[Senate Report 104-170]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




   104th Congress 1st            SENATE                 Report
         Session
                                                       104-170
_______________________________________________________________________



                                                       Calendar No. 227


 
                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1995

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE


                             together with


                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                              to accompany

                                 S. 640

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]




                November 9, 1995.--Ordered to be printed


                                     
               COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

  JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island, 
             Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana                  JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York    ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey      LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, North Carolina
HARRY REID, Nevada                   DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho
BOB GRAHAM, Florida                  JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut     CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
BARBARA BOXER, California            MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
                                     CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
Steven J. Shimberg, Staff Director
 J. Thomas Sliter, Minority Staff 
             Director

                                  (ii)


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
General statement................................................     1
Statement of committee policy....................................     2
Administration's proposed changes in civil works mission.........     3
Dredged material disposal facilities.............................     4
Everglades restoration...........................................     5
Washington Aqueduct..............................................     5
Exotic harmful plant quarantine facility.........................     6
.................................................................
Section-by-section analysis:
    Section:
        101. Project authorizations..............................     6
        102. Project modifications...............................    13
        103. Project deauthorizations............................    14
        104. Studies.............................................    15

                  TITLE II--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

    Section:
        201. Heber Springs, Arkansas.............................    16
        202. Morgan Point, Arkansas..............................    17
        203. White River Basin Lakes, Arkansas and Missouri......    17
        204. Central and Southern Florida........................    17
        205. West Palm Beach, Florida............................    17
        206. Periodic maintenance dredging for Greenville Inner 
          Harbor Channel, Mississippi............................    17
        207. Sardis Lake, Mississippi............................    17
        208. Libby Dam, Montana..................................    17
        209. Small flood control project, Malta, Montana.........    17
        210. Cliffwood Beach, New Jersey.........................    18
        211. Fire Island Inlet, New York.........................    18
        212. Buford Trenton Irrigation District, North Dakota....    18
        213. Wister Lake project, LeFlore County, Oklahoma.......    18
        214. Willamette River, McKenzie Subbasin, Oregon.........    18
        215. Abandoned and wrecked barge removal, Rhode Island...    18
        216. Providence River and Harbor, Rhode Island...........    19
        217. Cooper Lake and Channels, Texas.....................    19
        218. Rudee Inlet, Virginia Beach, Virginia...............    19
        219. Virginia Beach, Virginia............................    19

                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    Section:
        301. Cost-sharing for environmental projects.............    19
        302. Collaborative research and development..............    19
        303. National inventory of dams..........................    19
        304. Hydroelectric power project uprating................    20
        305. Federal lump-sum payments for Federal operation and 
          maintenance costs......................................    20
        306. Cost-sharing for removal of existing project 
          features...............................................    20
        307. Termination of technical advisory committee.........    20
        308. Conditions for project deauthorizations.............    20
        309. Participation in international engineering and 
          scientific conferences.................................    21
        310. Research and development in support of Army civil 
          works program..........................................    21
        311. Interagency and international support authority.....    21
        312. Expansion of section 1135 program...................    21
        313. Environmental dredging..............................    21
        314. Feasibility studies.................................    21
        315. Obstruction removal requirement.....................    22
        316. Levee owners manual.................................    22
        317. Risk-based analysis methodology.....................    22
        318. Sediments decontamination technology................    22
        319. Melaleuca tree......................................    22
        320. Faulkner Island, Connecticut........................    23
        321. Designation of lock and dam at the Red River 
          Waterway, Louisiana....................................    23
        322. Jurisdiction of Mississippi River Commission, 
          Louisiana..............................................    23
        323. William Jennings Randolph access road, Garrett 
          County, Maryland.......................................    23
        324. Arkabutla Dam and Lake, Mississippi.................    23
        325. New York State canal system.........................    23
        326. Quonset Point-Davisville, Rhode Island..............    24
        327. Clouter Creek disposal area, Charleston, South 
          Carolina...............................................    24
        328. Nuisance aquatic vegetation in Lake Gaston, Virginia 
          and North Carolina.....................................    24
        329. Capital improvements for the Washington Aqueduct....    24
        330. Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and 
          protection program.....................................    24
        331. Research and development program to improve salmon 
          survival...............................................    24
        332. Recreational user fees..............................    24
        333. Shoreline erosion control demonstration.............    25
        334. Technical corrections...............................    25
Hearings.........................................................    25
Rollcall votes...................................................    25
Regulatory impact................................................    25
Cost of legislation..............................................    26
Additional views.................................................    32
Changes in existing law..........................................    35
                                                       Calendar No. 227
104th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE

 1st Session                                                    104-170
_______________________________________________________________________


               WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1995

                                _______


                November 9, 1995.--Ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


    Mr. Chafee, from the Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                         [To accompany S. 640]

    The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was 
referred the bill (S. 640) to provide for the conservation and 
development of water and related resources, to authorize the 
Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for 
improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and 
for other purposes, having considered the same, reports 
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the 
bill do pass.

                           General Statement

    In reporting the Water Resources Development Act of 1995, 
the Committee has chosen to adhere to the policies established 
in the 1986 Water Resources Development Act (Public Law 99-662) 
and continued in subsequent Acts regarding the authorization of 
projects within the civil works program of the Army Corps of 
Engineers. This bill includes authorization for 23 new 
construction projects.
    The Water Resources Development Act of 1986, signed into 
law on November 17, 1986, marked the end of a 16-year deadlock, 
between the Congress and the Executive Branch regarding 
authorization of the public works program. In addition to 
authorizing numerous projects, the 1986 Act resolved 
longstanding disputes relating to cost-sharing, user fees, and 
environmental requirements.
    Prior to 1986, disputes over these and other matters had 
prevented enactment of major civil works legislation since 
1970. Between 1947 and 1970, civil works authorization bills 
were enacted every 2 to 3 years. This regular schedule had many 
advantages. It helped to avoid long delays between the planning 
and the execution of projects; assured that engineering work 
and economic analysis were applicable to current conditions; 
minimized the backlog of projects that have been considered but 
not authorized by Congress; and allowed the Public Works 
Committees of the Congress to review proposed projects on a 
regular schedule.
    Nevertheless, this system broke down in the 1970's. There 
was no legislation enacted between 1970 and 1986 to authorize 
civil works projects for construction. The Water Resources 
Development Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-587) made some changes 
to Corps policies, but authorized no projects.
    In 1986, a House-Senate Conference Committee produced a 
Conference Report (H. Rept. 99-1013) which was passed by the 
House and the Senate and signed into law on November 17, 1986 
(Public Law 99-662). The Water Resources Development Act of 
1986 was the largest and most comprehensive authorization of 
the Corps Civil Works Program since the Senate Public Works 
Committee was created in 1947.
    Some of the major reforms included in the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 are listed below:
          Cost-sharing formulas were established for deep draft 
        harbor dredging (section 101), flood control (section 
        103), shoreline protection (section 103), steambank 
        erosion control (section 603), and other projects. 
        Local Cooperation Agreements were required for all such 
        projects. Projects for enhancement of fish and wildlife 
        resources were allowed to be carried out at up to 100 
        percent Federal expense under section 906 and 
        environmental restoration at 75 percent Federal expense 
        under section 1135.
          The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, funded by a new 
        Harbor Maintenance Tax, was established to pay 40 
        percent of the Federal cost of maintaining authorized 
        deep draft navigation channels (sections 210, 1402 and 
        1403), and was subsequently increased to 100 percent 
        under the 1990 Water Resources Development Act.
          Projects authorized prior to 1986 that were 
        incomplete would be deauthorized without Congressional 
        action if no funds were expended on the project for a 
        period of 10 years; projects authorized in 1986 or 
        thereafter would be deauthorized if not funded for a 
        period of 5 years (section 1001).
    These policy changes applied to all projects contained in 
the Water Resources Development Acts of 1988 (Public Law 100-
676); 1990 (Public Law 101-640); 1992 (Public Law 102-580); and 
will continue to apply to all projects contained in the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1995.

                     Statement of Committee Policy

    Since 1986, it has been the policy of the Committee to 
authorize only those construction projects that conform with 
cost-sharing and other policies established in the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986. In addition, it has been the 
policy of the Committee to require all projects to have 
undergone full engineering, environmental and economic review 
by the Chief of Engineers prior to project approvals by the 
Committee.
    The Corps of Engineers water resources project study 
process can be initiated when either the two Public Works 
Committees of the Congress approves a Committee Resolution 
requesting that the study of a project be undertaken. Once such 
a resolution is approved by either Committee, the Corps is 
authorized to proceed with a reconnaissance study of the 
proposed project at 100 percent Federal cost. The purpose of a 
reconnaissance study is to determine whether or not there is a 
Federal interest in the project. Authorization of a 
reconnaissance study may also be provided by statute.
    When the feasibility study is completed, the Corps District 
Engineer reviews the results and forwards a recommendation on 
the project to the Division Engineer. The Division Engineer 
issues a Division Engineer's notice and then submits the report 
to Corps Headquarters. Headquarters performs a final policy 
review and submits the report for the mandatory (33 U.S.C. 701-
1(a)) 90-day State and agency review period. After these 
reviews are complete and the report is found favorable, a 
report is prepared for the final recommendation of the Chief of 
Engineers. The report of the Chief of Engineers is forwarded to 
the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) for 
Administration review and submission to the Congress.
    Some of the projects sent to the Assistant Secretary of the 
Army by the Chief of Engineers are forwarded to the Congress 
with a recommendation that construction be authorized. Such a 
recommendation only occurs after the project has been reviewed 
by the Office of Management and Budget. It is the prerogative 
of the Administration to make recommendations regarding the 
authorization of Corps projects. However, the Committee is not 
bound by these recommendations. The decision to authorize a 
project rests with the two Houses of Congress.
    The review of projects by the Chief of Engineers is 
technical in nature and does not involve political or policy 
judgment. The Committee practice of using Chief of Engineers' 
reports to measure the validity of projects does not represent 
a pre-clearance of projects with the Administration. If the 
technical nature of the Chief of Engineers' review process were 
to change in the future, the Committee would reevaluate the 
practice of using Chief of Engineers' reports for the purpose 
of project authorization.
    The contingent authorization of water resources projects is 
contrary to the policy of the Committee. Requests for 
authorization are usually based on an expected favorable report 
by the Chief of Engineers and approval of the Secretary of the 
Army. Exceptions to this previously unwritten Committee policy 
will not be supported.

        Administration's Proposed Changes In Civil Works Mission

    The Committee has carefully reviewed the Administration's 
proposed change in Federal participation in water resources 
projects and programs. One of the more significant proposed 
policy changes involved flood control. While the Administration 
did not submit legislative language to implement its proposed 
policy changes, the Committee did conduct a hearing on 
potential impacts of such proposal.
    There is no doubt that current budget circumstances require 
certain program reductions. The Civil Works Program of the Army 
Corps must and will share in these reductions. Increased flood 
damage reduction efforts are necessary at the State and local 
levels if we are to reduce human suffering and economic loss 
such as that witnessed in the Midwest during the summer of 
1993. Nevertheless, given the continued high incidence of 
coastal and riverine flooding, it is critical that national 
expertise and resources continue to be dedicated to the 
reduction of flood damages. The Administration's proposal to 
limit Corps involvement to new flood control projects involving 
interstate water is misguided. Restricting Corps involvement to 
areas where more than half of flood waters originate from 
outside the State where the damage is occurring would have dire 
results for flood prone regions throughout the Nation.
    Many valuable and necessary coastal and riverine flood 
control projects, both proposed and constructed, fall short of 
the Administration's proposed policy criteria. With careful 
planning and scrutiny by local sponsors, the Executive Branch 
and the Congress, along with strict adherence to the cost-
sharing rules established in the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986, Corps involvement in the planning and execution of 
flood control and reduction projects continues to be of 
national significance and interest.

                  Dredged Material Disposal Facilities

    The availability of dredged material disposal capacity is a 
growing concern in many areas around the country. Testimony and 
correspondence provided to the Committee by U.S. ports and 
their users indicate that this is an existing problem which is 
expected to worsen in the years ahead.
    Upstream pollution has been identified as a significant 
burden for domestic port operators as they strive to maintain 
authorized channel depths. Contaminated harbor sediments found 
in many U.S. ports, particularly those in the Northeast, 
severely limit disposal options.
    The Corps of Engineers and other relevant Federal agencies 
are expected to work closely with State, local and port 
officials in seeking innovative solutions to this problem. 
Despite the severe budget cuts anticipated for civil works 
activities, this issue is of critical concern. For the reason, 
environmental dredging and sediment decontamination technology 
development authorities are extended in this legislation.
    With respect to the construction of dredged material 
disposal facilities, it is apparent that cost-sharing 
inconsistencies do exist. Federal and non-Federal cost-sharing 
responsibilities for dredged material disposal vary from 
project to project, region to region, and port to port 
depending on when the project was authorized. In addition, 
current cost-sharing policies favor open water disposal. As a 
general rule, open water disposal costs are either cost shared 
for new projects, or, if associated with operation and 
maintenance, borne by the Federal government and reimbursed 
through the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. In the latter 
instance, land and diking costs for upland and confined 
disposal are largely non-Federal costs.
    This inconsistency creates incentive for open water 
disposal and discourages upland and confined disposal, 
including environmentally beneficial disposal options. 
Increased information about the effects of dredged material 
disposal on the environment has led to a decrease in unconfined 
open water disposal and an increase in upland and confined 
disposal. This course of events results in a shift in disposal 
costs from the Federal government to the non-Federal sponsor.
    The Administration is considering various options to 
address the inconsistency of cost-sharing for dredged material 
disposal associated with the operation and maintenance of 
Federal channels. Although current law and Corps' policy 
restrict cost-sharing for such activities, the Committee urges 
the Administration to report possible solutions to the Congress 
for consideration.

                         Everglades Restoration

    The Florida Everglades National Park and its estuarial 
ecosystem possesses environmental, ecological and historical 
significance. The Everglades is a national asset and treasure 
which continues to deserve our attention. In addition to the 
Federal Government's initiatives to improve and preserve the 
Everglades, the State of Florida and local communities have 
taken an aggressive role in working to address the problems 
faced by the ecosystem. The improvements supported by the Army 
Corps of Engineers to the C-111 and C-51 canal projects are 
important and should go forward. Continued and innovative 
endeavors on the part of the Federal agencies and State and 
local authorities in working for solutions to address the 
restoration and preservation of the Florida Everglades are to 
be encouraged and supported.

