction
or modification of the channels by non-Federal users has reduced the
overall Federal cost and has provided for national economic benefits
well before a Federal project could be accomplished. The downside is
that channels which have been assumed for maintenance are not
considered authorized projects. Therefore, while those channels are
just as important as a federally constructed project, a channel which
has been assumed for maintenance is treated quite differently from an
authorized project right next to it, which can disrupt the upkeep and
the operations of both.
At this point, I will read from a letter that was sent to my office
by the Port of Houston that describes how this issue came to its
attention and why the passage of this amendment is so essential not
only for our region, but for every port in this country.
``The Corps had long identified a navigation safety problem at the
intersection of the Houston Ship Channel (HSC) and Bayport channel (the
`Bayport Flare') caused by its design and construction of the HSC, and
promised to properly correct the safety deficiency. However, the Corps
discovered that while it could construct the part of the corrective
work which lay within the boundaries of the Houston Ship Channel, it
could not construct the second part of the solution within the Bayport
ship channel because the Bayport channel was not considered
`authorized' by Congress, but only assumed for maintenance after
construction. . . . The Corps agreed that the Bayport assumption of
maintenance was conducted in accordance with laws providing authority
to the Secretary of the Army to accept qualifying work, and that PHA
met all design, environmental, and economic requirements of a channel
as if it were designed and constructed by the Corps. The Bayport Flare
deficiency exposed a serious shortcoming, whereby the federal
government was unable to make a necessary navigation safety correction
resulting from a deficient federal design because it could only fix
what it has physically constructed--and not within channels it had
managed and operated for decades.''
I include in the Record the full content of this letter.
Port of Houston Authority,
Houston, Texas, September 23, 2016.
ATTN: Ben Couhig,
Subject: Recommended Provision in WRDA 2016
Congressman Brian Babin,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Couhig: As Congress prepares to address the
nation's water resources requirements this year, the Port of
Houston Authority informed Congressman Babin of the inability
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to consistently and
adequately work to construct and manage federal navigation
channels, in part because authorities to do so and supporting
policies are limited. As a result, the Port Authority offered
the following recommendation:
Authorization of Federally Maintained Tributary Channels as Part of a
Channel System
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
``Projects which have been assumed for maintenance by the
Secretary of the Army under any authority granted by Congress
shall be considered projects authorized by Congress, and
shall be planned, operated, managed, or modified in a manner
consistent with authorized projects.''
The need for this language became very clear to the Port
Authority as we constructed modification of the Bayport Ship
Channel. The Corps had long identified a navigation safety
problem at the intersection of the Houston Ship channel (HSC)
and Bayport channel (the ``Bayport Flare'') caused by its
design and construction of the HSC, and promised to properly
correct the safety deficiency. However, the Corps discovered
that while it could construct the part of the corrective work
which lay within the boundaries of the Houston Ship Channel,
it could not construct the second part of the solution within
the Bayport ship channel because the Bayport channel was not
considered ``authorized'' by Congress, but only assumed for
maintenance after construction by PHA. The Corps agreed that
the Bayport assumption of maintenance was conducted in
accordance with laws providing authority to the Secretary of
the Army to accept qualifying work, and that PHA met all
design, environmental, and economic requirements of a channel
as if it were designed and constructed by the Corps. The
Bayport Flare deficiency exposed a serious shortcoming,
whereby the federal government was unable to make a necessary
navigation safety correction resulting from a deficient
federal design because it could only fix what it has
physically constructed--and not within channels it had
managed and operated for decades.
The Houston Ship Channel system includes four tributary
channels: Bayport, Barbours Cut, Jacintoport, and Greens
Bayou, all of which were constructed by or operated by the
Port Authority prior to federal assumption of maintenance.
Should a navigation safety problem occur on any of these
channels for any reason, the federal government would be
unable to restore safe navigation without Congressional
action--which might not be possible under current rules.
In summary, the Corps of Engineers needs the authority to
provide for safe navigation for all of its channels; this
recommended provision provides for that authority.
Sincerely,
Mark Vincent.
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment provides a solution by putting
channels which have been assumed for maintenance on equal footing with
those that have been authorized, thus eliminating the distinction
without a difference that currently exists to streamline the process
and prevent these unnecessary, bureaucratic hang-ups from delaying
critical safety and navigation work where it is needed the most.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, there are 1,100 harbors that this would
apply to across the United States. We have already discussed at great
length the fact that the Corps has a $2.4 billion backlog of O&M under
existing authority and, after today, a $74 billion backlog of
authorized but unconstructed projects.
I understand the gentleman's concerns, and he is being a great
advocate for his home port; but I would direct a question to the
gentleman if, perhaps, he can answer it: With 1,100 ports in America,
how many other ports are in
[[Page H5987]]
a similar situation? And what would the cost be to the Corps, which
already has a $2.5 billion backlog in O&M?
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I can't answer that specifically, but I do
know that, even when there is funding available, they are still unable
to solve a problem that could be a serious safety deficiency.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand the
gentleman's concern. If I could, I would direct another question to the
gentleman.
Earlier the gentleman might have heard discussion about our
collecting an ad valorem tax on the value of imported goods, which is
about $1.6 billion a year; yet we are only spending somewhere between
$1 billion and $1.1 billion a year. There is a theoretical balance in
the nonexistent harbor maintenance trust fund of $9.8 billion, which
would go a long way to resolving lots of these problems across the
country.
Does the gentleman support the idea of creating a real trust fund and
actually spending the taxes that are collected for harbor maintenance
on harbor maintenance and not having them be frittered away somewhere
else in the government?
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, absolutely. In the right way, I certainly
would support that.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Shuster).
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment that allows channels assumed
for maintenance to be considered equally as authorized projects. Of
course, we are dealing specifically with the Port of Houston on this;
so I would encourage all Members from the Houston area on both sides of
the aisle to support this amendment, which will improve the bill.
Supporting this amendment is important.
Also, to those Members from the Houston area on both sides of the
aisle, this is something that is going to be good for their port, and
the underlying bill is going to be good for their port in the long run.
I think it is a fairness amendment, and I thank the gentleman for
offering it. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. BABIN. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mrs. Black
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in House Report 114-790.
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title I, add the following:
SEC. __. DAM SAFETY REPAIR PROJECTS.
The Secretary shall issue guidance--
(1) on the types of circumstances under which the
requirement in section 1203(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 467n(a)) relating to
state-of-the-art design or construction criteria deemed
necessary for safety purposes applies to a dam safety repair
project;
(2) to assist district offices of the Corps of Engineers in
communicating with non-Federal interests when entering into
and implementing cost-sharing agreements for dam safety
repair projects; and
(3) to assist the Corps of Engineers in communicating with
non-Federal interests concerning the estimated and final
cost-share responsibilities of the non-Federal interests
under agreements for dam safety repair projects.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentlewoman
from Tennessee (Mrs. Black) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that will
improve cost sharing for dam safety repairs and will promote
transparency at the Army Corps of Engineers. To start, let me tell you
about how this issue has impacted my district.
Recently, the Corps of Engineers executed a dam repair project in
Tennessee's Center Hill Lake. That is all well and good, as we like to
keep our dams and our waterways up to code; but the problems came when
the Corps failed to communicate to localities in my district as to how
the dam repair project would be classified and, therefore, what their
financial responsibilities would be.
