[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 14659-14705]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2005

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to S. 728, the Water Resources Development Act, under the 
previous order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 728) to provide for the consideration and 
     development of water and related resources, to authorize the 
     Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for 
     improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and 
     for other purposes.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill 
which had been reported from the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works, with amendments, as follows:
  (The parts intended to be stricken are shown in boldface brackets and 
the parts intended to be inserted are shown in italic.)

                                 S. 728

       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 2005''.
       (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. 1001. Project authorizations.
Sec. 1002. Enhanced navigation capacity improvements and ecosystem 
              restoration plan for the Upper Mississippi River and 
              Illinois Waterway System.
Sec. 1003. Louisiana coastal area ecosystem restoration, Louisiana.
Sec. 1004. Small projects for flood damage reduction.
Sec. 1005. Small projects for navigation.
Sec. 1006. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration.

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                         Subtitle A--Provisions

Sec. 2001. Credit for in-kind contributions.
Sec. 2002. Interagency and international support authority.
Sec. 2003. Training funds.
Sec. 2004. Recreational areas and project sites.
Sec. 2005. Fiscal transparency report.
Sec. 2006. Planning.
Sec. 2007. Independent reviews.
Sec. 2008. Mitigation for fish and wildlife losses.
Sec. 2009. State technical assistance.
Sec. 2010. Access to water resource data.
Sec. 2011. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal 
              interests.
Sec. 2012. Regional sediment management.
Sec. 2013. National shoreline erosion control development program.
Sec. 2014. Shore protection projects.
Sec. 2015. Cost sharing for monitoring.
Sec. 2016. Ecosystem restoration benefits.
Sec. 2017. Funding to expedite the evaluation and processing of 
              permits.
Sec. 2018. Electronic submission of permit applications.
Sec. 2019. Improvement of water management at Corps of Engineers 
              reservoirs.
Sec. 2020. Corps of Engineers hydropower operation and maintenance 
              funding.
Sec. 2021. Federal hopper dredges.
Sec. 2022. Obstruction to navigation.

              Subtitle B--Continuing authorities projects

Sec. 2031. Navigation enhancements for waterbourne transportation.
Sec. 2032. Protection and restoration due to emergencies at shores and 
              streambanks.
Sec. 2033. Restoration of the environment for protection of aquatic and 
              riparian ecosystems program.
Sec. 2034. Environmental modification of projects for improvement and 
              restoration of ecosystems program.
Sec. 2035. Projects to enhance estuaries and coastal habitats.
Sec. 2036. Remediation of abandoned mine sites.
Sec. 2037. Small projects for the rehabilitation or removal of dams.
Sec. 2038. Remote, maritime-dependent communities.
Sec. 2039. Agreements for water resource projects.
Sec. 2040. Program names.

                 TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

Sec. 3001. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska.
Sec. 3002. Sitka, Alaska.
Sec. 3003. Black Warrior-Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama.
Sec. 3004. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas.
Sec. 3005. St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.
Sec. 3006. St. Francis Basin land transfer, Arkansas and Missouri.
Sec. 3007. Red-Ouachita River Basin levees, Arkansas and Louisiana.
Sec. 3008. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River navigation system, Arkansas 
              and Oklahoma.
Sec. [3008] 3009. Cache Creek Basin, California.
Sec. [3009] 3010. Hamilton Airfield, California.
Sec. [3010] 3011. LA-3 dredged material ocean disposal site 
              designation, California.
Sec. [3011] 3012. Larkspur Ferry Channel, California.
Sec. [3012] 3013. Llagas Creek, California.
Sec. [3013] 3014. Los Angeles Harbor, California.
Sec. [3014] 3015. Magpie Creek, California.
Sec. [3015] 3016. Pine Flat Dam fish and wildlife habitat, California.
Sec. [3016] 3017. Redwood City navigation project, California.
Sec. [3017] 3018. Sacramento and American Rivers flood control, 
              California.
Sec. [3018] 3019. Conditional declaration of nonnavigability, Port of 
              San Francisco, California.
Sec. [3019] 3020. Salton Sea restoration, California.
Sec. [3020] 3021. Upper Guadalupe River, California.
Sec. [3021] 3022. Yuba River Basin project, California.
Sec. [3022] 3023. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, New Haven 
              Harbor, Connecticut.
Sec. [3023] 3024. Anchorage area, New London Harbor, Connecticut.
Sec. [3024] 3025. Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut.
Sec. [3025] 3026. St. George's Bridge, Delaware.
Sec. [3026] 3027. Christina River, Wilmington, Delaware.
Sec. [3027] 3028. Additional program authority, comprehensive 
              Everglades restoration, Florida.
Sec. [3028] 3029. Critical restoration projects, Everglades and south 
              Florida ecosystem restoration, Florida.
Sec. [3029] 3030. Jacksonville Harbor, Florida.
Sec. [3030] 3031. Lake Okeechobee and Hillsboro Aquifer pilot projects, 
              comprehensive Everglades restoration, Florida.
Sec. [3031] 3032. Lido Key, Sarasota County, Florida.
Sec. [3032] 3033. Tampa Harbor, Cut B, Tampa, Florida.
Sec. [3033] 3034. Allatoona Lake, Georgia.
Sec. [3034] 3035. Dworshak Reservoir improvements, Idaho.
Sec. [3035] 3036. Little Wood River, Gooding, Idaho.
Sec. [3036] 3037. Port of Lewiston, Idaho.
Sec. [3037] 3038. Cache River Levee, Illinois.
Sec. 3039. Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. [3038] 3040. Chicago River, Illinois.
Sec. [3039] 3041. Missouri and Illinois flood protection projects 
              reconstruction pilot program.
Sec. [3040] 3042. Spunky Bottom, Illinois.
Sec. [3041] 3043. Strawn Cemetery, John Redmond Lake, Kansas.
Sec. [3042] 3044. Harry S. Truman Reservoir, Milford, Kansas.
Sec. [3043] 3045. Ohio River, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, 
              Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.
Sec. [3044] 3046. Public access, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, 
              Louisiana.
Sec. [3045] 3047. Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana.
Sec. 3048. Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana.
Sec. [3046] 3049. East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. [3047] 3050. Red River (J. Bennett Johnston) Waterway, Louisiana.
Sec. [3048] 3051. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine.
Sec. [3049] 3052. Union River, Maine.
Sec. [3050] 3053. Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and 
              protection program, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

[[Page 14660]]

Sec. [3051] 3054. Cumberland, Maryland.
Sec. [3052] 3055. Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
Sec. [3053] 3056. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan.
Sec. [3054] 3057. Duluth Harbor, Minnesota.
Sec. [3055] 3058. Land exchange, Pike County, Missouri.
Sec. [3056] 3059. Union Lake, Missouri.
Sec. [3057] 3060. Fort Peck Fish Hatchery, Montana.
Sec. 3061. Yellowstone River and tributaries, Montana and North Dakota.
Sec. [3058] 3062. Lower Truckee River, Mccarran Ranch, Nevada.
Sec. [3059] 3063. Middle Rio Grande restoration, New Mexico.
Sec. [3060] 3064. Long Island Sound oyster restoration, New York and 
              Connecticut.
Sec. [3061] 3065. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York.
Sec. [3062] 3066. New York Harbor, New York, New York.
Sec. [3063] 3067. Onondaga Lake, New York.
Sec. [3064] 3068. Missouri River restoration, North Dakota.
Sec. [3065] 3069. Lower Girard Lake Dam, Girard, Ohio.
Sec. [3066] 3070. Toussaint River navigation project, Carroll Township, 
              Ohio.
Sec. [3067] 3071. Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 3072. Oklahoma Lake demonstration, Oklahoma.
Sec. [3068] 3073. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. [3069] 3074. Lookout Point, Dexter Lake project, Lowell, Oregon.
Sec. [3070] 3075. Upper Willamette River Watershed ecosystem 
              restoration.
Sec. [3071] 3076. Tioga Township, Pennsylvania.
Sec. [3072] 3077. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New 
              York.
Sec. [3073] 3078. Cooper River Bridge demolition, Charleston, South 
              Carolina.
Sec. [3074] 3079. South Carolina Department of Commerce development 
              proposal at Richard B. Russell Lake, South Carolina.
Sec. [3075] 3080. Missouri River restoration, South Dakota.
Sec. [3076] 3081. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers enhancement 
              project.
Sec. [3077] 3082. Anderson Creek, Jackson and Madison Counties, 
              Tennessee.
Sec. [3078] 3083. Harris Fork Creek, Tennessee and Kentucky.
Sec. [3079] 3084. Nonconnah Weir, Memphis, Tennessee.
Sec. [3080] 3085. Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, 
              Tennessee.
Sec. [3081] 3086. Sandy Creek, Jackson County, Tennessee.
Sec. [3082] 3087. Cedar Bayou, Texas.
Sec. [3083] 3088. Freeport Harbor, Texas.
Sec. [3084] 3089. Harris County, Texas.
Sec. [3085] 3090. Dam remediation, Vermont.
Sec. [3086] 3091. Lake Champlain eurasian milfoil, water chestnut, and 
              other nonnative plant control, Vermont.
Sec. [3087] 3092. Upper Connecticut River Basin wetland restoration, 
              Vermont and New Hampshire.
Sec. [3088] 3093. Upper Connecticut River Basin ecosystem restoration, 
              Vermont and New Hampshire.
Sec. [3089] 3094. Lake Champlain Watershed, Vermont and New York.
Sec. [3090] 3095. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration, Virginia and 
              Maryland.
Sec. [3091] 3096. Tangier Island Seawall, Virginia.
Sec. [3092] 3097. Erosion control, Puget Island, Wahkiakum County, 
              Washington.
Sec. [3093] 3098. Lower granite pool, Washington.
Sec. [3094] 3099. Mcnary Lock and Dam, Mcnary National Wildlife Refuge, 
              Washington and Idaho.
Sec. [3095] 3100. Snake River project, Washington and Idaho.
Sec. [3096] 3101. Marmet Lock, Kanawha River, West Virginia.
Sec. [3097] 3102. Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia.
Sec. 3103. Green Bay Harbor Project, Green Bay, Wisconsin.
Sec. [3098] 3104. Underwood Creek diversion facility project, Milwaukee 
              County, Wisconsin.
Sec. [3099] 3105. Mississippi River headwaters reservoirs.
Sec. [3100] 3106. Lower Mississippi River Museum and Riverfront 
              Interpretive Site.
Sec. [3101] 3107. Pilot program, Middle Mississippi River.
Sec. [3102] 3108. Upper Mississippi River system environmental 
              management program.
Sec. 3109. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration program.
Sec. 3110. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation.
Sec. 3111. Great Lakes tributary models.

                           TITLE IV--STUDIES

Sec. 4001. Eurasian milfoil.
Sec. 4002. National port study.
Sec. 4003. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation Channel.
Sec. 4004. Selenium study, Colorado.
Sec. 4005. Nicholas Canyon, Los Angeles, California.
Sec. 4006. Oceanside, California, shoreline special study.
Sec. 4007. Comprehensive flood protection project, St. Helena, 
              California.
Sec. 4008. San Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Sherman 
              Island, California.
Sec. 4009. South San Francisco Bay shoreline study, California.
Sec. 4010. San Pablo Bay Watershed restoration, California.
Sec. 4011. Bubbly Creek, South Fork of South Branch, Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 4012. Grand and Tiger Passes and Baptiste Collette Bayou, 
              Louisiana.
Sec. [4011] 4013. Lake Erie at Luna Pier, Michigan.
Sec. [4012] 4014. Middle Bass Island State Park, Middle Bass Island, 
              Ohio.
Sec. [4013] 4015. Jasper County port facility study, South Carolina.
Sec. [4014] 4016. Lake Champlain Canal study, Vermont and New York.

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 5001. Lakes program.
Sec. 5002. Estuary restoration.
Sec. 5003. Delmarva conservation corridor, Delaware and Maryland.
Sec. 5004. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basins, Delaware, 
              Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
Sec. 5005. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barriers project, 
              Illinois.
Sec. 5006. Rio Grande environmental management program, New Mexico.
Sec. 5007. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and 
              Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration, South Dakota.
Sec. 5008. Connecticut River dams, Vermont.

                   TITLE VI--PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS

Sec. 6001. Little Cove Creek, Glencoe, Alabama.
Sec. 6002. Goleta and vicinity, California.
Sec. 6003. Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut.
Sec. 6004. Bridgeport, Connecticut.
Sec. 6005. Hartford, Connecticut.
Sec. 6006. New Haven, Connecticut.
Sec. 6007. Inland waterway from Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, Part 
              II, installation of fender protection for bridges, 
              Delaware and Maryland.
Sec. 6008. Central and southern Florida, Everglades National Park, 
              Florida.
Sec. 6009. Shingle Creek Basin, Florida.
Sec. 6010. Brevoort, Indiana.
Sec. 6011. Middle Wabash, Greenfield Bayou, Indiana.
Sec. 6012. Lake George, Hobart, Indiana.
Sec. 6013. Green Bay Levee and Drainage District No. 2, Iowa.
Sec. 6014. Muscatine Harbor, Iowa.
Sec. 6015. Big South Fork National River and Recreational Area, 
              Kentucky and Tennessee.
Sec. 6016. Eagle Creek Lake, Kentucky.
Sec. 6017. Hazard, Kentucky.
Sec. 6018. West Kentucky tributaries, Kentucky.
Sec. 6019. Bayou Cocodrie and tributaries, Louisiana.
Sec. 6020. Bayou Lafourche and Lafourche Jump, Louisiana.
Sec. 6021. Eastern Rapides and South-Central Avoyelles Parishes, 
              Louisiana.
Sec. 6022. Fort Livingston, Grand Terre Island, Louisiana.
Sec. 6023. Gulf Intercoastal Waterway, Lake Borgne and Chef Menteur, 
              Louisiana.
Sec. 6024. Red River Waterway, Shreveport, Louisiana to Daingerfield, 
              Texas.
Sec. 6025. Casco Bay, Portland, Maine.
Sec. 6026. Northeast Harbor, Maine.
Sec. 6027. Penobscot River, Bangor, Maine.
Sec. 6028. Saint John River Basin, Maine.
Sec. 6029. Tenants Harbor, Maine.
Sec. 6030. Grand Haven Harbor, Michigan.
Sec. 6031. Greenville Harbor, Mississippi.
Sec. 6032. Platte River flood and related streambank erosion control, 
              Nebraska.
Sec. 6033. Epping, New Hampshire.
Sec. 6034. Manchester, New Hampshire.
Sec. 6035. New York Harbor and adjacent channels, Claremont Terminal, 
              Jersey City, New Jersey.
Sec. 6036. Eisenhower and Snell Locks, New York.
Sec. 6037. Olcott Harbor, Lake Ontario, New York.
Sec. 6038. Outer Harbor, Buffalo, New York.
Sec. 6039. Sugar Creek Basin, North Carolina and South Carolina.
Sec. 6040. Cleveland Harbor 1958 Act, Ohio.
Sec. 6041. Cleveland Harbor 1960 Act, Ohio.
Sec. 6042. Cleveland Harbor, uncompleted portion of Cut #4, Ohio.
Sec. 6043. Columbia River, Seafarers Memorial, Hammond, Oregon.
Sec. 6044. Chartiers Creek, Cannonsburg (Houston Reach Unit 2b), 
              Pennsylvania.
Sec. 6045. Schuylkill River, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 6046. Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Pennsylvania.

[[Page 14661]]

Sec. 6047. Tamaqua, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 6048. Narragansett Town Beach, Narragansett, Rhode Island.
Sec. 6049. Quonset Point-Davisville, Rhode Island.
Sec. 6050. Arroyo Colorado, Texas.
Sec. 6051. Cypress Creek-Structural, Texas.
Sec. 6052. East Fork Channel Improvement, Increment 2, east fork of the 
              Trinity River, Texas.
Sec. 6053. Falfurrias, Texas.
Sec. 6054. Pecan Bayou Lake, Texas.
Sec. 6055. Lake of the Pines, Texas.
Sec. 6056. Tennessee Colony Lake, Texas.
Sec. 6057. City Waterway, Tacoma, Washington.
Sec. 6058. Kanawha River, Charleston, West Virginia.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.

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

                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

     SEC. 1001. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) Projects With Chief's Reports.--Except as otherwise 
     provided in this section, 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 
     section:
       (1) Akutan harbor, alaska.--The project for navigation, 
     Akutan, Harbor, Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers, 
     dated December 20, 2004, at a total estimated cost of 
     $12,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $9,800,000 and 
     an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,400,000.
       (2) Haines harbor, alaska.--The project for navigation, 
     Haines Harbor, Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers, 
     dated December 20, 2004, at a total estimated cost of 
     $12,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $9,700,000 and 
     an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,500,000.
       (3) Rillito river (el rio antiguo), pima county, arizona.--
     The project for ecosystem restoration, Rillito River (El Rio 
     Antiguo), Pima County, Arizona: Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a total cost of 
     $67,457,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $43,421,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $24,036,000.
       (4) Tanque verde creek, arizona.--The project for ecosystem 
     restoration, Tanque Verde Creek, Arizona: Report of the Chief 
     of Engineers, dated July 22, 2003, at a total cost of 
     $4,978,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $3,236,000 and 
     an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,742,000.
       (5) Salt river (va shlyay akimel), maricopa county, 
     arizona.--The project for ecosystem restoration, Salt River 
     (Va Shlyay Akimel), Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers 
     dated January 3, 2005, at a total cost of $138,968,000, with 
     an estimated Federal cost of $90,129,000 and an estimated 
     non-Federal cost of $48,839,000.
       (6) Hamilton city, california.--The project for flood 
     damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, Hamilton City, 
     California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 
     22, 2004, at a total cost of $50,600,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $33,000,000 and estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $17,600,000.
       (7) Imperial beach, california.--The project for storm 
     damage reduction, Imperial Beach, California: Report of the 
     Chief of Engineers, dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost 
     of $11,862,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,592,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,270,000, and at an 
     estimated total cost of $38,004,000 for periodic beach 
     nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $19,002,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $19,002,000.
       (8) Matilija dam, ventura county, california.--The project 
     for ecosystem restoration, Matilija Dam and Ventura River 
     Watershed, Ventura County, California: Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers dated December 20, 2004, at a total cost of 
     $130,335,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $78,973,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of [$48,839,000] 
     $51,362,000.
       (9) Middle creek, lake county, california.--The project for 
     flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, Middle 
     Creek, Lake County, California: Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers dated November 29, 2004, at a total cost of 
     $41,793,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $27,256,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $14,537,000.
       [(10) Napa river salt marsh, california.--The project for 
     ecosystem restoration, Napa River Salt Marsh, California: 
     Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at 
     a total cost of $58,412,000, with an estimated Federal cost 
     of $37,740,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $20,672,000.]
       (10) Napa river salt marsh, california.--
       (A) In general.--The project for ecosystem restoration, 
     Napa River Salt Marsh, California, at a total cost of 
     $100,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $64,000,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $36,500,000, to be 
     carried out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with 
     the plans and subject to the conditions recommended in the 
     final report signed by the Chief of Engineers on December 22, 
     2004.
       (B) Administration.--In carrying out the project authorized 
     by this paragraph, the Secretary shall--
       (i) construct a recycled water pipeline extending from the 
     Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District Waste Water 
     Treatment Plant and the Napa Sanitation District Waste Water 
     Treatment Plant to the project; and
       (ii) restore or enhance Salt Ponds 1, 1A, 2, and 3.
       (C) Transfer of ownership.--On completion of salinity 
     reduction in the project area, the Secretary shall transfer 
     ownership of the pipeline to the non-Federal interest at the 
     fully depreciated value of the pipeline, less--
       (i) the non-Federal cost-share contributed under 
     subparagraph (A); and
       (ii) the estimated value of the water to be provided as 
     needed for maintenance of habitat values in the project area 
     throughout the life of the project.
       (11) South platte river, denver, colorado.--The project for 
     ecosystem restoration, Denver County Reach, South Platte 
     River, Denver, Colorado: Report of the Chief of Engineers, 
     dated May 16, 2003, at a total cost of $18,824,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $12,236,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $6,588,000.
       (12) Indian river lagoon, south florida.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary may carry out the project 
     for ecosystem restoration, water supply, flood control, and 
     protection of water quality, Indian River Lagoon, South 
     Florida, at a total cost of $1,210,608,000, with an estimated 
     first Federal cost of $605,304,000, and an estimated first 
     non-Federal cost of $605,304,000, in accordance with section 
     601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 
     2680) and the recommendations of the report of the Chief of 
     Engineers, dated August 6, 2004.
       (B) Deauthorizations.--As of the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the following projects are not authorized:
       (i) The uncompleted portions of the project authorized by 
     section 601(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2682), C-44 Basin Storage Reservoir of 
     the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, 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) The uncompleted portions of the project authorized by 
     section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-
     483; 82 Stat. 740), Martin County, Florida, modifications to 
     Central and South Florida Project, as contained in Senate 
     Document 101, 90th Congress, 2d Session, at a total cost of 
     $15,471,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $8,073,000, 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,398,000.
       (iii) The uncompleted portions of the project authorized by 
     section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-
     483; 82 Stat. 740), East Coast Backpumping, St. Lucie-Martin 
     County, Spillway Structure S-311 of the Central and South 
     Florida Project, as contained in House Document 369, 90th 
     Congress, 2d Session, at a total cost of $77,118,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $55,124,000, and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $21,994,000.
       (13) East st. louis and vicinity, illinois.--The project 
     for ecosystem restoration and recreation, East St. Louis and 
     Vicinity, Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 
     December 22, 2004, at a total cost of $191,158,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $123,807,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $67,351,000.
       (14) Peoria riverfront, illinois.--The project for 
     ecosystem restoration, Peoria Riverfront, Illinois: Report of 
     the Chief of Engineers, dated July 28, 2003, at a total cost 
     of $16,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $10,400,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,600,000.
       (15) Bayou sorrel lock, louisiana.--The project for 
     navigation, Bayou Sorrel Lock, Louisiana: Report of the Chief 
     of Engineers dated January 3, 2005, at a total cost of 
     $9,000,000. The costs of construction of the project are to 
     be paid [half] \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the 
     general fund of the Treasury and [half] \1/2\from amounts 
     appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
       (16) Morganza to the gulf of mexico, louisiana.--
       (A) In general.--The project for hurricane and storm damage 
     reduction, Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana: Reports 
     of the Chief of Engineers, dated August 23, 2002, and July 
     22, 2003, at a total cost of $788,000,000 with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $512,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal 
     cost of $275,800,000.
       (B) Operation and maintenance.--The operation, maintenance, 
     repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of the Houma 
     Navigation Canal lock complex and the Gulf Intracoastal 
     Waterway floodgate features that provide for inland waterway 
     transportation shall be a Federal responsibility, in 
     accordance with section 102 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2212; Public Law 99-662).
       (17) Smith island, maryland.--The project for ecosystem 
     restoration, Smith Island, Maryland: Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers, dated October 29, 2001, at a total cost of 
     $14,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $9,425,000 and 
     an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,075,000.
       (18) Swope park industrial area, missouri.--The project for 
     flood damage reduction, Swope Park Industrial Area, Missouri:

[[Page 14662]]

     Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated December 30, 2003, at 
     a total cost of $15,683,000, with an estimated Federal cost 
     of $10,194,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $5,489,000.
       (19) Manasquan to barnegat inlets, new jersey.--The project 
     for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Manasquan to 
     Barnegat Inlets, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers 
     dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost of $64,872,000, with 
     an estimated Federal cost of $42,168,000 and an estimated 
     non-Federal cost of $22,704,000, and at an estimated total 
     cost of $107,990,000 for periodic beach nourishment over the 
     50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal cost 
     of $53,995,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $53,995,000.
       (20) South river, new jersey.--The project for hurricane 
     and storm damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, South 
     River, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated 
     July 22, 2003, at a total cost of $112,623,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $73,205,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $39,418,000.
       (21) Southwest valley, albuquerque, new mexico.--The 
     project for flood damage reduction, Southwest Valley, 
     Albuquerque, New Mexico: Report of the Chief of Engineers 
     dated November 29, 2004, at a total cost of $19,494,000, with 
     an estimated Federal cost of $12,671,000 and an estimated 
     non-Federal cost of $6,823,000.
       (22) Corpus christi ship channel, corpus christi, texas.--
       (A) In general.--The project for navigation and ecosystem 
     restoration, Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Texas, Channel 
     Improvement Project: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 
     June 2, 2003, at a total cost of $172,940,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $80,086,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $92,854,000.
       (B) Navigational servitude.--In carrying out the project 
     under subsection (A), the Secretary shall enforce 
     navigational servitude in the Corpus Christi Ship Channel, 
     including, at the sole expense of the owner of the facility, 
     the removal or relocation of any facility obstructing the 
     project.
       (23) Gulf intracoastal waterway, brazos river to port 
     o'connor, matagorda bay re-route, texas.--The project for 
     navigation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Brazos River to Port 
     O'Connor, Matagorda Bay Re-Route, Texas: Report of the Chief 
     of Engineers, dated December 24, 2002, at a total cost of 
     $15,960,000. The costs of construction of the project are to 
     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.
       (24) Gulf intracoastal waterway, high island to brazos 
     river, texas.--The project for navigation, Gulf Intracoastal 
     Waterway, Sabine River to Corpus Christi, Texas: Report of 
     the Chief of Engineers, dated April 16, 2004, at a total cost 
     of $13,104,000. The costs of construction of the project are 
     to 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.
       (25) Riverside oxbow, fort worth, texas.--The project for 
     ecosystem restoration, Riverside Oxbow, Fort Worth, Texas: 
     Report of the Chief of Engineers dated May 29, 2003, at a 
     total cost of $25,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $10,400,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $14,800,000.
       (26) Deep creek, chesapeake, virginia.--The project for the 
     Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge Replacement, Deep 
     Creek, Chesapeake, Virginia: Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers, dated March 3, 2003, at a total cost of 
     $35,573,000.
       (27) Chehalis river, centralia, washington.--The project 
     for flood damage reduction, Centralia, Washington, authorized 
     by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (Public Law 99-662; 100 Stat. 4126)--
       (A) is modified to be carried out at a total cost of 
     $109,850,000, with a Federal cost of $66,425,000, and a non-
     Federal cost of $43,425,000; and
       (B) shall be carried out by the Secretary substantially in 
     accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, 
     recommended in the final report of the Chief of Engineers, 
     dated September 27, 2004.
       (b) Projects Subject to 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, 2005:
       (1) Miami harbor, miami, florida.--The project for 
     navigation, Miami Harbor, Miami, Florida, at a total cost of 
     $121,126,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $64,843,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $56,283,000.
       (2) Picayune strand, florida.--The project for ecosystem 
     restoration, Picayune Strand, Florida, at a total cost of 
     $349,422,000 with an estimated Federal cost of $174,711,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $174,711,000, subject to 
     section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
     (114 Stat. 2680).
       (3) Des moines and raccoon rivers, des moines, iowa.--The 
     project for flood damage reduction, Des Moines and Raccoon 
     Rivers, Des Moines, Iowa, at a total cost of $10,000,000, 
     with an estimated Federal cost of $6,500,000, and an 
     estimated non-Federal cost of $3,500,000.
       (4) Port of iberia, louisiana.--The project for navigation, 
     Port of Iberia, Louisiana, at a total cost of $194,000,000, 
     with an estimated Federal cost of $123,000,000 and an 
     estimated non-Federal cost of $71,000,000.
       (5) Jamaica bay, marine park and plumb beach, queens and 
     brooklyn, new york.--The project for ecosystem restoration, 
     Jamaica Bay, Queens and Brooklyn, New York, at a total 
     estimated cost of $180,000,000, with an estimated Federal 
     cost of $117,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $63,000,000.
       (6) Raritan bay and sandy hook bay, union beach, new 
     jersey.--The project for hurricane and storm damage 
     reduction, Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Union Beach, New 
     Jersey, at a total cost of $105,544,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $68,603,600, and an estimated non-Federal 
     cost of $36,940,400, and at an estimated total cost of 
     $2,315,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of 
     the project, with an estimated Federal cost of $1,157,500, 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,157,500.
       (7) Montauk point, new york.--The project for hurricane and 
     storm damage reduction, Montauk Point, Suffolk County, New 
     York, at a total cost of $12,000,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $7,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $4,200,000.
       (8) Hocking river basin, monday creek, ohio.--The project 
     for ecosystem restoration, Hocking River Basin, Monday Creek, 
     Ohio, at a total cost of $20,000,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $13,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $7,000,000.

     SEC. 1002. ENHANCED NAVIGATION CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS AND 
                   ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PLAN FOR THE UPPER 
                   MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATERWAY SYSTEM.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Plan.--The term ``Plan'' means the preferred integrated 
     plan contained in the document entitled ``Integrated 
     Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact 
     Statement for the UMR-IWW System Navigation Feasibility 
     Study'' and dated September 24, 2004.
       (2) Upper mississippi river and illinois waterway system.--
     The term ``Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway 
     System'' means the projects for navigation and ecosystem 
     restoration authorized by Congress for--
       (A) the segment of the Mississippi River from the 
     confluence with the Ohio River, River Mile 0.0, to Upper St. 
     Anthony Falls Lock in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, River 
     Mile 854.0; and
       (B) the Illinois Waterway from its confluence with the 
     Mississippi River at Grafton, Illinois, River Mile 0.0, to 
     T.J. O'Brien Lock in Chicago, Illinois, River Mile 327.0.
       (b) Authorization of Construction of Navigation 
     Improvements.--
       (1) Small scale and nonstructural measures.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall, in general 
     conformance with the Plan--
       (i) construct mooring facilities at Locks 12, 14, 18, 20, 
     22, 24, and LaGrange Lock;
       (ii) provide switchboats at Locks 20 through 25; and
       (iii) conduct development and testing of an appointment 
     scheduling system.
       (B) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this paragraph $235,000,000 
     for fiscal years beginning October 1, 2004. 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. Such sums shall remain available until expended.
       (2) New locks.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall, in general 
     conformance with the Plan, construct new 1,200-foot locks at 
     Locks 20, 21, 22, 24, and 25 on the Upper Mississippi River 
     and at LaGrange Lock and Peoria Lock on the Illinois 
     Waterway.
       (B) Mitigation.--The Secretary shall conduct mitigation for 
     the new locks and small scale and nonstructural measures 
     authorized under paragraphs (1) and (2).
       (C) Concurrence.--The mitigation required under 
     subparagraph (B) for the projects authorized under paragraphs 
     (1) and (2), including any acquisition of lands or interests 
     in lands, shall be undertaken or acquired concurrently with 
     lands and interests for the projects authorized under 
     paragraphs (1) and (2), and physical construction required 
     for the purposes of mitigation shall be undertaken 
     concurrently with the physical construction of such projects.
       (D) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this paragraph $1,795,000,000 
     for fiscal years beginning October 1, 2004. The costs of 
     construction on 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. Such sums shall remain available until expended.
       (c) Ecosystem Restoration Authorization.--

[[Page 14663]]

       (1) Operation.--To ensure the environmental sustainability 
     of the existing Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway 
     System, the Secretary shall modify, consistent with 
     requirements to avoid adverse effects on navigation, the 
     operation of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois 
     Waterway System to address the cumulative environmental 
     impacts of operation of the system and improve the ecological 
     integrity of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River.
       (2) Ecosystem restoration projects.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out, consistent 
     with requirements to avoid adverse effects on navigation, 
     ecosystem restoration projects to attain and maintain the 
     sustainability of the ecosystem of the Upper Mississippi 
     River and Illinois River in accordance with the general 
     framework outlined in the Plan.
       (B) Projects included.--Ecosystem restoration projects may 
     include, but are not limited to--
       (i) island building;
       (ii) construction of fish passages;
       (iii) floodplain restoration;
       (iv) water level management (including water drawdown);
       (v) backwater restoration;
       (vi) side channel restoration;
       (vii) wing dam and dike restoration and modification;
       (viii) island and shoreline protection;
       (ix) topographical diversity;
       (x) dam point control;
       (xi) use of dredged material for environmental purposes;
       (xii) tributary confluence restoration;
       (xiii) spillway, dam, and levee modification to benefit the 
     environment;
       (xiv) land easement authority; and
       (xv) land acquisition.
       (C) Cost sharing.--
       (i) In general.--Except as provided in clauses (ii) and 
     (iii), the Federal share of the cost of carrying out an 
     ecosystem restoration project under this paragraph shall be 
     65 percent.
       (ii) Exception for certain restoration projects.--In the 
     case of a project under this subparagraph for ecosystem 
     restoration, the Federal share of the cost of carrying out 
     the project shall be 100 percent if the project--

       (I) is located below the ordinary high water mark or in a 
     connected backwater;
       (II) modifies the operation or structures for navigation; 
     or
       (III) is located on federally owned land.

       (iii) Savings clause.--Nothing in this paragraph affects 
     the applicability of section 906(e) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283).
       (iv) Nongovernmental organizations.--Notwithstanding 
     section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 
     1962d-5(b)), 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.
       (D) Land acquisition.--The Secretary may acquire land or an 
     interest in land for an ecosystem restoration project from a 
     willing owner through conveyance of--
       (i) fee title to the land; or
       (ii) a flood plain conservation easement.
       (3) Ecosystem restoration preconstruction engineering and 
     design.--
       (A) Restoration design.--Before initiating the construction 
     of any individual ecosystem restoration project, the 
     Secretary shall--
       (i) establish ecosystem restoration goals and identify 
     specific performance measures designed to demonstrate 
     ecosystem restoration;
       (ii) establish the without-project condition or baseline 
     for each performance indicator; and
       (iii) for each separable element of the ecosystem 
     restoration, identify specific target goals for each 
     performance indicator.
       (B) Outcomes.--Performance measures identified under 
     subparagraph (A)(i) should comprise specific measurable 
     environmental outcomes, such as changes in water quality, 
     hydrology, or the well-being of indicator species the 
     population and distribution of which are representative of 
     the abundance and diversity of ecosystem-dependent aquatic 
     and terrestrial species.
       (C) Restoration design.--Restoration design carried out as 
     part of ecosystem restoration shall include a monitoring plan 
     for the performance measures identified under subparagraph 
     (A)(i), including--
       (i) a timeline to achieve the identified target goals; and
       (ii) a timeline for the demonstration of project 
     completion.
       (4) Specific projects authorization.--
       (A) In general.--There are authorized to carry out this 
     subsection for fiscal years beginning October 1, 2005, 
     $1,580,000,000, of which not more than $226,000,000 shall be 
     available for projects described in paragraph (2)(B)(ii) and 
     not more than $43,000,000 shall be available for projects 
     described in paragraph (2)(B)(x). Such sums shall remain 
     available until expended.
       (B) Limitation on available funds.--Of the amounts made 
     available under subparagraph (A), not more than $35,000,000 
     for each fiscal year shall be available for land acquisition 
     under paragraph (2)(D).
       (C) Individual project limit.--Other than for projects 
     described in clauses (ii) and (x) of paragraph (2)(B), the 
     total cost of any single project carried out under this 
     subsection shall not exceed $25,000,000.
       (5) Implementation reports.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than June 30, 2008, and every 5 
     years thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee 
     on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives an implementation report that--
       (i) includes baselines, milestones, goals, and priorities 
     for ecosystem restoration projects; and
       (ii) measures the progress in meeting the goals.
       (B) Advisory panel.--
       (i) In general.--The Secretary shall appoint and convene an 
     advisory panel to provide independent guidance in the 
     development of each implementation report under subparagraph 
     (A).
       (ii) Panel members.--Panel members shall include--

       (I) 1 representative of each of the State resource agencies 
     (or a designee of the Governor of the State) from each of the 
     States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin;
       (II) 1 representative of the Department of Agriculture;
       (III) 1 representative of the Department of Transportation;
       (IV) 1 representative of the United States Geological 
     Survey;
       (V) 1 representative of the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service;
       (VI) 1 representative of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency;
       (VII) 1 representative of affected landowners;
       (VIII) 2 representatives of conservation and environmental 
     advocacy groups; and
       (IX) 2 representatives of agriculture and industry advocacy 
     groups.

       (iii) Co-chairpersons.--The Secretary and the Secretary of 
     the Interior shall serve as co-chairpersons of the advisory 
     panel.
       (iv) Application of federal advisory committee act.--The 
     Advisory Panel and any working group established by the 
     Advisory Panel shall not be considered an advisory committee 
     under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
       (6) Ranking system.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Advisory Panel, shall develop a system to rank proposed 
     projects.
       (B) Priority.--The ranking system shall give greater weight 
     to projects that restore natural river processes, including 
     those projects listed in paragraph (2)(B).
       (d) Comparable Progress.--
       (1) In general.--As the Secretary conducts pre-engineering, 
     design, and construction for projects authorized under this 
     section, the Secretary shall--
       (A) select appropriate milestones; and
       (B) determine, at the time of such selection, whether the 
     projects are being carried out at comparable rates.
       (2) No comparable rate.--If the Secretary determines under 
     paragraph (1)(B) that projects authorized under this 
     subsection are not moving toward completion at a comparable 
     rate, annual funding requests for the projects will be 
     adjusted to ensure that the projects move toward completion 
     at a comparable rate in the future.

     SEC. 1003. LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, 
                   LOUISIANA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out a program for 
     ecosystem restoration, Louisiana Coastal Area, Louisiana, 
     substantially in accordance with the report of the Chief of 
     Engineers, dated January 31, 2005.
       (b) Priorities.--
       (1) In general.--In carrying out the program under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall give priority to--
       (A) any portion of the program identified in the report 
     described in subsection (a) as a critical restoration 
     feature;
       (B) any Mississippi River diversion project that--
       (i) protects a major population area of the Pontchartain, 
     Pearl, Breton Sound, Barataria, or Terrebonne Basin; and
       (ii) produces an environmental benefit to the coastal area 
     of the State of Louisiana or the State of Mississippi; and
       (C) any barrier island, or barrier shoreline, project 
     that--
       (i) is carried out in conjunction with a Mississippi River 
     diversion project; and
       (ii) protects a major population area.
       (c) Nongovernmental Organizations.--A nongovernmental 
     organization shall be eligible to contribute all or a portion 
     of the non-Federal share of the cost of a project under this 
     section.
       (d) Comprehensive Plan.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, in coordination with the 
     Governor of the State of Louisiana, shall--
       (A) develop a plan for protecting, preserving, and 
     restoring the coastal Louisiana ecosystem; and
       (B) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, and every 5 years thereafter, submit to Congress 
     the plan, or an update of the plan.
       (2) Inclusions.--The comprehensive plan shall include a 
     description of--
       (A) the framework of a long-term program that provides for 
     the comprehensive protection, conservation, and restoration 
     of the

[[Page 14664]]

     wetlands, estuaries (including the Barataria-Terrebonne 
     estuary), barrier islands, shorelines, and related land and 
     features of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem, including 
     protection of a critical resource, habitat, or infrastructure 
     from the effects of a coastal storm, a hurricane, erosion, or 
     subsidence;
       (B) the means by which a new technology, or an improved 
     technique, can be integrated into the program under 
     subsection (a); and
       (C) the role of other Federal agencies and programs in 
     carrying out the program under subsection (a).
       (3) Consideration.--In developing the comprehensive plan, 
     the Secretary shall consider the advisability of integrating 
     into the program under subsection (a)--
       (A) a related Federal or State project carried out on the 
     date on which the plan is developed;
       (B) an activity in the Louisiana Coastal Area; or
       (C) any other project or activity identified in--
       (i) the Mississippi River and Tributaries program;
       (ii) the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation Plan;
       (iii) the Louisiana Coastal Zone Management Plan; or
       (iv) the plan of the State of Louisiana entitled ``Coast 
     2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana''.
       (e) Task Force.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is established a task force to be 
     known as the ``Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and 
     Restoration Task Force'' (referred to in this subsection as 
     the ``Task Force'').
       (2) Membership.--The Task Force shall consist of the 
     following members (or, in the case of the head of a Federal 
     agency, a designee at the level of Assistant Secretary or an 
     equivalent level):
       (A) The Secretary.
       (B) The Secretary of the Interior.
       (C) The Secretary of Commerce.
       (D) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency.
       (E) The Secretary of Agriculture.
       (F) The Secretary of Transportation.
       (G) The Secretary of Energy.
       (H) The Secretary of Homeland Security.
       (I) 3 representatives of the State of Louisiana appointed 
     by the Governor of that State.
       (3) Duties.--The Task Force shall make recommendations to 
     the Secretary regarding--
       (A) policies, strategies, plans, programs, projects, and 
     activities for addressing conservation, protection, 
     restoration, and maintenance of the coastal Louisiana 
     ecosystem;
       (B) financial participation by each agency represented on 
     the Task Force in conserving, protecting, restoring, and 
     maintaining the coastal Louisiana ecosystem, including 
     recommendations--
       (i) that identify funds from current agency missions and 
     budgets; and
       (ii) for coordinating individual agency budget requests; 
     and
       (C) the comprehensive plan under subsection (d).
       (4) Working groups.--The Task Force may establish such 
     working groups as the Task Force determines to be necessary 
     to assist the Task Force in carrying out this subsection.
       (5) Application of the federal advisory committee act.--The 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not 
     apply to the Task Force or any working group of the Task 
     Force.
       (f) Mississippi River Gulf Outlet.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop a plan for 
     modifying the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet that addresses--
       (A) wetland losses attributable to the Mississippi River 
     Gulf Outlet;
       (B) channel bank erosion;
       (C) hurricane storm surges;
       (D) saltwater intrusion;
       (E) navigation interests; and
       (F) environmental restoration.
       (2) Report.--[The] If necessary, the Secretary, in 
     conjunction with the Chief of Engineers, shall submit to 
     Congress a report recommending modifications to the 
     Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, including measures to prevent 
     the intrusion of saltwater into the Outlet.
       (g) Science and Technology.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a coastal 
     Louisiana ecosystem science and technology program.
       (2) Purposes.--The purposes of the program established by 
     paragraph (1) shall be--
       (A) to identify any uncertainty relating to the physical, 
     chemical, geological, biological, and cultural baseline 
     conditions in coastal Louisiana;
       (B) to improve knowledge of the physical, chemical, 
     geological, biological, and cultural baseline conditions in 
     coastal Louisiana; and
       (C) to identify and develop technologies, models, and 
     methods to carry out this [subsection] section.
       (3) Working groups.--The Secretary may establish such 
     working groups as the Secretary determines to be necessary to 
     assist the Secretary in carrying out this subsection.
       (4) Contracts and cooperative agreements.--In carrying out 
     this subsection, the Secretary may enter into a contract or 
     cooperative agreement with an individual or entity (including 
     a consortium of academic institutions in Louisiana [and 
     Mississippi]) with scientific or engineering expertise in the 
     restoration of aquatic and marine ecosystems for coastal 
     restoration and enhancement through science and technology.
       (h) Analysis of Benefits.--
       (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 an activity to conserve, protect, 
     restore, or maintain the coastal Louisiana ecosystem, the 
     Secretary may determine that the environmental benefits 
     provided by the program under this section outweigh the 
     disadvantage of an activity under this section.
       (2) Determination of cost-effectiveness.--If the Secretary 
     determines that an activity under this section is cost-
     effective, no further economic justification for the activity 
     shall be required.
       [(i) Study.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with 
     the non-Federal interest, shall enter into a contract with 
     the National Academy of Sciences under which the National 
     Academy of Sciences shall carry out a study to identify the 
     cause of any degradation of the Louisiana Coastal Area 
     ecosystem that occurs as a result of an activity under this 
     section.
       (j) Report.--Not later than July 1, 2006, the Secretary, in 
     conjunction with the Chief of Engineers, shall submit to 
     Congress a report describing the features included in table 3 
     of the report described in subsection (a).]
       (i) Studies.--
       (1) Degradation.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with 
     the non-Federal interest, shall enter into a contract with 
     the National Academy of Sciences under which the National 
     Academy of Sciences shall carry out a study to identify--
       (A) the cause of any degradation of the Louisiana Coastal 
     Area ecosystem that occurred as a result of an activity 
     approved by the Secretary; and
       (B) the sources of the degradation.
       (2) Finance.--On completion, and taking into account the 
     results, of the study conducted under paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the non-Federal interest, 
     shall study--
       (A) financing alternatives for the program authorized under 
     subsection (a); and
       (B) potential reductions in the expenditure of Federal 
     funds in emergency responses that would occur as a result of 
     ecosystem restoration in the Louisiana Coastal Area.
       (j) Report.--Not later than July 1, 2006, the Secretary 
     shall submit to Congress a feasibility report on the features 
     included in table 3 of the report described in subsection 
     (a).
       (k) Project Modifications.--
       (1) Review.--The Secretary, in cooperation with any non-
     Federal interest, shall review each federally-authorized 
     water resources project in the coastal Louisiana area in 
     existence on the date of enactment of this Act to determine 
     whether--
       (A) each project is in accordance with the program under 
     subsection (a); and
       (B) the project could contribute to ecosystem restoration 
     under subsection (a) through modification of the operations 
     or features of the project.
       (2) Authorization.--Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the 
     Secretary may carry out the modifications described in 
     paragraph (1)(B).
       [(2)] (3) Public notice and comment.--Before [modifying an 
     operation or feature of a project under paragraph (1)(B),]  
     completing the report required under paragraph (4), the 
     Secretary shall provide an opportunity for public notice and 
     comment.
       [(3)]  (4) Report.--
       (A) In general.--Before modifying an operation or feature 
     of a project under paragraph (1)(B), the Secretary shall 
     submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report 
     describing the modification.
       (B) Inclusion.--A report under [paragraph (2)(B)]  
     subparagraph (A) shall include such information relating to 
     the timeline and cost of a modification as the Secretary 
     determines to be relevant.
       [(4)]  (5) Authorization of appropriations.--There is 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection 
     $10,000,000.