                          Washington Aqueduct

    The Washington Aqueduct system consists of the Dalecarlia 
and McMillan water treatment plants located in Washington, DC. 
The system was constructed in 1853 and is under the control of 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for appropriate management and 
maintenance. Today, the system distributes approximately 250 
million gallons per day to the over one million customers in 
the metropolitan Washington and northern Virginia area.
    Fees are collected from the water system users and are 
deposited into the District of Columbia Water and Sewer 
Enterprise Fund. This Fund provides the revenue to finance the 
system's annual operating expenses. The Corps of Engineers, as 
owner of the system, has no authority to finance capital 
improvement projects necessary to meet Federal drinking water 
standards.
    This legislation includes a provision to provide the Corps 
of Engineers with the authority to borrow funds from the 
Secretary of Treasury to underwrite the cost of necessary 
improvements to the Washington Aqueduct. Amounts borrowed from 
the bank are to be repaid by the customers of the Washington 
Aqueduct.

                Exotic Harmful Plant Quarantine Facility

    The Federal Interagency Task Force for South Florida 
Ecosystem Restoration, established by the Secretary of 
Interior, has made significant efforts to address problems 
associated with harmful nonindigenous plant species, 
particularly the melaleuca quinquenervia plant. This plant 
species, introduced to Florida in the early part of this 
century, has had a devastating impact on wetland habitats and 
numerous urban areas throughout the southern portion of the 
State. Melaleuca is already present on over 500,000 acres in 
Florida and it continues to out-compete native vegetation at a 
high rate of approximately 52 acres per day. Due to its 
extremely high evapotranspiration rate, the plant quickly dries 
out groundwater, and creates navigational hazards and flood 
control problems.
    The melaleuca and other harmful exotic plants do create a 
burden and hazard to communities throughout the nation. A 
balanced, shared effort on the part of Federal, State and local 
organizations is necessary to address these problems before the 
costs associated with eradication becomes unmanageable.
    The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Working Group has 
the expertise to evaluate current proposals and associated 
costs for addressing the exotic plant control problem. The 
Working Group has explored the need for a harmful plant 
quarantine facility to study methods for containing the harmful 
plants as well as other exotic pests of wetlands, lakes, rivers 
and other natural systems.
    The Committee requests recommendations from the Working 
Group on the scientific and ecological need for such a 
quarantine facility; cost benefits associated with constructing 
and operating such facility; and an appropriate funding plan 
for the construction of such facility. Such funding plan shall 
reflect the interagency nature of this effort.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

                  section 101--project authorizations

    This section authorizes construction of 18 new Army Corps 
of Engineers water resources development projects. Each project 
is authorized subject to the cost ceiling, automatic 
deauthorization, cost sharing, and other policies of the 1986 
Water Resources Development Act. Descriptions of the projects 
are as follows:

San Rafael, California

  Location--City of San Rafael, California, on the northwestern 
            shoreline of San Francisco Bay.
  Purpose--Hurricane and storm damage reduction.
  Problem--High tides in combination with low barometric 
            pressure and surge effects in San Pablo Bay result 
            in overtopping of the existing levees along the 
            South Bank of the San Rafael Canal.
  Recommended Plan--Provide floodwall along portions of south 
            bank of canal, along the east bayfront levee crest, 
            and 750 linear feet of new levee in Pickleweed 
            Park.
  Environmental Impact Statement--Record of Decision signed 
            September 13, 1994.
  Project Costs--Total $27,200,000. First Federal $17,700,000; 
            first non-Federal $9,500,000.
  Benefit/Cost Ratio--2.0 to 1 at a discount rate of 8.00 
            percent.

San Lorenzo River, California

  Location--City of Santa Cruz, California, approximately 75 
            miles south of San Francisco.
  Purpose--Flood Damage Reduction.
  Problem--In January 1982, a major runoff event occurred on 
            the San Lorenzo River that caused one span of the 
            Soquel Avenue Bridge to collapse. The existing 
            flood control system is estimated to provide 
            protection to significantly less than the 100-year 
            frequency flood.
  Recommended Plan--Provide a 70-year level of flood protection 
            for much of the downtown area of Santa Cruz by 
            constructing floodwalls on top of existing levees; 
            modifying the Water Street and Soquel Avenue 
            bridges; dredging of channel; habitat restoration.
  Environmental Impact Statement--Finding of No Significant 
            Impact, signed February 15, 1994.
  Project Costs--Total $16,100,000. First Federal $8,100,000; 
            first non-Federal $8,000,000; and the habitat 
            restoration, at a total cost of $4,050,000, with an 
            estimated Federal cost of $3,040,000, and an 
            estimated non-Federal cost of $1,010,000.
  Benefit/Cost Ratio--1.3 to 1 at a discount rate of 8.00 
            percent.

Santa Barbara Harbor, California

  Location--Santa Barbara County, California, on coastline 
            approximately 90 miles northwest of Los Angeles.
  Purpose--Navigation.
  Problem--Severe shoaling in the Santa Barbara Harbor Entrance 
            Channel, particularly during the winter storm 
            season, restricts access to the harbor.
  Recommended Plan--Federal participation in acquiring a dredge 
            system including appurtenant facilities for the 
            City of Santa Barbara. In addition, the City of 
            Santa Barbara will assume full responsibility for 
            maintaining the existing Federal navigation 
            channel.
  Environmental Impact Statement--Finding of No Significant 
            Impact, signed August 8, 1993.
  Project Costs--Total $5,720,000. First Federal $4,580,000; 
            first non-Federal $1,140,000.
  Net Annual Savings--1.01 to 1 with a discount rate of 8.00 
            percent.

Palm Valley Bridge Replacement, St. Johns County, Florida

  Location--St. Johns County, Florida, approximately 40 miles 
            south of the City of Jacksonville.
  Purpose--Navigation.
  Problem--Palm Valley Bridge, constructed in 1937, possesses 
            obsolete roadway width and load limit. Conditions 
            on bridge are especially hazardous for opposing 
            traffic, with a fatality occurring in July of 1993.
  Recommended Plan--Remove existing bridge; construct a new, 
            high level fixed span bridge providing unrestricted 
            horizontal clearance and a vertical clearance of 65 
            feet over the Atlantic Intracoastal waterway 
            navigation channel; dredging of channel; 
            environmental mitigation.
  Environmental Impact Statement--Finding of No Significant 
            Impact, signed March 14, 1994.
  Project Costs--Total $15,312,000. As a condition of receipt 
            of Federal funds, St. Johns County shall assume 
            full ownership of the replacement bridge, including 
            all associated operation, maintenance, repair, 
            replacement and rehabilitation costs.
  Benefit/Cost Ratio--1.3 to 1 at a discount rate of 8.00 
            percent.

Illinois Shoreline Erosion, Interim III, Wilmette to Illinois and 
        Indiana State Line

  Location--Lake Michigan Shoreline between Wilmette, Illinois 
            and the Illinois/Indiana State line, a distance of 
            approximately 33 miles.
  Purpose--Storm Damage Reduction.
  Problem--Along the Chicago shoreline from Montrose Avenue 
            (4400 North) to South 56th Street, the existing 
            shore protection is no longer functioning from a 
            structural standpoint. In addition, the existing 
            breakwater protecting the South Water Filtration 
            Plant provides insufficient protection from storm 
            action and threatens the drinking water of 2.5 
            million persons.
  Recommended Plan--Replacement of failed shoreline revetment 
            protection structures with step stone revetments. 
            In addition, a breakwater would be reconstructed at 
            the water filtration plant.
  Environmental Impact Statement--Finding of No Significant 
            impact, signed July 2, 1993.
  Project Costs--Total $204,000,000. First Federal 
            $110,000,000; first non-Federal $94,000,000; and 
            the breakwater near the filtration plant, a 
            separable element of the project at total cost of 
            $8,539,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
            $5,550,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
            $2,989,000.
  Benefit/Cost Ratio--5.3 to 1 at a discount rate of 8.00 
            percent.

Kentucky Lock Addition, Kentucky

  Location--Southwestern Kentucky, near Paducah where the 
            Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers join with the Ohio 
            River.
  Purpose--Commercial Inland Navigation.
  Problem--Congestion at Kentucky Lock as a result of deficient 
            lock chamber, hazardous and inefficient navigation 
            of nearby Cumberland River channel, and continued 
            growth of navigation traffic.
  Recommended Plan--Construct a 110- by 1200-foot lock adjacent 
            to the existing lock at the Kentucky Project.
  Environmental Impact Statement--Final statement filed with 
            the EPA in January, 1992.
  Project Costs--Total $467,000,000. The construction costs 
            shall be paid 50 percent from amounts appropriated 
            from the general fund of the Treasury and 50 
            percent from amounts appropriated from the inland 
            Waterways Trust Fund established by section 9506 of 
            the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
  Benefit/Cost Ratio--2.0 to 1 at a discount rate of 7\3/4\ 
            percent.

Wolf Creek Hydropower, Cumberland River, Kentucky

  Location--Wolf Creek Dam and Lake Cumberland in south-central 
            Kentucky on the Cumberland River at river mile 
            460.9, near Jamestown, Kentucky.
  Purpose--Hydropower.
  Problem--Full advantage has not been taken of the flexibility 
            inherent in the large amount of power storage 
            available at the 270 megawatt project.
  Recommended Plan--Power updating to consist of replacing key 
            electrical/mechanical components within the 
            existing hydroelectric units. The updating would 
            provide a capacity of 390 megawatts.
  Environmental Impact Statement--Finding of No Significant 
            Impact, signed June 5, 1989.
  Project Costs--Total $50,230,000. Funds derived by the 
            Tennessee Valley Authority from the power program 
            of the Authority and funds derived from any private 
            or public entity designated by the Southeastern 
            Power Administration may be used for all or part of 
            any cost-sharing requirements for the project.
  Benefit/Cost Ratio--1.2 to 1 at a discount rate of 8.00 
            percent.

Port Fourchon, Louisiana

  Location--Port Fourchon, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana, near 
            the mouth of the Bayou Lafourche in southern 
            Louisiana.
  Purpose--Commercial Inland Navigation.
  Problem--Existing Federal navigation project, the Bayou-
            Lafourche-Lafourche Jump Waterway provides for a 12 
            by 125 foot channel from the Gulf of Mexico through 
            Port Fourchon. The channel has since been enlarged 
            to 20 by 300 feet. The most recent enlargement, 
            done in 1968, is no longer sufficient to safely and 
            efficiently accommodate the increasing commercial 
            navigation.
  Recommended Plan--Enlarge the existing channel to 24 feet by 
            300 feet from the jetties to mile 3.4. In addition, 
            a 26 by 300 foot channel will be constructed from 
            the 26 foot contour in the Gulf to the jetties.
  Environmental Impact Statement--Final statement filed with 
            the EPA on October 11, 1994.
  Project Costs--Total $2,812,000. First Federal $2,211,000; 
            first-non-Federal $601,000.
  Benefit/Cost Ratio--2.2 to 1 discount rate of 7\3/4\ percent.

West Bank Hurricane Protection Levee

  Location--West Bank of Mississippi River in the vicinity of 
            New Orleans, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana (East of 
            Harvey Canal).
  Purpose--Hurricane protection.
  Problem--Existing protection project does not provide 
            standard hurricane and storm protection to 
            residents and businesses on the west bank of the 
            Mississippi River in portions of Jefferson, 
            Orleans, and Plaquemines Parishes, which lie, east 
            of Harvey Canal.
  Recommended Plan--Construction of a navigable floodgate in 
            the Harvey Canal near Lapalco Boulevard. In 
            addition, a navigation buy-pass will be constructed 
            to temporarily accommodate Harvey Canal traffic 
            while the floodgate is under construction. Levees 
            and floodwalls will also be constructed, and 
            environmental mitigation of bottomland hardwood and 
            undrained cypress swamp loss will occur.
  Environmental Impact Statement--Final statement filed with 
            the EPA on September 20, 1994.
  Project Costs--Total $217,000,000. First Federal 
            $141,400,000; first non-Federal $75,600,000.
  Benefit/Cost Ratio--4.0 to 1 at a discount rate of 7\3/4\ 
            percent.

Natchez Bluffs, Mississippi

  Location--Natchez, Mississippi, bounded on the west by the 
            Mississippi River, on the north by the National 
            Cemetery and by U.S. Highway 84 Natchez-Vidalia 
            bridge on the south.
  Purpose--Bluff stabilization.
  Problem--Infiltration of water into loess soil weakens 
            bluffs. Trees on top and face of bluff also add 
            weight to the slopes and provide seepage paths for 
            water. Bluffs, overlooking Mississippi River, are 
            retreating at an advanced rate providing serious 
            vulnerability to nearby roadways, businesses and 
            historic residential structures.
  Recommended Plan--Construct reinforced earth wall with stone 
            columns, soil berms, and erosion control. Portions 
            of area will receive repair to existing retaining 
            wall and a tieback system consisting of soil or 
            rock anchors secured to a structural wall by 
            tendons.
  Project Costs--Total $17,200,000. First Federal $12,900,000; 
            first non-Federal 44,300,000.

Wood River at Grand Island, Nebraska

  Location--City of Grand Island, Nebraska and adjacent 
            portions of Hall and Merrick Counties.
  Purpose--Flood Damage Reduction.
  Problem--Wood River floods cause major, widespread flooding 
            in the Grand Island area because flood flows spread 
            over a wide, relatively flat, highly developed 
            floodplain. Major floods have occurred in 1923, 
            1947, 1949 and 1967.
  Recommended Plan--Construction of 2 miles of channel and 
            levee; a diversion structure; 5 miles of diversion 
            channel with levees on both sides; and measures to 
            mitigate unavoidable impacts. Construction of four 
            new roadway bridges and modification of one 
            existing railroad bridge are also planned.
  Environmental Impact Statement--No EIS required. Finding of 
            No Significant Impact signed April 30, 1993.
  Project Costs--Total $10,500,000. First Federal $5,250,000; 
            first non-Federal $5,250,000.
  Benefit/Cost Ratio--2.1 to 1 with a discount rate of 8.00 
            percent.

Wilmington Harbor, Cape Fear-Northeast Cape Fear Rivers, North Carolina

  Location--Cape Fear River between New Hanover and Brunswick 
            Counties, between the mouth of the Cape Fear River 
            and the turning basin above the North Carolina 
            State Ports Authority terminal at Wilmington.
  Purpose--Navigation.
  Problem--Current channel widths are inadequate for the larger 
            vessels now calling at the Port of Wilmington.
  Recommended Plan--Widening five turns and bends and 
            construction of a passing lane 6.2 miles long.
  Environmental Impact Statement--Record of Decision signed 
            August 25, 1994.
  Project Costs--Total $23,290,000. First Federal $16,955,000; 
            first non-Federal $6,335,000.
  Benefit/Cost Ratio--1.5 to 1 at a discount rate of 8.00 
            percent.

Duck Creek, Ohio

  Location--Watershed in southeastern Hamilton County, 
            Cincinnati, Ohio, bordering the Ohio and Little 
            Miami Rivers.
  Purpose--Flood Damage Reduction.
  Problem--Frequent flooding affecting business and industrial 
            properties.
  Recommended Plan--Construction of levee and floodwall 
            segments providing a uniform 100-year level of 
            flood protection in three reaches of Duck Creek, 
            along with minor stream relocations, channel 
            protection, pump stations, and other work.
  Environmental Impact Statement--Finding of No Significant 
            Impact, signed January 14, 1994.
  Project Costs--Total $15,408,000. First Federal $11,556,000; 
            first non-Federal $3,852,000.
  Benefit/Cost Ratio--1.2 to 1 with a discount rate of 8.00 
            percent.