Federal statute says that the Army Corps of Engineers can designate
dam projects as being in one of two categories: ``safety assurance'' or
``major rehabilitation.'' If the project is classified as a safety
assurance, the costs to the utility providers, townships, and other
stakeholders may be minimal; but if the project is classified as a
major rehabilitation, you could have a scenario like what occurred in
my district, in which the town of Cookeville, Tennessee, is now on the
hook for a $1.5 million repair bill that they had not budgeted for
because they had never been told to do so.
You know how this story ends, Mr. Chairman. The city has to pass
along those costs to someone. So my constituents in Cookeville could be
paying higher water bills for the foreseeable future all because the
Corps of Engineers wouldn't be up front with them about what they would
owe.
This story is not unique. A December 2015 GAO report studied nine
different dam projects nationwide and found that, across the board, the
Corps did very little to communicate to local communities what their
cost-sharing responsibilities would be. The report further found that,
in some instances, the Corps had failed to apply a provision known as
the state-of-the-art provision that reduces the sponsors' share of the
costs in these projects. That means, Mr. Chairman, that communities
like Cookeville, in my district, may have been on the hook for bills
they never would have needed to have paid if only the Corps had been
transparent and had followed the rules.
Mr. Chairman, I may not be able to get Cookeville or the other
communities that are cited in the GAO report their money back, but I
can make sure that this never happens again. That is really what my
amendment seeks to do. In short, this amendment directs the Army Corps
of Engineers' district offices to effectively communicate with the
sponsors and to implement cost-sharing agreements during dam safety
repair projects, not afterwards. It will ensure that these arrangements
are shared with all stakeholders so that in others' towns and in my
town they aren't left holding the bag.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1815
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, though I am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Maryland is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today because it does
seem that this amendment and the others that are being offered
underscore a problem that I didn't think we were going to have with the
reauthorization of the Water Resources Development Act. We have spent
quite a bit of time in our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
under the leadership of the chairman trying to come to some common
understanding and bipartisan agreement about this. Unfortunately, that
is not where we are today.
In my view, water transportation and infrastructure has always been a
bipartisan priority in the country. I agree with the comments of some
of my colleagues that moving forward with a bipartisan bill is vital to
the public health, the safety, and the economic welfare of our
communities and this Nation.
I have the distinct honor of being able to represent Maryland in
Congress. I know how important this bill is to our State since we have
such a long coastline, the Chesapeake Bay; and several of its
tributaries, including the Anacostia, the Severn River, and the
[[Page H5988]]
Potomac, all flow through the Fourth Congressional District, all
requiring support under the Water Resources Development Act. These
resources provide billions of dollars of economic activity for our
State. Maintaining and modernizing Maryland's waterways and its ports,
including the Port of Baltimore, is essential.
Unfortunately, we reported a bill out of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee in May that focused on such authorization and
on Corps compliance with the new project selection process that was
created in the 2014 law. Under that law, as well, we would have been
able to allow the Corps, beginning in 2027, to use the funds collected
in the harbor maintenance trust fund for eligible harbor dredging and
other activities, removing those expenditures from the annual
appropriations process.
Very sadly--and as we heard today here on the floor--by dropping the
trust fund language, Republicans have effectively undermined the
measure by removing a key provision that originally created bipartisan
support for the bill. This is really a sad moment, indeed, because now,
yet again, money that should be used for our harbors and our ports is
being used in a trust fund as a piggy bank for completely unrelated
spending. These kinds of spending restrictions have created a large
surplus in the trust fund, even as critical harbor dredging needs go
unmet.
I rise today in opposition to the bill, unfortunately. It is a bill I
thought I would actually be able to come to the floor and support with
the chairman's leadership.
Unfortunately, we are also not able to include in our House bill aid
for the Flint water crisis: $100 million to repair and replace the
city's drinking water infrastructure, $20 million in loan forgiveness
for prior Flint city loans taken out to build its water infrastructure,
and $50 million for various public health activities. That is what the
Senate did. It is what we could have done, and it is unfortunate that
we could not do this here today.
I hope that before we leave out of this Congress in the lameduck
session, which we anticipate later after the election, that we are
going to be able to find a resolution to these problems that indeed
cross the aisle.
Again, as I said, I am not in opposition to the gentlewoman's
amendment, but I think that it is really important for us to understand
and underscore that where we should be here is with the bipartisan bill
that we agreed to in May in our committee. It is really unfortunate
that we find ourselves once again lining up in partisan lines and not
able to support a harbor maintenance trust fund for the use of the
money for which it was intended, and that is to maintain and upgrade
our Nation's ports and harbors.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this
important amendment to the floor. It does several things. The first
thing it does is it directs the Corps of Engineers, as the gentlewoman
pointed out, to just communicate, to give direction to the folks that
are involved in these projects.
We keep spinning our wheels in these projects. We are spending more
money than we have to, and this highlights a problem that we face with
the Corps.
Again, this amendment establishes and implements cost-sharing
agreements during the dam safety repair projects. Of course, it makes
all parties involved communicate so we can get these projects moving
forward, so I think it is a good governance amendment.
I urge all Members to support this amendment.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I think it is pretty clear what this
amendment does. I do want to say that we have worked with the Corps of
Engineers, which helped us to draft this amendment. I urge a ``yes''
vote on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Blum
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in House Report 114-790.
Mr. BLUM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title I, add the following:
SEC. __. EXPEDITED COMPLETION OF AUTHORIZED PROJECT FOR FLOOD
RISK MANAGEMENT.
The Secretary shall expedite the completion of the project
for flood risk management, Cedar River, Cedar Rapids, Iowa,
authorized by item 3 of the table in section 7002(2) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-121;
128 Stat. 1366).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Blum) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. BLUM. Mr. Chairman, that I am speaking on the floor of the U.S.
House is remarkable timing. The city of Cedar Rapids, the largest city
in my district, is currently experiencing major flooding of the Cedar
River, cresting 11 feet above flood stage today.
In 2008, just 8 short years ago, the same river crested at over 19
feet above flood stage. Yes, you heard that correctly, 19 feet above
flood stage.
I was in Cedar Rapids this weekend sandbagging alongside volunteers
to prepare for this disaster and saw firsthand the amazing response
from the community as thousands of eastern Iowans came together to
protect their city. I want to thank Cedar Rapids Mayor Ron Corbett and
his team for their tireless work to prepare the city for the flooding,
as well as the administration of Governor Branstad for their
assistance.
Today's flooding further underscores the need for the administration
to include the Cedar Rapids flood project in their budget. This project
was approved by Congress in the 2014 WRRDA bill, and my amendment today
calls on the administration to expedite this project. Cedar Rapids has
spent untold millions of dollars on this disaster--money spent on a
short-term solution--while the city waits for the administration to
release the approved funding for the long-term fix.
Since taking office in 2014, I have worked hard to get the authorized
funding released, joining my colleague from Iowa, Representative
Loebsack, in reaching out to the Army Corps of Engineers, the House
Appropriations Committee, President Obama, and his Office of Management
and Budget, stressing the importance of this project.
The bottom line is: How many more Cedar Rapids floods will it take
before the administration includes this project in their budget? How
many times will families have to evacuate their homes? How many times
will businesses have to cease their operations? How many times will
employees be negatively impacted by the flooding? How many times must
this happen before the administration includes this project in their
budget?