     SEC. 1004. SMALL PROJECTS FOR FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION.

       (a) In General.--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) Cache river basin, grubbs, arkansas.--Project for flood 
     damage reduction, Cache River basin, Grubbs, Arkansas.

     SEC. 1005. SMALL PROJECTS FOR NAVIGATION.

       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) Little rock port, arkansas.--Project for navigation, 
     Little Rock Port, Arkansas River, Arkansas.

[[Page 14665]]

       (2) Au sable river, michigan.--Project for navigation, Au 
     Sable River in the vicinity of Oscoda, Michigan.
       (3) Outer channel and inner harbor, menominee harbor, 
     michigan and wisconsin.--Project for navigation, Outer 
     Channel and Inner Harbor, Menominee Harbor, Michigan and 
     Wisconsin.
       (4) Middle bass island state park, middle bass island, 
     ohio.--Project for navigation, Middle Bass Island State Park, 
     Middle Bass Island, Ohio.
       (5) Outer channel and inner harbor, menominee, wisconsin.--
     Project for navigation, Menominee Harbor, Michigan and 
     Wisconsin.

     SEC. 1006. SMALL PROJECTS FOR AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

       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 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (33 U.S.C. 2330):
       (1) San diego river, california.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, San Diego River, California, including 
     efforts to address invasive aquatic plant species.
       (2) Suison marsh, san pablo bay, california.--Project for 
     aquatic ecosystem restoration, San Pablo Bay, California.
       (3) Blackstone river, rhode island.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, Blackstone River, Rhode Island.

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                         Subtitle A--Provisions

     SEC. 2001. CREDIT FOR IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS.

       Section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 
     1962d-5b) is amended--
       [(1) by striking ``SEC. 221 (a) After'' and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 221. WRITTEN AGREEMENT REQUIREMENT FOR WATER RESOURCES 
                   PROJECTS.

       ``(a) Cooperation of Non-Federal Interest.--
       ``(1) In general.--After''; and
       (2) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``In any'' and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Future appropriations.--In any''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:]
       (1) by striking ``SEC. 221'' and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 221. WRITTEN AGREEMENT REQUIREMENT FOR WATER RESOURCES 
                   PROJECTS.''

       ; and
       (2) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Cooperation of Non-Federal Interest.--
       ``(1) In general.--After December 31, 1970, the 
     construction of any water resources project, or an acceptable 
     separable element thereof, by the Secretary of the Army, 
     acting through the Chief of Engineers, or by a non-Federal 
     interest where such interest will be reimbursed for such 
     construction under any provision of law, shall not be 
     commenced until each non-Federal interest has entered into a 
     written partnership agreement with the district engineer for 
     the district in which the project will be carried out under 
     which each party agrees to carry out its responsibilities and 
     requirements for implementation or construction of the 
     project or the appropriate element of the project, as the 
     case may be; except that no such agreement shall be required 
     if the Secretary determines that the administrative costs 
     associated with negotiating, executing, or administering the 
     agreement would exceed the amount of the contribution 
     required from the non-Federal interest and are less than 
     $25,000.
       ``(2) Liquidated damages.--An agreement described in 
     paragraph (1) may include a provision for liquidated damages 
     in the event of a failure of 1 or more parties to perform.
       ``(3) Obligation of future appropriations.--In any such 
     agreement entered into by a State, or a body politic of the 
     State which derives its powers from the State constitution, 
     or a governmental entity created by the State legislature, 
     the agreement may reflect that it does not obligate future 
     appropriations for such performance and payment when 
     obligating future appropriations would be inconsistent with 
     constitutional or statutory limitations of the State or a 
     political subdivision of the State.
       ``[(3)] (4) Credit for in-kind contributions.--
       ``(A) In general.--An agreement under paragraph (1) shall 
     provide that the Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project, including a project 
     implemented under general continuing authority, the value of 
     in-kind contributions made by the non-Federal interest, 
     including--
       ``(i) the costs of planning (including data collection), 
     design, management, mitigation, construction, and 
     construction services that are provided by the non-Federal 
     interest for implementation of the project; and
       ``(ii) the value of materials or services provided before 
     execution of an agreement for the project, including--

       ``(I) efforts on constructed elements incorporated into the 
     project; and
       ``(II) materials and services provided after an agreement 
     is executed.

       ``(B) Condition.--The Secretary shall credit an in-kind 
     contribution under subparagraph (A) if the Secretary 
     determines that the property or service provided as an in-
     kind contribution is integral to the project.
       ``(C) Limitations.--Credit authorized for a project--
       ``(i) shall not exceed the non-Federal share of the cost of 
     the project;
       ``(ii) shall not alter any other requirement that a non-
     Federal interest provide land, an easement or right-of-way, 
     or an area for disposal of dredged material for the project; 
     and
       ``(iii) shall not exceed the actual and reasonable costs of 
     the materials, services, or other things provided by the non-
     Federal interest, as determined by the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 2002. INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT AUTHORITY.

       Section 234 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (33 U.S.C. 2323a) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may engage in activities 
     (including contracting) in support of other Federal agencies, 
     international organizations, or foreign governments to 
     address problems of national significance to the United 
     States.'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``Secretary of State'' 
     and inserting ``Department of State''; and
       (3) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by striking ``$250,000 for fiscal year 2001'' and 
     inserting ``$1,000,000 for fiscal year 2006''; and
       (B) by striking ``or international organizations'' and 
     inserting ``, international organizations, or foreign 
     governments''.

     SEC. 2003. TRAINING FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may include individuals from 
     the non-Federal interest, including the private sector, in 
     training classes and courses offered by the Corps of 
     Engineers in any case in which the Secretary determines that 
     it is in the best interest of the Federal Government to 
     include those individuals as participants.
       (b) Expenses.--
       (1) In general.--An individual from [the private sector] a 
     non-Federal interest attending a training class or course 
     described in subsection (a) shall pay the full cost of the 
     training provided to the individual.
       (2) Payments.--Payments made by an individual for training 
     received under paragraph (1), up to the actual cost of the 
     training--
       (A) may be retained by the Secretary;
       (B) shall be credited to an appropriation or account used 
     for paying training costs; and
       (C) shall be available for use by the Secretary, without 
     further appropriation, for training purposes.
       (3) Excess amounts.--Any payments received under paragraph 
     (2) that are in excess of the actual cost of training 
     provided shall be credited as miscellaneous receipts to the 
     Treasury of the United States.

     SEC. 2004. RECREATIONAL AREAS AND PROJECT SITES.

       (a) Construction and Operation of Public Parks and 
     Recreational Facilities in Water Resource Development 
     Projects; Lease of Lands; Preference for Use; Penalty; 
     Application of Section 3401 of Title 18, United States Code; 
     Citations and Arrests With and Without Process; Limitations; 
     Disposition of Receipts.--Section 4 of the Act of December 
     22, 1944 (commonly known as the ``Flood Control Act of 
     1944'') (16 U.S.C. 460d) is amended--
       (1) in the second sentence--
       (A) by striking ``Provided, That leases'' and all that 
     follows through ``premises'' and inserting the following: 
     ``Provided, That any new lease granted under this section to 
     a nonprofit organization for park and recreational purposes, 
     and any new lease or license granted to a Federal, State, or 
     local governmental agency for any public purpose, shall 
     include a provision requiring that consideration for the 
     grant of the lease or license shall be at least sufficient to 
     pay the costs of administering the grant, as determined by 
     the Secretary of the Army''; and
       (B) by striking ``Provided further, That preference'' and 
     all that follows through ``And provided'' and inserting 
     ``Provided''; and
       (2) by striking the last sentence and inserting the 
     following: ``Any funds received by the United States for a 
     lease or privilege granted under this section shall be 
     deposited and made available in accordance with section 210 
     of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 460d-3).''.
       (b) Recreational User Fees.--Section 210 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 460d-3) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Army shall carry 
     out a recreation user fee program to recover from users of 
     recreation areas and project sites under the jurisdiction of 
     the Corps of Engineers the portion of costs associated with 
     operating and maintaining those recreation areas and project 
     sites.'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``Admission and 
     User'' before ``Fees'';
       (B) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4);
       (C) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);
       (D) in paragraph (1), by striking ``but excluding'' and all 
     that follows and inserting the following: ``, including 
     fees--
       ``(A) for admission to the recreation area or project site 
     of an individual or group; and
       ``(B) for the use by an individual or group of an outdoor 
     recreation area, a facility, a visitors' center, a piece of 
     equipment, or a service at the recreation area or project 
     site.'';
       (E) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:

[[Page 14666]]

       ``(2) Amount.--The Secretary of the Army shall determine 
     the amount of a fee established and collected under paragraph 
     (1) based on the fair market value, taking into consideration 
     any comparable recreation fee for admission to, or use of, 
     the recreation area or project site.'';
       (F) in paragraph (3) (as redesignated by subparagraph 
     (C))--
       (i) by striking ``picnic tables'';
       (ii) by striking ``surface water areas''; and
       (iii) by striking ``or general visitor information'' and 
     inserting ``general visitor information, or a project site or 
     facility that includes only a boat launch ramp and a courtesy 
     dock''; and
       (G) by inserting after paragraph (3) (as redesignated by 
     subparagraph (C)) the following:
       ``(4) Contracts and services.--The Secretary of the Army 
     may--
       ``(A) enter into a contract (including a contract that 
     provides for a reasonable commission, as determined by the 
     Secretary) with any public or private entity to provide a 
     visitor service for a recreation area or project site under 
     this section, including the taking of reservations and the 
     provision of information regarding the recreation area or 
     project site; and
       ``(B) accept the services of a volunteer to collect a fee 
     established and collected under paragraph (1).
       ``(5) Deposit into treasury account.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any fee collected under this subsection 
     shall--
       ``(i) be deposited into the Treasury account for the Corps 
     of Engineers established by section 4(i)(1)(A) of the Land 
     and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-
     6a(i)(1)(A)); and
       ``(ii) be made available until expended to the Secretary of 
     the Army, without further appropriation, for use for the 
     purposes described in section 4(i)(3) of that Act (16 U.S.C. 
     460l-6a(i)(3)).
       ``(B) Limitation.--Not more than 80 percent of a fee 
     established and collected at a recreational area or project 
     site under this subsection shall be made available to pay the 
     costs of a water resources development project under the 
     jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers located at the 
     recreational area or project site.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Other Fees.--Any fee established and collected at a 
     recreational area or project site under subsection (b) shall 
     be considered to be established and collected in lieu of a 
     similar fee established and collected at the recreational 
     area or project site under any other provision of law.''.
       (c) Admission and Use Fees; Establishment and 
     Regulations.--Section 4(i)(3) of the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)(3)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``For'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(A) In general.--For'';
       (2) by striking the second sentence and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) Use of funds.--To the maximum extent practicable, 
     funds under this subsection shall be used for a purpose 
     described in subparagraph (A) that is directly related to the 
     activity through which the funds were generated, including 
     water-based recreational activities and camping.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Department of army sites.--Any funds under this 
     subsection may be used at a project site of the Department of 
     the Army to pay the costs of--
       ``(i) a repair or maintenance project (including a project 
     relating to public health and safety);
       ``(ii) an interpretation project;
       ``(iii) signage;
       ``(iv) habitat or facility enhancement;
       ``(v) resource preservation;
       ``(vi) annual operation (including collection of fees and 
     costs of administering grants under section 4 of the Act of 
     December 22, 1944 (commonly known as the `Flood Control Act 
     of 1944') (16 U.S.C. 460d);
       ``(vii) law enforcement relating to public use; and
       ``(viii) planning.''.
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 225 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1999 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a note; 
     Public Law 106-53) is repealed.

     SEC. 2005. FISCAL TRANSPARENCY REPORT.

       (a) In General.--On the third Tuesday of January of each 
     year beginning January 2006, the Chief of Engineers shall 
     submit to the Committee of Environment and Public Works of 
     the Senate and the Transportation and Infrastructure 
     Committee of the House of Representatives a report on the 
     expenditures for the preceding fiscal year and estimated 
     expenditures for the current fiscal year.
       (b) Contents.--In addition to the information described in 
     subsection (a), the report shall contain a detailed 
     accounting of the following information:
       (1) With respect to general construction, information on--
       (A) projects currently under construction, including--
       (i) allocations to date;
       (ii) the number of years remaining to complete 
     construction;
       (iii) the estimated annual Federal cost to maintain that 
     construction schedule; and
       (iv) a list of projects the Corps of Engineers expects to 
     complete during the current fiscal year; and
       (B) projects for which there is a signed cost-sharing 
     agreement and completed planning, engineering, and design, 
     including--
       (i) the number of years the project is expected to require 
     for completion; and
       (ii) estimated annual Federal cost to maintain that 
     construction schedule.
       (2) With respect to operation and maintenance of the inland 
     and intracoastal waterways under section 206 of Public Law 
     95-502 (33 U.S.C. 1804)--
       (A) the estimated annual cost to maintain each waterway for 
     the authorized reach and at the authorized depth; and
       (B) the estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance 
     of locks and dams to ensure navigation without interruption.
       (3) With respect to general investigations and 
     reconnaissance and feasibility studies--
       (A) the number of active studies;
       (B) the number of completed studies not yet authorized for 
     construction;
       (C) the number of initiated studies; and
       (D) the number of studies expected to be completed during 
     the fiscal year.
       (4) Funding received and estimates of funds to be received 
     for interagency and international support activities under 
     section 318(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 
     (33 U.S.C. 2323(a)).
       (5) Recreation fees and lease payments.
       (6) Hydropower and water storage fees.
       (7) Deposits into the Inland Waterway Trust Fund and the 
     Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
       (8) Other revenues and fees collected.
       (9) With respect to permit applications and notifications, 
     a list of individual permit applications and nationwide 
     permit notifications, including--
       (A) the date on which each permit application is filed;
       (B) the date on which each permit application is determined 
     to be complete; and
       (C) the date on which the Corps of Engineers grants, 
     withdraws, or denies each permit.
       (10) With respect to the project backlog, a list of 
     authorized projects for which no funds have been allocated 
     for the 5 preceding fiscal years, including, for each 
     project--
       (A) the authorization date;
       (B) the last allocation date;
       (C) the percentage of construction completed;
       (D) the estimated cost remaining until completion of the 
     project; and
       (E) a brief explanation of the reasons for the delay.

     SEC. 2006. PLANNING.

       (a) Matters to Be Addressed in Planning.--Section 904 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2281) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Enhancing'' and inserting the following:
       ``(a) In General.--Enhancing''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Assessments.--For all feasibility reports completed 
     after December 31, 2005, the Secretary shall assess whether--
       ``(1) the water resource project and each separable element 
     is cost-effective; and
       ``(2) the water resource project complies with Federal, 
     State, and local laws (including regulations) and public 
     policies.''.
       (b) Feasibility Reports.--Section 905 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting before ``This 
     subsection shall not apply'' the following: ``The Secretary 
     shall establish a plan and schedule to periodically update 
     and revise the planning guidelines, regulations, and 
     circulars of the Corps of Engineers to improve the analysis 
     of water resource projects, including the integration of new 
     and existing analytical techniques that properly reflect the 
     probability of project benefits and costs, as the Secretary 
     determines appropriate.''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
       ``(c) Cost-Benefit Analysis.--Recommendation of a 
     feasibility study shall be based on an analysis of the 
     benefits and costs, both quantified and unquantified, that--
       ``(1) identifies areas of risk and uncertainty in the 
     analysis;
       ``(2) clearly describes the degree of reliability of the 
     estimated benefits and costs of the effectiveness of 
     alternative plans, including an assessment of the credibility 
     of the physical project construction schedule as the schedule 
     affects the estimated benefits and costs;
       ``(3) identifies national, regional, and local economic 
     costs and benefits;
       ``(4) identifies environmental costs and benefits, 
     including the costs and benefits of protecting or degrading 
     natural systems;
       ``(5) identifies social costs and benefits, including a 
     risk analysis regarding potential loss of life that may 
     result from flooding and storm damage; and
       ``(6) identifies cultural and historical costs and 
     benefits.''.
       (c) Planning Process Improvements.--The Chief of 
     Engineers--

[[Page 14667]]

       (1) shall, not later than 2 years after the date on which 
     the feasibility study cost sharing agreement is signed for a 
     project, subject to the availability of appropriations--
       (A) complete the feasibility study for the project; and
       (B) sign the report of the Chief of Engineers for the 
     project;
       (2) may, with the approval of the Secretary, extend the 
     deadline established under paragraph (1) for not to exceed 4 
     years, for a complex or controversial study;
       (3)(A) shall adopt a risk analysis approach to project cost 
     estimates; and
       (B) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, shall--
       (i) issue procedures for risk analysis for cost estimation; 
     and
       (ii) submit to Congress a report that includes suggested 
     amendments to section 902 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280); and
       (4) shall--
       (A) identify and review all critical methods, models, and 
     procedures used in the planning process of the Corps of 
     Engineers to formulate and evaluate water resource projects;
       (B) identify other existing or new methods, models, or 
     procedures that may enhance the water resource planning 
     process;
       (C) establish a systematic process for evaluating and 
     validating the effectiveness and efficiency of all methods, 
     models, and procedures;
       (D) develop and maintain a set of approved methods, models, 
     and procedures to be applied to the water resource planning 
     process across the Corps of Engineers;
       (E) develop and maintain effective systems for technology 
     transfer and support to provide state-of-the-art skills and 
     knowledge to the workforce; and
       (F) identify the discrete elements of studies and establish 
     benchmarks for the resources required to implement elements 
     to improve the timeliness and effectiveness of the water 
     resource planning process.
       (d) Project Planning.--
       (1) Objectives.--
       (A) Flood and hurricane and storm damage reduction and 
     navigation projects.--The Federal objective of any study of 
     the feasibility of a water resource project carried out by 
     the Secretary for flood damage reduction, hurricane and storm 
     damage reduction, or navigation shall be to maximize the net 
     national economic development benefits associated with the 
     project, consistent with protecting the environment of the 
     United States.
       (B) Ecosystem restoration projects.--The Federal objective 
     of any study of the feasibility of a water resource project 
     for ecosystem restoration carried out by the Secretary shall 
     be to maximize the net national ecosystem restoration 
     benefits associated with the project, consistent with 
     national economic development of the United States.
       (C) Projects with multiple purposes.--In the case of a 
     study that includes multiple project purposes, the primary 
     and other project purposes shall be evaluated based on the 
     relevant Federal objective identified under subparagraphs (A) 
     and (B).
       (D) Selection of project alternatives.--
       (i) In general.--Notwithstanding the Federal objectives 
     identified in this paragraph, the Secretary may select a 
     project alternative that does not maximize net benefits if 
     there is an overriding reason for selection of the 
     alternative that is based on other Federal, State, local, or 
     international concerns.
       (ii) Flood and hurricane and storm damage reduction and 
     navigation projects.--With respect to a water resource 
     project described in subparagraph (A), an overriding reason 
     for selecting a project alternative other than the 
     alternative that maximizes national economic development 
     benefits may be, as determined by the Secretary, with the 
     concurrence of the non-Federal interest, that the other 
     project alternative is feasible and achieves the project 
     purposes but provides greater ecosystem restoration benefits 
     or less adverse environmental impacts.
       (iii) Ecosystem restoration projects.--With respect to a 
     water resource project described in subparagraph (B), an 
     overriding reason for selecting a project alternative other 
     than the project alternative that maximizes national 
     ecosystem restoration benefits may be, as determined by the 
     Secretary, with the concurrence of the non-Federal interest, 
     that the other project alternative is feasible and achieves 
     the project purpose but provides greater economic development 
     benefits or less adverse economic impacts.
       (2) Identifying additional benefits and projects.--
       (A) Primarily economic benefits.--In conducting a study of 
     the feasibility of a project the primary benefits of which 
     are expected to be economic, the Secretary may--
       (i) identify ecosystem restoration benefits that may be 
     achieved in the study area; and
       (ii) after obtaining the participation of a non-Federal 
     interest, study and recommend construction of additional 
     measures, a separate project, or separable element, to 
     achieve those benefits.
       (B) Primarily ecosystem restoration benefits.--In 
     conducting a study of the feasibility of a project the 
     primary benefits of which are expected to be associated with 
     ecosystem restoration, the Secretary may--
       (i) identify economic benefits that may be achieved in the 
     study area; and
       (ii) after obtaining the participation of a non-Federal 
     interest, study and recommend construction of additional 
     measures, a separate project, or separable element, to 
     achieve those benefits.
       (C) Rules applicable to identified separate projects and 
     elements.--
       (i) In general.--Any additional measure, separable project, 
     or element identified under subparagraph (A) or (B) and 
     recommended for construction shall not be considered integral 
     to the underlying project under study unless the Secretary 
     determines, and the non-Federal interest agrees, that the 
     measure, project, or element, is integral.
       (ii) Partnership agreement.--If authorized, the measure, 
     project, or element shall be subject to a separate 
     partnership agreement, unless the non-Federal interest agrees 
     to share in the cost of the additional measure, project, or 
     separable element.
       (3) Calculation of benefits and costs for flood damage 
     reduction projects.--A feasibility study for a project for 
     flood damage reduction shall include, as part of the 
     calculation of benefits and costs--
       (A) a calculation of the residual risk of flooding 
     following completion of the proposed project;
       (B) a calculation of any upstream or downstream impacts of 
     the proposed project; and
       (C) calculations to ensure that the benefits and costs 
     associated with structural and nonstructural alternatives are 
     evaluated in an equitable manner.
       (e) Centers of Specialized Planning Expertise.--
       (1) Establishment.--The Secretary may establish centers of 
     expertise to provide specialized planning expertise for water 
     resource projects to be carried out by the Secretary in order 
     to enhance and supplement the capabilities of the districts 
     of the Corps of Engineers.
       (2) Duties.--A center of expertise established under this 
     subsection shall--
       (A) provide technical and managerial assistance to district 
     commanders of the Corps of Engineers for project planning, 
     development, and implementation;
       (B) provide peer reviews of new major scientific, 
     engineering, or economic methods, models, or analyses that 
     will be used to support decisions of the Secretary with 
     respect to feasibility studies;
       (C) provide support for external peer review panels 
     convened by the Secretary; and
       (D) carry out such other duties as are prescribed by the 
     Secretary.
       (f) Completion of Corps of Engineers Reports.--
       (1) Alternatives.--
       (A) In general.--Feasibility and other studies and 
     assessments of water resource problems and projects shall 
     include recommendations for alternatives--
       (i) that, as determined by the non-Federal interests for 
     the projects, promote integrated water resources management; 
     and
       (ii) for which the non-Federal interests are willing to 
     provide the non-Federal share for the studies or assessments.
       (B) Scope and purposes.--The scope and purposes of studies 
     and assessments described in subparagraph (A) shall not be 
     constrained by budgetary or other policy as a result of the 
     inclusion of alternatives described in that subparagraph.
       (C) No effect on authority of chief.--The Chief of 
     Engineers--
       (i) shall not, in the completion of reports of the Chief of 
     Engineers to Congress, be subject to direction as to the 
     contents, findings, or recommendation of the reports; and
       (ii) shall be solely responsible for--

       (I) those reports; and
       (II) any related recommendations, including evaluations and 
     recommendations for changes in law or policy that may be 
     appropriate to attain the best technical solutions to water 
     resource needs and problems.

       (2) Report completion.--The completion of a report of the 
     Chief of Engineers for a project--
       (A) shall not be delayed while consideration is being given 
     to potential changes in policy or priority for project 
     consideration; and
       (B) shall be submitted, upon completion, to--
       (i) the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the 
     Senate; and
       (ii) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 
     the House of Representatives.
       (g) Completion Review.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), not 
     later than 90 days after the date of completion of a report 
     of the Chief of Engineers that recommends to Congress a water 
     resource project, the Secretary shall--
       (A) review the report; and
       (B) provide any recommendations of the Secretary regarding 
     the water resource project to Congress.
       (2) Prior reports.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, with respect to any report of the 
     Chief of Engineers recommending a water resource project that 
     is complete prior to the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall complete review of, and provide 
     recommendations to Congress for, the report in accordance 
     with paragraph (1).

[[Page 14668]]



     SEC. 2007. INDEPENDENT REVIEWS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Eligible organization.--The term ``eligible 
     organization'' means an organization that--
       (A) is described in section 501(c)(3), and exempt from 
     Federal tax under section 501(a), of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986;
       (B) is independent;
       (C) is free from conflicts of interest;
       (D) does not carry out or advocate for or against Federal 
     water resources projects; and
       (E) has experience in establishing and administering peer 
     review panels.
       (2) Project study.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``project study'' means a 
     feasibility study or reevaluation study for a project.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``project study'' includes any 
     other study associated with a modification or update of a 
     project that includes an environmental impact statement or an 
     environmental assessment.
       (b) Peer Reviews.--
       (1) Policy.--
       (A) In general.--Major engineering, scientific, and 
     technical work products related to Corps of Engineers 
     decisions and recommendations to Congress should be peer 
     reviewed.
       (B) Application.--This policy--
       (i) applies to peer review of the scientific, engineering, 
     or technical basis of the decision or recommendation; and
       (ii) does not apply to the decision or recommendation 
     itself.
       (2) Guidelines.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than the date that is 1 year 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Chief of 
     Engineers shall publish and implement guidelines to Corps of 
     Engineers Division and District Engineers for the use of peer 
     review (including external peer review) of major scientific, 
     engineering, and technical work products that support the 
     recommendations of the Chief to Congress for implementation 
     of water resources projects.
       (B) Information quality act.--The guidelines shall be 
     consistent with the Information Quality Act (section 515 of 
     Public Law 106-554), as implemented in Office of Management 
     and Budget, Revised Information Quality Bulletin for Peer 
     Review, dated December 15, 2004.
       (C) Requirements.--The guidelines shall adhere to the 
     following requirements:
       (i) Application of peer review.--Peer review shall--

       (I) be applied only to the engineering, scientific, and 
     technical basis for recommendations; and
       (II) shall not be applied to--

       (aa) a specific recommendation; or
       (bb) the application of policy to recommendations.
       (ii) Analyses and evaluations in multiple project 
     studies.--Guidelines shall provide for conducting and 
     documenting peer review of major scientific, technical, or 
     engineering methods, models, procedures, or data that are 
     used for conducting analyses and evaluations in multiple 
     project studies.
       (iii) Inclusions.--Peer review applied to project studies 
     may include a review of--

       (I) the economic and environmental assumptions and 
     projections;
       (II) project evaluation data;
       (III) economic or environmental analyses;
       (IV) engineering analyses;
       (V) methods for integrating risk and uncertainty;
       (VI) models used in evaluation of economic or environmental 
     impacts of proposed projects; and
       (VII) any related biological opinions.

       (iv) Exclusion.--Peer review applied to project studies 
     shall exclude a review of any methods, models, procedures, or 
     data previously subjected to peer review.
       (v) Timing of review.--Peer review related to the 
     engineering, scientific, or technical basis of any project 
     study shall be completed prior to the completion of any Chief 
     of Engineers report for a specific water resources project.
       (vi) Delays; increased costs.--Peer reviews shall be 
     conducted in a manner that does not--

       (I) cause a delay in study completion; or
       (II) increase costs.

       (vii) Record of recommendations.--

       (I) In general.--After receiving a report from any peer 
     review panel, the Chief of Engineers shall prepare a record 
     that documents--

       (aa) any recommendations contained in the report; and
       (bb) any written response for any recommendation adopted or 
     not adopted and included in the study documentation.

       (II) External review record.--If the panel is an external 
     peer review panel of a project study, the record of the 
     review shall be included with the report of the Chief of 
     Engineers to Congress.

       (viii) External panel of experts.--

       (I) In general.--Any external panel of experts assembled to 
     review the engineering, science, or technical basis for the 
     recommendations of a specific project study shall--

       (aa) complete the peer review of the project study and 
     submit to the Chief of Engineers a report not later than 180 
     days after the date of establishment of the panel, or (if the 
     Chief of Engineers determines that a longer period of time is 
     necessary) at the time established by the Chief, but in no 
     event later than 90 days after the date a draft project study 
     of the District Engineer is made available for public review; 
     and
       (bb) terminate on the date of submission of the report by 
     the panel.
       (II) Failure to complete review and report.--If an external 
     panel does not complete the peer review of a project study 
     and submit to the Chief of Engineers a report by the deadline 
     established by subclause (I), the Chief of Engineers shall 
     continue the project without delay.
       (3) Costs.--
       (A) In general.--The costs of a panel of experts 
     established for a peer review under this section--
       (i) shall be a Federal expense; and
       (ii) shall not exceed $500,000 for review of the 
     engineering, scientific, or technical basis for any single 
     water resources project study.
       (B) Waiver.--The Chief of Engineers may waive the $500,000 
     limitation under subparagraph (A) if the Chief of Engineers 
     determines appropriate.
       (4) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Chief of Engineers shall submit to 
     Congress a report describing the implementation of this 
     section.
       (5) Nonapplicability of federal advisory committee act.--
     The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) does not 
     apply to any peer review panel established by the Chief of 
     Engineers.
       (6) Panel of experts.--The Chief of Engineers may contract 
     with the National Academy of Sciences (or a similar 
     independent scientific and technical advisory organization), 
     or an eligible organization, to establish a panel of experts 
     to peer review for technical and scientific sufficiency.
       (7) Savings clause.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to affect any authority of the Chief of Engineers 
     to cause or conduct a peer review of the engineering, 
     scientific, or technical basis of any water resources project 
     in existence on the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 2008. MITIGATION FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE LOSSES.

       (a) Completion of Mitigation.--Section 906(a) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(a)) is 
     amended by adding at the following:
       ``(3) Completion of mitigation.--In any case in which it is 
     not technically practicable to complete mitigation by the 
     last day of construction of the project or separable element 
     of the project because of the nature of the mitigation to be 
     undertaken, the Secretary shall complete the required 
     mitigation as expeditiously as practicable, but in no case 
     later than the last day of the first fiscal year beginning 
     after the last day of construction of the project or 
     separable element of the project.''.
       (b) Use of Consolidated Mitigation.--Section 906(b) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(b)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Use of consolidated mitigation.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the Secretary determines that other 
     forms of compensatory mitigation are not practicable or are 
     less environmentally desirable, the Secretary may purchase 
     available credits from a mitigation bank or conservation bank 
     that is approved in accordance with the Federal Guidance for 
     the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigations Banks (60 
     Fed. Reg. 58605) or other applicable Federal laws (including 
     regulations).
       ``(B) Service area.--To the maximum extent practicable, the 
     service area of the mitigation bank or conservation bank 
     shall be in the same watershed as the affected habitat.
       ``(C) Responsibility relieved.--Purchase of credits from a 
     mitigation bank or conservation bank for a water resources 
     project relieves the Secretary and the non-Federal interest 
     from responsibility for monitoring or demonstrating 
     mitigation success.''.
       (c) Mitigation Plan Contents.--Section 906(d) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(d)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Contents.--A mitigation plan shall include--
       ``(A)(i) a description of the physical action to be 
     undertaken to achieve the mitigation objectives in the 
     watershed in which the losses occur; and
       ``(ii) in any case in which mitigation must take place 
     outside the watershed, a justification detailing the 
     rationale for undertaking the mitigation outside of the 
     watershed;
       ``(B) a description of the quantity of types of land or 
     interests in land that should be acquired for mitigation and 
     the basis for a determination that the land are available for 
     acquisition;
       ``(C) the type, quantity, and characteristics of the 
     habitat being restored; and
       ``(D) a plan for any necessary monitoring to determine the 
     success of the mitigation, including the cost and duration of 
     any monitoring and, to the extent practicable, the entities 
     responsible for the monitoring.
       ``(4) Responsibility for monitoring.--In any case in which 
     it is not practicable to identify in a mitigation plan for a 
     water resources project the entity responsible for

[[Page 14669]]

     monitoring at the time of a final report of the Chief of 
     Engineers or other final decision document for the project, 
     the entity shall be identified in the partnership agreement 
     entered into with the non-Federal interest.''.
       (d) Status Report.--
       (1) In general.--Concurrent with the submission of the 
     President to Congress of the request of the President for 
     appropriations for the Civil Works Program for a fiscal year, 
     the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on the 
     Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives a report describing the status of 
     construction of projects that require mitigation under 
     section 906 of Water Resources Development Act 1986 (33 
     U.S.C. 2283) and the status of that mitigation.
       (2) Projects included.--The status report shall include the 
     status of--
       (A) all projects that are under construction as of the date 
     of the report;
       (B) all projects for which the President requests funding 
     for the next fiscal year; and
       (C) all projects that have completed construction, but have 
     not completed the mitigation required under section 906 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283).

     SEC. 2009. STATE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       Section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 
     (42 U.S.C. 1962d-16) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Sec. 22. (a) The Secretary'' and 
     inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 22. PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES.

       ``(a) Federal State Cooperation.--
       ``(1) Comprehensive plans.--The Secretary'';
       (2) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Technical assistance.--
       ``(A) In general.--At the request of a governmental agency 
     or non-Federal interest, the Secretary may provide, at 
     Federal expense, technical assistance to the agency or non-
     Federal interest in managing water resources.
       ``(B) Types of assistance.--Technical assistance under this 
     paragraph may include provision and integration of 
     hydrologic, economic, and environmental data and analyses.'';
       (3) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``this section'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``subsection (a)(1)'';
       (4) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``up to \1/2\ of 
     the'' and inserting ``the'';
       (5) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by striking ``(c) There is'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) Federal and state cooperation.--There is'';
       (B) in paragraph (1) (as designated by subparagraph (A)), 
     by striking ``the provisions of this section except that not 
     more than $500,000 shall be expended in any one year in any 
     one State.'' and inserting ``subsection (a)(1).''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Technical assistance.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out subsection (a)(2) $10,000,000 for 
     each fiscal year, of which not more than $2,000,000 for each 
     fiscal year may be used by the Secretary to enter into 
     cooperative agreements with nonprofit organizations and State 
     agencies to provide assistance to rural and small 
     communities.''; and
       (6) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Annual Submission.--For each fiscal year, based on 
     performance criteria developed by the Secretary, the 
     Secretary shall list in the annual civil works budget 
     submitted to Congress the individual activities proposed for 
     funding under subsection (a)(1) for the fiscal year.''.

     SEC. 2010. ACCESS TO WATER RESOURCE DATA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the Chief of 
     Engineers, shall carry out a program to provide public access 
     to water resource and related water quality data in the 
     custody of the Corps of Engineers.
       (b) Data.--Public access under subsection (a) shall--
       (1) include, at a minimum, access to data generated in 
     water resource project development and regulation under 
     section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1344); and
       (2) appropriately employ geographic information system 
     technology and linkages to water resource models and 
     analytical techniques.
       (c) Partnerships.--To the maximum extent practicable, in 
     carrying out activities under this section, the Secretary 
     shall develop partnerships, including cooperative agreements 
     with State, tribal, and local governments and other Federal 
     agencies.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for 
     each fiscal year.

     SEC. 2011. CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS BY NON-
                   FEDERAL INTERESTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 211(e)(6) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 701b-13(e)(6)) is amended 
     by adding at the end following:
       ``(E) Budget priority.--
       ``(i) In general.--Budget priority for projects under this 
     section shall be proportionate to the percentage of project 
     completion.
       ``(ii) Completed project.--A completed project shall have 
     the same priority as a project with a contractor on site.''.
       (b) Construction of Flood Control Projects by Non-Federal 
     Interests.--Section 211(f) of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 701b-13) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(9) Thornton reservoir, cook county, illinois.--An 
     element of the project for flood control, Chicagoland 
     Underflow Plan, Illinois.
       ``(10) St. paul downtown airport (holman field), st. paul, 
     minnesota.--The project for flood damage reduction, St. Paul 
     Downtown Holman Field), St. Paul, Minnesota.
       ``(11) Buffalo bayou, texas.--The project for flood 
     control, Buffalo Bayou, Texas, authorized by the first 
     section of the Act of June 20, 1938 (52 Stat. 804, chapter 
     535) (commonly known as the `River and Harbor Act of 1938') 
     and modified by section 3a of the Act of August 11, 1939 (53 
     Stat. 1414, chapter 699) (commonly known as the `Flood 
     Control Act of 1939'), except that, subject to the approval 
     of the Secretary as provided by this section, the non-Federal 
     interest may design and construct an alternative to such 
     project.
       ``(12) Halls bayou, texas.--The Halls Bayou element of the 
     project for flood control, Buffalo Bayou and tributaries, 
     Texas, authorized by section 101(a)(21) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note), 
     except that, subject to the approval of the Secretary as 
     provided by this section, the non-Federal interest may design 
     and construct an alternative to such project.''.

     SEC. 2012. REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 204 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(a) In General.--In connection with sediment obtained 
     through the construction, operation, or maintenance of an 
     authorized Federal water resources project, the Secretary, 
     acting through the Chief of Engineers, shall develop Regional 
     Sediment Management plans and carry out projects at locations 
     identified in the plan prepared under subsection (e), or 
     identified jointly by the non-Federal interest and the 
     Secretary, for use in the construction, repair, modification, 
     or rehabilitation of projects associated with Federal water 
     resources projects, for--
       ``(1) the protection of property;
       ``(2) the protection, restoration, and creation of aquatic 
     and ecologically related habitats, including wetlands; and
       ``(3) the transport and placement of suitable sediment
       ``(b) Secretarial Findings.--Subject to subsection (c), 
     projects carried out under subsection (a) may be carried out 
     in any case in which the Secretary finds that--
       ``(1) the environmental, economic, and social benefits of 
     the project, both monetary and nonmonetary, justify the cost 
     of the project; and
       ``(2) the project would not result in environmental 
     degradation.
       ``(c) Determination of Planning and Project Costs.--
       ``(1) In general.--In consultation and cooperation with the 
     appropriate Federal, State, regional, and local agencies, the 
     Secretary, acting through the Chief of Engineers, shall 
     develop at Federal expense plans and projects for regional 
     management of sediment obtained in conjunction with 
     construction, operation, and maintenance of Federal water 
     resources projects.
       ``(2) Costs of construction.--
       ``(A) In general.--Costs associated with construction of a 
     project under this section or identified in a Regional 
     Sediment Management plan shall be limited solely to 
     construction costs that are in excess of those costs 
     necessary to carry out the dredging for construction, 
     operation, or maintenance of an authorized Federal water 
     resources project in the most cost-effective way, consistent 
     with economic, engineering, and environmental criteria.
       ``(B) Cost sharing.--The determination of any non-Federal 
     share of the construction cost shall be based on the cost 
     sharing as specified in subsections (a) through (d) of 
     section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 2213), for the type of Federal water resource 
     project using the dredged resource.
       [``(3) Total cost.--Total Federal costs associated with 
     construction of a project under this section shall not exceed 
     $5,000,000 without Congressional approval.]
       ``(C) Total cost.--Total Federal costs associated with 
     construction of a project under this section shall not exceed 
     $5,000,000 without Congressional approval.
       ``[(4)] (3) Operation, maintenance, replacement, and 
     rehabilitation costs.--Operation, maintenance, replacement, 
     and rehabilitation costs associated with a project are a non-
     Federal sponsor responsibility.
       ``(d) Selection of Sediment Disposal Method for 
     Environmental Purposes.--
       ``(1) In general.--In developing and carrying out a Federal 
     water resources project involving the disposal of material, 
     the Secretary may select, with the consent of the non-Federal 
     interest, a disposal method that

[[Page 14670]]

     is not the least-cost option if the Secretary determines that 
     the incremental costs of the disposal method are reasonable 
     in relation to the environmental benefits, including the 
     benefits to the aquatic environment to be derived from the 
     creation of wetlands and control of shoreline erosion.
       ``(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of such incremental 
     costs shall be determined in accordance with subsection (c).
       ``(e) State and Regional Plans.--The Secretary, acting 
     through the Chief of Engineers, may--
       ``(1) cooperate with any State in the preparation of a 
     comprehensive State or regional coastal sediment management 
     plan within the boundaries of the State;
       ``(2) encourage State participation in the implementation 
     of the plan; and
       ``(3) submit to Congress reports and recommendations with 
     respect to appropriate Federal participation in carrying out 
     the plan.
       ``(f) Priority Areas.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to regional sediment management 
     projects in the vicinity of--
       ``(1) Fire Island Inlet, Suffolk County, New York;
       ``(2) Fletcher Cove, California;
       ``(3) Delaware River Estuary, New Jersey and Pennsylvania; 
     and
       ``(4) Toledo Harbor, Lucas County, Ohio.
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000 
     during each fiscal year, to remain available until expended, 
     for the Federal costs identified under subsection (c), of 
     which up to $5,000,000 shall be used for the development of 
     regional sediment management plans as provided in subsection 
     (e).
       ``(h) 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 
     interest may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of 
     the affected local government.''.
       (b) Repeal.--
       (1) In general.--Section 145 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j) is repealed.
       (2) Existing projects.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Chief of Engineers, may complete any project being carried 
     out under section 145 on the day before the date of enactment 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 2013. NATIONAL SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 3 of the Act entitled ``An Act 
     authorizing Federal participation in the cost of protecting 
     the shores of publicly owned property'', approved August 13, 
     1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g), is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 3. STORM AND HURRICANE RESTORATION AND IMPACT 
                   MINIMIZATION PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Construction of Small Shore and Beach Restoration and 
     Protection Projects.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may carry out construction 
     of small shore and beach restoration and protection projects 
     not specifically authorized by Congress that otherwise comply 
     with the first section of this Act if the Secretary 
     determines that such construction is advisable.
       ``(2) Local cooperation.--The local cooperation requirement 
     under the first section of this Act shall apply to a project 
     under this section.
       ``(3) Completeness.--A project under this section--
       ``(A) shall be complete; and
       ``(B) shall not commit the United States to any additional 
     improvement to ensure the successful operation of the 
     project, except for participation in periodic beach 
     nourishment in accordance with--
       ``(i) the first section of this Act; and
       ``(ii) the procedure for projects authorized after 
     submission of a survey report.
       ``(b) National Shoreline Erosion Control Development and 
     Demonstration Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the Chief 
     of Engineers, shall conduct a national shoreline erosion 
     control development and demonstration program (referred to in 
     this section as the `program').
       ``(2) Requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--The program shall include provisions 
     for--
       ``(i) projects consisting of planning, design, 
     construction, and adequate monitoring of prototype engineered 
     and native and naturalized vegetative shoreline erosion 
     control devices and methods;
       ``(ii) detailed engineering and environmental reports on 
     the results of each project carried out under the program; 
     and
       ``(iii) technology transfers, as appropriate, to private 
     property owners, State and local entities, nonprofit 
     educational institutions, and nongovernmental organizations.
       ``(B) Determination of feasibility.--A project under this 
     section shall not be carried out until the Secretary, acting 
     through the Chief of Engineers, determines that the project 
     is feasible.
       ``(C) Emphasis.--A project carried out under the program 
     shall emphasize, to the maximum extent practicable--
       ``(i) the development and demonstration of innovative 
     technologies;
       ``(ii) efficient designs to prevent erosion at a shoreline 
     site, taking into account the lifecycle cost of the design, 
     including cleanup, maintenance, and amortization;
       ``(iii) new and enhanced shore protection project design 
     and project formulation tools the purposes of which are to 
     improve the physical performance, and lower the lifecycle 
     costs, of the projects;
       ``(iv) natural designs, including the use of native and 
     naturalized vegetation or temporary structures that minimize 
     permanent structural alterations to the shoreline;
       ``(v) the avoidance of negative impacts to adjacent 
     shorefront communities;
       ``(vi) the potential for long-term protection afforded by 
     the technology; and
       ``(vii) recommendations developed from evaluations of the 
     program established under the Shoreline Erosion Control 
     Demonstration Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962-5 note; 88 Stat. 
     26), including--

       ``(I) adequate consideration of the subgrade;
       ``(II) proper filtration;
       ``(III) durable components;
       ``(IV) adequate connection between units; and

       ``(V) consideration of additional relevant information.