Pond Creek, Ohio

  Location--Portions of Jefferson and Bullitt Counties, 
            Kentucky.
  Purpose--Flood Damage Reduction.
  Problem--Inadequate flood protection for residential and 
            commercial areas surrounding the Pond Creek 
            mainstem, and tributaries Northern and Southern 
            Ditches, Greasy Ditch, Slop Ditch, and Fishpool 
            Creek.
  Recommended Plan--Construction of two detention basins, 
            channel enlargement along portions of Pond Creek 
            and Northern Ditch; environmental mitigation; and 
            construction of a recreation trail.
  Environmental Impact Statement--Finding of No Significant 
            Impact, signed March 18, 1994.
  Project Costs--Total $16,865,000. First Federal $11,243,000; 
            first non-Federal $5,622,000.
  Benefit/Cost Ratio--2.3 to 1 with a discount rte of 8.00 
            percent.

Coos Bay, Oregon

  Location--Coos County, Oregon, on the southern coastline 
            approximately 200 miles south of the Columbia River 
            mouth.
  Purpose--Navigation.
  Problem--Existing Channel depths constrain the draft of 
            vessels able to use the port.
  Recommended Plan--Deepen channel entrance by 2 feet from the 
            currently authorized depth of 45 feet to 47 feet, 
            and from 35 to 37 feet in the 15-mile inner 
            channel. In addition, turning basins will be 
            widened and deepened.
  Environmental Impact Statement--Record of Decision signed 
            September 6, 1994.
  Project Costs--Total $14,541,000. First Federal $10,777; 
            first non-Federal $3,764,000.
  Benefit/Cost Ratio--1.6 to 1 with a discount of 8.00 percent.

Big Sioux River and Skunk Creek at Sioux Falls, South Dakota

  Location--City of Sioux Falls, Minnehaha County, North 
            Dakota.
  Purpose--Flood Damage Reduction.
  Problem--Existing flood control project provides inadequate 
            flood protection to residential and commercial 
            structures.
  Recommended Plan--Raising the existing diversion levees and 
            the levees along the Big Sioux River and Skunk 
            Creek; raising the diversion dam; raising the walls 
            of the existing spillway chute; deepening and 
            extending the existing stilling basin; making 
            selected bridge improvements; extending existing 
            drainage structures; and mitigating small wetland 
            areas on project lands.
  Environmental Impact Statement--Finding of No Significant 
            Impact, signed November 19, 1993.
  Project Costs--Total $31,600,000. First Federal $23,600,000; 
            first non-Federal $8,000,000.
  Benefit/Cost Ratio--1.2 to 1 with a discount rate of 8.00 
            percent.

Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge Replacement at Great Bridge, 
        Chesapeake, Virginia

  Location--City of Chesapeake, Virginia, located in the 
            community of Great Bridge where Virginia's Route 
            168 crosses the Albermarle and Chesapeake Canal.
  Purpose--Navigation.
  Problem--Existing bridge, constructed by the Corps in 1943, 
            is inadequate to handle vehicle load of more than 
            30,000 vehicles per day.
  Recommended Plan--Replace existing bridge with a 5-lane, 6-
            foot vertical clearance bascule bridge east of 
            existing alignment. Local sponsor will assume full 
            ownership, maintenance, and replacement costs for 
            new bridge.
  Environmental Impact Statement--Finding of No Significant 
            Impact, signed February 25, 1994.
  Project Costs--Total $23,680,000. First Federal $20,341,000; 
            first non-Federal $3,339,000.
  Benefit/Cost Ratio--1.9 to 1 with a discount rate of 8.00 
            percent.

Marmet Lock Replacement, Kanawha River, West Virginia

  Location--Kanawha River, 5 miles upstream of Charleston near 
            the community of Belle, West Virginia.
  Purpose--Commercial Inland Navigation.
  Problem--Limited capacity of existing lock chambers result in 
            traffic delays, increased transportation costs, and 
            deterioration of lock structures.
  Recommended Plan--Construction of new lock chamber sized at 
            110 feet by 800 feet on the right bank of the 
            landward side of the existing locks. In addition, 
            dam rehabilitation and extensive relocations and 
            various environmental mitigation measures will 
            occur.
  Environmental Impact Statement--Record of Decision signed 
            August 25, 1994.
  Project Costs--Total $257,900,000. The construction costs of 
            the project shall be paid 50 percent from amounts 
            appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury; 
            and 50 percent from amounts appropriated from the 
            Inland Navigation Waterways Trust Fund established 
            by section 9506 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
            1986.
  Benefit/Cost Ratio--2.1 to 1 with a discount rate of 8.00 
            percent.

                   section 102--project modifications

    (a) Oakland, Harbor, California.--Modifies the navigation 
projects to combine the Inner and Outer Harbor projects to 
accommodate changed dredged material disposal needs.
    (b) Broward County, Florida.--Provides for Federal 
participation in a beach nourishment project at Hillsborough 
Inlet to Port Everglades consistent with the section 934 study 
approved by the Chief of Engineers.
    (c) Canaveral Harbor, Florida.--Modifies the navigation 
project to include the stone revetments as part of the general 
navigation features.
    (d) Fort Pierce, Florida.--In accordance with the Section 
934 study approved by the Chief of Engineers on June 16, 1995, 
the Secretary is directed to proceed with periodic beach 
renourishment through the year 2020.
    (f) Arkansas City, Kansas.--Provides for increased flood 
protection along the Arkansas and Walnut Rivers to the City of 
Arkansas City consisting of levee and channel improvements.
    (g) Halstead, Kansas.--Allow for the completion of the 
project to provide flood protection along the Little Arkansas 
River to the City of Halstead consistent with the post 
authorization change report approved by the Assistant Secretary 
of the Army, August, 1993.
    (h) Baptiste Collette Bayou, Louisiana.--Extends the 
currently authorized project by providing a permanently-marked 
navigation channel for shallow-draft vessels.
    (i) Manistique Harbor, Michigan.--Modifies the authorized 
harbor depth from 18 feet to 12.5 feet to allow for the 
placement of a sand and stone cap over sediments as directed by 
the Environmental Protection Agency.
    (j) Stillwater, Minnesota.--Contingent upon further Corps 
review, modifies project to extend shoreline protection wall 
and new landward wall for additional flood control purposes.
    (k) Cape Girardeau, Missouri.--Provides that non-structural 
measures will become part of the authorized flood control 
project.
    (l) Wilmington Harbor-Northeast Cape Fear River, North 
Carolina.--Allows for navigation improvements in conformance 
with the general design memorandum and supplement dated April 
1990 and February 1994.
    (m) Saw Mill Run, Pennsylvania.--Provides for flood 
protection consistent with the post authorization change report 
and general reevaluation report.
    (n) Allendale Dam, North Providence, Rhode Island.--
Modifies the authorization level to provide for the 
reconstruction of the Allendale Dam.
    (o) India Point Bridge, Seekonk River, Providence, Rhode 
Island.--Provides for the demolition and removal of all 
features of the movable span of the abandoned railroad bridge.
    (p) Dallas Floodway Extension, Dallas, Texas.--Allows for 
the non-Federal sponsor to be credited for flood proofing work 
performed at Rochester Park and the Central Wastewater 
Treatment Plant against the larger flood control project for 
the City of Dallas.
    (q) Matagorda Ship Channel, Port Lavaca, Texas.--Expands 
the Federal navigation channel to include the turning basis at 
Point Comfort.
    (r) Upper Jordan River, Utah.--Modifies the authorization 
level for a flood control diversion and sediment structure to 
accommodate existing wetlands.
    (s) Grundy, Virginia.--Modifies the flood control project 
to require that it be constructed according to the Corps' 
detailed project report dated August, 1993.
    (t) Haysi Lake, Virginia and Kentucky.--Provides that the 
project will include water resource features recommended by the 
non-Federal sponsor consistent with cost sharing requirements.
    (u) Petersburg, West Virginia.--Modifies the authorization 
levels to permit the project to be constructed consistent with 
the approved scope of the project.
    (v) Teton County, Wyoming.--Allows for the Secretary of the 
Army to accept services from the non-Federal sponsors to assist 
in the operation and maintenance of the Jackson Hole flood 
protection project.

                 section 103--project deauthorizations

    (a) Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut.--A portion of the 
Bridgeport Harbor Federal navigation project located in 
Johnson's Creek northerly of a line across the Federal channel 
is deauthorized because there is only a single user of the 
Federal project.
    (b) Guilford Harbor, Connecticut.--A portion of the 
Guilford Harbor Federal navigation project is deauthorized to 
allow non-Federal projects within the harbor to be completed 
without interfering with public use of the Federal channel.
    (c) Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut.--A portion of the Norwalk 
Harbor Federal navigation project is deauthorized and 
redesignated to resolve encroachment issues and permit non-
Federal projects to proceed without impacting activities in the 
Federal channel.
    (d) Southport Harbor, Connecticut.--A portion of the 
Southport Harbor Federal navigation project is deauthorized and 
redesignated to resolve encroachment issues in the Federal 
channel.
    (e) East Boothbay Harbor, Maine.--A portion of the East 
Boothbay Harbor navigation project is deauthorized to allow 
non-Federal projects to be completed without interfering with 
public use of the Federal channel.
    (f) York Harbor, Maine.--A portion of the York Harbor 
navigation project consisting of 1.5 acres of anchorage areas 
is deauthorized to accommodate non-Federal activities.
    (g) Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.--
Modifies the Federal navigation project to repeal the 
requirement for a channel width of 300 feet to allow for the 
replacement of the Brightman Street Bridge.
    (h) Oswegatchie River, Ogdensburg, New York.--A portion of 
the Oswegatchie River Federal navigation project is 
deauthorized to accommodate non-Federal activities.
    (i) Kickapoo River, Wisconsin.--The project for flood 
control on the Kickapoo River, including the LaFarge Dam and 
Lake, is deauthorized and project lands are transferred to the 
State of Wisconsin.

                          section 104--studies

    (a) Bear Creek Drainage, San Joaquin County, California.--A 
review of the Bear Creek flood control project is authorized to 
develop a comprehensive plan for additional flood protection.
    (b) Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California.--A 
feasibility study is authorized to evaluate the impact of 
storing higher elevations of water to improve water quality and 
provide other water resource benefits.
    (c) Long Beach, California.--A review of the feasibility 
study of navigation improvements at Long Beach Harbor is 
authorized to examine the widening and deepening of the 
navigation channel.
    (d) Mormon Slough/Calaveras River, California.--A 
reconnaissance study is authorized to review the Mormon Slough/
Calaveras River flood control project to develop a 
comprehensive plan for additional flood protection for the 
region.
    (e) Murrieta Creek, Riverside County, California.--A review 
of the feasibility study is authorized to determine the Federal 
interest in providing flood protection along Murrieta Creek 
from Temecula to Wildomar.
    (f) Pine Flat Dam Fish and Wildlife Habitat Restoration, 
California.--A review of the feasibility of the habitat 
improvement measures, including a turbine bypass, identified in 
the reconnaissance report is authorized for the Pine Flat Dam 
on the Kings River.
    (g) West Dade, Florida.--A reconnaissance study is 
authorized to determine the Federal interest in a regional 
wastewater reuse facility to offset the public demands on the 
regional water supply system and to increase the supply of 
water available for the Everglades system to enhance fish and 
wildlife habitat.
    (h) Savannah River Basin Comprehensive Water Resources 
Study.--A comprehensive study is authorized to examine flood 
control, the reallocation of water storage, and to develop an 
improved management structure for basin water resources issues. 
The Secretary is directed to coordinate the study effort with 
ongoing watershed management issues underway at the 
Environmental Protection Agency and the Agency of the Savannah 
River Basin.
    (i) Bayou Blanc, Crowley, Louisiana.--A reconnaissance 
study is authorized to examine the construction of a bulkhead 
system and other measures to address slope failures along the 
embankment of Bayou Blanc.
    (j) Hackenberry Industrial Ship Channel Park, Louisiana.--
The study of the Lake Charles ship channel and general 
anchorage area is modified to include the Hackenberry ship 
channel.
    (k) City of North Las Vegas, Clark County, Nevada.--A 
reconnaissance study is authorized to examine the need for 
flood control for the North Las Vegas Wash.
    (l) Lower Las Vegas Wash Wetlands, Clark County, Nevada.--A 
study is authorized to evaluate the restoration of wetlands to 
control erosion of the Lower Las Vegas Wash.
    (m) Northern Nevada.--A reconnaissance study is authorized 
to determine the need for flood control and environmental 
restoration on the Humboldt, Truckee, Carson and Walker rivers 
in Nevada.
    (n) Buffalo Harbor, New York.--A reconnaissance study is 
authorized to determine the feasibility of excavating the inner 
harbor and constructing the associated bulkheads in Buffalo 
Harbor, New York.
    (o) Coeymans, New York.--A reconnaissance study is 
authorized to examine the siltation problems of the in-shore 
side of the Coeymans Middle Dike.
    (p) Shinnecock Inlet, New York.--A reconnaissance study is 
authorized to examine the feasibility of constructing a sand 
bypass system to address beach erosion problems.
    (q) Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay Channels, New York and New 
Jersey.--The Secretary is directed to continue with the 
engineering and design of the project to the 45 feet mean low 
water authorized channel depth consistent with the Report of 
the Chief of Engineers, 1981.
    (r) Columbia Slough, Oregon.--A feasibility study is 
authorized to evaluate opportunities to alter and improve 
structural facilities, including ecosystem restoration along 
Columbia Slough.
    (s) Oahe Dam to Lake Sharpe, South Dakota.--A feasibility 
study is authorized to examine sediment removal in the Missouri 
River Channel below Oahe Dam and also in the Bad River at its 
confluence with the Missouri River to improve water flows for 
fisheries and recreational activities.
    (t) Ashley Creek, Utah.--A feasibility study is authorized 
to examine fish and wildlife restoration opportunities at 
Ashley Creek.

                  TITLE II--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

                              section 201

    Heber Springs, Arkansas.--The Secretary is authorized to 
execute an agreement with the city of Heber Springs to provide 
water storage in Greers Ferry Lake as compensation for Corps 
activities which impacted the city's water supply.

                              section 202

    Morgan Point, Arkansas.--The Secretary is authorized to 
accept as in-kind contributions towards the non-Federal cost 
sharing requirements certain fish and wildlife activities and 
land.

                              section 203

    White River Basin Lakes, Arkansas and Missouri.--The 
project for flood control and power generation at White River 
Basin Lakes is modified to include recreation and wildlife 
mitigation as project purposes.