Mr. Chairman, I thank the entire Iowa delegation for their support on
this issue. I encourage my colleagues to support this bipartisan
amendment and make it clear, once again, that Congress believes the
Cedar Rapids flood project should receive the funding that was approved
in 2014.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I
do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa for
bringing this good, bipartisan amendment to the floor. I have seen the
pictures on TV of what is happening out there in Cedar Rapids, and our
thoughts and prayers are with that community out there tonight as they
fight that challenge.
Again, this amendment, as the gentleman explained, expedites the
Cedar River project. I think this infrastructure project getting done
quicker is
[[Page H5989]]
important. I have always supported getting these things done faster
because I believe time is money. The longer these things go, the more
expensive they get. This amendment goes a long way into making sure
that this project is pushed out there faster and it gets done. So I
appreciate my colleague from Iowa for bringing this. I urge a ``yes''
vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Blum).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Bost
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in House Report 114-790.
Mr. BOST. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title I, add the following:
SEC. 1__. REVIEW OF BENEFITS.
When reviewing requests for repair or restoration of a
flood risk management project under the authority of section
5(a)(1) of the Act of August 18, 1941, (33 U.S.C.
701n(a)(1)), the Army Corps of Engineers is authorized to
consider all benefits to the public that may accrue from the
proposed rehabilitation work, including, flood risk
management, navigation, recreation, and ecosystem
restoration.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Bost) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. BOST. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Shuster for helping with the
effort on this amendment.
The purpose of my amendment is simple. I believe that the Army Corps
of Engineers should consider all potential economic benefits of
repairing levees following a flood disaster. Right now, the Corps may
only consider flood prevention when allocating rehabilitation
assistance of levees. This makes no sense.
The Corps manages inland waterways for a multitude of purposes. In
many cases, Federal and non-Federal levees work together in an
integrated system. How can we ignore the benefits of repairing a levee
when doing so would improve navigation and other Corps responsibilities
along with it?
The repair of the Len Small Levee in Alexander County, Illinois, is
just one example of our failing to see the forest for the trees. The
levee was breached in last winter's floods. Millions have been spent on
riprap to maintain navigation on the river. Even more money will be
needed to maintain navigation if further flood damage occurs. Despite
that fact, the Corps has ignored the navigation benefits and costs of
making interim repairs.
My amendment helps address this issue, but further reforms to the
Corps levee repair program must be made. I hope to work with the
chairman and ranking member to address these issues with the programs
in future legislation.
I encourage a ``yes'' vote on this piece of legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 8 will not
be offered.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Dold
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in House Report 114-790.
Mr. DOLD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title I, add the following:
SEC. 1__. FEDERAL COST LIMITATION OF ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION
COSTS FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS.
Section 506(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of
2000 is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(5) A project carried out pursuant to this subsection may
include compatible recreation features as determined by the
Secretary, except that the Federal cost of such features may
not exceed 10 percent of the ecosystem restoration costs of
the project.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Dold) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. DOLD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to
H.R. 5303.
Imagine for a moment, Mr. Chairman, spending millions of dollars on
wetlands restoration without allowing people to visit these areas.
Unfortunately, that is exactly what we are asking the Army Corps of
Engineers to do with projects that are funded by the Great Lakes
Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration program, or GLFER.
GLFER is a program for improving aquatic habitats and the Great Lakes
watershed. Through a partnership between the Army Corps of Engineers,
the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and State and local government,
funds are made available for restoring wetlands and preservation of
coastal habitat along the Great Lakes shorelines.
Individual projects require a non-Federal partner--like a State,
local government, or nonprofit--to contribute at least 35 percent of
the project costs to operate and maintain the completed project.
In my district, GLFER funds have been used to restore wetlands along
the Lake Michigan shoreline at Fort Sheridan, and nearby they have been
used to restore wetlands on Northerly Island right in the heart of
downtown Chicago.
Mr. Chairman, this is about ensuring parity. Every other wetland
restoration program within the Army Corps of Engineers is allowed to
use up to 10 percent of the funds for any project for compatible
recreation features. GLFER-funded projects are unique in that the Army
Corps is not allowed to use funds for that purpose. My amendment would
simply change that policy.
{time} 1830
Very simply, my amendment will allow the Army Corps of Engineers to
use GLFER funds, not to exceed 10 percent of the total project amount,
to build complimentary recreation features like walking trails, bike
paths, fishing stations, picnic shelters, and benches.
Mr. Chairman, I represent a district along Lake Michigan, one of the
greatest natural resources our Nation possesses. My amendment would
expand outdoor recreation opportunities and give families access to
enjoy these restored wetland areas. I urge my colleagues to support
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in House Report 114-790.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title I, add the following:
SEC. __. NON-FEDERAL INTEREST SELECTION.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, in carrying out an authorized and
funded water resources development project, the Secretary
shall solicit and accept bids from non-Federal interests. If
a non-Federal interest can demonstrate greater cost
effectiveness and project delivery efficiency than the Corps
of Engineers for such project, the Secretary shall transfer
the funds to the non-Federal interest for project completion.
(b) Savings.--Funds saved in project delivery by a non-
Federal interest under subsection (a) shall be used as
follows:
(1) 20 percent for deficit reduction.
(2) 80 percent for other projects of the Army Corps of
Engineers.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Graves) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, the ranking member was talking
earlier about this extraordinary backlog of projects that we have
within the United States Army Corps of Engineers to carry out important
projects like flood protection, hurricane protection, and ecological
restoration.
[[Page H5990]]
We do, in fact, have a backlog that goes on for years and years. In
fact, as I mentioned earlier, it takes us, in many cases, over 40 years
to take a project from development through the construction phase.
These are critical projects that, in many cases, save people's lives.
Just recently in the State of Louisiana, we had an extraordinary
flood event. Thirteen people lost their lives as a result of that
event, yet there was a project, the Comite project, that could have
tempered flooding in many of these areas. What our amendment does is it
simply allows for non-Federal sponsors to bid to carry out the
construction or other aspects of projects. It is a way to save money to
expedite delivery.
In my previous job, Mr. Chairman, I actually was the non-Federal
sponsor for billions of dollars in projects with the United States Army
Corps of Engineers. There were a number of examples where we were able
to build the entire project for the one-third, or approximately one-
third, cost-share estimate that the United States Army Corps of
Engineers estimated the project was to cost, and we were able to do it
in a fraction of the time.
What this does, it allows for the non-Federal sponsor to carry out
the project. It returns 20 percent of the cost savings back to the
United States Treasury for deficit reduction, and it takes 80 percent
of the cost savings and reinvests it back into priority Corps of
Engineers' projects.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the author, it seems
to me that if we are going to transfer responsibility for carrying out
projects from the Corps of Engineers--these would be, again, taxpayer
dollars--would these projects be covered by the provisions of Davis-
Bacon?
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. I thank the gentleman. Right now, as the
provision is written, as you know, it is silent on that issue, and so
it doesn't address the Davis-Bacon issue, as I am aware the Corps of
Engineers would be complying with.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, well then, you know, given that, I
mean, we have had myriad debates on the floor of the House and in the
committee over the years from those who come in and say: gee, we can do
it a lot cheaper if we pay minimum wage; we can do it a lot cheaper if
we bring in illegal immigrants; you know, on and on and on.
Sure, you can do things more cheaply, but the idea and the bedrock of
Davis-Bacon is we pay skilled workers a living wage that is the
prevailing wage in the local area. The committee has never passed an
amendment gutting Davis-Bacon, despite many attempts on the committee.
