[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 20215-20217]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 507, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1999

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the 
Senate bill (S. 507) to provide for the conservation and development of 
water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of 
the United States, and for other purposes and ask unanimous consent for 
its immediate consideration and that the conference report be 
considered as read and adopted.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I am very 
pleased that we are bringing to the House a conference report on the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1999, a culmination of 3 years work 
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) 
for any comment that he may make.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I support this wonderful product.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report 
accompanying S. 507, the Water Resources Development Act of 1999.
  This bill is a comprehensive authorization of the Water Resources 
Programs of the Army Corps of Engineers. It represents two and a half 
years of bi-partisan effort to preserve and develop the water 
infrastructure that is vital to the nation's safety and economic well-
being.
  First, let me congratulate my colleagues on the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure for their vision and tireless efforts 
in helping move this legislation. I want to give special thanks to 
committee ranking member Jim Oberstar, subcommittee chairman Sherry 
Boehlert, and subcommittee ranking member Bob Borski. Their leadership 
and contributions have been outstanding.
  These members and the other House conferees from the committee 
provided invaluable assistance.
  Mr. Speaker, in the 105th Congress, the House and Senate worked 
tirelessly to enact a Water Resources Development Act of 1998. 
Unfortunately, that bill did not become law, essentially because of the 
lingering controversies surrounding the American River in California.
  This year we committed ourselves to moving a WRDA '99, resolving any 
remaining issues, and charting a course for a WRDA 2000, as well.
  I am proud to say we have delivered: first by passing a bill in April 
by a vote of 418 to 5 and second, by bringing this conference report to 
the floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, S. 507 accomplishes three important objectives:
  First, it reflects the committee's continued commitment to improving 
the Nation's water infrastructure.
  Second, it responds to policy initiatives to modernize Corps of 
Engineers activities and to achieve programmatic reforms.
  Third, and this is very important, it takes advantage of the Corps 
capabilities and recognizes evolving national priorities by expanding 
and creating new authorities for protecting and enhancing the 
environment.
  S. 507 is a strong bipartisan bill. It reflects a balanced, 
responsible approach to developing water infrastructure, preserving and 
enhancing the environment and strengthening federal-state-and-local 
partnerships.
  Several provisions merit particular attention and, in some cases, 
clarification:
  We are modifying current cost-sharing requirements on shore 
protection and, as a result, expect the administration to budget 
accordingly for shore protection projects.
  We are making several important changes to the Environmental Dredging 
Program authorized in section 312 of WRDA 1992. Section 312, as amended 
by section 205 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, created 
a partnership with the expectation that the Corps' authority would 
supplement EPA CERCLA actions. We believe the Corps policy guidance 
letter no. 49 inappropriately attempts to limit opportunities for Corps 
participation at sites that could benefit from the section 312 program.
  We are authorizing a new program for flood mitigation and riverine 
restoration, with 23 sites listed for priority consideration. One of 
those sites, Coachella Valley, Riverside California, includes a project 
for flood protection

[[Page 20216]]