       ``(D) Sites.--
       ``(i) In general.--Each project under the program shall be 
     carried out at--

       ``(I) a privately owned site with substantial public 
     access; or
       ``(II) a publicly owned site on open coast or in tidal 
     waters.

       ``(ii) Selection.--The Secretary, acting through the Chief 
     of Engineers, shall develop criteria for the selection of 
     sites for projects under the program, including criteria 
     based on--

       ``(I) a variety of geographic and climatic conditions;
       ``(II) the size of the population that is dependent on the 
     beaches for recreation or the protection of private property 
     or public infrastructure;
       ``(III) the rate of erosion;
       ``(IV) significant natural resources or habitats and 
     environmentally sensitive areas; and
       ``(V) significant threatened historic structures or 
     landmarks.

       ``(3) Consultation.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Chief of Engineers, shall carry out the program in 
     consultation with--
       ``(A) the Secretary of Agriculture, particularly with 
     respect to native and naturalized vegetative means of 
     preventing and controlling shoreline erosion;
       ``(B) Federal, State, and local agencies;
       ``(C) private organizations;
       ``(D) the Coastal Engineering Research Center established 
     by the first section of Public Law 88-172 (33 U.S.C. 426-1); 
     and
       ``(E) applicable university research facilities.
       ``(4) Completion of demonstration.--After carrying out the 
     initial construction and evaluation of the performance and 
     lifecycle cost of a demonstration project under this section, 
     the Secretary, acting through the Chief of Engineers, may--
       ``(A) at the request of a non-Federal interest of the 
     project, amend the agreement for a federally-authorized shore 
     protection project in existence on the date on which initial 
     construction of the demonstration project is complete to 
     incorporate the demonstration project as a feature of the 
     shore protection project, with the future cost of the 
     demonstration project to be determined by the cost-sharing 
     ratio of the shore protection project; or
       ``(B) transfer all interest in and responsibility for the 
     completed demonstration project to the non-Federal or other 
     Federal agency interest of the project.
       ``(5) Agreements.--The Secretary, acting through the Chief 
     of Engineers, may enter into an agreement with the non-
     Federal or other Federal agency interest of a project under 
     this section--
       ``(A) to share the costs of construction, operation, 
     maintenance, and monitoring of a project under the program;
       ``(B) to share the costs of removing a project or project 
     element constructed under the program, if the Secretary 
     determines that the project or project element is detrimental 
     to private property, public infrastructure, or public safety; 
     or
       ``(C) to specify ownership of a completed project that the 
     Chief of Engineers determines will not be part of a Corps of 
     Engineers project.
       ``(6) Report.--Not later than December 31 of each year 
     beginning after the date of enactment of this paragraph, the 
     Secretary shall prepare and submit to the Committee on 
     Environment and Public works of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives a report describing--
       ``(A) the activities carried out and accomplishments made 
     under the program during the preceding year; and
       ``(B) any recommendations of the Secretary relating to the 
     program.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary 
     may expend, from any appropriations made available to the 
     Secretary for the purpose of carrying out civil works, not 
     more than $30,000,000 during any fiscal year

[[Page 14671]]

     to pay the Federal share of the costs of construction of 
     small shore and beach restoration and protection projects or 
     small projects under the program.
       ``(2) Limitation.--The total amount expended for a project 
     under this section shall--
       ``(A) be sufficient to pay the cost of Federal 
     participation in the project (including periodic nourishment 
     as provided for under the first section of this Act), as 
     determined by the Secretary; and
       ``(B) be not more than $3,000,000.''.
       (b) Repeal.--Section 5 the Act entitled ``An Act 
     authorizing Federal participation in the cost of protecting 
     the shores of publicly owned property'', approved August 13, 
     1946 (33 U.S.C. 426e et seq.; 110 Stat. 3700) is repealed.

     SEC. 2014. SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--In accordance with the Act of July 3, 1930 
     (33 U.S.C. 426) and notwithstanding administrative actions, 
     it is the policy of the United States to promote shore 
     protection projects and related research that encourage the 
     protection, restoration, and enhancement of sandy beaches, 
     including beach restoration and periodic beach renourishment 
     for a period of 50 years, on a comprehensive and coordinated 
     basis by the Federal Government, States, localities, and 
     private enterprises.
       (b) Preference.--In carrying out the policy, preference 
     shall be given to--
       (1) areas in which there has been a Federal investment of 
     funds; and
       (2) areas with respect to which the need for prevention or 
     mitigation of damage to shores and beaches is attributable to 
     Federal navigation projects or other Federal activities.
       (c) Applicability.--The Secretary shall apply the policy to 
     each shore protection and beach renourishment project 
     (including shore protection and beach renourishment projects 
     in existence on the date of enactment of this Act).

     SEC. 2015. COST SHARING FOR MONITORING.

       (a) In General.--Costs incurred for monitoring for an 
     ecosystem restoration project shall be cost-shared--
       (1) in accordance with the formula relating to the 
     applicable original construction project; and
       (2) for a maximum period of 10 years.
       (b) Aggregate Limitation.--Monitoring costs for an 
     ecosystem restoration project--
       (1) shall not exceed in the aggregate, for a 10-year 
     period, an amount equal to 5 percent of the cost of the 
     applicable original construction project; and
       (2) after the 10-year period, shall be 100 percent non-
     Federal.

     SEC. 2016. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION BENEFITS.

       For each of the following projects, the Corps of Engineers 
     shall include ecosystem restoration benefits in the 
     calculation of benefits for the project:
       (1) Grayson's Creek, California.
       (2) Seven Oaks, California.
       (3) Oxford, California.
       (4) Walnut Creek, California.
       (5) Wildcat Phase II, California.

     SEC. 2017. FUNDING TO EXPEDITE THE EVALUATION AND PROCESSING 
                   OF PERMITS.

       Section 214(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2000 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note; 114 Stat. 2594) is amended by 
     striking ``In fiscal years 2001 through 2003, the'' and 
     inserting ``The''.

     SEC. 2018. ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF PERMIT APPLICATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall implement a 
     program to allow electronic submission of permit applications 
     for permits under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers.
       (b) Limitations.--This section does not preclude the 
     submission of a hard copy, as required.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $3,000,000.

     SEC. 2019. IMPROVEMENT OF WATER MANAGEMENT AT CORPS OF 
                   ENGINEERS RESERVOIRS.

       (a) In General.--As part of the operation and maintenance, 
     by the Corps of Engineers, of reservoirs in operation as of 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall carry 
     out the measures described in subsection (c) to support the 
     water resource needs of project sponsors and any affected 
     State, local, or tribal government for authorized project 
     purposes.
       (b) Cooperation.--The Secretary shall carry out the 
     measures described in subsection (c) in cooperation and 
     coordination with project sponsors and any affected State, 
     local, or tribal government.
       (c) Measures.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary 
     may--
       (1) conduct a study to identify unused, underused, or 
     additional water storage capacity at reservoirs;
       (2) review an operational plan and identify any change to 
     maximize an authorized project purpose to improve water 
     storage capacity and enhance efficiency of releases and 
     withdrawal of water;
       (3) improve and update data, data collection, and 
     forecasting models to maximize an authorized project purpose 
     and improve water storage capacity and delivery to water 
     users; and
       (4) conduct a sediment study and implement any sediment 
     management or removal measure.
       (d) Revenues.--
       (1) In general.--Revenues collected in connection with 
     water storage for municipal or industrial water supply at a 
     reservoir operated by the Corps of Engineers for navigation, 
     flood control, or multiple purpose projects shall be credited 
     to the revolving fund established under section 101 of the 
     Civil Functions Appropriations Act, 1954 (33 U.S.C. 701b-10).
       (2) Availability.--
       (A) District from which revenue is received.--
       (i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), 80 percent of the 
     revenue received from each District of the Corps of Engineers 
     shall be available for defraying the costs of planning, 
     operation, maintenance, replacements, and upgrades of, and 
     emergency expenditures for, any facility of the Corps of 
     Engineers projects within that District.
       (ii) Source of payments.--With respect to each activity 
     described in clause (i), costs of planning, operation, 
     maintenance, replacements, and upgrades of a facility of the 
     Corps of Engineers for the project shall be paid from 
     available revenues received from [the] that project.
       (B) Agency-wide.--20 percent of the revenue received from 
     each District of the Corps of Engineers shall be available 
     agency-wide for defraying the costs of planning, operation, 
     maintenance, replacements, and upgrades of, and emergency 
     expenditures for, all Corps of Engineers projects.
       (3) Special cases.--
       (A) Costs of water supply storage.--In the case of a 
     reservoir operated or maintained by the Corps of Engineers on 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the storage charge for a 
     future contract or contract renewal for the first cost of 
     water supply storage at the reservoir shall be the lesser of 
     the estimated cost of purposes foregone, replacement costs, 
     or the updated cost of storage.
       (B) Reallocation.--In the case of a water supply that is 
     reallocated from another project purpose to municipal or 
     industrial water supply, the joint use costs for the 
     reservoir shall be adjusted to reflect the reallocation of 
     project purposes.
       (C) Credit for affected project purposes.--In the case of a 
     reallocation that adversely affects hydropower generation, 
     the Secretary shall defer to the Administrator of the 
     respective Power Marketing Administration to calculate the 
     impact of such a reallocation on the rates for hydroelectric 
     power.

     SEC. 2020. CORPS OF ENGINEERS HYDROPOWER OPERATION AND 
                   MAINTENANCE FUNDING.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the last sentence of 
     section 5 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (commonly known as 
     the ``Flood Control Act of 1944'') (58 Stat. 890, chapter 
     665; 16 U.S.C. 825s), the 11th paragraph under the heading 
     ``Office of the Secretary'' in title I of the Act of October 
     12, 1949 (63 Stat. 767, chapter 680; 16 U.S.C. 825s-1), the 
     matter under the heading ``Continuing fund, southeastern 
     power administration'' in title I of the Act of August 31, 
     1951 (65 Stat. 249, chapter 375; 16 U.S.C. 825s-2), section 
     3302 of title 31, United States Code, or any other law, and 
     without further appropriation or fiscal year limitation, for 
     fiscal year 2005 as set forth in subsection (c) and each 
     fiscal year thereafter, the Administrator of the Southeastern 
     Power Administration, the Administrator of the Southwestern 
     Power Administration, and the Administrator of the Western 
     Area Power Administration may credit to the Secretary of the 
     Army (referred to in this section as the ``Secretary''), 
     receipts from the sale of power and related services, in an 
     amount determined under subsection (c).
       (b) Use of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary--
       (A) shall, except as provided in paragraph (2), use an 
     amount credited under subsection (a) to fund only the Corps 
     of Engineers annual operation and maintenance activities that 
     are allocated exclusively to the power function and assigned 
     to the respective power marketing administration and 
     respective project system as applicable for repayment; and
       (B) shall not use an amount credited under subsection (a) 
     for any cost allocated to a non-power function of Corps of 
     Engineer operations.
       (2) Exception.--The Secretary may use an amount credited by 
     the Southwestern Power Administration under subsection (a) 
     for capital and nonrecurring costs and may use an amount 
     credited by Southeastern Power Administration for capital and 
     nonrecurring costs, if no credit exceeds the rates on file at 
     the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the Southeastern 
     Power Administration.
       (c) Amount.--The amount credited under subsection (a) shall 
     be equal to an amount that--
       (1) the Secretary requests; and
       (2) the appropriate Administrator, in consultation with the 
     Secretary and the power customers of the power marketing 
     administration of the Administrator, determines to be 
     appropriate to apply to the costs referred to in subsection 
     (b).
       (d) Consultation.--
       (1) Time frame.--Not later than the date that is 20 days 
     after the date of enactment of

[[Page 14672]]

     this Act, the appropriate Administrator shall submit to the 
     Appropriations Committee a report describing the time frame 
     during which the consultation process described in subsection 
     (c) shall be completed.
       (2) Failure to agree.--If the Secretary and the appropriate 
     Administrator and customer representatives cannot agree on 
     the amount to be credited under subsection (c), the 
     appropriate Administrator shall determine the amount to be 
     credited.
       (e) Applicable Law.--An amount credited under subsection 
     (a) is exempt from sequestration under the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901 et 
     seq.).

     SEC. 2021. FEDERAL HOPPER DREDGES.

       (a) Elimination of Restriction on Use.--Section 3(c)(7)(B) 
     of the Act of August 11, 1888 (33 U.S.C. 622; 25 Stat. 423) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following: ``This 
     subparagraph shall not apply to the Federal hopper dredges 
     Essayons and Yaquina of the Corps of Engineers.''.
       (b) Decommission.--Section 563 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3784) is amended to read 
     as follows:

     ``SEC. 563. HOPPER DREDGE MCFARLAND.

       ``Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 2005, the Secretary shall 
     promulgate such regulations and take such actions as the 
     Secretary determines to be necessary to decommission the 
     Federal hopper dredge Mcfarland.''.

     SEC. 2022. OBSTRUCTION TO NAVIGATION.

       Section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403), is 
     amended by adding at the end the following: ``Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed as to provide for the regulation 
     of activities or structures on private property, unless the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the 
     department in which the Coast Guard is operating, determines 
     that such activity would pose a threat to the safe transit of 
     maritime traffic.''.

              Subtitle B--Continuing Authorities Projects

     SEC. 2031. NAVIGATION ENHANCEMENTS FOR WATERBOURNE 
                   TRANSPORTATION.

       Section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 
     577) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Sec. 107. (a) That the Secretary of the 
     Army is hereby authorized to'' and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 107. NAVIGATION ENHANCEMENTS FOR WATERBOURNE 
                   TRANSPORTATION.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Army may'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``(b) Not more'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Allotment.--Not more''; and
       (B) by striking ``$4,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$7,000,000'';
       (3) in subsection (c), by striking ``(c) Local'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(c) Local Contributions.--Local'';
       (4) in subsection (d), by striking ``(d) Non-Federal'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(d) Non-Federal Share.--Non-Federal'';
       (5) in subsection (e), by striking ``(e) Each'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(e) Completion.--Each''; and
       (6) in subsection (f), by striking ``(f) This'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(f) Applicability.--This''.

     SEC. 2032. PROTECTION AND RESTORATION DUE TO EMERGENCIES AT 
                   SHORES AND STREAMBANKS.

       Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 
     701r) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$15,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$20,000,000''; and
       (2) by striking ``$1,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$1,500,000''.

     SEC. 2033. RESTORATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT FOR PROTECTION OF 
                   AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEMS PROGRAM.

       Section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (33 U.S.C. 2330) is amended--
       (1) by striking the section heading and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 206. RESTORATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT FOR PROTECTION OF 
                   AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEMS PROGRAM.'';

       (2) in subsection (a), by striking ``an aquatic'' and 
     inserting ``a freshwater aquatic''; and
       (3) in subsection (e), by striking ``$25,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$75,000,000''.

     SEC. 2034. ENVIRONMENTAL MODIFICATION OF PROJECTS FOR 
                   IMPROVEMENT AND RESTORATION OF ECOSYSTEMS 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 2309a) is amended--
       (1) by striking the section heading and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 1135. ENVIRONMENTAL MODIFICATION OF PROJECTS FOR 
                   IMPROVEMENT AND RESTORATION OF ECOSYSTEMS 
                   PROGRAM.'';

       and
       (2) in subsection (h), by striking ``25,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$50,000,000''.

     SEC. 2035. PROJECTS TO ENHANCE ESTUARIES AND COASTAL 
                   HABITATS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out an estuary 
     habitat restoration project if the Secretary determines that 
     the project--
       (1) will improve the elements and features of an estuary 
     (as defined in section 103 of the Estuaries and Clean Waters 
     Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2902));
       (2) is in the public interest; and
       (3) is cost-effective.
       (b) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
     construction of any project under this section--
       (1) shall be 35 percent; and
       (2) shall include the costs of all land, easements, rights-
     of-way, and necessary relocations.
       (c) Agreements.--Construction of a project under this 
     section shall commence only after a non-Federal interest has 
     entered into a binding agreement with the Secretary to pay--
       (1) the non-Federal share of the costs of construction 
     required under subsection (b); and
       (2) in accordance with regulations promulgated by the 
     Secretary, 100 percent of the costs of any operation, 
     maintenance, replacement, or rehabilitation of the project.
       (d) Limitation.--Not more than $5,000,000 in Federal funds 
     may be allocated under this section for a project at any 1 
     location.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000 for 
     each fiscal year beginning after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 2036. REMEDIATION OF ABANDONED MINE SITES.

       Section 560 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (33 U.S.C. 2336; 113 Stat. 354-355) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (f);
       (2) by redesignating subsections (a) through (e) as 
     subsections (b) through (f), respectively;
       (3) by inserting before subsection (b) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (2)) the following:
       ``(a) Definition of Non-Federal Interest.--In this section, 
     the term `non-Federal interest' includes, with the consent of 
     the affected local government, nonprofit entities, 
     notwithstanding section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 
     (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b).'';
       (4) in subsection (b) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)), 
     by--
       (A) by inserting ``, and construction'' before 
     ``assistance''; and
       (B) by inserting ``, including, with the consent of the 
     affected local government, nonprofit entities,'' after ``non-
     Federal interests'';
       (5) in paragraph (3) of subsection (c) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (2))--
       (A) by inserting ``physical hazards and'' after 
     ``adverse''; and
       (B) by striking ``drainage from'';
       (6) in subsection (d) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)), 
     by striking ``50'' and inserting ``25''; and
       (7) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Operation and Maintenance.--The non-Federal share of 
     the costs of operation and maintenance for a project carried 
     out under this section shall be 100 percent.
       ``(h) No Effect on Liability.--The provision of assistance 
     under this section shall not relieve from liability any 
     person that would otherwise be liable under Federal or State 
     law for damages, response costs, natural resource damages, 
     restitution, equitable relief, or any other relief.
       ``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section for each fiscal 
     year $45,000,000, to remain available until expended.''.

     SEC. 2037. SMALL PROJECTS FOR THE REHABILITATION OR REMOVAL 
                   OF DAMS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out a small dam 
     removal or rehabilitation project if the Secretary determines 
     that the project will improve the quality of the environment 
     or is in the public interest.
       (b) Cost Sharing.--A non-Federal interest shall provide 35 
     percent of the cost of the removal or remediation of any 
     project carried out under this section, including provision 
     of all land, easements, rights-of-way, and necessary 
     relocations.
       (c) Agreements.--Construction of a project under this 
     section shall be commenced only after a non-Federal interest 
     has entered into a binding agreement with the Secretary to 
     pay--
       (1) the non-Federal share of the costs of construction 
     required by this section; and
       (2) 100 percent of any operation and maintenance cost.
       (d) Cost Limitation.--Not more than $5,000,000 in Federal 
     funds may be allotted under this section for a project at any 
     single location.
       (e) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this section $25,000,000 for each fiscal year.

     SEC. 2038. REMOTE, MARITIME-DEPENDENT COMMUNITIES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall develop eligibility 
     criteria for Federal participation in navigation projects 
     located in economically disadvantaged communities that are--
       (1) dependent on water transportation for subsistence; and
       (2) located in--
       (A) remote areas of the United States;
       (B) American Samoa;
       (C) Guam;
       (D) the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands;
       (E) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; or
       (F) the United States Virgin Islands.
       (b) Administration.--The criteria developed under this 
     section--
       (1) shall--

[[Page 14673]]

       (A) provide for economic expansion; and
       (B) identify opportunities for promoting economic growth; 
     and
       (2) shall not require project justification solely on the 
     basis of National Economic Development benefits received.

     SEC. 2039. AGREEMENTS FOR WATER RESOURCE PROJECTS.

       (a) Partnership Agreements.--Section 221 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) (as amended by 
     section 2001) is amended--
       [(1) in subsection (a)--
       [(A) by striking ``After the date of enactment'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``[(1) In general.--After the date of enactment'';
       [(B) by striking ``under the provisions'' and all that 
     follows through ``under any other'' and inserting ``under 
     any'';
       [(C) by inserting ``partnership'' after ``written'';
       [(D) by striking ``Secretary of the Army to furnish its 
     required cooperation for'' and inserting ``district engineer 
     for the district in which the project will be carried out 
     under which each party agrees to carry out its 
     responsibilities and requirements for implementation or 
     construction of'';
       [(E) by inserting after ``$25,000.'' the following:
       [``(2) Liquidated damages.--An agreement described in 
     paragraph (1) may include a provision for liquidated damages 
     in the event of a failure of 1 or more parties to perform.''; 
     and
       [(F) by striking ``In any such agreement'' and inserting 
     the following:
       [``(3) Obligation of future appropriations.--In any 
     agreement described in paragraph (1)'';]
       [(2)] (1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection 
     (g); and
       [(3)] (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
       ``(e) Public Health and Safety.--If the Secretary 
     determines that a project needs to be continued for the 
     purpose of public health and safety--
       ``(1) the non-Federal interest shall pay the increased 
     projects costs, up to an amount equal to 20 percent of the 
     original estimated project costs and in accordance with the 
     statutorily-determined cost share; and
       ``(2) notwithstanding the statutorily-determined Federal 
     share, the Secretary shall pay all increased costs remaining 
     after payment of 20 percent of the increased costs by the 
     non-Federal interest under paragraph (1).
       ``(f) Limitation.--Nothing in subsection (a) limits the 
     authority of the Secretary to ensure that a partnership 
     agreement meets the requirements of law and policies of the 
     Secretary in effect on the date of execution of the 
     partnership agreement.''.
       (b) Local Cooperation.--Section 912(b) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4190) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``shall'' and 
     inserting ``may''; and
       (B) by striking the second sentence; and
       (2) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) in the first sentence--
       (i) by striking ``injunction, for'' and inserting the 
     following: ``injunction and payment of liquidated damages, 
     for''; and
       (ii) by striking ``to collect a civil penalty imposed under 
     this section,''; and
       (B) in the second sentence, by striking ``any civil penalty 
     imposed under this section,'' and inserting ``any liquidated 
     damages,''.
       (c) Applicability.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) apply only to 
     partnership agreements entered into after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the district 
     engineer for the district in which a project is located may 
     amend the partnership agreement for the project entered into 
     on or before the date of enactment of this Act--
       (A) at the request of a non-Federal interest for a project; 
     and
       (B) if construction on the project has not been initiated 
     as of the date of enactment of this Act.
       (d) References.--
       (1) Cooperation agreements.--Any reference in a law, 
     regulation, document, or other paper of the United States to 
     a cooperation agreement or project cooperation agreement 
     shall be considered to be a reference to a partnership 
     agreement or a project partnership agreement, respectively.
       (2) Partnership agreements.--Any reference to a partnership 
     agreement or project partnership agreement in this Act (other 
     than in this section) shall be considered to be a reference 
     to a cooperation agreement or a project cooperation 
     agreement, respectively.

     SEC. 2040. PROGRAM NAMES.

       [(a) Storm and Hurricane Restoration and Impact 
     Minimization Program.--Section 3 of the Act of August 13, 
     1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g) is amended by striking ``Sec. 3. The 
     Secretary'' and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 3. STORM AND HURRICANE RESTORATION AND IMPACT 
                   MINIMIZATION PROGRAM.

       [``The Secretary''.
       [(b) Projects to Enhance Reduction of Flooding and Obtain 
     Risk Minimization.]--Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 
     1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) is amended by striking ``Sec. 205. That 
     the'' and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 205. PROJECTS TO ENHANCE REDUCTION OF FLOODING AND 
                   OBTAIN RISK MINIMIZATION.

       ``The''.

                 TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

     SEC. 3001. ST. HERMAN AND ST. PAUL HARBORS, KODIAK, ALASKA.

       The Secretary shall carry out, on an emergency basis, 
     necessary removal of rubble, sediment, and rock impeding the 
     entrance to the St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, 
     Alaska, at a Federal cost of $2,000,000.

     SEC. 3002. SITKA, ALASKA.

       The Thompson Harbor, Sitka, Alaska, element of the project 
     for navigation, Southeast Alaska Harbors of Refuge, Alaska, 
     authorized by section 101 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4801), is modified to direct the 
     Secretary to take such action as is necessary to correct 
     design deficiencies in the element, at a Federal cost of 
     $6,300,000.

     SEC. 3003. BLACK WARRIOR-TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, ALABAMA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall construct a new 
     project management office located in the city of Tuscaloosa, 
     Alabama, at a location within the vicinity of the city, at 
     full Federal expense.
       (b) Transfer of Land and Structures.--The Secretary shall 
     sell, convey, or otherwise transfer to the city of 
     Tuscaloosa, Alabama, at fair market value, the land and 
     structures associated with the existing project management 
     office, if the city agrees to assume full responsibility for 
     demolition of the existing project management office.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out subsection (a) $32,000,000.

     SEC. 3004. AUGUSTA AND CLARENDON, ARKANSAS.

       The Secretary may carry out rehabilitation of authorized 
     and completed levees on the White River between Augusta and 
     Clarendon, Arkansas, at a total estimated cost of $8,000,000, 
     with an estimated Federal cost of $5,200,000 and an estimated 
     non-Federal cost of $2,800,000.

     SEC. 3005. ST. FRANCIS BASIN, ARKANSAS AND MISSOURI.

       (a) In General.--The project for flood control, St. Francis 
     River Basin, Arkansas, and Missouri, authorized the Act of 
     June 15, 1936 (49 Stat. 1508, chapter 548), as modified, is 
     further modified to authorize the Secretary to undertake 
     channel stabilization and sediment removal measures on the 
     St. Francis River and tributaries as an integral part of the 
     original project.
       (b) No Separable Element.--The measures undertaken under 
     subsection (a) shall not be considered to be a separable 
     element of the project.

     SEC. 3006. ST. FRANCIS BASIN LAND TRANSFER, ARKANSAS AND 
                   MISSOURI.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall convey to the State of 
     Arkansas, without monetary consideration and subject to 
     subsection (b), all right, title, and interest to land within 
     the State acquired by the Federal Government as mitigation 
     land for the project for flood control, St. Francis Basin, 
     Arkansas and Missouri Project, authorized by the Act of May 
     15, 1928 (33 U.S.C. 702a et seq.) (commonly known as the 
     ``Flood Control Act of 1928'').
       (b) Terms and Conditions.--
       (1) In general.--The conveyance by the United States under 
     this section shall be subject to--
       (A) the condition that the State of Arkansas (including the 
     successors and assigns of the State) agree to operate, 
     maintain, and manage the land at no cost or expense to the 
     United States and for fish and wildlife, recreation, and 
     environmental purposes; and
       (B) such other terms and conditions as the Secretary 
     determines to be in the interest of the United States.
       (2) Reversion.--If the State (or a successor or assign of 
     the State) ceases to operate, maintain, and manage the land 
     in accordance with this subsection, all right, title, and 
     interest in and to the property shall revert to the United 
     States, at the option of the Secretary.

     SEC. 3007. RED-OUACHITA RIVER BASIN LEVEES, ARKANSAS AND 
                   LOUISIANA.

       (a) In General.--Section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 
     1950 (64 Stat. 170) is amended in the matter under the 
     heading ``Red-ouachita river basin'' by striking ``at Calion, 
     Arkansas'' and inserting ``improvements at Calion, Arkansas 
     (including authorization for the comprehensive flood-control 
     project for Ouachita River and tributaries, incorporating in 
     the project all flood control, drainage, and power 
     improvements in the basin above the lower end of the left 
     bank Ouachita River levee)''.
       (b) Modification.--Section 3 of the Act of August 18, 1941, 
     is amended in the second sentence of subsection (a) in the 
     matter under the heading ``Lower mississippi river'' (55 
     Stat. 642, chapter 377) by inserting before the period at the 
     end the following: ``Provided, That the Ouachita River 
     Levees, Louisiana, authorized under the first section of the 
     Act of May 15, 1928 (45 Stat. 534, chapter 569) shall remain 
     as a component of the

[[Page 14674]]

     Mississippi River and Tributaries Project and afforded 
     operation and maintenance responsibilities as directed in 
     section 3 of that Act (45 Stat. 535)''.

     SEC. 3008. MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, 
                   ARKANSAS AND OKLAHOMA.

       (a) Navigation Channel.--The Secretary shall continue 
     construction of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation 
     System, Arkansas and Oklahoma, to operate and maintain the 
     navigation channel to the authorized depth of the channel, in 
     accordance with section 136 of the Energy and Water 
     Development Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-137; 117 
     Stat. 1842).
       (b) Mitigation.--
       (1) In general.--As mitigation for any incidental taking 
     relating to the McClellan-Kerr Navigation System, the 
     Secretary shall determine the need for, and construct 
     modifications in, the structures and operations of the 
     Arkansas River in the area of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, 
     including the construction of low water dams and islands to 
     provide nesting and foraging habitat for the interior least 
     tern, in accordance with the study entitled ``Arkansas River 
     Corridor Master Plan Planning Assistance to States''.
       (2) Cost sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of a 
     project under this subsection shall be 35 percent.
       (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $12,000,000.

     SEC. [3008] 3009. CACHE CREEK BASIN, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--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), is 
     modified to direct the Secretary to mitigate the impacts of 
     the new south levee of the Cache Creek settling basin on the 
     storm drainage system of the city of Woodland, including all 
     appurtenant features, erosion control measures, and 
     environmental protection features.
       (b) Objectives.--Mitigation under subsection (a) shall 
     restore the pre-project capacity of the city (1,360 cubic 
     feet per second) to release water to the Yolo Bypass, 
     including--
       (1) channel improvements;
       (2) an outlet work through the west levee of the Yolo 
     Bypass; and
       (3) a new low flow cross channel to handle city and county 
     storm drainage and settling basin flows (1,760 cubic feet per 
     second) when the Yolo Bypass is in a low flow condition.

     SEC. [3009] 3010. HAMILTON AIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for environmental restoration, Hamilton 
     Airfield, California, authorized by section 101(b)(3) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 279), is 
     modified to include the diked bayland parcel known as ``Bel 
     Marin Keys Unit V '' at an estimated total cost of 
     $205,226,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $153,840,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $51,386,000, as part of 
     the project to be carried out by the Secretary substantially 
     in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, 
     recommended in the final report of the Chief of Engineers 
     dated July 19, 2004.

     SEC. [3010] 3011. LA-3 DREDGED MATERIAL OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE 
                   DESIGNATION, CALIFORNIA.

       Section 102(c)(4) of the Marine Protection, Research, and 
     Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1412(c)(4)) is amended in 
     the third sentence by striking ``January 1, 2003'' and 
     inserting ``January 1, 2007''.

     SEC. [3011] 3012. LARKSPUR FERRY CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Report.--The project for navigation, Larkspur Ferry 
     Channel, Larkspur, California, authorized by section 601(d) 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 
     4148), is modified to direct the Secretary to prepare a 
     limited reevaluation report to determine whether maintenance 
     of the project is feasible.
       (b) Authorization of Project.--If the Secretary determines 
     that maintenance of the project is feasible, the Secretary 
     shall carry out the maintenance.

     SEC. [3012] 3013. LLAGAS CREEK, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for flood damage reduction, Llagas Creek, 
     California, authorized by section 501(a) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 333), is 
     modified to authorize the Secretary to complete the project, 
     in accordance with the requirements of local cooperation as 
     specified in section 5 of the Watershed Protection and Flood 
     Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1005), at a total remaining cost of 
     $95,000,000, with an estimated remaining Federal cost of 
     $55,000,000, and an estimated remaining non-Federal cost of 
     $40,000,000.

     SEC. [3013] 3014. LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CALIFORNIA.

       Section 101(b)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2000 (114 Stat. 2577) is amended by striking ``$153,313,000, 
     with an estimated Federal cost of $43,735,000 and an 
     estimated non-Federal cost of $109,578,000'' and inserting 
     ``$222,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $72,000,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $150,000,000''.

     SEC. [3014] 3015. MAGPIE CREEK, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the project for 
     Magpie Creek, California, authorized under section 205 of the 
     Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), is modified to 
     direct the Secretary to apply the cost-sharing requirements 
     applicable to nonstructural flood control under section 
     103(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 
     Stat. 4085) for the portion of the project consisting of land 
     acquisition to preserve and enhance existing floodwater 
     storage.
       (b) Crediting.--The crediting allowed under subsection (a) 
     shall not exceed the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     project.

     SEC. [3015] 3016. PINE FLAT DAM FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT, 
                   CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Cooperative Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall participate with 
     appropriate State and local agencies in the implementation of 
     a cooperative program to improve and manage fisheries and 
     aquatic habitat conditions in Pine Flat Reservoir and in the 
     14-mile reach of the Kings River immediately below Pine Flat 
     Dam, California, in a manner that--
       (A) provides for long-term aquatic resource enhancement; 
     and
       (B) avoids adverse effects on water storage and water 
     rights holders.
       (2) Goals and principles.--The cooperative program 
     described in paragraph (1) shall be carried out--
       (A) substantially in accordance with the goals and 
     principles of the document entitled ``Kings River Fisheries 
     Management Program Framework Agreement'' and dated May 29, 
     1999, between the California Department of Fish and Game and 
     the Kings River Water Association and the Kings River 
     Conservation District; and
       (B) in cooperation with the parties to that agreement.
       (b) Participation by Secretary.--
       (1) In general.--In furtherance of the goals of the 
     agreement described in subsection (a)(2), the Secretary shall 
     participate in the planning, design, and construction of 
     projects and pilot projects on the Kings River and its 
     tributaries to enhance aquatic habitat and water availability 
     for fisheries purposes (including maintenance of a trout 
     fishery) in accordance with flood control operations, water 
     rights, and beneficial uses in existence as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Projects.--Projects referred to in paragraph (1) may 
     include--
       (A) projects to construct or improve pumping, conveyance, 
     and storage facilities to enhance water transfers; and
       (B) projects to carry out water exchanges and create 
     opportunities to use floodwater within and downstream of Pine 
     Flat Reservoir.
       (c) No Authorization of Certain Dam-Related Projects.--
     Nothing in this section authorizes any project for the 
     raising of Pine Flat Dam or the construction of a multilevel 
     intake structure at Pine Flat Dam.
       (d) Use of Existing Studies.--In carrying out this section, 
     the Secretary shall use, to the maximum extent practicable, 
     studies in existence on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     including data and environmental documentation in the 
     document entitled ``Final Feasibility Report and Report of 
     the Chief of Engineers for Pine Flat Dam Fish and Wildlife 
     Habitat Restoration'' and dated July 19, 2002.
       (e) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) Project planning, design, and construction.--The 
     Federal share of the cost of planning, design, and 
     construction of a project under subsection (b) shall be 65 
     percent.
       (2) Non-federal share.--
       (A) Credit for land, easements, and rights-of-way.--The 
     Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the 
     cost of construction of any project under subsection (b) the 
     value, regardless of the date of acquisition, of any land, 
     easements, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal areas, or 
     relocations provided by the non-Federal interest for use in 
     carrying out the project.
       [(A)] (B) Form.--The non-Federal interest may provide not 
     more than 50 percent of the non-Federal share required under 
     this clause in the form of services, materials, supplies, or 
     other in-kind contributions.
       (f) Operation and Maintenance.--The operation, maintenance, 
     repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of projects carried 
     out under this section shall be a non-Federal responsibility.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

     SEC. [3016] 3017. REDWOOD CITY NAVIGATION PROJECT, 
                   CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary may dredge the Redwood City Navigation 
     Channel, California, on an annual basis, to maintain the 
     authorized depth of -30 mean lower low water.

     SEC. [3017] 3018. SACRAMENTO AND AMERICAN RIVERS FLOOD 
                   CONTROL, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall credit toward that 
     portion of the non-Federal share of the costs of any flood 
     damage reduction project authorized before the date of 
     enactment of this Act that is to be paid by the Sacramento 
     Area Flood Control Agency an amount equal to the Federal 
     share of the flood control project authorized by section 9159 
     of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1993 (106 
     Stat. 1944).
       (b) Federal Share.--In determining the Federal share of the 
     project authorized by

[[Page 14675]]

     section 9159(b) of that Act, the Secretary shall include all 
     audit verified costs for planning, engineering, construction, 
     acquisition of project land, easements, right-of-way, 
     relocations, and environmental, mitigation for all project 
     elements that the Secretary determines to be cost-effective.
       (c) Amount Credited.--The amount credited shall be equal to 
     the Federal share determined under this section, reduced by 
     the total of all reimbursements paid to the non-Federal 
     interests for work under section 9159(b) of that Act before 
     the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. [3018] 3019. CONDITIONAL DECLARATION OF NONNAVIGABILITY, 
                   PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Conditional Declaration of Nonnavigability.--If the 
     Secretary determines, in consultation with appropriate 
     Federal and non-Federal entities, that projects proposed to 
     be carried out by non-Federal entities within the portions of 
     the San Francisco, California, waterfront described in 
     subsection (b) are not in the public interest, the portions 
     shall be declared not to be navigable water of the United 
     States for the purposes of section 9 of the Act of March 3, 
     1899 (33 U.S.C. 401) and the General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 
     U.S.C. 525 et seq.).
       (b) Portions of Waterfront.--The portions of the San 
     Francisco, California, waterfront referred to in subsection 
     (a) are those that are, or will be, bulkheaded, filled, or 
     otherwise occupied by permanent structures and that are 
     located as follows: beginning at the intersection of the 
     northeasterly prolongation of the portion of the 
     northwesterly line of Bryant Street lying between Beale 
     Street and Main Street with the southwesterly line of Spear 
     Street, which intersection lies on the line of jurisdiction 
     of the San Francisco Port Commission; following thence 
     southerly along said line of jurisdiction as described in the 
     State of California Harbor and Navigation Code Section 1770, 
     as amended in 1961, to its intersection with the easterly 
     line of Townsend Street along a line that is parallel and 
     distant 10 feet from the existing southern boundary of Pier 
     40 to its point of intersection with the United States 
     Government pier-head line; thence northerly along said pier-
     head line to its intersection with a line parallel with, and 
     distant 10 feet easterly from, the existing easterly boundary 
     line of Pier 30-32; thence northerly along said parallel line 
     and its northerly prolongation, to a point of intersection 
     with a line parallel with, and distant 10 feet northerly 
     from, the existing northerly boundary of Pier 30-32, thence 
     westerly along last said parallel line to its intersection 
     with the United States Government pier-head line; to the 
     northwesterly line of Bryan Street northwesterly; thence 
     southwesterly along said northwesterly line of Bryant Street 
     to the point of beginning.
       (c) Requirement That Area Be Improved.--If, by the date 
     that is 20 years after the date of enactment of this Act, any 
     portion of the San Francisco, California, waterfront 
     described in subsection (b) has not been bulkheaded, filled, 
     or otherwise occupied by 1 or more permanent structures, or 
     if work in connection with any activity carried out pursuant 
     to applicable Federal law requiring a permit, including 
     sections 9 and 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 
     401), is not commenced by the date that is 5 years after the 
     date of issuance of such a permit, the declaration of 
     nonnavigability for the portion under this section shall 
     cease to be effective.

     SEC. [3019] 3020. SALTON SEA RESTORATION, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Salton sea authority.--The term ``Salton Sea 
     Authority'' means the Joint Powers Authority established 
     under the laws of the State of California by a joint power 
     agreement signed on June 2, 1993.
       (2) Salton sea science office.--The term ``Salton Sea 
     Science Office'' means the Office established by the United 
     States Geological Survey and currently located in La Quinta, 
     California.
       (b) Pilot Projects.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall review the preferred 
     restoration concept plan approved by the Salton Sea Authority 
     to determine that the pilot projects are economically 
     justified, technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and 
     meet the objectives of the Salton Sea Reclamation Act (Public 
     Law 105-372). If the Secretary makes a positive 
     determination, the Secretary may enter into an agreement with 
     the Salton Sea Authority and, in consultation with the Salton 
     Sea Science Office, carry out the pilot project for 
     improvement of the environment in the Salton Sea, except that 
     the Secretary shall be a party to each contract for 
     construction under this subsection.
       (2) Local participation.--In prioritizing pilot projects 
     under this section, the Secretary shall--
       (A) consult with the Salton Sea Authority and the Salton 
     Sea Science Office; and
       (B) consider the priorities of the Salton Sea Authority.
       (3) Cost sharing.--Before carrying out a pilot project 
     under this section, the Secretary shall enter into a written 
     agreement with the Salton Sea Authority that requires the 
     non-Federal interest to--
       (A) pay 35 percent of the total costs of the pilot project;
       (B) acquire any land, easements, rights-of-way, 
     relocations, and dredged material disposal areas necessary to 
     carry out the pilot project; and
       (C) hold the United States harmless from any claim or 
     damage that may arise from carrying out the pilot project, 
     except any claim or damage that may arise from the negligence 
     of the Federal Government or a contractor of the Federal 
     Government.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out subsection (b) $26,000,000, 
     of which not more than $5,000,000 may be used for any 1 pilot 
     project under this section.

     SEC. [3020] 3021. UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for flood damage reduction and recreation, 
     Upper Guadalupe River, California, authorized by section 
     101(a)(9) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 
     Stat. 275), is modified to authorize the Secretary to 
     construct the project generally in accordance with the Upper 
     Guadalupe River Flood Damage Reduction, San Jose, California, 
     Limited Reevaluation Report, dated March, 2004, at a total 
     cost of $212,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $113,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $98,800,000.

     SEC. [3021] 3022. YUBA RIVER BASIN PROJECT, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for flood damage reduction, Yuba River Basin, 
     California, authorized by section 101(a)(10) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 275), is 
     modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project 
     at a total cost of $107,700,000, with an estimated Federal 
     share of $70,000,000 and a non-Federal share of $37,700,000.

     SEC. [3022] 3023. CHARLES HERVEY TOWNSHEND BREAKWATER, NEW 
                   HAVEN HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.

       The western breakwater for the project for navigation, New 
     Haven Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the first section of 
     the Act of September 19, 1890 (26 Stat. 426), shall be known 
     and designated as the ``Charles Hervey Townshend 
     Breakwater''.

     SEC. [3023] 3024. ANCHORAGE AREA, NEW LONDON HARBOR, 
                   CONNECTICUT.