I feel that this would, unfortunately--the way the gentleman has just
phrased it, says it is silent on the issue--undermine Davis-Bacon, and,
therefore, I would oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I am going to go back and say
what I said before. In previous projects that I have worked with in the
United States Army Corps of Engineers, we have been able to save
Federal taxpayers tens of millions of dollars, cumulatively hundreds of
millions of dollars by carrying out the projects through the non-
Federal sponsor, allowing for county governments, parish governments,
State governments, levee districts, water boards, and others to carry
out projects.
If we are able to demonstrate greater efficiency and taxpayer cost
savings, why would we not allow for that mechanism to carry out these
projects? It expedites delivery of projects. These are critical
projects.
Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate, in the State of Louisiana, in the
flood we just had last month, we had 13 people die because of a project
that has been in the Corps of Engineers process for 30 years; 30 years,
Mr. Chairman.
I really wonder what someone who would oppose this amendment would
tell the families of those people who died as a result of the Corps'
inaction. This is absolutely inappropriate. We have a way to save
taxpayer dollars, to reduce the deficit, and to free up more resources
for high-priority Corps of Engineers projects and make our communities
and our ecosystem more resilient.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
printed in House Report 114-790.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title I, add the following:
SEC. ___. LOCAL FLOOD PROTECTION WORKS.
(1) In general.--Permission for alterations by a non-
Federal interest to a Federal levee, floodwall, or flood risk
management channel project and associated features may be
granted by a District Engineer of the Department of the Army
or an authorized representative.
(2) Timely approval of permits.--On the date that is 120
days after the date on which the Secretary receives an
application for a permit pursuant to section 14 of the Act of
March 3, 1899 (commonly known as the ``Rivers and Harbors
Appropriation Act of 1899'') (33 U.S.C. 408), the application
shall be approved if--
(A) the Secretary has not made a determination on the
approval or disapproval of the application; and
(B) the plans detailed in the application were prepared and
certified by a professional engineer licensed by the State in
which the project is located.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Graves) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is it
simply puts a cap on the amount of time that the United States Army
Corps of Engineers can consider permission under section 408. This
process has to do with alteration, any changes, or impacts that could
occur to a Corps of Engineers project.
I want to be clear, this doesn't expand the Corps of Engineers'
authority in any way. All this does is it simply puts a cap, a time
certain. Here is the reason why, Mr. Chairman. In the State of
Louisiana, we have lost 1,900 square miles of our coast, 1,900 square
miles of wetlands, some of the most ecologically productive areas on
the North American continent. We have lost that.
Part of the remedial efforts that Congress has authorized and we have
been waiting decades for the United States Corps of Engineers to act
upon are projects to reconnect the river system with the adjacent
estuary. That is how south Louisiana was built. It is a product of the
Mississippi River. It is a deltaic plain.
These projects are strongly supported by the environmental community
and others, yet the Corps of Engineers has said that it is going to
take them years to consider this impact or not on the levee system. So
we are going to sit here and wait years for more wetlands to erode, and
for more of our environment and more of our ecological productivity to
degrade. This puts a time certain. It gives 120 days for the Corps of
Engineers to make a decision on whether or not there are impacts to the
project. It allows us to move forward in a time certain.
Mr. Chairman, a quick story. When I was working on these projects for
the State, the Corps of Engineers came to us on the first one we
submitted, and
[[Page H5991]]
they said: It is going to take us approximately 3 years to come back
and give you an answer on that. Three years, Mr. Chairman, that we are
waiting to, again, carry out projects to restore the environment. But
they said: However, if you give us--and I think the number was $1.5
million, we will reduce that time to closer to 2 years.
Mr. Chairman, in the private sector, that is called a bribe. In the
United States Army Corps of Engineers, I guess it is the status quo. It
is absolutely inappropriate. We have got to have time certain. They
shouldn't be able to extort dollars out of project sponsors just to
carry out projects to restore the environment and mitigate impacts
caused by the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment. This is consistent
with things we have done in the past in terms of giving a time certain
for consideration.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12
printed in House Report 114-790.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title I, add the following:
SEC. ___. FLOOD MITIGATION AND RIVERINE RESTORATION PROGRAM.
The Secretary shall expedite carrying out the projects
listed under paragraphs (29) through (33) of section 212(e)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (33 U.S.C.
2332(e)) and is authorized to proceed to construction on such
any such project if the Chief of Engineers determines the
project is feasible.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Graves) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, beginning around August 11, we
had a 1,000-year flood event. This flood event was approximately 7
trillion gallons of water. It dropped 31 inches of rain in some of the
peak areas that is the national average annual rainfall. We received it
in about 36 hours in some of the peak areas. Again, to translate this
for my Yankee friends, if this were snow, this would have been about 25
feet of snow. So, really, just an extraordinary event.
Mr. Chairman, what has happened is that there were projects that date
back to the 1970s and the 1980s that provided for flood protection for
this region. We had 13 people who died. We have over 100,000 homes that
were flooded. Areas like the Comite Basin and the Amite Basin are
priority areas. I want to say it again. These are areas that have
projects that have been authorized by Congress previously in the 1970s,
the 1980s, and I believe even the 1990s, yet projects that have been
moving at a snail's pace. So what this amendment does is it simply
expedites the delivery of these projects.
Mr. Chairman, this is critical. Let me explain why. Right now, you
have communities like Denham Springs where FEMA just came out and
determined that 45 percent of the homes in that town are significantly
flooded with significant damage. What that means is that they are going
to have to now comply with the updated base flood elevations and, in
some cases, lift the slabs of their homes, which may be $100,000 or
more per home, per business, just to now come into compliance with the
new base flood elevations to be able to rebuild their homes.
This is on top of the perhaps $80,000 they are going to have to spend
rebuilding their home, $40,000 they are going to have to spend
replacing their vehicles, and perhaps $50,000 replacing their clothes
and other contents of their homes. It makes it absolutely unaffordable.
We have got to provide certainty. By expediting projects that were
previously authorized, Mr. Chairman, we can eliminate the need for many
of these homeowners to have to elevate their homes, and provide
financial certainty and a path forward for these folks to actually be
able to get back in their homes and recover our communities from what
is believed to be the fourth most expensive flood disaster in United
States history.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to raise a
question.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman--he has stated
they are authorized. On this side, there is some confusion. Have these
gone through a study and then the chief has submitted a report to us?
Is that what we are doing is ratifying a Chief's Report, which is the
process to be followed in this bill so as not to have earmarks? Or are
these at an earlier stage, where they haven't had a Chief's Report,
and, therefore, we are now about to authorize projects that are
specific without following the procedures that everyone else has had to
go through?
I understand what has happened is a tragedy there, but there are
other places where there have been floods and other people might want
to say: Well, gee, we don't have a report yet either, but we want to
authorize something right now.
Can the gentleman tell me, do we have the Chief's Report, or is what
has been authorized just a study which isn't yet completed?
Mr. SHUSTER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. I will answer that. We believe the projects are already
authorized. Back in 2007, in 33 United States Code section 2332(i)(2),
it states there that ``all studies and projects carried out under this
section from Army Civil Works appropriations shall be fully funded
within the program funding levels provided in this subsection.''
We believe that these are one of the projects cited in that. We
believe these have been authorized.
{time} 1845
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the chairman is saying
that this is consistent with all of the other projects in this bill,
except perhaps the earmark project for Texas, which was earmarked in an
appropriations bill.