                              section 204

    Central and Southern Florida.--The project for flood 
control in Central and Southern Florida is modified to repair 
energy dissipation device design deficiencies at the project.

                              section 205

    West Palm Beach, Florida.--The project for flood protection 
of West Palm Beach, Florida is modified to provide for 
construction of an enlarged stormwater detention area.

                              section 206

    Periodic Maintenance Dredging for Greenville Inner Harbor 
Channel, Mississippi.--The navigation project for the 
Greenville Harbor and the portion of the Mississippi River 
adjacent to the channel is modified to include the Greenville 
Inner Harbor Channel. The Secretary shall maintain this element 
of the Federal channel consistent with the existing 10-foot 
navigable channel.

                              section 207

    Sardis Lake, Mississippi.--The Secretary is authorized to 
work with the City of Sardis on the development of leased lands 
that are consistent with the economic development plans 
prepared by the city.

                              section 208

    Libby Dam, Montana.--The Secretary is directed to complete 
the construction and installation of three generators at Libby 
Dam in Montana. Congress authorized the Libby Dam Project with 
an eight unit powerhouse. However, construction has been 
completed on only five units. Almost all of the equipment for 
the last three units has been purchased. This section also 
directs the Secretary to remove a partially constructed haul 
bridge over the Kootenai River in Montana. The Corps built the 
bridge in anticipation of a future project which is not going 
to proceed. Therefore the bridge is unnecessary and serves no 
purpose.

                              section 209

    Small flood control project, Malta, Montana.--The Secretary 
is authorized to move toward completion of the small flood 
control project in Malta, Montana.

                              section 210

    Cliffwood Beach, New Jersey.--The Secretary is authorized 
to begin a beach nourishment project at Cliffwood Beach, New 
Jersey. This project was initially authorized in the Flood 
Control Act of 1962, but was deauthorized under Title X of 
Public Law 99-662. Section 102 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 modified the authorization to provide 
periodic beach nourishment, thereby reauthorizing the project. 
However, the 1992 provision has been interpreted by the Corps 
to be insufficient for continuing this project. This section 
provides the authority necessary to continue the project.

                              section 211

    Fire Island Inlet, New York.--The Secretary is directed to 
place dredged sand from the Fire Island Inlet on the shoreline 
west of Gilgo State Park at Tobay Beach. Tobay Beach has 
experienced unexpected erosion due to storm activity in the 
area. These storms have increased the rate of erosion and 
diminished the Gilgo Beach feeder system's ability to replenish 
the downdrift beaches.

                              section 212

    Buford Trenton Irrigation District, North Dakota.--The 
Secretary is authorized to acquire permanent flowage and 
saturation easements from willing sellers in Williams County, 
North Dakota. Beginning in 1967, the Board of Directors of the 
Buford Trenton Irrigation District and farmers have reported 
numerous complaints of high water table problems resulting from 
ice-jam flooding and siltation in the river channel. The 
Garrison Dam, operated by the Corps, is responsible for the 
damage.
    Corps analysis indicates that structural solutions are not 
cost effective. Purchasing flowage and saturation easements 
will relieve the Corps of responsibility to repair flood damage 
and the landowners will be able to continue to work the land 
until it becomes unproductive.

                              section 213

    Wister Lake, LeFlore County, Oklahoma.--The Secretary is 
authorized to permanently raise the conservation pool in the 
reservoir based on the findings in the reconnaissance report.

                              section 214

    Willamette River, McKenzie Subbasin, Oregon.--The Secretary 
is authorized to undertake a water temperature control project 
at the Blue River and Cougar Lake projects to mitigate the 
impact of the operation of these facilities on fish and 
wildlife.

                              section 215

    Abandoned and wrecked barge removal, Rhode Island.--The 
Secretary is authorized to remove a sunken barge off the shore 
of Narragansett Beach. The costs of the removal work will be 
shared with the Town of Narragansett after title to the barge 
has been transferred to the United States at no cost to the 
Federal government.

                              section 216

    Providence River and Harbor, Rhode Island.--The Secretary 
is authorized to incorporate a channel extending from the 
vicinity of the Fox Point Hurricane Protection Barrier to the 
vicinity of the Francis Street Bridge in Providence, Rhode 
Island.

                              section 217

    Cooper Lake and Channels, Texas.--The Secretary is 
authorized to redesignate and lease lands within the project 
area to the non-Federal sponsor following the acceptance of 
lands that are of equivalent acreage and resource value. The 
lands must also be contiguous to the project area. The costs of 
this land redesignation shall be borne by the non-Federal 
sponsor.

                              section 218

    Rudee Inlet, Virginia Beach, Virginia.--The Secretary is 
authorized to continue the Federal participation in the 
navigation project at Rudee Inlet. The non-Federal costs of 
continuing the project shall continue at the current level.

                              section 219

    Virginia Beach, Virginia.--The Secretary is authorized to 
reimburse the City of Virginia Beach for Federal costs incurred 
by the non-Federal sponsor for the authorized beach nourishment 
program under Section 934. If the non-Federal sponsor has not 
been reimbursed at the time a project cooperation agreement is 
executed for the beach erosion control and hurricane protection 
project, the non-Federal cost of that project shall be reduced 
by the amount due to the non-Federal sponsor in reimbursement 
costs.

                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                              section 301

    Cost-sharing for environmental projects.--This provision 
creates a consistent cost-sharing formula of 75 percent Federal 
and 25 percent non-Federal responsibility for the costs of 
environmental protection, restoration and/or enhancement that 
could be applied to the various authorities for the Corps to 
carry out such projects.

                              section 302

    Collaborative research and development.--This provision 
amends section 7 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 
(Public Law 100-676) to authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
apply appropriate protections to technology developed by the 
Corps. This provision would encourage private entities to 
market software developed by the Corps, since it would enable 
the Corps to apply the protections in section 12(c)(4)(6) of 
the Technology Transfer Act.

                              section 303

    National Inventory of Dams.--This provision ensures the 
Army's ability to continuously maintain and update the national 
inventory of dams compiled by the Corps pursuant to Public Law 
92-367, the National Dam Safety Act of 1972. There are 
authorized to be appropriated $500,000 for each fiscal year 
under this provision to allow the Corps to continue to collect 
current inventory data from State and Federal agencies. Such 
data will be placed in a computerized database which will be 
accessible to Federal, State and private users.

                              section 304

    Hydroelectric Power Project Uprating.--This provision 
provides general authority to uprate existing projects in the 
course of the Corps performing its operation and maintenance 
responsibilities at the hydroelectric power facilities under 
the jurisdiction of the Corps. The Corps operates and maintains 
more than 70 hydroelectric facilities. This new authority would 
be akin to the authority set forth in 33 U.S.C. 701r-1(c), 
wherein the Chief of Engineers is authorized to construct 
replacement roads at water resources projects to current State 
standards without creating a ``betterment''.

                              section 305

    Federal Lump Sum Payments for Federal Operation and 
Maintenance Costs.--This provision enables the Secretary of the 
Army to make onetime lump-sum payments to non-Federal sponsors 
for the Federal share of operation, maintenance, repair, 
replacement, and rehabilitation costs of civil works projects. 
The provision would reduce Corps administrative costs for 
budgeting, auditing and making payment on an annual basis. A 
lump sum payment could be made only with the concurrence of the 
non-Federal sponsor under the terms of the local cooperation 
agreement.

                              section 306

    Cost-sharing for Removal of Existing Project Features.--
This provision clarifies the existing cost share formula for 
project modifications at existing authorized water resources 
development projects where that modification would require 
removal of one or more of the features of the project and where 
that removal would significantly and adversely impact the 
authorized project purposes or outputs. In such circumstances, 
the non-Federal project sponsor would be required to provide 50 
percent of the cost of the modification.

                              section 307

    Termination of Technical Advisory Committee.--This 
provision eliminates the legislated requirement to impanel a 
board of advisors on matters pertaining to water management at 
Corps reservoirs. This provision will eliminate the need to 
commit funding and manpower to an activity that is not required 
for the execution of the Agency's water control management 
mission.

                              section 308

    Conditions for Project Deauthorizations.--This provision 
will establish a uniform set of rules for all projects 
authorized for construction, or authorized for preconstruction 
planning, engineering, and design only. This proposal would 
also shorten the length of time authorized projects can 
languish on the shelves from 10 years to 5 years, thereby 
encouraging early development of projects with strong Federal 
and non-Federal support.

                              section 309

    Participation in International Engineering and Scientific 
Conferences.--This provision repeals section 211 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1950 (33 U.S.C. 701u) which restricts Corps 
employees from participating in international conferences.

                              section 310

    Research and Development in Support of Army Civil Works 
Programs.--This provision will provide the Army with the same 
flexibility as the rest of the Department of Defense and other 
agencies to use all of the standard legal instruments commonly 
used by the Federal Government to carry out research and 
development projects in support of the civil works program, 
including contracts, cooperative research and development 
agreements, grants and cooperative agreements. Under existing 
authority, it is ambiguous as to whether or not the Army can 
carry out research and development activities utilizing grants 
and cooperative agreements.

                              section 311

    Interagency and International Support Authority.--This 
provision authorizes the Secretary of the Army to spend up to 
$1,000,000 to support other agencies or international 
organizations to address water resources, infrastructure 
development, and environmental protection problems of national 
significance.

                              section 312

    Section 1135 Program.--This provision expands the authority 
provided in section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1986, as amended, to allow the Corps to implement small fish 
and wildlife habitat restoration projects in cooperation with 
non-Federal interests in those situations where a project 
constructed by the Corps has contributed to degradation of the 
quality of the environment. This provision also provides the 
Corps with authority to undertake measures for restoration of 
environmental quality when the Secretary of the Army determines 
that operation of the project has contributed to the 
degradation of the quality of the environment even if that 
degradation occurred in areas not immediately in the vicinity 
of the project structures. This section also authorizes two new 
section 1135 projects.

                              section 313

    Environmental Dredging.--This provision eliminates the 
five-year sunset for activities authorized under section 312 of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-
640).

                              section 314

    Feasibility Studies.--This provision amends section 105 of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
2215(a)(1)) to provide that costs for feasibility studies may 
be amended only by mutual agreement of the Federal government 
and the non-Federal sponsor. In those instances where, during 
the course of the feasibility study, costs exceed the initial 
estimate contained in the feasibility cost-sharing agreement, 
the additional non-federal share would be payable upon project 
authorization. This provision continues the concept of equal 
cost-sharing, while at the same time allowing the non-Federal 
sponsor to plan more effectively for any cost increases in the 
study.

                              section 315

    Obstruction Removal Requirement.--This provision provides 
enhanced enforcement authority to the Secretary of the Army to 
better fulfill the Secretary's obligations under 33 U.S.C. 411, 
as amended, to remove sinking or grounded vessels obstructing 
navigable waters of the United States. The Secretary is 
authorized to levy fines of up to $25,000 for each day that an 
obstruction violation occurs.

                              section 316

    Levee Owners Manual.--This provision directs the Secretary 
of the Army to prepare a manual describing the levee 
maintenance and upkeep responsibilities that the Corps requires 
of a non-Federal interest to receive Federal assistance.

                              section 317

    Risk-Based Analysis Methodology.--This provision directs 
the Secretary of the Army to obtain outside evaluation of the 
Risk-Based Analysis for Evaluation of Hydrology/Hydraulics and 
Economics in Flood Damage Reduction Studies established in an 
Army Corps of Engineers circular. The evaluation shall consider 
minimum engineering and safety standards and the validity of 
results generated by the multi-agency task force created by 
this section. The provision also permits a non-Federal sponsor 
to request that the Secretary of the Army refrain from 
employing this Risk-Based Analysis Methodology technique in the 
evaluation and design of a flood control project carried out in 
cooperation with such non-Federal sponsor.

                              section 318

    Sediments Decontamination Technology.--This provision 
amends section 405 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1992 (Public Law 102-580) by establishing an Army Corps program 
goal to develop one or more sediment decontamination 
technologies under the terms of the section. Such technologies 
shall demonstrate a sediment decontamination capacity of at 
least 2,500 cubic yards per day.

                              section 319

    Melaleuca tree.--This section adds the melaleuca tree to 
the Aquatic Plant Control Program authorized under Section 104 
of the River and Harbors Flood Control Act of 1958. The program 
is designed to deal with aquatic weed infestations of major 
economic significance in navigable water, tributaries, streams, 
connecting channels and allied waters. The melaleuca is an 
invasive plant that is spreading throughout the Everglades and 
south Florida and threatens the coastal wetlands of the 
southern United States.

                              section 320

    Faulkner's Island, Connecticut.--This section authorizes 
the Secretary to undertake a shoreline erosion control project 
at Faulkner's Island, Connecticut. The island is part of the 
McKinney National Wildlife Refuge operated by the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service and provides critical habitat for the 
endangered roseate tern and a resting place for more than 150 
species of migratory birds. The lighthouse on the island was 
authorized for construction by President Thomas Jefferson in 
1801 and is on the State and National Registers of Historic 
Places. It continues to be used as an active navigation aid by 
approximately 20,000 commercial vessels each year. The 
lighthouse is in danger of being lost to coastal erosion unless 
measures are taken to protect the shoreline.

                              section 321

    Designation of lock and dam at the Red River Waterway, 
Louisiana.--This section renames Lock and Dam 4 of the Red 
River Waterway, Louisiana, for Senator Russell B. Long of 
Louisiana in honor of his 37 years of service to Louisiana and 
the country as a member of the U.S. Senate.

                              section 322

    Jurisdiction of Mississippi River Commission, Louisiana.--
This section adds parts of Lafourche Parish from 
Donaldsonville, Louisiana, to the Gulf of Mexico to the 
jurisdiction of the Mississippi River Commission. This area is 
located between and is contiguous to two areas already included 
in the jurisdiction of the Mississippi River Commission.

                              section 323

    William Jennings Randolph access road, Garrett County, 
Maryland.--This section transfers funds from the William 
Jennings Randolph Lake project to the State of Maryland to 
build a road to the lake on the Maryland side. The Corps, the 
State of Maryland and the Maryland National Guard have begun 
work on the road. This section would enable the Corps to 
transfer the necessary funds to the State of Maryland to 
complete the final portion of the road which traverses Corps 
property.

                              section 324

    Arkabutla Dam and Lake, Mississippi.--The Secretary is 
directed to repair the access roads to Arkabutla Dam and 
Arkabutla Lake in Tate County and DeSoto County, Mississippi.

                              section 325

    New York State Canal System.--The Secretary is directed to 
enter into agreements with the public and private interests to 
make necessary capital improvements of the canal system. The 
Federal cost share responsibility for such improvements is 
limited to 50 percent of project cost.

                              section 326

    Quonset Point-Davisville, Rhode Island.--The Secretary is 
directed to make necessary bulkhead and other related capital 
improvements at the Quonset Point-Davisville Industrial Park. 
The Federal cost share responsibility for such improvements is 
limited to 75 percent of project cost.

