[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 19156-19197]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, what is the pending 
business before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 3:50 
p.m. having arrived, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 2796, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2796) 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 
     other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 1 hour for closing remarks.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, this is the first major 
piece of environmental legislation debated on the floor since I assumed 
the chairmanship of this committee nearly 1 year ago. I am proud to 
bring the Water Resources Development Act before the Senate, of which a 
major portion is the Everglades which I will talk about in a moment.
  This is a good bill. I am very proud of it. It is fiscally 
responsible. At the same time, it recognizes our obligation to preserve 
one of the most important and endangered ecosystems in the Nation, if 
not the world--America's Everglades.
  This bill gets us back on track toward regular biennial Water 
Resources Development Act bills. The committee produced a so-called 
WRDA bill last year, but that bill was 1 year late.
  I am proud of the WRDA portion of this bill. This is not a bill that 
includes numerous unnecessary projects. The committee established some 
tough criteria on which we worked very closely.

[[Page 19157]]

We evaluated the old criteria and put in new criteria. We scrupulously 
followed this criteria in an effort to not let projects make their way 
into this bill that did not belong there.
  As I noted in my opening statement a few days ago, the committee 
received requests to authorize more than 300 new projects. By holding 
firm on our criteria in this WRDA bill, we only authorized 23 new 
projects. We authorize 40 feasibility studies, and the bill contains 65 
project-related provisions or modifications that affect existing 
projects.
  I remain very concerned about clearing the backlog of previously 
authorized projects that will not or should not be constructed. Along 
with Senator Voinovich, we are working very hard to clear that backlog. 
Called the deauthorization process, this will be an element of the 
committee's efforts to reform the Corps and to get those projects 
deauthorized that should not be there.
  This bill tightens that process by shortening the length of time that 
an authorized project can stay on the books without actual funding. It 
is not the full answer, but it is a good answer, and it is a good 
beginning.
  During floor consideration of the bill last week, we accepted an 
amendment that requires the National Academy of Sciences to perform two 
studies relating to independent peer review of the analyses performed 
by the Corps of Engineers.
  I would like to make a few points about that amendment because it was 
a very important amendment. We certainly have read a lot about Corps 
reform in the local newspapers, specifically the Washington Post, over 
the last few months. The stories raised very legitimate issues about 
the economic modeling used to justify some of these water resources 
projects.
  However, it is important to understand that a series of articles in a 
newspaper is no substitute for careful consideration of the facts and 
of the issues by the Congress. We have the oversight responsibility for 
the Army Corps, not the Washington Post.
  Some Senators, such as Senator Feingold, have proposed reforms that 
focus on one element in the Corps reform--whether or not to impose a 
requirement that the feasibility reports for certain water resources 
projects be subject to peer review. Others, such as Senator Daschle, 
introduced more comprehensive bills that would examine a number of the 
Corps reform issues, including peer review.
  The committee needs more information before we can proceed with any 
bill that would impose peer review on the lengthy project development 
process that is already in place. We need to know the benefits of peer 
review and its impacts before starting down that road.
  Senator Baucus and I are committed to examining this issue and other 
issues related to the operation and management of the Corps of 
Engineers next year. This will include hearings on Corps reform.
  The hearings will take comments on the NAS study--the National 
Academy of Sciences study--the bills that have been introduced, as well 
as the issue in general.
  I was very encouraged that the nominee to be the next Chief of 
Engineers, General Flowers, is receptive to working with the Congress 
on a wide range of reform-related issues.
  I want to speak specifically about one major element in this 
legislation, the Everglades. There is an important element that 
separates this WRDA bill from all others, something that makes this 
WRDA truly historic. This WRDA bill includes our landmark Everglades 
bill, S. 2797, the Restoring of the Everglades, an American Legacy Act, 
very carefully named because it is an American legacy. We do have to 
restore it. That is what we have done. We have begun the process.
  So many have asked--especially some of my conservative friends--why 
should the Federal Government, why should this Congress take on this 
long-term expensive effort? The answers really are not that difficult, 
if you look at them.
  First, the Everglades is in real trouble, deep trouble. We could lose 
what is left of the Everglades in this very generation.
  Secondly, the Federal Government, despite the best of intentions, is 
largely responsible for the damage that was done to the Everglades. The 
Congress told the Corps of Engineers to drain that swamp in 1948--and 
drain it they did, all too well.
  Finally, the lands owned or managed by the Federal Government--four 
national parks and 16 national wildlife refuges which comprise half of 
the remaining Everglades--will receive the benefits of the restoration.
  So there is a lot of Federal involvement here. This is a Federal 
responsibility. There is a compelling Federal interest. The State of 
Florida, to its credit, has already stepped up and committed $2 billion 
to the effort. And Congress needs to respond to that pledge.
  Let's be clear on one thing right now: This plan is not without 
risks. This comprehensive plan is based on the best science we have. 
Because of the very nature of the plan, and the additional requirements 
in the bill, we are certain we will know more about the Everglades and 
the success of the plan in the future.
  To those of you who want guarantees, who want to be absolutely 
certain every dime we spend is going to be spent in a way that is going 
to restore the Everglades, then I say to you you probably should not 
support us because I cannot make that guarantee. But what I can say to 
you is, if we do nothing we lose the Everglades. So if you want to 
restore this precious national treasure, then you have to be willing to 
take the risk. And we are cutting that risk dramatically by the way we 
are doing this.
  But we take risks all the time. We take risks every time we invest in 
a new weapons program for the Defense Department or when we invest in 
cancer research. I am sure there would be no Senator who would come to 
the floor and say: We have not yet found a cure for cancer; therefore, 
we should not risk any more money.
  We need to take this risk to save this precious ecosystem. It is well 
worth it. We have cut the odds. Because of the nature of this plan, and 
the additional requirements in our bill, we are certain we are going to 
know much more about the Everglades in the future; and we are going to 
be able, through the process of adaptive management, to change every 
year or so. If something is not going right, we can pull back, try 
something new, so we do not waste a lot of dollars doing things that we 
do not want to do.
  We acknowledge uncertainty. The plan acknowledges uncertainty. So 
when my colleagues come down and say there is some uncertainty about 
this, we know that. We anticipate that this plan will change as we gain 
more knowledge, while we implement it over the next 36 years.
  This is a 36-year plan that is going to spend in the vicinity of $8 
billion, split equally between the State of Florida and the Federal 
Government. It works out to a can of Coke per U.S. citizen per year. 
That is not a bad investment to be able to save the wading birds and 
the alligators and this precious river of grass of which we are all so 
proud.
  I am confident, because of the time I have spent on this issue, that 
adaptive assessment or adaptive management--whatever you want to call 
it--will succeed, even if the plan is modified based on the new 
information that we get in the future.
  The Everglades portion of WRDA has broad bipartisan support. Every 
major constituency involved in the Everglades restoration supports this 
bill--every one of them.
  Is it perfect? Did everybody get exactly what they wanted? No. But 
everybody is on board. It is bipartisan and it is wide ranging. It goes 
from the liberal side of the equation to the conservative side. It 
includes the administration. It includes both Presidential candidates: 
Vice President Gore and Gov. George Bush. It includes the Florida 
Governor, Jeb Bush. It includes the Florida Legislature, both sides of 
the aisle unanimously. It includes the Seminole Tribe of Florida and 
the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians in Florida.

[[Page 19158]]

  It includes major industry groups, such as the Florida Citrus Mutual, 
Florida Farm Bureau, Florida Home Builders, The American Water Works 
Association, Florida Chamber of Commerce, Florida Fruit and Vegetable 
Association, Southeast Florida Utility Council, Gulf Citrus Growers 
Association, Florida Sugar Cane League, Florida Water Environmental 
Utility Council, Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, Florida 
Fertilizer and Agri-chemical Association; and environmental groups as 
well, including the National Audubon Society, National Wildlife 
Federation, World Wildlife Fund, Center for Marine Conservation, 
Defenders of Wildlife, National Parks Conservation Association, The 
Everglades Foundation, The Everglades Trust, Audubon of Florida, 1000 
Friends of Florida, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental 
Defense, and the Sierra Club.
  I think it is pretty unusual to bring a major environmental bill to 
the Senate floor with that breadth of support. Support for the bill, as 
it stands today, is even broader than the support that existed for the 
administration's comprehensive plan.
  We have taken a good product and have made it better. How have we 
made it better? It is more fiscally responsible. We defer decisions on 
some of the riskiest new technologies until we have more information 
from the pilot projects, which will help us to understand whether these 
projects should be continued. It has ground-breaking provisions to 
assure that the plan attains its restoration goals. It has the creation 
of a true partnership between the Federal Government and the State. 
This type of partnership--State concurrence in all important decisions 
and regulations--has no precedent in our environmental statutes. It has 
more detailed and meaningful reports to Congress on the progress of the 
plan, almost on a yearly basis.
  The Everglades bill is a great model for environmental policy 
development, a model I endorse, a model I have worked hard to implement 
since I have been the chairman. It is cooperative. It is not 
confrontational. It is bipartisan. It is flexible. It is adaptive. It 
establishes a partnership between the Federal Government and the State.
  Already, there is support for this bill in the House. Congressman 
Clay Shaw introduced this bill as H.R. 5121 on September 7. He deserves 
credit for his leadership in that regard. Many others in the House on 
both sides of the aisle are ready to join the effort. I am asking my 
colleagues to join with me in support of this major piece of 
legislation.
  I see my colleague and good friend from the State of Florida, Senator 
Graham, is on the floor at this time. I will yield the floor in just a 
moment so he may speak.
  Before doing so, I thank him, as well as Senator Mack, for his 
absolute and resolute involvement in this project. I went to Florida in 
early January at the request of Senator Graham and Senator Mack to see 
for myself what the situation was. I spent several days there. We had a 
hearing in Florida. We listened to the people who were speaking on this 
issue.
  I made a promise at that hearing that I would bring this bill to the 
Senate floor before the end of the year. With the help of good people 
such as Senator Bob Graham of Florida and Senator Mack, Senator Baucus, 
and others, we have made that happen. I thank Senator Graham publicly 
and personally for that. His cooperation has been splendid. Without 
him, we would not be here.
  I yield the floor so my colleague from Florida may have a chance to 
address this issue that is so important to his State and to the Nation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair. I express my deepest appreciation and 
gratitude to Senator Smith for the great leadership he has provided to 
the Environment and Public Works Committee in many areas but especially 
for what he has done for the Florida Everglades, America's Everglades.
  Senator Smith, shortly after he assumed the chairmanship of the 
committee, after the untimely death of our friend and colleague Senator 
Chafee, made one of his first acts as chairman of the committee coming 
to the American Everglades. He did not just come. He absorbed the 
American Everglades through a series of briefings, field visits, and 
then concluded with a very long hearing before the annual Everglades 
Conference.
  At that hearing, Senator Smith gave a forum to all the diverse points 
of view as to what should be appropriate national policy as it relates 
to America's Everglades. He gave comfort to the people there that these 
decisions were going to be made in a rational, thoughtful manner. That 
contributed immeasurably to the bringing together of all of those 
groups behind the plan which is before us today. I take this 
opportunity to thank the Presiding Officer's neighbor from New 
Hampshire for the tremendous leadership he has given.
  Earlier today I was listening to National Public Radio where there 
was some grousing about the fact that bipartisanship seems to be a lost 
component of the congressional process. It is not lost on the Senator 
from New Hampshire because he has displayed it at its very best. On 
behalf of Senator Mack, I express our appreciation for that fact.
  The legislation before us today represents an unprecedented 
compromise by national and State environmental groups, agriculture and 
industry. These diverse interests are united in support of the 
Everglades restoration bill, title VI of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2000. This is the legislation we will have the 
opportunity to pass through the Senate today.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support for this bill be 
printed in the Record. This letter carries with it the names of many of 
the groups just listed by Chairman Smith.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                               September 14, 2000.

         An Open Letter on Restoration of America's Everglades

       Dear Florida Congressional Delegation, Congressional 
     Leadership, and Committee Leadership: We are writing to urge 
     Congress to take immediate and decisive action on a historic 
     accord recently reached on legislation to protect one of the 
     nation's most precious natural resources, America's 
     Everglades. We present a diverse group of interests that 
     includes conservation organizations, agricultural producers, 
     homebuilders, water utilities, and others that don't always 
     agree on Everglades issues. However, we are united with 
     Florida's two Senators, the bipartisan leadership of the 
     Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works, the 
     Clinton Administration, and Florida's Governor Jeb Bush to 
     endorse a legislative package that will protect America's 
     Everglades while respecting the needs of all water users in 
     Florida.
       This legislation, currently embodied in a manager's 
     amendment to S. 2797 and recently introduced in the House by 
     Congressman Clay Shaw, H.R. 5121, was agreed to as a package 
     and on the condition that all parties would support it in the 
     Senate and the House. We are greatly encouraged that an 
     agreement has been reached on this basis.
       This legislation can be a sound framework for future 
     management of South Florida's water resources and Congress 
     should approve its orderly implementation as soon as 
     possible. We consider this legislation as currently drafted 
     to be a fair and balanced plan to restore the Everglades 
     while meeting the water-related needs of the region. While 
     there are other changes we all would have preferred, we 
     believe the long and difficult process has produced a 
     reasonable compromise.
       This agreement has brought an unprecedented level of 
     support for Everglades' restoration legislation. The greatest 
     threat now facing the Everglades is the profound lack of time 
     left in this Congressional session. We urge the Senate to 
     pass expeditiously S. 2797, Restoration of the Everglades, An 
     American Legacy Act. We further urge the Florida 
     Congressional delegation, the Transportation and 
     Infrastructure Committee, its Water Resources and Environment 
     Subcommittee, and House Leadership to unite with the State, 
     Administration, environmental organizations, and the 
     agriculture, water utilities and homebuilders stakeholder 
     coalition, to pass the bill in the House of Representatives 
     and send it to the President for his signature before 
     Congress adjourns for the November elections.
           Sincerely,
         Florida Citrus Mutual, Ken Keck; Florida Farm Bureau, 
           Carl B. Loop, Jr.; Florida Home Builders, Keith 
           Hetrick; 1000 Friends of Florida, Nathaniel

[[Page 19159]]

           Reed; Audubon of Florida, Stuart D. Strahl Ph.D.; 
           Center for Marine Conservation, David Guggenheim.
         The American Water Works Association, Florida Section 
           Utility Council, Fred Rapach; Florida Chamber, Chuck 
           Littlejohn; Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, 
           Mike Stuart; Southeast Florida Utility Council, Vernon 
           Hargrave; Gulf Citrus Growers Association Association, 
           Ron Hamel; Florida Sugar Can League, Phil Parsons; The 
           Florida Water Environmental Association Utility 
           Council, Fred Rapach; Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of 
           Florida, George Wedgworth; Florida Fertilizer and Agri-
           chemical Association, Mary Hartney.
         Defenders of Wildlife, Rodger Schlickheinsen; The 
           Everglades Foundation, Mary Barley; The Everglades 
           Trust, Tom Rumberger; National Audubon Society, Tom 
           Adams; National Parks Conservation, Mary Munson; 
           National Wildlife Federation, Malia Hale; World 
           Wildlife Fund, Shannon Estenoz; Natural Resources 
           Defense Council, Brad Sewell.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately 
following my remarks, a letter from the Environmental Protection Agency 
Administrator, Ms. Browner; Secretary of Interior, Mr. Babbitt; and 
Assistant Secretary for Civil Works, Mr. Westphal; expressing their 
support for this legislation also be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. GRAHAM. The Everglades is sick. This sickness has been long 
coming.
  It was approximately 120 years ago that man looked at the Everglades 
and realized that it was different, different than almost anything he 
or she had seen before, and seeing this phenomenon of the Everglades, 
made a commitment. The commitment was to turn the unique into the 
pedestrian by converting the Everglades into something that would look 
more like man and woman had seen in other areas of this country or 
other areas of the world.
  The result of that has been 120 years of an effort to change the 
Everglades, to convert the singular into the common. The results of 
that 120 years have brought the Everglades to their current position. 
This cannot be cured without the serious surgery that we are about to 
sanction by the passage of this legislation.
  Since the passage of the central and south Florida flood control 
project in 1948, placing the Everglades in the responsibility of the 
Corps of Engineers at the direction of Congress, nearly half of the 
original Everglades have been drained or otherwise altered. According 
to the National Parks and Conservation Association, the parks and the 
preserves of the Everglades, of whichever Everglades National Park is 
the jewel, are among the 10 most endangered national parks in the 
country.
  As Florida's Governor in 1983, I launched an effort known as ``Save 
Our Everglades.'' Its purpose was to revitalize this precious 
ecosystem. The goal was simple. We wanted to turn back time. We wanted 
the Everglades to look and function more as they had at the end of the 
19th century than they did in 1983.
  In 1983, restoring the natural health and function of this precious 
system seemed to be a distant dream. But after 17 years of bipartisan 
progress in the context of a strong Federal-State partnership, we now 
stand on the brink of this dream becoming a reality.
  I will speak for a moment about this unprecedented Federal-State 
partnership. I often compare this unique partnership to a marriage. If 
both partners respect each other and pledge to work through any 
challenges together, if they are willing to grow together, the marriage 
will be strong and successful.
  Today, we are again celebrating the strength of that marriage. This 
legislation contains several provisions which were born out of the 
respect that sustains this marriage.
  It offers assurances to both the Federal and the State governments on 
the use and distribution of water in the Everglades ecosystem.
  It requires that State government pay half the costs of construction. 
It requires the Federal Government to pay half the costs of operation 
and maintenance. Everglades restoration cannot work unless the 
executive branch, Congress, and State government move forward together. 
The legislation before us today accomplishes that goal.
  The legislation before us today represents not only unprecedented 
compromise and partnership but also unprecedented complexity. Just as 
the Panama Canal, which this Congress authorized almost a hundred years 
ago, was the first of its kind, so is Everglades restoration. It is the 
largest, most complex environmental restoration project not only in the 
history of the United States of America but in the history of the 
world.
  The lessons we will learn here will be exported to other projects 
throughout America and throughout the world. I trust that today the 
Senate will make the right choice. Today will be the day the Senate has 
an opportunity to make a bipartisan commitment to an Everglades 
restoration plan that reflects a true partnership between the State and 
Federal governments. If we accomplish the historic goal of restoring 
America's Everglades, then today will be one of the most precious 
memories of our children and grandchildren.
  In the words of President Lyndon Johnson:

       If future generations are to remember us with gratitude 
     rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the 
     miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the 
     world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got 
     through with it.

  Today is the day we have an opportunity to leave a glimpse of 
America's Everglades as they were when we first found them for future 
generations--beautiful, serene, a river of grass.
  Madam President, we have commended a number of people who have worked 
hard to bring us to this day. I want to take this opportunity to 
commend members of the individual and committee staffs in the Senate 
who have played an immeasurable role in the success we will soon 
celebrate. Many people have worked with Senator Smith, and I want to 
particularly recognize Chelsea Henderson, Tom Gibson, and Stephanie 
Daigle for their work on behalf of the American Everglades. With 
Senator Baucus, I thank Jo-Ellen Darcy and Peter Washburn. With Senator 
Mack, I thank C.K. Lee. And from my office, I thank Catherine Cyr, who 
has done work of negotiation that would do the most experienced 
diplomat honor.
  So it is my hope we will grasp the opportunity that is before us and 
commence a long adventure--as long an adventure as is required to 
overturn 120 years of attempts to convert the Everglades into the 
common, so that we can leave to our children and grandchildren an 
American Everglades which salutes the highest standards of the words 
``unique,'' ``special,'' and ``unprecedented.'' Those are the words 
that properly describe this marvelous system of nature.
  Thank you.

                               Exhibit 1

         Department of the Interior, Environmental Protection 
           Agency, Department of the Army,
                                  Washington, DC, August 21, 2000.
     Hon. Robert Smith,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: We strongly support your bill. S. 2797, 
     ``Restoring the Everglades, an American Legacy Act,'' and 
     recommend its passage by the Senate and House of 
     Representatives as soon as possible. If enacted, this bill 
     will help achieve the bipartisan goal of re storing a 
     national treasure, America's Everglades.
       S. 2797 is the product of hard work and negotiation among 
     the Administration, the State of Florida and your Committee. 
     Indeed, the proposed manager's amendment reflects full 
     agreement between the Administration and the State of Florida 
     on the bill. Accordingly, with adoption of the manager's 
     amendment, we will recommend that the President sign the 
     bill. The bill represents a highly effective approach for 
     meeting essential restoration objectives while recognizing 
     other issues important to the citizens of Florida.
       We commend you, along with Senators Max Baucus, Bob Graham 
     and Connie Mack, for your leadership and commitment to making 
     Everglades legislation a top priority. We stand ready to do 
     all we can to secure passage their year.
           Sincerely,
     Bruce Babbitt,

[[Page 19160]]

       Secretary of the Interior.
      Carol Browner,
       Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency.
     Joseph W. Westphal,
       Assistant Secretary for Civil Works Department of the Army.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I thank my colleague for 
his very kind remarks. I very much appreciate his hard work on behalf 
of the Everglades, which dates back prior to his time in the Senate, as 
we all know, when he was the Governor of Florida. Then-Governor Graham 
was very instrumental in keeping this project on line.
  I think it is also important to understand that the Founding Fathers 
were a lot more brilliant than we sometimes give them credit. In this 
process, I think they foresaw an opportunity where a Senator from a 
State such as New Hampshire, which has nothing to do with the 
Everglades, could be chairman of a committee that would bring forth a 
major piece of environmental legislation in conjunction with the 
Florida Senators--a piece of environmental legislation as to another 
State about 2,000 miles to the south. It is a remarkable process we 
have here that would see that happening. I think the founders knew it. 
That is why we have a Senate, where we can work these things through in 
a way that has a national touch.
  As I went down there and saw the Everglades firsthand and had the 
opportunity to have a hearing with Senators Graham and Voinovich, who 
was also there, I realized--and I had visited there many times as a 
tourist--that the Everglades was in fact draining, that some 90 percent 
of the wading birds were lost, and animals and plant life were dying. 
On the one hand, on one side of the Tamiami Trail you had a desert; on 
the other side you basically had the wetlands that it was supposed to 
be. But the Tamiami Trail is a dam that needs to be removed to allow 
that water to flow all through that ecosystem from Lake Okeechobee to 
the Gulf of Mexico. It is a great project.
  People might say, What is the Senator from New Hampshire doing here? 
Well, I remember the first time my son saw an alligator in Florida as a 
6-year-old boy. It was a very poignant moment, and you don't forget 
those things. In talking to the park rangers over the years--and, most 
specifically, the last time I was there in January--you realize that 
the Everglades are in trouble. As I said earlier, there are no 
guarantees here, but I think we have cut the odds dramatically. I am 
very optimistic that this will work and work well. So I am certainly 
looking forward to the passage of this bill. I hope the House will 
quickly follow suit so that we can make this law before the end of the 
year.
  I see Senator Baucus has arrived. I want to say before yielding to 
him how much I appreciate his help throughout this process. It has been 
a bipartisan effort. We are all guilty of partisanship from time to 
time, as well we should be; I think there are times when partisanship 
is important. But there was no partisanship on this issue. We worked 
together on it to bring this bill forward. Senator Baucus and his staff 
were very helpful, and we are grateful.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I thank my good friend, Senator Smith, 
for his comments.
  I join him in urging my colleagues to support final passage of the 
legislation before us.
  As we stated on the floor last week, this important bill authorizes 
projects for flood control, navigation, shore protection, environmental 
restoration, water supply storage, and recreation. All very important 
matters across the country. These projects often don't get headlines or 
much attention, but they clearly mean a lot to many people.
  Each of these projects meet our committee criteria. That is 
important, too, because the Environment and Public Works Committee gets 
lots of requests. The projects are technologically feasible, 
economically justified, and environmentally sound. In addition, each 
project has a local sponsor willing to share a portion of the cost, 
which is something we insist upon in order to show that the project is 
important locally.
  Passage of this bill will advance two projects that are very 
important for my State of Montana--the fish hatchery at Fort Peck Lake 
and the exchange of cabin site leases in the C.M. Russell Wildlife 
Refuge.
  The fish hatchery is particularly important since it will create more 
jobs and help our State's economy in northeastern Montana, a part of 
the State which is, frankly, hurting.
  The cabin lease exchange provision will also benefit the government, 
sportsmen, and cabin site owners by acquiring inholdings that are 
within the refuge and that have high value for wildlife in return for 
cabin sites now managed by the Corps.
  Finally, this bill will start us on the path to restoration of that 
unique national treasure known as the Everglades.
  Last week we heard my colleagues from Florida, as well as the leaders 
of the Environment and Public Works Committee elaborate on the 
importance of this effort. We all know how important it is. It is one 
of our natural treasures.
  This provision is a testament to true bipartisanship. Senators Graham 
and Mack have been at the forefront of this effort. Governor Jeb Bush 
and the Clinton administration, particularly Interior Secretary Bruce 
Babbitt, have also worked closely to achieve this result.
  And, of course, it could not have happened without the support of 
Senator Smith, our chairman, who put this issue at the top of the 
committee's agenda this year and has worked tirelessly throughout the 
year to make this bill happen, and Senator, Voinovich, the subcommittee 
chairman. This has been an effort of his as well.
  Without this bipartisan support in Washington, and throughout 
Florida, this project would not be where it is today. It would still be 
on the drawing board. And the Everglades would still be destined to 
die.
  In conclusion, I want to assure our colleagues that this bill is the 
right thing to do. And it is worthy of their support.
  Before yielding the floor, let me also mention some of the staff who 
deserve recognition for putting this bill together. I will submit a 
longer list for the Record.
  But let me mention here my fine staff, particularly Jo-Ellen Darcy, 
who is sitting to my immediate left. Her expertise and experience in 
water issues has been a real asset to me and the committee.
  I'll also tell you that she has become more familiar with the State 
of Florida than I think she ever imagined.
  And Peter Washburn, who is sitting to Jo-Ellen's left, a fellow from 
EPA on the staff of the Environment Committee. He has provided 
invaluable assistance in shepherding this bill through the legislative 
process, and on many other issues before the committee.
  Senator Smith's staff, Chelsea Henderson, Stephanie Daigle, and Tom 
Gibson have similarly provided the leadership necessary to get this 
bill done. And Senator Voinovich's staff, Ellen Stein and Rich 
Worthington, were instrumental in negotiating this bill from the 
beginning.
  Finally, staff from Senator Graham's office, Catharine Cyr, and from 
Senator Mack's office, C.K. Lee, at times probably felt that they were 
on the staff of the committee for all the time they put into this 
effort.
  All of us in the Senate, and all Floridians, should appreciate their 
dedication and hard work. They are people whose names aren't often 
mentioned. In fact, to be honest about it, they do most of the hard 
work. They are true servants in the best sense of the term because they 
are doing work for our country, yet do not seek to have their names in 
headlines.
  I ask unanimous consent that a list of the many other people who 
deserve

[[Page 19161]]

thanks for their part in making this bill a reality be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     Senate Staff Deserving Thanks

       EPW Committee: Tom Sliter, David Conover, Tom Gibson, 
     Chelsea Henderson, Stephanie Daigle, Peter Washburn, and Jo-
     Ellen Darcy.
       Catherine Cyr with Senator Graham; C.K. Lee with Senator 
     Mack; Ellen Stein with Senator Voinovich; Rich Worthington 
     with Senator Voinovich; Kasey Gilette with Senator Graham; 
     Ann Loomis with Senator Warner; and Janine Johnson and Darcie 
     Tomasallo-Chen with Legislative Counsel.
       Army WRDA or Everglades Participants: Assistant Secretary 
     of the Army for Civil Works, Dr. Joseph Westphal; Michael 
     Davis; Jim Smyth; Chip Smith; Earl Stockdale; Susan Bond; 
     Larry Prather; Gary Campbell; Milton Rider; and Stu 
     Appelbaum.
       Department of the Interior CERP legislative team: Secretary 
     Bruce Babbitt; Mary Doyle, Acting Assistant Secretary for 
     Water and Science; Peter Umhofer, Senior Advisor; Don Jodrey, 
     Attorney, Office of the Solicitor; David Watts, Attorney, 
     Office of the Solicitor; and Dick Ring, Superintendent, 
     Everglades National Park.
       Environmental Protection Agency: Administrator Carol 
     Browner; Gary Guzy; Bob Dreher; Jamie Grodsky; John 
     Hankinson; Richard Harvey; Philip Mancusi-Ungaro; Eric 
     Hughes; and Dana Minerva.
       White House Council of Environmental Quality: Bill Leary.


                    state of florida everglades team

       Florida Governors Office: Governor Jeb Bush, J. Allison 
     DeFoor, R. Clarke Cooper, Rick Smith, and Nina Oviedo.
       Florida Department of Environmental Protection: Secretary 
     David B. Struhs, Ernie Barnett, Leslie Palmer, John Outland, 
     and Jennifer Fitzwater.
       South Florida Water Management District: Executive Director 
     Frank Finch, Kathy Copeland, Mike Collins, Tom Teets, John 
     Fumero, Elena Bernando, Paul Warner, Abe Cooper, and Cecile 
     Ross.
       South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force: Rock Salt.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, since both Senator 
Graham and Senator Baucus have both mentioned so many people to thank, 
we always run the risk of leaving someone out whenever we do that. With 
apologies to anyone that I do, I would like to reiterate and reinforce 
some of those who have already been thanked as well as perhaps a couple 
more.
  I think first and foremost we should mention Senator John Chafee who 
certainly started the process of the efforts on the Everglades, along 
with Senator Baucus. I know that John Chafee would be very proud of 
this moment because he felt deeply about this ecosystem. I think it is 
a great honor to be here now and be at this point knowing that John 
Chafee would have wanted this. It is a great tribute to him because he 
started the process. All we did was jump into the harness that he had 
already put on the team.
  I also thank Senator Voinovich, subcommittee chairman, because he 
brought a lot of debate on this issue. He helped us correct many 
provisions--certainly on the financing end and the cost end. We look a 
lot more closely at projects because of him. He was certainly a 
stalwart in seeing that this was a more fiscally responsible item than 
perhaps it may have otherwise been.
  Certainly Senator Baucus, who I already thanked, and Senators Mack 
and Graham. As Senator Baucus correctly said, it seemed as if Senator 
Mack was on the committee. But that is the way we worked it. They are 
the two Senators. We worked with them. Senator Graham, of course, is on 
the committee. But we worked together, knowing that we wanted all the 
input we could get from all of them.
  The administration was helpful. Mary Doyle and Peter Umhofer at the 
Department of the Interior. And Secretary Babbitt who was here for a 
press conference when we announced and released the bill; Joe Westphal 
and Mike Davis from the Department of the Army; Gary Guzy from EPA; Stu 
Applebaum, Larry Prather, and many others from the Corps of Engineers; 
and Bill Leary from CEQ.
  From the State of Florida--they have been absolutely fantastic on 
both sides of the aisle: David Struhs, Leslie Palmer, and Ernie Barnett 
from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection; Governor Bush 
himself, who has just been outstanding in conversation after 
conversation, working together on all of the provisions of this bill; 
and Kathy Copeland from the South Florida Water Management District.
  From Senator Bob Graham's staff, Catharine Cyr Ranson and Kasey 
Gilletteand, have been wonderful. We appreciate all they have done.
  Senator Mack's staff has already been mentioned by Senator Baucus. 
But I would also like to thank C.K. Lee, who was really the honorary 
member of the committee staff.
  Senator Voinovich's staff: Ellen Stein, Rich Worthington; and, of 
course, Senator Baucus' staff: Tom Sliter, Jo-Ellen Darcy, and Peter 
Washburn, all worked together in a nonpartisan way. We tried to keep 
the doors open at all times.
  Of course, my own staff, Dave Conover, who is the chief of staff on 
the committee; Ann Klee, Angie Giancarlo, and Chelsea Henderson, now 
Maxwell--she found time to get married after they got the Everglades 
set and ready to go. We let her get married and go on her honeymoon and 
come back to be here for the finale--and Stephanie Daigle and Tom 
Gibson, all brought a great blend of knowledge of the water issues and 
engineering, as well, to the whole debate.
  Let me say in closing to my colleagues that when you look back on 
your career in the Senate, I think you can be very proud of what you 
did. When you cast a vote to save the Everglades, I don't know if you 
are ever going to regret it. I think it is going to be a defining 
moment. Fifty years from now when the historians look back, they are 
going to say when it came time to stand up for the Everglades, they 
did. I think it will be one of the finest things that you have done in 
your careers. I certainly feel that way about mine. The only regret 
would be if we didn't try. We did try, and I believe we will succeed as 
a result of the fact that we took this risk.
  Some have said it would be ``bad politics,''--bad politics for the 
administration to work with the Republican Congress on an environmental 
issue; bad politics for Republicans to work with the administration 
with Florida as a ``swing State''; that maybe Governor George Bush will 
get too much credit, or Al Gore, who has been closely associated with 
the Everglades, is going to get too much credit. There is enough credit 
to go around. Who cares.
  The point is that most everyone in Florida--and I do not know too 
many on the other side who do not--supports restoring the Everglades. 
Let the credit fall where it may. Let the credit be taken where people 
want to take it. But the truth is we did the right thing. That is all 
that matters in the long run.
  There is a lot of history here. Congress initiated this plan in WRDA 
in 1992 when George Bush was in office and the Democrats were in the 
majority. It then refocused the Everglades effort in WRDA in 1996 when 
the Republicans were in the majority and Bill Clinton was in the White 
House.
  I think you see that there is plenty of evidence of bipartisan 
support.
  Congress set up the process under which this comprehensive plan was 
developed, but it was developed by this administration in cooperation 
with Florida, with tribes, and all other stakeholders.
  Florida, under Jeb Bush, stepped up to the plate and passed the 
legislation, along with the funding, to keep this moving forward even 
before the Federal Government made its commitment. Florida made its 
commitment to put their money up.
  When I became chairman, as has already been said, I took up the 
mantle and made this a priority. I believe in it. I made this 
restoration of the Everglades my highest priority. I am very grateful 
that my colleagues felt the same way and joined with me because, 
obviously, we wouldn't be here if it was just my priority. It takes at 
least 51 Senators to have that priority as well or we wouldn't be here.
  The Senate took the plan and made some important modifications, 
strengthened it, broadened the support; Senator Voinovich's input 
strengthened it.
  We are poised to send the bill to the House, a bill that has the 
support of

[[Page 19162]]

every major south Florida stakeholder, the State of Florida, the 
administration, and I think most Members of the Senate.
  Restoration of the Everglades is not a partisan issue. I ask my 
colleagues, if you have any doubts and you are worried about every 
single ``i'' being dotted and every ``t'' being crossed, take the risk. 
You will be glad you did. This is the right thing to do.
  I am very excited about this action. I am very excited by the fact we 
have looked to the future. In politics, sometimes we look to the next 
election. This time, with this vote, we are going to look to the next 
generation and respond so our grandchildren and their children will 
enjoy alligators and wading birds and the river of grass once again--
not only those who have had the chance to experience it now, but it 
will still be there for centuries to come because of what we did. I am 
proud of everyone for help in doing this.


                          everglades ecosystem

  Mr. MACK. Madam President, I rise today to engage my colleague from 
Florida in a colloquy. Specifically, I want to clarify our 
understanding of the portion of the legislation we're considering today 
to restore, preserve and protect the Everglades ecosystem. My 
understanding is that the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan 
authorized by this bill create a balance between state and federal 
interests in ensuring that the predicted Plan benefits--including 
benefits to both state and federal lands--are attained. It is my view 
that this bill is intended to recognize and maintain the State's 
interest in preserving the sovereignty, in State law, over the 
reservation and allocation of water within the State's boundaries. It 
is my further understanding that the Agreement called for between the 
President and the Governor of Florida will not result in a 
federalization of State water law. Florida water law requires that all 
reasonable beneficial water uses and natural system demands are subject 
to a public interest balancing test. Implementation of the Plan will 
rely upon State law and processes for reserving and allocating water 
for all users, according to the principles set out in the legislation 
before us. It is not the intent of this Act, or the President/Governor 
Agreement required by this Act, to create a procedure where all of the 
new water made available by the Plan will be allocated to the natural 
system leaving nothing for other water users. Rather, the agreement 
will simply ensure that water for the natural system is reserved first, 
and any remaining water may be allocated among other users according to 
the provisions of State water law. I yield to my colleague from 
Florida, Senator Graham.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I would join my colleague from Florida, 
Mr. Mack in clarifying our understanding. I agree with his remarks, and 
make the further point that the Plan authorized by this bill will 
capture a large percentage of the water lost to tide or lost through 
evapotranspiration for use by both the built and natural systems, with 
the natural system having priority over the water generated by the 
Plan.
  Mr. MACK. I appreciate the comments of my colleague and yield the 
floor.


                  secton 211, project deauthorization

  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, Sec. 211 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2000 includes a provision to accelerate the process 
to deauthorize inactive civil works projects. I am concerned, however, 
that this provision will have unintended consequences for deep-draft 
navigation projects.
  In 1986 the Congress authorized many port improvement projects after 
a 16-year deadlock with the Executive Branch. At that time, these 
projects were authorized according to the Report of the Chief of 
Engineers. Subsequently, with the concurrence of the non-Federal 
sponsor, elements of these major projects were constructed in phases. 
For example, in the case of the Norfolk Harbor and Channels Deepening 
Project, the project authorizes the deepening of the main channels to 
55 feet, deepening anchorages to 55 feet and deepening secondary 
channels to 45 feet.
  Significant progress has been made to deepen our nation's most active 
ports. These projects are critical to America's competitiveness in the 
global marketplace and to securing a favorable balance of trade. Like 
other major port navigation projects, construction under the Norfolk 
Harbor and Channels project has occurred in increments or phases. The 
outbound channel, anchorages and Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River 
have all been deepened under the current authorization. Work is 
underway to deepen the inbound channel to 50-feet, and the Commonwealth 
has fully funded this increment.
  The remaining elements of the project are still vitally important and 
wholly supported by the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Port of Virginia 
is the second busiest general cargo port on the East Coast and the 
largest port in terms of total cargoes, which include bulk commodities 
such as coal and grain. The port complex consists of the Newport News 
Marine Terminal, Norfolk International Terminals, Portsmouth Marine 
Terminals, and the Virginia Inland Port.
  In fiscal year 2000, over 12 million tons of containerized cargo 
moved through the ports. Virginia's general cargo facilities are 
responsible for more than $800 million a year in commerce and tax 
revenue. Also, Hampton Roads ranks among the world's largest coal 
exporting ports--handling more than 50 tons annually. Virginia's ports 
are one of the few in this country capable of loading and unloading the 
new generation of container ships.
  I am concerned that the provision in section 211 relating to 
separable elements in subsection (b)(2), will deauthorize the 55-foot 
phases of this project within 1 year. This section fails to recognize 
that it makes good economic sense, from the federal and state 
perspective, to construct these large projects in phases.
  I would ask the Chairman if my understanding of this section is 
correct?
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. The Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, is 
correct in his understanding of the potential impact of the provision. 
However, it is not my intent to deauthorize large navigation projects 
which enjoy strong state and federal support. The Committee has 
discussed this matter with the Corps of Engineers and we are aware that 
the provision may inadvertently capture a universe of active, ongoing 
projects. I can assure my colleague that we will work in conference to 
be sure that projects like the Norfolk Harbor and Channels project, as 
well as other critically important projects are not deauthorized as a 
result of this provision.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chairman and I look forward to working with 
him on this issue. I have offered two provisions to clarify the intent 
of this section to the Chairman. I am aware that the Assistant 
Secretary of the Army's office also has provided technical assistance 
on this matter. I trust that before we conference with the House of 
Representatives, we will have language recommended by the Corps to 
correct the scope of this section.