I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, yes, we believe it is. Prior to 2007, these
projects were authorized. So, under that law, these things are
authorized. They are not earmarked.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to follow up
on the chairman of the committee's comments.
The 2007 cite that Chairman Shuster referenced goes back to actually
a WRDA 1999 provision. I believe it is section 212 of WRDA 1999 that
actually provides the study and project implementation authorization.
The 2007 language that was cited amends the 1999 language. So these
projects were previously addressed by Congress.
I want to say it again, Mr. Chairman. We have a backwards policy in
regard to Federal disasters where we come in and spend billions of
dollars after a disaster instead of spending millions of dollars
before, making our communities more resilient.
I am going to say it again. Thirteen people died here. We have
incredible financial uncertainty and folks' inability to get back in
their homes because they may be faced with a $100,000 or more cost to
elevate these slabs to come into compliance with the new base flood
elevation. By expediting these projects, we can eliminate that
financial uncertainty and we can get people back in their homes and
restore our community as quickly as possible.
I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Long
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13
printed in House Report 114-790.
[[Page H5992]]
Mr. LONG. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title I, insert the following:
SEC. __. TABLE ROCK LAKE, ARKANSAS AND MISSOURI.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary--
(1) shall include a 60-day public comment period for a
Table Rock Lake Master Plan and Table Rock Lake Shoreline
Management Plan revision; and
(2) shall not finalize a revision for the Table Rock Lake
Master Plan and Table Rock Lake Shoreline Management Plan
during the 5-year period beginning on the date of enactment
of this Act.
(b) Shoreline Use Permits.--During the period described in
subsection (a)(2), the Secretary shall lift or suspend the
moratorium on the issuance of new, and modifications to
existing, shoreline use permits based on the existing Table
Rock Lake Master Plan and Table Rock Lake Shoreline
Management Plan.
(c) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
(A) carry out a study on the need to revise permit fees
relating to Table Rock Lake to better reflect the cost of
issuing those fees and achieve cost savings; and
(B) submit to Congress a report on the results of the study
described in subparagraph (A).
(2) Requirement.--The Secretary shall complete the study
under paragraph (1)(A) before adopting any revision to the
Table Rock Lake Shoreline Management Plan.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Long) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. LONG. Mr. Chairman, Table Rock Lake, near Branson, Missouri, is
one of the premier destinations in the Ozarks, especially for my
constituents in the Seventh Congressional District.
The Army Corps of Engineers is currently undertaking a revision of
the lake's Shoreline Management Plan and has in place a moratorium on
dock permits to halt development around the lake.
What this means is, if you purchased a home or land in this area with
the hopes of putting in a dock, you can no longer do so. If you already
have a dock and it needs to be updated, you can't even update it.
I have met with the Corps and the lake community throughout this
process, and the overwhelming consensus from my constituents is that
their voices are not being heard on this issue that will have far-
reaching effects for those living on the lake and for its economy.
My amendment would extend the public comment period to ensure that
those directly impacted by the shoreline plan will have a say in it. My
amendment also lifts the moratorium on dock permits and extends the
timeframe of the final plan to ensure that the Corps has enough time to
incorporate the community's concerns into its updated plan.
I am proud to work with Senator Blunt and Chairman Shuster on this
commonsense issue. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Long).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14
printed in House Report 114-790.
Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Mica
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15
printed in House Report 114-790.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title I, add the following:
SEC. 1__. ADJUSTMENT TO COST BENEFIT RATIO.
For any navigation project carried out by the Army Corps of
Engineers with non-Federal funds, the Secretary may, after
completion of any portion of the authorized project, adjust
the authorized benefit cost ratio.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Mica) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is a simple amendment. It does make an adjustment to the
benefit-cost ratio for any navigation project carried out by the Army
Corps of Engineers with non-Federal funds.
This gives the Secretary, after the completion of any portion of the
authorized projects, the ability to adjust the authorized project's
benefit-cost ratio.
Unfortunately, we have some projects with elongated channel
configurations, where the terminals are located at the end of the line,
and they are significantly disadvantaged when competing for Federal
funding because the cost of these projects has escalated, lowering the
benefit-cost ratio to below the threshold required by OMB for budgetary
purposes.
This amendment would provide discretionary authority to the Secretary
to revise the benefit-cost ratio after completion of portions of the
projects with non-Federal funds. Remaining portions of the project
could be eligible to compete for Federal funding based on a revised
benefit-cost ratio.
This amendment does not guarantee any Federal funding to any project,
but is simply a path forward to enable projects to be in a position to
fairly compete for Federal funding.
The authority could be applicable to any authorized navigation
project which is placed at a competitive disadvantage due to the
configurations, again, of the shipping channel.
The amendment builds upon the reforms that we were able to put in the
WRRDA bill of 2014, which streamlines some of the Corps' processes. It
also provides flexibility to adapt to local initiatives and maximizes
the ability of non-Federal interests to more fully participate in
project development and ultimately reduce Federal costs.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I understand the
gentleman's frustrations, and on its surface, it is a great idea. The
problem is, unless things are reformed at the Office of Management and
Budget, the trolls under the bridge with the green eye shades who have
way too much clout here in Washington, D.C., and are invisible, this
will empower them further, potentially. They rank projects according to
cost effectiveness.
So you can essentially move your project up if you can afford to put
more money in it and it will jump ahead of other projects which were
higher-ranked, cost-effective projects, but OMB is going to choose the
one at the top, which will empower communities that can afford to
contribute more and perhaps perpetually push communities that can't
afford to contribute more than their regular share to the bottom of the
heap, never to be funded.
Of course, I already talked about the backlog of now $74 billion of
authorized unfunded projects while we still misspend the trust fund
moneys on other parts of the government. That, of course, was subject
to earlier debate where the Republicans stripped that out of the bill,
which would have helped deal with some of these problems.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I think it will save money and actually
benefit projects that start with non-Federal dollars and can be a great
advantage to some of those ports and other waterways that are at a
disadvantage because of the distance of the project.
So I ask support for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Mica
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16
printed in House Report 114-790.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that I offer
as the designee of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
[[Page H5993]]
At the end of title I, add the following:
SEC. ___. LAND TRANSFER AND TRUST LAND FOR THE MUSCOGEE
(CREEK) NATION.
(a) Transfer.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2) and for the
consideration described in subsection (c), the Secretary
shall transfer to the Secretary of the Interior the land
described in subsection (b) to be held in trust for the
benefit of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation.
(2) Conditions.--The land transfer under this subsection
shall be subject to the following conditions:
(A) The transfer--
(i) shall not interfere with the Corps of Engineers
operation of the Eufaula Lake Project or any other authorized
civil works projects; and
(ii) shall be subject to such other terms and conditions as
the Secretary determines to be necessary and appropriate to
ensure the continued operation of the Eufaula Lake Project or
any other authorized civil works project.
(B) The Secretary shall retain the right to inundate with
water the land transferred to the Secretary of the Interior
under this subsection, as necessary to carry out an
authorized purpose of the Eufaula Lake Project or any other
civil works project.
(C) No gaming activities may be conducted on the land
transferred under this subsection.
(b) Land Description.--
(1) In general.--The land to be transferred pursuant to
subsection (a) is the approximately 18.38 acres of land
located in the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of sec. 3, T. 10
N., R. 16 E., McIntosh County, Oklahoma, generally depicted
as ``USACE'' on the map entitled ``Muscogee (Creek) Nation
Proposed Land Acquisition'' and dated October 16, 2014.