                              section 327

    Clouter Creek Disposal Area, Charleston, South Carolina.--
This provision directs the Secretary of the Navy to transfer 
administrative jurisdiction over approximately 1,400 acres of 
land to the Secretary of the Army for use as a dredge material 
disposal area for dredging activities in the vicinity of 
Charleston, South Carolina.

                              section 328

    Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation in Lake Gaston, Virginia and 
North Carolina.--This provision amends section 339(b) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-580) to 
continue for two additional years the Corps maintenance efforts 
at the lake.

                              section 329

    Capitol Improvements for the Washington Aqueduct.-- This 
provision provides the Army Corps of Engineers with the 
authority to borrow funds from the Secretary of the Treasury to 
underwrite the cost of necessary improvements to the Washington 
Aqueduct. Amounts borrowed from the bank are to be repaid by 
the customers of the Washington Aqueduct.

                              section 330

    Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection 
Program.--This provision establishes an environmental 
infrastructure pilot program in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. 
One project shall be established for each of the States of 
Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.

                              section 331

    Research and Development Program to Improve Salmon 
Survival.--This provision directs the Secretary of the Army to 
accelerate ongoing research and development activities for the 
purpose of developing innovative methods and technologies for 
improving the survival of salmon, especially salmon in the 
Columbia River Basin.

                              section 332

    Recreational User Fees.--This provision amends section 
210(b)(4) of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 460d-
3(b)(4)) to require that revenues collected at water resource 
development projects shall be used at the water resource 
development project at which the fees are collected.

                              section 333

    Shoreline Erosion Control Demonstration Program.--This 
provision amends (60 Stat. 1056, chapter 960; 33 U.S.C. 426e et 
seq.) to require the Secretary of the Army to establish and 
conduct a national shoreline erosion control development and 
demonstration program for a period of 8 years. The erosion 
control program requirements include demonstration projects; 
adequate monitoring of the prototype projects; engineering and 
environmental reports on the projects; and appropriate 
technology transfers to private property owners and State and 
local entities.

                              section 334

    Technical Corrections.--This provision makes technical 
corrections to sections 203 and 225 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992. An Army Corps special revenues account 
is given the appropriate account number and identification.

                                Hearings

    On February 14, 1995, the Subcommittee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure held an oversight hearing prior to the 
introduction of a bill. The scope of the hearing was to assess 
the funding levels for the Water Resources Development Act and 
to examine the President's budget request for Fiscal Year 1996 
for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Testimony was heard from 
Dr. John H. Zirschky, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army 
for Civil Works; Major General Stanley Genega, Director of 
Civil Works, U.S. Army; Brigadier General Gerald E. Galloway, 
Jr., U.S. Army, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, NY; Larry 
King, Acting Director, District of Columbia Department of 
Public Works; Jeffrey Tarbert, Mayor, Falls Church, VA; Robert 
R. Perry, City Council Member, Falls Church, VA; Mary Margaret 
Whipple, Member of the County Board of Supervisors, Arlington, 
VA; Doug Plasencia, Association of State Floodplain Managers, 
Inc., Richmond, VA; and Christopher J. Brescia, Midwest Area 
River Coalition 2000, St. Louis, MO. A bill, S. 640, was 
introduced on March 28, 1995. No further hearings were held.

                             Rollcall Votes

    On August 2, 1995, a quorum being present, the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works met to consider S. 640. By voice 
vote, the committee agreed to a manager's amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as well as amendments offered by 
Senators Chafee, Lautenberg, Bond, and Graham. Senator Chafee 
moved and Senator Warner seconded the motion to report the 
bill, as amended, to the Senate. On the voice vote that 
followed, all Senators present voted in favor of the motion to 
report the bill favorably, except Senator Baucus, who voted 
against.

                    Evaluation of Regulatory Impact

    Section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate requires publication in the report the committee's 
estimate of the regulatory impact made by the bill as reported. 
No regulatory impact is expected by the passage of S. 640.
    The bill will not affect the personal privacy of 
individuals.

                          Cost of Legislation

    Section 403 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act 
requires that a statement of the cost of a reported bill, 
prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, be included in the 
report. That statement follows:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                  Washington, DC, November 1, 1995.
Hon. John H. Chafee,
Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 640, the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1995.
    Enacting S. 640 would affect direct spending and receipts. 
Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to the bill.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them.
            Sincerely,
                                                   June E. O'Neill.

               congressional budget office cost estimate

    1. Bill number: S. 640.
    2. Bill title: Water Resources Development Act of 1995.
    3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the Senate Committee 
on Environment and Public Works on August 2, 1995.
    4. Bill purpose: Title I of the Water Resources Development 
Act (WRDA) would authorize the Secretary of the Army, acting 
through the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), to construct 18 
projects for flood control, port development, inland 
navigation, storm damage reduction, and environmental 
restoration. This title also would modify 22 existing Corps 
projects, authorize the Corps to carry out 20 studies, and 
eliminate portions of nine projects from consideration for 
future funding.
    Titles II and III of WRDA, respectively, contain project-
specific and general provisions related to Corps operations. 
Among other provisions, these titles would:
          Direct the Secretary to enter into an agreement with 
        the city of Heber Springs, Arkansas, to provide 3,522 
        acre-feet of water supply storage in Greers Ferry Lake, 
        Arkansas, for municipal and industrial purposes, at no 
        cost to the city;
          Increase criminal penalties for damaging river and 
        harbor improvements and obstructing the passage of 
        vessels in navigable channels; and
          Authorize borrowing authority in amounts sufficient 
        to cover the full costs of modernizing the Washington 
        Aqueduct.
    5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: Assuming the 
necessary appropriations, CBO estimates that enactment of the 
bill will result in new discretionary spending totaling $1,017 
million for fiscal years 1996 through 2000 as shown in Table 1.

                                 TABLE 1. ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF S. 640                                 
                                    [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              1996       1997       1998       1999       2000  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Authorizations of Appropriations                                                                   
Estimated authorization level............................        230        263        252        181        184
Estimated outlays........................................        122        244        256        213        182
                                                                                                                
                     Direct Spending                                                                            
                                                                                                                
Estimated budget authority...............................      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)
Estimated outlays........................................      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)
                                                                                                                
                         Revenues                                                                               
                                                                                                                
Estimated revenues.......................................      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Less than $500,000.                                                                                         

    The costs of this bill fall within budget function 300.
    In addition to the amounts shown above, CBO estimates that 
the Corps would spend approximately $1.2 billion after 2000 to 
complete construction of the projects authorized by the bill. 
These amounts would be subject to appropriations, as are the 
1996-2000 amounts. The Corps would incur additional expenses, 
in all years, for operating and maintaining projects and for 
other activities that are authorized indefinitely under the 
bill. However, the Corps could not provide us with the data 
necessary to estimate these costs. Finally, the estimate does 
not include any potential savings for the bill's 
deauthorization of funding for maintenance or additional 
construction on existing projects. The Corps does not currently 
maintain most of these projects and there are no plans for the 
Corps to conduct maintenance or begin additional construction.
    The fiscal year 1996 appropriation bill for energy and 
water, which was cleared by the Congress on October 31, 1995, 
would provide $3,204 million for flood control, port 
development, inland navigation, storm damage reduction, 
environmental restoration, general investigations, operations 
and maintenance, and other Corps activities. Most of the new 
projects and project modifications that S. 640 would authorize 
would not receive any funding under that bill. Hence, spending 
under S. 640 would be lower than estimated in Table 1 unless 
additional appropriations are provided later in the fiscal 
year.
    6. Basis of estimate: For purposes of this estimate, CBO 
assumes that the amounts authorized will be appropriated. Where 
specific amounts are not authorized in the bill, we have used 
estimates of project costs provided to us by the Corps. In all 
cases, CBO adjusted the estimates to reflect the impact of 
inflation during the time between authorization, appropriation, 
and the beginning of construction. Outlays are estimated based 
on historical spending rates for each project type.

Title I--Project authorizations, project modifications, project 
        deauthorizations, and authorizations of studies

    We assume that all projects authorized will be constructed. 
Some of the projects authorized in this title are still in the 
study or design phase and will not be ready to begin 
construction for a number of years. Although many projects in 
this bill would be subject to sunset provisions, we assume that 
all projects authorized and subject to these provisions would 
receive at least some funding within the stipulated periods. 
Estimates of annual budget authority needed to meet design and 
construction schedules were provided by the Corps.
    As shown in Table 2, CBO estimates that enacting Title I 
would result in discretionary spending totaling $673 million 
over the 1996-2000 period, assuming appropriation of the 
necessary funds.

                                 TABLE 2. ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF TITLE I                                
                                    [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              1996       1997       1998       1999       2000  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Authorizations                                                                            
                                                                                                                
Estimated Authorization Level............................        129        176        171        131        137
Estimated Outlays........................................         67        151        172        150        133
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, CBO estimates that the Corps would spend about 
$1.0 billion after 2000 to complete construction of these 
projects.
    Enacting Title I also would affect direct spending, but not 
until after 2000. Specifically, section 101, which authorizes 
the construction of the Wolf Creek Hydropower Project at Lake 
Cumberland, Kentucky, would result in additional hydropower 
receipts of roughly $4 million a year upon completion of the 
project. CBO estimates that these receipts would be collected 
beginning in 2001.

Title II--Project-related provisions

    Title II would authorize the Corps to modify existing 
projects and begin new activities at various locations around 
the country. CBO estimates that enactment of this title would 
result in new discretionary spending totaling $200 million over 
the 1996-2000 period, assuming appropriation of the authorized 
amounts. We also estimate that this title would increase direct 
spending, but the increase would be less than $500,000 
annually. Table 3 summarizes the estimated budgetary effects of 
Title II.

                                TABLE 3. ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF TITLE II                                
                                    [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              1996       1997       1998       1999       2000  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Authorizations                                                                            
                                                                                                                
Estimated authorization level............................         61         46         48         30         28
Estimated outlays........................................         31         53         47         39         29
                                                                                                                
                     Direct Spending                                                                            
                                                                                                                
Estimated budget authority...............................      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)
Estimated Outlays........................................      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Less than $500,000.                                                                                         

    CBO estimates that discretionary outlays of $49 million 
would occur after 2000, primarily to complete construction of 
projects authorized under this title.
    Section 201 would direct the Secretary of the Army to enter 
into an agreement with the city of Heber Springs, Arkansas, to 
supply water at no cost to the city. This water currently 
contributes to the generation of hydropower at Greers Ferry 
Lake, Arkansas. The power is then sold, providing receipts to 
the Treasury. Thus, providing water to Heber Springs would 
diminish the government's receipts from the generation of 
power. CBO estimates that the loss of receipts would be less 
than $500,000 a year.

Title III--General provisions

    This title would authorize appropriations for reducing 
storm damage, operations and maintenance, and other activities. 
This title also would change certain financial practices 
related to cost-sharing, research and development, and the 
operation and maintenance of projects. In addition to small 
changes in direct spending and revenues, CBO estimates that 
enacting this title would result in new discretionary spending 
totaling $142 million over the 1996-2000 period, as shown in 
Table 4.

                                TABLE 4. ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF TITLE III                               
                                    [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              1996       1997       1998       1999       2000  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Authorizations                                                                            
                                                                                                                
Estimated authorization level............................         40         41         33         19         18
Estimated outlays........................................         24         39         36         24         19
                                                                                                                
                     Direct Spending                                                                            
                                                                                                                
Estimated budget authority...............................         --      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)
Estimated outlays........................................         --      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)
                                                                                                                
                         Revenues                                                                               
                                                                                                                
Estimated revenues.......................................      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)      (\1\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Less than $500,000.                                                                                         

    Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, 
discretionary outlays of approximately $16 million per year 
would occur after enactment of the bill, primarily for the cost 
of operating and maintaining navigation channels. Those amounts 
are included in the above table.
    Enacting Title III also would affect both direct spending 
and revenues. Specifically, section 315 would increase criminal 
penalties for damaging river and harbor improvements and 
obstructing the passage of vessels in navigable channels. The 
expansion of criminal penalties could cause governmental 
receipts to increase, but CBO estimates that any such increase 
would be less than $500,000 annually. Criminal fines would be 
deposited in the Crime Victims Fund and could be spent without 
appropriation. CBO estimates that direct spending from the fund 
would match the increase in revenues with a one-year lag.
    In addition, Title III would authorize borrowing authority 
for the Corps sufficient to pay the full cost of modernizing 
the Washington Aqueduct. The borrowing authority would not be 
provided to the Corps until that agency enters into a series of 
contracts with the three localities that receive water from the 
aqueduct to repay their respective shares of the principal and 
interest owed to the Treasury. The localities would have to 
agree to pay any additional amount necessary to ensure that 
there would be no net cost to the federal government for making 
the loan.
    CBO believes that the proposed authority for modernizing 
the Washington Aqueduct should be treated as authority for 
providing a federal loan to the localities. In effect, the 
three localities are borrowing money from the Treasury to pay 
for modernizing the aqueduct. Such a loan would be subject to 
credit reform provisions of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.
    The Corps estimates that the Aqueduct modernization project 
would cost about $275 million in 1995 dollars and would take 
seven years to complete. Credit reform requires that the 
subsidy cost of any loan--estimated as a net present value--be 
recorded as an outlay in the year that the loan is disbursed. 
But since the bill would require that the three localities pay 
interest and any additional amounts necessary to offset the 
risk of default, the subsidy cost of this loan would be zero. 
Hence, we estimate that the proposed loan would have no effect 
on outlays.
    7. Pay-as-you-go considerations: Section 252 of the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 sets 
up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct 
spending or receipts through 1998. CBO estimates that enacting 
S. 640 would affect both direct spending and receipts. The bill 
contains a provision that would decrease the amount of 
offsetting receipts the government receives from the Corps 
hydropower project at Greers Ferry Lake. The effect of this 
provision would be an increase in direct spending equal to the 
amount of the forgone offsetting receipts. In addition, the 
bill would increase criminal penalties for damaging river and 
harbor improvements and obstructing the passage of vessels in 
navigable channels. These governmental receipts would be 
deposited in the Crime Victims Fund and would be available for 
spending without appropriation. For each of fiscal years 1996 
through 1998, CBO estimates that changes in both direct 
spending and governmental receipts would be less than $500,000.
    Enacting the bill also would result in an increase of 
hydropower receipts when the Wolf Creek project is completed in 
2001. Since these receipts would not be collected until after 
1998, they are not subject to current pay-as-you-go provisions. 
The following table summarizes CBO's estimate of the pay-as-
you-go impact of S. 640.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            1996       1997       1998  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in outlays......................          0          0          0
Change in receipts.....................          0          0          0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     8. Estimated cost to State and local governments: The bill 
would authorize new water resources projects, modify existing 
projects, order studies, and establish several new 
environmental protection programs. In total, the bill would 
result in construction-related costs to nonfederal entities who 
choose to participate in projects (primarily state and local 
governments) totaling nearly $420 million in 1995 dollars. 
These costs would occur in fiscal years 1996 through 2006. In 
addition to these costs, nonfederal entities would pay for the 
operation and maintenance of many of the projects after they 
are constructed. The bill also would revoke existing 
authorizations for portions of nine projects.
    The bill would allow the District of Columbia, Arlington 
County, Virginia, and Falls Church, Virginia to enter into 
agreements to pay the Army Corps of Engineers to modernize the 
Washington Aqueduct. The Corps estimates that the modernization 
would cost around $275 million in 1995 dollars and would take 
about seven years to complete. The terms of the agreements are 
subject to negotiation, but it is likely that payment of 
principal and interest would begin within two or three years 
and would be spread out over thirty years. The three localities 
would raise the necessary funds through increased water rates 
charged to their customers. Their respective shares of the 
costs would be roughly as follows: District of Columbia (75 
percent), Arlington County (15 percent), and Falls Church (10 
percent).
     9. Estimate comparison: None.
    10. Previous CBO estimate: None.
    11. Estimate prepared by: Federal Cost Estimate: Gary 
Brown. State and Local Estimate: Pepper Santalucia.
    12. Estimate approved by: Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.
      ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATORS MOYNIHAN, LAUTENBERG, AND BOXER