and environmental restoration at the delta area of the Whitewater River 
as it flows into the Salton sea. The $8.5 million project includes 
restoration of Salton Sea Wetlands. I thank Rep. Mary Bono for her 
efforts in sponsoring this provision.
  Section 357 authorizes the locally preferred project for flood 
control along the Upper Jordan River, Utah, notwithstanding the Corps' 
current policy regarding flows of less than 800 cubic feet per second. 
The conferees included language regarding various secretarial 
determinations. These conditions, however, should not be interpreted in 
any way that could allow the 800 CFS policy to delay or block progress 
on implementation of the project. I thank Rep. Merrill Cook for his 
efforts in championing this project.
  Section 101 authorizes a water supply and ecosystem restoration 
project for Howard Hanson Dam in Washington. Through the efforts of 
Rep. Jennifer Dunn, Rep. Norm Dicks, and others, we were made aware of 
the need to revise the current cost allocation in the bill to increase 
the Federal share to reflect additional costs relating to the 
Endangered Species Act. In response, the conferees included a specific 
statement of managers regarding the need to increase the Federal cost 
share. It is also our committee's intention to follow this issue 
closely. We encourage the Corps to complete its ESA negotiations 
expeditiously and to provide us with a revised cost reallocation in a 
timely manner.
  Finally, I want to comment my colleague, Senator John Chafee, the 
conference chair, and all the other senate conferees, as well as the 
Senate staff.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support the conference report.
  I also wish to commend the Gentleman from South Dakota, Mr. Thune, 
for his hard work on certain provisions in this bill. At his request, 
the House included and the conference committee retained Sec. 446, a 
study of the watershed in Day County, South Dakota and Sec. 555, which 
would require the Corps of Engineers to complete a study and make 
recommendations on how to resolve sedimentation build up in Lake Sharpe 
caused by the Oahe Dam.
  Both of these provisions are aimed at providing solutions to vexing 
flooding problems each area faces. The quality of life for South 
Dakotans living in Day County and in the Pierre and Fort Pierre 
vicinity should not have to wonder when solutions will be posed to 
address the flooding they have experienced. These studies will take us 
closer to results.
  I also am aware of the Gentleman's interest in Title VI of this bill. 
Legislation similar to Title VI was enacted into law last Congress as a 
part of the Omnibus Emergency and Supplemental Appropriations Act. It 
status, however, has been uncertain.
  The reason for that uncertain status is that Sec. 505 of H.R. 2605, 
the Energy and Water Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000, would 
have deauthorized this law. Title VI of this legislation restores this 
program's status to where it was after last year's passage of the 
Omnibus bill.
  I realize through discussions I have had with the Gentleman from 
South Dakota that this Act is a major priority for his state, and in 
particular for the Governor of South Dakota, William Janklow. I am 
pleased we were able to accommodate their interests in this bill.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the committee has 
completed it arduous task and compliment the chairman on his steadfast 
leadership.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Chairman, Mr. 
Shuster and the Ranking Member, Mr. Oberstar, as well as the Chairman 
and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Boehlert and Borski, for 
their efforts to secure additional flood protection for Sacramento. 
Additionally, I am grateful to my colleague from California who sits on 
the Subcommittee, Mrs. Tauscher, who has been extremely helpful in 
working toward a consensus on this issue. Of course, I extend a sincere 
thank you as well to Senator Boxer for her tireless work in the Senate 
and role as a conferee in providing countless efforts to find 
resolution on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, with a mere 85-year level of flood protection, no other 
city of its size is as defenseless to flooding as Sacramento. In a 
study completed by the Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento ranked worst 
among some of the most flood prone cities in America. Cities such as 
Kansas City, New Orleans, Santa Ana, Omaha and St. Louis, many of which 
have smaller populations than Sacramento, were found to have much 
greater levels of flood protection--more than 500-year in most cases.
  I ask you to consider the catastrophic consequences a flood would 
pose to the Sacramento metropolitan area and Northern California. The 
resulting loss of life, proper damage, economic repercussions and 
health and safety impacts would be staggering and like no flood damage 
this nation has ever seen. More than 600,000 people in Sacramento live 
within the flood boundary. This flood area contains more than $37 
billion in property, including the California State Capitol, six major 
hospitals, 26 nursing home facilities, over 100 schools, and 
approximately 160,000 homes and apartments. The area contains 
headquarters for many major companies, as well as many banks and 
manufacturing facilities. Three major highway systems that serve as 
critical links through the state and surrounding region would be 
disrupted for an indefinite period of time. Electric, sewer and water 
systems would be out of service and hazardous and chemical waste 
vessels would break loose and pose health, safety, and environmental 
threats to the region.
  A 500-year flood in Sacramento would far surpass total damages the 10 
states in the 1993 mid-western floods incurred. Sacramento knows from 
experience that such an event is not hypothetical. In 1986, storms left 
Sacramento at the brink of such catastrophe. Operators of the region's 
flood control facilities estimated that just one additional inch of 
rain would have resulted in major flooding.
  Given the perilous situation confronting the region, I am 
disappointed that the conferees did not adopt the Senate language 
pertaining to the American River, favoring instead the insufficient 
language contained in the House bill. This language provides only 
incremental improvements to Sacramento's flood control facilities. 
These provisions will correct original design deficiencies of Folsom 
Dam by installing new river outlets and modifying existing outlets. 
These additions will allow Dam operators to optimize Folsom Dam 
performance by releasing more water faster and earlier during storms 
and would reduce the amount of temporary storage space needed in 
anticipation of bad weather. The modifications will increase 
Sacramento's level of flood protection to approximately 135 years, a 
step in the right direction, yet far short of the level of flood 
protection needed to protect Sacramento against catastrophic flooding, 
and far short of the protections enjoyed by most other major river 
cities.
  I am thankful however, that the conferees recognized these 
inadequacies and have directed the Corps of Engineers to complete 
further studies by March 1, 2000 and report back to the Congress on 
additional steps that may improve the level of protection for 
Sacramento.
  Mr. Speaker, the flood threat confronting my constituents clearly is 
the most pressing public safety issue facing the community. Although 
this Congress was unable to find resolution and incorporate provision 
capable of providing Sacramento with a level of protection it must 
have, the measures included in this bill represent a key step required 
to advance our needs for future work on this issue. I remain grateful 
to the Members on the Committee and those who were conferees for their 
patience in dealing with this issue. I look forward to working with 
them in the coming months on resolution to the flood threat facing 
Sacramento in preparation of the next WRDA.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster)?
  There was no objection.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
Wednesday, August 3, 1999, Part II.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the conference report is 
agreed to.
  There was no objection.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 2724) to make technical corrections to 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1999.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

                               H.R. 2724

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

     SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

       (a) Jackson County, Mississippi.--Section 219 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 110 Stat. 
     3757) is amended:

[[Page 20217]]

       (1) by striking subsection (e)(1) and inserting:
       ``(1) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(5);''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (c)(5) and inserting:
       ``(5) Jackson County, Mississippi.--Provision of an 
     alternative water supply and a project for the elimination or 
     control of combined sewer overflows for Jackson County, 
     Mississippi.''.
       (b) Elizabeth and North Hudson, New Jersey.--Subsection (f) 
     of section 219 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
     is amended:
       (1) in paragraph (33) by striking ``$20,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$10,000,000'';
       (2) in paragraph (34) by striking ``$10,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$20,000,000'';
       (3) in paragraph (34) by striking ``city of North Hudson'' 
     and inserting ``for the North Hudson Sewerage Authority''.

  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read 
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.

                          ____________________