                        homestead air force base

  Mr. MACK. Madam President, I rise today to call the Senate's 
attention to a provision of the bill before us expressing the sense of 
the Senate concerning Homestead Air Force Base in Florida. I want to 
take a moment of the Senate's time today to express my understanding of 
this resolution and my own intent in agreeing to its inclusion in the 
bill before us today.
  As my colleagues are aware, this Air Force base is currently in the 
disposal process set forth by Congress when it established a fair and 
impartial system for closing military facilities around the country. 
Since Hurricane Andrew devastated the region in 1992, the citizens of 
South Florida have waited for a disposal decision from the federal 
government. It is anticipated the property could provide a stable 
economic platform for a community that is in need of jobs and economic 
development. Clearly, it is my intent that whatever use to which the 
property is ultimately put be accomplished in a manner that does not 
adversely impact the surrounding environment or the Everglades 
restoration plan we're considering today.

[[Page 19163]]

  But let me be clear, Mr. President. It is emphatically not my intent 
that this resolution be read by the United States Air Force to mean 
they should add to, alter, or amend the existing process for disposing 
the property at Homestead Air Force Base. It is my strong view that the 
process for conveying surplus military property is clearly set forth in 
the law and that process should be followed until the final 
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on the property is 
completed and the Air Force disposes the property.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. MACK. Yes.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I agree with the remarks by my colleague from Florida, 
and I would add that, in my view, the resolution makes clear that--once 
the conveyance process is complete--the Secretary of the Army should 
work closely with the parties to which the property is conveyed to 
ensure compatibility with the surrounding environment and the 
restoration plan. Further, the resolution requests the Secretary of the 
Army report to Congress in two years on any steps taken to ensure this 
compatibility and any recommendations for consideration by the 
Congress. While this is laudable, and has my full support, this 
resolution should not be read to mean the Air Force must add any new 
hurdles to the existing base closure and disposal process.
  I notice my colleague, Senator Inhofe, on the floor. I would ask my 
colleague for his thoughts on the Homestead matter and ask him if it is 
his understanding that the base closure law clearly sets out the 
process for disposing surplus military facilities and that this 
resolution does not alter or amend that law?
  Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate the comments of my colleagues from Florida. 
I have worked in the Armed Services Committee of the Senate to protect 
and defend the base closure and disposal process from political 
manipulation. I would agree that the resolution in the legislation 
before us today should not be read to mean the Air Force should delay 
its decision on the disposal of Homestead Air Force Base or otherwise 
alter its decision making process. The law is clear on how surplus 
military facilities in this country are disposed and it is my intent 
that this law be followed and adhered to by the Air Force. I note the 
presence on the floor of the distinguished chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee on the floor. I yield to Senator Warner.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague for his courtesy. I have listened 
carefully to the discussion between my colleagues. I would agree with 
the remarks of Senator Inhofe. The base closure process now in law 
should work its will in the case of Homestead Air Force Base according 
to the principles set forth in the law. No new layers of decision 
should be added as a result of the action we're taking here today.
  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I rise today in support of S. 2796, The 
Water Resources Development Act of 2000. I want to thank the Chairman 
of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Smith of New 
Hampshire, and my colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus for working 
with me to include two provisions in this year's bill.
  Earlier this year, I introduced the Fort Peck Fish Hatchery 
Authorization Act of 2000. As you may know, the Fort Peck Reservoir is 
a very prominent feature of North Eastern Montana. The Fort Peck 
project was built in the 1930s to dam the Upper Missouri River. The 
result was a massive reservoir that spans across my great state.
  The original authorization legislation for the Fort Peck project, and 
subsequent revisions and additions, left a great many promises unmet. A 
valley was flooded, but originally Montana was promised increased 
irrigation, low-cost power, and economic development. Since the 
original legislation, numerous laws have been enacted promising 
increased recreational activities on the lake, and also that the 
federal government would do more to support the fish and wildlife 
resources in the area.
  In this day and age, economic development in rural areas is becoming 
more and more dependent upon recreation and strong fish and wildlife 
numbers. The Fort Peck area is faced with a number of realities. First, 
the area is in dire need of a fish hatchery. The only hatchery in the 
region to support warm water species is found in Miles City, Montana. 
It is struggling to meet the needs of the fisheries in the area, yet it 
continues to fall short. Additionally, an outbreak of disease or 
failure in the infrastructure at the Miles City hatchery would leave 
the entire region reeling with no secondary source to support the 
area's fisheries.
  We are also faced with the reality that despite the promises given, 
the State of Montana has had to foot the bill for fish hatchery 
operations in the area. Since about 1950 the State has been funding 
these operations with little to no support from the Corps of Engineers. 
A citizens group spanning the State of Montana finally decided to make 
the federal government keep its promises.
  Last year the citizens group organized, and state legislation 
subsequently passed to authorize the sale of a warm water fishing stamp 
to begin collecting funds for the eventual operation and maintenance of 
the hatchery. I helped the group work with the Corps of Engineers to 
ensure that $125,000 in last year's budget was allocated to a 
feasibility study for the project, and Montanans kept their end of the 
bargain by finding another $125,000 to match the Corps expenditure. 
Clearly, we are putting our money, along with our sweat, where our 
mouth is.
  Recreation is part of the local economy. But the buzzword today is 
diversity. Diversify your economy. The Fort Peck area depends almost 
solely on agriculture. More irrigated acres probably aren't going to 
help the area pull itself up by its boot straps. But a stronger 
recreational and tourism industry sure will help speed things up.
  A lot of effort has already gone into this project. A state bill has 
been passed. The Corps has dedicated a project manager to the project. 
Citizens have raised money and jumped over more hurdles than I care to 
count. But the bottom line is that this is a great project with immense 
support. It is a good investment in the area, and it helps the federal 
government fulfill one thing that it ought to--its promises.
  Unfortunately, everything we wanted wasn't included in this 
legislation. As I originally drafted the legislation it ensured that 
the federal government would pick up part of the tab for operation and 
maintenance. Unfortunately, as Chairman Smith and Senator Baucus worked 
out the details of the legislation for inclusion in the Water Resources 
Development Act, they were unable to support this provision. I had 
hoped that, as in the portion of this bill dealing with the Everglades, 
they would allow the federal government to pick up a larger portion of 
the operation and maintenance overhead.
  Second, the legislation continues to include a section for power 
delivery that directs the Secretary of the Army to deliver low cost 
Pick-Sloan project power to the hatchery. This provision in the bill 
has raised the concerns of the local electric co-operatives and those 
that use Pick-Sloan power. I have worked with the Corps and the local 
interests to assure that this provision is not needed as drafted. I 
have discussed the need for changes with both the Chairman and Senator 
Baucus. I have secured a commitment from both of them to resolve this 
issue when the legislation goes to conference committee.
  Despite this shortcoming with the legislation, I am have worked hard 
on the hatchery project and feel it is necessary that we must move 
ahead as it has been included. I thank the Committee for working with 
me to ensure the hatchery project was included on my behalf.
  Another Montana specific provision, recently added to the 
legislation, allows the Corps of Engineers and the United States Fish 
and Wildlife Service to dispose of sites that are currently occupied by 
cabin leases and use the proceeds to purchase land in, or adjacent to, 
the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge that surrounds Fort 
Peck Reservoir. This provision is

[[Page 19164]]

a classic example of a win-win situation that will help support 
recreation and wildlife habitat in the region. By selling these cabin 
sites, we are reducing government management considerations, offering 
stability to the cabin owners, and providing a revenue source to 
purchase inholdings. Senator Baucus and I have been working on this 
legislation for a few years, and to see it included in this legislation 
is a great accomplishment for both of us.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, I rise to address a provision 
included in WRDA that will help local communities in many parts of the 
nation deal with the burden they often face when the federal government 
undertake dredging projects in their region.
  Before discussing the merits of this legislation, I want to first 
thank my colleagues, particularly Senators Smith, Baucus, and Voinovich 
for their assistance and cooperation. My colleagues have been 
remarkably helpful in this matter, they have understood the need, and I 
am grateful that they have agreed to include it in the managers 
package.
  Within WRDA there is a $2 million annual authorization to allow the 
U.S. Army Corp of engineers to develop a program that will allow all 
eight of its regional offices to market eligible dredged material to 
public agencies and private entities for beneficial reuse.
  Beneficial reuse is a concept which has largely been largely 
underutilized. As a result, dredged material is often dumped on the 
shorelines of local communities to their disadvantage, instead of sold 
to construction companies and other developers who would be eager to 
have this material available. We have known about this strange and 
ironic, even tragic, situation for some time, yet until now, not enough 
has been done to bring relief to these communities.
  The people of southern New Jersey are all too familiar with this 
situation. Current plans by the U.S. Army Corps call for more than 20 
million cubic yards of material dredged from the Delaware River to be 
placed on prime waterfront property along the Southern New Jersey 
shoreline. However, with some effort and encouragement, the Army corps 
has recently identified nearly 13 million cubic yards of that material 
for beneficial reuse in transportation and construction projects that 
would have otherwise been simply placed in upland sites.
  From this experience, which is also happening in port projects in 
other parts of the country, we should learn that contracting companies, 
land development companies, and major corporations want this material. 
This means we need to encourage the Army corps to be thinking about 
ways to beneficially reuse dredged material up-front so that 
communities will not be confronted with the same problems faced by the 
citizens of Southern New Jersey.
  The program created by this legislation will give the Army Corps the 
authority and the funding they require to begin actively marketing 
dredged material from projects all across the United States. It 
recognizes the need to keep our nation's rivers and channels efficient 
and available to maritime traffic while ensuring that local communities 
are treated fairly.
  I would again like to thank chairman Smith, Ranking Member Baucus, 
and Senator Voinovich for their commitment and attention to this 
important issue.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, I rise to express my support 
for S. 2796, the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. This bill, 
which authorizes numerous Army Corps of Engineers' programs throughout 
the Nation, is of vital importance to my state of Oregon.
  Oregon has both coastal and inland ports that rely heavily on the 
technical assistance provided by the Corps' programs for their 
continued operation. Dredging and flood control activities are also 
important to the economic vitality of Oregon. The Corps also operates a 
number of dams in the Columbia River basin and the Willamette River 
basin that generate clean hydroelectric power.
  S. 2796 authorizes the study of several small aquatic ecosystem 
restoration projects in Oregon. It also designated the Willamette River 
basin, Oregon, as a priority watershed for a water resource needs 
assessment.
  I would like to express my deep concerns about one provision in the 
bill, however. It has come to my attention that Section 207 of the 
bill, which is worded very innocuously, would allow for contracting out 
of operations and maintenance activities at Federal hydropower 
facilities. The dedicated men and women, many of whom are my 
constituents, who currently provide operations and maintenance at 
Corps' hydropower facilities in the Pacific Northwest are professionals 
of the highest order. Any problems related to the operations and 
maintenance at hydropower facilities on the Columbia River are the 
result of the Corps' failure to sign a direct funding agreement with 
the Bonneville Power Administration for almost 7 years after being 
authorized to do so.
  As the Water Resources Development Act moves to conference, I urge 
that this provision be deleted from the bill, as it already has been in 
the House version.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I rise today to offer my thanks to 
Senator Smith, the chairman of the Environment Committee and commend 
him for his successful effort to pass the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2000.
  Included in this legislation is language I crafted with 
Representatives Ehlers and Camp to further clarify the extent of the 
Great Lakes Governors' authority over diversions of Great Lakes water 
to locations outside the basin. This amendment makes clear that both 
diversions of water for use within the U.S. and exports of water to 
locations outside the U.S. may occur only with the consent of all eight 
Great Lakes governors. Questions over the definition of ``diversion'' 
made this clarification necessary.
  Almost as important, this amendment demonstrates that it is the 
intent of the Congress that the states work cooperatively with the 
Provinces of Ontario and Quebec to develop common standards for 
conservation of Great Lakes water and mechanisms for withdrawals. Such 
cooperation is crucial if we are to have equal and effective programs 
for conserving these waters and maintaining the health of the Great 
Lakes.
  In closing, let me state that I regret that my colleague, the senior 
Senator from Michigan did not join me in this effort. We share 
differing opinions over the need for clarification of the 1986 act. And 
while I disagreed with his interpretation of the definition of ``bulk 
fresh water,'' because diversions of water for use within the U.S. are 
already distinctly covered in the 1986 act, I nevertheless modified the 
amendment at his request, and I share his commitment to protecting the 
tremendous resources for future generations.
  Mr. MACK. Madam President, I will only take a moment of the Senate's 
time today--prior to the vote on the Water Resources Development Act--
to acknowledge the importance of this moment and the action the Senate 
will take today to restore and preserve America's Everglades.
  My colleague, Senator Graham, and I have worked for eight years to 
bring this bill to the floor and it gives me great satisfaction that 
today it will be approved by the Senate.
  I want especially to thank Chairman Smith for his dedication to this 
effort over the past few months. He has worked side-by-side with us to 
develop the consensus product we're voting on today. As we developed 
this legislation, he and his staff provided valuable input into the 
process and we appreciate the long hours they put in on our behalf.
  Further, I want to--once again--acknowledge my colleague, Senator 
Graham. He has worked on Everglades issues for years--even prior to his 
time in the Senate--and it has been a pleasure to work with him over 
the years as we worked on the legislation before us.
  The Corps of Engineers, the Department of Interior, and the Council 
on Environmental Quality have worked long hours to turn this bill into 
reality. I appreciate the support of these agencies throughout the 
process and

[[Page 19165]]

for the proof--once again--that saving the Everglades is not a partisan 
issue.
  And finally, I want to acknowledge the hard work and steadfast 
support of Governor Bush. The State of Florida is a full partner with 
us in this restoration effort, and I believe the work we've put in 
together in writing this bill bodes well for a lasting partnership on 
behalf of the Everglades.
  The Everglades is an American treasure. Today we in the Senate will 
take a major step forward in passing a restoration plan that is rooted 
in good science, common sense, and consensus. I thank everyone who 
participated in this process for their hard work and dedication to the 
effort.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I am pleased that the Senate is poised 
to pass the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA). This 
legislation includes critical provisions to restore the Florida 
Everglades and the Missouri River in South Dakota and I am hopeful that 
it will be enacted this year.
  Among the provisions of WRDA that will most benefit South Dakota is a 
section incorporating elements of S. 2291, the Missouri River 
Restoration Act. I introduced this legislation last May to address the 
siltation of the Missouri River in South Dakota and the threat to 
Indian cultural and historic sites that border the river. The WRDA bill 
under consideration today takes an important first step to address 
these problems, and I want to thank all of my colleagues for their help 
to secure the passage of this legislation. In particular, Senator 
Johnson, Senator Baucus, Senator Smith of New Hampshire and Senator 
Voinovich deserve praise for their efforts to incorporate this 
legislation into the larger bill. It is my hope that Congress will 
adopt the remaining elements of my comprehensive proposal to restore 
the Missouri River, including the creation of a Missouri River Trust 
Fund, in the foreseeable future.
  The need for this legislation stems from the construction of a series 
of federal dams along the Missouri River in the 1950s and 1960s that 
forever changed its flow. For decades, these dams have provided 
affordable electricity for millions of Americans and prevented billions 
of dollars of damage to downstream states by preventing flooding. They 
have also created an economically important recreation industry in 
South Dakota.
  However, one of the consequences of the dams is that they have 
virtually eliminated the ability of the Missouri River to carry 
sediment downstream. Before the dams, the Missouri was known as the Big 
Muddy because of the heavy sediment load it carried. Today, that 
sediment is deposited on the river bottom in South Dakota, and 
significant build-ups have occurred where tributaries like the Bad 
River, White River and Niobrara River empty into the Missouri.
  The Bad River, for example, deposits millions of tons of silt into 
the Missouri River each year. This sediment builds up near the cities 
of Pierre and Ft. Pierre, where it has raised the local water table and 
flooded area homes. Already, Congress has had to authorize a $35 
million project to relocate hundreds of families. To prevent more 
serious flooding, the Corps has had to lower releases from the Oahe 
dam, causing a $12 million annual loss due to restricted power 
generation.
  Farther south, near the city of Springfield, sediment from the 
Niobrara River clogs the Missouri's channel for miles. Boats that used 
to sail from Yankton to Springfield can no longer navigate the channel, 
eroding the area's economy. This problem will only grow worse. 
According to the Corps of Engineers, in less than 75 years Lewis and 
Clark lake will fill entirely with sediment, ending the ability of that 
reservoir to provide flood control and seriously threatening the 
economies of cities like Yankton and Vermillion.
  In addition to the impact of sediment on flood control, over 3000 
cultural and historic sites important to Indian tribes, including 
burial grounds, campsites, and ancient villages, are found along the 
Missouri River in the Dakotas. Many of these sites are threatened by 
erosion, and each year some of them are irretrievably lost as they 
tumble into the river. Critical points of the Lewis and Clark trail 
also follow the Missouri through South Dakota, and they are threatened 
by erosion as well.
  The elements of the Missouri River Restoration Act included in WRDA 
today address these problems by establishing a Missouri River Task 
Force composed of federal officials, representatives of the State of 
South Dakota and area Indian tribes. It will be responsible for 
developing and implementing a Missouri River Restoration Program to 
reduce sedimentation and protect cultural and historic sites along the 
river.
  I would like to take a few minutes to explain in detail how this 
process will work First, the bill establishes a 25-member Missouri 
River Trust. Appointments will be made to the Trust by the Secretary of 
the Army. These appointments must be in accordance with the 
recommendations of the Governor of South Dakota and area Indian tribes 
to ensure that there is a strong local voice on the Trust. Second, the 
bill establishes a Missouri River Task Force, chaired by the Secretary 
of the Army and including representatives of the Department of 
Interior, Department of Energy and Department of Agriculture. It also 
includes the Missouri River Trust.
  Once funding for this legislation becomes available, the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers will prepare an assessment of the Missouri River 
watershed in South Dakota that reviews the impact of siltation on the 
river, including its impact on a variety of issues: the Federal, State 
and regional economies; recreation; hydropower; fish and wildlife; and 
flood control. Based upon this assessment and other pertinent 
information, the Task Force will develop a plan to improve conservation 
in the Missouri River watershed; control and remove sediment from the 
Missouri River; protect recreation on the Missouri from sedimentation; 
protect Indian and non-Indian cultural and historic sites from erosion; 
and improve erosion control along the river.
  Once this plan is approved by the Task Force, the Task Force will 
review proposals from local, state, federal and other entities to meet 
the goals of the plan and recommend to the Secretary of the Army which 
of these proposals to carry out. It is the intention of this 
legislation that the Corps contract with, or provide grants to, other 
agencies and local entities to carry out these projects. To the extent 
possible, the Secretary should ensure that approximately 30 percent of 
the funds used to carry out these projects are spent on projects within 
Indian reservations or administered by Indian tribes. The bill 
authorizes a total of $4 million per year for the next 10 years to 
carry out these goals.
  While the Task Force will have the flexibility it needs to take 
appropriate actions to restore the Missouri River, it is my expectation 
that a significant effort will be made to improve conservation in the 
Missouri River watershed. Pilot projects have shown already that the 
amount of sediment flowing into the Missouri's tributaries can be 
reduced by as much as 50 percent with appropriate conservation 
practices. If requested, the Task Force will also have the authority to 
work with farmers across the river in Nebraska, for example, to reduce 
the amount of sediment flowing in from the Niobrara River.
  The conceptual underpinnings of this legislation were developed 
through numerous public discussions that I have held in South Dakota 
over the last year. Last January, I held a Missouri River Summit in the 
town of Springfield with Governor Janklow, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe 
Chairman Mike Jandreau, and other experts to discuss how to address 
these critical problems. In April, Governor Janklow and I held a 
hearing in Pierre to gather public comment about proposals to restore 
the river.
  I have been pleased by the outpouring of support I have seen for 
efforts to restore the river. Dozens of communities such as Yankton, 
Chamberlain, Springfield, Wagner, Pickstown, Mitchell and others have 
passed resolutions in support river restoration. American Rivers, a 
national leader in river protection, has recognized this need as well. 
The legislation

[[Page 19166]]

passed today takes the first important step we need to take to get this 
job done. I'd like to thank all those in South Dakota who contributed 
to this process, and my colleagues in the Senate for all of their 
support. I look forward to our continued work together.
  Finally, the WRDA bill includes an amendment to the Cheyenne River 
Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and State of South Dakota 
Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Act. This amendment requires 
the Corps of Engineers to meet its legal responsibilities to identify 
and stabilize Indian cultural sites, clean up open dumps, and mitigate 
wildlife habitat along the river. It also makes important technical 
changes to that law that will help ensure its smooth implementation. It 
is my hope that the Corps of Engineers will respond by working closely 
with the tribes and the state to clean up those lands, stabilize Indian 
cultural sites, and transfer the lands along the river to the tribes 
and state in a timely manner.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, in a few minutes we will vote on 
final passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. The bill 
is a product of months of hard work by the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works and the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 
I thank those Senators and staff members whose efforts have brought us 
where we are today.
  First, I thank Ellen Stein, Rich Worthington, and Karen Bachman of my 
staff for their dedicated effort on this bill. The number of hours they 
put in on this is unbelievable.
  I also thank my chairman, Bob Smith, and his staff for all their 
efforts in making this bill a reality, particularly in the very 
difficult negotiations on the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 
Plan.
  My thanks to staff director Dave Conover, Tom Gibson, Stephanie 
Daigle, and Chelsea Henderson Maxwell for all the hard work they put in 
on this piece of legislation.
  As most successful bills in the Senate--and I am learning this pretty 
quickly as a new Member of the Senate--ours has been a product of 
bipartisanship. Senator Max Baucus and his staff, in putting this bill 
together, have put in long hours. I recognize the efforts of minority 
staff director Tom Sliter, Jo-Ellen Darcy, and Peter Washburn for the 
good work they did in putting this legislation together.
  I also acknowledge the work of Senator Bob Graham and Senator Connie 
Mack and their staff in helping to forge a consensus on the 
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. I suspect they looked at 
some of the things I was involved in as maybe getting in the way and 
holding things up, but I want them and their staff to know we were 
conscientiously trying to make this something we could all be proud of 
and get the support of the Senate. I particularly thank C.K. Lee of 
Senator Mack's staff and Catherine Cyr Ranson of Senator Graham's staff 
for their work.
  We know the essential role of the Senate Legislative Counsel's Office 
in helping to draft legislation. I thank Janine Johnson for her 
invaluable help. Again, I think so often we take for granted the 
terrific work these folks do in putting these bills together.
  Further, any water resources development bill involves the 
evaluations of hundreds of projects and proposals. We depend on the 
Corps of Engineers in supplying information and expertise in this 
process. Larry Prather and his staff at the Legislative Management 
Branch at the Corps have provided invaluable assistance to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works and to this Senator. I give 
them the recognition they deserve.
  As I stated in my opening remarks, when we began debate on this 
legislation, I am proud of the work our committee and subcommittee have 
accomplished in putting together this bill. This is a disciplined bill 
that maintains the committee's commitment to the principles of high 
standards of engineering, economic, and environmental analysis, and 
adherence to cost-sharing principles and resistance to mission creep.
  This has not been an easy process, and we have not always agreed on 
the content of the legislation. But this effort has been marked 
throughout by cooperation and compromise. To me, this was highlighted 
dramatically in the negotiation over the bill's discussion of the 
relationship between Homestead Air Force Base and Everglades 
restoration. I particularly thank the environmental groups--
specifically, the National Resource Defense Council and the Sierra 
Club--for their critical roles in this effort.
  All in all, I think this is a well-balanced bill that provides 
authorization to a number of needed water development projects across 
this Nation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 4188

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment currently at the desk be agreed to. This amendment has been 
agreed to by the minority.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4188) was agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 4188

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Congress with respect to U.S.-
Canadian cooperation on development of conservation standards embodying 
   the principles of water conservation and resource improvement for 
 making decisions concerning the withdrawal and use of water from the 
               Great Lakes Basin, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . EXPORT OF WATER FROM GREAT LAKES.

       (a) Additional Finding. Section 1109(b) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-20(b)) is 
     amended by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs 
     (3) and (4), and by inserting after paragraph (1) the 
     following:
       (2) to encourage the Grant Lakes States, in consultation 
     with the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, to develop and 
     implement a mechanism that provides a common conservation 
     standard embodying the principles of water conservation and 
     resource improvement for making decisions concerning the 
     withdrawal and use of water from the Great Lakes Basin;
       (b) Approval of Governors for Export of Water. Section 
     1109(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (42 
     U.S.C. 1962d-20(d)) is amended by
       (1) inserting or exported after diverted; and
       (2) inserting or export after diversion.
       (c) Sense of the Congress. It is the Sense of the Congress 
     that the Secretary of State should work with the Canadian 
     Government to encourage and support the Provinces in the 
     development and implementation of a mechanism and standard 
     concerning the withdrawal and use of water from the Great 
     Lakes Basin consistent with those mechanisms and standards 
     developed by the Great Lakes States.

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, we have before the Senate the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2000. I had great concern with the 
amendment offered last week by Senator Abraham because the amendment 
sought to define terms which could have resulted in increased domestic 
diversion of Great Lakes water. This amendment, which was accepted as 
part of the manager's package until I asked that it be removed, could 
have led to the opposite of what we need for the Great Lakes. 
Specially, the amendment as accepted by the managers last week defined 
bulk fresh water as ``fresh water extracted in amounts intended for 
transportation outside the United States by commercial vessel or 
similar form of mass transportation, without further processing.'' This 
definition could have been interpreted as allowing more diversion of 
Great Lakes water within the United States. This threat to the Great 
Lakes was unacceptable and I would have strongly opposed the amendment 
with that definition.
  I still have reservations about the amendment because some might try 
to use it to argue that the current protections against diversions of 
Great Lakes water provided by existing law are not sufficient. We 
currently have an effective veto over bulk removals of Great Lakes 
water outside of the Great Lakes basin. When we passed WRDA in 1986,

[[Page 19167]]

we acted to make sure that each Great Lakes governor would have a veto 
over such removals. This protection is legally sufficient and we should 
do nothing to imply otherwise.
  If the states formally adopt a conservation strategy and standards, 
and the governors are currently working on those standards, such 
standards might provide an additional safeguard to strengthen our 
position that our current gubernatorial veto policy over bulk removals 
of Great Lakes water is consistent with the rules of international 
trade. This conservation strategy and standards might also provide 
additional protection against removals from the basin. But I favor 
seeking that additional strength for our position in a way which has no 
possible implication that it is necessary. While this amendment falls 
short in this regard, once offered, it would be worse if it were not 
adopted so I will not object to it.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield the remainder of time to the 
Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the leader. First of all, there are no two people 
I respect more than the two Senators from Florida. They certainly have 
done a very good job on the Everglades portion of the bill.
  However, I have to get on record. I will oppose the bill because of 
these elements that have been introduced. This is of great concern to 
me. Looking at the fiscal end, I see four reasons we should not have 
this on the bill. First of all, if we do this, and we have already done 
it--and on the Everglades portion I pleaded with everyone it should 
have been a stand-alone bill because it is too big to be incorporated 
into this resources bill--this will be the first time we have actually 
had projects without first having the Chief of the Corps of Engineers 
give a report. That has been something we have said is necessary.
  Second, we are looking at questionable technology. Everyone has 
admitted this. Certainly, the chairman of the committee, the 
distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, was very honest about it and 
straightforward. He said he felt strongly enough about it that we will 
have to try some things that perhaps have not been proven. This is 
unprecedented.
  Third, the amount of money we are talking about is open ended. We say 
this will be $7.8 billion in 38 years. But when we first started 
Medicare, approximately the same length of time ago, they said it would 
cost $3.4 billion, and this year it is $232 billion.
  A major concern I have is changing a precedent that has been there 
for 16 years; that is, that the operation and maintenance costs should 
come from the States. Now we are absorbing those costs, or at least 50 
percent of those costs, operation and maintenance, by the Federal 
Government.
  I think we are opening up something here. Yes, it is popular. There 
is a big constituency. It is open ended. It could end up costing us a 
tremendous amount of money.
  I wanted a chance, Madam President, to explain why I have to vote 
against this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for the third reading and was 
read the third time.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall it 
pass?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
McConnell), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas), the Senator from 
Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator 
from Oregon (Mr. Smith) the Senator from Washington (Mr. Gorton), and 
the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), the Senator from California 
(Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), the 
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) the Senator from California 
(Mr. Miller), and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) are 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 85, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 255 Leg.]

                                YEAS--85

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Inhofe
       

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Akaka
     Bingaman
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Gorton
     Jeffords
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Thomas
  The bill (S. 2796), as amended, was passed, as follows:

                                S. 2796

       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 2000''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary.

                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

Sec. 101. Project authorizations.
Sec. 102. Small shore protection projects.
Sec. 103. Small navigation projects.
Sec. 104. Removal of snags and clearing and straightening of channels 
              in navigable waters.
Sec. 105. Small bank stabilization projects.
Sec. 106. Small flood control projects.
Sec. 107. Small projects for improvement of the quality of the 
              environment.
Sec. 108. Beneficial uses of dredged material.
Sec. 109. Small aquatic ecosystem restoration projects.
Sec. 110. Flood mitigation and riverine restoration.
Sec. 111. Disposal of dredged material on beaches.

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Cooperation agreements with counties.
Sec. 202. Watershed and river basin assessments.
Sec. 203. Tribal partnership program.
Sec. 204. Ability to pay.
Sec. 205. Property protection program.
Sec. 206. National Recreation Reservation Service.
Sec. 207. Operation and maintenance of hydroelectric facilities.
Sec. 208. Interagency and international support.
Sec. 209. Reburial and conveyance authority.
Sec. 210. Approval of construction of dams and dikes.
Sec. 211. Project deauthorization authority.
Sec. 212. Floodplain management requirements.
Sec. 213. Environmental dredging.
Sec. 214. Regulatory analysis and management systems data.
Sec. 215. Performance of specialized or technical services.
Sec. 216. Hydroelectric power project funding.
Sec. 217. Assistance programs.
Sec. 218. Funding to process permits.
Sec. 219. Program to market dredged material.
Sec. 220. National Academy of Sciences studies.

                 TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Wildlife Mitigation Project, 
              Alabama and Mississippi.

[[Page 19168]]

Sec. 302. Boydsville, Arkansas.
Sec. 303. White River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.
Sec. 304. Petaluma, California.
Sec. 305. Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida.
Sec. 306. Illinois River basin restoration, Illinois.
Sec. 307. Upper Des Plaines River and tributaries, Illinois.
Sec. 308. Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.
Sec. 309. Red River Waterway, Louisiana.
Sec. 310. Narraguagus River, Milbridge, Maine.
Sec. 311. William Jennings Randolph Lake, Maryland.
Sec. 312. Breckenridge, Minnesota.
Sec. 313. Missouri River Valley, Missouri.
Sec. 314. New Madrid County, Missouri.
Sec. 315. Pemiscot County Harbor, Missouri.
Sec. 316. Pike County, Missouri.
Sec. 317. Fort Peck fish hatchery, Montana.
Sec. 318. Sagamore Creek, New Hampshire.
Sec. 319. Passaic River Basin flood management, New Jersey.
Sec. 320. Rockaway Inlet to Norton Point, New York.
Sec. 321. John Day Pool, Oregon and Washington.
Sec. 322. Fox Point hurricane barrier, Providence, Rhode Island.
Sec. 323. Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.
Sec. 324. Savannah River, South Carolina.
Sec. 325. Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas.
Sec. 326. Joe Pool Lake, Trinity River basin, Texas.
Sec. 327. Lake Champlain watershed, Vermont and New York.
Sec. 328. Mount St. Helens, Washington.
Sec. 329. Puget Sound and adjacent waters restoration, Washington.
Sec. 330. Fox River System, Wisconsin.
Sec. 331. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration.
Sec. 332. Great Lakes dredging levels adjustment.
Sec. 333. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 334. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation.
Sec. 335. Great Lakes tributary model.
Sec. 336. Treatment of dredged material from Long Island Sound.
Sec. 337. New England water resources and ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 338. Project deauthorizations.
Sec. 339. Bogue Banks, Carteret County, North Carolina.

                           TITLE IV--STUDIES

Sec. 401. Baldwin County, Alabama.
Sec. 402. Bono, Arkansas.
Sec. 403. Cache Creek Basin, California.
Sec. 404. Estudillo Canal watershed, California.
Sec. 405. Laguna Creek watershed, California.
Sec. 406. Oceanside, California.
Sec. 407. San Jacinto watershed, California.
Sec. 408. Choctawhatchee River, Florida.
Sec. 409. Egmont Key, Florida.
Sec. 410. Fernandina Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 411. Upper Ocklawaha River and Apopka/Palatlakaha River basins, 
              Florida.
Sec. 412. Boise River, Idaho.
Sec. 413. Wood River, Idaho.
Sec. 414. Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 415. Boeuf and Black, Louisiana.
Sec. 416. Port of Iberia, Louisiana.
Sec. 417. South Louisiana.
Sec. 418. St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 419. Portland Harbor, Maine.
Sec. 420. Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River, Maine and New 
              Hampshire.
Sec. 421. Searsport Harbor, Maine.
Sec. 422. Merrimack River basin, Massachusetts and New Hampshire.
Sec. 423. Port of Gulfport, Mississippi.
Sec. 424. Upland disposal sites in New Hampshire.
Sec. 425. Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Sec. 426. Cuyahoga River, Ohio.
Sec. 427. Duck Creek Watershed, Ohio.
Sec. 428. Fremont, Ohio.
Sec. 429. Grand Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 430. Dredged material disposal site, Rhode Island.
Sec. 431. Chickamauga Lock and Dam, Tennessee.
Sec. 432. Germantown, Tennessee.
Sec. 433. Horn Lake Creek and Tributaries, Tennessee and Mississippi.
Sec. 434. Cedar Bayou, Texas.
Sec. 435. Houston Ship Channel, Texas.
Sec. 436. San Antonio Channel, Texas.
Sec. 437. Vermont dams remediation.
Sec. 438. White River watershed below Mud Mountain Dam, Washington.
Sec. 439. Willapa Bay, Washington.
Sec. 440. Upper Mississippi River basin sediment and nutrient study.
Sec. 441. Cliff Walk in Newport, Rhode Island.
Sec. 442. Quonset Point Channel reconnaissance study.

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. Visitors centers.
Sec. 502. CALFED Bay-Delta Program assistance, California.
Sec. 503. Lake Sidney Lanier, Georgia, home preservation.
Sec. 504. Conveyance of lighthouse, Ontonagon, Michigan.
Sec. 505. Land conveyance, Candy Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 506. Land conveyance, Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake, South 
              Carolina.
Sec. 507. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and 
              State of South Dakota terrestrial wildlife habitat 
              restoration.
Sec. 508. Export of water from Great Lakes.

          TITLE VI--COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN

Sec. 601. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
Sec. 602. Sense of the Senate concerning Homestead Air Force Base.

          TITLE VII--MISSOURI RIVER PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT

Sec. 701. Short title.
Sec. 702. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 703. Definitions.
Sec. 704. Missouri River Trust.
Sec. 705. Missouri River Task Force.
Sec. 706. Administration.
Sec. 707. Authorization of appropriations.

                TITLE VIII--WILDLIFE REFUGE ENHANCEMENT

Sec. 801. Short title.
Sec. 802. Purpose.
Sec. 803. Definitions.
Sec. 804. Conveyance of cabin sites.
Sec. 805. Rights of nonparticipating lessees.
Sec. 806. Conveyance to third parties.
Sec. 807. Use of proceeds.
Sec. 808. Administrative costs.
Sec. 809. Termination of wildlife designation.
Sec. 810. Authorization of appropriations.

                  TITLE IX--MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION

Sec. 901. Short title.
Sec. 902. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 903. Definitions.
Sec. 904. Missouri River Trust.
Sec. 905. Missouri River Task Force.
Sec. 906. Administration.
Sec. 907. Authorization of appropriations.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.

       In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
     the Army.