       (a) In General.--The portion of the project for navigation, 
     New London Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the Act of June 
     13, 1902 (32 Stat. 333), that consists of a 23-foot 
     waterfront channel described in subsection (b), is 
     redesignated as an anchorage area.
       (b) Description of Channel.--The channel referred to in 
     subsection (a) may be described as beginning at a point along 
     the western limit of the existing project, N. 188, 802.75, E. 
     779, 462.81, thence running northeasterly about 1,373.88 feet 
     to a point N. 189, 554.87, E. 780, 612.53, thence running 
     southeasterly about 439.54 feet to a point N. 189, 319.88, E. 
     780, 983.98, thence running southwesterly about 831.58 feet 
     to a point N. 188, 864.63, E. 780, 288.08, thence running 
     southeasterly about 567.39 feet to a point N. 188, 301.88, E. 
     780, 360.49, thence running northwesterly about 1,027.96 feet 
     to the point of origin.

     SEC. [3024] 3025. NORWALK HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.

       (a) In General.--The portions of a 10-foot channel of the 
     project for navigation, Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut, 
     authorized by the first section of the Act of March 2, 1919 
     (40 Stat. 1276) and described in subsection (b), are not 
     authorized.
       (b) Description of Portions.--The portions of the channel 
     referred to in subsection (a) are as follows:
       (1) Rectangular portion.--An approximately rectangular-
     shaped section along the northwesterly terminus of the 
     channel. The section is 35-feet wide and about 460-feet long 
     and is further described as commencing at a point N. 
     104,165.85, E. 417,662.71, thence running south 2406'55" E. 
     395.00 feet to a point N. 103,805.32, E. 417,824.10, thence 
     running south 0038'06" E. 87.84 feet to a point N. 
     103,717.49, E. 417,825.07, thence running north 2406'55" W. 
     480.00 feet, to a point N. 104,155.59, E. 417.628.96, thence 
     running north 7305'25" E. 35.28 feet to the point of origin.
       (2) Parallelogram-shaped portion.--An area having the 
     approximate shape of a parallelogram along the northeasterly 
     portion of the channel, southeast of the area described in 
     paragraph (1), approximately 20 feet wide and 260 feet long, 
     and further described as commencing at a point N. 103,855.48, 
     E. 417,849.99, thence running south 3307'30" E. 133.40 feet 
     to a point N. 103,743.76, E. 417,922.89, thence running south 
     2407'04" E. 127.75 feet to a point N. 103,627.16, E. 
     417,975.09, thence running north 3307'30" W. 190.00 feet to 
     a point N. 103,786.28, E. 417,871.26, thence running north 
     1705'15" W. 72.39 feet to the point of origin.
       (c) Modification.--The 10-foot channel portion of the 
     Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut navigation project described in 
     subsection (a) is modified to authorize the Secretary to 
     realign the channel to include, immediately north of the area 
     described in subsection (b)(2), a triangular section 
     described as commencing at a point N. 103,968.35, E. 
     417,815.29, thence running S. 1705'15" east 118.09 feet to a 
     point N. 103,855.48, E. 417,849.99, thence running N. 
     3307'30" west 36.76 feet to a point N. 103,886.27, E. 
     417,829.90, thence running N. 1005'26" west 83.37 feet to 
     the point of origin.

[[Page 14676]]



     SEC. [3025] 3026. ST. GEORGE'S BRIDGE, DELAWARE.

       Section 102(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1990 (104 Stat. 4612) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``The Secretary shall assume ownership 
     responsibility for the replacement bridge not later than the 
     date on which the construction of the bridge is completed and 
     the contractors are released of their responsibility by the 
     State. In addition, the Secretary may not carry out any 
     action to close or remove the St. George's Bridge, Delaware, 
     without specific congressional authorization.''.

     SEC. [3026] 3027. CHRISTINA RIVER, WILMINGTON, DELAWARE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall remove the shipwrecked 
     vessel known as the ``State of Pennsylvania'', and any debris 
     associated with that vessel, from the Christina River at 
     Wilmington, Delaware, in accordance with section 202(b) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 
     426m(b)).
       (b) No Recovery of Funds.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, in carrying out this section, the Secretary 
     shall not be required to recover funds from the owner of the 
     vessel described in subsection (a) or any other vessel.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $425,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

     SEC. [3027] 3028. ADDITIONAL PROGRAM AUTHORITY, COMPREHENSIVE 
                   EVERGLADES RESTORATION, FLORIDA.

       Section 601(c)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2000 (114 Stat. 2684) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(C) Maximum cost of program authority.--Section 902 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280) 
     shall apply to the individual project funding limits in 
     subparagraph (A) and the aggregate cost limits in 
     subparagraph (B).''.

     SEC. [3028] 3029. CRITICAL RESTORATION PROJECTS, EVERGLADES 
                   AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, 
                   FLORIDA.

       Section 528(b)(3)(C) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1996 (110 Stat. 3769) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking ``$75,000,000'' and all that 
     follows and inserting ``$95,000,000.''; and
       (2) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following:
       ``(ii) Federal share.--

       ``(I) In general.--Except as provided in subclause (II), 
     the Federal share of the cost of carrying out a project under 
     subparagraph (A) shall not exceed $25,000,000.
       ``(II) Seminole water conservation plan.--The Federal share 
     of the cost of carrying out the Seminole Water Conservation 
     Plan shall not exceed $30,000,000.''.

     SEC. [3029] 3030. JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FLORIDA.

       The project for navigation, Jacksonville Harbor, Florida, 
     authorized by section 101(a)(17) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276), is modified to 
     authorize the Secretary to extend the navigation features in 
     accordance with the report of the Chief of Engineers dated 
     July 22, 2003, at an additional total cost of $14,658,000, 
     with an estimated Federal cost of $9,636,000 and an estimated 
     non-Federal cost of $5,022,000.

     SEC. [3030] 3031. LAKE OKEECHOBEE AND HILLSBORO AQUIFER PILOT 
                   PROJECTS, COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION, 
                   FLORIDA.

       Section 601(b)(2)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 2000 (114 Stat. 2681) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(v) Hillsboro and okeechobee aquifer, florida.--The pilot 
     projects for aquifer storage and recovery, Hillsboro and 
     Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(16) 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 
     276), shall be treated for the purposes of this section as 
     being in the Plan and carried out in accordance with this 
     section, except that costs of operation and maintenance of 
     those projects shall remain 100 percent non-Federal.''.

     SEC. [3031] 3032. LIDO KEY, SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA.

       The Secretary shall carry out the project for hurricane and 
     storm damage reduction in Lido Key, Sarasota County, Florida, 
     based on the report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 
     22, 2004, at a total cost of $14,809,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $9,088,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $5,721,000, and at an estimated total cost $63,606,000 for 
     periodic beach nourishment over the 50-year life of the 
     project, with an estimated Federal cost of $31,803,000 and an 
     estimated non-Federal cost of $31,803,000.

     SEC. [3032] 3033. TAMPA HARBOR, CUT B, TAMPA, FLORIDA.

       The project for navigation, Tampa Harbor, Florida, 
     authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1970 
     (84 Stat. 1818), is modified to authorize the Secretary to 
     construct passing lanes in an area approximately 3.5 miles 
     long and centered on Tampa Bay Cut B, if the Secretary 
     determines that the improvements are necessary for navigation 
     safety.

     SEC. [3033] 3034. ALLATOONA LAKE, GEORGIA.

       (a) Land Exchange.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may exchange land above 863 
     feet in elevation at Allatoona Lake, Georgia, identified in 
     the Real Estate Design Memorandum prepared by the Mobile 
     district engineer, April 5, 1996, and approved October 8, 
     1996, for land on the north side of Allatoona Lake that is 
     required for wildlife management and protection of the water 
     quality and overall environment of Allatoona Lake.
       (2) Terms and conditions.--The basis for all land exchanges 
     under this subsection shall be a fair market appraisal to 
     ensure that land exchanged is of equal value.
       (b) Disposal and Acquisition of Land, Allatoona Lake, 
     Georgia.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may--
       (A) sell land above 863 feet in elevation at Allatoona 
     Lake, Georgia, identified in the memorandum referred to in 
     subsection (a)(1); and
       (B) use the proceeds of the sale, without further 
     appropriation, to pay costs associated with the purchase of 
     land required for wildlife management and protection of the 
     water quality and overall environment of Allatoona Lake.
       (2) Terms and conditions.--
       (A) Willing sellers.--Land acquired under this subsection 
     shall be by negotiated purchase from willing sellers only.
       (B) Basis.--The basis for all transactions under this 
     subsection shall be a fair market value appraisal acceptable 
     to the Secretary.
       (C) Sharing of costs.--Each purchaser of land under this 
     subsection shall share in the associated environmental and 
     real estate costs of the purchase, including surveys and 
     associated fees in accordance with the memorandum referred to 
     in subsection (a)(1).
       (D) Other conditions.--The Secretary may impose on the sale 
     and purchase of land under this subsection such other 
     conditions as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
       (c) Repeal.--Section 325 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4849) is repealed.

     SEC. [3034] 3035. DWORSHAK RESERVOIR IMPROVEMENTS, IDAHO.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out additional 
     general construction measures to allow for operation at lower 
     pool levels to satisfy the recreation mission at Dworshak 
     Dam, Idaho.
       (b) Improvements.--In carrying out subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall provide for appropriate improvements to--
       (1) facilities that are operated by the Corps of Engineers; 
     and
       (2) facilities that, as of the date of enactment of this 
     Act, are leased, permitted, or licensed for use by others.
       (c) Cost Sharing.--The Secretary shall carry out this 
     section through a cost-sharing program with Idaho State Parks 
     and Recreation Department, with a total estimated project 
     cost of $5,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $3,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,400,000.

     SEC. [3035] 3036. LITTLE WOOD RIVER, GOODING, IDAHO.

       The project for flood control, Gooding, Idaho, as 
     constructed under the emergency conservation work program 
     established under the Act of March 31, 1933 (16 U.S.C. 585 et 
     seq.) is modified to--
       (1) direct the Secretary to rehabilitate the Gooding 
     Channel Project for the purposes of flood control and 
     ecosystem restoration, if the Secretary determines that the 
     rehabilitation and ecosystem restoration is feasible;
       (2) authorize and direct the Secretary to plan, design, and 
     construct the project at a total cost of $9,000,000;
       (3) authorize the non-Federal interest to provide any 
     portion of the non-Federal share of the cost of the project 
     in the form of services, materials, supplies, or other in-
     kind contributions;
       (4) authorize the non-Federal interest to use funds made 
     available under any other Federal program toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project if the use of the 
     funds is permitted under the other Federal program; and
       (5) direct the Secretary, in calculating the non-Federal 
     share of the cost of the project, to make a determination 
     under section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) on the ability to pay of the non-
     Federal interest.

     SEC. [3036] 3037. PORT OF LEWISTON, IDAHO.

       (a) Extinguishment of Reversionary Interests and Use 
     Restrictions.--With respect to property covered by each deed 
     described in subsection (b)--
       (1) the reversionary interests and use restrictions 
     relating to industrial use purposes are extinguished;
       (2) the restriction that no activity shall be permitted 
     that will compete with services and facilities offered by 
     public marinas is extinguished;
       (3) the human habitation or other building structure use 
     restriction is extinguished in each area in which the 
     elevation is above the standard project flood elevation; and
       (4) 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) is required.

[[Page 14677]]

       (b) Deeds.--The deeds referred to in subsection (a) are as 
     follows:
       (1) Auditor's Instrument No. 399218 of Nez Perce County, 
     Idaho, 2.07 acres.
       (2) Auditor's Instrument No. 487437 of Nez Perce County, 
     Idaho, 7.32 acres.
       (c) No Effect on Other Rights.--Nothing in this section 
     affects the remaining rights and interests of the Corps of 
     Engineers for authorized project purposes with respect to 
     property covered by deeds described in subsection (b).

     SEC. [3037] 3038. CACHE RIVER LEVEE, ILLINOIS.

       The Cache River Levee created for flood control at the 
     Cache River, Illinois, and authorized under the Act of June 
     28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1215, chapter 795), is modified to add 
     environmental restoration as a project purpose.

     SEC. 3039. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.

       Section 425(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2000 (114 Stat. 2638) is amended by inserting ``Lake Michigan 
     and'' before ``the Chicago River''.

     SEC. [3038] 3040. CHICAGO RIVER, ILLINOIS.

       The Federal navigation channel for the North Branch Channel 
     portion of the Chicago River authorized by section 22 of the 
     Act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1156, chapter 425), extending 
     from 100 feet downstream of the Halsted Street Bridge to 100 
     feet upstream of the Division Street Bridge, Chicago, 
     Illinois, is redefined to be no wider than 66 feet.

     SEC. [3039] 3041. MISSOURI AND ILLINOIS FLOOD PROTECTION 
                   PROJECTS RECONSTRUCTION PILOT PROGRAM.

       (a) Definition of Reconstruction.--In this section:
       (1) In general.--The term ``reconstruction'' means any 
     action taken to address 1 or more major deficiencies of a 
     project caused by long-term degradation of the foundation, 
     construction materials, or engineering systems or components 
     of the project, the results of which render the project at 
     risk of not performing in compliance with the authorized 
     purposes of the project.
       (2) Inclusions.--The term ``reconstruction'' includes the 
     incorporation by the Secretary of current design standards 
     and efficiency improvements in a project if the incorporation 
     does not significantly change the authorized scope, function, 
     or purpose of the project.
       (b) Participation by Secretary.--The Secretary may 
     participate in the reconstruction of flood control projects 
     within Missouri and Illinois as a pilot program if the 
     Secretary determines that such reconstruction is not required 
     as a result of improper operation and maintenance by the non-
     Federal interest.
       (c) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) In general.--Costs for reconstruction of a project 
     under this section shall be shared by the Secretary and the 
     non-Federal interest in the same percentages as the costs of 
     construction of the original project were shared.
       (2) Operation, maintenance, and repair costs.--The costs of 
     operation, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of a 
     project carried out under this section shall be a non-Federal 
     responsibility.
       (d) Critical Projects.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to the following projects:
       (1) Clear Creek Drainage and Levee District, Illinois.
       (2) Fort Chartres and Ivy Landing Drainage District, 
     Illinois.
       (3) Wood River Drainage and Levee District, Illinois.
       (4) City of St. Louis, Missouri.
       (5) Missouri River Levee Drainage District, Missouri.
       (e) Economic Justification.--Reconstruction efforts and 
     activities carried out under this section shall not require 
     economic justification.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $50,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

     SEC. [3040] 3042. SPUNKY BOTTOM, ILLINOIS.

       (a) In General.--The project for flood control, Illinois 
     and Des Plaines River Basin, between Beardstown, Illinois, 
     and the mouth of the Illinois River, authorized by section 5 
     of the Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1583, chapter 688), is 
     modified to authorize ecosystem restoration as a project 
     purpose.
       (b) Modifications.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), notwithstanding 
     the limitation on the expenditure of Federal funds to carry 
     out project modifications in accordance with section 1135 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
     2309a), modifications to the project referred to in 
     subsection (a) shall be carried out at Spunky Bottoms, 
     Illinois, in accordance with subsection (a).
       (2) Federal share.--Not more than $7,500,000 in Federal 
     funds may be expended under this section to carry out 
     modifications to the project referred to in subsection (a).
       (3) Post-construction monitoring and management.--Of the 
     Federal funds expended under paragraph (2), not less than 
     $500,000 shall remain available for a period of 5 years after 
     the date of completion of construction of the modifications 
     for use in carrying out post-construction monitoring and 
     adaptive management.
       (c) Emergency Repair Assistance.--Notwithstanding any 
     modifications carried out under subsection (b), the project 
     described in subsection (a) shall remain eligible for 
     emergency repair assistance under section 5 of the Act of 
     August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n), without consideration of 
     economic justification.

     SEC. [3041] 3043. STRAWN CEMETERY, JOHN REDMOND LAKE, KANSAS.

       (a) In General.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary, acting through the 
     Tulsa District of the Corps of Engineers, shall transfer to 
     Pleasant Township, Coffey County, Kansas, for use as the New 
     Strawn Cemetery, all right, title, and interest of the United 
     States in and to the land described in subsection (c).
       (b) Reversion.--If the land transferred under this section 
     ceases at any time to be used as a nonprofit cemetery or for 
     another public purpose, the land shall revert to the United 
     States.
       (c) Description.--The land to be conveyed under this 
     section is a tract of land near John Redmond Lake, Kansas, 
     containing approximately 3 acres and lying adjacent to the 
     west line of the Strawn Cemetery located in the SE corner of 
     the NE\1/4\ of sec. 32, T. 20 S., R. 14 E., Coffey County, 
     Kansas.
       (d) Consideration.--
       (1) In general.--The conveyance under this section shall be 
     at fair market value.
       (2) Costs.--All costs associated with the conveyance shall 
     be paid by Pleasant Township, Coffey County, Kansas.
       (e) Other Terms and Conditions.--The conveyance under this 
     section shall be subject to such other terms and conditions 
     as the Secretary considers necessary to protect the interests 
     of the United States.

     SEC. [3042] 3044. HARRY S. TRUMAN RESERVOIR, MILFORD, KANSAS.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsections (b) and (c), the 
     Secretary shall convey at fair market value by quitclaim deed 
     to the Geary County Fire Department, Milford, Kansas, all 
     right, title, and interest of the United States in and to a 
     parcel of land consisting of approximately 7.4 acres located 
     in Geary County, Kansas, for construction, operation, and 
     maintenance of a fire station.
       (b) Survey to Obtain Legal Description.--The exact acreage 
     and the description of the real property referred to in 
     subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey that is 
     satisfactory to the Secretary.
       (c) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the 
     property conveyed under subsection (a) ceases to be held in 
     public ownership or to be used for any purpose other than a 
     fire station, all right, title, and interest in and to the 
     property shall revert to the United States, at the option of 
     the United States.

     SEC. [3043] 3045. OHIO RIVER, KENTUCKY, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, 
                   OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, AND WEST VIRGINIA.

       Section 101(16) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2000 (114 Stat. 2578) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(A) In general.--Projects for ecosystem 
     restoration, Ohio River Mainstem'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) Authorization.--
       ``(i) In general.--Projects for ecosystem restoration, Ohio 
     River Basin (excluding the Tennessee and Cumberland River 
     Basins)''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (A), by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(ii) Nonprofit entity.--For any ecosystem restoration 
     project carried out under this paragraph, with the consent of 
     the affected local government, a nonprofit entity may be 
     considered to be a non-Federal interest.
       ``(iii) Program implementation plan.--There is authorized 
     to be developed a program implementation plan of the Ohio 
     River Basin (excluding the Tennessee and Cumberland River 
     Basins) at full Federal expense.
       ``(iv) Pilot program.--There is authorized to be initiated 
     a completed pilot program in Lower Scioto Basin, Ohio.''.

     [SEC. 3044. PUBLIC ACCESS, ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM, 
                   LOUISIANA.

       [The public access features of the Atchafalaya Basin 
     Floodway System, Louisiana, project, authorized by the 
     section 601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (100 Stat. 4142), are modified to authorize the Secretary to 
     acquire from willing sellers the fee interest, exclusive of 
     oil, gas, and minerals, of an additional 20,000 acres of land 
     in the Lower Atchafalaya Basin Flood for the public access 
     feature of the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana, 
     to enhance fish and wildlife resources, at a total cost of 
     $4,000,000.]

     SEC. 3046. PUBLIC ACCESS, ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM, 
                   LOUISIANA.

       (a) In General.--The public access feature of the 
     Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana project, 
     authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142), is modified to 
     authorize the Secretary to acquire from willing sellers the 
     fee interest (exclusive of oil, gas, and minerals) of an 
     additional 20,000 acres of land in the Lower Atchafalaya 
     Basin Floodway for the public access feature of the 
     Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana project.
       (b) Modification.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), effective 
     beginning November 17, 1986, the public access feature of the 
     Atchafalaya Basin

[[Page 14678]]

     Floodway System, Louisiana project, is modified to remove the 
     $32,000,000 limitation on the maximum Federal expenditure for 
     the first costs of the public access feature.
       (2) First cost.--The authorized first cost of $250,000,000 
     for the total project (as defined in section 601(a) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142)) 
     shall not be exceeded, except as authorized by section 902 of 
     that Act (100 Stat. 4183).

     SEC. [3045] 3047. CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LOUISIANA.

       The project for the Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana, 
     authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 
     (74 Stat. 481), is modified to authorize the Secretary to 
     provide $3,000,000 for each fiscal year, in a total amount of 
     $15,000,000, for such rock bank protection of the Calcasieu 
     River from mile 5 to mile 16 as the Chief of Engineers 
     determines to be advisable to reduce maintenance dredging 
     needs and facilitate protection of valuable disposal areas 
     for the Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana.

     SEC. 3048. LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LOUISIANA.

       (a) In General.--For the project for hurricane protection, 
     Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana, authorized by section 204 
     of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1077), not later 
     than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall make the determination described in section 
     325 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 
     304) regarding the technical feasibility, environmental 
     acceptability, and economical justification of converting the 
     Golden Meadow floodgate into a navigation lock.
       (b) Conversion.--If the Secretary makes a favorable 
     determination under subsection (a), or fails to make a 
     favorable or unfavorable determination by the date specified 
     in subsection (a), the conversion of the Golden Meadow 
     floodgate to a navigation lock shall be considered to be 
     authorized as a feature of the hurricane protection project 
     referred to in subsection (a).

     SEC. [3046] 3049. EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LOUISIANA.

       The project for flood damage reduction and recreation, East 
     Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, authorized by section 
     101(a)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 277), as amended by section 116 of the 
     Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (117 Stat. 140), 
     is modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out the 
     project substantially in accordance with the Report of the 
     Chief of Engineers dated December 23, 1996, and the 
     subsequent Post Authorization Change Report dated [August] 
     December 2004, at a total cost of $178,000,000.

     SEC. [3047] 3050. RED RIVER (J. BENNETT JOHNSTON) 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), 
     section 301(b)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3710), and section 316 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2604), is further 
     modified--
       (1) to authorize the Secretary to carry out the project at 
     a total cost of $33,000,000;
       [(1)] (2) to permit the purchase of marginal farmland for 
     reforestation (in addition to the purchase of bottomland 
     hardwood); and
       [(2)] (3) to incorporate wildlife and forestry management 
     practices to improve species diversity on mitigation land 
     that meets habitat goals and objectives of the Corps of 
     Engineers and the State of Louisiana.

     SEC. [3048] 3051. CAMP ELLIS, SACO, MAINE.

       The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended 
     for the project being carried out under section 111 of the 
     River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i) for the 
     mitigation of shore damages attributable to the project for 
     navigation, Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine, shall be $20,000,000.

     SEC. [3049] 3052. UNION RIVER, MAINE.

       The project for navigation, Union River, Maine, authorized 
     by the first section of the Act of June 3, 1896 (29 Stat. 
     215, chapter 314), is modified by redesignating as an 
     anchorage area that portion of the project consisting of a 6-
     foot turning basin and lying northerly of a line commencing 
     at a point N. 315,975.13, E. 1,004,424.86, thence running N. 
     61 27' 20.71" W. about 132.34 feet to a point N. 316,038.37, 
     E. 1,004,308.61.

     SEC. [3050] 3053. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION 
                   AND PROTECTION PROGRAM, MARYLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, 
                   AND VIRGINIA.

       Section 510(i) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3761) is amended by striking ``$10,000,000'' 
     and inserting ``$30,000,000''.

     SEC. [3051] 3054. CUMBERLAND, MARYLAND.

       Section 580(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999 (113 Stat. 375) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$15,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$25,750,000'';
       (2) by striking ``$9,750,000'' and inserting 
     ``$16,738,000''; and
       (3) by striking ``$5,250,000'' and inserting 
     ``$9,012,000''.

     SEC. [3052] 3055. FALL RIVER HARBOR, MASSACHUSETTS AND RHODE 
                   ISLAND.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 1001(b)(2) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
     579a(b)(2)), the project for navigation, Fall River Harbor, 
     Massachusetts and Rhode Island, authorized by section 101 of 
     the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731), shall remain 
     authorized to be carried out by the Secretary, except that 
     the authorized depth of that portion of the project extending 
     riverward of the Charles M. Braga, Jr. Memorial Bridge, Fall 
     River and Somerset, Massachusetts, shall not exceed 35 feet.
       (b) Feasibility.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of deepening that portion of the 
     navigation channel of the navigation project for Fall River 
     Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, authorized by section 
     101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731), 
     seaward of the Charles M. Braga, Jr. Memorial Bridge Fall 
     River and Somerset, Massachusetts.
       (c) Limitation.--The project described in subsection (a) 
     shall not be authorized for construction after the last day 
     of the 5-year period beginning on the date of enactment of 
     this Act unless, during that period, funds have been 
     obligated for construction (including planning and design) of 
     the project.

     SEC. [3053] 3056. ST. CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST. CLAIR, 
                   MICHIGAN.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means 
     the management plan for the St. Clair River and Lake St. 
     Clair, Michigan, that is in effect as of the date of 
     enactment of this section.
       (2) Partnership.--The term ``Partnership'' means the 
     partnership established by the Secretary under subsection 
     (b)(1).
       (b) Partnership.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish and lead a 
     partnership of appropriate Federal agencies (including the 
     Environmental Protection Agency) and the State of Michigan 
     (including political subdivisions of the State)--
       (A) to promote cooperation among the Federal Government, 
     State and local governments, and other involved parties in 
     the management of the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair 
     watersheds; and
       (B) develop and implement projects consistent with the 
     management plan.
       (2) Coordination with actions under other law.--
       (A) In general.--Actions taken under this section by the 
     Partnership shall be coordinated with actions to restore and 
     conserve the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair and 
     watersheds taken under other provisions of Federal and State 
     law.
       (B) No effect on other law.--Nothing in this section 
     alters, modifies, or affects any other provision of Federal 
     or State law.
       (c) Implementation of St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair 
     Management Plan.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
       (A) develop a St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair strategic 
     implementation plan in accordance with the management plan;
       (B) provide technical, planning, and engineering assistance 
     to non-Federal interests for developing and implementing 
     activities consistent with the management plan;
       (C) plan, design, and implement projects consistent with 
     the management plan; and
       (D) provide, in coordination with the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, financial and technical 
     assistance, including grants, to the State of Michigan 
     (including political subdivisions of the State) and 
     interested nonprofit entities for the planning, design, and 
     implementation of projects to restore, conserve, manage, and 
     sustain the St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair, and associated 
     watersheds.
       (2) Specific measures.--Financial and technical assistance 
     provided under subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (1) may 
     be used in support of non-Federal activities consistent with 
     the management plan.
       (d) Supplements to Management Plan and Strategic 
     Implementation Plan.--In consultation with the Partnership 
     and after providing an opportunity for public review and 
     comment, the Secretary shall develop information to 
     supplement--
       (1) the management plan; and
       (2) the strategic implementation plan developed under 
     subsection (c)(1)(A).
       (e) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the cost 
     of technical assistance, or the cost of planning, design, 
     construction, and evaluation of a project under subsection 
     (c), and the cost of development of supplementary information 
     under subsection (d)--
       (A) shall be 25 percent of the total cost of the project or 
     development; and
       (B) may be provided through the provision of in-kind 
     services.
       (2) Credit for land, easements, and rights-of-way.--The 
     Secretary shall credit the non-Federal sponsor for the value 
     of any land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged material 
     disposal areas, or relocations provided for use in carrying 
     out a project under subsection (c).
       (3) Nonprofit entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of the 
     Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), a non-Federal 
     sponsor for any project carried out under this section may 
     include a nonprofit entity.
       (4) Operation and maintenance.--The operation, maintenance, 
     repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of projects carried 
     out

[[Page 14679]]

     under this section shall be non-Federal responsibilities.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for 
     each fiscal year.

     SEC. [3054] 3057. DULUTH HARBOR, MINNESOTA.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the cost limitation 
     described in section 107(b) of the River and Harbor Act of 
     1960 (33 U.S.C. 577(b)), the Secretary shall carry out the 
     project for navigation, Duluth Harbor, Minnesota, pursuant to 
     the authority provided under that section at a total Federal 
     cost of $9,000,000.
       (b) Public Access and Recreational Facilities.--Section 321 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 
     2605) is amended by inserting ``, and to provide public 
     access and recreational facilities'' after ``including any 
     required bridge construction''.

     SEC. [3055] 3058. LAND EXCHANGE, PIKE COUNTY, MISSOURI.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means the 2 
     parcels of Corps of Engineers land totaling approximately 42 
     acres, located on Buffalo Island in Pike County, Missouri, 
     and consisting of Government Tract Numbers MIS-7 and a 
     portion of FM-46.
       (2) Non-federal land.--The term ``non-Federal land'' means 
     the approximately 42 acres of land, subject to any existing 
     flowage easements situated in Pike County, Missouri, upstream 
     and northwest, about 200 feet from Drake Island (also known 
     as Grimes Island).
       (b) Land Exchange.--Subject to subsection (c), on 
     conveyance by S.S.S., Inc., to the United States of all 
     right, title, and interest in and to the non-Federal land, 
     the Secretary shall convey to S.S.S., Inc., all right, title, 
     and interest of the United States in and to the Federal land.
       (c) Conditions.--
       (1) Deeds.--
       (A) Non-federal land.--The conveyance of the non-Federal 
     land to the Secretary shall be by a warranty deed acceptable 
     to the Secretary.
       (B) Federal land.--The conveyance of the Federal land to 
     S.S.S., Inc., shall be--
       (i) by quitclaim deed; and
       (ii) subject to any reservations, terms, and conditions 
     that the Secretary determines to be necessary to allow the 
     United States to operate and maintain the Mississippi River 
     9-Foot Navigation Project.
       (C) Legal descriptions.--The Secretary shall, subject to 
     approval of S.S.S., Inc., provide a legal description of the 
     Federal land and non-Federal land for inclusion in the deeds 
     referred to in subparagraphs (A) and (B).
       (2) Removal of improvements.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary may require the removal of, 
     or S.S.S., Inc., may voluntarily remove, any improvements to 
     the non-Federal land before the completion of the exchange or 
     as a condition of the exchange.
       (B) No liability.--If S.S.S., Inc., removes any 
     improvements to the non-Federal land under subparagraph (A)--
       (i) S.S.S., Inc., shall have no claim against the United 
     States relating to the removal; and
       (ii) the United States shall not incur or be liable for any 
     cost associated with the removal or relocation of the 
     improvements.
       (3) Administrative costs.--The Secretary shall require 
     S.S.S., Inc. to pay reasonable administrative costs 
     associated with the exchange.
       (4) Cash equalization payment.--If the appraised fair 
     market value, as determined by the Secretary, of the Federal 
     land exceeds the appraised fair market value, as determined 
     by the Secretary, of the non-Federal land, S.S.S., Inc., 
     shall make a cash equalization payment to the United States.
       (5) Deadline.--The land exchange under subsection (b) shall 
     be completed not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. [3056] 3059. UNION LAKE, MISSOURI.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall offer to convey to the 
     State of Missouri, before January 31, [2005] 2006, all right, 
     title, and interest in and to approximately 205.50 acres of 
     land described in subsection (b) purchased for the Union Lake 
     Project that was deauthorized as of January 1, 1990 (55 Fed. 
     Reg. 40906) in accordance with section 1001 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(a)).
       (b) Land Description.--The land referred to in subsection 
     (a) is described as follows:
       (1) Tract 500.--A tract of land situated in Franklin 
     County, Missouri, being part of the SW\1/4\ of sec. 7, and 
     the NW\1/4\ of the SW\1/4\ of sec. 8, T. 42 N., R. 2 W. of 
     the fifth principal meridian, consisting of approximately 
     112.50 acres.
       (2) Tract 605.--A tract of land situated in Franklin 
     County, Missouri, being part of the N\1/2\ of the NE, and 
     part of the SE of the NE of sec. 18, T. 42 N., R. 2 W. of the 
     fifth principal meridian, consisting of approximately 93.00 
     acres.
       (c) Conveyance.--Upon acceptance by the State of Missouri 
     of the offer by the Secretary under subsection (a), the land 
     described in subsection (b) shall immediately be conveyed, in 
     its current condition, by Secretary to the State of Missouri.

     SEC. [3057] 3060. FORT PECK FISH HATCHERY, MONTANA.

       Section 325(f)(1)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 2000 (114 Stat. 2607) is amended by striking 
     ``$20,000,000'' and inserting ``$25,000,000''.

     SEC. 3061. YELLOWSTONE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MONTANA AND 
                   NORTH DAKOTA.

       (a) Definition of Restoration Project.--In this section, 
     the term ``restoration project'' means a project that will 
     produce, in accordance with other Federal programs, projects, 
     and activities, substantial ecosystem restoration and related 
     benefits, as determined by the Secretary.
       (b) Projects.--The Secretary shall carry out, in accordance 
     with other Federal programs, projects, and activities, 
     restoration projects in the watershed of the Yellowstone 
     River and tributaries in Montana, and in North Dakota, to 
     produce immediate and substantial ecosystem restoration and 
     recreation benefits.
       (c) Local Participation.--In carrying out subsection (b), 
     the Secretary shall--
       (1) consult with, and consider the activities being carried 
     out by--
       (A) other Federal agencies;
       (B) Indian tribes;
       (C) conservation districts; and
       (D) the Yellowstone River Conservation District Council; 
     and
       (2) seek the full participation of the State of Montana.
       (d) Cost Sharing.--Before carrying out any restoration 
     project under this section, the Secretary shall enter into an 
     agreement with the non-Federal interest for the restoration 
     project under which the non-Federal interest shall agree--
       (1) to provide 35 percent of the total cost of the 
     restoration project, including necessary land, easements, 
     rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal sites;
       (2) to pay the non-Federal share of the cost of feasibility 
     studies and design during construction following execution of 
     a project cooperation agreement;
       (3) to pay 100 percent of the operation, maintenance, 
     repair, replacement, and rehabilitation costs incurred after 
     the date of enactment of this Act that are associated with 
     the restoration project; and
       (4) to hold the United States harmless for any claim of 
     damage that arises from the negligence of the Federal 
     Government or a contractor of the Federal Government in 
     carrying out the restoration project.
       (e) Form of Non-Federal Share.--Not more than 50 percent of 
     the non-Federal share of the cost of a restoration project 
     carried out under this section may be provided in the form of 
     in-kind credit for work performed during construction of the 
     restoration project.
       (f) Non-Federal Interests.--Notwithstanding section 221 of 
     the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), with the 
     consent of the applicable local government, a nonprofit 
     entity may be a non-Federal interest for a restoration 
     project carried out under this section.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000.

     SEC. [3058] 3062. LOWER TRUCKEE RIVER, MCCARRAN RANCH, 
                   NEVADA.

       The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended 
     for the project being carried out, as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act, under section 1135 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) for 
     environmental restoration of McCarran Ranch, Nevada, shall be 
     $5,775,000.

     SEC. [3059] 3063. MIDDLE RIO GRANDE RESTORATION, NEW MEXICO.

       (a) Restoration Projects.--
       (1) Definition.--The term ``restoration project'' means a 
     project that will produce, consistent with other Federal 
     programs, projects, and activities, immediate and substantial 
     ecosystem restoration and recreation benefits.
       (2) Projects.--The Secretary shall carry out restoration 
     projects in the Middle Rio Grande from Cochiti Dam to the 
     headwaters of Elephant Butte Reservoir, in the State of New 
     Mexico.
       (b) Project Selection.--The Secretary shall select 
     restoration projects in the Middle Rio Grande.
       (c) Local Participation.--In carrying out subsection (b), 
     the Secretary shall consult with, and consider the activities 
     being carried out by--
       (1) the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Act 
     Collaborative Program; and
       (2) the Bosque Improvement Group of the Middle Rio Grande 
     Bosque Initiative.
       (d) Cost Sharing.--Before carrying out any restoration 
     project under this section, the Secretary shall enter into an 
     agreement with non-Federal interests that requires the non-
     Federal interests to--
       (1) provide 35 percent of the total cost of the restoration 
     projects including provisions for necessary lands, easements, 
     rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal sites;
       (2) pay 100 percent of the operation, maintenance, repair, 
     replacement, and rehabilitation costs incurred after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act that are associated with the 
     restoration projects; and
       (3) hold the United States harmless for any claim of damage 
     that arises from the negligence of the Federal Government or 
     a contractor of the Federal Government.
       (e) Non-Federal Interests.--Not withstanding section 221 of 
     the Flood Control Act

[[Page 14680]]

     of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), a non-Federal interest for any 
     project carried out under this section may include a 
     nonprofit entity, with the consent of the local government.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $25,000,000 to carry out this section.

     SEC. [3060] 3064. LONG ISLAND SOUND OYSTER RESTORATION, NEW 
                   YORK AND CONNECTICUT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall plan, design, and 
     construct projects to increase aquatic habitats within Long 
     Island Sound and adjacent waters, including the construction 
     and restoration of oyster beds and related shellfish habitat.
       (b) Cost-Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
     activities carried out under this section shall be 25 percent 
     and may be provided through in-kind services and materials.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $25,000,000 to carry out this section.

     SEC. [3061] 3065. ORCHARD BEACH, BRONX, NEW YORK.

       Section 554 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (110 Stat. 3781) is amended by striking ``$5,200,000'' and 
     inserting ``$18,200,000''.

     SEC. [3062] 3066. NEW YORK HARBOR, NEW YORK, NEW YORK.

       Section 217 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (33 U.S.C. 2326a) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d);
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Dredged Material Facility.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may enter into cost-
     sharing agreements with 1 or more non-Federal public 
     interests with respect to a project, or group of projects 
     within a geographic region, if appropriate, for the 
     acquisition, design, construction, management, or operation 
     of a dredged material processing, treatment, contaminant 
     reduction, or disposal facility (including any facility used 
     to demonstrate potential beneficial uses of dredged material, 
     which may include effective sediment contaminant reduction 
     technologies) using funds provided in whole or in part by the 
     Federal Government.
       ``(2) Performance.--One or more of the parties to the 
     agreement may perform the acquisition, design, construction, 
     management, or operation of a dredged material processing, 
     treatment, contaminant reduction, or disposal facility.
       ``(3) Multiple federal projects.--If appropriate, the 
     Secretary may combine portions of separate Federal projects 
     with appropriate combined cost-sharing between the various 
     projects, if the facility serves to manage dredged material 
     from multiple Federal projects located in the geographic 
     region of the facility.
       ``(4) Public financing.--
       ``(A) Agreements.--
       ``(i) Specified federal funding sources and cost sharing.--
     The cost-sharing agreement used shall clearly specify--

       ``(I) the Federal funding sources and combined cost-sharing 
     when applicable to multiple Federal navigation projects; and
       ``(II) the responsibilities and risks of each of the 
     parties related to present and future dredged material 
     managed by the facility.

       ``(ii) Management of sediments.--

       ``(I) In general.--The cost-sharing agreement may include 
     the management of sediments from the maintenance dredging of 
     Federal navigation projects that do not have partnerships 
     agreements.
       ``(II) Payments.--The cost-sharing agreement may allow the 
     non-Federal interest to receive reimbursable payments from 
     the Federal Government for commitments made by the non-
     Federal interest for disposal or placement capacity at 
     dredged material treatment, processing, contaminant 
     reduction, or disposal facilities.

       ``(iii) Credit.--The cost-sharing agreement may allow costs 
     incurred prior to execution of a partnership agreement for 
     construction or the purchase of equipment or capacity for the 
     project to be credited according to existing cost-sharing 
     rules.
       ``(B) Credit.--
       ``(i) Effect on existing agreements.--Nothing in this 
     subsection supersedes or modifies an agreement in effect on 
     the date of enactment of this paragraph between the Federal 
     Government and any other non-Federal interest for the cost-
     sharing, construction, and operation and maintenance of a 
     Federal navigation project.
       ``(ii) Credit for funds.--Subject to the approval of the 
     Secretary and in accordance with law (including regulations 
     and policies) in effect on the date of enactment of this 
     paragraph, a non-Federal public interest of a Federal 
     navigation project may seek credit for funds provided for the 
     acquisition, design, construction, management, or operation 
     of a dredged material processing, treatment, or disposal 
     facility to the extent the facility is used to manage dredged 
     material from the Federal navigation project.
       ``(iii) Non-federal interest responsibilities.--The non-
     Federal interest shall--

       ``(I) be responsible for providing all necessary land, 
     easement rights-of-way, or relocations associated with the 
     facility; and
       ``(II) receive credit for those items.''; and

       (3) in paragraphs (1) and (2)(A) of subsection (d) (as so 
     redesignated)--
       (A) by inserting ``and maintenance'' after ``operation'' 
     each place it appears; and
       (B) by inserting ``processing, treatment, or'' after 
     ``dredged material'' the first place it appears in each of 
     those paragraphs.

     SEC. [3063] 3067. ONONDAGA LAKE, NEW YORK.

       Section 573 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 372) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (f), by striking ``$10,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$30,000,000'';
       (2) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections 
     (g) and (h), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
       ``(f) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) 
     of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for 
     any project carried out under this section, a non-Federal 
     interest may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of 
     the affected local government.''.

     SEC. [3064] 3068. MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, NORTH DAKOTA.

       Section 707(a) of the Water Resources Act of 2000 (114 
     Stat. 2699) is amended in the first sentence by striking 
     ``2005'' and inserting ``2010''.

     SEC. [3065] 3069. LOWER GIRARD LAKE DAM, GIRARD, OHIO.

       Section 507(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3758) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$2,500,000'' and inserting 
     ``$5,500,000''; and
       (2) by adding before the period at the end the following: 
     ``(which repair and rehabilitation shall include lowering the 
     crest of the Dam by not more than 12.5 feet)''.

     SEC. [3066] 3070. TOUSSAINT RIVER NAVIGATION PROJECT, CARROLL 
                   TOWNSHIP, OHIO.

       Increased operation and maintenance activities for the 
     Toussaint River Federal Navigation Project, Carroll Township, 
     Ohio, that are carried out in accordance with section 107 of 
     the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) and relate 
     directly to the presence of unexploded ordnance, shall be 
     carried out at full Federal expense.

     SEC. [3067] 3071. ARCADIA LAKE, OKLAHOMA.

       Payments made by the city of Edmond, Oklahoma, to the 
     Secretary in October 1999 of all costs associated with 
     present and future water storage costs at Arcadia Lake, 
     Oklahoma, under Arcadia Lake Water Storage Contract Number 
     DACW56-79-C-002 shall satisfy the obligations of the city 
     under that contract.

     SEC. 3072. OKLAHOMA LAKE DEMONSTRATION, OKLAHOMA.

       (a) Release of Retained Rights, Interests, and 
     Reservations.--Each reversionary interest and use restriction 
     relating to public parks and recreation on the land conveyed 
     by the Secretary to the State of Oklahoma at Lake Texoma 
     pursuant to the Act entitled ``An Act to authorize the sale 
     of certain lands to the State of Oklahoma'' (67 Stat. 62, 
     chapter 118) is terminated.
       (b) Instrument of Release.--As soon as practicable after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     execute and file in the appropriate office a deed of release, 
     an amended deed, or another appropriate instrument to release 
     each interest and use restriction described in subsection 
     (a).

     SEC. [3068] 3073. WAURIKA LAKE, OKLAHOMA.

       The remaining obligation of the Waurika Project Master 
     Conservancy District payable to the United States Government 
     in the amounts, rates of interest, and payment schedules--
       (1) is set at the amounts, rates of interest, and payment 
     schedules that existed on June 3, 1986; and
       (2) may not be adjusted, altered, or changed without a 
     specific, separate, and written agreement between the 
     District and the United States.