    The Committee report urges the Administration to report 
possible solutions to Congress on inconsistencies of cost-
sharing for dredged material disposal associated with the 
operation and maintenance of Federal channels. We agree with 
the Committee's recommendation. However, we believe that the 
increasing problems in the U.S. ports related to navigational 
dredging and dredged material disposal are matters of great 
concern that deserves policy direction from this Committee as 
well.
    In 1824 Congress assigned responsibility for improving 
navigation in the still-young nation's waterways to the Federal 
government. Federal assurance that a system of channels would 
be provided and maintained was important to the growth of 
interstate and foreign commerce. Today the same is true. The 
maintenance and improvement of the nation's navigational 
infrastructure is essential to our nation's economic well being 
and national security. Approximately 95 percent of the nation's 
import/export cargo travels on ships through American ports.
    Many ports are located in estuaries and coastal areas that 
represent significant natural resources. And while some might 
suggest that the protection and enhancement of those resources 
is inconsistent with the operation of a busy port, this is not 
the case. In the New York metropolitan region and the Bay Area 
of Northern California, for example, both ports and natural 
resources features are important economic factors in regional 
and national terms. The objective in any region and in Federal 
policy should be to sustain both port commerce and 
environmental resources. A Federal policy that makes possible 
the construction of confined disposal facilities can make that 
sustainable development objective attainable.
    Secretary Federico Pena recognized that the port dredging 
problem is in fact a national transportation problem. He 
organized the Interagency Working Group on the Dredging Process 
to determine what might be done to improve Federal performance 
in several areas including interagency coordination, the 
regulatory process, and disposal issues. The final report to 
the Secretary said:

          ``Over the past two decades, a number of factors have 
        complicated the development, operation and maintenance 
        of the nation's harbors, particularly in the area of 
        dredged material management. These factors include 
        increases in the demands of commerce, rapid evolution 
        of shipping practices * * *, increasing environmental 
        awareness and mounting environmental problems affecting 
        coastal areas and ocean waters, heavy population shifts 
        to coastal areas and a general increase in non-Federal 
        responsibilities in the development and management of 
        navigation projects. As a result, dredged material 
        management has often become a contentious problem at 
        all stages of harbor development and operation * * *. 
        Left unattended, these problems could cause a crisis.''

    One of the specific problems noted in the report--that of 
an ``inconsistent'' dredged material management policy--can be 
rectified through legislation by establishing a coherent 
Federal cost-sharing policy that ends the existing situation. 
As noted in the Committee report's discussion of this issue, 
current policy is an incentive for the least expensive but not 
necessarily environmentally suitable disposal solutions and 
treats navigation projects differently, depending on whether 
there is a pre-existing Federal obligation, and if the 
sediments are dredged as part of improvement or maintenance 
work.
    The availability of dredged material disposal capacity, 
both now and in the decades ahead, is a growing concern in many 
areas around the country. Further, the timely and cost-
effective dredging of the Nation's ports is essential to the 
nation's economy and the Federal government has an essential 
role in maintaining commercial navigation. In this report, the 
Committee calls on the Administration to ``report possible 
solutions to Congress for consideration.''
    We agree with that view but also would like to see movement 
toward solutions that are not dependent on the enactment of 
legislation. As such, and because we believe current law speaks 
only to the local responsibility to provide lands (``disposal 
areas'') on which to locate disposal facilities, we believe 
that, at the very least, the Secretary of the Army should amend 
any Corps of Engineers policies that is inconsistent with 
Federal cost-sharing for the construction of disposal 
facilities. Further, the Secretary should use all available 
authorities to enter into cooperative cost-sharing agreements, 
including amending existing agreements, with the non-Federal 
interests to ensure that dredged material disposal facilities, 
including upland, confined aquatic and beneficial-use sites 
where appropriate, are available for construction and 
maintenance of commercial navigation harbors and channels. It 
is our view that the cost-sharing ratios as prescribed in 
Section 101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
could serve as a guide as to the allocation of costs. Further, 
we believe the Federal share of the cost of providing adequate 
disposal facilities for the maintenance of Federal channels is 
an eligible operation and maintenance cost under the provisions 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and could be 
funded from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
    Because we also agree with the Federal agencies in their 
report to Secretary Pena that there is a need for ``consistent 
Federal-local sponsor cost-sharing across all dredged material 
disposal methods,'' we believe that it is important that the 
law be amended to clearly state a Federal-local partnership in 
providing for confined dredged material disposal facilities.
    New Federal dredged material disposal policy should enable 
Federal and local agencies to decide how best to manage dredged 
sediments, and implement those decisions, in the knowledge that 
Federal policy does not discourage one management solution over 
another without consideration of all other relevant factors, 
such as environmental impact. Rather than make do with what is 
allowable under the current law and settle for inconsistent 
policy, the Congress should look favorably on legislative 
language that sets forth a clear and consistent policy that can 
be the basis for all future sediment management decisions by 
the Corps of Engineers and the local Sponsor. It is our hope 
that this Congress will consider such legislation before too 
long.

                                   Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
                                   Frank R. Lautenberg.
                                   Barbara Boxer.
                        Changes in Existing Law

    In compliance with section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill 
as reported are shown as follows: Existing law proposed to be 
omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in 
italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 
roman:

               Title 16--Conservation, United States Code

                  national seashore recreational areas

          * * * * * * *

Sec. 460d-3. Recreational user fees

    (a) Prohibition on Admissions Fees.--No entrance or 
admission fees shall be collected after March 31, 1970, by any 
officer or employee of the United States at public recreation 
areas located at lakes and reservoirs under the jurisdiction of 
the Corps of Engineers, United States Army.
    (b) Fees for Use of Developed Recreation Sites and 
Facilities.--(1) Establishment and collection. Notwithstanding 
section 4(b) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 
1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(b)), the Secretary of the Army is 
authorized, subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), to establish and 
collect fees for the use of developed recreation sites and 
facilities, including campsites, swimming beaches, and boat 
launching ramps but excluding a site or facility which includes 
only a boat launch ramp and a courtesy dock.
    (2) Exemption of Certain Facilities.--The Secretary shall 
not establish or collect fees under this subsection for the use 
or provision of drinking water, wayside exhibits, roads, scenic 
drives, overlook sites, picnic tables, toilet facilities, 
surface water areas, undeveloped or lightly developed 
shoreland, or general visitor information.
    (3) Per Vehicle Limit.--The fee under this subsection for 
use of a site or facility (other than an overnight camping site 
or facility or any other site or facility at which a fee is 
charged for use of the site or facility as of the date of the 
enactment of this paragraph [enacted Aug. 10, 1993]) for 
persons entering the site or facility by private, noncommercial 
vehicle transporting not more than 8 persons (including the 
driver) shall not exceed $3 per day per vehicle. Such maximum 
amount may be adjusted annually by the Secretary for changes in 
the Consumer Price Index of All Urban Consumers published by 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor.
    (4) Deposit Into Treasury Account.--All fees collected 
under this subsection shall be deposited into the Treasury 
account for the Corps of Engineers established by section 4(i) 
of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 
460l-6a(i)) and, subject to the availability of appropriations, 
shall be used for the purposes specified in section 4(i)(3) of 
the Act at the water resources development project at which the 
fees were collected.

(As amended Aug. 10, 1993, P.L. 103-66, Title V, Sec. 5001(a), 
107 Stat. 378.)
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              


     Title 33--Navigation and Navigable Waters, United States Code

   CHAPTER 9. PROTECTION OF NAVIGABLE WATERS AND OF HARBOR AND RIVER 
                         IMPROVEMENTS GENERALLY

          * * * * * * *

Sec. 411. Penalty for wrongful deposit of refuse; use of or injury to 
                    harbor improvements, and obstruction of navigable 
                    waters generally

    Every person and every corporation that shall violate, or 
that shall knowingly aid, abet, authorize, or instigate a 
violation of the provisions of [sections thirteen, fourteen, 
and fifteen] section 13, 14, 15, 19, or 20  of this Act [33 
United States Code Sec. Sec. 407, 408, and 409] shall be guilty 
of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished 
by a fine [not exceeding $2,500 nor less than $500], of not 
more than $25,000 for each day that the violation continues or 
by imprisonment (in the case of a natural person) for not less 
than thirty days not more than one year, or by both such fine 
and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court, one-half of 
said fine to be paid to the person or persons giving 
information which shall lead to conviction.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 415. Summary removal of water craft obstructing navigation; 
                    liability of owner, lessee, or operator

    (a) [Under emergency] Summary Removal Procedures._Under 
emergency, in the case of any vessel, boat, water craft, or 
raft, or other similar obstruction, sinking or grounding, or 
being unnecessarily delayed in any Government canal or lock, or 
in any navigable waters mentioned in section 19 [33 U.S.C. 
Sec. 414], in such manner as to stop, seriously interfere with, 
or specially endanger navigation, in the opinion of the 
Secretary of War [Secretary of the Army], or any agent of the 
United States to whom the Secretary may delegate proper 
authority, the Secretary of War [Secretary of the Army] or any 
such agent shall have the right to take immediate possession of 
such boat, vessel, or other water craft, or raft, so far as to 
remove or to destroy it and to clear immediately the canal, 
lock, or navigable waters aforesaid of the obstruction thereby 
caused, using his best judgment to prevent any unnecessary 
injury; and no one shall interfere with or prevent such removal 
or destruction: Provided, That the officer or agent charged 
with the removal or destruction of an obstruction under this 
section may in his discretion give notice in writing to the 
owners of any such obstruction requiring them to removal it: 
And provided further, That the [expense] actual expense, 
including administrative expenses, of removing any such 
obstruction as aforesaid shall be a charge against such craft 
and cargo; and if the owners thereof fail or refuse to 
reimburse the United States for such expense within 30 days 
after notification, then the officer or agent aforesaid may 
sell the craft or cargo, or any part thereof that may not have 
been destroyed in removal, and the proceeds of such sale shall 
be covered into the Treasury of the United States.
    (b) Removal Requirement._Not later then 24 hours after the 
Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is 
operating issues an order to stop or delay navigation in any 
navigable waters of the United States because of conditions 
related to the sinking or grounding of a vessel, the owner or 
operator of the vessel, with the approval of the Secretary of 
the Army, shall begin removal of the vessel using the most 
expeditious removal method available or, if appropriate, secure 
the vessel pending removal to allow navigation to resume. If 
the owner or operator fails to being removal or to secure the 
vessel pending removal in accordance with the preceding 
sentence or fails to complete removal as soon as possible, the 
Secretary of the Army shall remove or destroy the vessel using 
the summary removal procedures under subsection (a).
    (c) [The] Liability of Owner, Lessee, or Operator._The 
owner, lessee, or operator of such vessel, boat, watercraft, 
raft, or other obstruction as described in this section shall 
be liable to the United States for the [cost] actual cost, 
including administrative costs, of removal or destruction and 
disposal as described which exceeds the costs recovered under 
subsection (a). Any amount recovered from the owner, lessee, or 
operator of such vessel pursuant to this subsection to recover 
costs in excess of the proceeds from the sale or disposition of 
such vessel shall be deposited in the general fund of the 
Treasury of the United States.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 426h. Definition

    As used in this Act [33 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 426e-426h], the 
word ``shores'' includes all the shorelines of the Atlantic and 
Pacific Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, the Great Lakes, and lakes, 
estuaries, and bays directly connected therewith.

(Aug. 13, 1946, ch 960, Sec. 4, 60 Stat. 1057; July 28, 1956, 
ch 768, Sec. 4, 70 Stat. 703.)