                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

     SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) Projects With Chief's Reports.--The following projects 
     for water resources development and conservation and other 
     purposes 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 subsection:
       (1) Barnegat inlet to little egg inlet, new jersey.--The 
     project for shore protection, Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg 
     Inlet, New Jersey, at a total cost of $51,203,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $33,282,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $17,921,000, and at an estimated average 
     annual cost of $1,751,000 for periodic nourishment over the 
     50-year life of the project, with an estimated annual Federal 
     cost of $1,138,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost 
     of $613,000.
       (2) New york-new jersey harbor.--The project for 
     navigation, New York-New Jersey Harbor: Report of the Chief 
     of Engineers dated May 2, 2000, at a total cost of 
     $1,781,234,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $743,954,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $1,037,280,000.
       (b) Projects Subject to a Final Report.--The following 
     projects for water resources development and conservation and 
     other purposes are authorized to be carried out by the 
     Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans, and 
     subject to the conditions, recommended in a final report of 
     the Chief of Engineers if a favorable report of the Chief is 
     completed not later than December 31, 2000:
       (1) False pass harbor, alaska.--The project for navigation, 
     False Pass Harbor, Alaska, at a total cost of $15,164,000, 
     with an estimated Federal cost of $8,238,000 and an estimated 
     non-Federal cost of $6,926,000.
       (2) Unalaska harbor, alaska.--The project for navigation, 
     Unalaska Harbor, Alaska, at a total cost of $20,000,000, with 
     an estimated Federal cost of $12,000,000 and an estimated 
     non-Federal cost of $8,000,000.
       (3) Rio de flag, arizona.--The project for flood damage 
     reduction, Rio de Flag, Arizona, at a total cost of 
     $24,072,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $15,576,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $8,496,000.
       (4) Tres rios, arizona.--The project for environmental 
     restoration, Tres Rios, Arizona, at a total cost of 
     $99,320,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $62,755,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $36,565,000.
       (5) Los angeles harbor, california.--The project for 
     navigation, Los Angeles Harbor, California, at a total cost 
     of $153,313,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $43,735,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $109,578,000.
       (6) Murrieta creek, california.--The project for flood 
     control, Murrieta Creek, California, at a total cost of 
     $90,865,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $25,555,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $65,310,000.
       (7) Pine flat dam, california.--The project for fish and 
     wildlife restoration, Pine Flat Dam, California, at a total 
     cost of $34,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $22,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $12,000,000.
       (8) Ranchos palos verdes, california.--The project for 
     environmental restoration,

[[Page 19169]]

     Ranchos Palos Verdes, California, at a total cost of 
     $18,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $11,800,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,300,000.
       (9) Santa barbara streams, california.--The project for 
     flood damage reduction, Santa Barbara Streams, Lower Mission 
     Creek, California, at a total cost of $18,300,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $9,200,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $9,100,000.
       (10) Upper newport bay harbor, california.--The project for 
     environmental restoration, Upper Newport Bay Harbor, 
     California, at a total cost of $32,475,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $21,109,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $11,366,000.
       (11) Whitewater river basin, california.--The project for 
     flood damage reduction, Whitewater River basin, California, 
     at a total cost of $27,570,000, with an estimated Federal 
     cost of $17,920,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $9,650,000.
       (12) Delaware coast from cape henlopen to fenwick island, 
     delaware.--The project for shore protection, Delaware Coast 
     from Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, Delaware, at a total 
     cost of $5,633,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $3,661,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,972,000, 
     and at an estimated average annual cost of $920,000 for 
     periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, 
     with an estimated annual Federal cost of $460,000 and an 
     estimated annual non-Federal cost of $460,000.
       (13) Tampa harbor, florida.--Modification of the project 
     for navigation, Tampa Harbor, Florida, authorized by section 
     4 of the Act of September 22, 1922 (42 Stat. 1042, chapter 
     427), to deepen the Port Sutton Channel, at a total cost of 
     $6,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $4,000,000 and 
     an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,000,000.
       (14) John t. myers lock and dam, indiana and kentucky.--The 
     project for navigation, John T. Myers Lock and Dam, Ohio 
     River, Indiana and Kentucky, at a total cost of $182,000,000. 
     The costs of construction of the project shall be paid \1/2\ 
     from amounts appropriated from the general fund of the 
     Treasury and \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the Inland 
     Waterways Trust Fund.
       (15) Greenup lock and dam, kentucky.--The project for 
     navigation, Greenup Lock and Dam, Ohio River, Kentucky, at a 
     total cost of $175,500,000. The costs of construction of the 
     project shall be paid \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from 
     the general fund of the Treasury and \1/2\ from amounts 
     appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
       (16) Morganza, louisiana, to gulf of mexico.--
       (A) In general.--The project for hurricane protection, 
     Morganza, Louisiana, to the Gulf of Mexico, at a total cost 
     of $550,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $358,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $192,000,000.
       (B) Credit.--The non-Federal interests shall receive credit 
     toward the non-Federal share of project costs for the costs 
     of any work carried out by the non-Federal interests for 
     interim flood protection after March 31, 1989, if the 
     Secretary finds that the work is compatible with, and 
     integral to, the project.
       (17) Chesterfield, missouri.--The project to implement 
     structural and nonstructural measures to prevent flood damage 
     to Chesterfield, Missouri, and the surrounding area, at a 
     total cost of $67,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $44,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $23,700,000.
       (18) Raritan bay and sandy hook bay, port monmouth, new 
     jersey.--The project for shore protection, Raritan Bay and 
     Sandy Hook Bay, Port Monmouth, New Jersey, at a total cost of 
     $32,064,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $20,842,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,222,000, and at an 
     estimated average annual cost of $2,468,000 for periodic 
     nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an 
     estimated annual Federal cost of $1,234,000 and an estimated 
     annual non-Federal cost of $1,234,000.
       (19) Memphis, tennessee.--The project for ecosystem 
     restoration, Wolf River, Memphis, Tennessee, at a total cost 
     of $10,933,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,106,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,827,000.
       (20) Jackson hole, wyoming.--
       (A) In general.--The project for environmental restoration, 
     Jackson Hole, Wyoming, at a total cost of $52,242,000, with 
     an estimated Federal cost of $33,957,000 and an estimated 
     non-Federal cost of $18,285,000.
       (B) Non-federal share.--
       (i) In general.--The non-Federal share of the costs of the 
     project may be provided in cash or in the form of in-kind 
     services or materials.
       (ii) Credit.--The non-Federal interest shall receive credit 
     toward the non-Federal share of project costs for design and 
     construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
     before the date of execution of a project cooperation 
     agreement for the project, if the Secretary finds that the 
     work is integral to the project.
       (21) Ohio river.--
       (A) In general.--The program for protection and restoration 
     of fish and wildlife habitat in and along the main stem of 
     the Ohio River, consisting of projects described in a 
     comprehensive plan, at a total cost of $307,700,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $200,000,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $107,700,000.
       (B) Non-federal share.--
       (i) In general.--The non-Federal share of the costs of any 
     project under the program may be provided in cash or in the 
     form of in-kind services or materials.
       (ii) Credit.--The non-Federal interest shall receive credit 
     toward the non-Federal share of project costs for design and 
     construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
     before the date of execution of a project cooperation 
     agreement for the project, if the Secretary finds that the 
     work is integral to the project.

     SEC. 102. SMALL SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the 
     following projects, and if the Secretary determines that a 
     project is feasible, may carry out the project under section 
     3 of the Act of August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g):
       (1) Lake palourde, louisiana.--Project for beach 
     restoration and protection, Highway 70, Lake Palourde, St. 
     Mary and St. Martin Parishes, Louisiana.
       (2) St. bernard, louisiana.--Project for beach restoration 
     and protection, Bayou Road, St. Bernard, Louisiana.

     SEC. 103. SMALL NAVIGATION PROJECTS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the 
     following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a 
     project is feasible, may carry out the project under section 
     107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577):
       (1) Cape coral south spreader waterway, florida.--Project 
     for navigation, Cape Coral South Spreader Waterway, Lee 
     County, Florida.
       (2) Houma navigation canal, louisiana.--Project for 
     navigation, Houma Navigation Canal, Terrebonne Parish, 
     Louisiana.
       (3) Vidalia port, louisiana.--Project for navigation, 
     Vidalia Port, Louisiana.

     SEC. 104. REMOVAL OF SNAGS AND CLEARING AND STRAIGHTENING OF 
                   CHANNELS IN NAVIGABLE WATERS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the 
     following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a 
     project is appropriate, may carry out the project under 
     section 3 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (33 U.S.C. 604):
       (1) Bayou manchac, louisiana.--Project for removal of snags 
     and clearing and straightening of channels for flood control, 
     Bayou Manchac, Ascension Parish, Louisiana.
       (2) Black bayou and hippolyte coulee, louisiana.--Project 
     for removal of snags and clearing and straightening of 
     channels for flood control, Black Bayou and Hippolyte Coulee, 
     Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana.

     SEC. 105. SMALL BANK STABILIZATION PROJECTS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the 
     following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a 
     project is feasible, may carry out the project under section 
     14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r):
       (1) Bayou des glaises, louisiana.--Project for emergency 
     streambank protection, Bayou des Glaises (Lee Chatelain 
     Road), Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana.
       (2) Bayou plaquemine, louisiana.--Project for emergency 
     streambank protection, Highway 77, Bayou Plaquemine, 
     Iberville Parish, Louisiana.
       (3) Hammond, louisiana.--Project for emergency streambank 
     protection, Fagan Drive Bridge, Hammond, Louisiana.
       (4) Iberville parish, louisiana.--Project for emergency 
     streambank protection, Iberville Parish, Louisiana.
       (5) Lake arthur, louisiana.--Project for emergency 
     streambank protection, Parish Road 120 at Lake Arthur, 
     Louisiana.
       (6) Lake charles, louisiana.--Project for emergency 
     streambank protection, Pithon Coulee, Lake Charles, Calcasieu 
     Parish, Louisiana.
       (7) Loggy bayou, louisiana.--Project for emergency 
     streambank protection, Loggy Bayou, Bienville Parish, 
     Louisiana.
       (8) Scotlandville bluff, louisiana.--Project for emergency 
     streambank protection, Scotlandville Bluff, East Baton Rouge 
     Parish, Louisiana.

     SEC. 106. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the 
     following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a 
     project is feasible, may carry out the project under section 
     205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s):
       (1) Weiser river, idaho.--Project for flood damage 
     reduction, Weiser River, Idaho.
       (2) Bayou tete l'ours, louisiana.--Project for flood 
     control, Bayou Tete L'Ours, Louisiana.
       (3) Bossier city, louisiana.--Project for flood control, 
     Red Chute Bayou levee, Bossier City, Louisiana.
       (4) Braithwaite park, louisiana.--Project for flood 
     control, Braithwaite Park, Louisiana.
       (5) Cane bend subdivision, louisiana.--Project for flood 
     control, Cane Bend Subdivision, Bossier Parish, Louisiana.
       (6) Crown point, louisiana.--Project for flood control, 
     Crown Point, Louisiana.
       (7) Donaldsonville canals, louisiana.--Project for flood 
     control, Donaldsonville Canals, Louisiana.
       (8) Goose bayou, louisiana.--Project for flood control, 
     Goose Bayou, Louisiana.
       (9) Gumby dam, louisiana.--Project for flood control, Gumby 
     Dam, Richland Parish, Louisiana.

[[Page 19170]]

       (10) Hope canal, louisiana.--Project for flood control, 
     Hope Canal, Louisiana.
       (11) Jean lafitte, louisiana.--Project for flood control, 
     Jean Lafitte, Louisiana.
       (12) Lockport to larose, louisiana.--Project for flood 
     control, Lockport to Larose, Louisiana.
       (13) Lower lafitte basin, louisiana.--Project for flood 
     control, Lower Lafitte Basin, Louisiana.
       (14) Oakville to lareussite, louisiana.--Project for flood 
     control, Oakville to LaReussite, Louisiana.
       (15) Pailet basin, louisiana.--Project for flood control, 
     Pailet Basin, Louisiana.
       (16) Pochitolawa creek, louisiana.--Project for flood 
     control, Pochitolawa Creek, Louisiana.
       (17) Rosethorn basin, louisiana.--Project for flood 
     control, Rosethorn Basin, Louisiana.
       (18) Shreveport, louisiana.--Project for flood control, 
     Twelve Mile Bayou, Shreveport, Louisiana.
       (19) Stephensville, louisiana.--Project for flood control, 
     Stephensville, Louisiana.
       (20) St. john the baptist parish, louisiana.--Project for 
     flood control, St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana.
       (21) Magby creek and vernon branch, mississippi.--Project 
     for flood control, Magby Creek and Vernon Branch, Lowndes 
     County, Mississippi.
       (22) Fritz landing, tennessee.--Project for flood control, 
     Fritz Landing, Tennessee.

     SEC. 107. SMALL PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY OF 
                   THE ENVIRONMENT.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the 
     following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a 
     project is appropriate, may carry out the project under 
     section 1135(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a(a)):
       (1) Bayou sauvage national wildlife refuge, louisiana.--
     Project for improvement of the quality of the environment, 
     Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge, Orleans Parish, 
     Louisiana.
       (2) Gulf intracoastal waterway, bayou plaquemine, 
     louisiana.--Project for improvement of the quality of the 
     environment, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Bayou Plaquemine, 
     Iberville Parish, Louisiana.
       (3) Gulf intracoastal waterway, miles 220 to 222.5, 
     louisiana.--Project for improvement of the quality of the 
     environment, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, miles 220 to 222.5, 
     Vermilion Parish, Louisiana.
       (4) Gulf intracoastal waterway, weeks bay, louisiana.--
     Project for improvement of the quality of the environment, 
     Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Weeks Bay, Iberia Parish, 
     Louisiana.
       (5) Lake fausse point, louisiana.--Project for improvement 
     of the quality of the environment, Lake Fausse Point, 
     Louisiana.
       (6) Lake providence, louisiana.--Project for improvement of 
     the quality of the environment, Old River, Lake Providence, 
     Louisiana.
       (7) New river, louisiana.--Project for improvement of the 
     quality of the environment, New River, Ascension Parish, 
     Louisiana.
       (8) Erie county, ohio.--Project for improvement of the 
     quality of the environment, Sheldon's Marsh State Nature 
     Preserve, Erie County, Ohio.
       (9) Mushingum county, ohio.--Project for improvement of the 
     quality of the environment, Dillon Reservoir watershed, 
     Licking River, Mushingum County, Ohio.

     SEC. 108. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.

       The Secretary may carry out the following projects under 
     section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
     (33 U.S.C. 2326):
       (1) Houma navigation canal, louisiana.--Project to make 
     beneficial use of dredged material from a Federal navigation 
     project that includes barrier island restoration at the Houma 
     Navigation Canal, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana.
       (2) Mississippi river gulf outlet, mile -3 to mile -9, 
     louisiana.--Project to make beneficial use of dredged 
     material from a Federal navigation project that includes 
     dredging of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, mile -3 to 
     mile -9, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana.
       (3) Mississippi river gulf outlet, mile 11 to mile 4, 
     louisiana.--Project to make beneficial use of dredged 
     material from a Federal navigation project that includes 
     dredging of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, mile 11 to 
     mile 4, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana.
       (4) Plaquemines parish, louisiana.--Project to make 
     beneficial use of dredged material from a Federal navigation 
     project that includes marsh creation at the contained 
     submarine maintenance dredge sediment trap, Plaquemines 
     Parish, Louisiana.
       (5) Ottawa county, ohio.--Project to protect, restore, and 
     create aquatic and related habitat using dredged material, 
     East Harbor State Park, Ottawa County, Ohio.

     SEC. 109. SMALL AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out the following 
     projects under section 206 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330):
       (1) Braud bayou, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Braud Bayou, Spanish Lake, Ascension Parish, 
     Louisiana.
       (2) Buras marina, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Buras Marina, Buras, Plaquemines Parish, 
     Louisiana.
       (3) Comite river, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Comite River at Hooper Road, Louisiana.
       (4) Department of energy 21-inch pipeline canal, 
     louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, 
     Department of Energy 21-inch Pipeline Canal, St. Martin 
     Parish, Louisiana.
       (5) Lake borgne, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, southern shores of Lake Borgne, Louisiana.
       (6) Lake martin, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Lake Martin, Louisiana.
       (7) Luling, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Luling Oxidation Pond, St. Charles Parish, 
     Louisiana.
       (8) Mandeville, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Mandeville, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana.
       (9) St. james, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, St. James, Louisiana.
       (10) Mines falls park, new hampshire.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, Mines Falls Park, New Hampshire.
       (11) North hampton, new hampshire.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, Little River Salt Marsh, North 
     Hampton, New Hampshire.
       (12) Highland county, ohio.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Rocky Fork Lake, Clear Creek floodplain, 
     Highland County, Ohio.
       (13) Hocking county, ohio.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Long Hollow Mine, Hocking County, Ohio.
       (14) Tuscarawas county, ohio.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, Huff Run, Tuscarawas County, Ohio.
       (15) Central amazon creek, oregon.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, Central Amazon Creek, Oregon.
       (16) Delta ponds, oregon.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Delta Ponds, Oregon.
       (17) Eugene millrace, oregon.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, Eugene Millrace, Oregon.
       (18) Medford, oregon.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Bear Creek watershed, Medford, Oregon.
       (19) Roslyn lake, oregon.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Roslyn Lake, Oregon.
       (b) Salmon River, Idaho.--
       (1) Credit.--The non-Federal interests with respect to the 
     proposed project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Salmon 
     River, Idaho, may receive credit toward the non-Federal share 
     of project costs for work, consisting of surveys, studies, 
     and development of technical data, that is carried out by the 
     non-Federal interests in connection with the project, if the 
     Secretary finds that the work is integral to the project.
       (2) Maximum amount of credit.--The amount of the credit 
     under paragraph (1), together with other credit afforded, 
     shall not exceed the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     project under section 206 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330).

     SEC. 110. FLOOD MITIGATION AND RIVERINE RESTORATION.

       Section 212(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999 (33 U.S.C. 2332(e)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (22), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (23), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(24) Perry Creek, Iowa.''.

     SEC. 111. DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL ON BEACHES.

       Section 217 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 294) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(f) Fort Canby State Park, Benson Beach, Washington.--The 
     Secretary may design and construct a shore protection project 
     at Fort Canby State Park, Benson Beach, Washington, including 
     beneficial use of dredged material from Federal navigation 
     projects as provided under section 145 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j).''.

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 201. COOPERATION AGREEMENTS WITH COUNTIES.

       Section 221(a) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 
     1962d-5b(a)) is amended in the second sentence--
       (1) by striking ``State legislative''; and
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``of the State or a body politic of the State''.

     SEC. 202. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.

       Section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (100 Stat. 4164) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 729. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may assess the water 
     resources needs of river basins and watersheds of the United 
     States, including needs relating to--
       ``(1) ecosystem protection and restoration;

[[Page 19171]]

       ``(2) flood damage reduction;
       ``(3) navigation and ports;
       ``(4) watershed protection;
       ``(5) water supply; and
       ``(6) drought preparedness.
       ``(b) Cooperation.--An assessment under subsection (a) 
     shall be carried out in cooperation and coordination with--
       ``(1) the Secretary of the Interior;
       ``(2) the Secretary of Agriculture;
       ``(3) the Secretary of Commerce;
       ``(4) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency; and
       ``(5) the heads of other appropriate agencies.
       ``(c) Consultation.--In carrying out an assessment under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with Federal, 
     tribal, State, interstate, and local governmental entities.
       ``(d) Priority River Basins and Watersheds.--In selecting 
     river basins and watersheds for assessment under this 
     section, the Secretary shall give priority to--
       ``(1) the Delaware River basin; and
       ``(2) the Willamette River basin, Oregon.
       ``(e) Acceptance of Contributions.--In carrying out an 
     assessment under subsection (a), the Secretary may accept 
     contributions, in cash or in kind, from Federal, tribal, 
     State, interstate, and local governmental entities to the 
     extent that the Secretary determines that the contributions 
     will facilitate completion of the assessment.
       ``(f) Cost-Sharing Requirements.--
       ``(1) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the 
     costs of an assessment carried out under this section shall 
     be 50 percent.
       ``(2) Credit.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the non-
     Federal interests may receive credit toward the non-Federal 
     share required under paragraph (1) for the provision of 
     services, materials, supplies, or other in-kind 
     contributions.
       ``(B) Maximum amount of credit.--Credit under subparagraph 
     (A) shall not exceed an amount equal to 25 percent of the 
     costs of the assessment.
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000.''.

     SEC. 203. TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.

       (a) Definition of Indian Tribe.--In this section, the term 
     ``Indian tribe'' has the meaning given the term in section 4 
     of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act 
     (25 U.S.C. 450b).
       (b) Program.--
       (1) In general.--In cooperation with Indian tribes and the 
     heads of other Federal agencies, the Secretary may study and 
     determine the feasibility of carrying out water resources 
     development projects that--
       (A) will substantially benefit Indian tribes; and
       (B) are located primarily within Indian country (as defined 
     in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code) or in 
     proximity to Alaska Native villages.
       (2) Matters to be studied.--A study conducted under 
     paragraph (1) may address--
       (A) projects for flood damage reduction, environmental 
     restoration and protection, and preservation of cultural and 
     natural resources; and
       (B) such other projects as the Secretary, in cooperation 
     with Indian tribes and the heads of other Federal agencies, 
     determines to be appropriate.
       (c) Consultation and Coordination With Secretary of the 
     Interior.--
       (1) In general.--In recognition of the unique role of the 
     Secretary of the Interior concerning trust responsibilities 
     with Indian tribes, and in recognition of mutual trust 
     responsibilities, the Secretary shall consult with the 
     Secretary of the Interior concerning studies conducted under 
     subsection (b).
       (2) Integration of activities.--The Secretary shall--
       (A) integrate civil works activities of the Department of 
     the Army with activities of the Department of the Interior to 
     avoid conflicts, duplications of effort, or unanticipated 
     adverse effects on Indian tribes; and
       (B) consider the authorities and programs of the Department 
     of the Interior and other Federal agencies in any 
     recommendations concerning carrying out projects studied 
     under subsection (b).
       (d) Priority Projects.--In selecting water resources 
     development projects for study under this section, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to the project for the Tribal 
     Reservation of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe on Willapa 
     Bay, Washington, authorized by section 439(b).
       (e) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) Ability to pay.--
       (A) In general.--Any cost-sharing agreement for a study 
     under subsection (b) shall be subject to the ability of the 
     non-Federal interest to pay.
       (B) Use of procedures.--The ability of a non-Federal 
     interest to pay shall be determined by the Secretary in 
     accordance with procedures established by the Secretary.
       (2) Credit.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), in conducting 
     studies of projects under subsection (b), the Secretary may 
     provide credit to the non-Federal interest for the provision 
     of services, studies, supplies, or other in-kind 
     contributions to the extent that the Secretary determines 
     that the services, studies, supplies, and other in-kind 
     contributions will facilitate completion of the project.
       (B) Maximum amount of credit.--Credit under subparagraph 
     (A) shall not exceed an amount equal to the non-Federal share 
     of the costs of the study.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out subsection (b) $5,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006, of which not more 
     than $1,000,000 may be used with respect to any 1 Indian 
     tribe.

     SEC. 204. ABILITY TO PAY.

       Section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--Any cost-sharing agreement under this 
     section for a feasibility study, or for construction of an 
     environmental protection and restoration project, a flood 
     control project, a project for navigation, storm damage 
     protection, shoreline erosion, hurricane protection, or 
     recreation, or an agricultural water supply project, shall be 
     subject to the ability of the non-Federal interest to pay.
       ``(2) Criteria and procedures.--
       ``(A) In general.--The ability of a non-Federal interest to 
     pay shall be determined by the Secretary in accordance with--
       ``(i) during the period ending on the date on which revised 
     criteria and procedures are promulgated under subparagraph 
     (B), criteria and procedures in effect on the day before the 
     date of enactment of this subparagraph; and
       ``(ii) after the date on which revised criteria and 
     procedures are promulgated under subparagraph (B), the 
     revised criteria and procedures promulgated under 
     subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Revised criteria and procedures.--Not later than 18 
     months after the date of enactment of this subparagraph, in 
     accordance with paragraph (3), the Secretary shall promulgate 
     revised criteria and procedures governing the ability of a 
     non-Federal interest to pay.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by adding ``and'' at the end; 
     and
       (B) by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) may consider additional criteria relating to--
       ``(i) the financial ability of the non-Federal interest to 
     carry out its cost-sharing responsibilities; or
       ``(ii) additional assistance that may be available from 
     other Federal or State sources.''.

     SEC. 205. PROPERTY PROTECTION PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out a program to 
     reduce vandalism and destruction of property at water 
     resources development projects under the jurisdiction of the 
     Department of the Army.
       (b) Provision of Rewards.--In carrying out the program, the 
     Secretary may provide rewards (including cash rewards) to 
     individuals who provide information or evidence leading to 
     the arrest and prosecution of individuals causing damage to 
     Federal property.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000 for 
     each fiscal year.

     SEC. 206. NATIONAL RECREATION RESERVATION SERVICE.

       Notwithstanding section 611 of the Treasury and General 
     Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277; 112 
     Stat. 2681-515), the Secretary may--
       (1) participate in the National Recreation Reservation 
     Service on an interagency basis; and
       (2) pay the Department of the Army's share of the 
     activities required to implement, operate, and maintain the 
     Service.

     SEC. 207. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF HYDROELECTRIC 
                   FACILITIES.

       Section 314 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 
     (33 U.S.C. 2321) is amended in the first sentence by 
     inserting before the period at the end the following: ``in 
     cases in which the activities require specialized training 
     relating to hydroelectric power generation''.

     SEC. 208. INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT.

       Section 234(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (33 U.S.C. 2323a(d)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``$1,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$2,000,000''; and
       (2) in the second sentence, by inserting ``out'' after 
     ``carry''.

     SEC. 209. REBURIAL AND CONVEYANCE AUTHORITY.

       (a) Definition of Indian Tribe.--In this section, the term 
     ``Indian tribe'' has the meaning given the term in section 4 
     of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act 
     (25 U.S.C. 450b).
       (b) Reburial.--
       (1) Reburial areas.--In consultation with affected Indian 
     tribes, the Secretary may identify and set aside areas at 
     civil works projects of the Department of the Army that may 
     be used to rebury Native American remains that--
       (A) have been discovered on project land; and

[[Page 19172]]

       (B) have been rightfully claimed by a lineal descendant or 
     Indian tribe in accordance with applicable Federal law.
       (2) Reburial.--In consultation with and with the consent of 
     the lineal descendant or the affected Indian tribe, the 
     Secretary may recover and rebury, at full Federal expense, 
     the remains at the areas identified and set aside under 
     subsection (b)(1).
       (c) Conveyance Authority.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, the Secretary may convey to an 
     Indian tribe for use as a cemetery an area at a civil works 
     project that is identified and set aside by the Secretary 
     under subsection (b)(1).
       (2) Retention of necessary property interests.--In carrying 
     out paragraph (1), the Secretary shall retain any necessary 
     right- of-way, easement, or other property interest that the 
     Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out the 
     authorized purposes of the project.

     SEC. 210. APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION OF DAMS AND DIKES.

       Section 9 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401), is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``It shall'';
       (2) by striking ``However, such structures'' and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(b) Waterways Within a Single State.--Notwithstanding 
     subsection (a), structures described in subsection (a)'';
       (3) by striking ``When plans'' and inserting the following:
       ``(c) Modification of Plans.--When plans'';
       (4) by striking ``The approval'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(d) Applicability.--
       ``(1) Bridges and causeways.--The approval''; and
       (5) in subsection (d) (as designated by paragraph (4)), by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Dams and dikes.--
       ``(A) In general.--The approval required by this section of 
     the location and plans, or any modification of plans, of any 
     dam or dike, applies only to a dam or dike that, if 
     constructed, would completely span a waterway used to 
     transport interstate or foreign commerce, in such a manner 
     that actual, existing interstate or foreign commerce could be 
     adversely affected.
       ``(B) Other dams and dikes.--Any dam or dike (other than a 
     dam or dike described in subparagraph (A)) that is proposed 
     to be built in any other navigable water of the United 
     States--
       ``(i) shall be subject to section 10; and
       ``(ii) shall not be subject to the approval requirements of 
     this section.''.

     SEC. 211. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATION AUTHORITY.

       Section 1001 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 579a) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 1001. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Construction.--The term `construction', with respect 
     to a project or separable element, means--
       ``(A) in the case of--
       ``(i) a nonstructural flood control project, the 
     acquisition of land, an easement, or a right-of-way primarily 
     to relocate a structure; and
       ``(ii) in the case of any other nonstructural measure, the 
     performance of physical work under a construction contract;
       ``(B) in the case of an environmental protection and 
     restoration project--
       ``(i) the acquisition of land, an easement, or a right-of-
     way primarily to facilitate the restoration of wetland or a 
     similar habitat; or
       ``(ii) the performance of physical work under a 
     construction contract to modify an existing project facility 
     or to construct a new environmental protection and 
     restoration measure; and
       ``(C) in the case of any other water resources project, the 
     performance of physical work under a construction contract.
       ``(2) Physical work under a construction contract.--The 
     term `physical work under a construction contract' does not 
     include any activity related to project planning, engineering 
     and design, relocation, or the acquisition of land, an 
     easement, or a right-of-way.
       ``(b) Projects Never Under Construction.--
       ``(1) List of projects.--The Secretary shall annually 
     submit to Congress a list of projects and separable elements 
     of projects that--
       ``(A) are authorized for construction; and
       ``(B) for which no Federal funds were obligated for 
     construction during the 4 full fiscal years preceding the 
     date of submission of the list.
       ``(2) Deauthorization.--Any water resources project, or 
     separable element of a water resources project, authorized 
     for construction shall be deauthorized effective at the end 
     of the 7-year period beginning on the date of the most recent 
     authorization or reauthorization of the project or separable 
     element unless Federal funds have been obligated for 
     preconstruction engineering and design or for construction of 
     the project or separable element by the end of that period.
       ``(c) Projects for Which Construction Has Been Suspended.--
       ``(1) List of projects.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall annually submit to 
     Congress a list of projects and separable elements of 
     projects--
       ``(i) that are authorized for construction;
       ``(ii) for which Federal funds have been obligated for 
     construction of the project or separable element; and
       ``(iii) for which no Federal funds have been obligated for 
     construction of the project or separable element during the 2 
     full fiscal years preceding the date of submission of the 
     list.
       ``(B) Projects with initial placement of fill.--The 
     Secretary shall not include on a list submitted under 
     subparagraph (A) any shore protection project with respect to 
     which there has been, before the date of submission of the 
     list, any placement of fill unless the Secretary determines 
     that the project no longer has a willing and financially 
     capable non-Federal interest.
       ``(2) Deauthorization.--Any water resources project, or 
     separable element of a water resources project, for which 
     Federal funds have been obligated for construction shall be 
     deauthorized effective at the end of any 5-fiscal year period 
     during which Federal funds specifically identified for 
     construction of the project or separable element (in an Act 
     of Congress or in the accompanying legislative report 
     language) have not been obligated for construction.
       ``(d) Congressional Notifications.--Upon submission of the 
     lists under subsections (b)(1) and (c)(1), the Secretary 
     shall notify each Senator in whose State, and each Member of 
     the House of Representatives in whose district, the affected 
     project or separable element is or would be located.
       ``(e) Final Deauthorization List.--The Secretary shall 
     publish annually in the Federal Register a list of all 
     projects and separable elements deauthorized under subsection 
     (b)(2) or (c)(2).
       ``(f) Effective Date.--Subsections (b)(2) and (c)(2) take 
     effect 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     subsection.''.

     SEC. 212. FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 402(c) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 701b-12(c)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence of paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``Within 6 months after the date of the enactment of this 
     subsection, the'' and inserting ``The'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);
       (3) by striking ``Such guidelines shall address'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2) Required elements.--The guidelines developed under 
     paragraph (1) shall--
       ``(A) address''; and
       (4) in paragraph (2) (as designated by paragraph (3))--
       (A) by inserting ``that non-Federal interests shall adopt 
     and enforce'' after ``policies'';
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) require non-Federal interests to take measures to 
     preserve the level of flood protection provided by a project 
     to which subsection (a) applies.''.
       (b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to any project or separable element of a project 
     with respect to which the Secretary and the non-Federal 
     interest have not entered a project cooperation agreement on 
     or before the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Technical Amendments.--Section 402(b) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 701b-12(b)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Flood Plain'' 
     and inserting ``Floodplain''; and
       (2) in the first sentence, by striking ``flood plain'' and 
     inserting ``floodplain''.

     SEC. 213. ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING.

       Section 312 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 
     (33 U.S.C. 1272) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(g) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of 
     the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), for any 
     project carried out under this section, a non-Federal sponsor 
     may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of the 
     affected local government.''.

     SEC. 214. REGULATORY ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS DATA.

       (a) In General.--Beginning October 1, 2000, the Secretary, 
     acting through the Chief of Engineers, shall publish, on the 
     Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program website, 
     quarterly reports that include all Regulatory Analysis and 
     Management Systems (RAMS) data.
       (b) Data.--Such RAMS data shall include--
       (1) the date on which an individual or nationwide permit 
     application under section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) is first received by the Corps;
       (2) the date on which the application is considered 
     complete;
       (3) the date on which the Corps either grants (with or 
     without conditions) or denies the permit; and
       (4) if the application is not considered complete when 
     first received by the Corps, a description of the reason the 
     application was not considered complete.

[[Page 19173]]



     SEC. 215. PERFORMANCE OF SPECIALIZED OR TECHNICAL SERVICES.

       (a) Definition of State.--In this section, the term 
     ``State'' has the meaning given the term in section 6501 of 
     title 31, United States Code.
       (b) Authority.--The Corps of Engineers may provide 
     specialized or technical services to a Federal agency (other 
     than a Department of Defense agency), State, or local 
     government of the United States under section 6505 of title 
     31, United States Code, only if the chief executive of the 
     requesting entity submits to the Secretary--
       (1) a written request describing the scope of the services 
     to be performed and agreeing to reimburse the Corps for all 
     costs associated with the performance of the services; and
       (2) a certification that includes adequate facts to 
     establish that the services requested are not reasonably and 
     quickly available through ordinary business channels.
       (c) Corps Agreement To Perform Services.--The Secretary, 
     after receiving a request described in subsection (b) to 
     provide specialized or technical services, shall, before 
     entering into an agreement to perform the services--
       (1) ensure that the requirements of subsection (b) are met 
     with regard to the request for services; and
       (2) execute a certification that includes adequate facts to 
     establish that the Corps is uniquely equipped to perform such 
     services.
       (d) Annual Report to Congress.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than the end of each calendar 
     year, 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 a report identifying any request 
     submitted by a Federal agency (other than a Department of 
     Defense agency), State, or local government of the United 
     States to the Corps to provide specialized or technical 
     services.
       (2) Contents of report.--The report shall include, with 
     respect to each request described in paragraph (1)--
       (A) a description of the scope of services requested;
       (B) the certifications required under subsection (b) and 
     (c);
       (C) the status of the request;
       (D) the estimated and final cost of the services;
       (E) the status of reimbursement;
       (F) a description of the scope of services performed; and
       (G) copies of all certifications in support of the request.

     SEC. 216. HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT FUNDING.

       Section 216 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (33 U.S.C. 2321a) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``In carrying out'' and 
     all that follows through ``(1) is'' and inserting the 
     following: ``In carrying out the operation, maintenance, 
     rehabilitation, and modernization of a hydroelectric power 
     generating facility at a water resources project under the 
     jurisdiction of the Department of the Army, the Secretary 
     may, to the extent funds are made available in appropriations 
     Acts or in accordance with subsection (c), take such actions 
     as are necessary to optimize the efficiency of energy 
     production or increase the capacity of the facility, or both, 
     if, after consulting with the heads of other appropriate 
     Federal and State agencies, the Secretary determines that 
     such actions--
       ``(1) are'';
       (2) in the first sentence of subsection (b), by striking 
     ``the proposed uprating'' and inserting ``any proposed 
     uprating'';
       (3) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (e); and
       (4) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Use of Funds Provided by Preference Customers.--In 
     carrying out this section, the Secretary may accept and 
     expend funds provided by preference customers under Federal 
     law relating to the marketing of power.
       ``(d) Application.--This section does not apply to any 
     facility of the Department of the Army that is authorized to 
     be funded under section 2406 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 
     (16 U.S.C. 839d-1).''.

     SEC. 217. ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

       (a) Conservation and Recreation Management.--To further 
     training and educational opportunities at water resources 
     development projects under the jurisdiction of the Secretary, 
     the Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements with non-
     Federal public and nonprofit entities for services relating 
     to natural resources conservation or recreation management.
       (b) Rural Community Assistance.--In carrying out studies 
     and projects under the jurisdiction of the Secretary, the 
     Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements with 
     multistate regional private nonprofit rural community 
     assistance entities for services, including water resource 
     assessment, community participation, planning, development, 
     and management activities.
       (c) Cooperative Agreements.--A cooperative agreement 
     entered into under this section shall not be considered to 
     be, or treated as being, a cooperative agreement to which 
     chapter 63 of title 31, United States Code, applies.

     SEC. 218. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.

       (a) The Secretary, after public notice, may accept and 
     expend funds contributed by non-Federal public entities to 
     expedite the evaluation of permits under the jurisdiction of 
     the Department of the Army.
       (b) In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall 
     ensure that the use of such funds as authorized in subsection 
     (a) will result in improved efficiencies in permit evaluation 
     and will not impact impartial decisionmaking in the 
     permitting process.

     SEC. 219. PROGRAM TO MARKET DREDGED MATERIAL.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Dredged Material Reuse Act''.
       (b) Finding.--Congress finds that the Secretary of the Army 
     should establish a program to reuse dredged material--
       (1) to ensure the long-term viability of disposal capacity 
     for dredged material; and
       (2) to encourage the reuse of dredged material for 
     environmental and economic purposes.
       (c) Definition.--In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means 
     the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of 
     Engineers.
       (d) Program for Reuse of Dredged Material.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a 
     program to allow the direct marketing of dredged material to 
     public agencies and private entities.
       (2) Limitations.--The Secretary shall not establish the 
     program under subsection (a) unless a determination is made 
     that such program is in the interest of the United States and 
     is economically justified, equitable, and environmentally 
     acceptable.
       (3) Regional responsibility.--The program described in 
     subsection (a) may authorize each of the 8 division offices 
     of the Corps of Engineers to market to public agencies and 
     private entities any dredged material from projects under the 
     jurisdiction of the regional office. Any revenues generated 
     from any sale of dredged material to such entities shall be 
     deposited in the United States Treasury.
       (4) Reports.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter for a period 
     of 4 years, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report 
     on the program established under subsection (a).
       (5) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this Act $2,000,000 for each 
     fiscal year.