     SEC. [3069] 3074. LOOKOUT POINT, DEXTER LAKE PROJECT, LOWELL, 
                   OREGON.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsections (b) and (c), the 
     Secretary shall convey at fair market value to the community 
     of Lowell, Oregon, all right, title, and interest of the 
     United States in and to a parcel of land consisting of 
     approximately 0.98 acres located in Lane County, Oregon.
       (b) Survey to Obtain Legal Description.--The exact acreage 
     and the description of the real property referred to in 
     subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey that is 
     satisfactory to the Secretary.
       (c) Condition.--The Secretary shall not complete the 
     conveyance under subsection (a) until such time as the United 
     States Forest Service--
       (1) completes and certifies that necessary environmental 
     remediation associated with the structures located on the 
     property is complete; and
       (2) transfers the structures to the Corps of Engineers.

     SEC. [3070] 3075. UPPER WILLAMETTE RIVER WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM 
                   RESTORATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct studies and 
     ecosystem restoration projects for the upper Willamette River 
     watershed from Albany, Oregon, to the headwaters of the 
     Willamette River and tributaries.
       (b) Consultation.--The Secretary shall carry out ecosystem 
     restoration projects

[[Page 14681]]

     under this section for the Upper Willamette River watershed 
     in consultation with the Governor of the State of Oregon, the 
     heads of appropriate Indian tribes, the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Bureau of 
     Land Management, the Forest Service, and local entities.
       (c) Authorized Activities.--In carrying out ecosystem 
     restoration projects under this section, the Secretary shall 
     undertake activities necessary to protect, monitor, and 
     restore fish and wildlife habitat.
       (d) Cost Sharing Requirements.--
       (1) Studies.--Studies conducted under this section shall be 
     subject to cost sharing in accordance with section 206 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330).
       (2) Ecosystem restoration projects.--
       (A) In general.--Non-Federal interests shall pay 35 percent 
     of the cost of any ecosystem restoration project carried out 
     under this section.
       (B) Items provided by non-federal interests.--
       (i) In general.--Non-Federal interests shall provide all 
     land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal 
     areas, and relocations necessary for ecosystem restoration 
     projects to be carried out under this section.
       (ii) Credit toward payment.--The value of the land, 
     easements, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal areas, 
     and relocations provided under paragraph (1) shall be 
     credited toward the payment required under subsection (a).
       (C) In-kind contributions.--100 percent of the non-Federal 
     share required under subsection (a) may be satisfied by the 
     provision of in-kind contributions.
       (3) Operations and maintenance.--Non-Federal interests 
     shall be responsible for all costs associated with operating, 
     maintaining, replacing, repairing, and rehabilitating all 
     projects carried out under this section.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000.

     SEC. [3071] 3076. TIOGA TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall convey to the Tioga 
     Township, Pennsylvania, at fair market value, all right, 
     title, and interest in and to the parcel of real property 
     located on the northeast end of Tract No. 226, a portion of 
     the Tioga-Hammond Lakes Floods Control Project, Tioga County, 
     Pennsylvania, consisting of approximately 8 acres, together 
     with any improvements on that property, in as-is condition, 
     for public ownership and use as the site of the 
     administrative offices and road maintenance complex for the 
     Township.
       (b) Survey to Obtain Legal Description.--The exact acreage 
     and the legal description of the real property described in 
     subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey that is 
     satisfactory to the Secretary.
       (c) Reservation of Interests.--The Secretary shall reserve 
     such rights and interests in and to the property to be 
     conveyed as the Secretary considers necessary to preserve the 
     operational integrity and security of the Tioga-Hammond Lakes 
     Flood Control Project.
       (d) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the 
     property conveyed under subsection (a) ceases to be held in 
     public ownership, or to be used as a site for the Tioga 
     Township administrative offices and road maintenance complex 
     or for related public purposes, all right, title, and 
     interest in and to the property shall revert to the United 
     States, at the option of the United States.

     SEC. [3072] 3077. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, PENNSYLVANIA 
                   AND NEW YORK.

       Section 567 if the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (110 Stat. 3787) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
       ``(c) Cooperation Agreements.--
       ``(1) In general.--In conducting the study and implementing 
     the strategy under this section, the Secretary shall enter 
     into cost-sharing and project cooperation agreements with the 
     Federal Government, State and local governments (with the 
     consent of the State and local governments), land trusts, or 
     nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations with expertise in 
     wetland restoration.
       ``(2) Financial assistance.--Under the cooperation 
     agreement, the Secretary may provide assistance for 
     implementation of wetland restoration projects and soil and 
     water conservation measures.''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
       ``(d) Implementation of Strategy.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out the 
     development, demonstration, and implementation of the 
     strategy under this section in cooperation with local 
     landowners, local government officials, and land trusts.
       ``(2) Goals of projects.--Projects to implement the 
     strategy under this subsection shall be designed to take 
     advantage of ongoing or planned actions by other agencies, 
     local municipalities, or nonprofit, nongovernmental 
     organizations with expertise in wetland restoration that 
     would increase the effectiveness or decrease the overall cost 
     of implementing recommended projects.''.

     SEC. [3073] 3078. COOPER RIVER BRIDGE DEMOLITION, CHARLESTON, 
                   SOUTH CAROLINA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, at full Federal expense, 
     may carry out all planning, design, and construction for--
       (1) the demolition and removal of the Grace and Pearman 
     Bridges over the Cooper River, South Carolina; and
       (2) using the remnants from that demolition and removal, 
     the development of an aquatic reef off the shore of South 
     Carolina.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $39,000,000.

     SEC. [3074] 3079. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
                   DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AT RICHARD B. RUSSELL 
                   LAKE, SOUTH CAROLINA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall convey to the State of 
     South Carolina, by quitclaim deed, all right, title, and 
     interest of the United States in and to the parcels of land 
     described in subsection (b)(1) that are managed, as of the 
     date of enactment of this Act, by the South Carolina 
     Department of Commerce for public recreation 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).
       (b) Land Description.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the 
     parcels of land referred to in subsection (a) are the parcels 
     contained in the portion of land described in Army Lease 
     Number DACW21-1-92-0500.
       (2) Retention of interests.--The United States shall 
     retain--
       (A) ownership of all land included in the lease referred to 
     in paragraph (1) that would have been acquired for 
     operational purposes in accordance with the 1971 
     implementation of the 1962 Army/Interior Joint Acquisition 
     Policy; and
       (B) such other land as is determined by the Secretary to be 
     required for authorized project purposes, including easement 
     rights-of-way to remaining Federal land.
       (3) Survey.--The exact acreage and legal description of the 
     land described in paragraph (1) shall be determined by a 
     survey satisfactory to the Secretary, with the cost of the 
     survey to be paid by the State.
       (c) General Provisions.--
       (1) Applicability of property screening provisions.--
     Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply 
     to the conveyance under this section.
       (2) Additional terms and conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require that the conveyance under this section be subject to 
     such additional terms and conditions as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.
       (3) Costs of conveyance.--
       (A) In general.--The State shall be responsible for all 
     costs, including real estate transaction and environmental 
     compliance costs, associated with the conveyance under this 
     section.
       (B) Form of contribution.--As determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary, in lieu of payment of compensation to the United 
     States under subparagraph (A), the State may perform certain 
     environmental or real estate actions associated with the 
     conveyance under this section if those actions are performed 
     in close coordination with, and to the satisfaction of, the 
     United States.
       (4) Liability.--The State shall hold the United States 
     harmless from any liability with respect to activities 
     carried out, on or after the date of the conveyance, on the 
     real property conveyed under this section.
       (d) Additional Terms and Conditions.--
       (1) In general.--The State shall pay fair market value 
     consideration, as determined by the United States, for any 
     land included in the conveyance under this section.
       (2) No effect on shore management policy.--The Shoreline 
     Management Policy (ER-1130-2-406) of the Corps of Engineers 
     shall not be changed or altered for any proposed development 
     of land conveyed under this section.
       (3) Federal statutes.--The conveyance under this section 
     shall be subject to the National Environmental Policy Act of 
     1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (including public review under 
     that Act) and other Federal statutes.
       (4) Cost sharing.--In carrying out the conveyance under 
     this section, the Secretary and the State shall comply with 
     all obligations of any cost sharing agreement between the 
     Secretary and the State in effect as of the date of the 
     conveyance.
       (5) Land not conveyed.--The State shall continue to manage 
     the land not conveyed under this section in accordance with 
     the terms and conditions of Army Lease Number DACW21-1-92-
     0500.

     SEC. [3075] 3080. MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, SOUTH DAKOTA.

       (a) Membership.--Section 904(b)(1)(B) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2708) is 
     amended--
       (1) in clause (vii), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) by redesignating clause (viii) as clause (ix); and
       (3) by inserting after clause (vii) the following:
       ``(viii) rural water systems; and''.
       (b) Reauthorization.--Section 907(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2000

[[Page 14682]]

     (114 Stat. 2712) is amended in the first sentence by striking 
     ``2005'' and inserting ``2010''.

     SEC. [3076] 3081. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS 
                   ENHANCEMENT PROJECT.

       Section 514 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 343; 117 Stat. 142) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections 
     (h) and (i), respectively;
       (2) in subsection (h) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)), 
     by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Non-federal share.--
       ``(A) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
     projects may be provided--
       ``(i) in cash;
       ``(ii) by the provision of land, easements, rights-of-way, 
     relocations, or disposal areas;
       ``(iii) by in-kind services to implement the project; or
       ``(iv) by any combination of the foregoing.
       ``(B) Private ownership.--Land needed for a project under 
     this authority may remain in private ownership subject to 
     easements that are--
       ``(i) satisfactory to the Secretary; and
       ``(ii) necessary to assure achievement of the project 
     purposes.'';
       (3) in subsection (i) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)), 
     by striking ``for the period of fiscal years 2000 and 2001.'' 
     and inserting ``per year, and that authority shall extend 
     until Federal fiscal year 2015.''; and
       (4) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
       ``(f) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) 
     of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for 
     any project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal 
     interest may include a nonprofit entity with the consent of 
     the affected local government.
       ``(g) Cost Limitation.--Not more than $5,000,000 in Federal 
     funds may be allotted under this section for a project at any 
     single locality.''

     SEC. [3077] 3082. ANDERSON CREEK, JACKSON AND MADISON 
                   COUNTIES, TENNESSEE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out a project for 
     flood damage reduction under section 205 of the Flood Control 
     Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) at Anderson Creek, Jackson and 
     Madison Counties, Tennessee, if the Secretary determines that 
     the project is technically sound, environmentally acceptable, 
     and economically justified.
       (b) Relationship to West Tennessee Tributaries Project, 
     Tennessee.--Consistent with the report of the Chief of 
     Engineers dated March 24, 1948, on the West Tennessee 
     Tributaries project--
       (1) Anderson Creek shall not be considered to be an 
     authorized channel of the West Tennessee Tributaries Project; 
     and
       (2) the Anderson Creek flood damage reduction project shall 
     not be considered to be part of the West Tennessee 
     Tributaries Project.

     SEC. [3078] 3083. HARRIS FORK CREEK, TENNESSEE AND KENTUCKY.

       Notwithstanding section 1001(b)(1) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a), the project for 
     flood control, Harris Fork Creek, Tennessee and Kentucky, 
     authorized by section 102 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 701c note; 90 Stat. 2920) shall remain 
     authorized to be carried out by the Secretary for a period of 
     7 years beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. [3079] 3084. NONCONNAH WEIR, MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE.

       The project for flood control, Nonconnah Creek, Tennessee 
     and Mississippi, authorized by section 401 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124) and 
     modified by the section 334 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2611), is modified to 
     authorize the Secretary--
       (1) to reconstruct, at full Federal expense, the weir 
     originally constructed in the vicinity of the mouth of 
     Nonconnah Creek; and
       (2) to make repairs and maintain the weir in the future so 
     that the weir functions properly.

     SEC. [3080] 3085. OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, CUMBERLAND RIVER, 
                   TENNESSEE.

       (a) Release of Retained Rights, Interests, Reservations.--
     With respect to land conveyed by the Secretary to the 
     Tennessee Society of Crippled Children and Adults, 
     Incorporated (commonly known as ``Easter Seals Tennessee'') 
     at Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee, 
     under section 211 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 
     1087), the reversionary interests and the use restrictions 
     relating to recreation and camping purposes are extinguished.
       (b) Instrument of Release.--As soon as practicable after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     execute and file in the appropriate office a deed of release, 
     amended deed, or other appropriate instrument effectuating 
     the release of interests required by paragraph (1).
       (c) No Effect on Other Rights.--Nothing in this section 
     affects any remaining right or interest of the Corps of 
     Engineers with respect to an authorized purpose of any 
     project.

     SEC. [3081] 3086. SANDY CREEK, JACKSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out a project for 
     flood damage reduction under section 205 of the Flood Control 
     Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) at Sandy Creek, Jackson County, 
     Tennessee, if the Secretary determines that the project is 
     technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and 
     economically justified.
       (b) Relationship to West Tennessee Tributaries Project, 
     Tennessee.--Consistent with the report of the Chief of 
     Engineers dated March 24, 1948, on the West Tennessee 
     Tributaries project--
       (1) Sandy Creek shall not be considered to be an authorized 
     channel of the West Tennessee Tributaries Project; and
       (2) the Sandy Creek flood damage reduction project shall 
     not be considered to be part of the West Tennessee 
     Tributaries Project.

     SEC. [3082] 3087. CEDAR BAYOU, TEXAS.

       Section 349(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2000 (114 Stat. 2632) is amended by striking ``except that 
     the project is authorized only for construction of a 
     navigation channel 12 feet deep by 125 feet wide'' and 
     inserting ``except that the project is authorized for 
     construction of a navigation channel that is 10 feet deep by 
     100 feet wide''.

     SEC. [3083] 3088. FREEPORT HARBOR, TEXAS.

       (a) In General.--The project for navigation, Freeport 
     Harbor, Texas, authorized by section 101 of the River and 
     Harbor Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1818), is modified to provide 
     that--
       (1) all project costs incurred as a result of the discovery 
     of the sunken vessel COMSTOCK of the Corps of Engineers are a 
     Federal responsibility; and
       (2) the Secretary shall not seek further obligation or 
     responsibility for removal of the vessel COMSTOCK, or costs 
     associated with a delay due to the discovery of the sunken 
     vessel COMSTOCK, from the Port of Freeport.
       (b) Cost Sharing.--This section does not affect the 
     authorized cost sharing for the balance of the project 
     described in subsection (a).

     SEC. [3084] 3089. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.

       Section 575(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3789; 113 Stat. 311) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding the following:
       ``(5) the project for flood control, Upper White Oak Bayou, 
     Texas, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4125).''.

     SEC. [3085] 3090. DAM REMEDIATION, VERMONT.

       Section 543 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
     (114 Stat. 2673) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) may carry out measures to restore, protect, and 
     preserve an ecosystem affected by a dam described in 
     subsection (b).''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(11) Camp Wapanacki, Hardwick.
       ``(12) Star Lake Dam, Mt. Holly.
       ``(13) Curtis Pond, Calais.
       ``(14) Weathersfield Reservoir, Springfield.
       ``(15) Burr Pond, Sudbury.
       ``(16) Maidstone Lake, Guildhall.
       ``(17) Upper and Lower Hurricane Dam.
       ``(18) Lake Fairlee.
       ``(19) West Charleston Dam.''.

     SEC. [3086] 3091. LAKE CHAMPLAIN EURASIAN MILFOIL, WATER 
                   CHESTNUT, AND OTHER NONNATIVE PLANT CONTROL, 
                   VERMONT.

       Under authority of section 104 of the River and Harbor Act 
     of 1958 (33 U.S.C. 610), the Secretary shall revise the 
     existing General Design Memorandum to permit the use of 
     chemical means of control, when appropriate, of Eurasian 
     milfoil, water chestnuts, and other nonnative plants in the 
     Lake Champlain basin, Vermont.

     SEC. [3087] 3092. UPPER CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN WETLAND 
                   RESTORATION, VERMONT AND NEW HAMPSHIRE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     States of Vermont and New Hampshire, shall carry out a study 
     and develop a strategy for the use of wetland restoration, 
     soil and water conservation practices, and nonstructural 
     measures to reduce flood damage, improve water quality, and 
     create wildlife habitat in the Upper Connecticut River 
     watershed.
       (b) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of the 
     study and development of the strategy under subsection (a) 
     shall be 65 percent.
       (2) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the cost 
     of the study and development of the strategy may be provided 
     through the contribution of in-kind services and materials.
       (c) Non-Federal Interest.--A nonprofit organization with 
     wetland restoration experience may serve as the non-Federal 
     interest for the study and development of the strategy under 
     this section.

[[Page 14683]]

       (d) Cooperative Agreements.--In conducting the study and 
     developing the strategy under this section, the Secretary may 
     enter into 1 or more cooperative agreements to provide 
     technical assistance to appropriate Federal, State, and local 
     agencies and nonprofit organizations with wetland restoration 
     experience, including assistance for the implementation of 
     wetland restoration projects and soil and water conservation 
     measures.
       (e) Implementation.--The Secretary shall carry out 
     development and implementation of the strategy under this 
     section in cooperation with local landowners and local 
     government officials.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

     SEC. [3088] 3093. UPPER CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN ECOSYSTEM 
                   RESTORATION, VERMONT AND NEW HAMPSHIRE.

       (a) General Management Plan Development.--
       (1) The Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of 
     Agriculture and in consultation with the States of Vermont 
     and New Hampshire and the Connecticut River Joint Commission, 
     shall conduct a study and develop a general management plan 
     for ecosystem restoration of the Upper Connecticut River 
     ecosystem for the purposes of--
       (A) habitat protection and restoration;
       (B) streambank stabilization;
       (C) restoration of stream stability;
       (D) water quality improvement;
       (E) invasive species control;
       (F) wetland restoration;
       (G) fish passage; and
       (H) natural flow restoration.
       (2) Existing plans.--In developing the general management 
     plan, the Secretary shall depend heavily on existing plans 
     for the restoration of the Upper Connecticut River.
       (b) Critical Restoration Projects.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may participate in any 
     critical restoration project in the Upper Connecticut River 
     Basin in accordance with the general management plan 
     developed under subsection (a).
       (2) Eligible projects.--A critical restoration project 
     shall be eligible for assistance under this section if the 
     project--
       (A) meets the purposes described in the general management 
     plan developed under subsection (a); and
       (B) with respect to the Upper Connecticut River and Upper 
     Connecticut River watershed, consists of--
       (i) bank stabilization of the main stem, tributaries, and 
     streams;
       (ii) wetland restoration and migratory bird habitat 
     restoration;
       (iii) soil and water conservation;
       (iv) restoration of natural flows;
       (v) restoration of stream stability;
       (vi) implementation of an intergovernmental agreement for 
     coordinating ecosystem restoration, fish passage 
     installation, streambank stabilization, wetland restoration, 
     habitat protection and restoration, or natural flow 
     restoration;
       (vii) water quality improvement;
       (viii) invasive species control;
       (ix) wetland restoration and migratory bird habitat 
     restoration;
       (x) improvements in fish migration; and
       (xi) conduct of any other project or activity determined to 
     be appropriate by the Secretary.
       (c) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of any 
     project carried out under this section shall not be less than 
     65 percent.
       (d) Non-Federal Interest.--A nonprofit organization may 
     serve as the non-Federal interest for a project carried out 
     under this section.
       (e) Crediting.--
       (1) For work.--The Secretary shall provide credit, 
     including credit for in-kind contributions of up to 100 
     percent of the non-Federal share, for work (including design 
     work and materials) if the Secretary determines that the work 
     performed by the non-Federal interest is integral to the 
     product.
       (2) For other contributions.--The non-Federal interest 
     shall receive credit for land, easements, rights-of-way, 
     dredged material disposal areas, and relocations necessary to 
     implement the projects.
       (f) Cooperative Agreements.--In carrying out this section, 
     the Secretary may enter into 1 or more cooperative agreements 
     to provide financial assistance to appropriate Federal, 
     State, or local governments or nonprofit agencies, including 
     assistance for the implementation of projects to be carried 
     out under subsection (b).
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

     SEC. [3089] 3094. LAKE CHAMPLAIN WATERSHED, VERMONT AND NEW 
                   YORK.

       Section 542 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
     (42 Stat. 2671) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (G); 
     and
       (C) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following:
       ``(E) river corridor assessment, protection, management, 
     and restoration for the purposes of ecosystem restoration;
       ``(F) geographic mapping conducted by the Secretary using 
     existing technical capacity to produce a high-resolution, 
     multispectral satellite imagery-based land use and cover data 
     set; or''; and
       (2) in subsection (g), by striking ``$20,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$32,000,000''.

     SEC. [3090] 3095. CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RESTORATION, VIRGINIA 
                   AND MARYLAND.

       Section 704(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 2263(b)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (4);
       (2) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in the second sentence, by striking ``$20,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$50,000,000''; and
       (B) in the third sentence, by striking ``Such projects'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Inclusions.--Such projects'';
       (3) by striking paragraph (2)(D) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (2)(B)) and inserting the following:
       ``(D) the restoration and rehabilitation of habitat for 
     fish, including native oysters, in the Chesapeake Bay and its 
     tributaries in Virginia and Maryland, including--
       ``(i) the construction of oyster bars and reefs;
       ``(ii) the rehabilitation of existing marginal habitat;
       ``(iii) the use of appropriate alternative substrate 
     material in oyster bar and reef construction;
       ``(iv) the construction and upgrading of oyster hatcheries; 
     and
       ``(v) activities relating to increasing the output of 
     native oyster broodstock for seeding and monitoring of 
     restored sites to ensure ecological success.
       ``(3) Restoration and rehabilitation activities.--The 
     restoration and rehabilitation activities described in 
     paragraph (2)(D) shall be--
       ``(A) for the purpose of establishing permanent sanctuaries 
     and harvest management areas; and
       ``(B) consistent with plans and strategies for guiding the 
     restoration of the Chesapeake Bay oyster resource and 
     fishery.''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Definition of ecological success.--In this 
     subsection, the term `ecological success' means--
       ``(A) achieving a tenfold increase in native oyster biomass 
     by the year 2010, from a 1994 baseline; and
       ``(B) the establishment of a sustainable fishery as 
     determined by a broad scientific and economic consensus.''.

     SEC. [3091] 3096. TANGIER ISLAND SEAWALL, VIRGINIA.

       Section 577(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3789) is amended by striking ``at a total 
     cost of $1,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $300,000.'' and 
     inserting ``at a total cost of $3,000,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $2,400,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $600,000.''.

     SEC. [3092] 3097. EROSION CONTROL, PUGET ISLAND, WAHKIAKUM 
                   COUNTY, WASHINGTON.

       (a) In General.--The Lower Columbia River levees and bank 
     protection works authorized by section 204 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 178) is modified with regard to 
     the Wahkiakum County diking districts No. 1 and 3, but 
     without regard to any cost ceiling authorized before the date 
     of enactment of this Act, to direct the Secretary to provide 
     a 1-time placement of dredged material along portions of the 
     Columbia River shoreline of Puget Island, Washington, between 
     river miles 38 to 47, to protect economic and environmental 
     resources in the area from further erosion.
       (b) Coordination and Cost-Sharing Requirements.--The 
     Secretary shall carry out subsection (a)--
       (1) in coordination with appropriate resource agencies;
       (2) in accordance with all applicable Federal law 
     (including regulations); and
       (3) at full Federal expense.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000.

     SEC. [3093] 3098. LOWER GRANITE POOL, WASHINGTON.

       (a) Extinguishment of Reversionary Interests and Use 
     Restrictions.--With respect to property covered by each deed 
     described in subsection (b)--
       (1) the reversionary interests and 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 in which 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 for the use of fill material.
       (b) Deeds.--The deeds referred to in subsection (a) are as 
     follows:
       (1) Auditor's File Numbers 432576, 443411, and 579771 of 
     Whitman County, Washington.

[[Page 14684]]

       (2) Auditor's File Numbers 125806, 138801, 147888, 154511, 
     156928, and 176360 of Asotin County, Washington.
       (c) No Effect on Other Rights.--Nothing in this section 
     affects any remaining rights and interests of the Corps of 
     Engineers for authorized project purposes in or to property 
     covered by a deed described in subsection (b).

     SEC. [3094] 3099. MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, MCNARY NATIONAL 
                   WILDLIFE REFUGE, WASHINGTON AND IDAHO.

       (a) Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction.--
     Administrative jurisdiction over the land acquired for the 
     McNary Lock and Dam Project and managed by the United States 
     Fish and Wildlife Service under Cooperative Agreement Number 
     DACW68-4-00-13 with the Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla 
     District, is transferred from the Secretary to the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (b) Easements.--The transfer of administrative jurisdiction 
     under subsection (a) shall be subject to easements in 
     existence as of the date of enactment of this Act on land 
     subject to the transfer.
       (c) Rights of Secretary.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), the 
     Secretary shall retain rights described in paragraph (2) with 
     respect to the land for which administrative jurisdiction is 
     transferred under subsection (a).
       (2) Rights.--The rights of the Secretary referred to in 
     paragraph (1) are the rights--
       (A) to flood land described in subsection (a) to the 
     standard project flood elevation;
       (B) to manipulate the level of the McNary Project Pool;
       (C) to access such land described in subsection (a) as may 
     be required to install, maintain, and inspect sediment ranges 
     and carry out similar activities;
       (D) to construct and develop wetland, riparian habitat, or 
     other environmental restoration features authorized under 
     section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 2309a) and section 206 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330);
       (E) to dredge and deposit fill materials; and
       (F) to carry out management actions for the purpose of 
     reducing the take of juvenile salmonids by avian colonies 
     that inhabit, before, on, or after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, any island included in the land described in 
     subsection (a).
       (3) Coordination.--Before exercising a right described in 
     any of subparagraphs (C) through (F) of paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary shall coordinate the exercise with the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service.
       (d) Management.--
       (1) In general.--The land described in subsection (a) shall 
     be managed by the Secretary of the Interior as part of the 
     McNary National Wildlife Refuge.
       (2) Cummins property.--
       (A) Retention of credits.--Habitat unit credits described 
     in the memorandum entitled ``Design Memorandum No. 6, LOWER 
     SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE COMPENSATION PLAN, Wildlife 
     Compensation and Fishing Access Site Selection, Letter 
     Supplement No. 15, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE WALLULA 
     HMU'' provided for the Lower Snake River Fish and Wildlife 
     Compensation Plan through development of the parcel of land 
     formerly known as the ``Cummins property'' shall be retained 
     by the Secretary despite any changes in management of the 
     parcel on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (B) Site development plan.--The United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service shall obtain prior approval of the 
     Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife for any 
     change to the previously approved site development plan for 
     the parcel of land formerly known as the ``Cummins 
     property''.
       (3) Madame dorian recreation area.--The United States Fish 
     and Wildlife Service shall continue operation of the Madame 
     Dorian Recreation Area for public use and boater access.
       (e) Administrative Costs.--The United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service shall be responsible for all survey, 
     environmental compliance, and other administrative costs 
     required to implement the transfer of administrative 
     jurisdiction under subsection (a).

     SEC. [3095] 3100. SNAKE RIVER PROJECT, WASHINGTON AND IDAHO.

       The Fish and Wildlife Compensation Plan for the Lower Snake 
     River, Washington and Idaho, as authorized by section 101 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2921), 
     is amended to authorize the Secretary to conduct studies and 
     implement aquatic and riparian ecosystem restorations and 
     improvements specifically for fisheries and wildlife.

     SEC. [3096] 3101. MARMET LOCK, KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA.

       Section 101(a)(31) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1996 (110 Stat. 3666), is amended by striking 
     ``$229,581,000'' and inserting ``$358,000,000''.

     SEC. [3097] 3102. LOWER MUD RIVER, MILTON, WEST VIRGINIA.

       The project for flood control at Milton, West Virginia, 
     authorized by section 580 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3790), as modified by section 340 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2612), 
     is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the 
     project substantially in accordance with the draft report of 
     the Corps of Engineers dated May 2004, at an estimated total 
     cost of $45,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $34,125,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,375,000.

     SEC. 3103. GREEN BAY HARBOR PROJECT, GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN.

       The portion of the inner harbor of the Federal navigation 
     channel of the Green Bay Harbor project, authorized under the 
     first section of the Act entitled ``An Act making 
     appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation 
     of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other 
     purposes'', approved July 5, 1884 (commonly known as the 
     ``River and Harbor Act of 1884'') (23 Stat. 136, chapter 
     229), from Station 190+00 to Station 378+00 is authorized to 
     a width of 75 feet and a depth of 6 feet.

     SEC. [3098] 3104. UNDERWOOD CREEK DIVERSION FACILITY PROJECT, 
                   MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN.

       Section 212(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999 (33 U.S.C. 2332) 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) Underwood Creek Diversion Facility Project (County 
     Grounds), Milwaukee County, Wisconsin.''.

     SEC. [3099] 3105. MISSISSIPPI RIVER HEADWATERS RESERVOIRS.

       Section 21 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 
     (102 Stat. 4027) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``1276.42'' and inserting ``1278.42'';
       (B) by striking ``1218.31'' and inserting ``1221.31''; and
       (C) by striking ``1234.82'' and inserting ``1235.30''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Exception.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may operate the headwaters 
     reservoirs below the minimum or above the maximum water 
     levels established under subsection (a) in accordance with 
     water control regulation manuals (or revisions to those 
     manuals) developed by the Secretary, after consultation with 
     the Governor of Minnesota and affected tribal governments, 
     landowners, and commercial and recreational users.
       ``(2) Effective date of manuals.--The water control 
     regulation manuals referred to in paragraph (1) (and any 
     revisions to those manuals) shall be effective as of the date 
     on which the Secretary submits the manuals (or revisions) to 
     Congress.
       ``(3) Notification.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     not less than 14 days before operating any headwaters 
     reservoir below the minimum or above the maximum water level 
     limits specified in subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
     submit to Congress a notice of intent to operate the 
     headwaters reservoir.
       ``(B) Exception.--Notice under subparagraph (A) shall not 
     be required in any case in which--
       ``(i) the operation of a headwaters reservoir is necessary 
     to prevent the loss of life or to ensure the safety of a dam; 
     or
       ``(ii) the drawdown of the water level of the reservoir is 
     in anticipation of a flood control operation.''.

     SEC. [3100] 3106. LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER MUSEUM AND 
                   RIVERFRONT INTERPRETIVE SITE.

       Section 103(c)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1992 (106 Stat. 4811) is amended by striking ``property 
     currently held by the Resolution Trust Corporation in the 
     vicinity of the Mississippi River Bridge'' and inserting 
     ``riverfront property''.

     SEC. [3101] 3107. PILOT PROGRAM, MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVER.

       (a) In General.--In accordance with the project for 
     navigation, Mississippi River between the Ohio and Missouri 
     Rivers (Regulating Works), Missouri and Illinois, authorized 
     by the Act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 631, chapter 382) 
     (commonly known as the ``River and Harbor Act of 1910''), the 
     Act of January 1, 1927 (44 Stat. 1010, chapter 47) (commonly 
     known as the ``River and Harbor Act of 1927''), and the Act 
     of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 918), the Secretary shall carry out 
     over at least a 10-year period a pilot program to restore and 
     protect fish and wildlife habitat in the middle Mississippi 
     River.
       (b) Authorized Activities.--
       (1) In general.--As part of the pilot program carried out 
     under subsection (a), the Secretary shall conduct any 
     activities that are necessary to improve navigation through 
     the project referred to in subsection (a) while restoring and 
     protecting fish and wildlife habitat in the middle 
     Mississippi River system.
       (2) Inclusions.--Activities authorized under paragraph (1) 
     shall include--
       (A) the modification of navigation training structures;
       (B) the modification and creation of side channels;
       (C) the modification and creation of islands;
       (D) any studies and analysis necessary to develop adaptive 
     management principles; and

[[Page 14685]]

       (E) the acquisition from willing sellers of any land 
     associated with a riparian corridor needed to carry out the 
     goals of the pilot program.
       (c) Cost-Sharing Requirement.--The cost-sharing requirement 
     required under the Act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 631, 
     chapter 382) (commonly known as the ``River and Harbor Act of 
     1910''), the Act of January 1, 1927 (44 Stat. 1010, chapter 
     47) (commonly known as the ``River and Harbor Act of 1927''), 
     and the Act of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 918), for the project 
     referred to in subsection (a) shall apply to any activities 
     carried out under this section.

     SEC. [3102] 3108. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER SYSTEM 
                   ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.

       Notwithstanding section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 
     1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), for any Upper Mississippi River 
     fish and wildlife habitat rehabilitation and enhancement 
     project carried out under section 1103(e) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 652(e)), with 
     the consent of the affected local government, a 
     nongovernmental organization may be considered to be a non-
     Federal interest.

     SEC. 3109. GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration.--Section 
     506(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (42 
     U.S.C. 1962d-22(c)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs 
     (3) and (4), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) Reconnaissance studies.--Before planning, designing, 
     or constructing a project under paragraph (3), the Secretary 
     shall carry out a reconnaissance study--
       ``(A) to identify methods of restoring the fishery, 
     ecosystem, and beneficial uses of the Great Lakes; and
       ``(B) to determine whether planning of a project under 
     paragraph (3) should proceed.''; and
       (3) in paragraph (4)(A) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)), 
     by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``paragraph 
     (3)''.
       (b) Cost Sharing.--Section 506(f) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-22(f)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (5) as 
     paragraphs (3) through (6), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) Reconnaissance studies.--Any reconnaissance study 
     under subsection (c)(2) shall be carried out at full Federal 
     expense.'';
       (3) in paragraph (3) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)), by 
     striking ``(2) or (3)'' and inserting ``(3) or (4)''; and
       (4) in paragraph (4)(A) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)), 
     by striking ``subsection (c)(2)'' and inserting ``subsection 
     (c)(3)''.

     SEC. 3110. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS AND SEDIMENT 
                   REMEDIATION.

       Section 401(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1990 (104 Stat. 4644; 33 U.S.C. 1268 note) is amended by 
     striking ``through 2006'' and inserting ``through 2011''.

     SEC. 3111. GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODELS.

       Section 516(g)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (33 U.S.C. 2326b(g)(2)) is amended by striking ``through 
     2006'' and inserting ``through 2011''.

                           TITLE IV--STUDIES

     SEC. 4001. EURASIAN MILFOIL.

       Under the authority of section 104 of the River and Harbor 
     Act of 1958 (33 U.S.C. 610), the Secretary shall carry out a 
     study, at full Federal expense, to develop national protocols 
     for the use of the Euhrychiopsis lecontei weevil for 
     biological control of Eurasian milfoil in the lakes of 
     Vermont and other northern tier States.

     SEC. 4002. NATIONAL PORT STUDY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Transportation, shall conduct a study of the 
     ability of coastal or deepwater port infrastructure to meet 
     current and projected national economic needs.
       (b) Components.--In conducting the study, the Secretary 
     shall--
       (1) consider--
       (A) the availability of alternate transportation 
     destinations and modes;
       (B) the impact of larger cargo vessels on existing port 
     capacity; and
       (C) practicable, cost-effective congestion management 
     alternatives; and
       (2) give particular consideration to the benefits and 
     proximity of proposed and existing port, harbor, waterway, 
     and other transportation infrastructure.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives a report that describes the results 
     of the study.

     SEC. 4003. MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION CHANNEL.

       (a) In General.--To determine with improved accuracy the 
     environmental impacts of the project on the McClellan-Kerr 
     Arkansas River Navigation Channel (referred to in this 
     section as the ``MKARN''), the Secretary shall carry out the 
     measures described in [subsections (b) and (c)] subsection 
     (b) in a timely manner.
       [(b) National Environmental Policy Act Analysis.--In 
     carrying out the responsibility of the Secretary under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.) under this section, the Secretary shall include 
     consideration of--
       [(1) the environmental impacts associated with transporting 
     an equivalent quantity of goods on Federal, State, and county 
     roads and such other alternative modes of transportation and 
     alternative destinations as are estimated to be transported 
     on the MKARN;
       [(2) the impacts associated with air quality;
       [(3) other human health and safety information (including 
     premature deaths averted); and
       [(4) the environmental and economic costs associated with 
     the dredging of any site on the MKARN, to the extent that the 
     site would be dredged if the MKARN were authorized to a 9-
     foot depth.]
       [c)] (b) Species Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, in conjunction with 
     Oklahoma State University, shall convene a panel of experts 
     with acknowledged expertise in wildlife biology and genetics 
     to review the available scientific information regarding the 
     genetic variation of various sturgeon species and possible 
     hybrids of those species that, as determined by the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service, may exist in any portion of 
     the MKARN.
       (2) Report.--The Secretary shall direct the panel to report 
     to the Secretary, not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and in the best scientific judgment of 
     the panel--
       (A) the level of genetic variation between populations of 
     sturgeon sufficient to determine or establish that a 
     population is a measurably distinct species, subspecies, or 
     population segment; and
       (B) whether any pallid sturgeons that may be found in the 
     MKARN (including any tributary of the MKARN) would qualify as 
     such a distinct species, subspecies, or population segment.

     SEC. 4004. SELENIUM STUDY, COLORADO.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with State 
     water quality and resource and conservation agencies, shall 
     conduct regional and watershed-wide studies to address 
     selenium concentrations in the State of Colorado, including 
     studies--
       (1) to measure selenium on specific sites; and
       (2) to determine whether specific selenium measures studied 
     should be recommended for use in demonstration projects.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000.

     SEC. 4005. NICHOLAS CANYON, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall carry out a study for bank 
     stabilization and shore protection for Nicholas Canyon, Los 
     Angeles, California, under section 3 of the Act of August 13, 
     1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g).

     SEC. 4006. OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA, SHORELINE SPECIAL STUDY.

       Section 414 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
     (114 Stat. 2636) is amended by striking ``32 months'' and 
     inserting ``44 months''.

     SEC. 4007. COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT, ST. 
                   HELENA, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall review the project for 
     flood control and environmental restoration at St. Helena, 
     California, generally in accordance with Enhanced Minimum 
     Plan A, as described in the Final Environmental Impact Report 
     prepared by the city of St. Helena, California, and certified 
     by the city to be in compliance with the California 
     Environmental Quality Act on February 24, 2004.
       (b) Cost Sharing.--Cost sharing for the project described 
     in subsection (a) shall be in accordance with section 103 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213).

     SEC. 4008. SAN FRANCISCO BAY, SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, 
                   SHERMAN ISLAND, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall carry out a study of the feasibility of 
     a project to use Sherman Island, California, as a dredged 
     material rehandling facility for the beneficial use of 
     dredged material to enhance the environment and meet other 
     water resource needs on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, 
     California, under section 204 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326).

     SEC. 4009. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SHORELINE STUDY, 
                   CALIFORNIA.

       In carrying out the feasibility phase of the South San 
     Francisco Bay shoreline study, the Secretary shall use 
     planning and design documents prepared by the California 
     State Coastal Conservancy, the Santa Clara Valley Water 
     District, and other local interests, in cooperation with the 
     Corps of Engineers (who shall provide technical assistance to 
     the local interests), as the basis for recommendations to 
     Congress for authorization of a project to provide for flood 
     protection of the South San Francisco Bay shoreline and 
     restoration of the South San Francisco Bay salt ponds.

     SEC. 4010. SAN PABLO BAY WATERSHED RESTORATION, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall complete work as 
     expeditiously as practicable on

[[Page 14686]]

     the San Pablo watershed, California, study authorized under 
     section 209 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1196) 
     to determine the feasibility of opportunities for restoring, 
     preserving, and protecting the San Pablo Bay Watershed.
       (b) Report.--Not later than March 31, 2008, the Secretary 
     shall submit to Congress a report that describes the results 
     of the study.

     SEC. 4011. BUBBLY CREEK, SOUTH FORK OF SOUTH BRANCH, CHICAGO 
                   RIVER, ILLINOIS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of the feasibility of 
     carrying out ecosystem restoration and any other related 
     activity along the South Fork of the South Branch of the 
     Chicago River, Illinois (commonly known as ``Bubbly Creek'').

     SEC. 4012. GRAND AND TIGER PASSES AND BAPTISTE COLLETTE 
                   BAYOU, LOUISIANA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of the feasibility of 
     modifying the project in existence on the date of enactment 
     of this Act for enlargement of the navigation channels in the 
     Grand and Tiger Passes and Baptiste Collette Bayou, 
     Louisiana.

     SEC. [4011] 4013. LAKE ERIE AT LUNA PIER, MICHIGAN.

       The Secretary shall study the feasibility of storm damage 
     reduction and beach erosion protection and other related 
     purposes along Lake Erie at Luna Pier, Michigan.

     SEC. [4012] 4014. MIDDLE BASS ISLAND STATE PARK, MIDDLE BASS 
                   ISLAND, OHIO.

       The Secretary shall carry out a study of the feasibility of 
     a project for navigation improvements, shoreline protection, 
     and other related purposes, including the rehabilitation the 
     harbor basin (including entrance breakwaters), interior 
     shoreline protection, dredging, and the development of a 
     public launch ramp facility, for Middle Bass Island State 
     Park, Middle Bass Island, Ohio.

     SEC. [4013] 4015. JASPER COUNTY PORT FACILITY STUDY, SOUTH 
                   CAROLINA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may determine the 
     feasibility of providing improvements to the Savannah River 
     for navigation and related purposes that may be necessary to 
     support the location of container cargo and other port 
     facilities to be located in Jasper County, South Carolina, 
     near the vicinity of mile 6 of the Savannah Harbor Entrance 
     Channel.
       (b) Consideration.--In making a determination under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall take into consideration--
       (1) landside infrastructure;
       (2) the provision of any additional dredged material 
     disposal area for maintenance of the ongoing Savannah Harbor 
     Navigation project; and
       (3) the results of a consultation with the Governor of the 
     State of [California] Georgia and the Governor of the State 
     of South Carolina.

     SEC. [4014] 4016. LAKE CHAMPLAIN CANAL STUDY, VERMONT AND NEW 
                   YORK.

       (a) Dispersal Barrier Project.--The Secretary shall 
     determine, at full Federal expense, the feasibility of a 
     dispersal barrier project at the Lake Champlain Canal.
       (b) Construction, Maintenance, and Operation.--If the 
     Secretary determines that the project described in subsection 
     (a) is feasible, the Secretary shall construct, maintain, and 
     operate a dispersal barrier at the Lake Champlain Canal at 
     full Federal expense.

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 5001. LAKES PROGRAM.

       Section 602(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (100 Stat. 4148; 110 Stat. 3758; 113 Stat. 295) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (18), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (19), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(20) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois, removal of 
     silt and aquatic growth and measures to address excessive 
     sedimentation;
       ``(21) Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota, removal of silt and 
     aquatic growth and measures to address excessive 
     sedimentation;
       ``(22) Lake Morley, Vermont, removal of silt and aquatic 
     growth and measures to address excessive sedimentation;
       ``(23) Lake Fairlee, Vermont, removal of silt and aquatic 
     growth and measures to address excessive sedimentation; and
       ``(24) Lake Rodgers, Creedmoor, North Carolina, removal of 
     silt and excessive nutrients and restoration of structural 
     integrity.''.

     SEC. 5002. ESTUARY RESTORATION.