(2) Survey.--The exact acreage and legal description of the
land to be transferred under subsection (a) shall be
determined by a survey satisfactory to the Secretary and the
Secretary of the Interior.
(c) Consideration.--The Muscogee (Creek) Nation shall pay--
(1) to the Secretary an amount that is equal to the fair
market value of the land transferred under subsection (a), as
determined by the Secretary, which funds may be accepted and
expended by the Secretary; and
(2) all costs and administrative expenses associated with
the transfer of land under subsection (a), including the
costs of--
(A) the survey under subsection (b)(2);
(B) compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
(C) any coordination necessary with respect to requirements
related to endangered species, cultural resources, clean
water, and clean air.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Mica) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, today I am asking my colleagues for support
of this noncontroversial amendment.
This amendment would facilitate simply a land transfer from the Army
Corps of Engineers to the Department of the Interior to hold in trust
for the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. The language is supported by the
Corps, the State of Oklahoma, and by the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. It
was included in the Senate-passed WRDA bill, which passed
overwhelmingly in bipartisan fashion.
It received a zero budget impact from CBO. The Muskogee (Creek)
Nation will be paying fair market value to the Corps for land.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 17 will
not be offered.
Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Thornberry
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18
printed in House Report 114-790.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title I, add the following:
SEC. 1__. LAKE KEMP, TEXAS.
Section 3149(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
2007 is amended--
(1) by striking ``2020'' and inserting ``2025''; and
(2) by striking ``this Act'' and inserting ``the Water
Resources Development Act of 2016''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with a local, unique issue
involving privately owned cabins on privately owned land near Lake Kemp
in Texas.
When reconstructing the dam in the late 1960s, the city of Wichita
Falls entered into an agreement with the Corps of Engineers that the
city would require all of these privately owned cabins owners below a
certain elevation to be removed by January 1, 2000, because there was
concern it could potentially flood. But 50 years later, there has never
been a flood, and there never will be a flood, because the lake has
been full several times.
The 2007 WRDA bill prevented the Corps from requiring the city to
evict the landowners until at least 2020, and, at the same time, the
U.S. and the Corps were released from any liability. This amendment
would simply extend that time period for an additional 5 years.
The amendment also preserves the full property rights for the
landowners. You have got some of these cabin owners who have been there
for years, and the city does not have the desire or the funds to force
them off the land.
So the bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is this is a local situation. This
amendment gives local folks an added opportunity to solve their issues.
I hope Members will support it as well as the underlying bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1900
Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Weber of Texas
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19
printed in House Report 114-790.
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title I, insert the following:
SEC. __. COASTAL TEXAS ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION AND RESTORATION,
TEXAS.
In carrying out the comprehensive planning authorized by
section 4091 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007
(Public Law 110-114; 121 Stat. 1187), the Secretary shall
consider studies, data, and information developed by the Gulf
Coast Community Protection and Recovery District to expedite
completion of the plan.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Weber) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a very important
amendment to the State of Texas. This amendment is noncontroversial and
mirrors language by Senator Cornyn in the Senate's version of WRDA.
Thanks to Chairman Shuster for making our ports and waterways a
critical national priority and for bringing this important legislation
to the floor today.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply require the Army Corps of
Engineers to take into account the existing data, studies, and
information developed by the Gulf Coast Community Protection and
Recovery District when conducting the Coastal Texas Protection and
Restoration Study authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of
2007.
The Gulf Coast Community Protection and Restoration District, or
GCCPRD, was formed in the aftermath of Hurricane Ike by six Texas
counties encompassing Houston and Southeast Texas. The counties were
Harris, Galveston, Brazoria, Chambers, Jefferson, and Orange.
Hurricane Ike struck this region in 2008, caused $37.5 billion in
damage nationwide, making it the third costliest hurricane in United
States history. The storm caused over 100 fatalities, washed away
homes, flooded communities, and shut down much of the Nation's and
region's energy production.
The effects of another major hurricane on the Houston region and our
Nation would be devastating. Over 6 million people call this area home,
and
[[Page H5994]]
many work in critical economic sectors like health care and energy
refining. The impact would be felt in every congressional district
across the country.
For example, according to reports published immediately after
Hurricane Ike made landfall, gas prices spiked between 30 and 60 cents
per gallon across many States due to the disruption in energy
production in the Houston region.
In 2013, the Texas General Land Office entered into an agreement with
GCCPRD to conduct a three-phase Storm Surge Suppression Study. The
phase three report was released this past June.
In addition to this study, the GLO and the Army Corps of Engineers
are moving forward in partnership on the Coastal Texas Protection and
Restoration Study. Once completed, this study will make the case for
coastal infrastructure projects that would qualify for Federal dollars
and would protect our vulnerable coastal communities in a major part of
this Nation's energy production. The study received funding in the
President's fiscal year 2017 budget, but the current timeline for
completion of this study is over 5 years. Mr. Chairman, it has been 8
years since Hurricane Ike, and this time line is unacceptable.
So, Mr. Chairman, protecting the Texas coast from dangerous storms is
a critical Federal interest and a national priority. This amendment
would simply require the Army Corps to tap into an existing pool of
data and information developed by Texans in an effort to shorten the
completion timeline of the Coastal Protection and Restoration Study.
I urge adoption of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Young of Iowa
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 20
printed in House Report 114-790.
Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. Mr Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title I, add the following:
SEC. __. CORPS LEVEES THAT AFFECT COMMUNITY-OWNED LEVEES.
Where Federally owned and operated levees increase flood
risk and compromise the accreditation of community-owned
local flood protection systems, it shall be the policy of the
Corps of Engineers to act expeditiously with actions required
to authorize, fund, identify, and implement improvements to
reduce and negate negative impacts to community-owned flood
protection system accreditation.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Chairman Shuster, and
members of the staff for working so hard on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to address situations where
community-owned levees and federally owned U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
levees are hydraulically connected. These hydraulically connected
levees are close enough to one another in the same water system and can
have a huge impact on each other. So when a local flood protection
system is in need of repairs, we cannot allow Federal inaction to stand
in the way. Without action from the Corps, improvements to local levees
have limited effect and are insufficient, making it difficult to
achieve accreditation.
Why is this important? Not only does it put people and property in
flood zones at risk, but it also increases costs for individuals and
businesses in our communities, mandating flood insurance and
classifying any development as ``high risk.''
I am seeing this in my district, where the City of Des Moines has
been working with the Corps since 2011. I know my district is not
alone. I see it in other districts as well.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot continue to have local governments be
hindered by Federal inaction, inaction on property the Federal
Government took responsibility for years ago.
In the end, this amendment will establish a policy that will reduce
and, ultimately, negate the negative impacts to community-owned flood
protection system accreditation caused by the Army Corps of Engineers'
failure to act.
I urge adoption of my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, I have got to say, we are
not quite certain what it does. It seems to require the Corps of
Engineers to take action for anything that relates to a Federal project
which is a locally owned flood control.
I have no idea what the implications of this are. So my staff called
the Corps and said: How many projects do you think this would affect,
and what do you think the impacts would be? The Corps of Engineers said
they had no idea.
I would like to address a question to the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, since the Corps has no idea what this amendment does,
what the financial implications are, since it would seem to give the
Federal Government liability for all these local projects that are
anywhere downstream or related to a Federal project, could the chairman
explain to me what this amendment will do, since the Corps can't?