     SEC. 220. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES STUDIES.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Academy.--The term ``Academy'' means the National 
     Academy of Sciences.
       (2) Method.--The term ``method'' means a method, model, 
     assumption, or other pertinent planning tool used in 
     conducting an economic or environmental analysis of a water 
     resources project, including the formulation of a feasibility 
     report.
       (3) Feasibility report.--The term ``feasibility report'' 
     means each feasibility report, and each associated 
     environmental impact statement and mitigation plan, prepared 
     by the Corps of Engineers for a water resources project.
       (4) Water resources project.--The term ``water resources 
     project'' means a project for navigation, a project for flood 
     control, a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, 
     a project for emergency streambank and shore protection, a 
     project for ecosystem restoration and protection, and a water 
     resources project of any other type carried out by the Corps 
     of Engineers.
       (b) Independent Peer Review of Projects.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall contract with the 
     Academy to study, and make recommendations relating to, the 
     independent peer review of feasibility reports.
       (2) Study elements.--In carrying out a contract under 
     paragraph (1), the Academy shall study the practicality and 
     efficacy of the independent peer review of the feasibility 
     reports, including--
       (A) the cost, time requirements, and other considerations 
     relating to the implementation of independent peer review; 
     and
       (B) objective criteria that may be used to determine the 
     most effective application of independent peer review to 
     feasibility reports for each type of water resources project.
       (3) Academy report.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
     of a contract under paragraph (1), the Academy shall submit 
     to the Secretary, the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, and the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a 
     report that includes--
       (A) the results of the study conducted under paragraphs (1) 
     and (2); and
       (B) in light of the results of the study, specific 
     recommendations, if any, on a program for implementing 
     independent peer review of feasibility reports.
       (4) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $1,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.

[[Page 19174]]

       (c) Independent Peer Review of Methods for Project 
     Analysis.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall contract with the 
     Academy to conduct a study that includes--
       (A) a review of state-of-the-art methods;
       (B) a review of the methods currently used by the 
     Secretary;
       (C) a review of a sample of instances in which the 
     Secretary has applied the methods identified under 
     subparagraph (B) in the analysis of each type of water 
     resources project; and
       (D) a comparative evaluation of the basis and validity of 
     state-of-the-art methods identified under subparagraph (A) 
     and the methods identified under subparagraphs (B) and (C).
       (2) Academy report.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
     of a contract under paragraph (1), the Academy shall submit 
     to the Secretary, the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, and the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a 
     report that includes--
       (A) the results of the study conducted under paragraph (1); 
     and
       (B) in light of the results of the study, specific 
     recommendations for modifying any of the methods currently 
     used by the Secretary for conducting economic and 
     environmental analyses of water resources projects.
       (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $2,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.

                 TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

     SEC. 301. TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY WILDLIFE MITIGATION 
                   PROJECT, ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI.

       (a) General.--The Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Wildlife 
     Mitigation Project, Alabama and Mississippi, authorized by 
     section 601(a) of Public Law 99-662 (100 Stat. 4138) is 
     modified to authorize the Secretary to--
       (1) remove the wildlife mitigation purpose designation from 
     up to 3,000 acres of land as necessary over the life of the 
     project from lands originally acquired for water resource 
     development projects included in the Mitigation Project in 
     accordance with the Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 
     August 31, 1985;
       (2) sell or exchange such lands in accordance with 
     subsection (c)(1) and under such conditions as the Secretary 
     determines to be necessary to protect the interests of the 
     United States, utilize such lands as the Secretary determines 
     to be appropriate in connection with development, operation, 
     maintenance, or modification of the water resource 
     development projects, or grant such other interests as the 
     Secretary may determine to be reasonable in the public 
     interest; and
       (3) acquire, in accordance with subsections (c) and (d), 
     lands from willing sellers to offset the removal of any lands 
     from the Mitigation Project for the purposes listed in 
     subsection (a)(2) of this section.
       (b) Removal Process.--From the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the locations of these lands to be removed will be 
     determined at appropriate time intervals at the discretion of 
     the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and 
     State fish and wildlife agencies, to facilitate the operation 
     of the water resource development projects and to respond to 
     regional needs related to the project. Removals under this 
     subsection shall be restricted to Project Lands designated 
     for mitigation and shall not include lands purchased 
     exclusively for mitigation purposes (known as Separable 
     Mitigation Lands). Parcel identification, removal, and sale 
     may occur assuming acreage acquisitions pursuant to 
     subsection (d) are at least equal to the total acreage of the 
     lands removed.
       (c) Lands To Be Sold.--
       (1) Lands to be sold or exchanged pursuant to subsection 
     (a)(2) shall be made available for related uses consistent 
     with other uses of the water resource development project 
     lands (including port, industry, transportation, recreation, 
     and other regional needs for the project).
       (2) Any valuation of land sold or exchanged pursuant to 
     this section shall be at fair market value as determined by 
     the Secretary.
       (3) The Secretary is authorized to accept monetary 
     consideration and to use such funds without further 
     appropriation to carry out subsection (a)(3). All monetary 
     considerations made available to the Secretary under 
     subsection (a)(2) from the sale of lands shall be used for 
     and in support of acquisitions pursuant to subsection (d). 
     The Secretary is further authorized for purposes of this 
     section to purchase up to 1,000 acres from funds otherwise 
     available.
       (d) Criteria for Land To Be Acquired.--The Secretary shall 
     consult with the appropriate Federal and State fish and 
     wildlife agencies in selecting the lands to be acquired 
     pursuant to subsection (a)(3). In selecting the lands to be 
     acquired, bottomland hardwood and associated habitats will 
     receive primary consideration. The lands shall be adjacent to 
     lands already in the Mitigation Project unless otherwise 
     agreed to by the Secretary and the fish and wildlife 
     agencies.
       (e) Dredged Material Disposal Sites.--The Secretary shall 
     utilize dredge material disposal areas in such a manner as to 
     maximize their reuse by disposal and removal of dredged 
     materials, in order to conserve undisturbed disposal areas 
     for wildlife habitat to the maximum extent practicable. Where 
     the habitat value loss due to reuse of disposal areas cannot 
     be offset by the reduced need for other unused disposal 
     sites, the Secretary shall determine, in consultation with 
     Federal and State fish and wildlife agencies, and ensure full 
     mitigation for any habitat value lost as a result of such 
     reuse.
       (f) Other Mitigation Lands.--The Secretary is also 
     authorized to outgrant by lease, easement, license, or permit 
     lands acquired for the Wildlife Mitigation Project pursuant 
     to section 601(a) of Public Law 99-662, in consultation with 
     Federal and State fish and wildlife agencies, when such 
     outgrants are necessary to address transportation, utility, 
     and related activities. The Secretary shall insure full 
     mitigation for any wildlife habitat value lost as a result of 
     such sale or outgrant. Habitat value replacement requirements 
     shall be determined by the Secretary in consultation with the 
     appropriate fish and wildlife agencies.
       (g) Repeal.--Section 102 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4804) is amended by striking 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 302. BOYDSVILLE, ARKANSAS.

       The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of 
     the costs of the study to determine the feasibility of the 
     reservoir and associated improvements in the vicinity of 
     Boydsville, Arkansas, authorized by section 402 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 322), not more 
     than $250,000 of the costs of the relevant planning and 
     engineering investigations carried out by State and local 
     agencies, if the Secretary finds that the investigations are 
     integral to the scope of the feasibility study.

     SEC. 303. WHITE RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS AND MISSOURI.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the project for 
     flood control, power generation, and other purposes at the 
     White River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri, authorized by 
     section 4 of the Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1218, chapter 
     795), and modified by House Document 917, 76th Congress, 3d 
     Session, and House Document 290, 77th Congress, 1st Session, 
     approved August 18, 1941, and House Document 499, 83d 
     Congress, 2d Session, approved September 3, 1954, and by 
     section 304 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (110 Stat. 3711), is further modified to authorize the 
     Secretary to provide minimum flows necessary to sustain tail 
     water trout fisheries by reallocating the following 
     recommended amounts of project storage:
       (1) Beaver Lake, 1.5 feet.
       (2) Table Rock, 2 feet.
       (3) Bull Shoals Lake, 5 feet.
       (4) Norfolk Lake, 3.5 feet.
       (5) Greers Ferry Lake, 3 feet.
       (b) Report.--
       (1) In general.--No funds may be obligated to carry out 
     work on the modification under subsection (a) until the Chief 
     of Engineers, through completion of a final report, 
     determines that the work is technically sound, 
     environmentally acceptable, and economically justified.
       (2) Timing.--Not later than January 1, 2002, the Secretary 
     shall submit to Congress the final report referred to in 
     paragraph (1).
       (3) Contents.--The report shall include determinations 
     concerning whether--
       (A) the modification under subsection (a) adversely affects 
     other authorized project purposes; and
       (B) Federal costs will be incurred in connection with the 
     modification.

     SEC. 304. PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may complete the project for 
     flood damage reduction, Petaluma River, Petaluma, California, 
     substantially in accordance with the Detailed Project Report 
     approved March 1995, at a total cost of $32,226,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $20,647,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $11,579,000.
       (b) In-Kind Services.--The non-Federal interest may provide 
     its share of project costs in cash or in the form of in-kind 
     services or materials.
       (c) Credit.--The non-Federal interest shall receive credit 
     toward the non-Federal share of project costs for design and 
     construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
     before the date of modification of the existing project 
     cooperation agreement or execution of a new project 
     cooperation agreement, if the Secretary determines that the 
     work is integral to the project.

     SEC. 305. GASPARILLA AND ESTERO ISLANDS, FLORIDA.

       The project for shore protection, Gasparilla and Estero 
     Island segments, Lee County, Florida, authorized under 
     section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1073), 
     by Senate Resolution dated December 17, 1970, and by House 
     Resolution dated December 15, 1970, is modified to authorize 
     the Secretary to enter into an agreement with the non-Federal 
     interest to carry out the project in accordance with section 
     206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 
     426i-1), if the Secretary determines that the project is 
     technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and 
     economically justified.

[[Page 19175]]



     SEC. 306. ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION, ILLINOIS.

       (a) Definition of Illinois River Basin.--In this section, 
     the term ``Illinois River basin'' means the Illinois River, 
     Illinois, its backwaters, side channels, and all tributaries, 
     including their watersheds, draining into the Illinois River.
       (b) Comprehensive Plan.--
       (1) Development.--As expeditiously as practicable, the 
     Secretary shall develop a proposed comprehensive plan for the 
     purpose of restoring, preserving, and protecting the Illinois 
     River basin.
       (2) Technologies and innovative approaches.--The 
     comprehensive plan shall provide for the development of new 
     technologies and innovative approaches--
       (A) to enhance the Illinois River as a vital transportation 
     corridor;
       (B) to improve water quality within the entire Illinois 
     River basin;
       (C) to restore, enhance, and preserve habitat for plants 
     and wildlife; and
       (D) to increase economic opportunity for agriculture and 
     business communities.
       (3) Specific components.--The comprehensive plan shall 
     include such features as are necessary to provide for--
       (A) the development and implementation of a program for 
     sediment removal technology, sediment characterization, 
     sediment transport, and beneficial uses of sediment;
       (B) the development and implementation of a program for the 
     planning, conservation, evaluation, and construction of 
     measures for fish and wildlife habitat conservation and 
     rehabilitation, and stabilization and enhancement of land and 
     water resources in the Illinois River basin;
       (C) the development and implementation of a long-term 
     resource monitoring program; and
       (D) the development and implementation of a computerized 
     inventory and analysis system.
       (4) Consultation.--The comprehensive plan shall be 
     developed by the Secretary in consultation with appropriate 
     Federal agencies and the State of Illinois.
       (5) Report to congress.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress a report containing the comprehensive plan.
       (6) Additional studies and analyses.--After submission of 
     the report under paragraph (5), the Secretary shall continue 
     to conduct such studies and analyses related to the 
     comprehensive plan as are necessary, consistent with this 
     subsection.
       (c) Critical Restoration Projects.--
       (1) In general.--If the Secretary, in cooperation with 
     appropriate Federal agencies and the State of Illinois, 
     determines that a restoration project for the Illinois River 
     basin will produce independent, immediate, and substantial 
     restoration, preservation, and protection benefits, the 
     Secretary shall proceed expeditiously with the implementation 
     of the project.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out projects under this 
     subsection $20,000,000.
       (3) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     carrying out any project under this subsection shall not 
     exceed $5,000,000.
       (d) General Provisions.--
       (1) Water quality.--In carrying out projects and activities 
     under this section, the Secretary shall take into account the 
     protection of water quality by considering applicable State 
     water quality standards.
       (2) Public participation.--In developing the comprehensive 
     plan under subsection (b) and carrying out projects under 
     subsection (c), the Secretary shall implement procedures to 
     facilitate public participation, including--
       (A) providing advance notice of meetings;
       (B) providing adequate opportunity for public input and 
     comment;
       (C) maintaining appropriate records; and
       (D) making a record of the proceedings of meetings 
     available for public inspection.
       (e) Coordination.--The Secretary shall integrate and 
     coordinate projects and activities carried out under this 
     section with ongoing Federal and State programs, projects, 
     and activities, including the following:
       (1) Upper Mississippi River System-Environmental Management 
     Program authorized under section 1103 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 652).
       (2) Upper Mississippi River Illinois Waterway System Study.
       (3) Kankakee River Basin General Investigation.
       (4) Peoria Riverfront Development General Investigation.
       (5) Illinois River Ecosystem Restoration General 
     Investigation.
       (6) Conservation reserve program and other farm programs of 
     the Department of Agriculture.
       (7) Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (State) and 
     Conservation 2000, Ecosystem Program of the Illinois 
     Department of Natural Resources.
       (8) Conservation 2000 Conservation Practices Program and 
     the Livestock Management Facilities Act administered by the 
     Department of Agriculture of the State of Illinois.
       (9) National Buffer Initiative of the Natural Resources 
     Conservation Service.
       (10) Nonpoint source grant program administered by the 
     Environmental Protection Agency of the State of Illinois.
       (f) Justification.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 209 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962-2) or any other provision 
     of law, in carrying out activities to restore, preserve, and 
     protect the Illinois River basin under this section, the 
     Secretary may determine that the activities--
       (A) are justified by the environmental benefits derived by 
     the Illinois River basin; and
       (B) shall not need further economic justification if the 
     Secretary determines that the activities are cost-effective.
       (2) Applicability.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any 
     separable element intended to produce benefits that are 
     predominantly unrelated to the restoration, preservation, and 
     protection of the Illinois River basin.
       (g) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
     projects and activities carried out under this section shall 
     be 35 percent.
       (2) Operation, maintenance, rehabilitation, and 
     replacement.--The operation, maintenance, rehabilitation, and 
     replacement of projects carried out under this section shall 
     be a non-Federal responsibility.
       (3) In-kind services.--
       (A) In general.--The value of in-kind services provided by 
     the non-Federal interest for a project or activity carried 
     out under this section may be credited toward not more than 
     80 percent of the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     project or activity.
       (B) Items included.--In-kind services shall include all 
     State funds expended on programs and projects that accomplish 
     the goals of this section, as determined by the Secretary, 
     including the Illinois River Conservation Reserve Program, 
     the Illinois Conservation 2000 Program, the Open Lands Trust 
     Fund, and other appropriate programs carried out in the 
     Illinois River basin.
       (4) Credit.--
       (A) Value of land.--If the Secretary determines that land 
     or an interest in land acquired by a non-Federal interest, 
     regardless of the date of acquisition, is integral to a 
     project or activity carried out under this section, the 
     Secretary may credit the value of the land or interest in 
     land toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project 
     or activity, as determined by the Secretary.
       (B) Work.--If the Secretary determines that any work 
     completed by a non-Federal interest, regardless of the date 
     of completion, is integral to a project or activity carried 
     out under this section, the Secretary may credit the value of 
     the work toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     project or activity, as determined by the Secretary.

     SEC. 307. UPPER DES PLAINES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, ILLINOIS.

       The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of 
     the costs of the study to determine the feasibility of 
     improvements to the upper Des Plaines River and tributaries, 
     phase 2, Illinois and Wisconsin, authorized by section 419 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 324), 
     the costs of work carried out by the non-Federal interests in 
     Lake County, Illinois, before the date of execution of the 
     feasibility study cost-sharing agreement, if--
       (1) the Secretary and the non-Federal interests enter into 
     a feasibility study cost-sharing agreement; and
       (2) the Secretary finds that the work is integral to the 
     scope of the feasibility study.

     SEC. 308. ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LOUISIANA.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers, dated February 28, 1983, for the project for flood 
     control, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana, 
     authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142), which report refers 
     to recreational development in the Lower Atchafalaya Basin 
     Floodway, the Secretary--
       (1) shall, in collaboration with the State of Louisiana, 
     initiate construction of the visitors center, authorized as 
     part of the project, at or near Lake End Park in Morgan City, 
     Louisiana; and
       (2) shall construct other recreational features, authorized 
     as part of the project, within, and in the vicinity of, the 
     Lower Atchafalaya Basin protection levees.
       (b) Authorities.--The Secretary shall carry out subsection 
     (a) in accordance with--
       (1) the feasibility study for the Atchafalaya Basin 
     Floodway System, Louisiana, dated January 1982; and
       (2) the recreation cost-sharing requirements under section 
     103(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
     U.S.C. 2213(c)).

     SEC. 309. RED RIVER WATERWAY, LOUISIANA.

       The project for mitigation of fish and wildlife losses, Red 
     River Waterway, Louisiana, authorized by section 601(a) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142) 
     and modified by section 4(h) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4016), section 102(p) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4613), 
     and section 301(b)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1996 (110 Stat. 3710), is further modified to authorize 
     the purchase of mitigation land from willing sellers in any 
     of the parishes that comprise the Red River Waterway 
     District, consisting of Avoyelles, Bossier, Caddo, Grant,

[[Page 19176]]

     Natchitoches, Rapides, and Red River Parishes.

     SEC. 310. NARRAGUAGUS RIVER, MILBRIDGE, MAINE.

       (a) Redesignation.--The project for navigation, Narraguagus 
     River, Milbridge, Maine, authorized by section 101 of the 
     River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1173), is modified to 
     redesignate as anchorage the portion of the 11-foot channel 
     described as follows: beginning at a point with coordinates 
     N248,413.92, E668,000.24, thence running south 20 degrees 09 
     minutes 57.8 seconds east 1325.205 feet to a point 
     N247,169.95, E668,457.09, thence running north 51 degrees 30 
     minutes 05.7 seconds west 562.33 feet to a point N247,520.00, 
     E668,017.00, thence running north 01 degrees 04 minutes 26.8 
     seconds west 894.077 feet to the point of origin.
       (b) Reauthorization.--The Secretary shall maintain as 
     anchorage the portions of the project for navigation, 
     Narraguagus River, Milbridge, Maine, authorized by section 2 
     of the Act of June 14, 1880 (21 Stat. 195, chapter 211), that 
     lie adjacent to and outside the limits of the 11-foot and 9-
     foot channels and that are described as follows:
       (1) The area located east of the 11-foot channel beginning 
     at a point with coordinates N248,060.52, E668,236.56, thence 
     running south 36 degrees 20 minutes 52.3 seconds east 
     1567.242 feet to a point N246,798.21, E669,165.44, thence 
     running north 51 degrees 30 minutes 06.2 seconds west 839.855 
     feet to a point N247,321.01, E668,508.15, thence running 
     north 20 degrees 09 minutes 58.1 seconds west 787.801 feet to 
     the point of origin.
       (2) The area located west of the 9-foot channel beginning 
     at a point with coordinates N249,673.29, E667,537.73, thence 
     running south 20 degrees 09 minutes 57.8 seconds east 
     1341.616 feet to a point N248,413.92, E668,000.24, thence 
     running south 01 degrees 04 minutes 26.8 seconds east 371.688 
     feet to a point N248,042.30, E668,007.21, thence running 
     north 22 degrees 21 minutes 20.8 seconds west 474.096 feet to 
     a point N248,480.76, E667,826.88, thence running north 79 
     degrees 09 minutes 31.6 seconds east 100.872 feet to a point 
     N248,499.73, E667,925.95, thence running north 13 degrees 47 
     minutes 27.6 seconds west 95.126 feet to a point N248,592.12, 
     E667,903.28, thence running south 79 degrees 09 minutes 31.6 
     seconds west 115.330 feet to a point N248,570.42, 
     E667,790.01, thence running north 22 degrees 21 minutes 20.8 
     seconds west 816.885 feet to a point N249,325.91, 
     E667,479.30, thence running north 07 degrees 03 minutes 00.3 
     seconds west 305.680 feet to a point N249,629.28, 
     E667,441.78, thence running north 65 degrees 21 minutes 33.8 
     seconds east 105.561 feet to the point of origin.

     SEC. 311. WILLIAM JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MARYLAND.

       The Secretary--
       (1) may provide design and construction assistance for 
     recreational facilities in the State of Maryland at the 
     William Jennings Randolph Lake (Bloomington Dam), Maryland 
     and West Virginia, project authorized by section 203 of the 
     Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1182); and
       (2) shall require the non-Federal interest to provide 50 
     percent of the costs of designing and constructing the 
     recreational facilities.

     SEC. 312. BRECKENRIDGE, MINNESOTA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may complete the project for 
     flood damage reduction, Breckenridge, Minnesota, 
     substantially in accordance with the Detailed Project Report 
     dated September 2000, at a total cost of $21,000,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $13,650,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $7,350,000.
       (b) In-Kind Services.--The non-Federal interest may provide 
     its share of project costs in cash or in the form of in-kind 
     services or materials.
       (c) Credit.--The non-Federal interest shall receive credit 
     toward the non-Federal share of project costs for design and 
     construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
     before the date of modification of the existing project 
     cooperation agreement or execution of a new project 
     cooperation agreement, if the Secretary determines that the 
     work is integral to the project.

     SEC. 313. MISSOURI RIVER VALLEY, MISSOURI.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Missouri River Valley Improvement Act''.
       (b) Findings and Purposes.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (A) Lewis and Clark were pioneering naturalists that 
     recorded dozens of species previously unknown to science 
     while ascending the Missouri River in 1804;
       (B) the Missouri River, which is 2,321 miles long, drains 
     \1/6\ of the United States, is home to approximately 
     10,000,000 people in 10 States and 28 Native American tribes, 
     and is a resource of incalculable value to the United States;
       (C) the construction of dams, levees, and river training 
     structures in the past 150 years has aided navigation, flood 
     control, and water supply along the Missouri River, but has 
     reduced habitat for native river fish and wildlife;
       (D) river organizations, including the Missouri River Basin 
     Association, support habitat restoration, riverfront 
     revitalization, and improved operational flexibility so long 
     as those efforts do not significantly interfere with uses of 
     the Missouri River; and
       (E) restoring a string of natural places by the year 2004 
     would aid native river fish and wildlife, reduce flood 
     losses, enhance recreation and tourism, and celebrate the 
     bicentennial of Lewis and Clark's voyage.
       (2) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
       (A) to protect, restore, and enhance the fish, wildlife, 
     and plants, and the associated habitats on which they depend, 
     of the Missouri River;
       (B) to restore a string of natural places that aid native 
     river fish and wildlife, reduce flood losses, and enhance 
     recreation and tourism;
       (C) to revitalize historic riverfronts to improve quality 
     of life in riverside communities and attract recreation and 
     tourism;
       (D) to monitor the health of the Missouri River and measure 
     biological, chemical, geological, and hydrological responses 
     to changes in Missouri River management;
       (E) to allow the Corps of Engineers increased authority to 
     restore and protect fish and wildlife habitat on the Missouri 
     River;
       (F) to protect and replenish cottonwoods, and their 
     associated riparian woodland communities, along the upper 
     Missouri River; and
       (G) to educate the public about the economic, 
     environmental, and cultural importance of the Missouri River 
     and the scientific and cultural discoveries of Lewis and 
     Clark.
       (c) Definition of Missouri River.--In this section, the 
     term ``Missouri River'' means the Missouri River and the 
     adjacent floodplain that extends from the mouth of the 
     Missouri River (RM 0) to the confluence of the Jefferson, 
     Madison, and Gallatin Rivers (RM 2341) in the State of 
     Montana.
       (d) Authority To Protect, Enhance, and Restore Fish and 
     Wildlife Habitat.--Section 9(b) of the Act of December 22, 
     1944 (58 Stat. 891, chapter 665), is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(b) The general'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Comprehensive Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--The general'';
       (2) by striking ``paragraph'' and inserting ``subsection''; 
     and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Fish and wildlife habitat.--In addition to carrying 
     out the duties under the comprehensive plan described in 
     paragraph (1), the Chief of Engineers shall protect, enhance, 
     and restore fish and wildlife habitat on the Missouri River 
     to the extent consistent with other authorized project 
     purposes.''.
       (e) Integration of Activities.--
       (1) In general.--In carrying out this section and in 
     accordance with paragraph (2), the Secretary shall provide 
     for such activities as are necessary to protect and enhance 
     fish and wildlife habitat without adversely affecting--
       (A) the water-related needs of the Missouri River basin, 
     including flood control, navigation, hydropower, water 
     supply, and recreation; and
       (B) private property rights.
       (2) New authority.--Nothing in this section confers any new 
     regulatory authority on any Federal or non-Federal entity 
     that carries out any activity under this section.
       (f) Missouri River Mitigation Project.--The matter under 
     the heading ``missouri river mitigation, missouri, kansas, 
     iowa, and nebraska'' of section 601(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4143) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following: ``There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out this paragraph $20,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2001 through 2010, contingent on the 
     completion by December 31, 2000, of the study under this 
     heading.''.
       (g) Upper Missouri River Aquatic and Riparian Habitat 
     Mitigation Program.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Study.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary, through an interagency 
     agreement with the Director of the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service and in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife 
     Conservation Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 2901 et seq.), shall 
     complete a study that--
       (i) analyzes any adverse effects on aquatic and riparian-
     dependent fish and wildlife resulting from the operation of 
     the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir Project in the States 
     of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Montana;
       (ii) recommends measures appropriate to mitigate the 
     adverse effects described in clause (i); and
       (iii) develops baseline geologic and hydrologic data 
     relating to aquatic and riparian habitat.
       (B) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report describing the results of the study under 
     subparagraph (A).
       (2) Pilot program.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and 
     the affected State fish and wildlife agencies, shall develop 
     and administer a pilot mitigation program that--
       (A) involves the experimental releases of warm water from 
     the spillways at Fort Peck Dam during the appropriate 
     spawning periods for native fish;
       (B) involves the monitoring of the response of fish to and 
     the effectiveness of the preservation of native fish and 
     wildlife habitat of

[[Page 19177]]

     the releases described in subparagraph (A); and
       (C) shall not adversely impact a use of the reservoir 
     existing on the date on which the pilot program is 
     implemented.
       (3) Reservoir fish loss study.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with 
     the North Dakota Game and Fish Department and the South 
     Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, shall complete a 
     study to analyze and recommend measures to avoid or reduce 
     the loss of fish, including rainbow smelt, through Garrison 
     Dam in North Dakota and Oahe Dam in South Dakota.
       (B) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report describing the results of the study under 
     subparagraph (A).
       (4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary--
       (A) to complete the study required under paragraph (3), 
     $200,000; and
       (B) to carry out the other provisions of this subsection, 
     $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2010.
       (h) Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers Enhancement 
     Project.--Section 514 of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1999 (113 Stat. 342) is amended by striking subsection (g) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to pay the Federal share of the cost of 
     carrying out activities under this section $5,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2001 through 2004.''.

     SEC. 314. NEW MADRID COUNTY, MISSOURI.

       (a) In General.--The project for navigation, New Madrid 
     County Harbor, New Madrid County, Missouri, authorized under 
     section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 
     577), is authorized as described in the feasibility report 
     for the project, including both phase 1 and phase 2 of the 
     project.
       (b) Credit.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide credit to the 
     non-Federal interests for the costs incurred by the non-
     Federal interests in carrying out construction work for phase 
     1 of the project, if the Secretary finds that the 
     construction work is integral to phase 2 of the project.
       (2) Maximum amount of credit.--The amount of the credit 
     under paragraph (1) shall not exceed the required non-Federal 
     share for the project.

     SEC. 315. PEMISCOT COUNTY HARBOR, MISSOURI.

       (a) Credit.--With respect to the project for navigation, 
     Pemiscot County Harbor, Missouri, authorized under section 
     107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), the 
     Secretary shall provide credit to the Pemiscot County Port 
     Authority, or an agent of the authority, for the costs 
     incurred by the Authority or agent in carrying out 
     construction work for the project after December 31, 1997, if 
     the Secretary finds that the construction work is integral to 
     the project.
       (b) Maximum Amount of Credit.--The amount of the credit 
     under subsection (a) shall not exceed the required non-
     Federal share for the project, estimated as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act to be $222,000.

     SEC. 316. PIKE COUNTY, MISSOURI.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsections (c) and (d), at 
     such time as S.S.S., Inc. conveys all right, title, and 
     interest in and to the parcel of land described in subsection 
     (b)(1) to the United States, the Secretary shall convey all 
     right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the 
     parcel of land described in subsection (b)(2) to S.S.S., Inc.
       (b) Land Description.--The parcels of land referred to in 
     subsection (a) are the following:
       (1) Non-federal land.--8.99 acres with existing flowage 
     easements, located in Pike County, Missouri, adjacent to land 
     being acquired from Holnam, Inc. by the Corps of Engineers.
       (2) Federal land.--8.99 acres located in Pike County, 
     Missouri, known as ``Government Tract Numbers FM-46 and FM-
     47'', administered by the Corps of Engineers.
       (c) Conditions.--The land exchange under subsection (a) 
     shall be subject to the following conditions:
       (1) Deeds.--
       (A) Non-federal land.--The conveyance of the parcel of land 
     described in subsection (b)(1) to the Secretary shall be by a 
     warranty deed acceptable to the Secretary.
       (B) Federal land.--The instrument of conveyance used to 
     convey the parcel of land described in subsection (b)(2) to 
     S.S.S., Inc. shall contain such reservations, terms, and 
     conditions as the Secretary considers necessary to allow the 
     United States to operate and maintain the Mississippi River 
     9-Foot Navigation Project.
       (2) Removal of improvements.--
       (A) In general.--S.S.S., Inc. may remove, and the Secretary 
     may require S.S.S., Inc. to remove, any improvements on the 
     parcel of land described in subsection (b)(1).
       (B) No liability.--If S.S.S., Inc., voluntarily or under 
     direction from the Secretary, removes an improvement on the 
     parcel of land described in subsection (b)(1)--
       (i) S.S.S., Inc. shall have no claim against the United 
     States for liability; and
       (ii) the United States shall not incur or be liable for any 
     cost associated with the removal or relocation of the 
     improvement.
       (3) Time limit for land exchange.--Not later than 2 years 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the land exchange 
     under subsection (a) shall be completed.
       (4) Legal description.--The Secretary shall provide legal 
     descriptions of the parcels of land described in subsection 
     (b), which shall be used in the instruments of conveyance of 
     the parcels.
       (5) Administrative costs.--The Secretary shall require 
     S.S.S., Inc. to pay reasonable administrative costs 
     associated with the land exchange under subsection (a).
       (d) Value of Properties.--If the appraised fair market 
     value, as determined by the Secretary, of the parcel of land 
     conveyed to S.S.S., Inc. by the Secretary under subsection 
     (a) exceeds the appraised fair market value, as determined by 
     the Secretary, of the parcel of land conveyed to the United 
     States by S.S.S., Inc. under that subsection, S.S.S., Inc. 
     shall pay to the United States, in cash or a cash equivalent, 
     an amount equal to the difference between the 2 values.

     SEC. 317. FORT PECK FISH HATCHERY, MONTANA.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) Fort Peck Lake, Montana, is in need of a multispecies 
     fish hatchery;
       (2) the burden of carrying out efforts to raise and stock 
     fish species in Fort Peck Lake has been disproportionately 
     borne by the State of Montana despite the existence of a 
     Federal project at Fort Peck Lake;
       (3)(A) as of the date of enactment of this Act, eastern 
     Montana has only 1 warm water fish hatchery, which is 
     inadequate to meet the demands of the region; and
       (B) a disease or infrastructure failure at that hatchery 
     could imperil fish populations throughout the region;
       (4) although the multipurpose project at Fort Peck, 
     Montana, authorized by the first section of the Act of August 
     30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1034, chapter 831), was intended to 
     include irrigation projects and other activities designed to 
     promote economic growth, many of those projects were never 
     completed, to the detriment of the local communities flooded 
     by the Fort Peck Dam;
       (5) the process of developing an environmental impact 
     statement for the update of the Corps of Engineers Master 
     Manual for the operation of the Missouri River recognized the 
     need for greater support of recreation activities and other 
     authorized purposes of the Fort Peck project;
       (6)(A) although fish stocking is included among the 
     authorized purposes of the Fort Peck project, the State of 
     Montana has funded the stocking of Fort Peck Lake since 1947; 
     and
       (B) the obligation to fund the stocking constitutes an 
     undue burden on the State; and
       (7) a viable multispecies fishery would spur economic 
     development in the region.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
       (1) to authorize and provide funding for the design and 
     construction of a multispecies fish hatchery at Fort Peck 
     Lake, Montana; and
       (2) to ensure stable operation and maintenance of the fish 
     hatchery.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Fort peck lake.--The term ``Fort Peck Lake'' means the 
     reservoir created by the damming of the upper Missouri River 
     in northeastern Montana.
       (2) Hatchery project.--The term ``hatchery project'' means 
     the project authorized by subsection (d).
       (d) Authorization.--The Secretary shall carry out a project 
     at Fort Peck Lake, Montana, for the design and construction 
     of a fish hatchery and such associated facilities as are 
     necessary to sustain a multispecies fishery.
       (e) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) Design and construction.--
       (A) Federal share.--The Federal share of the costs of 
     design and construction of the hatchery project shall be 75 
     percent.
       (B) Form of non-federal share.--
       (i) In general.--The non-Federal share of the costs of the 
     hatchery project may be provided in the form of cash or in 
     the form of land, easements, rights-of-way, services, roads, 
     or any other form of in-kind contribution determined by the 
     Secretary to be appropriate.
       (ii) Required crediting.--The Secretary shall credit toward 
     the non-Federal share of the costs of the hatchery project--

       (I) the costs to the State of Montana of stocking Fort Peck 
     Lake during the period beginning January 1, 1947; and
       (II) the costs to the State of Montana and the counties 
     having jurisdiction over land surrounding Fort Peck Lake of 
     construction of local access roads to the lake.

       (2) Operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) 
     and (C), the operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement 
     of the hatchery project shall be a non-Federal 
     responsibility.
       (B) Costs associated with threatened and endangered 
     species.--The costs of operation and maintenance associated 
     with raising threatened or endangered species shall be a 
     Federal responsibility.

[[Page 19178]]

       (C) Power.--The Secretary shall offer to the hatchery 
     project low-cost project power for all hatchery operations.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this section--
       (A) $20,000,000; and
       (B) such sums as are necessary to carry out subsection 
     (e)(2)(B).
       (2) Availability of funds.--Sums made available under 
     paragraph (1) shall remain available until expended.

     SEC. 318. SAGAMORE CREEK, NEW HAMPSHIRE.

       The Secretary shall carry out maintenance dredging of the 
     Sagamore Creek Channel, New Hampshire.

     SEC. 319. PASSAIC RIVER BASIN FLOOD MANAGEMENT, NEW JERSEY.

       (a) In General.--The project for flood control, Passaic 
     River, New Jersey and New York, authorized by section 
     101(a)(18) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 
     (104 Stat. 4607), is modified to emphasize nonstructural 
     approaches for flood control as alternatives to the 
     construction of the Passaic River tunnel element, while 
     maintaining the integrity of other separable mainstream 
     project elements, wetland banks, and other independent 
     projects that were authorized to be carried out in the 
     Passaic River Basin before the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Reevaluation of Floodway Study.--The Secretary shall 
     review the Passaic River Floodway Buyout Study, dated October 
     1995, to calculate the benefits of a buyout and environmental 
     restoration using the method used to calculate the benefits 
     of structural projects under section 308(b) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2318(b)).
       (c) Reevaluation of 10-Year Floodplain Study.--The 
     Secretary shall review the Passaic River Buyout Study of the 
     10-year floodplain beyond the floodway of the Central Passaic 
     River Basin, dated September 1995, to calculate the benefits 
     of a buyout and environmental restoration using the method 
     used to calculate the benefits of structural projects under 
     section 308(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 
     (33 U.S.C. 2318(b)).
       (d) Preservation of Natural Storage Areas.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall reevaluate the 
     acquisition, from willing sellers, for flood protection 
     purposes, of wetlands in the Central Passaic River Basin to 
     supplement the wetland acquisition authorized by section 
     101(a)(18)(C)(vi) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1990 (104 Stat. 4609).
       (2) Purchase.--If the Secretary determines that the 
     acquisition of wetlands evaluated under paragraph (1) is 
     economically justified, the Secretary shall purchase the 
     wetlands, with the goal of purchasing not more than 8,200 
     acres.
       (e) Streambank Erosion Control Study.--The Secretary shall 
     review relevant reports and conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental 
     restoration, erosion control, and streambank restoration 
     along the Passaic River, from Dundee Dam to Kearny Point, New 
     Jersey.
       (f) Passaic River Flood Management Task Force.--
       (1) Establishment.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     non-Federal interest, shall establish a task force, to be 
     known as the ``Passaic River Flood Management Task Force'', 
     to provide advice to the Secretary concerning all aspects of 
     the Passaic River flood management project.
       (2) Membership.--The task force shall be composed of 20 
     members, appointed as follows:
       (A) Appointment by secretary.--The Secretary shall appoint 
     1 member to represent the Corps of Engineers and to provide 
     technical advice to the task force.
       (B) Appointments by governor of new jersey.--The Governor 
     of New Jersey shall appoint 18 members to the task force, as 
     follows:
       (i) 2 representatives of the New Jersey legislature who are 
     members of different political parties.
       (ii) 1 representative of the State of New Jersey.
       (iii) 1 representative of each of Bergen, Essex, Morris, 
     and Passaic Counties, New Jersey.
       (iv) 6 representatives of governments of municipalities 
     affected by flooding within the Passaic River Basin.
       (v) 1 representative of the Palisades Interstate Park 
     Commission.
       (vi) 1 representative of the North Jersey District Water 
     Supply Commission.
       (vii) 1 representative of each of--

       (I) the Association of New Jersey Environmental 
     Commissions;
       (II) the Passaic River Coalition; and
       (III) the Sierra Club.