       (a) Purposes.--Section 102 of the Estuary Restoration Act 
     of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2901) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting before the semicolon the 
     following: ``by implementing a coordinated Federal approach 
     to estuary habitat restoration activities, including the use 
     of common monitoring standards and a common system for 
     tracking restoration acreage'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``and implement'' after 
     ``to develop''; and
       (3) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``through cooperative 
     agreements'' after ``restoration projects''.
       (b) Definition of Estuary Habitat Restoration Plan.--
     Section 103(6)(A) of the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (33 
     U.S.C. 2902(6)(A)) is amended by striking ``Federal or 
     State'' and inserting ``Federal, State, or regional''.
       (c) Estuary Habitat Restoration Program.--Section 104 of 
     the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2903) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``through the award of 
     contracts and cooperative agreements'' after ``assistance'';
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (3)(A), by inserting ``or State'' after 
     ``Federal''; and
       (B) in paragraph (4)(B), by inserting ``or approach'' after 
     ``technology'';
       (3) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``Except'' and inserting the following:
       ``(i) In general.--Except''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) Monitoring.--

       ``(I) Costs.--The costs of monitoring an estuary habitat 
     restoration project funded under this title may be included 
     in the total cost of the estuary habitat restoration project.
       ``(II) Goals.--The goals of the monitoring are--

       ``(aa) to measure the effectiveness of the restoration 
     project; and
       ``(bb) to allow adaptive management to ensure project 
     success.'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or approach'' after 
     ``technology''; and
       (C) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``(including 
     monitoring)'' after ``services'';
       (4) in subsection (f)(1)(B), by inserting ``long-term'' 
     before ``maintenance''; and
       (5) in subsection (g)--
       (A) by striking ``In carrying'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--In carrying''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Small projects.--
       ``(A) Definition.--Small projects carried out under this 
     Act shall have a Federal share of less than $1,000,000.
       ``(B) Delegation of project implementation.--In carrying 
     out this section, the Secretary, on recommendation of the 
     Council, shall consider delegating implementation of the 
     small project to--
       ``(i) the Secretary of the Interior (acting through the 
     Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service);
       ``(ii) the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere of the 
     Department of Commerce;
       ``(iii) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency; or
       ``(iv) the Secretary of Agriculture.
       ``(C) Funding.--Small projects delegated to another Federal 
     department or agency may be funded from the responsible 
     department or appropriations of the agency authorized by 
     section 109(a)(1).
       ``(D) Agreements.--The Federal department or agency to 
     which a small project is delegated shall enter into an 
     agreement with the non-Federal interest generally in 
     conformance with the criteria in sections 104(d) and 104(e). 
     Cooperative agreements may be used for any delegated 
     project.''.
       (d) Establishment of Estuary Habitat Restoration Council.--
     Section 105(b) of the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (33 
     U.S.C. 2904(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) cooperating in the implementation of the strategy 
     developed under section 106;
       ``(7) recommending standards for monitoring for restoration 
     projects and contribution of project information to the 
     database developed under section 107; and
       ``(8) otherwise using the respective agency authorities of 
     the Council members to carry out this title.''.
       (e) Monitoring of Estuary Habitat Restoration Projects.--
     Section 107(d) of the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (33 
     U.S.C. 2906(d)) is amended by striking ``compile'' and 
     inserting ``have general data compilation, coordination, and 
     analysis responsibilities to carry out this title and in 
     support of the strategy developed under section 107, 
     including compilation of''.
       (f) Reporting.--Section 108(a) of the Estuary Restoration 
     Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2907(a)) is amended by striking 
     ``third and fifth'' and inserting ``sixth, eighth, and 
     tenth''.
       (g) Funding.--Section 109(a) of the Estuary Restoration Act 
     of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2908(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking subparagraphs (A) through 
     (D) and inserting the following:
       ``(A) to the Secretary, $25,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2006 through 2010;
       ``(B) to the Secretary of the Interior (acting through the 
     Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service), 
     $2,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010;
       ``(C) to the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere of 
     the Department of Commerce, $2,500,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2006 through 2010;
       ``(D) to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, $2,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 
     2010; and
       ``(E) to the Secretary of Agriculture, $2,500,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.''; and
       (2) in the first sentence of paragraph (2)--

[[Page 14687]]

       (A) by inserting ``and other information compiled under 
     section 107'' after ``this title''; and
       (B) by striking ``2005'' and inserting ``2010''.
       (h) General Provisions.--Section 110 of the Estuary 
     Restoration Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2909) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1)--
       (A) by inserting ``or contracts'' after ``agreements''; and
       (B) by inserting ``, nongovernmental organizations,'' after 
     ``agencies''; and
       (2) by striking subsections (d) and (e).

     SEC. 5003. DELMARVA CONSERVATION CORRIDOR, DELAWARE AND 
                   MARYLAND.

       (a) Assistance.--The Secretary may provide technical 
     assistance to the Secretary of Agriculture for use in 
     carrying out the Conservation Corridor Demonstration Program 
     established under subtitle G of title II of the Farm Security 
     and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (16 U.S.C. 3801 note; 116 
     Stat. 275).
       (b) Coordination and Integration.--In carrying out water 
     resources projects in the States on the Delmarva Peninsula, 
     the Secretary shall coordinate and integrate those projects, 
     to the maximum extent practicable, with any activities 
     carried out to implement a conservation corridor plan 
     approved by the Secretary of Agriculture under section 2602 
     of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (16 
     U.S.C. 3801 note; 116 Stat. 275).

     SEC. 5004. SUSQUEHANNA, DELAWARE, AND POTOMAC RIVER BASINS, 
                   DELAWARE, MARYLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VIRGINIA.

       (a) Ex Officio Member.--Notwithstanding section 3001(a) of 
     the 1997 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for 
     Recovery From Natural Disasters, and for Overseas 
     Peacekeeping Efforts, Including Those in Bosnia (111 Stat. 
     176) and sections 2.2 of the Susquehanna River Basin Compact 
     (Public Law 91-575) and the Delaware River Basin Compact 
     (Public Law 87-328), beginning in fiscal year 2002, and each 
     fiscal year thereafter, the Division Engineer, North Atlantic 
     Division, Corps of Engineers--
       (1) shall be the ex officio United States member under the 
     Susquehanna River Basin Compact, the Delaware River Basin 
     Compact, and the Potomac River Basin Compact;
       (2) shall serve without additional compensation; and
       (3) may designate an alternate member in accordance with 
     the terms of those compacts.
       (b) Authorization to Allocate.--The Secretary shall 
     allocate funds to the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 
     Delaware River Basin Commission, and the Interstate 
     Commission on the Potomac River Basin (Potomac River Basin 
     Compact (Public Law 91-407)) to fulfill the equitable funding 
     requirements of the respective interstate compacts.
       (c) Water Supply and Conservation Storage, Delaware River 
     Basin.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into an 
     agreement with the Delaware River Basin Commission to provide 
     temporary water supply and conservation storage at the 
     Francis E. Walter Dam, Pennsylvania, for any period during 
     which the Commission has determined that a drought warning or 
     drought emergency exists.
       (2) Limitation.--The agreement shall provide that the cost 
     for water supply and conservation storage under paragraph (1) 
     shall not exceed the incremental operating costs associated 
     with providing the storage.
       (d) Water Supply and Conservation Storage, Susquehanna 
     River Basin.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into an 
     agreement with the Susquehanna River Basin Commission to 
     provide temporary water supply and conservation storage at 
     Federal facilities operated by the Corps of Engineers in the 
     Susquehanna River Basin, during any period in which the 
     Commission has determined that a drought warning or drought 
     emergency exists.
       (2) Limitation.--The agreement shall provide that the cost 
     for water supply and conservation storage under paragraph (1) 
     shall not exceed the incremental operating costs associated 
     with providing the storage.
       (e) Water Supply and Conservation Storage, Potomac River 
     Basin.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into an 
     agreement with the Potomac River Basin Commission to provide 
     temporary water supply and conservation storage at Federal 
     facilities operated by the Corps of Engineers in the Potomac 
     River Basin for any period during which the Commission has 
     determined that a drought warning or drought emergency 
     exists.
       (2) Limitation.--The agreement shall provide that the cost 
     for water supply and conservation storage under paragraph (1) 
     shall not exceed the incremental operating costs associated 
     with providing the storage.

     SEC. 5005. CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIERS 
                   PROJECT, ILLINOIS.

       (a) Existing Barrier.--The Secretary shall upgrade and make 
     permanent, at full Federal expense, the existing Chicago 
     Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier Chicago, Illinois, 
     constructed as a demonstration project under section 
     1202(i)(3) of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention 
     and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4722(i)(3)).
       (b) New Barrier.--Notwithstanding the project cooperation 
     agreement dated November 21, 2003, with the State of 
     Illinois, the Secretary shall construct, at full Federal 
     expense, the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal 
     Barrier currently being implemented under section 1135 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a).
       (c) Operation and Maintenance.--The Chicago Sanitary and 
     Ship Canal Dispersal Barriers described in subsections (a) 
     and (b) shall be operated and maintained, at full Federal 
     expense, as a system in a manner to optimize effectiveness.
       (d) Credit.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall credit to each State 
     the proportion of funds that the State contributed to the 
     authorized dispersal barriers.
       (2) Use.--A State may apply the credit to existing or 
     future projects of the Corps of Engineers.

     SEC. 5006. RIO GRANDE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, NEW 
                   MEXICO.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Rio 
     Grande Environmental Management Act of 2004''.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Rio grande compact.--The term ``Rio Grande Compact'' 
     means the compact approved by Congress under the Act of May 
     31, 1939 (53 Stat. 785, chapter 155), and ratified by the 
     States of Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas.
       (2) Rio grande system.--The term ``Rio Grande system'' 
     means the headwaters of the Rio Chama River and the Rio 
     Grande River (including all tributaries of the Rivers), from 
     the border between the States of Colorado and New Mexico 
     downstream to the border between the States of New Mexico and 
     Texas.
       (3) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of New 
     Mexico.
       (c) Program Authority.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out, in the Rio 
     Grande system--
       (A) a program for the planning, construction, and 
     evaluation of measures for fish and wildlife habitat 
     rehabilitation and enhancement; and
       (B) implementation of a long-term monitoring, computerized 
     data inventory and analysis, applied research, and adaptive 
     management program.
       (2) Reports.--Not later than December 31, 2008, and not 
     later than December 31 of every sixth year thereafter, the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior 
     and the State, shall submit to Congress a report that--
       (A) contains an evaluation of the programs described in 
     paragraph (1);
       (B) describes the accomplishments of each of the programs;
       (C) provides updates of a systemic habitat needs 
     assessment; and
       (D) identifies any needed adjustments in the authorization 
     of the programs.
       (d) State and Local Consultation and Cooperative Effort.--
     For the purpose of ensuring the coordinated planning and 
     implementation of the programs authorized under subsection 
     (c), the Secretary shall--
       (1) consult with the State and other appropriate entities 
     in the State the rights and interests of which might be 
     affected by specific program activities; and
       (2) enter into an interagency agreement with the Secretary 
     of the Interior to provide for the direct participation of, 
     and transfer of funds to, the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service and any other agency or bureau of the Department of 
     the Interior for the planning, design, implementation, and 
     evaluation of those programs.
       (e) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of a 
     project carried out under subsection (c)(1)(A)--
       (A) shall be 35 percent;
       (B) may be provided through in-kind services or direct cash 
     contributions; and
       (C) shall include provision of necessary land, easements, 
     relocations, and disposal sites.
       (3) (2) Operation and maintenance.--The costs of operation 
     and maintenance of a project located on Federal land, or land 
     owned or operated by a State or local government, shall be 
     borne by the Federal, State, or local agency that has 
     jurisdiction over fish and wildlife activities on the land.
       (f) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of the 
     Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), with the 
     consent of the affected local government, a nonprofit entity 
     may be included as a non-Federal interest for any project 
     carried out under subsection (c)(1)(A).
       (g) Effect on Other Law.--
       (1) Water law.--Nothing in this section preempts any State 
     water law.
       (2) Compacts and decrees.--In carrying out this section, 
     the Secretary shall comply with the Rio Grande Compact, and 
     any applicable court decrees or Federal and State laws, 
     affecting water or water rights in the Rio Grande system.
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section 
     $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2005 and each subsequent fiscal 
     year.

[[Page 14688]]



     SEC. 5007. CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX 
                   TRIBE, AND TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT 
                   RESTORATION, SOUTH DAKOTA.

       (a) Disbursement Provisions of the State of South Dakota 
     and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux 
     Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Funds.--
     Section 602(a)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999 (113 Stat. 386) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) in clause (i), by inserting ``and the Secretary of the 
     Treasury'' after ``Secretary''; and
       (B) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following:
       ``(ii) Availability of funds.--On notification in 
     accordance with clause (i), the Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall make available to the State of South Dakota funds from 
     the State of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat 
     Restoration Trust Fund established under section 603, to be 
     used to carry out the plan for terrestrial wildlife habitat 
     restoration submitted by the State of South Dakota after the 
     State certifies to the Secretary of the Treasury that the 
     funds to be disbursed will be used in accordance with section 
     603(d)(3) and only after the Trust Fund is fully 
     capitalized.''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking clause (ii) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(ii) Availability of funds.--On notification in 
     accordance with clause (i), the Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall make available to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and 
     the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe funds from the Cheyenne River 
     Sioux Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund and 
     the Lower Brule Sioux Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat 
     Restoration Trust Fund, respectively, established under 
     section 604, to be used to carry out the plans for 
     terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration submitted by the 
     Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, 
     respectively, after the respective tribe certifies to the 
     Secretary of the Treasury that the funds to be disbursed will 
     be used in accordance with section 604(d)(3) and only after 
     the Trust Fund is fully capitalized.''.
       (b) Investment Provisions of the State of South Dakota 
     Terrestrial Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund.--Section 603 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 388) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
       ``(c) Investments.--
       ``(1) Eligible obligations.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary of the Treasury shall invest 
     the amounts deposited under subsection (b) and the interest 
     earned on those amounts only in interest-bearing obligations 
     of the United States issued directly to the Fund.
       ``(2) Investment requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     invest the Fund in accordance with all of the requirements of 
     this paragraph.
       ``(B) Separate investments of principal and interest.--
       ``(i) Principal account.--The amounts deposited in the Fund 
     under subsection (b) shall be credited to an account within 
     the Fund (referred to in this paragraph as the `principal 
     account') and invested as provided in subparagraph (C).
       ``(ii) Interest account.--The interest earned from 
     investing amounts in the principal account of the Fund shall 
     be transferred to a separate account within the Fund 
     (referred to in this paragraph as the `interest account') and 
     invested as provided in subparagraph (D).
       ``(iii) Crediting.--The interest earned from investing 
     amounts in the interest account of the Fund shall be credited 
     to the interest account.
       ``(C) Investment of principal account.--
       ``(i) Initial investment.--Each amount deposited in the 
     principal account of the Fund shall be invested initially in 
     eligible obligations having the shortest maturity then 
     available until the date on which the amount is divided into 
     3 substantially equal portions and those portions are 
     invested in eligible obligations that are identical (except 
     for transferability) to the next-issued publicly issued 
     Treasury obligations having a 2-year maturity, a 5-year 
     maturity, and a 10-year maturity, respectively.
       ``(ii) Subsequent investment.--As each 2-year, 5-year, and 
     10-year eligible obligation matures, the principal of the 
     maturing eligible obligation shall also be invested initially 
     in the shortest-maturity eligible obligation then available 
     until the principal is reinvested substantially equally in 
     the eligible obligations that are identical (except for 
     transferability) to the next-issued publicly issued Treasury 
     obligations having 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year maturities.
       ``(iii) Discontinuance of issuance of obligations.--If the 
     Department of the Treasury discontinues issuing to the public 
     obligations having 2-year, 5-year, or 10-year maturities, the 
     principal of any maturing eligible obligation shall be 
     reinvested substantially equally in eligible obligations that 
     are identical (except for transferability) to the next-issued 
     publicly issued Treasury obligations of the maturities longer 
     than 1 year then available.
       ``(D) Investment of interest account.--
       ``(i) Before full capitalization.--Until the date on which 
     the Fund is fully capitalized, amounts in the interest 
     account of the Fund shall be invested in eligible obligations 
     that are identical (except for transferability) to publicly 
     issued Treasury obligations that have maturities that 
     coincide, to the maximum extent practicable, with the date on 
     which the Fund is expected to be fully capitalized.
       ``(ii) After full capitalization.--On and after the date on 
     which the Fund is fully capitalized, amounts in the interest 
     account of the Fund shall be invested and reinvested in 
     eligible obligations having the shortest maturity then 
     available until the amounts are withdrawn and transferred to 
     fund the activities authorized under subsection (d)(3).
       ``(E) Par purchase price.--The price to be paid for 
     eligible obligations purchased as investments of the 
     principal account shall not exceed the par value of the 
     obligations so that the amount of the principal account shall 
     be preserved in perpetuity.
       ``(F) Highest yield.--Among eligible obligations having the 
     same maturity and purchase price, the obligation to be 
     purchased shall be the obligation having the highest yield.
       ``(G) Holding to maturity.--Eligible obligations purchased 
     shall generally be held to their maturities.
       ``(3) Annual review of investment activities.--Not less 
     frequently than once each calendar year, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall review with the State of South Dakota the 
     results of the investment activities and financial status of 
     the Fund during the preceding 12-month period.'';
       (2) in subsection (d)(2), by inserting ``of the Treasury'' 
     after Secretary''; and
       (3) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following:
       ``(f) Administrative Expenses.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
     appropriated, to the Secretary of the Treasury, to pay 
     expenses associated with investing the Fund and auditing the 
     uses of amounts withdrawn from the Fund--
       ``(1) up to $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 
     2007; and
       ``(2) such sums as are necessary for each subsequent fiscal 
     year.''.
       (c) Investment Provisions for the Cheyenne River Sioux 
     Tribe and Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Trust Funds.--Section 604 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 
     389) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
       ``(c) Investments.--
       ``(1) Eligible obligations.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary of the Treasury shall invest 
     the amounts deposited under subsection (b) and the interest 
     earned on those amounts only in interest-bearing obligations 
     of the United States issued directly to the Funds.
       ``(2) Investment requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     invest each of the Funds in accordance with all of the 
     requirements of this paragraph.
       ``(B) Separate investments of principal and interest.--
       ``(i) Principal account.--The amounts deposited in each 
     Fund under subsection (b) shall be credited to an account 
     within the Fund (referred to in this paragraph as the 
     `principal account') and invested as provided in subparagraph 
     (C).
       ``(ii) Interest account.--The interest earned from 
     investing amounts in the principal account of each Fund shall 
     be transferred to a separate account within the Fund 
     (referred to in this paragraph as the `interest account') and 
     invested as provided in subparagraph (D).
       ``(iii) Crediting.--The interest earned from investing 
     amounts in the interest account of each Fund shall be 
     credited to the interest account.
       ``(C) Investment of principal account.--
       ``(i) Initial investment.--Each amount deposited in the 
     principal account of each Fund shall be invested initially in 
     eligible obligations having the shortest maturity then 
     available until the date on which the amount is divided into 
     3 substantially equal portions and those portions are 
     invested in eligible obligations that are identical (except 
     for transferability) to the next-issued publicly issued 
     Treasury obligations having a 2-year maturity, a 5-year 
     maturity, and a 10-year maturity, respectively.
       ``(ii) Subsequent investment.--As each 2-year, 5-year, and 
     10-year eligible obligation matures, the principal of the 
     maturing eligible obligation shall also be invested initially 
     in the shortest-maturity eligible obligation then available 
     until the principal is reinvested substantially equally in 
     the eligible obligations that are identical (except for 
     transferability) to the next-issued publicly issued Treasury 
     obligations having 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year maturities.
       ``(iii) Discontinuation of issuance of obligations.--If the 
     Department of the Treasury discontinues issuing to the public 
     obligations having 2-year, 5-year, or 10-year maturities, the 
     principal of any maturing eligible obligation shall be 
     reinvested substantially equally in eligible obligations that 
     are identical (except for transferability) to the next-issued 
     publicly issued Treasury obligations of the maturities longer 
     than 1 year then available.

[[Page 14689]]

       ``(D) Investment of the interest account.--
       ``(i) Before full capitalization.--Until the date on which 
     each Fund is fully capitalized, amounts in the interest 
     account of the Fund shall be invested in eligible obligations 
     that are identical (except for transferability) to publicly 
     issued Treasury obligations that have maturities that 
     coincide, to the maximum extent practicable, with the date on 
     which the Fund is expected to be fully capitalized.
       ``(ii) After full capitalization.--On and after the date on 
     which each Fund is fully capitalized, amounts in the interest 
     account of the Fund shall be invested and reinvested in 
     eligible obligations having the shortest maturity then 
     available until the amounts are withdrawn and transferred to 
     fund the activities authorized under subsection (d)(3).
       ``(E) Par purchase price.--The price to be paid for 
     eligible obligations purchased as investments of the 
     principal account shall not exceed the par value of the 
     obligations so that the amount of the principal account shall 
     be preserved in perpetuity.
       ``(F) Highest yield.--Among eligible obligations having the 
     same maturity and purchase price, the obligation to be 
     purchased shall be the obligation having the highest yield.
       ``(G) Holding to maturity.--Eligible obligations purchased 
     shall generally be held to their maturities.
       ``(3) Annual review of investment activities.--Not less 
     frequently than once each calendar year, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall review with the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and 
     the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe the results of the investment 
     activities and financial status of the Funds during the 
     preceding 12-month period.''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following:
       ``(f) Administrative Expenses.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
     appropriated, to the Secretary of the Treasury to pay 
     expenses associated with investing the Funds and auditing the 
     uses of amounts withdrawn from the Funds--
       ``(1) up to $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 
     2007; and
       ``(2) such sums as are necessary for each subsequent fiscal 
     year.''.

     SEC. 5008. CONNECTICUT RIVER DAMS, VERMONT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall evaluate, design, and 
     construct structural modifications at full Federal cost to 
     the Union Village Dam (Ompompanoosuc River), North Hartland 
     Dam (Ottauquechee River), North Springfield Dam (Black 
     River), Ball Mountain Dam (West River), and Townshend Dam 
     (West River), Vermont, to regulate flow and temperature to 
     mitigate downstream impacts on aquatic habitat and fisheries.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000.

                   TITLE VI--PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS

     SEC. 6001. LITTLE COVE CREEK, GLENCOE, ALABAMA.

       The project for flood damage reduction, Little Cove Creek, 
     Glencoe, Alabama, authorized by the Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 1985 (99 Stat. 312), is not authorized.

     SEC. 6002. GOLETA AND VICINITY, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for flood control, Goleta and Vicinity, 
     California, authorized by section 201 of the Flood Control 
     Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1826), is not authorized.

     SEC. 6003. BRIDGEPORT HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.

       (a) In General.--The portion of the project for navigation, 
     Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the Act of July 
     3, 1930 (46 Stat. 919), consisting of an 18-foot channel in 
     Yellow Mill River and described in subsection (b), is not 
     authorized.
       (b) Description of Project.--The project referred to in 
     subsection (a) is described as beginning at a point along the 
     eastern limit of the existing project, N. 123,649.75, E. 
     481,920.54, thence running northwesterly about 52.64 feet to 
     a point N. 123,683.03, E. 481,879.75, thence running 
     northeasterly about 1,442.21 feet to a point N. 125,030.08, 
     E. 482,394.96, thence running northeasterly about 139.52 feet 
     to a point along the east limit of the existing channel, N. 
     125,133.87, E. 482,488.19, thence running southwesterly about 
     1,588.98 feet to the point of origin.

     SEC. 6004. BRIDGEPORT, CONNECTICUT.

       The project for environmental infrastructure, Bridgeport, 
     Connecticut, authorized by section 219(f)(26) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 
     336), is not authorized.

     SEC. 6005. HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT.

       The project for environmental infrastructure, Hartford, 
     Connecticut, authorized by section 219(f)(27) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 
     336), is not authorized.

     SEC. 6006. NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT.

       The project for environmental infrastructure, New Haven, 
     Connecticut, authorized by section 219(f)(28) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 
     336), is not authorized.

     SEC. 6007. INLAND WATERWAY FROM DELAWARE RIVER TO CHESAPEAKE 
                   BAY, PART II, INSTALLATION OF FENDER PROTECTION 
                   FOR BRIDGES, DELAWARE AND MARYLAND.

       The project for the construction of bridge fenders for the 
     Summit and St. Georges Bridge for the Inland Waterway of the 
     Delaware River to the C & D Canal of the Chesapeake Bay 
     authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 
     1249) is not authorized.

     SEC. 6008. CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, EVERGLADES NATIONAL 
                   PARK, FLORIDA.

       The project to modify the Central and Southern Florida 
     project to improve water supply to the Everglades National 
     Park, Florida, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control 
     Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1257) and the Flood Control Act of 1968 
     (82 Stat. 740), is not authorized.

     SEC. 6009. SHINGLE CREEK BASIN, FLORIDA.

       The project for flood control, Central and Southern Florida 
     Project, Shingle Creek Basin, Florida, authorized by section 
     203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1182), is not 
     authorized.

     SEC. 6010. BREVOORT, INDIANA.

       The project for flood control, Brevoort, Indiana, 
     authorized under section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1936 
     (49 Stat. 1587), is not authorized.

     SEC. 6011. MIDDLE WABASH, GREENFIELD BAYOU, INDIANA.

       The project for flood control, Middle Wabash, Greenfield 
     Bayou, Indiana, authorized by section 10 of the Flood Control 
     Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 649), is not authorized.

     SEC. 6012. LAKE GEORGE, HOBART, INDIANA.

       The project for flood damage reduction, Lake George, 
     Hobart, Indiana, authorized by section 602 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148), is not 
     authorized.

     SEC. 6013. GREEN BAY LEVEE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 2, IOWA.

       The project for flood damage reduction, Green Bay Levee and 
     Drainage District No. 2, Iowa, authorized by section 401(a) 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 
     4115), deauthorized in fiscal year 1991, and reauthorized by 
     section 115(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1992 (106 Stat. 4821), is not authorized.

     SEC. 6014. MUSCATINE HARBOR, IOWA.

       The project for navigation at the Muscatine Harbor on the 
     Mississippi River at Muscatine, Iowa, authorized by section 
     101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 166), is 
     not authorized.

     SEC. 6015. BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATIONAL 
                   AREA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE.

       The project for recreation facilities at Big South Fork 
     National River and Recreational Area, Kentucky and Tennessee, 
     authorized by section 108 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 43), is not authorized.

     SEC. 6016. EAGLE CREEK LAKE, KENTUCKY.

       The project for flood control and water supply, Eagle Creek 
     Lake, Kentucky, authorized by section 203 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1188), is not authorized.

     SEC. 6017. HAZARD, KENTUCKY.

       The project for flood damage reduction, Hazard, Kentucky, 
     authorized by section 3 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014) and section 108 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4621), is not 
     authorized.

     SEC. 6018. WEST KENTUCKY TRIBUTARIES, KENTUCKY.

       The project for flood control, West Kentucky Tributaries, 
     Kentucky, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act 
     of 1965 (79 Stat. 1081), section 201 of the Flood Control Act 
     of 1970 (84 Stat. 1825), and section 401(b) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4129), is not 
     authorized.

     SEC. 6019. BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LOUISIANA.

       The project for flood damage reduction, Bayou Cocodrie and 
     Tributaries, Louisiana, authorized by section 3 of the of the 
     Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the construction of certain 
     public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for 
     other purposes'', approved August 18, 1941 (55 Stat. 644), 
     and section 1(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1974 (88 Stat. 12), is not authorized.

     SEC. 6020. BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP, LOUISIANA.

       The uncompleted portions of the project for navigation 
     improvement for Bayou LaFourche and LaFourche Jump, 
     Louisiana, authorized by the Act of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 
     1033, chapter 831) and the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 
     Stat. 481), are not authorized.

     SEC. 6021. EASTERN RAPIDES AND SOUTH-CENTRAL AVOYELLES 
                   PARISHES, LOUISIANA.

       The project for flood control, Eastern Rapides and South-
     Central Avoyelles Parishes, Louisiana, authorized by section 
     201 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1825), is not 
     authorized.

     SEC. 6022. FORT LIVINGSTON, GRAND TERRE ISLAND, LOUISIANA.

       The project for erosion protection and recreation, Fort 
     Livingston, Grande Terre Island, Louisiana, authorized by the 
     Act of August 13, 1946 (commonly known as the ``Flood Control 
     Act of 1946'') (33 U.S.C. 426e et seq.), is not authorized.

     SEC. 6023. GULF INTERCOASTAL WATERWAY, LAKE BORGNE AND CHEF 
                   MENTEUR, LOUISIANA.

       The project for the construction of bulkheads and jetties 
     at Lake Borgne and Chef

[[Page 14690]]

     Menteur, Louisiana, as part of the Gulf Intercoastal Waterway 
     authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Act 
     of 1946 (60 Stat. 635) is not authorized.

     SEC. 6024. RED RIVER WATERWAY, SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA TO 
                   DAINGERFIELD, TEXAS.

       The project for the Red River Waterway, Shreveport, 
     Louisiana to Daingerfield, Texas, authorized by section 101 
     of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731), is not 
     authorized.

     SEC. 6025. CASCO BAY, PORTLAND, MAINE.

       The project for environmental infrastructure, Casco Bay in 
     the Vicinity of Portland, Maine, authorized by section 307 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4841), 
     is not authorized.

     SEC. 6026. NORTHEAST HARBOR, MAINE.

       The project for navigation, Northeast Harbor, Maine, 
     authorized by section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 
     12, chapter 19), is not authorized.

     SEC. 6027. PENOBSCOT RIVER, BANGOR, MAINE.

       The project for environmental infrastructure, Penobscot 
     River in the Vicinity of Bangor, Maine, authorized by section 
     307 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 
     4841), is not authorized.

     SEC. 6028. SAINT JOHN RIVER BASIN, MAINE.

       The project for research and demonstration program of 
     cropland irrigation and soil conservation techniques, Saint 
     John River Basin, Maine, authorized by section 1108 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (106 Stat. 4230), is 
     not authorized.

     SEC. 6029. TENANTS HARBOR, MAINE.

       The project for navigation, Tenants Harbor, Maine, 
     authorized by the first section of the Act of March 2, 1919 
     (40 Stat. 1275, chapter 95), is not authorized.

     SEC. 6030. GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MICHIGAN.

       The project for navigation, Grand Haven Harbor, Michigan, 
     authorized by section 202(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4093), is not authorized.

     SEC. 6031. GREENVILLE HARBOR, MISSISSIPPI.

       The project for navigation, Greenville Harbor, Mississippi, 
     authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142), is not authorized.

     SEC. 6032. PLATTE RIVER FLOOD AND RELATED STREAMBANK EROSION 
                   CONTROL, NEBRASKA.

       The project for flood damage reduction, Platte River Flood 
     and Related Streambank Erosion Control, Nebraska, authorized 
     by section 603 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (100 Stat. 4149), is not authorized.

     SEC. 6033. EPPING, NEW HAMPSHIRE.

       The project for environmental infrastructure, Epping, New 
     Hampshire, authorized by section 219(c)(6) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835), is not 
     authorized.

     SEC. 6034. MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE.

       The project for environmental infrastructure, Manchester, 
     New Hampshire, authorized by section 219(c)(7) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4836), is not 
     authorized.

     SEC. 6035. NEW YORK HARBOR AND ADJACENT CHANNELS, CLAREMONT 
                   TERMINAL, JERSEY CITY, NEW JERSEY.

       The project for navigation, New York Harbor and adjacent 
     channels, Claremont Terminal, Jersey City, New Jersey, 
     authorized by section 202(b) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4098), is not authorized.

     SEC. 6036. EISENHOWER AND SNELL LOCKS, NEW YORK.

       The project for navigation, Eisenhower and Snell Locks, New 
     York, authorized by section 1163 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4258), is not authorized.

     SEC. 6037. OLCOTT HARBOR, LAKE ONTARIO, NEW YORK.

       The project for navigation, Olcott Harbor, Lake Ontario, 
     New York, authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4143), is not authorized.

     SEC. 6038. OUTER HARBOR, BUFFALO, NEW YORK.

       The project for navigation, Outer Harbor, Buffalo, New 
     York, authorized by section 110 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4817), is not authorized.

     SEC. 6039. SUGAR CREEK BASIN, NORTH CAROLINA AND SOUTH 
                   CAROLINA.

       The project for flood damage reduction, Sugar Creek Basin, 
     North Carolina and South Carolina, authorized by section 
     401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 
     Stat. 4121), is not authorized.

     SEC. 6040. CLEVELAND HARBOR 1958 ACT, OHIO.

       The project for navigation, Cleveland Harbor (Uncompleted 
     Portion), Ohio, authorized by section 101 of the River and 
     Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 299), is not authorized.

     SEC. 6041. CLEVELAND HARBOR 1960 ACT, OHIO.

       The project for navigation, Cleveland Harbor (Uncompleted 
     Portion), Ohio, authorized by section 101 of the River and 
     Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 482), is not authorized.

     SEC. 6042. CLEVELAND HARBOR, UNCOMPLETED PORTION OF CUT #4, 
                   OHIO.

       The project for navigation, Cleveland Harbor (Uncompleted 
     Portion of Cut #4), Ohio, authorized by the first section of 
     the Act of July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 636, chapter 595), is not 
     authorized.

     SEC. 6043. COLUMBIA RIVER, SEAFARERS MEMORIAL, HAMMOND, 
                   OREGON.

       The project for the Columbia River, Seafarers Memorial, 
     Hammond, Oregon, authorized by title I of the Energy and 
     Water Development Appropriations Act, 1991 (104 Stat. 2078), 
     is not authorized.

     SEC. 6044. CHARTIERS CREEK, CANNONSBURG (HOUSTON REACH UNIT 
                   2B), PENNSYLVANIA.

       The project for flood control, Chartiers Creek, Cannonsburg 
     (Houston Reach Unit 2B), Pennsylvania, authorized by section 
     204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1081), is not 
     authorized.

     SEC. 6045. SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA.

       The project for navigation, Schuylkill River (Mouth to 
     Penrose Avenue), Pennsylvania, authorized by section 3(a)(12) 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 
     4013), is not authorized.

     SEC. 6046. TIOGA-HAMMOND LAKES, PENNSYLVANIA.

       The project for flood control and recreation, Tioga-Hammond 
     Lakes, Mill Creek Recreation, Pennsylvania, authorized by 
     section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 313), 
     is not authorized.

     SEC. 6047. TAMAQUA, PENNSYLVANIA.

       The project for flood control, Tamaqua, Pennsylvania, 
     authorized by section 1(a) of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 14), is not authorized.

     SEC. 6048. NARRAGANSETT TOWN BEACH, NARRAGANSETT, RHODE 
                   ISLAND.

       The project for navigation, Narragansett Town Beach, 
     Narragansett, Rhode Island, authorized by section 361 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4861), is 
     not authorized.

     SEC. 6049. QUONSET POINT-DAVISVILLE, RHODE ISLAND.

       The project for bulkhead repairs, Quonset Point-Davisville, 
     Rhode Island, authorized by section 571 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3788), is not 
     authorized.

     SEC. 6050. ARROYO COLORADO, TEXAS.

       The project for flood damage reduction, Arroyo Colorado, 
     Texas, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4125), is not authorized.

     SEC. 6051. CYPRESS CREEK-STRUCTURAL, TEXAS.

       The project for flood damage reduction, Cypress Creek-
     Structural, Texas, authorized by section 3(a)(13) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014), is 
     not authorized.

     SEC. 6052. EAST FORK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, INCREMENT 2, EAST 
                   FORK OF THE TRINITY RIVER, TEXAS.

       The project for flood damage reduction, East Fork Channel 
     Improvement, Increment 2, East Fork of the Trinity River, 
     Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 
     1962 (76 Stat. 1185), is not authorized.

     SEC. 6053. FALFURRIAS, TEXAS.

       The project for flood damage reduction, Falfurrias, Texas, 
     authorized by section 3(a)(14) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014), is not authorized.

     SEC. 6054. PECAN BAYOU LAKE, TEXAS.

       The project for flood control, Pecan Bayou Lake, Texas, 
     authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 
     (82 Stat. 742), is not authorized.

     SEC. 6055. LAKE OF THE PINES, TEXAS.

       The project for navigation improvements affecting Lake of 
     the Pines, Texas, for the portion of the Red River below 
     Fulton, Arkansas, authorized by the Act of July 13, 1892 (27 
     Stat. 88, chapter 158), as amended by the Act of July 24, 
     1946 (60 Stat. 635, chapter 595), the Act of May 17, 1950 (64 
     Stat. 163, chapter 188), and the River and Harbor Act of 1968 
     (82 Stat. 731), is not authorized.

     SEC. 6056. TENNESSEE COLONY LAKE, TEXAS.

       The project for navigation, Tennessee Colony Lake, Trinity 
     River, Texas, authorized by section 204 of the River and 
     Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1091), is not authorized.

     SEC. 6057. CITY WATERWAY, TACOMA, WASHINGTON.

       The portion of the project for navigation, City Waterway, 
     Tacoma, Washington, authorized by the first section of the 
     Act of June 13, 1902 (32 Stat. 347), consisting of the last 
     1,000 linear feet of the inner portion of the Waterway 
     beginning at Station 70+00 and ending at Station 80+00, is 
     not authorized.

     SEC. 6058. KANAWHA RIVER, CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA.

       The project for bank erosion, Kanawha River, Charleston, 
     West Virginia, authorized by section 603(f)(13) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4153), is not 
     authorized.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, last Thursday Senator Jeffords and I took 
some time to thank the members of our committee and many on the outside 
for cooperation in bringing to the Senate the Water Resources 
Development Act. This is a very big bill. It is a very significant 
bill. It involved the cooperation of quite a number of people. I would 
say every member of our committee has been very cooperative. I talked a 
little bit about Senator Feingold and the fact he had some objections. 
He was very good to work with, along with Senator McCain and others.
  We finally are at the point now where, after a lot of negotiation, 
the

[[Page 14691]]

Senate is considering today S. 728, the Water Resources Development Act 
of 2006.
  As the world's leading maritime and trading nation, the United States 
relies on an efficient maritime transportation system to maintain its 
role as a global power. The bill we debate today is the cornerstone of 
that system.
  The Water Resources Development Act, or WRDA, sets out the Federal 
policy of procedure for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to maintain 
and build our inland and intracoastal waterway system, which carries 
one-sixth of the Nation's volume of intercity cargo.
  In addition, the Corps is responsible for maintaining approximate 
channel depths in ports along our coasts and the Great Lakes to handle 
95 percent of all foreign trade into and out of the country. In fact, 
more than 67 percent of all consumer goods pass through harbors 
maintained by the Corps of Engineers. WRDA also authorizes the Corps to 
work with communities on flood damage reduction and hurricane and storm 
damage reduction projects designed to protect human life and property.
  Inland and intracoastal waterways, which serve States on the Atlantic 
seaboard, the gulf coast, and the Pacific Northwest, move about 630 
million tons of cargo valued at over $70 billion annually. Furthermore, 
it is estimated that the average transportation cost savings to users 
of the system is $10.67 per ton, or $7 billion annually over other 
modes of transportation.
  The nearly 12,000 miles of inland and intracoastal waterways include 
192 commercially active lock and dam sites. I might add, a lot of 
people are surprised these are in my State of Oklahoma. Over 50 percent 
of the locks and dams operated by the Corps are more than 50 years old 
and consequently are approaching the end of their design life and are 
in need of modernization or major rehabilitation. This bill authorizes 
ongoing work to modernize and rehabilitate our inland and intracoastal 
waterway system.
  In the 1800s, the Corps was first called upon to address flood 
problems along the Mississippi River. Since then, the Corps has 
continued to provide flood damage reduction along the Mississippi River 
and in other regions of the country. These efforts range from small 
local protection to projects such as levees, or nonstructural measures, 
to major dams. Today, most of the structures are owned by sponsoring 
cities, towns, and agricultural districts. Although the Corps cannot 
prevent all damage from floods, the efforts of the Corps do 
significantly reduce the cost of the flood events.
  To illustrate this point, consider that during the 10 years from 1991 
to 2000, the decade of the 1990s, the country suffered $45 billion in 
property damage from floods. If Corps flood damage reduction measures 
had not been in place, however, that figure would have been more than 
$208 billion in damage. Clearly, flood control is a wise investment. 
According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the flood control 
structures on average prevent $22 billion in flood damage each year, a 
savings of $6 per every $1 spent.
  Second, similarly, the Corps also participates in and this bill 
authorizes hurricane and storm damage reduction projects along our 
Nation's coast as well as projects to combat shoreline erosion. So we 
are talking now about three aspects: navigation, the hurricanes, and 
the erosion problem.
  And then the third Corps mission is ecosystems restoration. Working 
with non-Federal sponsors, the Corps implements single-purpose 
ecosystems, restoration projects, multipurpose projects with ecosystems 
restoration components, or projects for flood protection or navigation 
that incorporate environmental features as good engineering. The Corps 
has restored, created, and protected over 500,000 acres of wetlands and 
other habitats between 1988 and 2004. In some cases, existing water 
resources projects are modified to achieve restoration benefits.
  This bill includes authorization of several such projects, including 
quickly approaching the crisis that, if ignored, would dramatically 
stunt continued economic growth.
  We have to understand right now, with what is happening in this 
country, the increase in economic activity is what has brought us out 
of this recession. The deficits people in this Senate like to talk 
about are being addressed by the fact that, for each additional 1 
percent of economic activity, it increases revenues about $45 billion. 
This bill is going to be very helpful in increasing economic activity.
  As one of the most fiscally conservative Members of this Senate, I 
have long argued that the two most important functions of the Federal 
Government are to provide for national defense and public 
infrastructure. A lot of my conservative colleagues are going to be 
talking about projects and maybe earmarks. That is not in this bill we 
are talking about. They might be surprised to know that I, with a 
rating of 100 percent by the American Conservative Union, this year and 
last year, am proposing this bill, which is a big spending bill, but we 
are not spending. We are authorizing. We have an orderly procedure to 
reach those projects which would enjoy the most support.
  I say to my conservative friends, I am one who is not for wasteful 
spending. I have maintained the perfect record in terms of my 
conservative leanings. In fact, it is exactly what being a fiscal 
conservative is all about.
  The primary purpose of government spending is to provide for the 
national defense and to provide for critical infrastructure. Think how 
chaotic the system would be if each individual would build and maintain 
their own infrastructure system. Society simply would not function. 
Every first-year political science student learns that the function of 
the body politic is to provide resources that are used by all. 
Efficiency and economics require the Government not only plan but 
construct and maintain public infrastructure. So I am not shy about 
voting for increased authorization on national defense needs or public 
infrastructure.
  At the same time, we have to spend limited tax dollars wisely, with 
that in mind, on three major restoration projects in Louisiana, 
Florida, and the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Unfortunately, as other 
infrastructure bills, WRDA has been decried in the press perhaps as a 
pork bill. During the debate in the Senate we may hear from some who 
will agree with that. It is the popular thing to say. As one of the 
primary authors of the bill, allow me to explain why this charge, if 
raised, is not accurate.
  First, contrary to public belief, this bill is not just project 
authorization. It contains also significant policy changes designed to 
ensure an efficient and effective process for addressing our Nation's 
water resources needs. Later in this debate, Senators will have an 
opportunity to consider several amendments on further policy reforms.
  The bill does have project authorizations. It is an unfortunate fact 
of life when infrastructure bills are debated we first have to battle 
back the charge that all we are doing is funding unneeded projects.
  Look at the facts. According to the American Society of Civil 
Engineers 2005 report cards on America's infrastructure, none of the 
Nation's primary infrastructure such as roads, airports, drinking water 
facilities, wastewater management systems, gets above a C, and most 
receive a D. That is without exception. None. And every project 
authorization is quickly approaching a crisis that, if ignored, will 
dramatically stunt continued economic growth. We are at the point now 
where we need to do something.
  With that in mind, the committee established a very firm policy of 
what types of project requests we would consider. Every project 
authorization included in this bill is based on a report of the Chief 
of Engineers verifying that the project is technically feasible, 
economical, economically justified, and environmentally accepted.
  I will talk a little bit about the types of engineering reports that 
are necessary. We did not include environmental infrastructure projects 
such as water treatment facilities or riverfront development projects 
because neither of these are a Corps of Engineers mission. Finally, we 
did not authorize

[[Page 14692]]

cost-share waivers on existing or new projects. We have always felt the 
local community has to have an investment and has to have the support 
of the State, county, or city in order to come forth with the project.
  At the present time, Senator Bond and I will be offering two 
amendments, one on prioritization of projects, and another establishing 
a procedure of independent peer review. Both of these issues are 
important reforms to the program. We agree that Congress needs better 
analysis so we can more easily compare individual projects, thereby 
ensuring the most needed projects are addressed in a timely manner. 
Independent peer review fulfills a critical function to ensure that 
policymakers are using accurate information to make decisions. 
Therefore, Senator Bond and I will be offering an amendment to clarify 
which projects should undergo independent peer review.
  Finally, some have expressed a concern about the size of the bill. I 
understand and appreciate these concerns. However, I point out that it 
has been 6 years since the last WRDA bill was signed into law. 
Traditionally, WRDA is done every 2 years. Given the 6-year timelag, 
what the Senate is being asked to consider represents what would be 
three WRDAs if we had kept to the 2-year schedule. Given that, I 
believe the cost is reasonable.
  The amount of this bill would be eventually about $7 billion in 
authorization. However, if we were to follow the pattern set in 2000, 
for a 2-year bill, it was 5.07, so it is considerably less than if we 
had been doing it every 2 years as we did in the year 2000.
  For the benefit of those who may not be familiar with the Army Corps 
of Engineers program, let me explain. The program does include 
planning, design, construction, maintenance, and operation of water 
projects that give improved flood damage reduction, hurricane and storm 
damage reduction, shore protection, navigation, ecosystems restoration, 
hydroelectric power, recreation, and other various water resources 
needed. Virtually all water resources projects are cost shared with a 
local sponsor. The statutory cost share varies depending on the size of 
the project. Generally speaking, the local share is about 35 percent; 
the Federal share is about 65 percent.
  Projects generally originate with a request for assistance from a 
community or local government entity with the water resource need that 
is beyond its capability to alleviate. A study authority allows the 
Corps to investigate a problem and determine if there is a Federal 
interest in proceeding further.
  If the Corps has performed a study in the geographic area before this 
time--in other words, if it has already done it--a new study can be 
authorized by a resolution of either the Senate Committee on 
Environment and Public Works, the committee I chair, or the House 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. If the Corps has not 
previously investigated the area, the study needs to be authorized by 
an act of Congress, typically through what we are considering today, a 
WRDA bill.
  Army Corps studies are usually conducted in two stages: the first, 
called a reconnaissance study, or the recon study, is a general 
investigation, including an overview of the problem, identification of 
potential local sponsors--that could be State, tribal, county, or local 
agencies or governments or nonprofit organizations--and an initial 
determination of a Federal interest. A recon study is done at full 
Federal expense and usually costs $100,000 to $200,000 and usually can 
be completed in about a year.
  The second stage is a feasibility study, which is the detailed 
analysis of alternatives, costs, benefits, and environmental and other 
impacts. A feasibility study is cost-shared 50-50 with a local sponsor, 
usually costing upwards of $1 million and takes up to several years to 
complete.
  Congress must provide authorization for the Corps to begin the recon 
study, but the Corps can move from the recon to feasibility stage 
without further authorization. Based on the results of the study, the 
chief of engineers may--this is the significant part--may sign a final 
recommendation on the project, known as the Chief's Report. 
Accordingly, the committee has used a favorable Chief's Report as the 
basis for authorizing projects.
  I am going through this process so people will understand this has 
been thoughtfully considered in each one of these, and the Corps has 
gone into them and actually come out with a final Chief's Report. I 
have to say, individuals who sometimes complain about the way the Corps 
is working might remember in the late 1990s when we had the Everglades 
Restoration Act. I happen to be the only Member who voted against it. 
It was 99 to 1, I say to the Presiding Officer. The reason I voted 
against it is because it did not have a Chief's Report. We have to stay 
with this system.
  Before I yield the floor to my colleagues, I want to point out some 
other provisions in the managers' substitute amendment that were added 
to the committee-reported bill. The primary changes were made in 
response to the devastating hurricanes that hit the gulf coast last 
year.
  We are proposing a new National Levee Safety Program designed after 
the National Dam Safety Program. The new Levee Safety Program requires 
that a national inventory be made of all levees and that those levees 
that protect human life and public safety be inspected. As with the Dam 
Safety Program, the provision establishes a State grant program to 
encourage States to establish their own safety program, as these 
activities are best handled at the local level.
  We also made some changes to language already in the bill to 
authorize a project for coastal wetlands restoration in Louisiana. 
These changes are intended to address the two main suggestions for 
process improvements that the Environment and Public Works Committee 
heard from a broad range of stakeholders following Hurricane Katrina.
  First, we try to do a better job of addressing our water resources 
needs in a comprehensive, integrated manner, rather than in the 
traditional stovepipe manner of separate missions areas.
  Secondly, the time it takes between identifying a water resources 
need to completing a solution is significantly longer than it should 
be. Our substitute amendment addresses the time from identification of 
need to solution.
  So we are going to proceed with this bill. I have a request from a 
well-respected Senator, but I am going to ask if the Senator could 
withhold until we have the opening statements done.
  Let me say, in closing, I have a special interest in this bill 
because--a lot of people do not realize it, and I am sure the Chair 
does because he is aware of these things--my State of Oklahoma is in 
that way navigable. We have a navigation way that comes all the way to 
the Port of Catoosa. That is in Tulsa, OK. It was put together by a 
State authorization in legislation that was passed by my father-in-law, 
the late Arthur Patrick, in the early 1930s. And you might have heard 
of the McClellan-Kerr Dam. That is the one that is there. So we have 
that history, and I have that bias that I bring to this floor with my 
opening remarks.
  With that, let me thank the ranking minority member, Senator 
Jeffords, who has been so cooperative throughout the development of 
this legislation.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I say thank you to the Senator. It is a 
pleasure to work with you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend briefly.