SEC. 5. NATIONAL SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT AND 
                    DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

    (a) Definitions.--In this section:
          (1) Erosion control program.--The term ``erosion 
        control program'' means the national shoreline erosion 
        control development and demonstration program 
        established under this section.
          (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the 
        Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of 
        Engineers of the Army Corps of Engineers.
    (b) Establishment of Erosion Control Program.--The 
Secretary shall establish and conduct a national shoreline 
erosion control development and demonstration program for a 
period of 8 years beginning on the date that funds are made 
available to carry out this section.
    (c) Requirements.--
          (1) In general.--The erosion control program shall 
        include provisions for--
                  (A) demonstration projects consisting of 
                planning, designing, and constructing prototype 
                engineered and vegetative shoreline erosion 
                control devices and methods during the first 5 
                years of the erosion control program;
                  (B) adequate monitoring of the prototypes 
                throughout the duration of the erosion control 
                program;
                  (C) detailed engineering and environmental 
                reports on the results of each demonstration 
                project carried out under the erosion control 
                program; and
                  (D) technology transfers to private property 
                owners and State and local entities.
          (2) Emphasis.--The demonstration projects carried out 
        under the erosion control program shall emphasize, to 
        the extent practicable--
                  (A) the development and demonstration of 
                innovative technologies;
                  (B) efficient designs to prevent erosion at a 
                shoreline site, taking into account the life-
                cycle cost of the design, including cleanup, 
                maintenance, and amortization;
                  (C) natural designs, including the use of 
                vegetation or temporary structures that 
                minimize permanent structural alterations;
                  (D) the avoidance of negative impacts to 
                adjacent shorefront communities;
                  (E) in areas with substantial residential or 
                commercial interests adjacent to the shoreline, 
                designs that do not impair the aesthetic appeal 
                of the interests;
                  (F) the potential for long-term protection 
                afforded by the technology; and
                  (G) recommendations developed from 
                evaluations of the original 1974 program 
                established under the Shoreline Erosion Control 
                Demonstration Act of 1974 (section 54 of Public 
                Law 93-251; 42 U.S.C. 1962d-5 note), 
                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.
          (3) Sites.--
                  (A) In general.--Each demonstration project 
                under the erosion control program shall be 
                carried out at a privately owned site with 
                substantial public access, or a publicly owned 
                site, on open coast or on tidal waters.
                  (B) Selection.--The Secretary shall develop 
                criteria for the selection of sites for the 
                demonstration projects, including--
                          (i) a variety of geographical and 
                        climatic conditions;
                          (ii) the size of the population that 
                        is dependent on the beaches for 
                        recreation, protection of homes, or 
                        commercial interests;
                          (iii) the rate of erosion;
                          (iv) significant natural resources or 
                        habitats and environmentally sensitive 
                        areas; and
                          (v) significant threatened historic 
                        structures or landmarks.
                  (C) Areas.--Demonstration projects under the 
                erosion control program shall be carried out at 
                not fewer than 2 sites on each of the 
                shorelines of--
                          (i) the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific 
                        coasts;
                          (ii) the Great Lakes; and
                          (iii) the State of Alaska.
    (d) Cooperation.--
          (1) Parties.--The Secretary shall carry out the 
        erosion control program in cooperation with--
                  (A) the Secretary of Agriculture, 
                particularly with respect to vegetative means 
                of preventing and controlling shoreline 
                erosion;
                  (B) Federal, State, and local agencies;
                  (C) private organizations;
                  (D) the Coastal Engineering Research Center 
                established under the first section of Public 
                Law 88-172 (33 U.S.C. 426-1); and
                  (E) university research facilities.
          (2) Agreements.--The cooperation described in 
        paragraph (1) may include entering into agreements with 
        other Federal, State, or local agencies or private 
        organizations to carry out functions described in 
        subsection (c)(1) when appropriate.
    (e) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the conclusion of 
the erosion control program, the Secretary shall prepare and 
submit an erosion control program final report to the Committee 
on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
Representatives. The report shall include a comprehensive 
evaluation of the erosion control program and recommendations 
regarding the continuation of the erosion control program.
    (f) Funding.--
          (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the 
        Federal share of the cost of a demonstration project 
        under the erosion control program shall be determined 
        in accordance with section 3.
          (2) Responsibility.--The cost of and responsibility 
        for operation and maintenance (excluding monitoring) of 
        a demonstration project under the erosion control 
        program shall be borne by non-Federal interests on 
        completion of construction of the demonstration 
        project.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 426e.  Federal aid in protection of shores

    (a) Declaration of Policy.--* * *
          * * * * * * *
    (e) Authorized Plans.--No Federal contribution shall be 
made with respect to a project under this Act [33 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 426e-426h] unless the plan therefor shall have been 
specifically adopted and authorized by Congress after 
investigation and study by the Beach Erosion Board [Coastal 
Engineering Research Center] under the provisions of section 2 
of the River and Harbor Act approved July 3, 1930 [33 U.S.C. 
Sec. 426], as amended and supplemented, or, in the case of a 
small project under section 3 or 5 of this Act [33 U.S.C. 
Sec. 426g], unless the plan therefor has been approved by the 
Chief of Engineers.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 4671.  Dam inventory updates

    The Secretary is authorized to maintain and periodically 
publish updated information on the inventory of dams authorized 
in section 5 of this Act. [For the purpose of carrying out this 
section, there is authorized to be appropriated to the 
Secretary $500,000 for each of the fiscal years ending 
September 30, 1988, through September 30, 1994.] There are 
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
$500,000 for each fiscal year.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 579a. Project deauthorizations

    (a) Funds To Be Obligated for Construction To Avoid 
Deauthorization.--Any project authorized for construction by 
this Act shall not be authorized after the last day of the 5-
year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act 
[Nov. 17, 1986] unless during such period funds have been 
obligated for construction, including planning and designing, 
of such project.
    (b) Transmission to Congress of List of Unconstructed 
Projects or Separable Elements Authorized but not Receiving 
Obligations During 10 Fiscal Years Preceding Transmission; Two-
year Updates of List.--(1) Not later than 1 year after the date 
of enactment of this Act [Nov. 17, 1986], the Secretary shall 
transmit to Congress a list of unconstructed projects, or 
unconstructed separable elements of projects, which have been 
authorized, but have received no obligations during the 10 full 
fiscal years preceding the transmittal of such list. A project 
or separable element included in such list is not authorized 
after December 31, 1989, if funds have not been obligated for 
construction of such project or element after the date of 
enactment of this Act [Nov. 17, 1986] and before December 31, 
1989.
    (2) Every 2 years after the transmittal of the list under 
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a list 
of projects or separable elements of projects which have been 
authorized, but have received no obligations during the [10] 5 
full fiscal years preceding the transmittal of such list. 
[Before] Upon official submission of such list to Congress, the 
Secretary shall notify each Senator in whose State, and each 
Member of the House of Representatives in whose district, a 
project (including any part thereof) on such list would be 
located. A project or separable element included in such list 
is not authorized after the date which is 30 months after the 
date the list is so transmitted if funds have not been 
obligated for the planning, design, or construction of such 
project or element during such 30-month period.
    (c) Deauthorized List; Publication in Federal Register.--
The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register a list of 
any projects or separable elements that are deauthorized under 
this section.

(Nov. 17, 1986, P.L. 99-662, title X, Sec. 1001, 100 Stat. 
4201; Nov. 28, 1990, P.L. 101-640, title I, Sec. 119(a), 104 
Stat. 4630.)
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 610. Control of aquatic plant growths

    (a) There is hereby authorized a comprehensive program to 
provide for control and progressive eradication of 
waterhyacinth, alligatorweed, Eurasian water milfoil, melaleuca 
tree, and other obnoxious aquatic plant growths, from the 
navigable waters, tributary streams, connecting channels, and 
other allied waters of the United States, in the combined 
interest of navigation, flood control, drainage, agriculture, 
fish and wildlife conservation, public health, and related 
purposes, including continued research for development of the 
most effective and economic control measures, to be 
administered by the Chief of Engineers, under the direction of 
the Secretary of the Army, in cooperation with other Federal 
and State agencies. Local interests shall agree to hold and 
save the United States free from claims that may occur from 
control operations and to participate to the extent of 30 per 
centum of the cost of such operations. Costs for research and 
planning undertaken pursuant to the authorities of this section 
shall be borne fully by the Federal Government.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 701n. Flood emergencies; extraordinary wind, wave, or water damage 
                    to federally authorized hurricane or shore 
                    protective structures; emergency supplies of 
                    drinking water; drought; well construction and 
                    water transportation

    (a)(1) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (c) Levee Owners Manual.--
          (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
        of enactment of this subdivision, in accordance with 
        chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, the Secretary 
        shall prepare a manual describing the maintenance and 
        upkeep responsibilities that the Army Corps of 
        Engineers requires of a non-Federal interest in order 
        for the non-Federal interest to receive Federal 
        assistance under this section. The Secretary shall 
        provide a copy of the manual at no cost to each non-
        Federal interest that is eligible to receive Federal 
        assistance under this section.
          (2) Prohibition on delegation.--The preparation of 
        the manual shall be carried out under the personal 
        direction of the Secretary.
          (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
        authorized to be appropriated $1,000,000 to carry out 
        this subsection.
          (4) Definitions.--In this subsection:
                 (A) Maintenance and upkeep.--The term 
                ``maintenance and upkeep'' means all 
                maintenance and general upkeep of a levee 
                performed on a regular and consistent basis 
                that is not repair and rehabilitation.
                 (B) Repair and rehabilitation.--The term 
                ``repair and rehabilitation''--
                        (i) except as provided in clause (ii), 
                        means the repair or rebuilding of a 
                        levee or other flood control structure, 
                        after the structure has been damaged by 
                        a flood, to the level of protection 
                        provided by the structure before the 
                        flood; and
                        (ii) does not include--
                                (I) any improvement to the 
                                structure; or
                                (II) repair or rebuilding 
                                described in clause (i) if, in 
                                the normal course of usage, the 
                                structure becomes structurally 
                                unsound and is no longer fit to 
                                provide the level of protection 
                                for which the structure was 
                                designed.
                 (C) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means 
                the Secretary of the Army.

[Sec. 701u. International engineering or scientific conferences; 
                    attendance

    [The Secretary of the Army is hereby authorized to allot 
from any appropriations heretofore or hereafter made for flood 
control or rivers and harbors, funds for payment of expenses of 
representatives of the Corps of Engineers engaged on flood 
control and river and harbor work to international engineering 
or scientific conferences to be held outside the continental 
limits of the United States: Provided, That no more than ten 
representatives of the Corps of Engineers shall attend any one 
conference: And provided further, That not more than $25,000 
shall be allotted during any one fiscal year for this purpose.

[(May 17, 1950, ch 188, Title II, Sec. 211, Stat. 183.)]
    Repealed.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 1252. Comprehensive programs for water pollution control

                     historical and statutory notes

Environmental dredging

    Pub. L. 101-640, Title III, Sec. 312, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 
Stat. 4639, provided that:
    ``(a) Operation and Maintenance of Navigation Projects.--
Whenever necessary to meet the requirements of the Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act [this chapter], the Secretary, in 
consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency, may remove, as part of operation and 
maintenance of a navigation project, contaminated sediments 
outside the boundaries of and adjacent to the navigation 
channel.
    ``(b) Nonproject Specific.--
          ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may remove 
        contaminated sediments from the navigable waters of the 
        United States for the purpose of environmental 
        enhancement and water quality improvement if such 
        removal is requested by a non-Federal sponsor and the 
        sponsor agrees to pay 50 percent of the cost of such 
        removal.
          ``(2) Maximum amount.--The Secretary may not expend 
        more than $10,000,000 in a fiscal year to carry out 
        this subsection.
    ``(c) Joint Plan Requirement.--The Secretary may only 
remove contaminated sediments under subsection (b) in 
accordance with a joint plan developed by the Secretary and 
interested Federal, State, and local government officials. Such 
plan must include an opportunity for public comment, a 
description of the work to be undertaken, the method to be used 
for dredged material disposal, the roles and responsibilities 
of the Secretary and non-Federal sponsors, and identification 
of sources of funding.
    ``(d) Disposal Costs.--Costs of disposal of contaminated 
sediments removed under this section shall be a non-Federal 
responsibility.
    ``(e) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in 
this section shall be construed to affect the rights and 
responsibilities of any person under the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 
[section 9601 et seq. of Title 42, The Public Health and 
Welfare].
    [``(f) Termination Date.--This section shall not be 
effective after the last day of the 5-year period beginning on 
the date of the enactment of this Act [Nov. 28, 1990]; except 
that the Secretary may complete any project commenced under 
this section on or before such last day.'']
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 2213. Flood control and other purposes

    (a) Flood Control.-- (1) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (c) Other Purposes.--The non-Federal share of the cost 
assigned to other project purposes shall be as follows:
          (1) hydroelectric power: 100 percent, except that the 
        marketing of such power and the recovery of costs of 
        constructing, operating, maintaining, and 
        rehabilitating such projects shall be in accordance 
        with existing law: Provided, That after the date of 
        enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall not submit 
        to Congress any proposal for the authorization of any 
        water resources project that has a hydroelectric power 
        component unless such proposal contains the comments of 
        the appropriate Power Marketing Administrator 
        designated pursuant to section 302 of the Department of 
        Energy Organization Act (Public Law 95-91) concerning 
        the appropriate Power Marketing Administration's 
        ability to market the hydroelectric power expected to 
        be generated and not required in the operation of the 
        project under the applicable Federal power marketing 
        law, so that, 100 percent of operation, maintenance and 
        replacement costs, 100 percent of the capital 
        investment allocated to the purpose of hydroelectric 
        power (with interest at rates established pursuant to 
        or prescribed by applicable law), and any other costs 
        assigned in accordance with law for return from power 
        revenues can be returned within the period set for the 
        return of such costs by or pursuant to such applicable 
        Federal power marketing law;
          (2) municipal and industrial water supply: 100 
        percent;
          (3) agricultural water supply: 35 percent;
          (4) recreation, including recreational navigation: 50 
        percent of separable costs and, in the case of any 
        harbor or inland harbor or channel project, 50 percent 
        of joint and separable costs allocated to recreational 
        navigation;
          (5) hurricane and storm damage reduction: 35 percent; 
        [and]
          (6) aquatic plant control: 50 percent of control 
        operations; and
          (7) environmental protection and restoration: 25 
        percent.

Sec. 2215. Feasibility studies; planning, engineering, and design

    (a) Feasibility Studies.--(1) The Secretary shall not 
initiate any feasibility study for a water resources project 
after the date of enactment of this Act [enacted Nov. 17, 1986] 
until appropriate non-Federal interests agree, by contract, to 
contribute 50 percent of the cost for such study [during the 
period of such study]. During the period of the study, the non-
Federal share of the cost of the study shall be not more than 
50-percent of the estimate of the cost of the study as 
contained in the feasibility cost sharing agreement. The cost 
estimate may be amended only by mutual agreement of the 
Secretary and the non-Federal interests. The non-Federal share 
of any costs in excess of the cost estimate shall, except as 
otherwise mutually agreed by the Secretary and the non-Federal 
interests, be payable after the project has been authorized for 
construction and on the date on which the Secretary and non-
Federal interests enter into an agreement pursuant to section 
101(e) or 103(j). Not more than one-half of [such non-Federal 
contribution] the non-Federal Share required under this 
paragraph may be made by the provision of services, materials, 
supplies, or other in-kind services necessary to prepare the 
feasibility report.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 2239. [Repealed]

                 history; ancillary laws and directives

    This section (Act Nov. 17, 1986, P.L. 99-662, Title II, 
Sec. 211, 100 Stat. 4106; Nov. 17, 1988, P.L. 100-676, Sec. 32, 
102 Stat. 4030) was repealed by Act Nov. 28, 1990, P.L. 101-
640, Title IV, Sec. 412(f), 104 Stat. 4650. This section 
provided for alternatives to the New Jersey Mud Dump Site for 
disposal of dredged material, and similar provisions are 
contained in 33 USCS Sec. 2239 note.
    Other provisions:
          * * * * * * *
    Sediments decontamination technology.--Act Oct. 31, 1992, 
P.L. 102-580, Title IV, Sec. 405, 106 Stat. 4863, provides:
    ``(a) Decontamination Project.--(1) Section of 
technologies.--Based upon a review of decontamination 
technologies identified pursuant to section 412(c) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1990 [note to this section], the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the 
Secretary shall, within 1 year after the date of the enactment 
of this Act, jointly select removal, pre-treatment, post-
treatment, and decontamination technologies for contaminated 
marine sediments for a decontamination project in the New York/
New Jersey Harbor.
    ``(2) Recommended program.--Upon selection of technologies, 
the Administrator and the Secretary shall jointly recommend a 
program of selected technologies to assess their effectiveness 
in rendering sediments acceptable for unrestricted ocean 
disposal or beneficial reuse, or both. The goal of the program 
shall be to make possible the development, on an operational 
scale, of 1 or more sediment decontamination technologies, each 
of which demonstrates a sediment decontamination capacity of at 
least 2,500 cubic yards per day.
    ``(3) Report to congress.--Not later than September 30, 
1996, and September 30 of each year thereafter, the 
Administrator and the Secretary shall report to Congress on 
progress made toward the goal described in paragraph (2).
    ``(b) Decontamination Defined.--For purposes of this 
section, `decontamination' may include local or remote 
prototype or production and laboratory decontamination 
technologies, sediment pre-treatment and post-treatment 
processes, and siting, economic, or other measures necessary to 
develop a matrix for selection of interim prototype of long-
term processes. Decontamination techniques need not be 
preproven in terms of likely success.
    ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
to be appropriated to carry out this section [$5,000,000] 
$10,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 
[1992.] 1996. Such sums shall remain available until 
expended.''.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 2309a. Project modifications for improvement of environment