       (C) Appointment by governor of new york.--The Governor of 
     New York shall appoint 1 representative of the State of New 
     York to the task force.
       (3) Meetings.--
       (A) Regular meetings.--The task force shall hold regular 
     meetings.
       (B) Open meetings.--The meetings of the task force shall be 
     open to the public.
       (4) Annual report.--The task force shall submit annually to 
     the Secretary and to the non-Federal interest a report 
     describing the achievements of the Passaic River flood 
     management project in preventing flooding and any impediments 
     to completion of the project.
       (5) Expenditure of funds.--The Secretary may use funds made 
     available to carry out the Passaic River Basin flood 
     management project to pay the administrative expenses of the 
     task force.
       (6) Termination.--The task force shall terminate on the 
     date on which the Passaic River flood management project is 
     completed.
       (g) Acquisition of Lands in the Floodway.--Section 1148 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4254; 
     110 Stat. 3718), is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(e) Consistency With New Jersey Blue Acres Program.--The 
     Secretary shall carry out this section in a manner that is 
     consistent with the Blue Acres Program of the State of New 
     Jersey.''.
       (h) Study of Highlands Land Conservation.--The Secretary, 
     in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
     State of New Jersey, may study the feasibility of conserving 
     land in the Highlands region of New Jersey and New York to 
     provide additional flood protection for residents of the 
     Passaic River Basin in accordance with section 212 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (33 U.S.C. 2332).
       (i) Restriction on Use of Funds.--The Secretary shall not 
     obligate any funds to carry out design or construction of the 
     tunnel element of the Passaic River flood control project, as 
     authorized by section 101(a)(18)(A) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4607).
       (j) Conforming Amendment.--Section 101(a)(18) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4607) is amended 
     in the paragraph heading by striking ``main stem,'' and 
     inserting ``flood management project,''.

     SEC. 320. ROCKAWAY INLET TO NORTON POINT, NEW YORK.

       (a) In General.--The project for shoreline protection, 
     Atlantic Coast of New York City from Rockaway Inlet to Norton 
     Point (Coney Island Area), New York, authorized by section 
     501(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 
     Stat. 4135) is modified to authorize the Secretary to 
     construct T-groins to improve sand retention down drift of 
     the West 37th Street groin, in the Sea Gate area of Coney 
     Island, New York, as identified in the March 1998 report 
     prepared for the Corps of Engineers, entitled ``Field Data 
     Gathering Project Performance Analysis and Design Alternative 
     Solutions to Improve Sandfill Retention'', at a total cost of 
     $9,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $5,850,000 and 
     an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,150,000.
       (b) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the costs of 
     constructing the T-groins under subsection (a) shall be 35 
     percent.

     SEC. 321. JOHN DAY POOL, OREGON AND WASHINGTON.

       (a) Extinguishment of Reversionary Interests and Use 
     Restrictions.--With respect to the land described in each 
     deed specified in subsection (b)--
       (1) the reversionary interests and the use restrictions 
     relating to port or industrial purposes are extinguished;
       (2) the human habitation or other building structure use 
     restriction is extinguished in each area where the elevation 
     is above the standard project flood elevation; and
       (3) the use of fill material to raise low areas above the 
     standard project flood elevation is authorized, except in any 
     low area constituting wetland for which a permit under 
     section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1344) would be required.
       (b) Affected Deeds.--Subsection (a) applies to deeds with 
     the following county auditors' numbers:
       (1) Auditor's Microfilm Numbers 229 and 16226 of Morrow 
     County, Oregon, executed by the United States.
       (2) The portion of the land conveyed in a deed executed by 
     the United States and bearing Benton County, Washington, 
     Auditor's File Number 601766, described as a tract of land 
     lying in sec. 7, T. 5 N., R. 28 E., Willamette meridian, 
     Benton County, Washington, being more particularly described 
     by the following boundaries:
       (A) Commencing at the point of intersection of the 
     centerlines of Plymouth Street and Third Avenue in the First 
     Addition to the Town of Plymouth (according to the duly 
     recorded plat thereof).
       (B) Thence west along the centerline of Third Avenue, a 
     distance of 565 feet.
       (C) Thence south 54 deg. 10' west, to a point on the west 
     line of Tract 18 of that Addition and the true point of 
     beginning.
       (D) Thence north, parallel with the west line of that sec. 
     7, to a point on the north line of that sec. 7.
       (E) Thence west along the north line thereof to the 
     northwest corner of that sec. 7.
       (F) Thence south along the west line of that sec. 7 to a 
     point on the ordinary high water line of the Columbia River.
       (G) Thence northeast along that high water line to a point 
     on the north and south coordinate line of the Oregon 
     Coordinate System, North Zone, that coordinate line being 
     east 2,291,000 feet.

[[Page 19179]]

       (H) Thence north along that line to a point on the south 
     line of First Avenue of that Addition.
       (I) Thence west along First Avenue to a point on the 
     southerly extension of the west line of T. 18.
       (J) Thence north along that west line of T. 18 to the point 
     of beginning.

     SEC. 322. FOX POINT HURRICANE BARRIER, PROVIDENCE, RHODE 
                   ISLAND.

       Section 352 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 310) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Credit Toward Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal 
     interest shall receive credit toward the non-Federal share of 
     project costs, or reimbursement, for the Federal share of the 
     costs of repairs authorized under subsection (a) that are 
     incurred by the non-Federal interest before the date of 
     execution of the project cooperation agreement.''.

     SEC. 323. CHARLESTON HARBOR, SOUTH CAROLINA.

       (a) Estuary Restoration.--
       (1) Support plan.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop a plan for 
     activities of the Corps of Engineers to support the 
     restoration of the ecosystem of the Charleston Harbor 
     estuary, South Carolina.
       (B) Cooperation.--The Secretary shall develop the plan in 
     cooperation with--
       (i) the State of South Carolina; and
       (ii) other affected Federal and non-Federal interests.
       (2) Projects.--The Secretary shall plan, design, and 
     construct projects to support the restoration of the 
     ecosystem of the Charleston Harbor estuary.
       (3) Evaluation program.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall develop a program to 
     evaluate the success of the projects carried out under 
     paragraph (2) in meeting ecosystem restoration goals.
       (B) Studies.--Evaluations under subparagraph (A) shall be 
     conducted in consultation with the appropriate Federal, 
     State, and local agencies.
       (b) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) Development of plan.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     development of the plan under subsection (a)(1) shall be 65 
     percent.
       (2) Project planning, design, construction, and 
     evaluation.--The Federal share of the cost of planning, 
     design, construction, and evaluation of a project under 
     paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (a) shall be 65 percent.
       (3) Non-federal share.--
       (A) Credit for land, easements, and rights-of-way.--The 
     non-Federal interest shall receive credit for the value of 
     any land, easement, right-of-way, relocation, or dredged 
     material disposal area provided for carrying out a project 
     under subsection (a)(2).
       (B) Form.--The non-Federal interest may provide up to 50 
     percent of the non-Federal share in the form of services, 
     materials, supplies, or other in-kind contributions.
       (4) Operation and maintenance.--The operation, maintenance, 
     repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of projects carried 
     out under this section shall be a non-Federal responsibility.
       (5) Non-federal interests.--Notwithstanding section 221 of 
     the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), for any 
     project carried out under this section, a non-Federal 
     interest may include a private interest and a nonprofit 
     entity.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) Development of plan.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out subsection (a)(1) $300,000.
       (2) Other activities.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out paragraphs (2) and (3) of 
     subsection (a) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 
     through 2004.

     SEC. 324. SAVANNAH RIVER, SOUTH CAROLINA.

       (a) Definition of New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam.--In this 
     section, the term ``New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam'' means--
       (1) the lock and dam at New Savannah Bluff, Savannah River, 
     Georgia and South Carolina; and
       (2) the appurtenant features to the lock and dam, 
     including--
       (A) the adjacent approximately 50-acre park and recreation 
     area with improvements made under the project for navigation, 
     Savannah River below Augusta, Georgia, authorized by the 
     first section of the Act of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 924, 
     chapter 847) and the first section of the Act of August 30, 
     1935 (49 Stat. 1032, chapter 831); and
       (B) other land that is part of the project and that the 
     Secretary determines to be appropriate for conveyance under 
     this section.
       (b) Repair and Conveyance.--After execution of an agreement 
     between the Secretary and the city of North Augusta and Aiken 
     County, South Carolina, the Secretary--
       (1) shall repair and rehabilitate the New Savannah Bluff 
     Lock and Dam, at full Federal expense estimated at 
     $5,300,000; and
       (2) after repair and rehabilitation, may convey the New 
     Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam, without consideration, to the 
     city of North Augusta and Aiken County, South Carolina.
       (c) Treatment of New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam.--The New 
     Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam shall not be considered to be 
     part of any Federal project after the conveyance under 
     subsection (b).
       (d) Operation and Maintenance.--
       (1) Before conveyance.--Before the conveyance under 
     subsection (b), the Secretary shall continue to operate and 
     maintain the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam.
       (2) After conveyance.--After the conveyance under 
     subsection (b), operation and maintenance of all features of 
     the project for navigation, Savannah River below Augusta, 
     Georgia, described in subsection (a)(2)(A), other than the 
     New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam, shall continue to be a 
     Federal responsibility.

     SEC. 325. HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TEXAS.

       (a) In General.--Subject to the completion, not later than 
     December 31, 2000, of a favorable report by the Chief of 
     Engineers, the project for navigation and environmental 
     restoration, Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas, 
     authorized by section 101(a)(30) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3666), is modified to 
     authorize the Secretary to design and construct barge lanes 
     adjacent to both sides of the Houston Ship Channel from 
     Redfish Reef to Morgan Point, a distance of approximately 15 
     miles, to a depth of 12 feet, at a total cost of $34,000,000, 
     with an estimated Federal cost of $30,600,000 and an 
     estimated non-Federal cost of $3,400,000.
       (b) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal interest shall pay a 
     portion of the costs of construction of the barge lanes under 
     subsection (a) in accordance with section 101 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211).
       (c) Federal Interest.--If the modification under subsection 
     (a) is in compliance with all applicable environmental 
     requirements, the modification shall be considered to be in 
     the Federal interest.
       (d) No Authorization of Maintenance.--No maintenance is 
     authorized to be carried out for the modification under 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 326. JOE POOL LAKE, TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TEXAS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall enter into an 
     agreement with the city of Grand Prairie, Texas, under which 
     the city agrees to assume all responsibilities of the Trinity 
     River Authority of the State of Texas under Contract No. 
     DACW63-76-C-0166, other than financial responsibilities, 
     except the responsibility described in subsection (d).
       (b) Responsibilities of Trinity River Authority.--The 
     Trinity River Authority shall be relieved of all financial 
     responsibilities under the contract described in subsection 
     (a) as of the date on which the Secretary enters into the 
     agreement with the city under that subsection.
       (c) Payments by City.--In consideration of the agreement 
     entered into under subsection (a), the city shall pay the 
     Federal Government $4,290,000 in 2 installments--
       (1) 1 installment in the amount of $2,150,000, which shall 
     be due and payable not later than December 1, 2000; and
       (2) 1 installment in the amount of $2,140,000, which shall 
     be due and payable not later than December 1, 2003.
       (d) Operation and Maintenance Costs.--The agreement entered 
     into under subsection (a) shall include a provision requiring 
     the city to assume responsibility for all costs associated 
     with operation and maintenance of the recreation facilities 
     included in the contract described in that subsection.

     SEC. 327. LAKE CHAMPLAIN WATERSHED, VERMONT AND NEW YORK.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Critical restoration project.--The term ``critical 
     restoration project'' means a project that will produce, 
     consistent with Federal programs, projects, and activities, 
     immediate and substantial ecosystem restoration, 
     preservation, and protection benefits.
       (2) Lake champlain watershed.--The term ``Lake Champlain 
     watershed'' means--
       (A) the land areas within Addison, Bennington, Caledonia, 
     Chittenden, Franklin, Grand Isle, Lamoille, Orange, Orleans, 
     Rutland, and Washington Counties in the State of Vermont; and
       (B)(i) the land areas that drain into Lake Champlain and 
     that are located within Essex, Clinton, Franklin, Warren, and 
     Washington Counties in the State of New York; and
       (ii) the near-shore areas of Lake Champlain within the 
     counties referred to in clause (i).
       (b) Critical Restoration Projects.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may participate in critical 
     restoration projects in the Lake Champlain watershed.
       (2) Types of projects.--A critical restoration project 
     shall be eligible for assistance under this section if the 
     critical restoration project consists of--
       (A) implementation of an intergovernmental agreement for 
     coordinating regulatory and management responsibilities with 
     respect to the Lake Champlain watershed;
       (B) acceleration of whole farm planning to implement best 
     management practices to maintain or enhance water quality and 
     to promote agricultural land use in the Lake Champlain 
     watershed;

[[Page 19180]]

       (C) acceleration of whole community planning to promote 
     intergovernmental cooperation in the regulation and 
     management of activities consistent with the goal of 
     maintaining or enhancing water quality in the Lake Champlain 
     watershed;
       (D) natural resource stewardship activities on public or 
     private land to promote land uses that--
       (i) preserve and enhance the economic and social character 
     of the communities in the Lake Champlain watershed; and
       (ii) protect and enhance water quality; or
       (E) any other activity determined by the Secretary to be 
     appropriate.
       (c) Public Ownership Requirement.--The Secretary may 
     provide assistance for a critical restoration project under 
     this section only if--
       (1) the critical restoration project is publicly owned; or
       (2) the non-Federal interest with respect to the critical 
     restoration project demonstrates that the critical 
     restoration project will provide a substantial public benefit 
     in the form of water quality improvement.
       (d) Project Selection.--
       (1) In general.--In consultation with the Lake Champlain 
     Basin Program and the heads of other appropriate Federal, 
     State, tribal, and local agencies, the Secretary may--
       (A) identify critical restoration projects in the Lake 
     Champlain watershed; and
       (B) carry out the critical restoration projects after 
     entering into an agreement with an appropriate non-Federal 
     interest in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control 
     Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) and this section.
       (2) Certification.--
       (A) In general.--A critical restoration project shall be 
     eligible for financial assistance under this section only if 
     the State director for the critical restoration project 
     certifies to the Secretary that the critical restoration 
     project will contribute to the protection and enhancement of 
     the quality or quantity of the water resources of the Lake 
     Champlain watershed.
       (B) Special consideration.--In certifying critical 
     restoration projects to the Secretary, State directors shall 
     give special consideration to projects that implement plans, 
     agreements, and measures that preserve and enhance the 
     economic and social character of the communities in the Lake 
     Champlain watershed.
       (e) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) In general.--Before providing assistance under this 
     section with respect to a critical restoration project, the 
     Secretary shall enter into a project cooperation agreement 
     that shall require the non-Federal interest--
       (A) to pay 35 percent of the total costs of the critical 
     restoration project;
       (B) to acquire any land, easements, rights-of-way, 
     relocations, and dredged material disposal areas necessary to 
     carry out the critical restoration project;
       (C) to pay 100 percent of the operation, maintenance, 
     repair, replacement, and rehabilitation costs associated with 
     the critical restoration project; and
       (D) to hold the United States harmless from any claim or 
     damage that may arise from carrying out the critical 
     restoration project, except any claim or damage that may 
     arise from the negligence of the Federal Government or a 
     contractor of the Federal Government.
       (2) Non-federal share.--
       (A) Credit for design work.--The non-Federal interest shall 
     receive credit for the reasonable costs of design work 
     carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of 
     execution of a project cooperation agreement for the critical 
     restoration project, if the Secretary finds that the design 
     work is integral to the critical restoration project.
       (B) Credit for land, easements, and rights-of-way.--The 
     non-Federal interest shall receive credit for the value of 
     any land, easement, right-of-way, relocation, or dredged 
     material disposal area provided for carrying out the critical 
     restoration project.
       (C) Form.--The non-Federal interest may provide up to 50 
     percent of the non-Federal share in the form of services, 
     materials, supplies, or other in-kind contributions.
       (f) Applicability of Other Federal and State Laws.--Nothing 
     in this section waives, limits, or otherwise affects the 
     applicability of Federal or State law with respect to a 
     critical restoration project carried out with assistance 
     provided under this section.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

     SEC. 328. MOUNT ST. HELENS, WASHINGTON.

       The project for sediment control, Mount St. Helens, 
     Washington, authorized by the matter under the heading 
     ``transfer of federal townsites'' in chapter IV of title I of 
     the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1985 (99 Stat. 318), is 
     modified to authorize the Secretary to maintain, for 
     Longview, Kelso, Lexington, and Castle Rock on the Cowlitz 
     River, Washington, the flood protection levels specified in 
     the October 1985 report entitled ``Mount St. Helens, 
     Washington, Decision Document (Toutle, Cowlitz, and Columbia 
     Rivers)'', published as House Document No. 135, 99th 
     Congress, signed by the Chief of Engineers, and endorsed and 
     submitted to Congress by the Acting Assistant Secretary of 
     the Army.

     SEC. 329. PUGET SOUND AND ADJACENT WATERS RESTORATION, 
                   WASHINGTON.

       (a) Definition of Critical Restoration Project.--In this 
     section, the term ``critical restoration project'' means a 
     project that will produce, consistent with Federal programs, 
     projects, and activities, immediate and substantial ecosystem 
     restoration, preservation, and protection benefits.
       (b) Critical Restoration Projects.--The Secretary may 
     participate in critical restoration projects in the area of 
     Puget Sound, Washington, and adjacent waters, including--
       (1) the watersheds that drain directly into Puget Sound;
       (2) Admiralty Inlet;
       (3) Hood Canal;
       (4) Rosario Strait; and
       (5) the Strait of Juan de Fuca to Cape Flattery.
       (c) Project Selection.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may identify critical 
     restoration projects in the area described in subsection (b) 
     based on--
       (A) studies to determine the feasibility of carrying out 
     the critical restoration projects; and
       (B) analyses conducted before the date of enactment of this 
     Act by non-Federal interests.
       (2) Criteria and procedures for review and approval.--
       (A) In general.--In consultation with the Secretary of 
     Commerce, the Secretary of the Interior, the Governor of the 
     State of Washington, tribal governments, and the heads of 
     other appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, the 
     Secretary may develop criteria and procedures for 
     prioritizing critical restoration projects identified under 
     paragraph (1).
       (B) Consistency with fish restoration goals.--The criteria 
     and procedures developed under subparagraph (A) shall be 
     consistent with fish restoration goals of the National Marine 
     Fisheries Service and the State of Washington.
       (C) Use of existing studies and plans.--In carrying out 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall use, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, studies and plans in existence on the 
     date of enactment of this Act to identify project needs and 
     priorities.
       (3) Local participation.--In prioritizing critical 
     restoration projects for implementation under this section, 
     the Secretary shall consult with, and give full consideration 
     to the priorities of, public and private entities that are 
     active in watershed planning and ecosystem restoration in 
     Puget Sound watersheds, including--
       (A) the Salmon Recovery Funding Board;
       (B) the Northwest Straits Commission;
       (C) the Hood Canal Coordinating Council;
       (D) county watershed planning councils; and
       (E) salmon enhancement groups.
       (d) Implementation.--The Secretary may carry out critical 
     restoration projects identified under subsection (c) after 
     entering into an agreement with an appropriate non-Federal 
     interest in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control 
     Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) and this section.
       (e) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) In general.--Before carrying out any critical 
     restoration project under this section, the Secretary shall 
     enter into a binding agreement with the non-Federal interest 
     that shall require the non-Federal interest--
       (A) to pay 35 percent of the total costs of the critical 
     restoration project;
       (B) to acquire any land, easements, rights-of-way, 
     relocations, and dredged material disposal areas necessary to 
     carry out the critical restoration project;
       (C) to pay 100 percent of the operation, maintenance, 
     repair, replacement, and rehabilitation costs associated with 
     the critical restoration project; and
       (D) to hold the United States harmless from any claim or 
     damage that may arise from carrying out the critical 
     restoration project, except any claim or damage that may 
     arise from the negligence of the Federal Government or a 
     contractor of the Federal Government.
       (2) Credit.--
       (A) In general.--The non-Federal interest shall receive 
     credit for the value of any land, easement, right-of-way, 
     relocation, or dredged material disposal area provided for 
     carrying out the critical restoration project.
       (B) Form.--The non-Federal interest may provide up to 50 
     percent of the non-Federal share in the form of services, 
     materials, supplies, or other in-kind contributions.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000, of 
     which not more than $5,000,000 may be used to carry out any 1 
     critical restoration project.

     SEC. 330. FOX RIVER SYSTEM, WISCONSIN.

       Section 332(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1992 (106 Stat. 4852) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Payments to state.--The terms and conditions may 
     include 1 or more payments to the State of Wisconsin to 
     assist the State

[[Page 19181]]

     in paying the costs of repair and rehabilitation of the 
     transferred locks and appurtenant features.''.

     SEC. 331. CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RESTORATION.

       Section 704(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 2263(b)) is amended--
       (1) in the second sentence, by striking ``$7,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$20,000,000''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
       ``(4) the construction of reefs and related clean shell 
     substrate for fish habitat, including manmade 3-dimensional 
     oyster reefs, in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries in 
     Maryland and Virginia--
       ``(A) which reefs shall be preserved as permanent 
     sanctuaries by the non-Federal interests, consistent with the 
     recommendations of the scientific consensus document on 
     Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration dated June 1999; and
       ``(B) for assistance in the construction of which reefs the 
     Chief of Engineers shall solicit participation by and the 
     services of commercial watermen.''.

     SEC. 332. GREAT LAKES DREDGING LEVELS ADJUSTMENT.

       (a) Definition of Great Lake.--In this section, the term 
     ``Great Lake'' means Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, Lake Huron 
     (including Lake St. Clair), Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario 
     (including the St. Lawrence River to the 45th parallel of 
     latitude).
       (b) Dredging Levels.--In operating and maintaining Federal 
     channels and harbors of, and the connecting channels between, 
     the Great Lakes, the Secretary shall conduct such dredging as 
     is necessary to ensure minimal operation depths consistent 
     with the original authorized depths of the channels and 
     harbors when water levels in the Great Lakes are, or are 
     forecast to be, below the International Great Lakes Datum of 
     1985.

     SEC. 333. GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Great Lakes comprise a nationally and 
     internationally significant fishery and ecosystem;
       (2) the Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem should be 
     developed and enhanced in a coordinated manner; and
       (3) the Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem provides a 
     diversity of opportunities, experiences, and beneficial uses.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Great lake.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``Great Lake'' means Lake 
     Superior, Lake Michigan, Lake Huron (including Lake St. 
     Clair), Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario (including the St. 
     Lawrence River to the 45th parallel of latitude).
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``Great Lake'' includes any 
     connecting channel, historically connected tributary, and 
     basin of a lake specified in subparagraph (A).
       (2) Great lakes commission.--The term ``Great Lakes 
     Commission'' means The Great Lakes Commission established by 
     the Great Lakes Basin Compact (82 Stat. 414).
       (3) Great lakes fishery commission.--The term ``Great Lakes 
     Fishery Commission'' has the meaning given the term 
     ``Commission'' in section 2 of the Great Lakes Fishery Act of 
     1956 (16 U.S.C. 931).
       (4) Great lakes state.--The term ``Great Lakes State'' 
     means each of the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, 
     Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and Wisconsin.
       (c) Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration.--
       (1) Support plan.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop a plan for 
     activities of the Corps of Engineers that support the 
     management of Great Lakes fisheries.
       (B) Use of existing documents.--To the maximum extent 
     practicable, the plan shall make use of and incorporate 
     documents that relate to the Great Lakes and are in existence 
     on the date of enactment of this Act, such as lakewide 
     management plans and remedial action plans.
       (C) Cooperation.--The Secretary shall develop the plan in 
     cooperation with--
       (i) the signatories to the Joint Strategic Plan for 
     Management of the Great Lakes Fisheries; and
       (ii) other affected interests.
       (2) Projects.--The Secretary shall plan, design, and 
     construct projects to support the restoration of the fishery, 
     ecosystem, and beneficial uses of the Great Lakes.
       (3) Evaluation program.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall develop a program to 
     evaluate the success of the projects carried out under 
     paragraph (2) in meeting fishery and ecosystem restoration 
     goals.
       (B) Studies.--Evaluations under subparagraph (A) shall be 
     conducted in consultation with the Great Lakes Fishery 
     Commission and appropriate Federal, State, and local 
     agencies.
       (d) Cooperative Agreements.--In carrying out this section, 
     the Secretary may enter into a cooperative agreement with the 
     Great Lakes Commission or any other agency established to 
     facilitate active State participation in management of the 
     Great Lakes.
       (e) Relationship to Other Great Lakes Activities.--No 
     activity under this section shall affect the date of 
     completion of any other activity relating to the Great Lakes 
     that is authorized under other law.
       (f) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) Development of plan.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     development of the plan under subsection (c)(1) shall be 65 
     percent.
       (2) Project planning, design, construction, and 
     evaluation.--The Federal share of the cost of planning, 
     design, construction, and evaluation of a project under 
     paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (c) shall be 65 percent.
       (3) Non-federal share.--
       (A) Credit for land, easements, and rights-of-way.--The 
     non-Federal interest shall receive credit for the value of 
     any land, easement, right-of-way, relocation, or dredged 
     material disposal area provided for carrying out a project 
     under subsection (c)(2).
       (B) Form.--The non-Federal interest may provide up to 50 
     percent of the non-Federal share required under paragraphs 
     (1) and (2) in the form of services, materials, supplies, or 
     other in-kind contributions.
       (4) Operation and maintenance.--The operation, maintenance, 
     repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of projects carried 
     out under this section shall be a non-Federal responsibility.
       (5) Non-federal interests.--Notwithstanding section 221 of 
     the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), for any 
     project carried out under this section, a non-Federal 
     interest may include a private interest and a nonprofit 
     entity.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) Development of plan.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated for development of the plan under subsection 
     (c)(1) $300,000.
       (2) Other activities.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out paragraphs (2) and (3) of 
     subsection (c) $8,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 
     through 2006.

     SEC. 334. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS AND SEDIMENT 
                   REMEDIATION.

       Section 401 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 
     (33 U.S.C. 1268 note; 104 Stat. 4644; 110 Stat. 3763; 113 
     Stat. 338) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2)(A), by striking ``50 percent'' and 
     inserting ``35 percent'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (3);
       (B) in the first sentence of paragraph (4), by striking 
     ``50 percent'' and inserting ``35 percent''; and
       (C) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3); and
       (3) in subsection (c), by striking ``$5,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2000.'' and inserting ``$10,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2010.''.

     SEC. 335. GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODEL.

       Section 516 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (33 U.S.C. 2326b) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (e), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Cost sharing.--The non-Federal share of the costs of 
     developing a tributary sediment transport model under this 
     subsection shall be 50 percent.''; and
       (2) in subsection (g)--
       (A) by striking ``There is authorized'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--There is authorized''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Great lakes tributary model.--In addition to amounts 
     made available under paragraph (1), there is authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out subsection (e) $5,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2001 through 2008.''.

     SEC. 336. TREATMENT OF DREDGED MATERIAL FROM LONG ISLAND 
                   SOUND.

       (a) In General.--Not later than December 31, 2002, the 
     Secretary shall carry out a demonstration project for the use 
     of innovative sediment treatment technologies for the 
     treatment of dredged material from Long Island Sound.
       (b) Project Considerations.--In carrying out subsection 
     (a), the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable--
       (1) encourage partnerships between the public and private 
     sectors;
       (2) build on treatment technologies that have been used 
     successfully in demonstration or full-scale projects (such as 
     projects carried out in the State of New York, New Jersey, or 
     Illinois), such as technologies described in--
       (A) section 405 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1992 (33 U.S.C. 2239 note; 106 Stat. 4863); or
       (B) section 503 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999 (33 U.S.C. 2314 note; 113 Stat. 337);
       (3) ensure that dredged material from Long Island Sound 
     that is treated under the demonstration project is disposed 
     of by beneficial reuse, by open water disposal, or at a 
     licensed waste facility, as appropriate; and
       (4) ensure that the demonstration project is consistent 
     with the findings and requirements of any draft environmental 
     impact statement on the designation of 1 or more dredged 
     material disposal sites in Long Island Sound that is 
     scheduled for completion in 2001.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000.

     SEC. 337. NEW ENGLAND WATER RESOURCES AND ECOSYSTEM 
                   RESTORATION.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:

[[Page 19182]]

       (1) Critical restoration project.--The term ``critical 
     restoration project'' means a project that will produce, 
     consistent with Federal programs, projects, and activities, 
     immediate and substantial ecosystem restoration, 
     preservation, and protection benefits.
       (2) New england.--The term ``New England'' means all 
     watersheds, estuaries, and related coastal areas in the 
     States of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, 
     Rhode Island, and Vermont.
       (b) Assessment.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, in coordination with 
     appropriate Federal, State, tribal, regional, and local 
     agencies, shall perform an assessment of the condition of 
     water resources and related ecosystems in New England to 
     identify problems and needs for restoring, preserving, and 
     protecting water resources, ecosystems, wildlife, and 
     fisheries.
       (2) Matters to be addressed.--The assessment shall 
     include--
       (A) development of criteria for identifying and 
     prioritizing the most critical problems and needs; and
       (B) a framework for development of watershed or regional 
     restoration plans.
       (3) Use of existing information.--In performing the 
     assessment, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, use--
       (A) information that is available on the date of enactment 
     of this Act; and
       (B) ongoing efforts of all participating agencies.
       (4) Criteria; framework.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop and make 
     available for public review and comment--
       (i) criteria for identifying and prioritizing critical 
     problems and needs; and
       (ii) a framework for development of watershed or regional 
     restoration plans.
       (B) Use of resources.--In developing the criteria and 
     framework, the Secretary shall make full use of all available 
     Federal, State, tribal, regional, and local resources.
       (5) Report.--Not later than October l, 2002, the Secretary 
     shall submit to Congress a report on the assessment.
       (c) Restoration Plans.--
       (1) In general.--After the report is submitted under 
     subsection (b)(5), the Secretary, in coordination with 
     appropriate Federal, State, tribal, regional, and local 
     agencies, shall--
       (A) develop a comprehensive plan for restoring, preserving, 
     and protecting the water resources and ecosystem in each 
     watershed and region in New England; and
       (B) submit the plan to Congress.
       (2) Contents.--Each restoration plan shall include--
       (A) a feasibility report; and
       (B) a programmatic environmental impact statement covering 
     the proposed Federal action.
       (d) Critical Restoration Projects.--
       (1) In general.--After the restoration plans are submitted 
     under subsection (c)(1)(B), the Secretary, in coordination 
     with appropriate Federal, State, tribal, regional, and local 
     agencies, shall identify critical restoration projects that 
     will produce independent, immediate, and substantial 
     restoration, preservation, and protection benefits.
       (2) Agreements.--The Secretary may carry out a critical 
     restoration project after entering into an agreement with an 
     appropriate non-Federal interest in accordance with section 
     221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) and 
     this section.
       (3) Project justification.--Notwithstanding section 209 of 
     the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962-2) or any other 
     provision of law, in carrying out a critical restoration 
     project under this subsection, the Secretary may determine 
     that the project--
       (A) is justified by the environmental benefits derived from 
     the ecosystem; and
       (B) shall not need further economic justification if the 
     Secretary determines that the project is cost effective.
       (4) Time limitation.--No critical restoration project may 
     be initiated under this subsection after September 30, 2005.
       (5) Cost limitation.--Not more than $5,000,000 in Federal 
     funds may be used to carry out a critical restoration project 
     under this subsection.
       (e) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) Assessment.--
       (A) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     assessment under subsection (b) shall be 25 percent.
       (B) In-kind contributions.--The non-Federal share may be 
     provided in the form of services, materials, or other in-kind 
     contributions.
       (2) Restoration plans.--
       (A) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
     developing the restoration plans under subsection (c) shall 
     be 35 percent.
       (B) In-kind contributions.--Up to 50 percent of the non-
     Federal share may be provided in the form of services, 
     materials, or other in-kind contributions.
       (3) Critical restoration projects.--
       (A) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
     carrying out a critical restoration project under subsection 
     (d) shall be 35 percent.
       (B) In-kind contributions.--Up to 50 percent of the non-
     Federal share may be provided in the form of services, 
     materials, or other in-kind contributions.
       (C) Required non-federal contribution.--For any critical 
     restoration project, the non-Federal interest shall--
       (i) provide all land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged 
     material disposal areas, and relocations;
       (ii) pay all operation, maintenance, replacement, repair, 
     and rehabilitation costs; and
       (iii) hold the United States harmless from all claims 
     arising from the construction, operation, and maintenance of 
     the project.
       (D) Credit.--The non-Federal interest shall receive credit 
     for the value of the land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged 
     material disposal areas, and relocations provided under 
     subparagraph (C).
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) Assessment and restoration plans.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out subsections (b) and (c) 
     $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
       (2) Critical restoration projects.--There is authorized to 
     be appropriated to carry out subsection (d) $30,000,000.

     SEC. 338. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.

       The following projects or portions of projects are not 
     authorized after the date of enactment of this Act:
       (1) Kennebunk river, kennebunk and kennebunkport, maine.--
     The following portion of the project for navigation, 
     Kennebunk River, Maine, authorized by section 101 of the 
     River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1173), is not 
     authorized after the date of enactment of this Act: the 
     portion of the northernmost 6-foot deep anchorage the 
     boundaries of which begin at a point with coordinates 
     N1904693.6500, E418084.2700, thence running south 01 degree 
     04 minutes 50.3 seconds 35 feet to a point with coordinates 
     N190434.6562, E418084.9301, thence running south 15 degrees 
     53 minutes 45.5 seconds 416.962 feet to a point with 
     coordinates N190033.6386, E418199.1325, thence running north 
     03 degrees 11 minutes 30.4 seconds 70 feet to a point with 
     coordinates N190103.5300, E418203.0300, thence running north 
     17 degrees 58 minutes 18.3 seconds west 384.900 feet to the 
     point of origin.
       (2) Wallabout channel, brooklyn, new york.--
       (A) In general.--The northeastern portion of the project 
     for navigation, Wallabout Channel, Brooklyn, New York, 
     authorized by the Act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1124, 
     chapter 425), beginning at a point N682,307.40, E638,918.10, 
     thence running along the courses and distances described in 
     subparagraph (B).
       (B) Courses and distances.--The courses and distances 
     referred to in subparagraph (A) are the following:
       (i) South 85 degrees, 44 minutes, 13 seconds East 87.94 
     feet (coordinate: N682,300.86, E639,005.80).
       (ii) North 74 degrees, 41 minutes, 30 seconds East 271.54 
     feet (coordinate: N682,372.55, E639,267.71).
       (iii) South 4 degrees, 46 minutes, 02 seconds West 170.95 
     feet (coordinate: N682,202.20, E639,253.50).
       (iv) South 4 degrees, 46 minutes, 02 seconds West 239.97 
     feet (coordinate: N681,963.06, E639,233.56).
       (v) North 50 degrees, 48 minutes, 26 seconds West 305.48 
     feet (coordinate: N682,156.10, E638,996.80).
       (vi) North 3 degrees, 33 minutes, 25 seconds East 145.04 
     feet (coordinate: N682,300.86, E639,005.80).
       (3) New york and new jersey channels, new york and new 
     jersey.--The portion of the project for navigation, New York 
     and New Jersey Channels, New York and New Jersey, authorized 
     by the first section of the Act of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 
     1030, chapter 831), and modified by section 101 of the River 
     and Harbor Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 164), consisting of a 35-
     foot-deep channel beginning at a point along the western 
     limit of the authorized project, N644100.411, E2129256.91, 
     thence running southeast about 38.25 feet to a point 
     N644068.885, E2129278.565, thence running south about 1163.86 
     feet to a point N642912.127, E2129150.209, thence running 
     southwest about 56.9 feet to a point N642864.09, 
     E2129119.725, thence running north along the western limit of 
     the project to the point of origin.
       (4) Warwick cove, rhode island.--The portion of the project 
     for navigation, Warwick Cove, Rhode Island, authorized under 
     section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 
     577), which is located within the 5-acre, 6-foot anchorage 
     area west of the channel: beginning at a point with 
     coordinates N221,150.027, E528,960.028, thence running 
     southerly about 257.39 feet to a point with coordinates 
     N220,892.638, E528,960.028, thence running northwesterly 
     about 346.41 feet to a point with coordinates N221,025.270, 
     E528,885.780, thence running northeasterly about 145.18 feet 
     to the point of origin.

     SEC. 339. BOGUE BANKS, CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.

       (a) Definition of Beaches.--In this section, the term 
     ``beaches'' means the following beaches located in Carteret 
     County, North Carolina:
       (1) Atlantic Beach.
       (2) Pine Knoll Shores Beach.
       (3) Salter Path Beach.
       (4) Indian Beach.
       (5) Emerald Isle Beach.
       (b) Renourishment Study.--The Secretary shall expedite 
     completion of a study under

[[Page 19183]]

     section 145 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 
     (33 U.S.C. 426j) on the expedited renourishment, through 
     sharing of the costs of deposition of sand and other material 
     used for beach renourishment, of the beaches of Bogue Banks 
     in Carteret County, North Carolina.