                           Amendment No. 4676

  Under the previous order, the reported committee amendments are 
withdrawn. The managers' substitute at the desk, amendment No. 4676, is 
agreed to, and the bill, as so amended, is original text for further 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4676) was agreed to.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I am very pleased to see the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2006 finally being considered on the Senate floor. 
This critical water resources bill is long overdue. The last one was 
completed 6 years ago.

[[Page 14693]]

  Despite never receiving a water resources proposal from the 
administration, we are here today with a good, comprehensive bill, and 
I hope we can work together to finally get it enacted this year.
  With this legislation, we maintain our commitment to the protection 
of our rivers, streams, and lakes. We also protect our aquatic 
ecosystems, which are so delicate and yet so vital to critical species.
  We help our States and local communities manage their water resources 
through navigation and shoreline protection projects, as well as 
provide flood and storm damage protection.
  This bill includes the authorization of key coastal restoration and 
hurricane protection projects to help the State of Louisiana recover 
from Hurricane Katrina.
  There are also some very important project authorizations for my 
State of Vermont, including ecosystem restoration for the Upper 
Connecticut River and small dam removal and remediation throughout the 
State.
  In addition, I am pleased this bill updates to the Army Corps of 
Engineers principles and guidelines to improve the efficiency of the 
Corps. I am disappointed, however, that some important Corps reform 
provisions were not included in this bill, such as stronger provisions 
for independent peer review.
  Hurricane Katrina tragically reminded us of the importance of 
comprehensive reform of the Army Corps of Engineers. I am cosponsoring 
Senator Feingold's amendment on this topic and encourage my colleagues 
to join us in support of this reform.
  In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the Corps has a tarnished record in 
many people's minds. The independent review language that will be 
offered by Senators Feingold and McCain, coupled with the other reforms 
we have included in the underlying bill, are critical first steps in 
our efforts to ensure that the Corps has adequate tools and appropriate 
oversight of its programs.
  This water resources bill represents a step forward in our efforts to 
protect our water resources, enhance environmental restoration, and 
spur economic development.
  Mr. President, I look forward to our debate on this bill. I urge my 
colleagues to support its passage.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the minority leader of our 
committee who has done such a good job.
  Let me announce what I would like to do and see if there is any 
objection. I will not pose this as a UC, but I will mention we have 
some people who do have to leave. We had announced earlier we would go 
straight to the Boxer amendment. I am in support of the Boxer 
amendment, and that is not going to take a long time. However, she has 
graciously agreed to let the Senator from Michigan go in advance of her 
for 10 minutes.
  The question I would like to ask the Senator from Michigan is, would 
it be permissible, and not counted against the time of the Senator from 
California, if Senator Santorum went for 3 minutes prior to you? This 
is at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Missouri. Would 
that be all right? It would put you off only 3 minutes.
  Ms. STABENOW. Yes. Through the Presiding Officer to the chairman, 
thank you very much for including me in this process. My question would 
only be, how much time does the Senator from Missouri require?
  Mr. INHOFE. How much time?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am, regretfully, limited by having to be 
at a markup in a subcommittee I chair, and I will limit my remarks to 
about 15 to 18 minutes.
  Ms. STABENOW. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, I would have no objection.
  Mr. INHOFE. After the conclusion of his remarks---
  Mrs. BOXER. Can you do a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Missouri be first recognized for 15 to 18 minutes, immediately 
followed by Senator Santorum for not to exceed 4 minutes, and then 
Senator Stabenow for not to exceed 10 minutes. And then we will proceed 
on to the Boxer amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. For 20 minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. For whatever time she wants to use.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I particularly thank 
our leader, Senator Frist, and the minority leader, Senator Reid, for 
bringing WRDA to the floor. This is a long and arduous process, and we 
are grateful they were able to bring together this tremendously 
important bill.
  I pay special thanks to the chairman of the committee, Senator 
Inhofe, and his staff, and the ranking member, Senator Jeffords, and 
his staff. This has been a truly bipartisan process--a lot longer 
process than we intended because this was supposed to have been the 
2002 WRDA bill. Nevertheless, we have the much needed Water Resources 
Development Act before us, authorizing projects under the jurisdiction 
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
  These projects are of tremendous value to the entire Nation. They 
provide drinking water, electric power production, river 
transportation, recreation, flood protection, environmental protection 
and restoration, and emergency response.
  Few agencies in the Federal Government touch as many citizens as the 
Corps does. The Corps provides one-quarter of our Nation's total 
hydropower output, operates 463 lake recreation areas, moves 630 
million tons of cargo valued at over $73 billion annually through our 
inland system, manages over 12 million acres of land and water, 
provides 3 trillion gallons of water for use by local communities and 
businesses, and has prevented an estimated $706 billion in flood damage 
within the past 25 years with an investment of less than one-seventh 
that value.
  During the 1993 flood, which we experienced in Missouri with great 
devastation, an estimated $19.1 billion in flood damage was prevented 
by flood control facilities in place at the time.
  WRDA, as I indicated, is a bipartisan bill, traditionally produced by 
Congress every 2 years, making possible America's major flood control 
projects, coastal protection, environmental protection and restoration, 
transportation, and recreation on our major waterways.
  Despite its importance, we have not passed a bill since 2000. The 
longer we wait, the more unmet needs pile up and the more complicated 
the demands upon the bill become, making it harder and harder to win 
approval.
  The public voice is loud, clear, and spoken often regarding how they 
feel about the need for our long-overdue and much needed WRDA 
legislation.
  We believe the bill before the Senate is a good one that balances the 
needs of States for environmental restoration of key waterways and for 
navigation projects that create economic growth.
  The bill before us will create jobs, spur economic development and 
trade competitiveness, and improve the environment. And it is 
financially responsible.
  To say it is widely supported is an understatement. It passed the EPW 
Committee by voice vote. Eighty of our colleagues signed a letter to 
leadership urging floor action--80 out of 100. It is tough for us to 
get 80 together on anything, but they said: We want this bill. The 
House cleared it with an overwhelming vote of 406 for it.
  Environmental restoration, in the last 20 years, has become a primary 
Corps mission.
  Our water resources perform a variety of functions simultaneously. 
They can provide transportation and protection from floods and habitats 
for many species. Similarly, when it comes to Corps projects, 
navigational and flood control projects can and should be 
environmentally sound. Environmental restoration can help prevent or 
minimize flooding during the next major storm, and many other benefits.
  The Corps is leading some of the world's largest ecosystem 
restoration projects. And the commanding feature

[[Page 14694]]

of this bill is its landmark environmental and ecosystem restoration 
authorities. More than half of the cost of the bill consists of 
authorization for environmental restoration projects.
  Think of all the major waterways that are important to America--to 
our environmental heritage, to recreation, and to commerce. This bill 
affects all of them.
  Among the projects in this bill are those that will restore wetlands 
in the Upper Connecticut River Basin in Vermont and New Hampshire; 
restore oyster habitat in the Chesapeake Bay; restore fisheries in the 
Great Lakes; implement an environmental management program for the Rio 
Grande River; continue restoration of the Everglades; restore areas of 
coastal Louisiana damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita; restore 
habitat on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois waterways; restore oyster 
habitat on Long Island Sound.
  Flood control is also important. If we have learned anything from 
Mother Nature in the last 15 years, it is that we frequently need 
protection from her storms. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita are just two of 
the latest devastating examples.
  As I said, the good news is Corps projects had an estimated $706 
billion in flood damage within the past 25 years with an investment 
one-seventh that value. This legislation authorizes flood control 
projects in California, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, 
Maryland, West Virginia, Minnesota, Kentucky, South Carolina, Idaho, 
Washington, and Missouri, to name a few.
  While the majority of this legislation is for environmental 
protection and restoration, a key bipartisan economic initiative 
included provides transportation efficiency and environmental 
sustainability on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers.
  As the world becomes more competitive, America must also become more 
competitive. Between 1970 and 2003, the value of U.S. trade increased 
24-fold and 70 percent since 1994. That is an average annual growth of 
10.2 percent--nearly double the pace of the GDP growth for the same 
period. We can expect demand for U.S. exports to continue increasing 
dramatically over many years.
  We have to ask ourselves where the growth in transportation will 
occur in the next 20 to 50 years to accommodate the growth in demand 
for commercial shipping. The Department of Transportation suggests that 
congestion on our roads and rails will double in the next quarter 
century.
  Now, those who drive on the highways know how crowded they are. How 
would you like to see all of the transportation that we now put on 
water go on the roads? Ask any farmer who has found difficulty getting 
rail availability to ship product, commodities, because there is heavy 
demand. Water transportation is a great untapped capacity.
  One medium-sized barge tow carries the freight of 870 trucks. On the 
road are 2.25 100-car unit trains, 250-car unit trains, and 1 barge 
carries the equivalent of 15 jumbo hopper cars. Now, how does that 
translate into the use of energy? We ought to be concerned about energy 
conservation. Well, the good news is that water transportation 
conserves fuel and protects the air and environment. How? How far will 
one gallon of fuel move one ton of freight? If you are going by truck, 
one gallon of fuel can move a ton of freight 59 miles. If you are going 
by rail, it can move it 386 miles. But if you are going by water, it 
can move it 522 miles. That is almost 10-to-1 more efficient than 
trucks and 1.5 times as efficient as rail. The rail just isn't there. 
The rail system is overcrowded already.
  Over the past 35 years, waterborne commerce on the Upper Mississippi 
River has more than tripled. The system currently carries 60 percent of 
our Nation's corn exports and 45 percent of our Nation's soybean 
exports, and it does so at two-thirds the cost of rail--when rail is 
available.
  In Missouri alone, we ship 34.7 million tons of commodities with a 
combined value of more than $4 billion. That is not just farm products. 
It includes coal, petroleum, aggregates, grain, chemicals, iron, steel, 
minerals, and other commodities, and, yes, the corn, soybean, and wheat 
that we export overseas.
  Our navigable waterways are in environmental and economic decline. 
Jobs and markets and the availability of habitat for fish and wildlife 
are at stake. The American Society for Civil Engineers grades navigable 
waterways infrastructure D- with over 50 percent of the locks 
``functionally obsolete'' despite increased demand.
  So we have developed a plan that gets the Corps back in the business 
of building the future, rather than just haggling about predicting the 
future.
  This legislation contains authorization for funding to improve 
navigation on a number of our major waterways in several States, 
including Louisiana, Texas, Alaska, Virginia, Delaware, and Maine.
  A key piece of the bill modernizes locks and dams on the Upper 
Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. We authorize capacity expansion on 
locks 20 to 25 on the Mississippi River and Peoria and LaGrange on the 
Illinois.
  New 1,200-foot locks on the Mississippi River will provide equal 
capacity in the bottleneck region. Upstream from the Keokuk, there is a 
lock 19 which is 1,200 feet, and below them at St. Louis are locks 26 
and 27. They are also 1,200 feet. These 600-foot locks serve as major 
water roadblocks to transportation of our products to the world markets 
and inputs to users upstream.
  One-half of the cost of the new locks will be paid for by private 
users who pay into the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Additional funds 
will be provided for mitigation and small scale and nonstructural 
measurements to improve efficiency.
  If you are for increased trade, commercial growth, and job creation, 
you cannot get there without supporting the basic transportation 
infrastructure, as our chairman has so eloquently pointed out. New 
efficiency helps give our producers an edge that can make or break 
opportunities in the international marketplace.
  As we look 50 years into the future, we have to ask ourselves a 
fundamental question: Should we have a system that promotes growth or 
should we be confined to a transportation straitjacket designed not for 
2050 but for 1950 with paddle wheel boats?
  We must ask ourselves if dramatic investments should be made to 
address environmental problems and opportunities that exist on these 
great waterways?
  In both cases, the answer, to me, is simple. Of course we should 
improve and modernize. The choice is a very important one today as we 
have a global economy. Our farmers are the most efficient in the world, 
but transportation costs can knock them out of the world market. We 
know our competitors are modernizing their water transportation.
  Here is a very troubling picture. This is one of our foremost exports 
right now. You know what they are exporting? Not renewable crops that 
come from our fields. These are 2 towboats and 30 barges headed for 
Argentina. Argentina and Brazil and other Latin American countries are 
taking imports from our water transportation system because they have 
the waterways to use them and we don't. Do you want to make a one-time 
sale of the barges or towboats, or do you want to have sales every year 
on the goods and commodities these can produce?
  Seventy years ago, some argued that a transportation system on the 
Mississippi River was not justified. Congress, fortunately, decided 
that its role was not to try to predict the future but to shape it and 
decided to invest in a system despite the naysayers. Over 84 million 
tons per year later, it is clear that the decision was wise.
  The veteran chief economist at USDA testified that transportation 
efficiency and the ability of farmers to win markets and higher prices 
are ``fundamentally related.'' He predicts that corn exports over the 
next 10 years will rise 45 percent, 70 percent of which will travel 
down the Mississippi River--if the river has the capacity to carry it.

[[Page 14695]]

  The decision to improve these waterways has not been taken lightly. 
As has already been pointed out, all decisions and procedures have been 
documented and coordinated with an interagency Federal Principals 
Group, independent technical reviews and stakeholders, and have been 
made available for public review and comment.
  The Corps of Engineers spent $70 million completing a study that was 
anticipated to take 6 years and cost $12 million, but it actually took 
14 years to complete. During that period, there have been 35 meetings 
of the Governors Liaison Committee, 28 meetings on the Economic 
Coordinating Committee, among the States along the Upper Mississippi 
and Illinois waterways, 44 meetings of the Navigation and Environmental 
Coordination Committee; and there have been 3,879 public involvement 
activities concerning the Upper Mississippi River alone.
  Additionally, there have been 130 briefings for special interest 
groups and 24 newsletters. There have been 6 sets of public meetings in 
46 locations, with over 4,000 people in attendance. To say the least, 
this has been a very long, very transparent, and very representative 
process.
  While we have been studying, our competitors have been building. 
Given the extraordinary delay so far, and given the reality that large-
scale construction takes decades, further delay is no longer an option.
  That is why I am pleased to join the bipartisan group of Senators who 
agree that we must improve the efficiency and the environmental 
sustainability of our great resources.
  The transportation efficiency provisions are supported by a broad-
based group of the States, farm groups, shippers, labor, and those who 
pay taxes into the trust fund for improvements.
  Of particular note, I appreciate the strong support from the 
carpenters, laborers, operating engineers, Iron Workers, Teamsters, the 
Nature Conservancy, the Audubon Group, and the construction and energy 
and agriculture people.
  Also, I mention specifically the good efforts of Senators Talent, 
Durbin, Obama, Grassley, and Harkin, who have given strong bipartisan 
support.
  For some, the bill is too small; for others, it is too big. It is 
important to understand the budget implications in the real world. We 
are contending with difficult budget realities. It is critical to be 
mindful of those realities as we make investments in the infrastructure 
that support those who make and grow and buy and sell things so that we 
can expand our economy, create jobs, and, yes, pay taxes and secure our 
future.
  This is an authorization bill that doesn't spend a single dollar, not 
one. Like other authorization bills, it makes projects eligible for 
funding under constraints administered by Congress. The Appropriations 
Committee and the President will have final say. Those who don't make 
it won't be funded.
  The WRDA process simply allows for projects to be considered during 
the process of appropriations. I hear some suggest we should not 
authorize anything new until everything previously authorized has been 
funded. That is nonsense because it falsely assumes that all projects 
authorized 5, 10, 15 years ago are higher priority than those we have 
now. That is not true.
  In fact, we have eliminated the authorization for 56 projects 
totaling over $500 million in savings. The remaining projects will be 
subject to the appropriations process.
  People have talked about Corps reform. I want to make sure we reform 
it and don't kill it. I agree that we need to be sure every project is 
authorized, is needed, and is economically justifiable.
  The Corps continues to make agency-wide planning improvements that 
are responsive to stakeholders' needs and responsible to taxpayers.
  The Corps includes independent review in all project studies and 
review by outside independent experts for larger, higher risk and 
complex projects. Peer review is integrated into project development.
  The Corps is developing new tools to examine regional and watershed 
issues that will allow a broader view of complex water resource issues.
  The bill contains provisions that will further improve the 
reliability of Corps analyses of projects.
  Now, there are many--particularly community leaders around the 
country--who believe there is already too much redtape, delay, cost, 
and uncertainty. There are those who want less redtape. I strongly 
agree with them. Others want more redtape. But I think we strike a 
necessary balance in the bill.
  We have embraced a commonsense, bipartisan proposal by Senators 
Landrieu and Cochran that requires major projects to be subject to 
independent review.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 18 minutes.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the Landrieu-Cochran proposal requires that 
necessary mitigation for projects be completed at the same time the 
project is completed or no longer than 1 year afterward. This will 
impose a cost on communities, particularly smaller ones, but it is not 
as onerous as regulations proposed 2 years ago which ultimately 
prevented a final agreement between the House and Senate. For some, the 
new regulations are too onerous; for others, not enough. As I said, I 
believe we strike a balance.
  This legislation is supported by over 250 organizations representing 
the environment, agriculture, labor, and chambers of commerce. I ask 
unanimous consent that the letter from the National Waterways Alliance 
listing these groups be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                  National Waterways Alliance,

                                     Arlington, VA, June 30, 2006.
     Hon. Christopher S. Bond,
     Senate Russell Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bond: After six long years, we finally have 
     hope for passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2006 (WRDA). Our country cannot afford further delay. Clearly 
     the time has come, particularly in light of the lessons 
     learned from Hurricane Katrina, for Congress to complete its 
     work on this crucial legislation for our nation's water 
     resources.
       As Senate leaders prepare the bill for floor consideration, 
     we urge you to: (a) Request that the Majority Leader bring 
     the bill to the floor quickly; (b) Accept the Inhofe-Bond 
     Amendments and Reject the Feingold- McCain ``Corps reform'' 
     amendments. (See attachment.)
       S. 728, much like its House of Representatives counterpart, 
     represents a workable compromise to address and provide 
     guidance on a number of policy issues, including the need to 
     strengthen the Army Corps of Engineers' feasibility study 
     process, provide meaningful project peer reviews and refine 
     mitigation standards to embody sound ecological science. In 
     addition, S. 728 provides authorization for many important 
     projects with the potential to improve our economy, ease our 
     nation's growing problem of congestion and dependence on 
     foreign oil, and enrich our quality of life and environment.
       Our water resources system contributes mightily to our 
     nation's well-being. Ports and waterways are the backbone of 
     our transportation system--ensuring domestic and 
     international trade opportunities and a safe, economical and 
     eco-friendly transportation alternative--for products such as 
     steel, coal, fertilizer, salt, sand and gravel, cement, 
     petroleum, chemicals, etc. In addition, the U.S. maritime 
     transportation system moves more than 60 percent of the 
     nation's grain exports. Our flood damage reduction program 
     saves lives and prevents almost $8 in property losses for 
     each dollar spent. Corps' hydropower facilities supply 24% of 
     the hydropower generated in the United States. Projects for 
     water supply, irrigation, recreation, beach nourishment and 
     wildlife habitat provide innumerable benefits.
       We solidly support expeditious passage of S.728 as a 
     balanced and responsive Water Resources Development Act, and 
     urge you to do the same. The Senate must act now to move us 
     closer to achieving and preserving an economically and 
     environmentally sustainable water resources development 
     program for the nation's future.
           Sincerely,
         Agricultural Retailers Association; AGC of St. Louis; Ag 
           Processing Inc.; Agribusiness Association of Iowa; 
           Agriculture Ocean Transportation Coalition; 
           AGRIServices of Brunswick, LLC; Agrium; All American 
           Coop; Alter Barge Line; Ameren; American Association of 
           Port Authorities; American

[[Page 14696]]

           Association of State Highway and Transportation 
           Officials (AASHTO); American Farm Bureau Federation; 
           American Feed Industry Association; American Public 
           Works Association; American Shore and Beach 
           Preservation Association; American Soybean Association; 
           American Waterways Operators, Inc.; Aon Risk Services; 
           Arch Coal, Inc.; Arkansas Basin Development 
           Association; Arkansas Waterways Association; Arkansas 
           Waterways Commission; The Associated General 
           Contractors of America.
         Association of California Water Agencies; Association of 
           Equipment Manufacturers; Association of Marina 
           Industries; Association of Ship Brokers and Agents 
           (U.S.A.), Inc.; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway 
           Association; Bay Planning Coalition (San Francisco Bay-
           Delta); Ben C. Gerwick, Inc.; Bergmann Associates; Boat 
           Owners Association of The United States (BoatUS); 
           Boaters are Voters; J.F. Brennan Marine, Inc.; Bunge 
           North America, Inc.; Bussen Terminal; Buzzi Unicem USA; 
           Caddo-Bossier Port Commission (LA); Cahokia Marine 
           Service; California Coastal Coalition; California 
           Marine Affairs and Navigation Conference; Cargo 
           Carriers/Cargill; Caver and Associates, Inc.; Ceres 
           Consulting, LLC; CF Industries, Inc.; Cherokee Barge & 
           Boat, LLC; City of Carolina Beach, NC.
         Carpenters' District Council of Greater Saint Louis and 
           Vicinity; CEMEX, Inc.; CH2MHill, Inc.; CHS, Inc.; 
           Columbiana County Port Authority (OH); Colusa Elevator 
           Co., Inc.; Consolidated Blenders, Inc.; Construction 
           Management Association of America; Continental Cement 
           Company, Inc.; Dairyland Power Cooperative; Dakota, 
           Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Company; DeBruce Grain, 
           Inc.; Determann Industries, Inc.; Dredging Contractors 
           of America; Dyno Nobel, Inc.; Eagle Marine Industries, 
           Inc.; Fabick Power Systems; Farmers Coop Association; 
           Farmers Cooperative Elevator Company; The Fertilizer 
           Institute; Fire Island Association (NY); J. Russell 
           Flowers, Inc.; Gahagan & Bryant Associates, Inc.; City 
           of Galveston, TX.
         Galveston County, TX; Garick Corporation; Garvey Marine, 
           Inc.; Gateway Arch Riverboats; Gateway FS, Inc.; Grain 
           & Feed Association of Illinois; Grain Processing 
           Corporation; Grampa Wood Excursions; Great River 
           Economic Development Association; Green Bay Farms, 
           L.P.; Growmark, Inc.; Grundy County Farm Bureau; 
           Hampton Roads Maritime Association; Harber, Inc.; 
           Harmony/Preston Agri Services, Inc.; Harris County 
           Flood Control District (TX); Hatch Mott MacDonald, Inc 
           Hawkins Chemical Company, Inc.; HDR; Heart of Illinois 
           Regional Port District; HNTB, Inc.; Holcim (US) Inc.; 
           IEI Barge Serivces; Illinois Chamber of Commerce; 
           Illinois Corn Growers Association.
         Illinois Farm Bureau Federation; Illinois Fertilizer & 
           Chemical Association; Illinois Grain and Feed 
           Association; Illinois Soybean Association; City of 
           Imperial Beach, CA; INCA Engineers, Inc.; Ingram Barge 
           Lines, Inc.; Inland Rivers, Ports & Terminals, Inc.; 
           International Union of Operating Engineers; Iowa Corn 
           Growers Association; Iowa Farm Bureau Federation; Iowa 
           Renewable Fuels Association; James Marine, Inc.; 
           Jeppeson Marine; Jersey County Grain Company; Johnson 
           Machine Works; Johnston Enterprises Inc.; Johnston Port 
           33; W.B. Johnston Grain Co.; Johnston Seed Co.; 
           Johnston Terminal, Muskogee, OK; Kansas City Power & 
           Light; Kansas Corn Growers; Kaskaskia Regional Port 
           (IL).
         Kentucky Corn Growers Association; City of Keokuk, IA; 
           Kindra Lake Towing, L.P.; Kirby Corporation; Lake 
           Carriers' Association; Lake Providence Port Authority 
           (LA); Limited Leasing Company; Linwood Mining & 
           Materials Corp.; Little River Drainage District (MO); 
           Long Island Coastal Alliance (NY); Louisiana Department 
           of Transportation and Development--Public Works, 
           Hurricane Flood Protection & lntermodal Transportation; 
           Luhr Bros.; Magnolia Marine Transport Company; MARC 
           2000; Maritime Association of the Port of New York/New 
           Jersey; Maritime Exchange for the Delaware River and 
           Bay; Marquette Transportation Co., Inc.; Marquis Inc./
           Terminal Express; Maryland Grain Producers Association; 
           Massman Construction Company; McCallie Marine Service, 
           LLC; MEMCO Barge Line/AEP River Operations; Merrill 
           Marine Services; MFA, Inc.
         Michigan Corn Growers Association; Mid-Central Illinois 
           Regional Council of Carpenters; Midwest Foundation 
           Corporation; Midwest Industrial Fuels, Inc.; 
           Minneapolis Grain Exchange; Minnesota Agri-Growth 
           Council, Inc.; Minnesota Crop Production Retailers; 
           Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation; Minnesota Grain and 
           Feed Association; Minnesota Soybean Growers 
           Association; Mississippi River Citizen Commission; 
           Mississippi Welders Supply Co., Inc.; Missouri Ag 
           Industry Council; Missouri Barge Line Company, Inc.; 
           Missouri Corn Growers Association; Missouri Corn 
           Merchandising Council; Missouri Farm Bureau Federation; 
           Missouri Levee & Drainage District Association; 
           Missouri Port Authority Association; Missouri Soybean 
           Association; MO-ARK Association; Monsanto; Morrow Group 
           USA; National Association of Manufacturers.
         National Association of Maritime Organizations; National 
           Association of Waterfront Employers; National 
           Association of Wheat Growers; National Corn Growers 
           Association; National Grain & Feed Association; 
           National Grain Trade Council; National Grange; National 
           Heavy & Highway Alliance: Laborers' International Union 
           of North America, International Union of Operating 
           Engineers, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, 
           International Association of Bridge, Structural, 
           Ornamental & Reinforcing Iron Works of America, 
           Operative Plasterers' & Cement Mason International 
           Association, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 
           International Union, Brickyard Layers & Allied 
           Craftworkers; National Industrial Transportation 
           League; National Marine Manufacturers Association; 
           National Mining Association; National Oilseed 
           Processors Association; NSA Agencies, Inc.; National 
           Stone, Sand and Gravel Association; National Water 
           Resources Association; National Waterways Conference, 
           Inc.; New Madrid County Port Authority; Norman Bros., 
           Inc.
         The North American Export Grain Association; City of 
           North Topsail Beach, NC; Ohio Corn Growers Association; 
           Ohio Council of Port Authorities; Oklahoma Department 
           of Transportation Advisory Board; Oklahoma Department 
           of Transportation, Waterways Branch; Olympic Marine 
           Company; Ouachita River Valley Association; Pacific 
           Northwest Waterways Association; Pattison Bros. 
           Mississippi River Terminal, Inc.; Pemiscot County Port 
           Authority (MO); Personal Watercraft Industry 
           Association; Port of Alexandria (LA); Port of Alsea 
           (OR); Port of Bandon (OR); Port of Brookings Harbor 
           (OR); Port of Coos Bay (OR); Port of Corpus Christi 
           (TX); Port of The Dalles (OR); Port of Depot Bay (OR); 
           Port of Garibaldi (OR); Port of Gold Beach (OR); Port 
           of Galveston (TX); Port of Humboldt Bay (OR).
         Port of Ilwaco (WA); Port of Memphis (TN); Port of Morrow 
           (OR); Port of Muskogee (OK); Port of New Orleans (LA); 
           Port of Newport (OR); Port of Palacios (TX); Port of 
           Port Orford (OR); Port of Redwood City (CA); Port of 
           Siuslaw (OR); Port of Toledo (OR); Port of Umatilla 
           (OR); Port of Umpqua (OR); Port of Vancouver USA (WA); 
           Port of Victoria (TX); Portland Cement Association; 
           Ports of Indiana; Providence Grain Company; Quad City 
           Development Group; Red River Valley Association; Red 
           River Waterway Commission; Red Wing Port Authority; 
           River Barge Excursion Lines, Inc.; River Navigation 
           Coalition; River Resource Alliance.
         Riverway Company; Salt Institute; Sargeant Grain Company; 
           Schutte Lumber Company; The Scoular Company; Seneca; 
           Shattuck Grain Co.; J.R. Simpson & Associates, Inc.; 
           Smurfit Stone Container Corporation; Southeast Grain & 
           Feed Dealers Association; Southern Illinois 
           Construction Advancement Program; SSA Marine; St. Louis 
           City Port Authority/Economic Council; St. Lucie County, 
           FL; Stone Oil Distributor, Inc.; Texas Water 
           Conservation Association; TPG Marine Enterprises, LLC; 
           Topsail Island Shore Protection Commission (NC); 
           Transportation, Elevator & Grain Merchants Association; 
           Transportation Institute; Tri-City Regional Port 
           District; Trinity Marine Products, Inc.; Tri-Oak Foods, 
           Inc.; Tulsa Port of Catoosa (OK).
         Tulsa's Port of Catoosa Facilities Authority; Twomey 
           Company; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners 
           of America; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; U.S. Great Lakes 
           Shipping Association; Upper Monongahela River 
           Association Incorporated; Upper Mississippi, Illinois & 
           Missouri Rivers Association; Upper Mississippi 
           Waterways Association; United Soybean Board; Upper 
           River Services, LLC; City of Venice, FL; Volunteer 
           Barge & Transport, Inc.; Waterways Council, Inc.; The 
           Waterways Journal, Inc.; Wayne B. Smith, Inc.; Weeks 
           Marine, Inc.; Western Kentucky Navigation, Inc.; White 
           River Coalition; Winona River & Trail; Wisconsin Agri-
           Service Association; Wisconsin Corn Growers 
           Association.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, anybody who wants to know if this is broadly

[[Page 14697]]

based can look at the list of all of these groups. As I said, they 
include environmental, labor, agriculture, chambers of commerce, 
construction, energy, local entities. MARC 2000 in my State has been a 
very strong supporter.
  I thank all of these people who support the bill. I thank my 
colleagues and their staffs for the hard work devoted to this bill and 
the difficult issues it presents. I particularly thank Chairman Inhofe 
for his forbearance. I look forward to the debate on this bill and 
final passage.
  I hope my colleagues listen carefully to the debate because we have 
included significant Corps reform that will achieve all the benefits 
that legitimate requests for Corps reform entail, but it will not 
subject the process to unending, wasteful delays and further redtape 
that sank the bill the last time we tried to send it to the House.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized 
for 4 minutes.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member 
and the Senator from Michigan for providing me this opportunity to 
speak for a few minutes about the importance of this legislation to my 
State.
  As many know, the State of Pennsylvania over the last several weeks 
has experienced catastrophic floods. FEMA has now issued individual 
assistance declarations for 22 of our 67 counties and declarations of 
public assistance for 24 counties. It could have been a lot worse but 
for flood control projects that this Congress authorized and approved 
in the WRDA process in the past, particularly the Wyoming Valley levee-
raising project, which I will address in a moment.
  I thank the chairman and ranking member for including a provision for 
a flood control project for the town of Bloomsburg. It is the only town 
in Pennsylvania. What you see was 25 percent underwater from the 
Susquehanna River just a couple weeks ago. Bloomsburg State University 
is there. It is a beautiful little town. It was completely submerged as 
a result of the flash flooding and then the raising of the Susquehanna 
River subsequent to the rains. So I appreciate the fact there is a 
flood control project in this legislation for the town of Bloomsburg.
  In addition, we have had another problem upstream from Bloomsburg, an 
area where we have had a tremendous success, and that is the Wyoming 
Valley levee-raising project which is almost completed, but there is an 
area in Wilkes-Barre in particular called Solomon Creek. It is a 
tributary to the Susquehanna River.
  This picture shows a little bridge that goes over Solomon Creek. This 
bridge is virtually dry most of the time. You can see it is up 12, 14 
feet from the bottom. It is a horrible problem in the city of Wilkes-
Barre. It backs up into the river and causes all sorts of damage in the 
city of Wilkes-Barre and south Wilkes-Barre right near a hospital which 
is hoping to expand--but will not expand if we can't fix this problem--
to serve the residents of the area.
  What I have asked the chairman to do--there is a provision that 
Congressman Kanjorski got into the House WRDA bill which puts this 
flood control project underneath the Wyoming Valley levee-raising 
project which is authorized for over $400 million. Believe it or not, 
the levee-raising project came in at well under $400 million, about 
$250 million. So there is room under that cap to bring in this 
tributary which really does need to be fixed to address this major 
flooding problem.
  The Senator from Oklahoma, when I explained this project to him, said 
he would support us in conference in making sure this project is 
included in the final bill. I will tell you, the people of south 
Wilkes-Barre are very pleased to hear tonight that as a result of this 
bill passing, and we get it through conference, the chairman of the 
committee will support the Solomon Creek project in conference, which 
will mean that literally within the next 12 months, we can begin to 
work on making sure that south Wilkes-Barre doesn't experience this 
kind of tragic flooding in the future.
  With that, I thank the chairman for his assurance and his support. It 
is deeply appreciated by me and I know by Senator Specter and by the 
people of Wilkes-Barre.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, I thank the distinguished 
chairman of this important bill and the ranking member for allowing me 
to speak about a different subject for a few moments. This is a very 
important bill which is before the Senate. It is very important to 
Michigan. I very much appreciate all the hard work they have put into 
bringing this bill to the floor.
  I also thank my friend and colleague from California for allowing me 
to use a few moments of her time.
  (The remarks of Ms. Stabenow are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I was pleased to yield time to Senator 
Stabenow who had a very pressing matter regarding some of her 
constituents who are stuck in Lebanon with no way out, and a very 
vulnerable time for many of the families in her district and in her 
State.
  Let me start out by saying thank you to my chairman, Senator Inhofe, 
and to our ranking member, Senator Jeffords, and, of course, Senators 
Bond and Baucus, and the array of Senators who have worked so hard on 
this very bipartisan bill. We have all worked together, and I believe 
it is an excellent bill. I thank the staffs for their commitment to 
this product, particularly Let Mon Lee with Senator Bond, Angie 
Giancarlo and Stephen Aaron with Senator Inhofe, and Catharine Ransom 
and Jo-Ellen Darcy with Senator Jeffords. They put in very long hours, 
many of them, to help all of us, and for that I thank them.
  All together, this bill represents the collective work of nearly 6 
long years. That is how long it has taken to get this water resources 
bill to the Senate. I think we all agree that 6 years is far too long 
to wait for a bill that authorizes essential flood control, navigation, 
and ecosystem restoration projects, projects that help protect 
thousands of homes and the lives of millions from catastrophic 
flooding; projects that help restore the great wetlands and the rivers 
of our Nation. What we learned during Katrina is what happens when we 
lose the wetlands in our country, and we have been losing them. As a 
result of that, we lose the natural flood protection that we so 
desperately need. So restoring the great wetlands we have lost in 
California--I think it is about 90 percent of our wetlands, and 
nationwide I think it is even more than that. So we really have lost a 
great deal of our wetlands, and this bill helps to correct that. It 
protects the rivers of our Nation, also very important and is addressed 
here.
  We have projects that help increase our port capacity and projects 
that make shipping easier and safer. Specifically, for my State of 
California, there are many great and valuable provisions in this bill, 
essential flood control provisions that more than double the amount of 
current funds authorized to improve and upgrade levees in the San 
Joaquin River Delta, levees that will help protect two-thirds of 
California's water supply.
  I remind my colleagues--I know you are aware of this--we have almost 
37 million people in my State. So when we talk about flood control 
protecting the population, we are talking about quite a sizable 
population.
  We have included ecosystem restoration pilot projects to help improve 
and restore the Salton Sea, which has been steadily shrinking into the 
deserts of southern California. The Salton Sea is a remarkable--
remarkable--body of water.
  The bill also includes authorization to restore vast salt marshes and 
wetlands around the Napa River.
  I want to highlight one final provision in this bill for California. 
Earlier this year, I introduced the Los Angeles River Revitalization 
Act. When I tell my colleagues that there was a river in Los Angeles--
there still is--they look at me and say: Well, where is this river?
  Well, you can take it from me, there is a river. It has been 
destroyed over

[[Page 14698]]

time. The local people, with a wonderful project, are trying to restore 
this river and continue to protect the residents of the area from 
flooding, but also to provide recreational opportunities for the 
communities on the riverbanks.
  The 2006 WRDA bill before us contains key provisions from that bill, 
including a feasibility study and provisions authorizing demonstration 
projects to help get this great restoration effort going. If you have 
time to come with me to Los Angeles, I say to my colleagues, I will 
show you the amazing possibilities we have for recreation and for the 
young people in an area that is in great need, desperate need of 
recreation, because it is so populated and so crowded.
  So in short, Mr. President, this is a great and important bill for my 
State. We cannot ignore our water infrastructure. We learned that from 
Hurricane Katrina. We cannot allow long periods of time to elapse 
without reauthorizing such a vital and important bill. Most of our 
colleagues agree, earlier this year, more than 80 Senators signed a 
letter requesting full Senate consideration of this bill. I have worked 
with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, particularly Senators 
Inhofe and Jeffords, in trying to address every colleague's concerns so 
that we could get to this moment, and here we are.
  I look forward to discussing and debating several key policy issues 
relating to this bill. We have a couple of controversial ones, and I 
will be on the Senate floor as these issues come before us.