I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
Mr. SHUSTER. My understanding is that it is a sense of Congress to
ask the Corps to act----
Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, it is not a sense of Congress, as
offered. It is actually--it is quite definitive language. ``Where
Federally owned and operated levees increase flood risk and compromise
the accreditation of community-owned. . . . it shall be the policy of
the Corps of Engineers to act expeditiously with actions required to
authorize, fund, identify, and implement improvements to reduce and
negate negative impacts to community-owned flood protection system
accreditation.'' It seems to me that it is pretty definitive with the
``shall'' part there.
I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
Mr. SHUSTER. Well, it does say ``shall'' and it does ask the Corps to
act expeditiously, which I think all of us want to encourage the Corps
to do that.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Okay. Good luck with that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Young).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 21 Offered by Ms. Esty
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21
printed in House Report 114-790.
Ms. ESTY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title I, insert the following:
SEC. __. CORROSION PREVENTION.
Section 1033 of the Water Resources Reform and Development
Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 2350) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(d) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this subsection, and annually thereafter, the
Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives a report on the corrosion prevention
activities encouraged under this section that includes--
``(1) a description of the actions the Secretary has taken
to implement this section; and
``(2) a description of the projects utilizing corrosion
prevention activities, including which activities were
undertaken.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. Esty) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Ms. ESTY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to
[[Page H5995]]
the Water Resources Development Act, which would require the Secretary
of the Army Corps to implement a corrosion prevention strategy for our
Nation's water infrastructure.
Preventing corrosion is a bipartisan issue and affects every State,
district, and local community. In Connecticut and across the country,
corrosion shortens the lifespan of our critical water systems, harms
the environment, and endangers public health and safety.
Many of our Nation's water systems are over 100 years old. What's
more, according to a study conducted by the Federal Highway
Administration in 2002, the corrosion of water and sewer systems across
the United States costs the American taxpayers nearly $36 billion a
year, a number that has only increased in the ensuing 14 years.
By implementing strategies to prevent corrosion, we can extend the
lifespan of these water projects, save money, and ensure that we have
continued access to safe drinking water for years to come.
Surely, we can all agree that by preventing corrosion we are being
responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars, as well as protecting
citizens' health and safety.
So let's be clear. This is not a substitute for the serious
conversation that this country needs to be having on updating and
bringing into the 21st century our roads, bridges, highways, sewer
systems, and water systems; but we do need to work toward extending the
lifespan of current Federal infrastructure, and we need to work hard on
that today.
Today, we have the opportunity to engage in a bipartisan effort on
corrosion prevention, something that will be an important first step to
extend the lifespan and the safety of these systems. It is the and it
is the sensible thing to do.
When corrosion control technologies are properly installed and
maintained, corrosion is largely preventable. It is inexpensive and it
saves lives.
So again, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I
do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Olson).
Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, I say a special thank you to my cosponsor,
co-chair of the House Corrosion Prevention Caucus, Congresswoman Esty,
for introducing this amendment that will help the taxpayers protect
America's aging infrastructure.
Corrosion in our Nation's infrastructure reduces the lifespan of our
investments, costs our taxpayers billions of dollars, threatens our
environment, and endangers our public safety. If left unchecked,
corrosion affects many sectors of our economy, including defense
projects, energy development, ports, water infrastructure, utilities,
roads, rails, bridges, and other critical American assets.
The good news is that corrosion is an issue that can be tackled to
extend the life and value of our Federal investments. When properly
maintained, corrosion is largely preventable.
I have dealt with corrosion my whole adult life. Serving in our Navy
for 9 years, I have seen young sailors fighting corrosion on our ships
with a paint scraper, a paint brush, and a bucket of gray paint--the
glory of the so-called paint and chip detail.
Working for the Houston region, I know how corrosion can impact our
investment in our ports and waterways. Investing in corrosion
prevention now will save the taxpayers billions down the road.
If my colleagues want to know more about corrosion prevention, come
to Houston, Texas, headquarters of NACE, National Association of
Corrosion Engineers, International.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SHUSTER. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Texas.
Mr. OLSON. This amendment would simply require the Army Corps to
submit a report on corrosion prevention activities for our Nation's
infrastructure, including water and sewer systems. I urge my colleagues
to support this bipartisan, commonsense amendment.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if Connecticut and Texas can agree on
this, then Congress ought to be able to agree on this.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. ESTY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend and colleague and
the co-chair of the Corrosion Prevention Caucus.
I am a Navy daughter and the daughter and granddaughter of civil
engineers, so believe me, I have learned a lot about corrosion and
corrosion prevention in my life.
Again, this is the sort of bipartisan fix we need to be engaged in in
this body. I want to thank my good friend, Mr. Olson, my good friend,
the chairman, Mr. Shuster. I urge all our colleagues to support this
commonsense amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1915
Amendment No. 22 Offered by Ms. Esty
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 22
printed in House Report 114-790.
Ms. ESTY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title I, insert the following:
SEC. __. NORTH ATLANTIC COASTAL REGION.
Section 4009 of the Water Resources Reform and Development
Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-121; 128 Stat. 1316) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a) by striking ``a study to determine
the feasibility of carrying out projects'' and inserting ``a
comprehensive assessment and management plan'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in the subsection heading by striking ``Study'' and
inserting ``Assessment and Plan''; and
(B) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``study'' and inserting ``assessment and plan''; and
(3) in subsection (c)(1) by striking ``study'' and
inserting ``assessment and plan''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. Esty) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Ms. ESTY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment,
which makes an important change to the North Atlantic Coastal Ecosystem
Restoration Study. My amendment expands the scope of the study from a
mere feasibility study to a comprehensive assessment and management
plan.
First established in the 2014 Water Resources Reform and Development
Act, the North Atlantic Coastal Ecosystem Restoration Study is a state-
of-the-art approach for bringing together the latest science on
restoring coastal ecosystems at scale.
The proposal in my amendment is an important change because it will
allow the United States Army Corps of Engineers to undertake critical
habitat restoration projects of tidal marshes, beaches, dunes, and fish
spawning areas across a region spanning from Maine to Virginia.
Due to the varying habitats and ecosystems along the entire North
Atlantic Coast, individual States currently are struggling to
adequately address environmental and ecological issues that span the
entire region.
Challenges arising from, for example, algal bloom, fish depletion,
and water quality issues know no boundaries and, frankly, defy the
efforts of States to coordinate activities. Beyond that, we simply lack
the expertise in each and every State to address these shared problems.
What has resulted is a fragmented, State-by-State approach to solving
interconnected environmental problems that need holistic solutions.
My amendment addresses this problem by creating a comprehensive,
cooperative, and regional approach to environmental restoration and
management. By fostering collaboration on coastal restoration projects
between the Army Corps, State, and local partners, we can more
effectively tackle environmental issues and restoration of coastal
ecosystems.
[[Page H5996]]
My change will help States along the entire North Atlantic United
States solve major water quality issues like eutrophication, algal
bloom, fish depletion, and threats to shellfish like the ones we are
currently facing in Long Island Sound.
Again, I urge my colleagues to adopt this commonsense amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I
do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment, and I appreciate
the gentlewoman for bringing it forward. I urge all Members to support
it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. ESTY. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 23 Offered by Ms. Frankel of Florida
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 23
printed in House Report 114-790.
Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title I, insert the following:
SEC. __. ACQUISITION OF BEACH FILL.
Section 935 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 2299) is amended by striking ``if such materials
are not available from domestic sources for environmental or
economic reasons''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Frankel) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I bring this amendment on
behalf of myself and Mr. Curbelo of Miami, Florida. It is a very
excellent commonsense amendment. It is an authorization that requires
no money, and it strikes an archaic, 30-year-old provision from law.
I would like to explain how it affects our home State of Florida.
Quite simply, the law is an obstacle to Florida's tourism and shoreline
protection. We are one of the top travel destinations in the world. We
have over 100 million visitors with a $70 billion impact to Florida's
economy, and beaches play a very big role not only for visitors, but
for our shore protection and for protection of our property, people,
and the environment.
Just like Northern States have to fix their potholes after a bad
winter, in Florida, we have to restore our beaches. What has happened
is that Dade and Broward Counties have run out of useable sand to
dredge off our coast to put back on the beaches. After the Sandy
Hurricane, our sand supply is completely depleted. We now have to rely
on sand from northern counties. Taking sand from inland is very, very
expensive. To try to take sand from the coastal communities literally
causes a public uproar and threats of litigation. It is our version of
water wars. We call them sand wars in Florida.
There is a very easy solution, and that is to allow the counties in
south Florida to buy sand from the Bahamas.
What is preventing that?
There is language in a 1986 law--a 1986 WRDA bill written at a time
when sand in south Florida was very plentiful. The language prevents
State and local governments anywhere in the country from buying foreign
sand to replenish their shorelines without the Army Corps first
finding--and this requires a study and another study--that there is no
domestic sources of sand for environmental or economic reasons. It is
one more task that an overburdened agency does not need to perform.
So what this amendment does is it simply strikes that outdated
requirement.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to help end the sand wars and support my
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Al Green of Texas
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 24
printed in House Report 114-790.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title I, insert the following:
SEC. __. PRIORITIZATION OF CERTAIN PROJECTS.
The Secretary shall give priority to a project for flood
risk management if--
(1) there is an executed project partnership agreement for
the project; and
(2) the project is located in an area--
(A) in which there has been a loss of life due to flood
events; and
(B) with respect to which the President has declared that a
major disaster or emergency exists under section 401 of the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5170).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Al Green) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is one that has
received bipartisan support. It is supported by Congressman Gene Green
of Texas as well as Congressman John Culberson of Texas.
This amendment is quite simple. What it does is accord the Army Corps
the requirement to prioritize projects wherein we have had a loss of
life, a disaster declaration has been issued, there is a partnership
agreement in place, and the funds have been authorized for the
partnership.
In Texas we have had--and across the country, I might add--floods
that are no longer classified as 100-year floods. Indeed, they are
being classified as billion-dollar floods. We have had the Memorial Day
flood, which was more than $1 billion, and the Tax Day flood, which was
more than $1 billion. Between the two, we had more than 15 lives lost--
approximately 17 to be more accurate.
This amendment would give us the opportunity to have some of the
projects on the Corps' docket completed such that we can eliminate some
flooding and minimize additional flooding.
I am honored to say that the Corps is aware of this amendment, and I
am grateful to the Rules Committee for making it in order. I thank the
chairperson and the ranking member for assistance given as well.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I
do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing this
forward. It is very similar to an amendment that Mr. Young from Iowa
brought forward, and I think that was a good amendment. I think this
is. So I support it and urge all my colleagues to vote for it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment.
Many areas have faced severe frequent floods in recent years. Too
many of these disasters have deadly consequences for our communities.
Since the beginning of the 114th Congress, more than 200 Americans
have died as a result of flooding. In Texas alone, 77 people have
perished as a result of flooding in under 2 years. Heavy rains and
flooding killed eight people in 1 week this last April.
This amendment would go far to address these tragedies by allowing
the Army Corps of Engineers to prioritize flood control projects for
areas that have lethal flooding to provide security and peace of mind
to residents in these communities.
Both Congressman Al Green and I represent different parts of Houston,
[[Page H5997]]
Harris County. His area was pretty devastated, along with the northwest
part where Congressman McCaul represents, and a number of other folks.
But there is a reason why we are called the coastal plain in the
Houston area, because when it floods, we fill up the bayous, we fill up
the rivers, and the only place it goes is in our businesses and in our
homes. That is why this amendment is so important.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and
protect our most vulnerable communities.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank, again, the
chairperson, the ranking member, and the Rules Committee as well.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 25 Offered by Ms. Herrera Beutler
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 25
printed in House Report 114-790.
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title I, add the following:
SEC. 1__. WATERCRAFT INSPECTION STATIONS.
Section 104 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (33 U.S.C.
610) is amended--
(1) in subsection (d)--
(A) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary may establish, operate, and maintain new or
existing watercraft inspection stations to protect the
Columbia River Basin to be located in the States of Idaho,
Montana, Oregon, and Washington at locations, as determined
by the Secretary in consultation with such States with the
highest likelihood of preventing the spread of aquatic
invasive species at reservoirs operated and maintained by the
Secretary. The Secretary shall also assist the States
referred to in this paragraph with rapid response of any
Quagga or Zebra mussel infestation.''.
(B) in paragraph (3) by inserting ``Governors of the''
before ``States''; and
(2) in subsection (e) by striking paragraph (3) and
inserting the following:
``(3) assist the States in early detection of Quagga and
Zebra mussels;''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 892, the gentlewoman
from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington.
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a simple technical
correction to clarify congressional intent to assist Northwestern
States in prevention and monitoring of aquatic invasive species.
Western States are seeing a troubling spread of quagga and zebra
mussels, which are an invasive species that quickly destroy
infrastructure for hydropower, water supply, filtration systems, and
fisheries.
Once this species becomes established and spreads, it is difficult
and very costly to eradicate. In some States, invasive mussels are
already costing industries and businesses hundreds of millions of
dollars in damage and repair.
For communities in the Columbia River basin, an infestation would be
devastating to production of clean, renewable hydropower, which means
steep rate hikes for families and businesses that are located in our
region and are currently thriving due to the low cost of energy.
Communities would also suffer severe damages to fisheries and boats,
putting all users and recreators of the Columbia and Snake River
systems at risk.
Prevention is the first line of defense and the cheapest tool to use
against invasive species. Watercraft inspection stations are
particularly crucial in successful monitoring and detection. These
stations intercept thousands of boats from all over the country to
inspect and decontaminate.
This is why Congress authorized funds under the 2014 WRRDA to support
watercraft inspection stations that protect the Columbia River basin
from mussel invasion. Unfortunately, these funds have yet to actually
reach the stations due to an ambiguity in the law.
This amendment simply clarifies that funds authorized under WRDA are
intended to assist in establishing new watercraft inspection stations
and support coverage for existing stations in Northwestern States.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good-government amendment to ensure that
Federal funds are being used for the purpose for which Congress
intended.
I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I
do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for
bringing this forward.
We are one of the last refuges in the United States free of the zebra
mussel, which is incredibly destructive and expensive. This will help
us protect the integrity of our vital riverine resources.
I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this forward, and I fully
support it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the
support. Let's get this amendment moving.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1930
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaMalfa) having assumed the chair, Mr. Carter of Georgia, Acting Chair
of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
5303) to provide for improvements to the rivers and harbors of the
United States, to provide for the conservation and development of water
and related resources, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________