                           TITLE IV--STUDIES

     SEC. 401. BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out beach erosion control, storm 
     damage reduction, and other measures along the shores of 
     Baldwin County, Alabama.

     SEC. 402. BONO, ARKANSAS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of, and need for, a reservoir and associated 
     improvements to provide for flood control, recreation, water 
     quality, and fish and wildlife in the vicinity of Bono, 
     Arkansas.

     SEC. 403. CACHE CREEK BASIN, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of modifying the project for flood 
     control, Cache Creek Basin, California, authorized by section 
     401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 
     Stat. 4112), to authorize construction of features to 
     mitigate impacts of the project on the storm drainage system 
     of the city of Woodland, California, that have been caused by 
     construction of a new south levee of the Cache Creek Settling 
     Basin.
       (b) Required Elements.--The study shall include 
     consideration of--
       (1) an outlet works through the Yolo Bypass capable of 
     receiving up to 1,600 cubic feet per second of storm drainage 
     from the city of Woodland and Yolo County;
       (2) a low-flow cross-channel across the Yolo Bypass, 
     including all appurtenant features, that is sufficient to 
     route storm flows of 1,600 cubic feet per second between the 
     old and new south levees of the Cache Creek Settling Basin, 
     across the Yolo Bypass, and into the Tule Canal; and
       (3) such other features as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate.

     SEC. 404. ESTUDILLO CANAL WATERSHED, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of constructing flood control measures in the 
     Estudillo Canal watershed, San Leandro, Calfornia.

     SEC. 405. LAGUNA CREEK WATERSHED, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of constructing flood control measures in the 
     Laguna Creek watershed, Fremont, California, to provide a 
     100-year level of flood protection.

     SEC. 406. OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA.

       Not later than 32 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary shall conduct a special study, at 
     full Federal expense, of plans--
       (1) to mitigate for the erosion and other impacts resulting 
     from the construction of Camp Pendleton Harbor, Oceanside, 
     California, as a wartime measure; and
       (2) to restore beach conditions along the affected public 
     and private shores to the conditions that existed before the 
     construction of Camp Pendleton Harbor.

     SEC. 407. SAN JACINTO WATERSHED, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a watershed 
     study for the San Jacinto watershed, California.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $250,000.

     SEC. 408. CHOCTAWHATCHEE RIVER, FLORIDA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a reconnaissance study to 
     determine the Federal interest in dredging the mouth of the 
     Choctawhatchee River, Florida, to remove the sand plug.

     SEC. 409. EGMONT KEY, FLORIDA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of stabilizing the historic fortifications and 
     beach areas of Egmont Key, Florida, that are threatened by 
     erosion.

     SEC. 410. FERNANDINA HARBOR, FLORIDA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of realigning the access channel in the vicinity 
     of the Fernandina Beach Municipal Marina as part of project 
     for navigation, Fernandina, Florida, authorized by the first 
     section of the Act of June 14, 1880 (21 Stat. 186, chapter 
     211).

     SEC. 411. UPPER OCKLAWAHA RIVER AND APOPKA/PALATLAKAHA RIVER 
                   BASINS, FLORIDA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a restudy of 
     flooding and water quality issues in--
       (1) the upper Ocklawaha River basin, south of the Silver 
     River; and
       (2) the Apopka River and Palatlakaha River basins.
       (b) Required Elements.--In carrying out subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall review the report of the Chief of Engineers 
     on the Four River Basins, Florida, project, published as 
     House Document No. 585, 87th Congress, and other pertinent 
     reports to determine the feasibility of measures relating to 
     comprehensive watershed planning for water conservation, 
     flood control, environmental restoration and protection, and 
     other issues relating to water resources in the river basins 
     described in subsection (a).

     SEC. 412. BOISE RIVER, IDAHO.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out multi-objective flood control 
     activities along the Boise River, Idaho.

     SEC. 413. WOOD RIVER, IDAHO.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out multi-objective flood control and 
     flood mitigation planning projects along the Wood River in 
     Blaine County, Idaho.

     SEC. 414. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for water-
     related urban improvements, including infrastructure 
     development and improvements, in Chicago, Illinois.
       (b) Sites.--Under subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
     study--
       (1) the USX/Southworks site;
       (2) Calumet Lake and River;
       (3) the Canal Origins Heritage Corridor; and
       (4) Ping Tom Park.
       (c) Use of Information; Consultation.--In carrying out this 
     section, the Secretary shall use available information from, 
     and consult with, appropriate Federal, State, and local 
     agencies.

     SEC. 415. BOEUF AND BLACK, LOUISIANA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of deepening the navigation channel of the 
     Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf and Black, 
     Louisiana, from 20 feet to 35 feet.

     SEC. 416. PORT OF IBERIA, LOUISIANA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of constructing navigation improvements for 
     ingress and egress between the Port of Iberia, Louisiana, and 
     the Gulf of Mexico, including channel widening and deepening.

     SEC. 417. SOUTH LOUISIANA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of constructing projects for hurricane protection 
     in the coastal area of the State of Louisiana between Morgan 
     City and the Pearl River.

     SEC. 418. ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH, LOUISIANA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of constructing urban flood control measures on 
     the east bank of the Mississippi River in St. John the 
     Baptist Parish, Louisiana.

     SEC. 419. PORTLAND HARBOR, MAINE.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     adequacy of the channel depth at Portland Harbor, Maine.

     SEC. 420. PORTSMOUTH HARBOR AND PISCATAQUA RIVER, MAINE AND 
                   NEW HAMPSHIRE.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of modifying the project for navigation, 
     Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River, Maine and New 
     Hampshire, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor 
     Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1173) and modified by section 202(a) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4095), 
     to increase the authorized width of turning basins in the 
     Piscataqua River to 1,000 feet.

     SEC. 421. SEARSPORT HARBOR, MAINE.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     adequacy of the channel depth at Searsport Harbor, Maine.

     SEC. 422. MERRIMACK RIVER BASIN, MASSACHUSETTS AND NEW 
                   HAMPSHIRE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a 
     comprehensive study of the water resources needs of the 
     Merrimack River basin, Massachusetts and New Hampshire, in 
     the manner described in section 729 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4164).
       (b) Consideration of Other Studies.--In carrying out this 
     section, the Secretary may take into consideration any 
     studies conducted by the University of New Hampshire on 
     environmental restoration of the Merrimack River System.

     SEC. 423. PORT OF GULFPORT, MISSISSIPPI.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of modifying the project for navigation, Gulfport 
     Harbor, Mississippi, authorized by section 202(a) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4094) and 
     modified by section 4(n) of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4017)--
       (1) to widen the channel from 300 feet to 450 feet; and
       (2) to deepen the South Harbor channel from 36 feet to 42 
     feet and the North Harbor channel from 32 feet to 36 feet.

     SEC. 424. UPLAND DISPOSAL SITES IN NEW HAMPSHIRE.

       In conjunction with the State of New Hampshire, the 
     Secretary shall conduct a study to identify and evaluate 
     potential upland disposal sites for dredged material 
     originating from harbor areas located within the State.

     SEC. 425. SOUTHWEST VALLEY, ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO.

       Section 433 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 327) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Evaluation of Flood Damage Reduction Measures.--In 
     conducting the study,

[[Page 19184]]

     the Secretary shall evaluate flood damage reduction measures 
     that would otherwise be excluded from the feasibility 
     analysis based on policies of the Corps of Engineers 
     concerning the frequency of flooding, the drainage area, and 
     the amount of runoff.''.

     SEC. 426. CUYAHOGA RIVER, OHIO.

       Section 438 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (110 Stat. 3746) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 438. CUYAHOGA RIVER, OHIO.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(1) conduct a study to evaluate the structural integrity 
     of the bulkhead system located on the Federal navigation 
     channel along the Cuyahoga River near Cleveland, Ohio; and
       ``(2) provide to the non-Federal interest design analysis, 
     plans and specifications, and cost estimates for repair or 
     replacement of the bulkhead system.
       ``(b) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
     the study shall be 35 percent.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000.''.

     SEC. 427. DUCK CREEK WATERSHED, OHIO.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out flood control, environmental 
     restoration, and aquatic ecosystem restoration measures in 
     the Duck Creek watershed, Ohio.

     SEC. 428. FREMONT, OHIO.

       In consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and local 
     agencies, the Secretary shall conduct a study to determine 
     the feasibility of carrying out projects for water supply and 
     environmental restoration at the Ballville Dam, on the 
     Sandusky River at Fremont, Ohio.

     SEC. 429. GRAND LAKE, OKLAHOMA.

       (a) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall--
       (1) evaluate the backwater effects specifically due to 
     flood control operations on land around Grand Lake, Oklahoma; 
     and
       (2) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, submit to Congress a report on whether Federal 
     actions have been a significant cause of the backwater 
     effects.
       (b) Feasibility Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of--
       (A) addressing the backwater effects of the operation of 
     the Pensacola Dam, Grand/Neosho River basin; and
       (B) purchasing easements for any land that has been 
     adversely affected by backwater flooding in the Grand/Neosho 
     River basin.
       (2) Cost sharing.--If the Secretary determines under 
     subsection (a)(2) that Federal actions have been a 
     significant cause of the backwater effects, the Federal share 
     of the costs of the feasibility study under paragraph (1) 
     shall be 100 percent.

     SEC. 430. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE, RHODE ISLAND.

       In consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, the Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of designating a permanent site in 
     the State of Rhode Island for the disposal of dredged 
     material.

     SEC. 431. CHICKAMAUGA LOCK AND DAM, TENNESSEE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall use $200,000, from 
     funds transferred from the Tennessee Valley Authority, to 
     prepare a report of the Chief of Engineers for a replacement 
     lock at Chickamauga Lock and Dam, Tennessee.
       (b) Funding.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Tennessee Valley Authority shall 
     transfer the funds described in subsection (a) to the 
     Secretary.

     SEC. 432. GERMANTOWN, TENNESSEE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
     control and related purposes along Miller Farms Ditch, Howard 
     Road Drainage, and Wolf River Lateral D, Germantown, 
     Tennessee.
       (b) Justification Analysis.--The Secretary shall include 
     environmental and water quality benefits in the justification 
     analysis for the project.
       (c) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the costs of the 
     feasibility study under subsection (a) shall not exceed 25 
     percent.
       (2) Non-federal share.--The Secretary--
       (A) shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the costs 
     of the feasibility study the value of the in-kind services 
     provided by the non-Federal interests relating to the 
     planning, engineering, and design of the project, whether 
     carried out before or after execution of the feasibility 
     study cost-sharing agreement; and
       (B) for the purposes of subparagraph (A), shall consider 
     the feasibility study to be conducted as part of the Memphis 
     Metro Tennessee and Mississippi study authorized by 
     resolution of the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure, dated March 7, 1996.

     SEC. 433. HORN LAKE CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, TENNESSEE AND 
                   MISSISSIPPI.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of modifying the project for flood 
     control, Horn Lake Creek and Tributaries, Tennessee and 
     Mississippi, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124), to 
     provide a high level of urban flood protection to development 
     along Horn Lake Creek.
       (b) Required Element.--The study shall include a limited 
     reevaluation of the project to determine the appropriate 
     design, as desired by the non-Federal interests.

     SEC. 434. CEDAR BAYOU, TEXAS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of constructing a 12-foot-deep and 125-foot-wide 
     channel from the Houston Ship Channel to Cedar Bayou, mile 
     marker 11, Texas.

     SEC. 435. HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TEXAS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of constructing barge lanes adjacent to both 
     sides of the Houston Ship Channel from Bolivar Roads to 
     Morgan Point, Texas, to a depth of 12 feet.

     SEC. 436. SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL, TEXAS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of modifying the project for San Antonio Channel 
     improvement, Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1259), and modified by section 
     103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 
     2921), to add environmental restoration and recreation as 
     project purposes.

     SEC. 437. VERMONT DAMS REMEDIATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall--
       (1) conduct a study to evaluate the structural integrity 
     and need for modification or removal of each dam located in 
     the State of Vermont and described in subsection (b); and
       (2) provide to the non-Federal interest design analysis, 
     plans and specifications, and cost estimates for repair, 
     restoration, modification, and removal of each dam described 
     in subsection (b).
       (b) Dams To Be Evaluated.--The dams referred to in 
     subsection (a) are the following:
       (1) East Barre Dam, Barre Town.
       (2) Wrightsville Dam, Middlesex-Montpelier.
       (3) Lake Sadawga Dam, Whitingham.
       (4) Dufresne Pond Dam, Manchester.
       (5) Knapp Brook Site 1 Dam, Cavendish.
       (6) Lake Bomoseen Dam, Castleton.
       (7) Little Hosmer Dam, Craftsbury.
       (8) Colby Pond Dam, Plymouth.
       (9) Silver Lake Dam, Barnard.
       (10) Gale Meadows Dam, Londonderry.
       (c) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     study under subsection (a) shall be 35 percent.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000.

     SEC. 438. WHITE RIVER WATERSHED BELOW MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, 
                   WASHINGTON.

       (a) Review.--The Secretary shall review the report of the 
     Chief of Engineers on the Upper Puyallup River, Washington, 
     dated 1936, authorized by section 5 of the Act of June 22, 
     1936 (49 Stat. 1591, chapter 688), the Puget Sound and 
     adjacent waters report authorized by section 209 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1197), and other pertinent 
     reports, to determine whether modifications to the 
     recommendations contained in the reports are advisable to 
     provide improvements to the water resources and watershed of 
     the White River watershed downstream of Mud Mountain Dam, 
     Washington.
       (b) Issues.--In conducting the review under subsection (a), 
     the Secretary shall review, with respect to the Lake Tapps 
     community and other parts of the watershed--
       (1) constructed and natural environs;
       (2) capital improvements;
       (3) water resource infrastructure;
       (4) ecosystem restoration;
       (5) flood control;
       (6) fish passage;
       (7) collaboration by, and the interests of, regional 
     stakeholders;
       (8) recreational and socioeconomic interests; and
       (9) other issues determined by the Secretary.

     SEC. 439. WILLAPA BAY, WASHINGTON.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of providing coastal erosion 
     protection for the Tribal Reservation of the Shoalwater Bay 
     Indian Tribe on Willapa Bay, Washington.
       (b) Project.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     (including any requirement for economic justification), the 
     Secretary may construct and maintain a project to provide 
     coastal erosion protection for the Tribal Reservation of the 
     Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe on Willapa Bay, Washington, at 
     full Federal expense, if the Secretary determines that the 
     project--
       (A) is a cost-effective means of providing erosion 
     protection;
       (B) is environmentally acceptable and technically feasible; 
     and
       (C) will improve the economic and social conditions of the 
     Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe.
       (2) Land, easements, and rights-of-way.--As a condition of 
     the project described in paragraph (1), the Shoalwater Bay 
     Indian Tribe shall provide land, easements, rights-of-way, 
     and dredged material disposal areas necessary for the 
     implementation of the project.

     SEC. 440. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN SEDIMENT AND NUTRIENT 
                   STUDY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, in conjunction with the 
     Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior, 
     shall conduct a study to--

[[Page 19185]]

       (1) identify and evaluate significant sources of sediment 
     and nutrients in the upper Mississippi River basin;
       (2) quantify the processes affecting mobilization, 
     transport, and fate of those sediments and nutrients on land 
     and in water; and
       (3) quantify the transport of those sediments and nutrients 
     to the upper Mississippi River and the tributaries of the 
     upper Mississippi River.
       (b) Study Components.--
       (1) Computer modeling.--In carrying out the study under 
     this section, the Secretary shall develop computer models of 
     the upper Mississippi River basin, at the subwatershed and 
     basin scales, to--
       (A) identify and quantify sources of sediment and 
     nutrients; and
       (B) examine the effectiveness of alternative management 
     measures.
       (2) Research.--In carrying out the study under this 
     section, the Secretary shall conduct research to improve the 
     understanding of--
       (A) fate processes and processes affecting sediment and 
     nutrient transport, with emphasis on nitrogen and phosphorus 
     cycling and dynamics;
       (B) the influences on sediment and nutrient losses of soil 
     type, slope, climate, vegetation cover, and modifications to 
     the stream drainage network; and
       (C) river hydrodynamics, in relation to sediment and 
     nutrient transformations, retention, and transport.
       (c) Use of Information.--On request of a relevant Federal 
     agency, the Secretary may provide information for use in 
     applying sediment and nutrient reduction programs associated 
     with land-use improvements and land management practices.
       (d) Reports.--
       (1) Preliminary report.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress a preliminary report that outlines work being 
     conducted on the study components described in subsection 
     (b).
       (2) Final report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report describing the results of the study under this 
     section, including any findings and recommendations of the 
     study.
       (e) Funding.--
       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
       (2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     carrying out this section shall be 50 percent.

     SEC. 441. CLIFF WALK IN NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     project deficiencies and identify the necessary measures to 
     restore the project for Cliff Walk in Newport, Rhode Island 
     to meet its authorized purpose.

     SEC. 442. QUONSET POINT CHANNEL RECONNAISSANCE STUDY.

       The Secretary shall conduct a reconnaissance study to 
     determine the Federal interest in dredging the Quonset Point 
     navigation channel in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island.

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 501. VISITORS CENTERS.

       (a) John Paul Hammerschmidt Visitors Center, Arkansas.--
     Section 103(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
     (106 Stat. 4813) is amended by striking ``Arkansas River, 
     Arkansas.'' and inserting ``at Fort Smith, Arkansas, on land 
     provided by the city of Fort Smith.''.
       (b) Lower Mississippi River Museum and Riverfront 
     Interpretive Site, Mississippi.--Section 103(c)(2) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4811) is 
     amended in the first sentence by striking ``in the vicinity 
     of the Mississippi River Bridge in Vicksburg, Mississippi.'' 
     and inserting ``between the Mississippi River Bridge and the 
     waterfront in downtown Vicksburg, Mississippi.''.

     SEC. 502. CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM ASSISTANCE, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary--
       (1) may participate with the appropriate Federal and State 
     agencies in the planning and management activities associated 
     with the CALFED Bay-Delta Program referred to in the 
     California Bay-Delta Environmental Enhancement and Water 
     Security Act (division E of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 
     3009-748); and
       (2) shall, to the maximum extent practicable and in 
     accordance with applicable law, integrate the activities of 
     the Corps of Engineers in the San Joaquin and Sacramento 
     River basins with the long-term goals of the CALFED Bay-Delta 
     Program.
       (b) Cooperative Activities.--In participating in the CALFED 
     Bay-Delta Program under subsection (a), the Secretary may--
       (1) accept and expend funds from other Federal agencies and 
     from non-Federal public, private, and nonprofit entities to 
     carry out ecosystem restoration projects and activities 
     associated with the CALFED Bay-Delta Program; and
       (2) in carrying out the projects and activities, enter into 
     contracts, cooperative research and development agreements, 
     and cooperative agreements with Federal and non-Federal 
     private, public, and nonprofit entities.
       (c) Area Covered by Program.--For the purposes of this 
     section, the area covered by the CALFED Bay-Delta Program 
     shall be the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 
     Estuary and its watershed (known as the ``Bay-Delta 
     Estuary''), as identified in the Framework Agreement Between 
     the Governor's Water Policy Council of the State of 
     California and the Federal Ecosystem Directorate.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2002 through 2005.

     SEC. 503. LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GEORGIA, HOME PRESERVATION.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Easement prohibition.--The term ``easement 
     prohibition'' means the rights acquired by the United States 
     in the flowage easements to prohibit structures for human 
     habitation.
       (2) Eligible property owner.--The term ``eligible property 
     owner'' means a person that owns a structure for human 
     habitation that was constructed before January 1, 2000, and 
     is located on fee land or in violation of the flowage 
     easement.
       (3) Fee land.--The term ``fee land'' means the land 
     acquired in fee title by the United States for the Lake.
       (4) Flowage easement.--The term ``flowage easement'' means 
     an interest in land that the United States acquired that 
     provides the right to flood, to the elevation of 1,085 feet 
     above mean sea level (among other rights), land surrounding 
     the Lake.
       (5) Lake.--The term ``Lake'' means the Lake Sidney Lanier, 
     Georgia, project of the Corps of Engineers authorized by the 
     first section of the Act of July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 635, 
     chapter 595).
       (b) Establishment of Program.--Not later than 120 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     establish, and provide public notice of, a program--
       (1) to convey to eligible property owners the right to 
     maintain existing structures for human habitation on fee 
     land; or
       (2) to release eligible property owners from the easement 
     prohibition as it applies to existing structures for human 
     habitation on the flowage easements (if the floor elevation 
     of the human habitation area is above the elevation of 1,085 
     feet above mean sea level).
       (c) Regulations.--To carry out subsection (b), the 
     Secretary shall promulgate regulations that--
       (1) require the Corps of Engineers to suspend any 
     activities to require eligible property owners to remove 
     structures for human habitation that encroach on fee land or 
     flowage easements;
       (2) provide that a person that owns a structure for human 
     habitation on land adjacent to the Lake shall have a period 
     of 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act--
       (A) to request that the Corps of Engineers resurvey the 
     property of the person to determine if the person is an 
     eligible property owner under this section; and
       (B) to pay the costs of the resurvey to the Secretary for 
     deposit in the Corps of Engineers account in accordance with 
     section 2695 of title 10, United States Code;
       (3) provide that when a determination is made, through a 
     private survey or through a boundary line maintenance survey 
     conducted by the Federal Government, that a structure for 
     human habitation is located on the fee land or a flowage 
     easement--
       (A) the Corps of Engineers shall immediately notify the 
     property owner by certified mail; and
       (B) the property owner shall have a period of 90 days from 
     receipt of the notice in which to establish that the 
     structure was constructed prior to January 1, 2000, and that 
     the property owner is an eligible property owner under this 
     section;
       (4) provide that any private survey shall be subject to 
     review and approval by the Corps of Engineers to ensure that 
     the private survey conforms to the boundary line established 
     by the Federal Government;
       (5) require the Corps of Engineers to offer to an eligible 
     property owner a conveyance or release that--
       (A) on fee land, conveys by quitclaim deed the minimum land 
     required to maintain the human habitation structure, 
     reserving the right to flood to the elevation of 1,085 feet 
     above mean sea level, if applicable;
       (B) in a flowage easement, releases by quitclaim deed the 
     easement prohibition;
       (C) provides that--
       (i) the existing structure shall not be extended further 
     onto fee land or into the flowage easement; and
       (ii) additional structures for human habitation shall not 
     be placed on fee land or in a flowage easement; and
       (D) provides that--
       (i)(I) the United States shall not be liable or responsible 
     for damage to property or injury to persons caused by 
     operation of the Lake; and
       (II) no claim to compensation shall accrue from the 
     exercise of the flowage easement rights; and
       (ii) the waiver described in clause (i) of any and all 
     claims against the United States shall be a covenant running 
     with the land and shall be fully binding on heirs, 
     successors, assigns, and purchasers of the property subject 
     to the waiver; and

[[Page 19186]]

       (6) provide that the eligible property owner shall--
       (A) agree to an offer under paragraph (5) not later than 90 
     days after the offer is made by the Corps of Engineers; or
       (B) comply with the real property rights of the United 
     States and remove the structure for human habitation and any 
     other unauthorized real or personal property.
       (d) Option To Purchase Insurance.--Nothing in this section 
     precludes a property owner from purchasing flood insurance to 
     which the property owner may be eligible.
       (e) Prior Encroachment Resolutions.--Nothing in this 
     section affects any resolution, before the date of enactment 
     of this Act, of an encroachment at the Lake, whether the 
     resolution was effected through sale, exchange, voluntary 
     removal, or alteration or removal through litigation.
       (f) Prior Real Property Rights.--Nothing in this section--
       (1) takes away, diminishes, or eliminates any other real 
     property rights acquired by the United States at the Lake; or
       (2) affects the ability of the United States to require the 
     removal of any and all encroachments that are constructed or 
     placed on United States real property or flowage easements at 
     the Lake after December 31, 1999.

     SEC. 504. CONVEYANCE OF LIGHTHOUSE, ONTONAGON, MICHIGAN.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may convey to the Ontonagon 
     County Historical Society, at full Federal expense--
       (1) the lighthouse at Ontonagon, Michigan; and
       (2) the land underlying and adjacent to the lighthouse 
     (including any improvements on the land) that is under the 
     jurisdiction of the Secretary.
       (b) Map.--The Secretary shall--
       (1) determine--
       (A) the extent of the land conveyance under this section; 
     and
       (B) the exact acreage and legal description of the land to 
     be conveyed under this section; and
       (2) prepare a map that clearly identifies any land to be 
     conveyed.
       (c) Conditions.--The Secretary may--
       (1) obtain all necessary easements and rights-of-way; and
       (2) impose such terms, conditions, reservations, and 
     restrictions on the conveyance;
     as the Secretary determines to be necessary to protect the 
     public interest.
       (d) Environmental Response.--To the extent required under 
     any applicable law, the Secretary shall be responsible for 
     any necessary environmental response required as a result of 
     the prior Federal use or ownership of the land and 
     improvements conveyed under this section.
       (e) Responsibilities After Conveyance.--After the 
     conveyance of land under this section, the Ontonagon County 
     Historical Society shall be responsible for any additional 
     operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, or 
     replacement costs associated with--
       (1) the lighthouse; or
       (2) the conveyed land and improvements.
       (f) Applicability of Environmental Law.--Nothing in this 
     section affects the potential liability of any person under 
     any applicable environmental law.

     SEC. 505. LAND CONVEYANCE, CANDY LAKE, OKLAHOMA.

       Section 563(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999 (113 Stat. 357) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``a deceased'' and 
     inserting ``an''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Costs of nepa compliance.--The Federal Government 
     shall assume the costs of any Federal action under this 
     subsection that is carried out for the purpose of section 102 
     of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
     4332).
       ``(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to 
     carry out this subsection.''.

     SEC. 506. LAND CONVEYANCE, RICHARD B. RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, 
                   SOUTH CAROLINA.

       Section 563 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 355) is amended by striking subsection (i) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(i) Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake, South Carolina.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey to the State 
     of South Carolina all right, title, and interest of the 
     United States in and to the parcels of land described in 
     paragraph (2)(A) that are being managed, as of August 17, 
     1999, by the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 
     for fish and wildlife mitigation purposes for the Richard B. 
     Russell Dam and Lake, South Carolina, project authorized by 
     section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 1420).
       ``(2) Land description.--
       ``(A) In general.--The parcels of land to be conveyed are 
     described in Exhibits A, F, and H of Army Lease No. DACW21-1-
     93-0910 and associated supplemental agreements.
       ``(B) Survey.--The exact acreage and legal description of 
     the land shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the 
     Secretary, with the cost of the survey borne by the State.
       ``(3) Costs of conveyance.--The State shall be responsible 
     for all costs, including real estate transaction and 
     environmental compliance costs, associated with the 
     conveyance.
       ``(4) Perpetual status.--
       ``(A) In general.--All land conveyed under this subsection 
     shall be retained in public ownership and shall be managed in 
     perpetuity for fish and wildlife mitigation purposes in 
     accordance with a plan approved by the Secretary.
       ``(B) Reversion.--If any parcel of land is not managed for 
     fish and wildlife mitigation purposes in accordance with the 
     plan, title to the parcel shall revert to the United States.
       ``(5) Additional terms and conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the conveyance under this subsection as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.
       ``(6) Fish and wildlife mitigation agreement.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall pay the State of 
     South Carolina $4,850,000, subject to the Secretary and the 
     State entering into a binding agreement for the State to 
     manage for fish and wildlife mitigation purposes in 
     perpetuity the parcels of land conveyed under this 
     subsection.
       ``(B) Failure of performance.--The agreement shall specify 
     the terms and conditions under which payment will be made and 
     the rights of, and remedies available to, the Federal 
     Government to recover all or a portion of the payment if the 
     State fails to manage any parcel in a manner satisfactory to 
     the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 507. CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX 
                   TRIBE, AND STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA TERRESTRIAL 
                   WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION.

       (a) Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration.--Section 602 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 
     385) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(4)(C)(i), by striking subclause (I) 
     and inserting the following:

       ``(I) fund, from funds made available for operation and 
     maintenance under the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin program 
     and through grants to the State of South Dakota, the Cheyenne 
     River Sioux Tribe, and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe--

       ``(aa) the terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration 
     programs being carried out as of August 17, 1999, on Oahe and 
     Big Bend project land at a level that does not exceed the 
     greatest amount of funding that was provided for the programs 
     during a previous fiscal year; and
       ``(bb) the carrying out of plans developed under this 
     section; and''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(4)(B), by striking ``section 
     604(d)(3)(A)(iii)'' and inserting ``section 604(d)(3)(A)''.
       (b) South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration 
     Trust Fund.--Section 603 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 388) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``The'' and inserting 
     ``In consultation with the State of South Dakota, the''; and
       (2) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``Department of Game, 
     Fish and Parks of the'' before ``State of''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3)(A)(ii)--
       (i) in subclause (I), by striking ``transferred'' and 
     inserting ``transferred, or to be transferred,''; and
       (ii) by striking subclause (II) and inserting the 
     following:

       ``(II) fund all costs associated with the lease, ownership, 
     management, operation, administration, maintenance, or 
     development of recreation areas and other land that are 
     transferred, or to be transferred, to the State of South 
     Dakota by the Secretary;''.

       (c) Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Lower Brule Sioux Tribe 
     Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Funds.--
     Section 604 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 389) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``The'' and inserting 
     ``In consultation with the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and 
     Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, the''; and
       (2) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``as tribal funds'' 
     after ``for use''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3)(A)(ii)--
       (i) in subclause (I), by striking ``transferred'' and 
     inserting ``transferred, or to be transferred,''; and
       (ii) by striking subclause (II) and inserting the 
     following:

       ``(II) fund all costs associated with the lease, ownership, 
     management, operation, administration, maintenance, or 
     development of recreation areas and other land that are 
     transferred, or to be transferred, to the respective affected 
     Indian Tribe by the Secretary;''.

       (d) Transfer of Federal Land to State of South Dakota.--
     Section 605 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 390) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``in perpetuity'' and 
     inserting ``for the life of the Mni Wiconi project'';

[[Page 19187]]

       (B) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C); 
     and
       (C) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B) Deadline for transfer of recreation areas.--Under 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall transfer recreation 
     areas not later than January 1, 2002.'';
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by redesignating paragraph (1) as paragraph (1)(A);
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (4) as 
     subparagraphs (B) through (D), respectively, of paragraph 
     (1);
       (C) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (C), (as redesignated by subparagraph 
     (B)), by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (D) (as redesignated by subparagraph 
     (B)), by striking ``and'' and inserting ``or''; and
       (D) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (2);
       (3) in subsection (d), by striking paragraph (2) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2) Structures.--
       ``(A) In general.--The map shall identify all land and 
     structures to be retained as necessary for continuation of 
     the operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, 
     rehabilitation, and structural integrity of the dams and 
     related flood control and hydropower structures.
       ``(B) Lease of recreation areas.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall lease to the State 
     of South Dakota in perpetuity all or part of the following 
     recreation areas, within the boundaries determined under 
     clause (ii), that are adjacent to land received by the State 
     of South Dakota under this title:

       ``(I) Oahe dam and lake.--

       ``(aa) Downstream Recreation Area.
       ``(bb) West Shore Recreation Area.
       ``(cc) East Shore Recreation Area.
       ``(dd) Tailrace Recreation Area.

       ``(II) Fort randall dam and lake francis case.--

       ``(aa) Randall Creek Recreation Area.
       ``(bb) South Shore Recreation Area.
       ``(cc) Spillway Recreation Area.

       ``(III) Gavins point dam and lewis and clark lake.--Pierson 
     Ranch Recreation Area.

       ``(ii) Lease boundaries.--The Secretary shall determine the 
     boundaries of the recreation areas in consultation with the 
     State of South Dakota.'';
       (4) in subsection (f)(1), by striking ``Federal law'' and 
     inserting ``a Federal law specified in section 607(a)(6) or 
     any other Federal law'';
       (5) in subsection (g), by striking paragraph (3) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(3) Easements and access.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after a request 
     by the State of South Dakota, the Secretary shall provide to 
     the State of South Dakota easements and access on land and 
     water below the level of the exclusive flood pool outside 
     Indian reservations in the State of South Dakota for 
     recreational and other purposes (including for boat docks, 
     boat ramps, and related structures).
       ``(B) No effect on mission.--The easements and access 
     referred to in subparagraph (A) shall not prevent the Corps 
     from carrying out its mission under the Act entitled `An Act 
     authorizing the construction of certain public works on 
     rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other 
     purposes', approved December 22, 1944 (commonly known as the 
     `Flood Control Act of 1944') (58 Stat. 887)).'';
       (6) in subsection (h), by striking ``of this Act'' and 
     inserting ``of law''; and
       (7) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Cleanup of Land and Recreation Areas.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 10 years after the date 
     of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall clean up 
     each open dump and hazardous waste site identified by the 
     Secretary and located on the land and recreation areas 
     described in subsections (b) and (c).
       ``(2) Funding.--Cleanup activities under paragraph (1) 
     shall be funded solely from funds made available for 
     operation and maintenance under the Pick-Sloan Missouri River 
     Basin program.
       ``(k) Cultural Resources Advisory Commission.--
       ``(1) In general.--The State of South Dakota, the Cheyenne 
     River Sioux Tribe, and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe may 
     establish an advisory commission to be known as the `Cultural 
     Resources Advisory Commission' (referred to in this 
     subsection as the `Commission').
       ``(2) Membership.--The Commission shall be composed of--
       ``(A) 1 member representing the State of South Dakota;
       ``(B) 1 member representing the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe;
       ``(C) 1 member representing the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe; 
     and
       ``(D) upon unanimous vote of the members of the Commission 
     described in subparagraphs (A) through (C), a member 
     representing a federally recognized Indian Tribe located in 
     the State of North Dakota or South Dakota that is 
     historically or traditionally affiliated with the Missouri 
     River Basin in South Dakota.
       ``(3) Duty.--The duty of the Commission shall be to provide 
     advice on the identification, protection, and preservation of 
     cultural resources on the land and recreation areas described 
     in subsections (b) and (c) of this section and subsections 
     (b) and (c) of section 606.
       ``(4) Responsibilities, powers, and administration.--The 
     Governor of the State of South Dakota, the Chairman of the 
     Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and the Chairman of the Lower 
     Brule Sioux Tribe are encouraged to unanimously enter into a 
     formal written agreement, not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this subsection, to establish the role, 
     responsibilities, powers, and administration of the 
     Commission.
       ``(l) Inventory and Stabilization of Cultural and Historic 
     Sites.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 10 years after the date 
     of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary, through 
     contracts entered into with the State of South Dakota, the 
     affected Indian Tribes, and other Indian Tribes in the States 
     of North Dakota and South Dakota, shall inventory and 
     stabilize each cultural site and historic site located on the 
     land and recreation areas described in subsections (b) and 
     (c).
       ``(2) Funding.--Inventory and stabilization activities 
     under paragraph (1) shall be funded solely from funds made 
     available for operation and maintenance under the Pick-Sloan 
     Missouri River Basin program.''.
       (e) Transfer of Corps of Engineers Land for Affected Indian 
     Tribes.--Section 606 of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1999 (113 Stat. 393) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``The Secretary'' and 
     inserting ``Not later than January 1, 2002, the Secretary'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``Big Bend and Oahe'' 
     and inserting ``Oahe, Big Bend, and Fort Randall'';
       (3) in subsection (d), by striking paragraph (2) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2) Structures.--
       ``(A) In general.--The map shall identify all land and 
     structures to be retained as necessary for continuation of 
     the operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, 
     rehabilitation, and structural integrity of the dams and 
     related flood control and hydropower structures.
       ``(B) Lease of recreation areas.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall lease to the Lower 
     Brule Sioux Tribe in perpetuity all or part of the following 
     recreation areas at Big Bend Dam and Lake Sharpe:

       ``(I) Left Tailrace Recreation Area.
       ``(II) Right Tailrace Recreation Area.
       ``(III) Good Soldier Creek Recreation Area.