                           Amendment No. 4679

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, at this time, I call up my amendment No. 
4679, which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4679.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

      (Purpose: To modify the project for Folsom Dam, California)

       Beginning on page 164, strike line 21 and all that follows 
     through page 165, line 5, and insert the following:
       (b) Folsom Dam.--Section 128(a) of the Energy and Water 
     Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-103; 119 
     Stat. 2259), is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``The Secretary'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary'';
       (2) in the second sentence, by striking ``The Secretaries'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Technical reviews.--The Secretaries'';
       (3) in the third sentence, by striking ``In developing'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(3) Improvements.--
       ``(A) In general.--In developing'';
       (4) in the fourth sentence, by striking ``In conducting'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(B) Use of funds.--In conducting''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Project alternative solutions study.--The 
     Secretaries, in cooperation with non-Federal agencies, are 
     directed to expedite their respective activities, including 
     the formulation of all necessary studies and decision 
     documents, in furtherance of the collaborative effort known 
     as the `Project Alternative Solutions Study', as well as 
     planning, engineering, and design, including preparation of 
     plans and specifications, of any features recommended for 
     authorization by the Secretary of the Army under paragraph 
     (6).
       ``(5) Consolidation of technical reviews and design 
     activities.--The Secretary of the Army shall consolidate 
     technical reviews and design activities for--
       ``(A) the project for flood damage reduction authorized by 
     section 101(a)(6) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999 (113 Stat. 274); and
       ``(B) the project for flood damage reduction, dam safety, 
     and environmental restoration authorized by sections 128 and 
     134 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 
     2004 (117 Stat. 1838, 1842).
       ``(6) Report.--The recommendations of the Secretary of the 
     Army, along with the views of the Secretary of the Interior 
     and relevant non-Federal agencies resulting from the 
     activities directed in paragraphs (4) and (5), shall be 
     forwarded to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives by not later 
     than June 30, 2007, and shall provide status reports by not 
     later than September 30, 2006, and quarterly thereafter.
       ``(7) Effect.--Nothing in this section shall be deemed as 
     deauthorizing the full range of project features and 
     parameters of the projects listed in paragraph (5), nor shall 
     it limit any previous authorizations granted by Congress.''.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on Sacramento flood 
control at the Folsom Dam, and I want to speak on behalf of my 
amendment. My statement will be brief because I am very pleased that my 
amendment has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. Again, I thank 
Senators Inhofe and Jeffords and their staffs. We will be voice-voting 
this amendment, and it means a great deal to Senator Feinstein and to 
me and the people from California, be they Republicans or Democrats or 
Independents. I again extend my thanks to Letmon Lee with Senator Bond, 
Angie Giancarlo and Stephen Aaron, Catherine Ransom and Jo-Ellen Darcy. 
I am saying their names again because I think all too often staff just 
don't get the credit they deserve for the long hours they put in. Their 
work on this amendment, like so many others in this bill, has been 
invaluable.
  I thank Senator Feinstein for being a cosponsor of this amendment. I 
offer my appreciation for her help in this effort. Very briefly, I want 
to talk about why this amendment is so important, and then we will have 
a voice vote and we can move on to Senator Specter's amendment.
  Sacramento is one of America's largest metropolitan areas that has 
less than 100-year flood protection, less than 100-year flood control 
protection. The Sacramento-American Rivers floodplain contains 165,000 
homes--I want my colleagues to think about that--nearly 500,000 
residents, the State Capitol is there, and many businesses providing 
200,000 jobs. It is also the hub of the six-county regional economy, 
providing hundreds of thousands of jobs.
  A major flood would cripple the Sacramento region's economy, 
significantly impair the operations of our government in Sacramento, 
and cause up to $15 billion in direct damage and up to $30 billion in 
total economic losses, and it would likely result in significant loss 
of life.
  As the capital of the world's sixth largest economy--the world's 
sixth largest economy--no one can deny it is important to protect the 
Sacramento region and, fortunately, no one today is denying that. Yet 
Sacramento is terribly vulnerable to catastrophic flooding, so 
vulnerable that parts of the Sacramento area were under serious flood 
threat earlier this year. I remember well, when Senator Feinstein and I 
came to the floor and we showed you the pictures. We are not going to 
go through those again tonight because I think you remember those 
pictures. There was that whole area where you have homes below sea 
level at risk every single day.
  To protect this region from flooding, Folsom Dam was completed in 
1956. It is located 15 miles northeast of Sacramento on the American 
River. To improve the dam's flood control capabilities, Congress 
authorized two projects to increase the dam's capacity and waterflow 
control. Over the past year, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau 
of Reclamation have been working to refine and improve these plans.
  My amendment ensures that this important process continues 
expeditiously and without interruption. This is what it does. It sets a 
strict timeframe of June 2007 for the Corps and the Bureau to complete 
their report, so that design work can proceed without delay.
  We all know bureaucracy. They will figure out one way to delay and 
another way to delay, and before long we have real serious questions of 
the costs for the project and having to pay more for the project. We 
pray during that time there will not be a catastrophic flood.
  We are so pleased that this amendment has been signed off on, on both 
sides. It also calls for quarterly reports on the progress of the 
Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps.
  The bill as agreed to by the managers of the bill today is an 
important next

[[Page 14699]]

step to provide the region of Sacramento the level of flood protection 
it deserves. The Corps, the Bureau, and their non-Federal partners are 
continuing to work on designing the best solution for Folsom Dam, and 
the outlook is very promising.
  As S. 728 moves to conference with the other body, I intend to work 
with my colleagues in any way needed to support this project. Again, I 
thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for agreeing with this 
important amendment, and I hope the day will soon come when we will 
have that report ready for you and move forward.
  I ask unanimous consent that all of my time and the time of Senator 
Stabenow be charged against my amendment. I think that will clear up 
the time confusion with the Chair. Is that correct? Mr. Chairman, is 
that making you happy?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. We are done. I hope now we can voice vote this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment by 
Senator Boxer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. This amendment has simple goals: to consolidate some 
ongoing work on the Folsom Dam and get the Corps to finish in a timely 
manner. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, in my opening statement, I talked about 
the rather difficult process we go through in this WRDA process and the 
Corps of Engineers starting off with a reconnaissance or a recon 
setting and then going to a feasibility study. I would like to say the 
project, as discussed by the Senator from California, has already gone 
through all this. It has already been authorized twice. So I join her 
in wanting to get this done.
  I would like to make the comment, though, that at the conclusion of 
this voice vote, I think we are going to be going to the Specter 
amendment. It is the intention of the chairman, anyway, to go ahead and 
have that as a recorded vote this evening.
  I support the Boxer amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4679) was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INHOFE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: We have 1 hour 
equally divided?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.


                           Amendment No. 4680

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

  The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] for himself and Mr. 
Carper, proposes an amendment numbered 4680.

  Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To modify a provision relating to Federal hopper dredges)

       Strike section 2020 and insert the following:

     SEC. 2020. FEDERAL HOPPER DREDGES.

       Section 3(c)(7)(B) of the Act of August 11, 1888 (33 U.S.C. 
     622; 25 Stat. 423), is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``This subparagraph shall not apply to the Federal 
     hopper dredges Essayons and Yaquina of the Corps of 
     Engineers.''.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment is to delete a provision 
in the bill which would prohibit the hopper dredge McFarland from 
remaining in operation. I submit this bipartisan amendment on behalf of 
myself and Senator Carper, of Delaware.
  It is a little hard to understand why this pending bill seeks to 
retire this vessel, which does important dredging work, on a bill which 
is denominated to provide for the consideration of the development of 
water and related resources and authorizes the Secretary of the Army to 
construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of 
the United States, because this dredger is very important for the 
specific stated purposes of the bill.
  I would start with the important role this dredging vessel, the 
McFarland, plays with respect to the Nation's military operations. The 
McFarland is one of only three active dredging vessels owned by the 
U.S. Government, with one other held in reserve. The other two active 
vessels are on the west coast. The McFarland is available to respond 
immediately to emergency blockages at the Department of Defense-
designated strategic military seaports.
  At a time when terrorism is a major threat in this country, it is 
hard to understand why we would want to give up the only dredger which 
is available on the east coast and on the gulf coast. I think there may 
be many Senators whose States will be adversely affected, as will 
Pennsylvania and Delaware and New Jersey--the States in our region--
when you take a look at the Defense-designated ``Strategic Military 
Seaports'' within the operating range of the McFarland, which covers 
New York and New Jersey; Hampton Roads, VA; Morehead City, NC; 
Wilmington, NC; Charleston, SC, Savannah, GA; Jacksonville, FL; 
Gulfport, MS; Beaumont, TX; Corpus Christi, TX; the Earle Naval Weapons 
Station, NJ and Sunny Point, NC.
  Senators from those States, beware about what is going to happen to 
your State if you don't have this dredger available to perform 
strategic military seaport operations at a time when there is a 
significant risk of terrorism.
  The McFarland has also played a key role in responding to severe 
weather events and natural disasters. Most recently, the vessel was 
dispatched to the gulf coast to assist in Hurricane Katrina response 
efforts. So, Senators of Louisiana and Mississippi and Texas and 
Alabama, beware if this vessel is not available. There are two on the 
west coast. They can't get to these areas to perform needed rescue 
efforts.
  There has been no plan put forward to address the void in the 
Nation's dredging capacity that will be created in the absence of the 
McFarland. The GAO has been critical of restricting the Federal hopper 
dredge fleet. It made a finding in a March 2003 report that the 
decreased utilization of the Federal fleet has imposed additional costs 
on the Corps and not produced significant benefits. That is because 
those in the private sector are on notice, with a Federal dredger 
available they are not in a position to raise their costs without the 
competition that would be supplied by the Federal dredger.
  It isn't exactly a matter of having a great Federal fleet and looking 
to privatize or looking to help the private sector. You have 15 private 
dredgers, and they are interested in eliminating competition so they 
can raise the prices.
  There was a report by the Corps of Engineers on June 3, 2005. That 
report does not provide sufficient support for its recommendation to 
eliminate the McFarland. You would think, if the committee was going to 
come forward and wanted to eliminate the McFarland, they would have 
some Federal report with verified data to rely upon, but they do not. 
The GAO, in 2003, says we ought not eliminate the limited Federal 
dredgers. The Corps of Engineers' report of 2005 doesn't give 
sufficient reasons for what the committee report seeks to accomplish.
  There has been some suggestion that the McFarland is in need of 
repairs. That is contrary to fact. That is a scare tactic. The fact is 
that the McFarland is capable of operating for the next 10 to 12 years 
without undergoing any major rehabilitation work. As of March 23 of 
this year, just a few months ago, it was fully certified by

[[Page 14700]]

the Coast Guard and the American Bureau of Shipping. The McFarland is 
able to be dispatched immediately to these areas.
  Again, the availability of the McFarland ensures that prices will be 
reasonable when the Corps of Engineers contracts with private industry 
to perform dredge work. If the McFarland were to be decommissioned, 
maintenance dredging costs on the Atlantic and gulf coast will be 
entirely at the hands of the private dredge industry, and the Corps of 
Engineers' dredging costs will likely increase during peak work 
periods, when the availability of private bidders is limited.
  The McFarland facilitates the safe and reliable movement of 
commercial goods. On the Delaware River alone, the McFarland helps 
maintain a shipping channel which supports 38 million metric tons of 
cargo per year at a total value of $14 billion--amounts which rank 
second and eighth in the Nation respectively. It is a big economic blow 
to my State and a big economic blow to Delaware and a big economic blow 
to New Jersey and a big economic blow to other States to have this 
McFarland phased out.
  I am at a loss to see the motivation for the committee to come 
forward with this recommendation and in effect to pick a fight with 
half the States in the country. I will be anxious to see what the 
committee has by way of argument to justify eliminating the McFarland.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my printed remarks be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce 
     an amendment to the pending bill, along with my colleagues, 
     the Senators from Delaware, regarding the Federal Hopper 
     Dredge McFarland. This amendment would strike language 
     included in the bill to decommission the McFarland within 2 
     years of enactment. The McFarland is a 300 foot-long, 
     oceangoing hopper dredge crewed by approximately 80 employees 
     of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District. 
     The Federal Government operates a total of four dredges--two 
     on the West Coast and one in ``Ready Reserve'' status on the 
     Gulf Coast. The McFarland is the only ``active'' Federal 
     hopper dredge available to perform critical emergency and 
     maintenance dredging work along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. 
     I am advised that nearly 80 percent of the national hopper 
     dredging workload occurs along these shores, and that no 
     viable plan has been put forth to fill the void in our 
     Nation's dredge capacity if the McFarland were to be 
     decommissioned. Accordingly, I believe that reducing the 
     Federal hopper dredge fleet at this time would be unwise 
     considering its importance to both our national dredging 
     capacity and a maritime industry that relies on prompt, 
     reliable and cost-effective dredge service.
       I am advised that the recommendation to decommission the 
     McFarland was based on two contentious assertions: that $20 
     million in major rehabilitation work is required to support 
     the McFarland's continued operation; and that the private 
     dredge industry can perform comparable dredge work at a lower 
     rate than the McFarland. It is my understanding, however, 
     that the McFarland is capable of operating for the next 10-12 
     years without undergoing any major rehabilitation work. The 
     McFarland has benefitted from routine scheduled servicing and 
     both major and minor overhauls over the past 6 years. The 
     vessel maintains a full oceangoing certification from both 
     the United States Coast Guard as well as the American Bureau 
     of Shipping. I am advised that these inspections are 
     performed on a yearly basis and that the McFarland passed 
     both as recently as March 23, 2006. It is my understanding 
     that no extraordinary funding source nor direct appropriation 
     is required to keep the McFarland operational and available 
     to perform emergency and maintenance dredging along the 
     Atlantic and gulf coasts. Rather, the McFarland can perform 
     dredge work for the remainder of its useful life supported 
     only by a portion of the overall cost of the project on which 
     it is working and routine maintenance.
       The assertion that private industry can provide comparable 
     dredge service at a lower rate than the McFarland is also 
     questionable. The Corps of Engineers' June 3, 2005 Report to 
     Congress does not sufficiently verify private industry data 
     used to recommend the McFarland's retirement, and there are 
     no assurances that private industry will be able to fill the 
     void created by decommissioning the McFarland. For one, 
     private industry may also not have the capability to respond 
     to dredging requirements in as timely a fashion as the 
     McFarland. Being a Federal dredge, the McFarland is able to 
     be dispatched immediately to respond to emergency situations 
     that occur within its operating range. By contrast, it is my 
     understanding that the bid solicitation and contract award 
     process necessary to dispatch a private dredge typically 
     requires a minimum of 2 weeks. If the McFarland is 
     decommissioned, our national ability to respond to emergency 
     dredging requirements in a timely manner will be jeopardized.
       Additionally, the cost of dredging contracts could actually 
     increase if the McFarland were decommissioned. I am advised 
     that the mere availability of the McFarland to perform 
     dredging work ensures that costs will be reasonable in times 
     of high demand or when there are limited bids for dredging 
     projects. The McFarland's presence serves as a check to keep 
     private industry pricing in-line on non-Federal dredging 
     contracts. The GAO recognized this in a March 2003 report 
     noting that the decreased utilization of the Federal fleet 
     has imposed additional costs on the Corps and not produced 
     significant benefits. If the McFarland is decommissioned, 
     maintenance dredging costs on the Atlantic and gulf coast 
     will be entirely at the hands of the private dredge industry, 
     and costs will likely increase during peak work periods when 
     limited bidders are available.
       Further, the McFarland dredges areas that private industry 
     has historically avoided, such as environmental restoration 
     projects which require strict adherence to potentially 
     burdensome guidelines. The McFarland is also available to 
     respond to small jobs which may not be attractive to private 
     industry. Costly shipping delays could occur if private 
     industry declined a dredge job that was economically 
     unattractive, and a Federal fleet must be maintained to 
     ensure the availability of dredge services in such 
     situations.
       The availability of prompt, cost-effective dredge services 
     on both profitable and non-profitable projects helps ensure 
     the safe and reliable movement of goods coming to and from 
     Atlantic and gulf coast ports. The reliable movement of 
     maritime cargo is vital to the economy and preserving our 
     current dredging capacity is indispensable to maintaining the 
     authorized water depths necessary to support the Nation's 
     commercial navigation activity. Port stakeholders are deeply 
     concerned that costly shipping disruptions could occur if our 
     national dredging capacity is reduced.
       Reliable, cost-effective dredge service is also very 
     important to the continued success of our Nation's military. 
     The McFarland is available to respond immediately to 
     emergency blockages at Department of Defense-designated 
     ``Strategic Military Seaports'' within its operating range, 
     including Philadelphia, New York/New Jersey, Hampton Roads, 
     Morehead City, Wilmington, Charleston, Savannah, 
     Jacksonville, Gulfport, Beaumont, Corpus Christi, Earle Naval 
     Weapons Station and Sunny Point. Thousands of pieces of 
     military equipment and cargo are shipped to Iraq and depots 
     throughout the Nation from these ports and retaining the 
     existing hopper dredge fleet is essential to ensuring that 
     military cargo arrives at its destination on time.
       In addition to supporting commercial and military 
     navigation activities, the McFarland plays an important role 
     in responding to severe weather events and natural disasters, 
     including being dispatched to the gulf coast to assist in the 
     Hurricane Katrina response efforts. Seasonal events and 
     natural disasters place great demands on our Nation's already 
     limited dredging capacity. Given the number of weather-
     related events experienced annually along the Atlantic and 
     gulf coasts, all available dredge resources, including the 
     McFarland, are essential and must be retained. Our Nation's 
     ability to respond to natural disasters and weather-related 
     events will be even more limited if the McFarland is 
     decommissioned.
       In conclusion, no plan has been put forth to address the 
     void that will be created in the McFarland's absence. Absent 
     a viable plan to replace her dredging capacity, 
     decommissioning the McFarland is dangerously premature and 
     could have devastating impacts on our Nation's commercial, 
     military and emergency response capabilities. The ability of 
     the private dredge industry to replace the services provided 
     by the McFarland at a reasonable rate has not been proved. 
     The continued operation of the McFarland will ensure that 
     emergency and maintenance dredging work on both the Atlantic 
     and gulf coasts remains responsive, reliable and cost-
     effective. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to adopt this 
     amendment.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am reserving 10 minutes for Senator 
Carper, but I am waiting with interest to see what the chairman of this 
committee has to say.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, at this time I will not give my full 
statement in opposition. I will say I would like, at this point, to 
have printed in the Record a couple of letters, one from the 
Transportation Institute and the other from the Seafarers International 
Union of North America, AFL-CIO, both saying essentially the same 
thing; that is, $165 million has been spent for hoppers to be able to 
have modern

[[Page 14701]]

dredges work in the same areas. The capacity is there to bring the 
McFarland up to date. It would be, according to the Corps of Engineers, 
a cost of about $20 million. For all these reasons, they oppose it.
  I ask unanimous consent that these two letters be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     Transportation Institute,

                                  Camp Springs, MD, July 17, 2006.
     Hon. James M. Jeffords,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Environment & Public 
         Works, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Ranking Member Jeffords: The Transportation Institute 
     is of the understanding that the Senate is about to take up 
     consideration of the Energy and Water Resources Act of 2005. 
     We would like to take this opportunity to respectfully 
     request that the Senate reject any attempt that might be 
     offered during floor consideration of this bill that would 
     modify the language contained in Sections 2021 and 563 of the 
     bill.
       These sections would decommission the 39 year-old Federal 
     dredge McFarland. The Corps of Engineers is in support of the 
     decommissioning, citing the private sector's aggressive $165 
     million investment in hopper dredge capacity over the past 
     eight years. Moreover, it is our understanding that the Corps 
     of Engineers has calculated an annual savings of some $10 
     million as a direct result of decommissioning the McFarland. 
     Given the fact that the continued operation of the McFarland 
     would only duplicate existing private sector capacity, it 
     would seem fiscally prudent to take advantage of such a cost-
     saving opportunity.
       The Transportation is in strong support of the passage of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 2005 with the language 
     of Sections 2021 and 563 intact. Passage of this legislation 
     would protect the commercial and environmental interests of 
     our national waterway transportation system while 
     concurrently reflecting the proven capability of our private 
     hopper dredge industry.
           Sincerely,
     James L. Henry.
                                  ____

                                     Seafarers International Union


                                             of North America,

                                  Camp Springs, MD, July 16, 2006.
     Hon. James M. Inhofe, Chairman, Hon. James M. Jeffords, 
       Ranking,
     Committee on Environment and Public Works, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Jeffords: It is our 
     understanding that the Senate is about to consider S.728, the 
     Energy and Water Resources Development Act of 2005. The 
     Seafarers International Union, along with a broad coalition 
     or union, industry, agriculture, aggregate and other 
     interests, has corresponded with Congress in support of this 
     long overdue legislation critical to maintaining and 
     protecting the commercial and environmental integrity of this 
     vital national transportation system.
       We would like to take this opportunity to recommend your 
     opposition to any potential amendment that might be offered 
     during floor consideration that would modify the intent of 
     Section 2021 and Section 563 of this bill. This provision, as 
     presently worded, decommissions the 39 year-old Federal 
     hopper dredge McFarland The decommissioning of this dredge 
     has the support of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers citing an 
     anticipated annual savings of $10 million. Furthermore, over 
     the past 8 years, the private sector has invested some $165 
     million in capital to expand and modernize the private sector 
     hopper dredge fleet. In fact, I participated in the 
     christening ceremony of the SIU-crewed hopper dredge Liberty 
     Island, the newest addition to the Great Lakes Dredge and 
     Dock hopper dredge fleet.
       In closing, the Seafarers International Union supports 
     passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 2005 with 
     Section 563 fully intact. To do so would be cost effective 
     and entirely appropriate given the private sector's 
     demonstrated hopper dredge capability. Once again, we 
     appreciate the opportunity to comment on this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Michael Sacco.

  Mr. INHOFE. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Could I interrupt just for a moment? I would like at this 
point to yield a few minutes, whatever time is necessary off of our 
time, to the Senator from Missouri who has another committee hearing 
and would like to take his time now. Would that be acceptable?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I will be glad to yield to the 
distinguished Senator from Missouri if I may ask one question that was 
raised by what the Senator from Oklahoma has just said. He has made the 
assertion that it would cost $20 million to bring the McFarland up to 
shape. I ask him, what is the source for that and how does that square 
with the fact that on March 23 of this year, just a few months ago, the 
McFarland was fully certified by the Coast Guard and the American 
Bureau of Shipping, so that it is in good shape and would require no 
funding to keep it in operation?
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it doesn't need the $20 million to bring 
it up to standard for it to compete. The Corps of Engineers has stated 
that its operational costs are almost double that of the private sector 
dredging that has been taking place. This has been agreed to by the 
Seafarers International Union of North America. So it is the Corps of 
Engineers that is making that assertion, and it is agreed to by both 
the Seafarers International Union and the Transportation Institute.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I may make one statement before 
yielding to the Senator from Missouri, that is in direct variance with 
a report of the Corps of Engineers on June 3 that did not sufficiently 
justify its recommendation to retire the McFarland. And they found 
further that there are no assurances that private industry will be able 
to fill the void created by the decommissioning of McFarland.
  I yield now to the Senator from Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank our chairman and manager of the bill 
for yielding time. I join him in urging that my colleagues oppose the 
amendment to strike the provision to decommission the Hopper Dredge 
McFarland.
  As has already been stated, the McFarland is an expensive, 39-year-
old hopper dredge which costs $79,000 a day to operate, more than 
double what a more technologically capable commercial dredge would 
cost. The McFarland imposes a wasteful expenditure of scarce resources 
on Corps dredging projects.
  The Energy and Water bill will provide money for removing asbestos 
from the McFarland, another expense we don't need. In addition, it 
needs between $20 million and $40 million in upgrades to bring its 
safety and operational efficiency to minimal levels of acceptability in 
comparison with state-of-the-art private sector dredges.
  Since 1978 the dredging industry has developed the capability to 
perform the majority of the Corps' dredging work.
  This came as a result of Public Law 95-269, which directed the 
Secretary of the Army to dredge by contract, if he determines private 
industry has the capability to do such work and it can be done at 
reasonable prices and in a timely manner.
  Under the law the Secretary ``shall retain only the minimum federally 
owned fleet'' to ``carry out emergency and national defense work'' and 
may set aside ``such amount of work as he determines to be reasonably 
necessary to keep such fleet fully operational . . . for as long as he 
determines necessary.''
  During the last decade the Corps has successfully followed a ``use 
industry first'' policy.
  Today's facts: industry is more capable; has provided more than 
reasonable prices; and responds routinely in a timely manner and 
successfully to emergencies.
  All four government dredges, including the ready reserve dredge 
Wheeler, are fully operational.
  The data does not support the continued operation of the 39-year-old 
McFarland or spending an additional $20-40 million on its 
modernization. The vision provided by Congress and implemented by the 
Corps has resulted in a vibrant and competitive marketplace.
  As the Corps' November 2005 Hopper Dredge Report to Congress points 
out, generally, the combined industry/Corps hopper fleet has been able 
to meet demand.
  With the January 2006 launching of the hopper dredge Glenn Edwards, 
industry has added 18 percent additional hopper capacity to the 
combined Federal/private hopper dredge fleet.
  With a hopper capacity in excess of 13,000 CY, the Glenn Edwards is 
configured to dredge in all deep draft commercial ports in a highly 
effective

[[Page 14702]]

manner. Therefore, ability to meet the Nation's hopper dredging needs 
has been greatly enhanced since the Corps' Hopper Dredge Report to 
Congress was released.
  Industry by and large does most of its work for the Corps under 
contract. Therefore, if an emergency arises and industry dredges are 
all working, the Corps has the ability to reassign a private dredge 
working elsewhere under Corps contract to do an emergency dredging job.
  Most of the dredging requirements on the Delaware River, particularly 
in the upper reaches near Philadelphia and Wilmington, can be 
accomplished through the use of nonhopper dredges. In fact, it is more 
efficient to dredge with a nonhopper dredge in the case of the 
McFarland because material must be pumped out of the hopper by private 
pumping equipment in the upper reaches of the Delaware River.
  The Corps hopper dredge Wheeler was placed in ``Ready Reserve'' by 
the Congress in WRDA in 1996 as insurance that a hopper dredge would be 
available to respond to urgent and emergency dredging needs in the 
gulf, on the Mississippi River, and on the east coast.
  The Wheeler has actually been used on the east coast to respond to 
emergencies when a private hopper dredge is not available. Therefore, 
the Wheeler is working exactly as Congress intended--as insurance for 
use during emergencies.
  We should be looking for ways to make the operation of our major 
activities more efficient by using private sector facilities where they 
can be done more reasonably and more effectively rather than spending 
large amounts of Federal dollars just to keep the dredge in operational 
capability. Paying a very high charge for it every day when there are 
better rates available warrants the recommendation in the WRDA bill 
that we decommission the Hopper Dredge McFarland.
  I urge my colleagues not to support the striking motion.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, by way of brief reply to the comments of 
the Senator from Missouri, the Corps of Engineers has put a $20 million 
figure for putting the McFarland into Ready Reserve. But that doesn't 
deal with having the McFarland operational. That estimate was disputed 
by the Maritime Exchange for the Delaware River and others presenting 
factual information.
  I have just checked to find out if there was any hearing held on this 
matter. But I am advised that there was not. The rest of the Corps of 
Engineers report did not provide assurances that private industry would 
be able to fill the void created by decommissioning the McFarland. When 
you come to the issue as to whether it is capable of proceeding 
operationally, no one has disputed the facts that the McFarland is 
capable of functioning for 10 to 12 years without undergoing any major 
rehabilitation work being fully certified by the Coast Guard and the 
American Bureau of Shipping as of March 23 of this year, an undisputed 
fact.
  How much time remains on my side, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 19 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask if Senator Carper would await the 
arguments of the chairman.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me comment.
  I was asked the question by the Senator from Pennsylvania as to 
clarification on this Army Corps of Engineers report. It was the Energy 
and Water appropriations that made a request of the Corps of Engineers 
on June 3, 2005. The Corps report states:

       From the above discussion, the most reasonable option would 
     be to retire the McFarland.

  It goes on to state:

       It is expected that sufficient industry hopper dredging 
     capability exists to perform the requirements that may occur 
     on the Delaware River.

  Finally, it states:

       McFarland would have to be rehabilitated and repowered at 
     the cost of approximately $20 million.

  It says that on page 22 of the report.
  I will go ahead.
  I ask the Senator from Delaware to take his time and I will elaborate 
a little bit more on this on my time.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the argument that the Senator from 
Oklahoma makes about a 2005 report by the Corps of Engineers is flatly 
contradicted by the certification by the Coast Guard and the American 
Bureau of Shipping as of March 23, 2006, after the 2005 report referred 
to by the Senator from Oklahoma, that the McFarland requires no 
rehabilitation and remains operational and available to perform dredge 
work.
  I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Specter, one, for yielding 
time, and, second, I thank him for offering an amendment to give me an 
opportunity to join him in offering this amendment.
  Before I get to my remarks, for folks who are listening to the debate 
tonight, it might be confusing. There is a question as to whether this 
dredge called the McFarland is seaworthy. There is a question about 
whether the enormous investment--as much as $20 million--is required 
for it to be seaworthy or to become seaworthy or remain seaworthy. This 
is the deal.
  The Coast Guard has said as recently as 4 months ago that the 
McFarland is seaworthy. There is no suggestion--at least that I am 
aware of--on behalf of the Coast Guard that says $20 million or $2 
million has to be spent now or next year to make it continue to be 
seaworthy.
  The question is, What kind of investments would be needed to be made 
in the McFarland if it were to be transitioned to the Ready Reserve? In 
that case, I am told that an investment--as much as $20 million--might 
be needed in order to transition this vessel to the Ready Reserve. We 
are not proposing that the vessel be transitioned to the Ready Reserve. 
We are simply proposing that it be allowed to continue the work it does 
along the east coast and not long ago down on the gulf coast as well.
  I think maybe that is clarifying and maybe a little bit illuminating 
for some of the people who are listening to this debate on the edge of 
their seats to determine the future of the McFarland.
  The McFarland is based in Philadelphia and is one of the four hopper 
dredges currently owned and operated by the Army Corps of Engineers. It 
is the only Federal dredge stationed on the Atlantic coast.
  The McFarland is used for maintenance dredging on the Delaware River 
and the Delaware Bay as well as on the east coast and the gulf coast of 
our country. It is also used for emergency and for national defense 
dredging wherever that might be needed.
  The McFarland has been used to restore navigation after major 
emergencies, such as along the gulf coast after Hurricane Katrina, and 
after the four hurricanes that hit Florida in 2004. This dredge is also 
utilized when no private dredge is available and no reasonable bid is 
made by private industry.
  In 1979, Congress passed a law instructing the Corps to use private 
industry dredges when industry has the capability to do the work at 
reasonable prices and in a timely manner. Congress also directed the 
Corps to retire Federal dredges when private industry demonstrated the 
capability to do the work. At the same time, the Corps was charged with 
maintaining a federally owned fleet to carry out emergency and national 
defense work.
  In attempting to balance these responsibilities, the Army Corps 
produced a report in 2004 calling for the decommissioning of the 
McFarland dredge, saying that private dredgers had increased their 
capacity to do the same job for less. But the Corps report was sharply 
criticized subsequently by

[[Page 14703]]

the Government Accountability Office for flaws in its analysis and its 
cost estimates.
  As a result, a new report was produced last year by the Army Corps. 
While it still called for the decommissioning of the McFarland, it 
raised several troubling questions about private industry's capacity 
and the Army Corps' ability to respond to emergencies without the 
McFarland.
  The report indicated that the Corps' dredge fleet is still sometimes 
needed, saying ``industry alone has not been able to meet peak 
demands.''
  The report goes on further to say that when private capacity is 
stretched, the Corps fleet is needed to protect the taxpayers' dollars 
and ensure reasonable bids. It states:

       With such a limited number of vessels in the fleet, and 
     during peak workload periods when only one bidder may be 
     available, there is a tendency to exercise the principles of 
     supply and demand, and costs will rise. The Corps' presence 
     will serve as a deterrent for potential cost increases.

  Without the McFarland, when private industry is at capacity and 
unable to respond to dredging needs on the east coast, we will have to 
turn to the Wheeler dredge, which is stationed in New Orleans. But this 
dredge is already in high demand. And in recent years, both dredges 
have been needed to respond to natural emergencies.
  Emergency situations were considered by the Corps. They looked at a 
``worst case scenario'' in their report, using the 2004 hurricane 
season as a good example of a worst case scenario. That year, private 
industry's capacity was stretched and natural disasters created an 
emergency need for still further dredge work.
  The Army Corps pointed out in their report that the McFarland was 
needed in 2004 to respond to the four hurricanes that hit Florida. But 
the report downplayed the likelihood of a worst case scenario occurring 
again, saying:

       Having four hurricanes in a row with the extent and 
     magnitude of damages experienced is not a common occurrence.

  I wish that were true. Sadly, the following year, demonstrated that 
the worst Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma case scenario can come in 
different forms. And more active hurricane seasons are predicted to 
continue to occur this year, next year, and the year after that.
  We would all love to believe that this type of disaster will not 
happen again and that we do not have to plan for that possibility. But 
we have no choice.
  Active hurricane seasons should be expected, and we cannot fail to 
clear our navigation channels after a disaster--they are too important 
to our economy and our national security.
  Finally, the Corps has found that smaller channels and smaller jobs 
sometimes do not attract as many bids from private industry. The Corps 
expressed concern about this in their report.
  In discussing the industry's lack of ability to meet peak demands, it 
pointed out that private industry may not always have the right kind of 
dredge available to serve a smaller channel.
  These same concerns can apply to smaller jobs, where it is not cost 
effective to move a private industry dredge to perform the work. In 
fact, without the McFarland, it might not be economical to use the 
remaining federal dredges to respond to such jobs. It could cost as 
much to move the Wheeler to the northeast Atlantic coast and back to 
the gulf as it would cost to operate it for 2 weeks.
  In this case, it would be more economical to keep the McFarland where 
it is. This way it can be used when there is not enough private dredge 
capacity to meet the needs along the east coast.
  We must ensure that we can maintain our waterways and access to our 
ports, whether small or large.
  We should also continue to support the growing private dredge 
industry. However, we cannot and should not expect private industry to 
do work that is not profitable or beyond their capacity.
  Nor can we plan for only the best case scenarios. Recent hurricane 
seasons have proven that we don't have that luxury.
  To my colleagues, I urge support for this amendment. I thank Senator 
Specter for offering it. I am pleased, again, to join him in doing so.
  I yield back whatever time I have not consumed.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Democrat 
manager of the bill, Senator Jeffords.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Specter-Carper 
amendment of the hopper dredge McFarland.
  The Corps of Engineers maintains a fleet of four hopper dredges, and 
according to the GAO the Corps needs to maintain its own fleet, even 
when there are commercial dredges available.
  One reason the Corps needs to maintain a hopper dredge fleet is that 
changes in annual weather patterns and severe weather events, such as 
hurricanes and floods, can create a wide disparity in the demand for 
hopper dredges from year to year.
  The McFarland is the only hopper dredge on the East coast. If it were 
retired, it is not certain that the needs of the East coast during an 
emergency could be met by the private sector.
  I support the amendment by Senators Specter and Carper that would 
keep the McFarland in the hopper dredge fleet.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont, the 
ranking member of the committee, for those comments.
  I think he puts his finger on the critical spot. That is, if the 
McFarland is decommissioned, we may well have a need which will not be 
fulfilled. That was a big hole in the report of the Corps of Engineers 
that there were no assurances that the private sector would be able to 
handle the workload.
  The fact is, as outlined in the report by the Corps of Engineers, the 
Corps' hopper dredges serve to ensure that costs will be reasonable, 
but with a limited number of vessels in the fleet and during peak 
workload periods when only one bidder may be available, there is a 
tendency to exercise the principles of supply and demand and costs will 
rise.
  The Corps' presence will serve as a deterrent for potential cost 
increases. That means we need to keep the McFarland in operation.
  The report goes on to say that a current example is the Wheeler being 
called out in February to perform work in the Mississippi River when a 
single industry bid exceeded the award amount. The Corps report further 
points out during the peak workload scenario, the largest industry 
hopper dredge, the Stuyvesant, experienced engine trouble and had to 
stop work, creating a capability shortfall. Subsequent to this event, 
increased shoaling in the Mobile Harbor created the need for an 
additional hopper dredge resulting in calling out the Wheeler, as the 
McFarland was also fully engaged.
  When there has been talk about the daily rate of the McFarland, it is 
unsupported by the fine print. The McFarland's estimated daily rate 
includes a payment the Corps has to make into a ``dredge replacement 
fund'' even though the Corps has no intention of replacing the 
McFarland with another federal dredge. Therefore, the daily rate which 
has been cited is inflated, unrealistic, and does not support 
decommissioning the McFarland.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I know no Senator on this floor would 
misrepresent the facts in a case like this. We have an opportunity with 
an agreed-to provision of our bill, which I thought we all agreed to, 
that we are able to save a lot of money and finally put this thing to 
rest.
  Every year we go through this same exercise. Everyone wants to keep 
this old relic called the McFarland. I cannot figure out for the life 
of me why they want to do it other than the fact

[[Page 14704]]

maybe this is some kind of an emotional institution that exists that we 
want to hold on to. If that is the case, maybe we should let the 
Historical Society have that and they can see what dredging used to be 
like in the old days.
  The McFarland is the oldest and most expensive hopper dredge owned 
and operated by the Corps. The Corps did a study in the hopper fleet 
and concluded that the McFarland should be retired. The WRDA bill does 
that. The pending amendment would prevent the retirement of the 
McFarland.
  The Corps found the McFarland operates at almost double the daily 
cost of a private-sector dredge, and there is sufficient private dredge 
capacity to cover the work of the McFarland.
  Proponents of keeping the McFarland in service argue that it is 
necessary for two main reasons. No. 1, to keep the Delaware River free 
from navigational hazards and to be ready for emergency dredging. Both 
are incorrect.
  The Corps found they have more than enough capacity to handle dredge 
for the Delaware River. Private dredges currently do over 80 percent of 
the dredging in the McFarland service area and still have idle 
capacity. The McFarland is the wrong type of dredge for much of the 
work on the Delaware.
  The Corps and private industry have an agreement whereby the Corps 
can pull any private dredge off of any Corps project to send to an 
emergency. Since this agreement, the McFarland has not done any 
emergency work on the Delaware. Not only is the McFarland dramatically 
more expensive to operate than the private dredges, its age 
necessitates a rehabilitation that would cost over $20 million to 
remain in service. Even after updating, it would still be far more 
expensive to operate than those private dredges.
  Since 1978, Corps policy has been to use industry first. This policy 
has been very successful. We need to retire this inefficient dredge. It 
will save the taxpayers a lot of dollars and get the Government out of 
the business of competing with the private sector.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this effort to retain the McFarland is 
not being undertaken for historical reasons. To talk about placing the 
McFarland in a museum is making light of an issue which is very, very 
serious for my State. It is potentially serious for about two-thirds of 
the other States in the United States which are affected by hurricanes 
and which have very important national security areas.
  This amendment is being pursued at the request of the Governor of 
Pennsylvania and the Maritime Exchange. They are deadly serious about 
the adverse impact of retiring the McFarland.
  On the Delaware River alone the McFarland helps maintain a shipping 
channel that supports 38 million metric tons of cargo per year, a total 
value of $14 million. That ranks second and eighth in the Nation.
  We are not talking about a museum piece. We are talking about a 
dredge which is vital for jobs and the economy of the region. We are 
talking about the McFarland's availability to respond to emergency 
blockades at the Department of Defense designated strategic military 
seaports. You are not talking about an antique. You are talking about 
an era where terrorism is an ongoing threat; where, within the past 2 
weeks, we had a threat by terrorists to blow up the Holland Tunnel; 
where the President has a terrorist surveillance program which has 
superseded the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and is viewed 
under the President's article II powers as a wartime precedent because 
of the threat of terrorism.
  We are talking about Department of Defense interests in New Jersey, 
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, 
Mississippi, and Texas. We are talking about a dredge which played a 
key role in responding to severe weather events and natural disasters 
and was dispatched to the gulf coast to assist in Hurricane Katrina.
  We have a report by the Corps of Engineers which relies upon industry 
data. The Corps report concedes that ``to verify the industry data 
would require extensive auditing and is beyond the scope or need of 
this report.''
  Beyond the scope of the report; we ought to rely on a Corps of 
Engineers report that relies upon industry data where the industry has 
a vested interest in having the McFarland retired so they can make more 
money, and you have a national defense interest?
  There has been no case made by the committee to replace the 
McFarland.
  How much time remains on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeMint). The Senator has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have listened to these arguments. We 
keep going back and refuting the arguments. We have it documented. 
There is no question about that.
  As far as the national security ramifications are concerned, I tell 
my good friend from Pennsylvania I have served for 20 years either on 
the House or the Senate Committee on Armed Services and I have watched 
these things very carefully.
  The Senator has mentioned San Diego and San Francisco, all these 
areas for national security purposes.
  I suggest to my good friend from Pennsylvania that these do not use 
the Corps dredges. They use private-sector dredges in these areas, in 
all of them you mentioned.
  Again, going back to the arguments, as I quoted from institutions 
such as the Transportation Institute and the Seafarers International 
Union of North America, AFL-CIO, they all say the same thing, which I 
could repeat as many times as we need to tonight--and I have quite a 
bit of time left, so I guess I could do it several times--that it would 
take $20 million or so to refurbish this thing, to get it so it can 
operate.
  The report that was quoted by the Senator from Pennsylvania of the 
American Bureau of Shipping, that was, as I understand it, only 
referring to the hull, that the hull has some problems and that the 
hull is not cracked. So again, I just repeat these arguments, as I have 
done before.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I did not refer to San Francisco and I 
did not refer to San Diego. The long list of States affected were on 
the east coast and on the gulf. There are two other Federal dredgers on 
the west coast.
  I have great respect for the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma and 
his 20 years of service on the Armed Services Committee. But I have 
been, for 26 years, on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and have 
some familiarity with these issues. I was on the Intelligence Committee 
for 8 years and chaired it in the 104th Congress and have some 
appreciation of the problems of terrorism. And I have served on the 
Judiciary Committee for 26 years, now chair it, and have been very 
deeply involved in the President's electronics surveillance program 
which has superseded the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act because 
of the threat of terrorism.
  We are talking here about having the McFarland available in many, 
many ports and in many, many States--not the State of California and 
San Francisco or San Diego, but in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, 
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Texas, and 
others; and the gulf coast States affected by the hurricane, again, 
Texas and Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama and Florida.
  We are dealing here with a very flimsy Corps of Engineers report 
which is based on industry data which is not verified--a concession 
they make in this report. And it is provided by industry sources which 
have a vested interest and a bias in eliminating the McFarland as a 
competitor.
  Mr. President, I think it is fair to say that if the committee's 
point on decommissioning the McFarland is to stand, they have a burden 
of proof. And they have not established it. There has not been a 
hearing on this subject. There has not been reliable evidence. And I 
would say that in the face of the threat of terrorism, and the work 
that the McFarland does in that area, and

[[Page 14705]]

the work that the McFarland did in Hurricane Katrina, that their burden 
of proof is more than a preponderance of the evidence; it ought to be 
clear and convincing. And it has not been either clear or convincing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that his time has 
expired. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The Senator from Oklahoma has 16 minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I will just take a couple minutes.
  Let me say, if the argument is that it is the industry influencing 
these reports, I think it is rather strange that the Seafarers 
International Union of North America, the AFL-CIO, are the ones that 
agree with this report and strongly recommend that we vote against this 
amendment to keep us from retiring this--as I referred to several 
times--this relic.
  Now, the Senator has a couple of arguments I had not responded to. 
One was he states that it went down and performed some type of a 
function in Katrina. It is my information they took it down to Katrina, 
but it would not work, so they used it as an office.
  As far as the ``flimsy'' report is concerned, I do not think I have 
actually read from the report, but this says this is in response to the 
Energy and Water appropriations bill. They requested the Corps of 
Engineers to clear this up so once and for all we can get rid of this 
relic. This was June 3 of 2005. They said, reading from that report:

       [I]t is expected that sufficient industry hopper dredge 
     capability exists to perform the requirements. . . .

  It further says:

       Even if the scheduled work for the McFarland were 
     maximized, the reduction in daily rate would still be almost 
     double the daily rate of a comparable industry hopper dredge. 
     . . .the McFarland is the oldest dredge in the fleet, and 
     operates at a daily rate that substantially exceeds 
     comparable industry medium class hopper dredges. If the 
     McFarland were to be kept in the Minimum Fleet it would have 
     to be rehabilitated and repowered at a cost of approximately 
     $20 million.

  So what you are saying is, you want to spend public funds of $20 
million more to get something to compete with the private sector, that 
costs twice as much to operate as the private sector. I think this is 
absurd. I think we have been trying to do this for a number of years.
  Now, we have the labor unions joining other interests in saying that 
we need to get rid of this thing and start saving money in our 
dredging. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment by the Senator 
from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 207 Leg.]

                                YEAS--63

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Martinez
     McCain
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--36

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Obama
     Roberts
     Smith
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Dodd
       
  The amendment (No. 4680) was agreed to.
  Mr. SPECTER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CARPER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________