    (a) Review of Project Operations.--The Secretary is 
authorized to review the operation of water resources projects 
constructed by the Secretary to determine the need for 
modifications in the structures and operations of such projects 
for the purpose of improving the quality of the environment in 
the public interest and to determine if the operation of the 
projects has contributed to the degradation of the quality of 
the environment.
    (b) Modification Program.--The Secretary is authorized to 
carry out a program for the purpose of making such 
modifications in the structures and operations of water 
resources projects constructed by the Secretary which the 
Secretary determines (1) are feasible and consistent with the 
authorized project purposes, and (2) will improve the quality 
of the environment in the public interest. [The non-Federal 
share of the cost of any modifications carried out under this 
section shall be 25 percent. No modification shall be carried 
out under this section without specific authorization by 
Congress if the estimated cost exceeds $5,000,000.]
    (c) Measures To Restore Environmental Quality.--If the 
Secretary determines under subsection (a) that operation of a 
water resources project has contributed to the degradation of 
the quality of the environment, the Secretary may carry out, 
with respect to the project, measures for the restoration of 
environmental quality, if the measures are feasible and 
consistent with the authorized purposes of the project.
    (d) Funding.--The non-Federal share of the cost of any 
modification or measure carried out pursuant to subsection (b) 
or (c) shall be 25 percent. Not more than $5,000,000 in Federal 
funds may be expended on any 1 such modification or measure.
    [(c)] (e) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate any 
actions taken pursuant to this section with appropriate 
Federal, State, and local agencies.
    [(d)] (f) Biennial Report.--Beginning in 1992 and every 2 
years thereafter, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a 
report on the results of reviews conducted under subsection (a) 
and on the program conducted under subsection (b).
    [(e)] (g) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
not to exceed $25,000,000 annually to carry out this section.

(Nov. 17, 1986, P.L. 99-662, Title XI, Sec. 1135, 100 Stat. 
4251; Nov. 17, 1988, P.L. 100-676, Sec. 42, 102 Stat. 4040; 
Nov. 28, 1990, P.L. 101-640, Title III, Sec. 304, 104 Stat. 
4634; Oct. 31, 1992, P.L. 102-580, Title II, Sec. 202, 106 
Stat. 4826.)
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 2313. Collaborative research and development

    (a) In General.--For the purpose of improving the state of 
engineering and construction in the United States and 
consistent with the mission of the Army Corps of Engineers, the 
Secretary is authorized to utilize Army Corps of Engineers 
laboratories and research centers to undertake, on a cost-
shared basis, collaborative research and development with non-
Federal entities, including State and local government, 
colleges and universities, and corporations, partnerships, sole 
proprietorships, and trade associations which are incorporated 
or established under the laws of any of the several States of 
the United States or the District of Columbia.
    (b) Administrative Provisions.--In carrying out this 
section, the Secretary may consider the recommendations of a 
non-Federal entity in identifying appropriate research or 
development projects and may enter into a cooperative research 
and development agreement, as defined in section 12 of the 
Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 
3710a); except that in such agreement, the Secretary may agree 
to provide not more than 50 percent of the cost of any research 
or development project selected by the Secretary under this 
section. Not less than 5 percent of the non-Federal entity's 
share of the cost of any such project shall be paid in cash.
    (c) Applicability of Other Laws.--The research, 
development, or utilization of any technology pursuant to an 
agreement under subsection (b), including the terms under which 
such technology may be licensed and the resulting royalties may 
be distributed, shall be subject to the provisions of the 
Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 
3701-3714).
    (d) Termporary Protection of Technology.--
          (1) Pre-agreement.--If the Secretary determines that 
        information developed as a result of a research or 
        development activity conducted by the Army Corps of 
        Engineers is likely to be subject to a cooperative 
        research and development agreement within 2 years after 
        the development of the information, and that the 
        information would be a trade secret or commercial or 
        financial information that would be privileged or 
        confidential if the information had been obtained from 
        a non-Federal party participating in a cooperative 
        research and development agreement under section 12 of 
        the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 
        (15 U.S.C. 3710a), the Secretary may provide 
        appropriate protections against the dissemination of 
        the information, including exemption from subchapter II 
        of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, until the 
        earlier of--
                  (A) the date on which the Secretary enters 
                into such an agreement with respect to the 
                information; or
                  (B) the last day of the 2-year period 
                beginning on the date of the determination.
          (2) Post-agreement.--Any information subject to 
        paragraph (1) that becomes the subject of a cooperative 
        research and development agreement shall be subject to 
        the protections provided under section 12(c)(7)(B) of 
        the Act (15 U.S.C. 3710a(c)(7)(B)) as if the 
        information had been developed under a cooperative 
        research and development agreement.
    [(d)] (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--To carry out 
the purposes of this section, there is authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary of the Army civil works funds 
$3,000,000 for fiscal year 1989, $4,000,000 for fiscal year 
1990, $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1991, and $6,000,000 for each 
fiscal year thereafter.
    [(e) Additional Funding.--Notwithstanding the third proviso 
under the heading ``General Investigations'' of title I of the 
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1989 (102 
Stat. 857) [unclassified], an additional $3,000,000 of the 
funds appropriated under such heading shall be available to the 
Secretary for obligation to carry out the purposes of this 
section in fiscal year 1989.]

(Nov. 17, 1988, P.L. 100-676, Sec. 7, 102 Stat. 4022.)
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 2319. Reservoir management

    [(a) Technical Advisory Committee.--Not later than 2 years 
after the date of the enactment of this Act [enacted Nov. 28, 
1990], the Secretary shall establish for major reservoirs under 
the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers a technical advisory 
committee to provide to the Secretary and Corps of Engineers 
recommendations on reservoir monitoring and options for 
reservoir research. The Secretary shall determine the 
membership of the committee, except that the Secretary may not 
appoint more than 6 members and shall ensure a predominance of 
members with appropriate academic, technical, or scientific 
qualifications. Members shall serve without pay, and the 
Secretary shall provide any necessary facilities, staff, and 
other support services in accordance with the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 1 et seq.),]
    [(b) Public Participation.] The Secretary shall ensure 
that, in developing or revising reservoir operating manuals of 
the Corps of Engineers, the Corps shall provide significant 
opportunities for public participation, including opportunities 
for public hearings. The Secretary shall issue regulations to 
implement this [subsection] section including a requirement 
that all appropriate informational materials relating to 
proposed management decisions of the Corps be made available to 
the public sufficiently in advance of public hearings. Not 
later than January 1, 1992, the Secretary shall transmit to 
Congress a report on measures taken pursuant to this 
[subsection.] section.

(Nov. 28, 1990, P.L. 101-640, Title III, Sec. 310, 104 Stat. 
4639.)

Sec. 2325. Voluntary contributions for environmental and recreation 
                    projects

    (a) Acceptance.--In connection with carrying out a water 
resources project for environmental protection and restoration 
or a water resources project for recreation, the Secretary is 
authorized to accept contributions of cash, funds, materials, 
and services from persons, including governmental entities but 
excluding the project sponsor.
    (b) Deposit.--Any cash or funds received by the Secretary 
under subsection (a) shall be deposited into the account in the 
Treasury of the United States entitled ``Contributions and 
Advances, Rivers and Harbors, Corps of Engineers [8662] 8862'' 
and shall be available until expended to carry out water 
resources projects described in subsection (a).

(Oct. 31, 1992, P.L. 102-580, Title II, Sec. 203, 106 Stat. 
4826.)
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 2328. Challenge cost-sharing program for the management of 
                    recreation facilities

    (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to develop and 
implement a program to share the cost of managing recreation 
facilities and natural resources at water resource development 
projects under the Secretary's jurisdiction.
    (b) Cooperative Agreements.--To implement the program under 
this section, the Secretary is authorized to enter into 
cooperative agreements with non-Federal public and private 
entities to provide for operation and management of recreation 
facilities and natural resources at civil works projects under 
the Secretary's jurisdiction where such facilities and 
resources are being maintained at complete Federal expense.
    (c) Contributions.--For purposes of carrying out this 
section the Secretary may accept contributions of funds, 
materials, and services from non-Federal public and private 
entities. Any funds received by the Secretary under this 
section shall be deposited into the account in the Treasury of 
the United States entitled ``Contributions and Advances, Rivers 
and Harbors, Corps of Engineers [8662] 8862'' and shall be 
available until expended to carry out the purposes of this 
section.

(Oct. 31, 1992, P.L. 102-580, Title II, Sec. 225, 106 Stat. 
4838.)
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              


                           PUBLIC LAW 99-662

  AN ACT To provide for the conservation and development of water and 
    related resources and the improvement and rehabilitation of the 
                Nation's water resources infrastructure

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.

    (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986''.
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 840. JACKSON HOLE SNAKE RIVER, WYOMING.

    The project for Jackson Hole Snake River local protection 
and levees, Wyoming, authorized by the River and Harbors Act of 
1950 (Public Law 81-516), is modified to provide that the 
operation and maintenance of the project, and additions and 
modifications thereto constructed by non-Federal sponsors, 
shall be the responsibility of the [Secretary: Provided, That] 
Secretary. In carrying out this section, the Secretary may 
enter into agreements with the non-Federal sponsors permitting 
the non-Federal sponsors to perform operation and maintenance 
for the project on a cost-reimbursable basis. The non-Federal 
sponsors shall pay the initial $35,000 in cash or materials of 
any such cost expended in any one year, plus inflation as of 
the date of enactment of this Act.
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              


                           PUBLIC LAW 100-676

  AN ACT To provide for the conservation and development of water and 
    related resources, to authorize the United States Army Corps of 
Engineers to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and 
          harbors of the United States, and for other purposes

    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 1988''.
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 52. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.

    [(a) Extension of Limitation on Period of Authorization.--
          [(1) Projects in this act.--The provisions of section 
        1001(a) and section 1001(c) of the Water Resources 
        Development Act of 1986 shall apply to the projects 
        authorized for construction by this Act, except that 
        the 5-year period during which funds must be obligated 
        to prevent deauthorization shall begin on the date of 
        the enactment of this Act.
          [(2) Projects thereafter.--The provisions of section 
        1001(a) and section 1001(c) of the Water Resources 
        Development Act of 1986 shall also apply to projects 
        authorized for construction subsequent to this Act, 
        except that the 5-year period during which funds must 
        be obligated to prevent deauthorization shall begin on 
        the date of the authorization of such projects.]
    [(b)] (a) Specified Projects.--The following projects are 
not authorized after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
except with respect to any portion of such a project which 
portion has been completed before such date of enactment or is 
under construction on such date of enactment:
          (1) Rockland lake, texas.--The Rockland Lake water 
        resources project, Texas, authorized by section 2 of 
        the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the construction, 
        repair, and preservation of certain public work on 
        rivers and harbors, and for other purposes'', approved 
        March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 18).
          (2) White river navigation to batesville, arkansas.--
        The project for navigation, White River Navigation to 
        Batesville, Arkansas, authorized by section 601(a) of 
        the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 
        4139).
          (3) Chicago river turning basin, chicago harbor, 
        illinois.--The inner basin of Chicago Harbor, Illinois, 
        known as the Chicago River Turning Basin, authorized by 
        the first section of the Act entitled ``An Act making 
        appropriations for the repair, preservation, and 
        completion of certain public works on rivers and 
        harbors, and for other purposes, for the fiscal year 
        ending June 30, 1871'', approved July 11, 1870 (16 
        Stat. 226).
    [(c)] (b) Algoma, Wisconsin, Outer Harbor.--
          (1) Deauthorization.--Except as provided in paragraph 
        (2), the outer harbor basin feature of the navigation 
        project for Algoma, Wisconsin, authorized by the Act 
        entitled ``An Act making appropriations for 
        construction, repair, and preservation of certain 
        public works on rivers and harbors, and for other 
        purposes'', approved March 2, 1907 (34 Stat. 1101), is 
        not authorized after the date of the enactment of this 
        Act.
          (2) Retention of maintenance responsibilities for 
        breakwaters and channel.--The Secretary shall retain 
        all responsibilities of the Secretary existing on the 
        date of the enactment of this Act for maintenance of 
        the breakwaters and channel of the harbor at Algoma, 
        Wisconsin.
    [(d)] (c) Continuation of Project Authorizations.--
Notwithstanding section 1001(b)(1) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(1))--
          (1) the navigation project for Monterey Harbor 
        (Monterey Bay), California, authorized by section 101 
        of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 483),
          (2) the navigation project for the North Branch of 
        the Chicago River, Illinois, authorized by the first 
        section of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the 
        construction, repair, and preservation of certain 
        public works on rivers and harbors, and for other 
        purposes'', approved July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 636),
          (3) the element of the Missouri River Basin Project 
        authorized by section 228 of the River and Harbor Act 
        of 1970, and
          (4) the navigation project for the James River, 
        Virginia, authorized by section 101 of the River and 
        Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1174),
shall remain authorized after December 31, 1989. Such projects 
and elements shall not be authorized for construction after the 
last day of the 5-year period beginning on the date of the 
enactment of this Act unless during such period funds have been 
obligated for construction, including planning and designing, 
of such projects and elements.
    [(e)] (d) Notice.--The Secretary shall publish in the 
Federal Register notice as to any project which would no longer 
have been authorized pursuant to the provisions of section 1001 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 or subsection 
(a) of this section but remains authorized due to enactment of 
law by Congress.
          * * * * * * *

                           PUBLIC LAW 102-580

  AN ACT To provide for the conservation and development of water and 
    related resources, to authorize the United States Army Corps of 
    Engineers civil works program to construct various projects for 
  improvements to the Nation's infrastructure, and for other purposes

    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 1992''.
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 339. NUISANCE AQUATIC VEGETATION IN LAKE GASTON, VIRGINIA AND 
                    NORTH CAROLINA.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to undertake a 
program to control nuisance aquatic vegetation for the purpose 
of preserving the recreational uses of the waters of Lake 
Gaston, Virginia and North Carolina.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
to be appropriated for the Federal share of the cost of the 
program authorized by this section $200,000 per fiscal year for 
each of fiscal years [1993 and 1994] 1995 and 1996.
          * * * * * * *

                                