       ``(ii) Lease boundaries.--The Secretary shall determine the 
     boundaries of the recreation areas in consultation with the 
     Lower Brule Sioux Tribe.'';
       (4) in subsection (f)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Federal law'' and 
     inserting ``a Federal law specified in section 607(a)(6) or 
     any other Federal law'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking subparagraph (C) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(C) Easements and access.--
       ``(i) In general.--Not later than 180 days after a request 
     by an affected Indian Tribe, the Secretary shall provide to 
     the affected Indian Tribe easements and access on land and 
     water below the level of the exclusive flood pool inside the 
     Indian reservation of the affected Indian Tribe for 
     recreational and other purposes (including for boat docks, 
     boat ramps, and related structures).
       ``(ii) No effect on mission.--The easements and access 
     referred to in clause (i) shall not prevent the Corps from 
     carrying out its mission under the Act entitled `An Act 
     authorizing the construction of certain public works on 
     rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other 
     purposes', approved December 22, 1944 (commonly known as the 
     `Flood Control Act of 1944') (58 Stat. 887)).''; and
       (C) in paragraph (3)(B), by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``that were administered by the Corps 
     of Engineers as of the date of the land transfer.''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Cleanup of Land and Recreation Areas.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 10 years after the date 
     of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall clean up 
     each open dump and hazardous waste site identified by the 
     Secretary and located on the land and recreation areas 
     described in subsections (b) and (c).
       ``(2) Funding.--Cleanup activities under paragraph (1) 
     shall be funded solely from funds made available for 
     operation and maintenance under the Pick-Sloan Missouri River 
     Basin program.
       ``(i) Inventory and Stabilization of Cultural and Historic 
     Sites.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 10 years after the date 
     of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Cultural Resources Advisory Commission 
     established under section 605(k) and through contracts 
     entered into with the State of South Dakota, the affected 
     Indian Tribes, and other Indian Tribes in the States of North 
     Dakota and South Dakota, shall inventory and stabilize each 
     cultural site and

[[Page 19188]]

     historic site located on the land and recreation areas 
     described in subsections (b) and (c).
       ``(2) Funding.--Inventory and stabilization activities 
     under paragraph (1) shall be funded solely from funds made 
     available for operation and maintenance under the Pick-Sloan 
     Missouri River Basin program.
       ``(j) Sediment Contamination.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 10 years after the date 
     of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) complete a study of sediment contamination in the 
     Cheyenne River; and
       ``(B) take appropriate remedial action to eliminate any 
     public health and environmental risk posed by the 
     contaminated sediment.
       ``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to 
     carry out paragraph (1).''.
       (f) Budget Considerations.--Section 607 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 395) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Budget Considerations.--
       ``(1) In general.--In developing an annual budget to carry 
     out this title, the Corps of Engineers shall consult with the 
     State of South Dakota and the affected Indian Tribes.
       ``(2) Inclusions; availability.--The budget referred to in 
     paragraph (1) shall--
       ``(A) be detailed;
       ``(B) include all necessary tasks and associated costs; and
       ``(C) be made available to the State of South Dakota and 
     the affected Indian Tribes at the time at which the Corps of 
     Engineers submits the budget to Congress.''.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 609 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 396) is 
     amended by striking subsection (a) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) Secretary.--
       ``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Secretary for each fiscal year such sums as are 
     necessary--
       ``(A) to pay the administrative expenses incurred by the 
     Secretary in carrying out this title;
       ``(B) to fund the implementation of terrestrial wildlife 
     habitat restoration plans under section 602(a);
       ``(C) to fund activities described in sections 603(d)(3) 
     and 604(d)(3) with respect to land and recreation areas 
     transferred, or to be transferred, to an affected Indian 
     Tribe or the State of South Dakota under section 605 or 606; 
     and
       ``(D) to fund the annual expenses (not to exceed the 
     Federal cost as of August 17, 1999) of operating recreation 
     areas transferred, or to be transferred, under sections 
     605(c) and 606(c) to, or leased by, the State of South Dakota 
     or an affected Indian Tribe, until such time as the trust 
     funds under sections 603 and 604 are fully capitalized.
       ``(2) Allocations.--
       ``(A) In general.--For each fiscal year, the Secretary 
     shall allocate the amounts made available under subparagraphs 
     (B), (C), and (D) of paragraph (1) as follows:
       ``(i) $1,000,000 (or, if a lesser amount is so made 
     available for the fiscal year, the lesser amount) shall be 
     allocated equally among the State of South Dakota, the 
     Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, 
     for use in accordance with paragraph (1).
       ``(ii) Any amounts remaining after the allocation under 
     clause (i) shall be allocated as follows:

       ``(I) 65 percent to the State of South Dakota.
       ``(II) 26 percent to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe.
       ``(III) 9 percent to the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe.

       ``(B) Use of allocations.--Amounts allocated under 
     subparagraph (A) may be used at the option of the recipient 
     for any purpose described in subparagraph (B), (C), or (D) of 
     paragraph (1).''.
       (h) Clarification of References to Indian Tribes.--
       (1) Definitions.--Section 601 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 385) is amended by 
     striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Affected indian tribe.--The term `affected Indian 
     Tribe' means each of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the 
     Lower Brule Sioux Tribe.''.
       (2) Terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration.--Section 
     602(b)(4)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 388) is amended by striking ``the Tribe'' and 
     inserting ``the affected Indian Tribe''.
       (3) Cheyenne river sioux tribe and lower brule sioux tribe 
     terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration trust funds.--
     Section 604(d)(3)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1999 (113 Stat. 390) is amended by striking ``the 
     respective Tribe'' each place it appears and inserting ``the 
     respective affected Indian Tribe''.
       (4) Transfer of federal land to state of south dakota.--
     Section 605 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 390) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``an Indian Tribe'' 
     and inserting ``any Indian Tribe''; and
       (B) in subsection (c)(1)(B) (as redesignated by subsection 
     (d)(2)(B)), by striking ``an Indian Tribe'' and inserting 
     ``any Indian Tribe''.
       (5) Transfer of corps of engineers land for affected indian 
     tribes.--Section 606 of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1999 (113 Stat. 393) is amended--
       (A) in the section heading, by striking ``INDIAN TRIBES'' 
     and inserting ``AFFECTED INDIAN TRIBES'';
       (B) in paragraphs (1) and (4) of subsection (a), by 
     striking ``the Indian Tribes'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``the affected Indian Tribes'';
       (C) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``an Indian Tribe'' 
     and inserting ``any Indian Tribe'';
       (D) in subsection (f)(2)(B)(i)--
       (i) by striking ``the respective tribes'' and inserting 
     ``the respective affected Indian Tribes''; and
       (ii) by striking ``the respective Tribe's'' and inserting 
     ``the respective affected Indian Tribe's''; and
       (E) in subsection (g), by striking ``an Indian Tribe'' and 
     inserting ``any Indian Tribe''.
       (6) Administration.--Section 607(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 395) is amended by 
     striking ``an Indian Tribe'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``any Indian Tribe''.

     SEC. 508. EXPORT OF WATER FROM GREAT LAKES.

       (a) Additional Finding.--Section 1109(b) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-20(b)) is 
     amended by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs 
     (3) and (4), and by inserting after paragraph (1) the 
     following:
       ``(2) to encourage the Great Lakes States, in consultation 
     with the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, to develop and 
     implement a mechanism that provides a common conservation 
     standard embodying the principles of water conservation and 
     resource improvement for making decisions concerning the 
     withdrawal and use of water from the Great Lakes Basin;''.
       (b) Approval of Governors for Export of Water.--Section 
     1109(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (42 
     U.S.C. 1962d-20(d)) is amended by--
       (1) inserting ``or exported'' after ``diverted''; and
       (2) inserting ``or export'' after ``diversion''.
       (c) Sense of the Congress.--It is the Sense of the Congress 
     that the Secretary of State should work with the Canadian 
     Government to encourage and support the Provinces in the 
     development and implementation of a mechanism and standard 
     concerning the withdrawal and use of water from the Great 
     Lakes Basin consistent with those mechanisms and standards 
     developed by the Great Lakes States.

          TITLE VI--COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN

     SEC. 601. COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Central and southern florida project.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``Central and Southern Florida 
     Project'' means the project for Central and Southern Florida 
     authorized under the heading ``central and southern florida'' 
     in section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (62 Stat. 
     1176).
       (B) Inclusion.--The term ``Central and Southern Florida 
     Project'' includes any modification to the project authorized 
     by this section or any other provision of law.
       (2) Governor.--The term ``Governor'' means the Governor of 
     the State of Florida.
       (3) Natural system.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``natural system'' means all land 
     and water managed by the Federal Government or the State 
     within the South Florida ecosystem.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``natural system'' includes--
       (i) water conservation areas;
       (ii) sovereign submerged land;
       (iii) Everglades National Park;
       (iv) Biscayne National Park;
       (v) Big Cypress National Preserve;
       (vi) other Federal or State (including a political 
     subdivision of a State) land that is designated and managed 
     for conservation purposes; and
       (vii) any tribal land that is designated and managed for 
     conservation purposes, as approved by the tribe.
       (4) Plan.--The term ``Plan'' means the Comprehensive 
     Everglades Restoration Plan contained in the ``Final 
     Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental 
     Impact Statement'', dated April 1, 1999, as modified by this 
     section.
       (5) South florida ecosystem.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``South Florida ecosystem'' means 
     the area consisting of the land and water within the boundary 
     of the South Florida Water Management District in effect on 
     July 1, 1999.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``South Florida ecosystem'' 
     includes--
       (i) the Everglades;
       (ii) the Florida Keys; and
       (iii) the contiguous near-shore coastal water of South 
     Florida.
       (6) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Florida.
       (b) Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.--

[[Page 19189]]

       (1) Approval.--
       (A) In general.--Except as modified by this section, the 
     Plan is approved as a framework for modifications and 
     operational changes to the Central and Southern Florida 
     Project that are needed to restore, preserve, and protect the 
     South Florida ecosystem while providing for other water-
     related needs of the region, including water supply and flood 
     protection. The Plan shall be implemented to ensure the 
     protection of water quality in, the reduction of the loss of 
     fresh water from, and the improvement of the environment of 
     the South Florida ecosystem and to achieve and maintain the 
     benefits to the natural system and human environment 
     described in the Plan, and required pursuant to this section, 
     for as long as the project is authorized.
       (B) Integration.--In carrying out the Plan, the Secretary 
     shall integrate the activities described in subparagraph (A) 
     with ongoing Federal and State projects and activities in 
     accordance with section 528(c) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3769). Unless specifically 
     provided herein, nothing in this section shall be construed 
     to modify any existing cost share or responsibility for 
     projects as listed in subsection (c) or (e) of section 528 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3769).
       (2) Specific authorizations.--
       (A) In general.--
       (i) Projects.--The Secretary shall carry out the projects 
     included in the Plan in accordance with subparagraphs (B), 
     (C), (D) and (E).
       (ii) Considerations.--In carrying out activities described 
     in the Plan, the Secretary shall--

       (I) take into account the protection of water quality by 
     considering applicable State water quality standards; and
       (II) include such features as the Secretary determines are 
     necessary to ensure that all ground water and surface water 
     discharges from any project feature authorized by this 
     subsection will meet all applicable water quality standards 
     and applicable water quality permitting requirements.

       (iii) Review and comment.--In developing the projects 
     authorized under subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall 
     provide for public review and comment in accordance with 
     applicable Federal law.
       (B) Pilot projects.--The following pilot projects are 
     authorized for implementation, after review and approval by 
     the Secretary, at a total cost of $69,000,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $34,500,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $34,500,000:
       (i) Caloosahatchee River (C-43) Basin ASR, at a total cost 
     of $6,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $3,000,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,000,000.
       (ii) Lake Belt In-Ground Reservoir Technology, at a total 
     cost of $23,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $11,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,500,000.
       (iii) L-31N Seepage Management, at a total cost of 
     $10,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $5,000,000 and 
     an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,000,000.
       (iv) Wastewater Reuse Technology, at a total cost of 
     $30,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $15,000,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,000,000.
       (C) Initial projects.--The following projects are 
     authorized for implementation, after review and approval by 
     the Secretary, subject to the conditions stated in 
     subparagraph (D), at a total cost of $1,100,918,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $550,459,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $550,459,000:
       (i) C-44 Basin Storage Reservoir, at a total cost of 
     $112,562,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $56,281,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $56,281,000.
       (ii) Everglades Agricultural Area Storage Reservoirs--Phase 
     I, at a total cost of $233,408,000, with an estimated Federal 
     cost of $116,704,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $116,704,000.
       (iii) Site 1 Impoundment, at a total cost of $38,535,000, 
     with an estimated Federal cost of $19,267,500 and an 
     estimated non-Federal cost of $19,267,500.
       (iv) Water Conservation Areas 3A/3B Levee Seepage 
     Management, at a total cost of $100,335,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $50,167,500 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $50,167,500.
       (v) C-11 Impoundment and Stormwater Treatment Area, at a 
     total cost of $124,837,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $62,418,500 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $62,418,500.
       (vi) C-9 Impoundment and Stormwater Treatment Area, at a 
     total cost of $89,146,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $44,573,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $44,573,000.
       (vii) Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough Storage and Treatment 
     Area, at a total cost of $104,027,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $52,013,500 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $52,013,500.
       (viii) Raise and Bridge East Portion of Tamiami Trail and 
     Fill Miami Canal within Water Conservation Area 3, at a total 
     cost of $26,946,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $13,473,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $13,473,000.
       (ix) North New River Improvements, at a total cost of 
     $77,087,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $38,543,500 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $38,543,500.
       (x) C-111 Spreader Canal, at a total cost of $94,035,000, 
     with an estimated Federal cost of $47,017,500 and an 
     estimated non-Federal cost of $47,017,500.
       (xi) Adaptive Assessment and Monitoring Program, at a total 
     cost of $100,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $50,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $50,000,000.
       (D) Conditions.--
       (i) Project implementation reports.--Before implementation 
     of a project described in any of clauses (i) through (x) of 
     subparagraph (C), the Secretary shall review and approve for 
     the project a project implementation report prepared in 
     accordance with subsections (f) and (h).
       (ii) Submission of report.--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 the project implementation report 
     required by subsections (f) and (h) for each project under 
     this paragraph (including all relevant data and information 
     on all costs).
       (iii) Funding contingent on approval.--No appropriation 
     shall be made to construct any project under this paragraph 
     if the project implementation report for the project has not 
     been approved by resolutions adopted by the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate.
       (iv) Modified water delivery.--No appropriation shall be 
     made to construct the Water Conservation Area 3 
     Decompartmentalization and Sheetflow Enhancement Project 
     (including component AA, Additional S-345 Structures; 
     component QQ Phase 1, Raise and Bridge East Portion of 
     Tamiami Trail and Fill Miami Canal within WCA 3; component QQ 
     Phase 2, WCA 3 Decompartmentalization and Sheetflow 
     Enhancement; and component SS, North New River Improvements) 
     or the Central Lakebelt Storage Project (including components 
     S and EEE, Central Lake Belt Storage Area) until the 
     completion of the project to improve water deliveries to 
     Everglades National Park authorized by section 104 of the 
     Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 
     (16 U.S.C. 410r-8).
       (E) Maximum cost of projects.--Section 902 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280) shall 
     apply to each project feature authorized under this 
     subsection.
       (c) Additional Program Authority.--
       (1) In general.--To expedite implementation of the Plan, 
     the Secretary may implement modifications to the Central and 
     Southern Florida Project that--
       (A) are described in the Plan; and
       (B) will produce a substantial benefit to the restoration, 
     preservation and protection of the South Florida ecosystem.
       (2) Project implementation reports.--Before implementation 
     of any project feature authorized under this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall review and approve for the project feature a 
     project implementation report prepared in accordance with 
     subsections (f) and (h).
       (3) Funding.--
       (A) Individual project funding.--
       (i) Federal cost.--The total Federal cost of each project 
     carried out under this subsection shall not exceed 
     $12,500,000.
       (ii) Overall cost.--The total cost of each project carried 
     out under this subsection shall not exceed $25,000,000.
       (B) Aggregate cost.--The total cost of all projects carried 
     out under this subsection shall not exceed $206,000,000, with 
     an estimated Federal cost of $103,000,000 and an estimated 
     non-Federal cost of $103,000,000.
       (d) Authorization of Future Projects.--
       (1) In general.--Except for a project authorized by 
     subsection (b) or (c), any project included in the Plan shall 
     require a specific authorization by Congress.
       (2) Submission of report.--Before seeking congressional 
     authorization for a project under paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall submit to Congress--
       (A) a description of the project; and
       (B) a project implementation report for the project 
     prepared in accordance with subsections (f) and (h).
       (e) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     carrying out a project authorized by subsection (b), (c), or 
     (d) shall be 50 percent.
       (2) Non-federal responsibilities.--The non-Federal sponsor 
     with respect to a project described in subsection (b), (c), 
     or (d), shall be--
       (A) responsible for all land, easements, rights-of-way, and 
     relocations necessary to implement the Plan; and
       (B) afforded credit toward the non-Federal share of the 
     cost of carrying out the project in accordance with paragraph 
     (5)(A).
       (3) Federal assistance.--
       (A) In general.--The non-Federal sponsor with respect to a 
     project authorized by subsection (b), (c), or (d) may use 
     Federal funds for the purchase of any land, easement, rights-
     of-way, or relocation that is necessary to carry out the 
     project if any funds so used are credited toward the Federal 
     share of the cost of the project.

[[Page 19190]]

       (B) Agriculture funds.--Funds provided to the non-Federal 
     sponsor under the Conservation Restoration and Enhancement 
     Program (CREP) and the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) for 
     projects in the Plan shall be credited toward the non-Federal 
     share of the cost of the Plan if the Secretary of Agriculture 
     certifies that the funds provided may be used for that 
     purpose. Funds to be credited do not include funds provided 
     under section 390 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and 
     Reform Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 1022).
       (4) Operation and maintenance.--Notwithstanding section 
     528(e)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 
     Stat. 3770), the non-Federal sponsor shall be responsible for 
     50 percent of the cost of operation, maintenance, repair, 
     replacement, and rehabilitation activities authorized under 
     this section.
       (5) Credit.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 528(e)(4) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3770), and 
     regardless of the date of acquisition, the value of lands or 
     interests in lands and incidental costs for land acquired by 
     a non-Federal sponsor in accordance with a project 
     implementation report for any project included in the Plan 
     and authorized by Congress shall be--
       (i) included in the total cost of the project; and
       (ii) credited toward the non-Federal share of the cost of 
     the project.
       (B) Work.--The Secretary may provide credit, including in-
     kind credit, toward the non-Federal share for the reasonable 
     cost of any work performed in connection with a study, 
     preconstruction engineering and design, or construction that 
     is necessary for the implementation of the Plan, if--
       (i)(I) the credit is provided for work completed during the 
     period of design, as defined in a design agreement between 
     the Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor; or
       (II) the credit is provided for work completed during the 
     period of construction, as defined in a project cooperation 
     agreement for an authorized project between the Secretary and 
     the non-Federal sponsor;
       (ii) the design agreement or the project cooperation 
     agreement prescribes the terms and conditions of the credit; 
     and
       (iii) the Secretary determines that the work performed by 
     the non-Federal sponsor is integral to the project.
       (C) Treatment of credit between projects.--Any credit 
     provided under this paragraph may be carried over between 
     authorized projects in accordance with subparagraph (D).
       (D) Periodic monitoring.--
       (i) In general.--To ensure that the contributions of the 
     non-Federal sponsor equal 50 percent proportionate share for 
     projects in the Plan, during each 5-year period, beginning 
     with commencement of design of the Plan, the Secretary shall, 
     for each project--

       (I) monitor the non-Federal provision of cash, in-kind 
     services, and land; and
       (II) manage, to the maximum extent practicable, the 
     requirement of the non-Federal sponsor to provide cash, in-
     kind services, and land.

       (ii) Other monitoring.--The Secretary shall conduct 
     monitoring under clause (i) separately for--

       (I) the preconstruction engineering and design phase; and
       (II) the construction phase.

       (E) Audits.--Credit for land (including land value and 
     incidental costs) or work provided under this subsection 
     shall be subject to audit by the Secretary.
       (f) Evaluation of Projects.--
       (1) In general.--Before implementation of a project 
     authorized by subsection (c) or (d) or any of clauses (i) 
     through (x) of subsection (b)(2)(C), the Secretary, in 
     cooperation with the non-Federal sponsor, shall, after notice 
     and opportunity for public comment and in accordance with 
     subsection (h), complete a project implementation report for 
     the project.
       (2) Project justification.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 209 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962-2) or any other provision 
     of law, in carrying out any activity authorized under this 
     section or any other provision of law to restore, preserve, 
     or protect the South Florida ecosystem, the Secretary may 
     determine that--
       (i) the activity is justified by the environmental benefits 
     derived by the South Florida ecosystem; and
       (ii) no further economic justification for the activity is 
     required, if the Secretary determines that the activity is 
     cost-effective.
       (B) Applicability.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any 
     separable element intended to produce benefits that are 
     predominantly unrelated to the restoration, preservation, and 
     protection of the natural system.
       (g) Exclusions and Limitations.--The following Plan 
     components are not approved for implementation:
       (1) Water included in the plan.--
       (A) In general.--Any project that is designed to implement 
     the capture and use of the approximately 245,000 acre-feet of 
     water described in section 7.7.2 of the Plan shall not be 
     implemented until such time as--
       (i) the project-specific feasibility study described in 
     subparagraph (B) on the need for and physical delivery of the 
     approximately 245,000 acre-feet of water, conducted by the 
     Secretary, in cooperation with the non-Federal sponsor, is 
     completed;
       (ii) the project is favorably recommended in a final report 
     of the Chief of Engineers; and
       (iii) the project is authorized by Act of Congress.
       (B) Project-specific feasibility study.--The project-
     specific feasibility study referred to in subparagraph (A) 
     shall include--
       (i) a comprehensive analysis of the structural facilities 
     proposed to deliver the approximately 245,000 acre-feet of 
     water to the natural system;
       (ii) an assessment of the requirements to divert and treat 
     the water;
       (iii) an assessment of delivery alternatives;
       (iv) an assessment of the feasibility of delivering the 
     water downstream while maintaining current levels of flood 
     protection to affected property; and
       (v) any other assessments that are determined by the 
     Secretary to be necessary to complete the study.
       (2) Wastewater reuse.--
       (A) In general.--On completion and evaluation of the 
     wastewater reuse pilot project described in subsection 
     (b)(2)(B)(iv), the Secretary, in an appropriately timed 5-
     year report, shall describe the results of the evaluation of 
     advanced wastewater reuse in meeting, in a cost-effective 
     manner, the requirements of restoration of the natural 
     system.
       (B) Submission.--The Secretary shall submit to Congress the 
     report described in subparagraph (A) before congressional 
     authorization for advanced wastewater reuse is sought.
       (3) Projects approved with limitations.--The following 
     projects in the Plan are approved for implementation with 
     limitations:
       (A) Loxahatchee national wildlife refuge.--The Federal 
     share for land acquisition in the project to enhance existing 
     wetland systems along the Loxahatchee National Wildlife 
     Refuge, including the Stazzulla tract, should be funded 
     through the budget of the Department of the Interior.
       (B) Southern corkscrew regional ecosystem.--The Southern 
     Corkscrew regional ecosystem watershed addition should be 
     accomplished outside the scope of the Plan.
       (h) Assurance of Project Benefits.--
       (1) In general.--The overarching objective of the Plan is 
     the restoration, preservation, and protection of the South 
     Florida Ecosystem while providing for other water-related 
     needs of the region, including water supply and flood 
     protection. The Plan shall be implemented to ensure the 
     protection of water quality in, the reduction of the loss of 
     fresh water from, the improvement of the environment of the 
     South Florida Ecosystem and to achieve and maintain the 
     benefits to the natural system and human environment 
     described in the Plan, and required pursuant to this section, 
     for as long as the project is authorized.
       (2) Agreement.--
       (A) In general.--In order to ensure that water generated by 
     the Plan will be made available for the restoration of the 
     natural system, no appropriations, except for any pilot 
     project described in subsection (b)(2)(B), shall be made for 
     the construction of a project contained in the Plan until the 
     President and the Governor enter into a binding agreement 
     under which the State shall ensure, by regulation or other 
     appropriate means, that water made available by each project 
     in the Plan shall not be permitted for a consumptive use or 
     otherwise made unavailable by the State until such time as 
     sufficient reservations of water for the restoration of the 
     natural system are made under State law in accordance with 
     the project implementation report for that project and 
     consistent with the Plan.
       (B) Enforcement.--
       (i) In general.--Any person or entity that is aggrieved by 
     a failure of the United States or any other Federal 
     Government instrumentality or agency, or the Governor or any 
     other officer of a State instrumentality or agency, to comply 
     with any provision of the agreement entered into under 
     subparagraph (A) may bring a civil action in United States 
     district court for an injunction directing the United States 
     or any other Federal Government instrumentality or agency or 
     the Governor or any other officer of a State instrumentality 
     or agency, as the case may be, to comply with the agreement.
       (ii) Limitations on commencement of civil action.--No civil 
     action may be commenced under clause (i)--

       (I) before the date that is 60 days after the Secretary 
     receives written notice of a failure to comply with the 
     agreement; or
       (II) if the United States has commenced and is diligently 
     prosecuting an action in a court of the United States or a 
     State to redress a failure to comply with the agreement.

       (C) Trust responsibilities.--In carrying out his 
     responsibilities under this subsection with respect to the 
     restoration of the South Florida ecosystem, the Secretary of 
     the Interior shall fulfill his obligations to the Indian 
     tribes in South Florida under the Indian Trust Doctrine as 
     well as other applicable legal obligations.
       (3) Programmatic regulations.--

[[Page 19191]]

       (A) Issuance.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall, after notice and 
     opportunity for public comment--
       (i) with the concurrence of--

       (I) the Governor; and
       (II) the Secretary of the Interior; and

       (ii) in consultation with--

       (I) the Seminole Tribe of Florida;
       (II) the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida;
       (III) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency;
       (IV) the Secretary of Commerce; and
       (V) other Federal, State, and local agencies;

     promulgate programmatic regulations to ensure that the goals 
     and purposes of the Plan are achieved.
       (B) Concurrency statement.--The Secretary of the Interior 
     and the Governor shall, not later than 180 days from the end 
     of the public comment period on proposed programmatic 
     regulations, provide the Secretary with a written statement 
     of concurrence or nonconcurrence. A failure to provide a 
     written statement of concurrence or nonconcurrence within 
     such time frame will be deemed as meeting the concurrency 
     requirements of subparagraph (A)(i). A copy of any 
     concurrency or nonconcurrency statements shall be made a part 
     of the administrative record and referenced in the final 
     programmatic regulations. Any nonconcurrency statement shall 
     specifically detail the reason or reasons for the 
     nonconcurrence.
       (C) Content of regulations.--Programmatic regulations 
     promulgated under this paragraph shall establish a process--
       (i) for the development of project implementation reports, 
     project cooperation agreements, and operating manuals that 
     ensure that the goals and objectives of the Plan are 
     achieved;
       (ii) to ensure that new information resulting from changed 
     or unforeseen circumstances, new scientific or technical 
     information or information that is developed through the 
     principles of adaptive management contained in the Plan, or 
     future authorized changes to the Plan are integrated into the 
     implementation of the Plan; and
       (iii) to ensure the protection of the natural system 
     consistent with the goals and purposes of the Plan, including 
     the establishment of interim goals to provide a means by 
     which the restoration success of the Plan may be evaluated 
     throughout the implementation process.
       (D) Schedule and transition rule.--
       (i) In general.--All project implementation reports 
     approved before the date of promulgation of the programmatic 
     regulations shall be consistent with the Plan.
       (ii) Preamble.--The preamble of the programmatic 
     regulations shall include a statement concerning the 
     consistency with the programmatic regulations of any project 
     implementation reports that were approved before the date of 
     promulgation of the regulations.
       (E) Review of programmatic regulations.--Whenever necessary 
     to attain Plan goals and purposes, but not less often than 
     every 5 years, the Secretary, in accordance with subparagraph 
     (A), shall review the programmatic regulations promulgated 
     under this paragraph.
       (4) Project-specific assurances.--
       (A) Project implementation reports.--
       (i) In general.--The Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor 
     shall develop project implementation reports in accordance 
     with section 10.3.1 of the Plan.
       (ii) Coordination.--In developing a project implementation 
     report, the Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor shall 
     coordinate with appropriate Federal, State, tribal, and local 
     governments.
       (iii) Requirements.--A project implementation report 
     shall--

       (I) be consistent with the Plan and the programmatic 
     regulations promulgated under paragraph (3);
       (II) describe how each of the requirements stated in 
     paragraph (3)(B) is satisfied;
       (III) comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 
     1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
       (IV) identify the appropriate quantity, timing, and 
     distribution of water dedicated and managed for the natural 
     system;
       (V) identify the amount of water to be reserved or 
     allocated for the natural system necessary to implement, 
     under State law, subclauses (IV) and (VI);
       (VI) comply with applicable water quality standards and 
     applicable water quality permitting requirements under 
     subsection (b)(2)(A)(ii);
       (VII) be based on the best available science; and
       (VIII) include an analysis concerning the cost-
     effectiveness and engineering feasibility of the project.

       (B) Project cooperation agreements.--
       (i) In general.--The Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor 
     shall execute project cooperation agreements in accordance 
     with section 10 of the Plan.
       (ii) Condition.--The Secretary shall not execute a project 
     cooperation agreement until any reservation or allocation of 
     water for the natural system identified in the project 
     implementation report is executed under State law.
       (C) Operating manuals.--
       (i) In general.--The Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor 
     shall develop and issue, for each project or group of 
     projects, an operating manual that is consistent with the 
     water reservation or allocation for the natural system 
     described in the project implementation report and the 
     project cooperation agreement for the project or group of 
     projects.
       (ii) Modifications.--Any significant modification by the 
     Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor to an operating manual 
     after the operating manual is issued shall only be carried 
     out subject to notice and opportunity for public comment.
       (5) Savings clause.--
       (A) No elimination or transfer.--Until a new source of 
     water supply of comparable quantity and quality as that 
     available on the date of enactment of this Act is available 
     to replace the water to be lost as a result of implementation 
     of the Plan, the Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor shall 
     not eliminate or transfer existing legal sources of water, 
     including those for--
       (i) an agricultural or urban water supply;
       (ii) allocation or entitlement to the Seminole Indian Tribe 
     of Florida under section 7 of the Seminole Indian Land Claims 
     Settlement Act of 1987 (25 U.S.C. 1772e);
       (iii) the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida;
       (iv) water supply for Everglades National Park; or
       (v) water supply for fish and wildlife.
       (B) Maintenance of flood protection.--Implementation of the 
     Plan shall not reduce levels of service for flood protection 
     that are--
       (i) in existence on the date of enactment of this Act; and
       (ii) in accordance with applicable law.
       (C) No effect on tribal compact.--Nothing in this section 
     amends, alters, prevents, or otherwise abrogates rights of 
     the Seminole Indian Tribe of Florida under the compact among 
     the Seminole Tribe of Florida, the State, and the South 
     Florida Water Management District, defining the scope and use 
     of water rights of the Seminole Tribe of Florida, as codified 
     by section 7 of the Seminole Indian Land Claims Settlement 
     Act of 1987 (25 U.S.C. 1772e).
       (i) Dispute Resolution.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary and the Governor shall 
     within 180 days from the date of enactment of this Act 
     develop an agreement for resolving disputes between the Corps 
     of Engineers and the State associated with the implementation 
     of the Plan. Such agreement shall establish a mechanism for 
     the timely and efficient resolution of disputes, including--
       (A) a preference for the resolution of disputes between the 
     Jacksonville District of the Corps of Engineers and the South 
     Florida Water Management District;
       (B) a mechanism for the Jacksonville District of the Corps 
     of Engineers or the South Florida Water Management District 
     to initiate the dispute resolution process for unresolved 
     issues;
       (C) the establishment of appropriate timeframes and 
     intermediate steps for the elevation of disputes to the 
     Governor and the Secretary; and
       (D) a mechanism for the final resolution of disputes, 
     within 180 days from the date that the dispute resolution 
     process is initiated under subparagraph (B).
       (2) Condition for report approval.--The Secretary shall not 
     approve a project implementation report under this section 
     until the agreement established under this subsection has 
     been executed.
       (3) No effect on law.--Nothing in the agreement established 
     under this subsection shall alter or amend any existing 
     Federal or State law, or the responsibility of any party to 
     the agreement to comply with any Federal or State law.
       (j) Independent Scientific Review.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, the Secretary of the 
     Interior, and the Governor, in consultation with the South 
     Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, shall establish an 
     independent scientific review panel convened by a body, such 
     as the National Academy of Sciences, to review the Plan's 
     progress toward achieving the natural system restoration 
     goals of the Plan.
       (2) Report.--The panel described in paragraph (1) shall 
     produce a biennial report to Congress, the Secretary, the 
     Secretary of the Interior, and the Governor that includes an 
     assessment of ecological indicators and other measures of 
     progress in restoring the ecology of the natural system, 
     based on the Plan.
       (k) Outreach and Assistance.--
       (1) Small business concerns owned and operated by socially 
     and economically disadvantaged individuals.--In executing the 
     Plan, the Secretary shall ensure that small business concerns 
     owned and controlled by socially and economically 
     disadvantaged individuals are provided opportunities to 
     participate under section 15(g) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 644(g)).
       (2) Community outreach and education.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that impacts on 
     socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, 
     including

[[Page 19192]]

     individuals with limited English proficiency, and communities 
     are considered during implementation of the Plan, and that 
     such individuals have opportunities to review and comment on 
     its implementation.
       (B) Provision of opportunities.--The Secretary shall 
     ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that public 
     outreach and educational opportunities are provided, during 
     implementation of the Plan, to the individuals of South 
     Florida, including individuals with limited English 
     proficiency, and in particular for socially and economically 
     disadvantaged communities.
       (l) Report to Congress.--Beginning on October 1, 2005, and 
     periodically thereafter until October 1, 2036, the Secretary 
     and the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Commerce, 
     and the State of Florida, shall jointly submit to Congress a 
     report on the implementation of the Plan. Such reports shall 
     be completed not less often than every 5 years. Such reports 
     shall include a description of planning, design, and 
     construction work completed, the amount of funds expended 
     during the period covered by the report (including a detailed 
     analysis of the funds expended for adaptive assessment under 
     subsection (b)(2)(C)(xi)), and the work anticipated over the 
     next 5-year period. In addition, each report shall include--
       (1) the determination of each Secretary, and the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, 
     concerning the benefits to the natural system and the human 
     environment achieved as of the date of the report and whether 
     the completed projects of the Plan are being operated in a 
     manner that is consistent with the requirements of subsection 
     (h);
       (2) progress toward interim goals established in accordance 
     with subsection (h)(3)(B); and
       (3) a review of the activities performed by the Secretary 
     under subsection (k) as they relate to socially and 
     economically disadvantaged individuals and individuals with 
     limited English proficiency.
       (m) Severability.--If any provision or remedy provided by 
     this section is found to be unconstitutional or unenforceable 
     by any court of competent jurisdiction, any remaining 
     provisions in this section shall remain valid and 
     enforceable.

     SEC. 602. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE 
                   BASE.

       (a) In General.--(1) The Everglades is an American treasure 
     and includes uniquely-important and diverse wildlife 
     resources and recreational opportunities;
       (2) the preservation of the pristine and natural character 
     of the South Florida ecosystem is critical to the regional 
     economy;
       (3) as this legislation demonstrates, the Senate believes 
     it to be a vital national mission to restore and preserve 
     this ecosystem and accordingly is authorizing a significant 
     Federal investment to do so;
       (4) the Senate seeks to have the remaining property at the 
     former Homestead Air Base conveyed and reused as 
     expeditiously as possible, and several options for base reuse 
     are being considered, including as a commercial airport; and
       (5) the Senate is aware that the Homestead site is located 
     in a sensitive environmental location, and that Biscayne 
     National Park is only approximately 1.5 miles to the east, 
     Everglades National Park approximately 8 miles to the west, 
     and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary approximately 
     10 miles to the south.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) development at the Homestead site could potentially 
     cause significant air, water, and noise pollution and result 
     in the degradation of adjacent national parks and other 
     protected Federal resources;
       (2) in their decisionmaking, the Federal agencies charged 
     with determining the reuse of the remaining property at the 
     Homestead base should carefully consider and weigh all 
     available information concerning potential environmental 
     impacts of various reuse options;
       (3) the redevelopment of the former base should be 
     consistent with restoration goals, provide desirable numbers 
     of jobs and economic redevelopment for the community, and be 
     consistent with other applicable laws;
       (4) consistent with applicable laws, the Secretary of the 
     Air Force should proceed as quickly as practicable to issue a 
     final SEIS and Record of Decision so that reuse of the former 
     air base can proceed expeditiously;
       (5) following conveyance of the remaining surplus property, 
     the Secretary, as part of his oversight for Everglades 
     restoration, should cooperate with the entities to which the 
     various parcels of surplus property were conveyed so that the 
     planned use of those properties is implemented in such a 
     manner as to remain consistent with the goals of the 
     Everglades restoration plan; and
       (6) by August 1, 2002, the Secretary should submit a report 
     to the appropriate committees of Congress on actions taken 
     and make any recommendations for consideration by Congress.

          TITLE VII--MISSOURI RIVER PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT

     SEC. 701. SHORT TITLE.

       This title shall be known as the ``Missouri River 
     Protection and Improvement Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 702. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Missouri River is--
       (A) an invaluable economic, environmental, recreational, 
     and cultural resource to the people of the United States; and
       (B) a critical source of water for drinking and irrigation;
       (2) millions of people fish, hunt, and camp along the 
     Missouri River each year;
       (3) thousands of sites of spiritual importance to Native 
     Americans line the shores of the Missouri River;
       (4) the Missouri River provides critical wildlife habitat 
     for threatened and endangered species;
       (5) in 1944, Congress approved the Pick-Sloan program--
       (A) to promote the general economic development of the 
     United States;
       (B) to provide for irrigation above Sioux City, Iowa;
       (C) to protect urban and rural areas from devastating 
     floods of the Missouri River; and
       (D) for other purposes;
       (6) the Garrison Dam was constructed on the Missouri River 
     in North Dakota and the Oahe Dam was constructed in South 
     Dakota under the Pick-Sloan program;
       (7) the dams referred to in paragraph (6)--
       (A) generate low-cost electricity for millions of people in 
     the United States;
       (B) provide revenue to the Treasury; and
       (C) provide flood control that has prevented billions of 
     dollars of damage;
       (8) the Garrison and Oahe Dams have reduced the ability of 
     the Missouri River to carry sediment downstream, resulting in 
     the accumulation of sediment in the reservoirs known as Lake 
     Sakakawea and Lake Oahe;
       (9) the sediment depositions--
       (A) cause shoreline flooding;
       (B) destroy wildlife habitat;
       (C) limit recreational opportunities;
       (D) threaten the long-term ability of dams to provide 
     hydropower and flood control under the Pick-Sloan program;
       (E) reduce water quality; and
       (F) threaten intakes for drinking water and irrigation; and
       (10) to meet the objectives established by Congress for the 
     Pick-Sloan program, it is necessary to establish a Missouri 
     River Restoration Program--
       (A) to improve conservation;
       (B) to reduce the deposition of sediment; and
       (C) to take other steps necessary for proper management of 
     the Missouri River.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are--
       (1) to reduce the siltation of the Missouri River in the 
     State of North Dakota;
       (2) to meet the objectives of the Pick-Sloan program by 
     developing and implementing a long-term strategy--
       (A) to improve conservation in the Missouri River 
     watershed;
       (B) to protect recreation on the Missouri River from 
     sedimentation;
       (C) to improve water quality in the Missouri River;
       (D) to improve erosion control along the Missouri River; 
     and
       (E) to protect Indian and non-Indian historical and 
     cultural sites along the Missouri River from erosion; and
       (3) to meet the objectives described in paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) by developing and financing new programs in accordance 
     with the plan.

     SEC. 703. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Pick-sloan program.--The term ``Pick-Sloan program'' 
     means the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Program authorized 
     by section 9 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 891, 
     chapter 665).
       (2) Plan.--The term ``plan'' means the plan for the use of 
     funds made available by this title that is required to be 
     prepared under section 705(e).
       (3) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of North 
     Dakota.
       (4) Task force.--The term ``Task Force'' means the North 
     Dakota Missouri River Task Force established by section 
     705(a).
       (5) Trust.--The term ``Trust'' means the North Dakota 
     Missouri River Trust established by section 704(a).

     SEC. 704. MISSOURI RIVER TRUST.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a committee to be 
     known as the North Dakota Missouri River Trust.
       (b) Membership.--The Trust shall be composed of 16 members 
     to be appointed by the Secretary, including--
       (1) 12 members recommended by the Governor of North Dakota 
     that--
       (A) represent equally the various interests of the public; 
     and
       (B) include representatives of--
       (i) the North Dakota Department of Health;
       (ii) the North Dakota Department of Parks and Recreation;
       (iii) the North Dakota Department of Game and Fish;
       (iv) the North Dakota State Water Commission;
       (v) the North Dakota Indian Affairs Commission;
       (vi) agriculture groups;
       (vii) environmental or conservation organizations;
       (viii) the hydroelectric power industry;

[[Page 19193]]

       (ix) recreation user groups;
       (x) local governments; and
       (xi) other appropriate interests;
       (2) 4 members representing each of the 4 Indian tribes in 
     the State of North Dakota.

     SEC. 705. MISSOURI RIVER TASK FORCE.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established the Missouri River 
     Task Force.
       (b) Membership.--The Task Force shall be composed of--
       (1) the Secretary (or a designee), who shall serve as 
     Chairperson;
       (2) the Secretary of Agriculture (or a designee);
       (3) the Secretary of Energy (or a designee);
       (4) the Secretary of the Interior (or a designee); and
       (5) the Trust.
       (c) Duties.--The Task Force shall--
       (1) meet at least twice each year;
       (2) vote on approval of the plan, with approval requiring 
     votes in favor of the plan by a majority of the members;
       (3) review projects to meet the goals of the plan; and
       (4) recommend to the Secretary critical projects for 
     implementation.
       (d) Assessment.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date on 
     which funding authorized under this title becomes available, 
     the Secretary shall submit to the other members of the Task 
     Force a report on--
       (A) the impact of the siltation of the Missouri River in 
     the State, including the impact on--
       (i) the Federal, State, and regional economies;
       (ii) recreation;
       (iii) hydropower generation;
       (iv) fish and wildlife; and
       (v) flood control;
       (B) the status of Indian and non-Indian historical and 
     cultural sites along the Missouri River;
       (C) the extent of erosion along the Missouri River 
     (including tributaries of the Missouri River) in the State; 
     and
       (D) other issues, as requested by the Task Force.
       (2) Consultation.--In preparing the report under paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary shall consult with--
       (A) the Secretary of Energy;
       (B) the Secretary of the Interior;
       (C) the Secretary of Agriculture;
       (D) the State; and
       (E) Indian tribes in the State.
       (e) Plan for Use of Funds Made Available by This Title.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date on 
     which funding authorized under this title becomes available, 
     the Task Force shall prepare a plan for the use of funds made 
     available under this title.
       (2) Contents of plan.--The plan shall provide for the 
     manner in which the Task Force shall develop and recommend 
     critical restoration projects to promote--
       (A) conservation practices in the Missouri River watershed;
       (B) the general control and removal of sediment from the 
     Missouri River;
       (C) the protection of recreation on the Missouri River from 
     sedimentation;
       (D) the protection of Indian and non-Indian historical and 
     cultural sites along the Missouri River from erosion;
       (E) erosion control along the Missouri River; or
       (F) any combination of the activities described in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (E).
       (3) Plan review and revision.--
       (A) In general.--The Task Force shall make a copy of the 
     plan available for public review and comment before the plan 
     becomes final, in accordance with procedures established by 
     the Task Force.
       (B) Revision of plan.--
       (i) In general.--The Task Force may, on an annual basis, 
     revise the plan.
       (ii) Public review and comment.--In revising the plan, the 
     Task Force shall provide the public the opportunity to review 
     and comment on any proposed revision to the plan.
       (f) Critical Restoration Projects.--
       (1) In general.--After the plan is approved by the Task 
     Force under subsection (c)(2), the Secretary, in coordination 
     with the Task Force, shall identify critical restoration 
     projects to carry out the plan.
       (2) Agreement.--The Secretary may carry out a critical 
     restoration project after entering into an agreement with an 
     appropriate non-Federal interest in accordance with--
       (A) section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 
     1962d-5b); and
       (B) this section.
       (3) Indian projects.--To the maximum extent practicable, 
     the Secretary shall ensure that not less than 30 percent of 
     the funds made available for critical restoration projects 
     under this title shall be used exclusively for projects that 
     are--
       (A) within the boundary of an Indian reservation; or
       (B) administered by an Indian tribe.
       (g) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) Assessment.--
       (A) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     carrying out the assessment under subsection (d) shall be 75 
     percent.
       (B) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the cost 
     of carrying out the assessment under subsection (d) may be 
     provided in the form of services, materials, or other in-kind 
     contributions.
       (2) Plan.--
       (A) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     preparing the plan under subsection (e) shall be 75 percent.
       (B) Non-federal share.--Not more than 50 percent of the 
     non-Federal share of the cost of preparing the plan under 
     subsection (e) may be provided in the form of services, 
     materials, or other in-kind contributions.
       (3) Critical restoration projects.--
       (A) In general.--A non-Federal cost share shall be required 
     to carry out any critical restoration project under 
     subsection (f) that does not primarily benefit the Federal 
     Government, as determined by the Task Force.
       (B) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     carrying out a critical restoration project under subsection 
     (f) for which the Task Force requires a non-Federal cost 
     share under subparagraph (A) shall be 65 percent, not to 
     exceed $5,000,000 for any critical restoration project.
       (C) Non-federal share.--
       (i) In general.--Not more than 50 percent of the non-
     Federal share of the cost of carrying out a critical 
     restoration project described in subparagraph (B) may be 
     provided in the form of services, materials, or other in-kind 
     contributions.
       (ii) Required non-federal contributions.--For any critical 
     restoration project described in subparagraph (B), the non-
     Federal interest shall--

       (I) provide all land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged 
     material disposal areas, and relocations;
       (II) pay all operation, maintenance, replacement, repair, 
     and rehabilitation costs; and
       (III) hold the United States harmless from all claims 
     arising from the construction, operation, and maintenance of 
     the project.

       (iii) Credit.--The non-Federal interest shall receive 
     credit for all contributions provided under clause (ii)(I).

     SEC. 706. ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) In General.--Nothing in this title diminishes or 
     affects--
       (1) any water right of an Indian tribe;
       (2) any other right of an Indian tribe, except as 
     specifically provided in another provision of this title;
       (3) any treaty right that is in effect on the date of 
     enactment of this Act;
       (4) any external boundary of an Indian reservation of an 
     Indian tribe;
       (5) any authority of the State that relates to the 
     protection, regulation, or management of fish, terrestrial 
     wildlife, and cultural and archaeological resources, except 
     as specifically provided in this title; or
       (6) any authority of the Secretary, the Secretary of the 
     Interior, or the head of any other Federal agency under a law 
     in effect on the date of enactment of this Act, including--
       (A) the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 
     et seq.);
       (B) the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 
     U.S.C. 470aa et seq.);
       (C) the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 
     et seq.);
       (D) the Act entitled ``An Act for the protection of the 
     bald eagle'', approved June 8, 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.);
       (E) the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.);
       (F) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
     seq.);
       (G) the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 
     Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.);
       (H) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 
     et seq.);
       (I) the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.); 
     and
       (J) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       (b) Federal Liability for Damage.--Nothing in this title 
     relieves the Federal Government of liability for damage to 
     private property caused by the operation of the Pick-Sloan 
     program.
       (c) Flood Control.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this title, the Secretary shall retain the authority to 
     operate the Pick-Sloan program for the purposes of meeting 
     the requirements of the Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 
     887, chapter 665; 33 U.S.C. 701-1 et seq.).
       (d) Use of Funds.--Funds transferred to the Trust may be 
     used to pay the non-Federal share required under Federal 
     programs.

     SEC. 707. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Initial Funding.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this title 
     $4,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2004, to 
     remain available until expended.
       (b) Existing Programs.--The Secretary shall fund programs 
     authorized under the Pick-Sloan program in existence on the 
     date of enactment of this Act at levels that are not less 
     than funding levels for those programs as of that date.

                TITLE VIII--WILDLIFE REFUGE ENHANCEMENT

     SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Charles M. Russell 
     National Wildlife Refuge Enhancement Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 802. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this title is to direct the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, to convey 
     cabin sites at Fort Peck Lake, Montana, and to acquire

[[Page 19194]]

     land with greater wildlife and other public value for the 
     Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, to--
       (1) better achieve the wildlife conservation purposes for 
     which the Refuge was established;
       (2) protect additional fish and wildlife habitat in and 
     adjacent to the Refuge;
       (3) enhance public opportunities for hunting, fishing, and 
     other wildlife-dependent activities;
       (4) improve management of the Refuge; and
       (5) reduce Federal expenditures associated with the 
     administration of cabin site leases.

     SEC. 803. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Association.--The term ``Association'' means the Fort 
     Peck Lake Association.
       (2) Cabin site.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``cabin site'' means a parcel of 
     property within the Fort Peck, Hell Creek, Pines, or Rock 
     Creek Cabin areas that is--
       (i) managed by the Army Corps of Engineers;
       (ii) located in or near the eastern portion of Fort Peck 
     Lake, Montana; and
       (iii) leased for individual use or occupancy.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``cabin site'' includes all 
     right, title and interest of the United States in and to the 
     property, including--
       (i) any permanent easement that is necessary to provide 
     vehicular access to the cabin site; and
       (ii) the right to reconstruct, operate, and maintain an 
     easement described in clause (i).
       (3) Cabin site area.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``cabin site area'' means a 
     portion of the Fort Peck, Hell Creek, Pines, or Rock Creek 
     Cabin Areas referred to in paragraph (2) that is occupied by 
     1 or more cabin sites.
       (B) Inclusion.--The term ``cabin site area'' includes such 
     immediately adjacent land, if any, as is needed for the cabin 
     site area to exist as a generally contiguous parcel of land, 
     as determined by the Secretary with the concurrence of the 
     Secretary of the Interior.
       (4) Lessee.--The term ``lessee'' means a person that is 
     leasing a cabin site.
       (5) Refuge.--The term ``Refuge'' means the Charles M. 
     Russell National Wildlife Refuge in Montana.

     SEC. 804. CONVEYANCE OF CABIN SITES.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Prohibition.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prohibit the 
     issuance of new cabin site leases within the Refuge, except 
     as is necessary to consolidate with, or substitute for, an 
     existing cabin lease site under paragraph (2).
       (2) Determination; notice.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, and before proceeding with any 
     exchange under this title, the Secretary shall--
       (A) with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Interior, 
     determine individual cabin sites that are not suitable for 
     conveyance to a lessee--
       (i) because the sites are isolated so that conveyance of 1 
     or more of the sites would create an inholding that would 
     impair management of the Refuge; or
       (ii) for any other reason that adversely impacts the future 
     habitability of the sites; and
       (B) provide written notice to each lessee that specifies 
     any requirements concerning the form of a notice of interest 
     in acquiring a cabin site that the lessee may submit under 
     subsection (b)(1)(A) and the portion of administrative costs 
     that would be paid to the Secretary under section 808(b), 
     to--
       (i) determine whether the lessee is interested in acquiring 
     the cabin site area of the lessee; and
       (ii) inform each lessee of the rights of the lessee under 
     this title.
       (3) Offer of comparable cabin site.--If the Secretary 
     determines that a cabin site is not suitable for conveyance 
     to a lessee under paragraph (2)(A), the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, shall offer 
     to the lessee the opportunity to acquire a comparable cabin 
     site within another cabin site area.
       (b) Response.--
       (1) Notice of interest.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than July 1, 2003, a lessee 
     shall notify the Secretary in writing of an interest in 
     acquiring the cabin site of the lessee.
       (B) Form.--The notice under this paragraph shall be 
     submitted in such form as is required by the Secretary under 
     subsection (a)(2)(B).
       (2) Unpurchased cabin sites.--If the Secretary receives no 
     notice of interest or offer to purchase a cabin site from the 
     lessee under paragraph (1) or the lessee declines an 
     opportunity to purchase a comparable cabin site under 
     subsection (a)(3), the cabin site shall be subject to 
     sections 805 and 806.
       (c) Process.--After providing notice to a lessee under 
     subsection (a)(2)(B), the Secretary shall--
       (1) determine whether any small parcel of land contiguous 
     to any cabin site (not including shoreline or land needed to 
     provide public access to the shoreline of Fort Peck Lake) 
     should be conveyed as part of the cabin site to--
       (A) protect water quality;
       (B) eliminate an inholding; or
       (C) facilitate administration of the land remaining in 
     Federal ownership;
       (2) if the Secretary determines that a conveyance should be 
     completed under paragraph (1), provide notice of the intent 
     of the Secretary to complete the conveyance to the lessee of 
     each affected cabin site;
       (3) survey each cabin site to determine the acreage and 
     legal description of the cabin site area, including land 
     identified under paragraph (1);
       (4) take such actions as are necessary to ensure compliance 
     with all applicable environmental laws;
       (5) with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Interior, 
     determine which covenants or deed restrictions, if any, 
     should be placed on a cabin site before conveyance out of 
     Federal ownership, including any covenant or deed restriction 
     that is required to comply with--
       (A) the Act of May 18, 1938 (16 U.S.C. 833 et seq.);
       (B) laws (including regulations) applicable to management 
     of the Refuge; and
       (C) any other laws (including regulations) for which 
     compliance is necessary to--
       (i) ensure the maintenance of existing and adequate public 
     access to and along Fort Peck Lake; and
       (ii) limit future uses of a cabin site to--

       (I) noncommercial, single-family use; and
       (II) the type and intensity of use of the cabin site made 
     on the date of enactment of this Act, as limited by terms of 
     any lease applicable to the cabin site in effect on that 
     date; and

       (6) conduct an appraisal of each cabin site (including any 
     expansion of the cabin site under paragraph (1)) that--
       (A) is carried out in accordance with the Uniform Appraisal 
     Standards for Federal Land Acquisition;
       (B) excludes the value of any private improvement to the 
     cabin sites; and
       (C) takes into consideration any covenant or other 
     restriction determined to be necessary under paragraph (5) 
     and subsection (h).
       (d) Consultation and Public Involvement.--The Secretary 
     shall--
       (1) carry out subsections (b) and (c) in consultation 
     with--
       (A) the Secretary of the Interior;
       (B) affected lessees;
       (C) affected counties in the State of Montana; and
       (D) the Association; and
       (2) hold public hearings, and provide all interested 
     parties with notice and an opportunity to comment, on the 
     activities carried out under this section.
       (e) Conveyance.--Subject to subsections (h) and (i) and 
     section 808(b), the Secretary shall convey a cabin site by 
     individual patent or deed to the lessee under this title--
       (1) if each cabin site complies with Federal, State, and 
     county septic and water quality laws (including regulations);
       (2) if the lessee complies with other requirements of this 
     section; and
       (3) after receipt of the payment for the cabin site from 
     the lessee in an amount equal to the appraised fair market 
     value of the cabin site as determined in accordance with 
     subsection (c)(6).
       (f) Vehicular Access.--
       (1) In general.--Nothing in this title authorizes any 
     addition to or improvement of vehicular access to a cabin 
     site.
       (2) Construction.--The Secretary--
       (A) shall not construct any road for the sole purpose of 
     providing access to land sold under this section; and
       (B) shall be under no obligation to service or maintain any 
     existing road used primarily for access to that land (or to a 
     cabin site).
       (3) Offer to convey.--The Secretary may offer to convey to 
     the State of Montana, any political subdivision of the State 
     of Montana, or the Association, any road determined by the 
     Secretary to primarily service the land sold under this 
     section.
       (g) Utilities and Infrastructure.--
       (1) In general.--The purchaser of a cabin site shall be 
     responsible for the acquisition of all utilities and 
     infrastructure necessary to support the cabin site.
       (2) No federal assistance.--The Secretary shall not provide 
     any utilities or infrastructure to the cabin site.
       (h) Covenants and Deed Restrictions.--
       (1) In general.--Before conveying any cabin site under 
     subsection (e), the Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of the Interior, shall ensure that the title to the 
     cabin site includes such covenants and deed restrictions as 
     are determined, under subsection (c), to be necessary to make 
     binding on all subsequent purchasers of the cabin site any 
     other covenants or deed restrictions in the title to the 
     cabin site.
       (2) Reservation of rights.--The Secretary may reserve the 
     perpetual right, power, privilege, and easement to 
     permanently overflow, flood, submerge, saturate, percolate, 
     or erode a cabin site (or any portion of a cabin site) that 
     the Secretary determines is necessary in the operation of the 
     Fort Peck Dam.
       (i) No Conveyance of Unsuitable Cabin Sites.--A cabin site 
     that is determined to be unsuitable for conveyance under 
     subsection (a)(2) shall not be conveyed by the Secretary 
     under this section.

[[Page 19195]]

       (j) Identification of Land for Exchange.--
       (1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     identify land that may be acquired that meets the purposes of 
     paragraphs (1) through (4) of section 802 and for which a 
     willing seller exists.
       (2) Appraisal.--On a request by a willing seller, the 
     Secretary of the Interior shall appraise the land identified 
     under paragraph (1).
       (3) Acquisition.--If the Secretary of the Interior 
     determines that the acquisition of the land would meet the 
     purposes of paragraphs (1) through (4) of section 802, the 
     Secretary of the Interior shall cooperate with the willing 
     seller to facilitate the acquisition of the property in 
     accordance with section 807.
       (4) Public participation.--The Secretary of the Interior 
     shall hold public hearings, and provide all interested 
     parties with notice and an opportunity to comment, on the 
     activities carried out under this section.

     SEC. 805. RIGHTS OF NONPARTICIPATING LESSEES.

       (a) Continuation of Lease.--
       (1) In general.--A lessee that does not provide the 
     Secretary with an offer to acquire the cabin site of the 
     lessee under section 804 (including a lessee who declines an 
     offer of a comparable cabin site under section 804(a)(3)) may 
     elect to continue to lease the cabin site for the remainder 
     of the current term of the lease, which, except as provided 
     in paragraph (2), shall not be renewed or otherwise extended.
       (2) Expiration before 2010.--If the current term of a 
     lessee described in paragraph (1) expires or is scheduled to 
     expire before 2010, the Secretary shall offer to extend or 
     renew the lease through 2010.
       (b) Improvements.--Any improvements and personal property 
     of the lessee that are not removed from the cabin site before 
     the termination of the lease shall be considered property of 
     the United States in accordance with the provisions of the 
     lease.
       (c) Option To Purchase.--Subject to subsections (d) and (e) 
     and section 808(b), if at any time before termination of the 
     lease, a lessee described in subsection (a)(1)--
       (1) notifies the Secretary of the intent of the lessee to 
     purchase the cabin site of the lessee; and
       (2) pays for an updated appraisal of the site in accordance 
     with section 804(c)(6);
     the Secretary shall convey the cabin site to the lessee, by 
     individual patent or deed, on receipt of payment for the site 
     from the lessee in an amount equal to the appraised fair 
     market value of the cabin site as determined by the updated 
     appraisal.
       (d) Covenants and Deed Restrictions.--Before conveying any 
     cabin site under subsection (c), the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, shall ensure 
     that the title to the cabin site includes such covenants and 
     deed restrictions as are determined, under section 804(c), to 
     be necessary to make binding on all subsequent purchasers of 
     the cabin site any other covenants or deed restrictions in 
     the title to the cabin site.
       (e) No Conveyance of Unsuitable Cabin Sites.--A cabin site 
     that is determined to be unsuitable for conveyance under 
     subsection 804(a)(2) shall not be conveyed by the Secretary 
     under this section.
       (f) Report.--Not later than July 1, 2003, the Secretary 
     shall submit to Congress a report that--
       (1) describes progress made in implementing this Act; and
       (2) identifies cabin owners that have filed a notice of 
     interest under section 804(b) and have declined an 
     opportunity to acquire a comparable cabin site under section 
     804(a)(3).

     SEC. 806. CONVEYANCE TO THIRD PARTIES.

       (a) Conveyances to Third Parties.--As soon as practicable 
     after the expiration or surrender of a lease, the Secretary, 
     in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, may offer 
     for sale, by public auction, written invitation, or other 
     competitive sales procedure, and at the fair market value of 
     the cabin site determined under section 804(c)(6), any cabin 
     site that--
       (1) is not conveyed to a lessee under this title; and
       (2) has not been determined to be unsuitable for conveyance 
     under section 804(a)(2).
       (b) Covenants and Deed Restrictions.--Before conveying any 
     cabin site under subsection (a), the Secretary shall ensure 
     that the title to the cabin site includes such covenants and 
     deed restrictions as are determined, under section 804(c), to 
     be necessary to make binding on all subsequent purchasers of 
     the cabin site any other covenants or deed restrictions 
     contained in the title to the cabin site.
       (c) Conveyance to Association.--On the completion of all 
     individual conveyances of cabin sites under this title (or at 
     such prior time as the Secretary determines would be 
     practicable based on the location of property to be 
     conveyed), the Secretary shall convey to the Association all 
     land within the outer boundaries of cabin site areas that are 
     not conveyed to lessees under this title at fair market value 
     based on an appraisal carried out in accordance with the 
     Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisition.

     SEC. 807. USE OF PROCEEDS.

       (a) Proceeds.--All payments for the conveyance of cabin 
     sites under this title, except costs collected by the 
     Secretary under section 808(b), shall be deposited in a 
     special fund in the Treasury for use by the Secretary of the 
     Interior, acting through the Director of the United States 
     Fish and Wildlife Service and without further Act of 
     appropriation, solely for the acquisition from willing 
     sellers of property that--
       (1) is within or adjacent to the Refuge;
       (2) would be suitable to carry out the purposes of this Act 
     described in paragraphs (1) through (4) of section 802; and
       (3) on acquisition by the Secretary of the Interior, would 
     be accessible to the general public for use in conducting 
     activities consistent with approved uses of the Refuge.
       (b) Limitation.--To the maximum extent practicable, 
     acquisitions under this title shall be of land within the 
     Refuge boundary.

     SEC. 808. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the 
     Secretary shall pay all administrative costs incurred in 
     carrying out this title.
       (b) Reimbursement.--As a condition of the conveyance of any 
     cabin site area under this title, the Secretary--
       (1) may require the party to whom the property is conveyed 
     to reimburse the Secretary for a reasonable portion, as 
     determined by the Secretary, of the administrative costs 
     (including survey costs), incurred in carrying out this 
     title, with such portion to be described in the notice 
     provided to the Association and lessees under section 
     804(a)(2); and
       (2) shall require the party to whom the property is 
     conveyed to reimburse the Association for a proportionate 
     share of the costs (including interest) incurred by the 
     Association in carrying out transactions under this Act.

     SEC. 809. TERMINATION OF WILDLIFE DESIGNATION.

       None of the land conveyed under this title shall be 
     designated, or shall remain designated as, part of the 
     National Wildlife Refuge System.

     SEC. 810. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this title.

                  TITLE IX--MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION

     SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE.

       This title shall be known as the ``Missouri River 
     Restoration Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 902. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Missouri River is--
       (A) an invaluable economic, environmental, recreational, 
     and cultural resource to the people of the United States; and
       (B) a critical source of water for drinking and irrigation;
       (2) millions of people fish, hunt, and camp along the 
     Missouri River each year;
       (3) thousands of sites of spiritual importance to Native 
     Americans line the shores of the Missouri River;
       (4) the Missouri River provides critical wildlife habitat 
     for threatened and endangered species;
       (5) in 1944, Congress approved the Pick-Sloan program--
       (A) to promote the general economic development of the 
     United States;
       (B) to provide for irrigation above Sioux City, Iowa;
       (C) to protect urban and rural areas from devastating 
     floods of the Missouri River; and
       (D) for other purposes;
       (6) the Oahe, Big Bend, Fort Randall, and Gavins Point Dams 
     were constructed on the Missouri River in South Dakota under 
     the Pick-Sloan program;
       (7) the dams referred to in paragraph (6)--
       (A) generate low-cost electricity for millions of people in 
     the United States;
       (B) provide revenue to the Treasury; and
       (C) provide flood control that has prevented billions of 
     dollars of damage;
       (8) the Oahe, Big Bend, Fort Randall, and Gavins Point Dams 
     have reduced the ability of the Missouri River to carry 
     sediment downstream, resulting in the accumulation of 
     sediment in the reservoirs known as Lake Oahe, Lake Sharpe, 
     Lake Francis Case, and Lewis and Clark Lake;
       (9) the sediment depositions--
       (A) cause shoreline flooding;
       (B) destroy wildlife habitat;
       (C) limit recreational opportunities;
       (D) threaten the long-term ability of dams to provide 
     hydropower and flood control under the Pick-Sloan program;
       (E) reduce water quality; and
       (F) threaten intakes for drinking water and irrigation; and
       (10) to meet the objectives established by Congress for the 
     Pick-Sloan program, it is necessary to establish a Missouri 
     River Restoration Program--
       (A) to improve conservation;
       (B) to reduce the deposition of sediment; and
       (C) to take other steps necessary for proper management of 
     the Missouri River.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are--
       (1) to reduce the siltation of the Missouri River in the 
     State of South Dakota;
       (2) to meet the objectives of the Pick-Sloan program by 
     developing and implementing a long-term strategy--

[[Page 19196]]

       (A) to improve conservation in the Missouri River 
     watershed;
       (B) to protect recreation on the Missouri River from 
     sedimentation;
       (C) to improve water quality in the Missouri River;
       (D) to improve erosion control along the Missouri River; 
     and
       (E) to protect Indian and non-Indian historical and 
     cultural sites along the Missouri River from erosion; and
       (3) to meet the objectives described in paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) by developing and financing new programs in accordance 
     with the plan.

     SEC. 903. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Committee.--The term ``Committee'' means the Executive 
     Committee appointed under section 904(d).
       (2) Pick-sloan program.--The term ``Pick-Sloan program'' 
     means the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Program authorized 
     by section 9 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 891, 
     chapter 665).
       (3) Plan.--The term ``plan'' means the plan for the use of 
     funds made available by this title that is required to be 
     prepared under section 905(e).
       (4) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of South 
     Dakota.
       (5) Task force.--The term ``Task Force'' means the Missouri 
     River Task Force established by section 905(a).
       (6) Trust.--The term ``Trust'' means the Missouri River 
     Trust established by section 904(a).

     SEC. 904. MISSOURI RIVER TRUST.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a committee to be 
     known as the Missouri River Trust.
       (b) Membership.--The Trust shall be composed of 25 members 
     to be appointed by the Secretary, including--
       (1) 15 members recommended by the Governor of South Dakota 
     that--
       (A) represent equally the various interests of the public; 
     and
       (B) include representatives of--
       (i) the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural 
     Resources;
       (ii) the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks;
       (iii) environmental groups;
       (iv) the hydroelectric power industry;
       (v) local governments;
       (vi) recreation user groups;
       (vii) agricultural groups; and
       (viii) other appropriate interests;
       (2) 9 members, 1 of each of whom shall be recommended by 
     each of the 9 Indian tribes in the State of South Dakota; and
       (3) 1 member recommended by the organization known as the 
     ``Three Affiliated Tribes of North Dakota'' (composed of the 
     Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara tribes).

     SEC. 905. MISSOURI RIVER TASK FORCE.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established the Missouri River 
     Task Force.
       (b) Membership.--The Task Force shall be composed of--
       (1) the Secretary (or a designee), who shall serve as 
     Chairperson;
       (2) the Secretary of Agriculture (or a designee);
       (3) the Secretary of Energy (or a designee);
       (4) the Secretary of the Interior (or a designee); and
       (5) the Trust.
       (c) Duties.--The Task Force shall--
       (1) meet at least twice each year;
       (2) vote on approval of the plan, with approval requiring 
     votes in favor of the plan by a majority of the members;
       (3) review projects to meet the goals of the plan; and
       (4) recommend to the Secretary critical projects for 
     implementation.
       (d) Assessment.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date on 
     which funding authorized under this title becomes available, 
     the Secretary shall submit to the other members of the Task 
     Force a report on--
       (A) the impact of the siltation of the Missouri River in 
     the State, including the impact on--
       (i) the Federal, State, and regional economies;
       (ii) recreation;
       (iii) hydropower generation;
       (iv) fish and wildlife; and
       (v) flood control;
       (B) the status of Indian and non-Indian historical and 
     cultural sites along the Missouri River;
       (C) the extent of erosion along the Missouri River 
     (including tributaries of the Missouri River) in the State; 
     and
       (D) other issues, as requested by the Task Force.
       (2) Consultation.--In preparing the report under paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary shall consult with--
       (A) the Secretary of Energy;
       (B) the Secretary of the Interior;
       (C) the Secretary of Agriculture;
       (D) the State; and
       (E) Indian tribes in the State.
       (e) Plan for Use of Funds Made Available by This Title.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date on 
     which funding authorized under this title becomes available, 
     the Task Force shall prepare a plan for the use of funds made 
     available under this title.
       (2) Contents of plan.--The plan shall provide for the 
     manner in which the Task Force shall develop and recommend 
     critical restoration projects to promote--
       (A) conservation practices in the Missouri River watershed;
       (B) the general control and removal of sediment from the 
     Missouri River;
       (C) the protection of recreation on the Missouri River from 
     sedimentation;
       (D) the protection of Indian and non-Indian historical and 
     cultural sites along the Missouri River from erosion;
       (E) erosion control along the Missouri River; or
       (F) any combination of the activities described in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (E).
       (3) Plan review and revision.--
       (A) In general.--The Task Force shall make a copy of the 
     plan available for public review and comment before the plan 
     becomes final, in accordance with procedures established by 
     the Task Force.
       (B) Revision of plan.--
       (i) In general.--The Task Force may, on an annual basis, 
     revise the plan.
       (ii) Public review and comment.--In revising the plan, the 
     Task Force shall provide the public the opportunity to review 
     and comment on any proposed revision to the plan.
       (f) Critical Restoration Projects.--
       (1) In general.--After the plan is approved by the Task 
     Force under subsection (c)(2), the Secretary, in coordination 
     with the Task Force, shall identify critical restoration 
     projects to carry out the plan.
       (2) Agreement.--The Secretary may carry out a critical 
     restoration project after entering into an agreement with an 
     appropriate non-Federal interest in accordance with--
       (A) section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 
     1962d-5b); and
       (B) this section.
       (3) Indian projects.--To the maximum extent practicable, 
     the Secretary shall ensure that not less than 30 percent of 
     the funds made available for critical restoration projects 
     under this title shall be used exclusively for projects that 
     are--
       (A) within the boundary of an Indian reservation; or
       (B) administered by an Indian tribe.
       (g) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) Assessment.--
       (A) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     carrying out the assessment under subsection (d) shall be 75 
     percent.
       (B) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the cost 
     of carrying out the assessment under subsection (d) may be 
     provided in the form of services, materials, or other in-kind 
     contributions.
       (2) Plan.--
       (A) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     preparing the plan under subsection (e) shall be 75 percent.
       (B) Non-federal share.--Not more than 50 percent of the 
     non-Federal share of the cost of preparing the plan under 
     subsection (e) may be provided in the form of services, 
     materials, or other in-kind contributions.
       (3) Critical restoration projects.--
       (A) In general.--A non-Federal cost share shall be required 
     to carry out any critical restoration project under 
     subsection (f) that does not primarily benefit the Federal 
     Government, as determined by the Task Force.
       (B) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     carrying out a critical restoration project under subsection 
     (f) for which the Task Force requires a non-Federal cost 
     share under subparagraph (A) shall be 65 percent, not to 
     exceed $5,000,000 for any critical restoration project.
       (C) Non-federal share.--
       (i) In general.--Not more than 50 percent of the non-
     Federal share of the cost of carrying out a critical 
     restoration project described in subparagraph (B) may be 
     provided in the form of services, materials, or other in-kind 
     contributions.
       (ii) Required non-federal contributions.--For any critical 
     restoration project described in subparagraph (B), the non-
     Federal interest shall--

       (I) provide all land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged 
     material disposal areas, and relocations;
       (II) pay all operation, maintenance, replacement, repair, 
     and rehabilitation costs; and
       (III) hold the United States harmless from all claims 
     arising from the construction, operation, and maintenance of 
     the project.

       (iii) Credit.--The non-Federal interest shall receive 
     credit for all contributions provided under clause (ii)(I).

     SEC. 906. ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) In General.--Nothing in this title diminishes or 
     affects--
       (1) any water right of an Indian tribe;
       (2) any other right of an Indian tribe, except as 
     specifically provided in another provision of this title;
       (3) any treaty right that is in effect on the date of 
     enactment of this Act;
       (4) any external boundary of an Indian reservation of an 
     Indian tribe;
       (5) any authority of the State that relates to the 
     protection, regulation, or management of fish, terrestrial 
     wildlife, and cultural and archaeological resources, except 
     as specifically provided in this title; or
       (6) any authority of the Secretary, the Secretary of the 
     Interior, or the head of any other Federal agency under a law 
     in effect on

[[Page 19197]]

     the date of enactment of this Act, including--
       (A) the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 
     et seq.);
       (B) the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 
     U.S.C. 470aa et seq.);
       (C) the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 
     et seq.);
       (D) the Act entitled ``An Act for the protection of the 
     bald eagle'', approved June 8, 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.);
       (E) the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.);
       (F) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
     seq.);
       (G) the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 
     Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.);
       (H) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 
     et seq.);
       (I) the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.); 
     and
       (J) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       (b) Federal Liability for Damage.--Nothing in this title 
     relieves the Federal Government of liability for damage to 
     private property caused by the operation of the Pick-Sloan 
     program.
       (c) Flood Control.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this title, the Secretary shall retain the authority to 
     operate the Pick-Sloan program for the purposes of meeting 
     the requirements of the Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 
     887, chapter 665; 33 U.S.C. 701-1 et seq.).
       (d) Use of Funds.--Funds transferred to the Trust may be 
     used to pay the non-Federal share required under Federal 
     programs.

     SEC. 907. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Initial Funding.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this title 
     $4,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2010, to 
     remain available until expended.
       (b) Existing Programs.--The Secretary shall fund programs 
     authorized under the Pick-Sloan program in existence on the 
     date of enactment of this Act at levels that are not less 
     than funding levels for those programs as of that date.

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask to reconsider the vote, and on 
behalf of the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, I move to table my 
own motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
 Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I regret I was unable to vote on 
the final passage of the Water Resources Development Act, S. 2796. Had 
I been present, I would have voted in favor of this legislation.
  The bill contains authorizations for several important projects for 
Washington State. I would like to thank the chairman of the Senate 
Environment and Public Works Committee. Senator Bob Smith, and the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
Senator George Voinovich, for their assistance in addressing the water 
resource needs of the Pacific Northwest. I'd like to highlight four 
projects critical to my constituents.
  The bill provides authorization for the Puget Sound Ecosystem 
Restoration Project, an environmental restoration program designed to 
improve habitat for four threatened anadromous fish species in the 
Puget Sound basin. The Corps of Engineers, contingent on available 
appropriations, will be authorized to spend $20 million in cooperation 
with local governments, tribes, and restoration groups to make existing 
Corps projects more salmon-friendly and enhance critical stream 
habitat.
  WRDA 2000 also includes an authorization for the Corps of Engineers 
to study and construct an erosion control project for the Shoalwater 
Bay Indian Tribe. The Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe, located on a 335-
acre reservation in southwest Washington, has experienced dramatic 
erosion events for the past several winters. During the 1998-1999 
winter storms alone, the tribe lost several hundred feet of shoreline. 
These events have been particularly damaging to this small tribe of 245 
people, most of whom depend on the tribe's shellfish resource along the 
700 acres of tidelands.
  Another provision will assist the communities along the Columbia, 
Cowlitz, and Toutle rivers. During the early 1980s after the eruption 
on Mount St. Helens on May 18, 1980, the Corps of Engineers engaged in 
a series of emergency and congressionally authorized projects to stop 
or control the flow of sediment from Mount St. Helens into the Toutle, 
Cowlitz, and Columbia rivers. Since the major Northwest Washington 
flood of 1996, which severely impacted the communities surrounding 
these three rivers, the Corps of Engineers and county governments in 
Southwest Washington have engaged in discussions over the level of 
flood protection to be maintained for the Mount St. Helens Sediment 
Control Project. The WRDA bill clarifies the Corps' responsibility to 
maintain this project and provides certainty for the communities in the 
future.
  Finally, the bill includes authorization for the Corps to accept 
funding from non-federal public entities to improve and enhance the 
regulatory activities of the Corps of Engineers. Since the listing of 
the four Puget Sound salmon species last year, the Seattle office of 
the Corps of Engineers has been inundated with permits that requires 
additional consultation order the Endangered Species Act. 
Unfortunately, this additional responsibility requires additional staff 
and resources to occur in a timely manner. At the beginning of this 
year, the Seattle regulatory office had a backlog of 300 permit 
applications. Today that backlog has grown to nearly 1,000. This 
provision will provide the Corps the additional resources it needs to 
comply with the Endangered Species Act.
  Once again, I would like to thank the members of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee for their assistance in providing authorization 
for projects important to the residents of Washington state. I am 
pleased the Senate passed this legislation today.

                          ____________________