[Senate Report 105-286]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 523
105th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 105-286
_______________________________________________________________________
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1998
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
to accompany
S. 2131
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
August 25, 1998.--Ordered to be printed.
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma HARRY REID, Nevada
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas BARBARA BOXER, California
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado RON WYDEN, Oregon
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
Jimmie Powell, Staff Director
J. Thomas Sliter, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
General statement................................................ 1
Statement of committee policy.................................... 2
Proposed changes in civil works mission.......................... 4
Shore protection projects.................................... 4
Challenge 21 Flood Hazard Mitigation and Riverine Ecosystem
Restoration Program........................................ 4
Recreational user fees....................................... 4
Title II. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux
Tribe, and State of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife
Habitat Restoration........................................ 5
Section-by-Section Analysis:
Sec. 1. Short Title.......................................... 6
Sec. 101. Definitions........................................ 6
Sec. 102. Project authorizations............................. 6
Sec. 102b. Project authorizations subject to a final report.. 8
Sec. 103. Project modifications.............................. 11
Sec. 104. Project deauthorizations........................... 13
Sec. 105. Studies............................................ 14
Sec. 106. Flood Hazard Mitigation and Riverine Ecosystem
Restoration Program........................................ 17
Sec. 107. Shore protection................................... 18
Sec. 108. Small flood control projects....................... 19
Sec. 109. Use of non-Federal funds for compiling and
disseminating information on flood and flood damages....... 19
Sec. 110. Everglades and South Florida ecosystem restoration. 19
Sec. 111. Aquatic ecosystem restoration...................... 20
Sec. 112. Beneficial uses of dredged materials............... 20
Sec. 113. Voluntary contributions by States and political
subdivisions............................................... 20
Sec. 114. Recreation user fees............................... 20
Sec. 115. Water resources development studies for the Pacific
region..................................................... 21
Sec. 116. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers enhancement
project.................................................... 21
Sec. 117. Outer Continental dredging......................... 21
Sec. 118. Environmental dredging............................. 21
Sec. 119. Benefit of primary flood damages avoided included
in benefit cost analysis................................... 21
Sec. 120. Control of aquatic plant growth.................... 22
Sec. 121. Environmental infrastructure....................... 22
Sec. 122. Watershed management, restoration, and development. 22
Sec. 123. Lakes Program...................................... 22
Sec. 124. Dredging of salt ponds in the State of Rhode Island 22
Sec. 125. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New
York....................................................... 22
Sec. 126. Repaupo Creek and Delaware River, Gloucester
County, New Jersey......................................... 23
Sec. 127. Small navigation projects.......................... 23
Sec. 128. Streambank protection projects..................... 23
Sec. 129. Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, Springfield, Oregon. 23
Sec. 130. Guilford and New Haven, Connecticut................ 23
Sec. 131. Francis Bland, Arkansas Floodway Ditch No. 5....... 23
Sec. 132. Point Judith Breakwater............................ 23
Sec. 133. Caloosahatchee River Basin, Florida................ 24
Sec. 134. Cumberland, Maryland, flood project mitigation..... 24
Sec. 135. Sediments decontamination policy................... 24
Sec. 136. City of Miami Beach, Florida....................... 24
Sec. 137. Small storm damage reduction projects.............. 24
Sec. 138. Sardis Reservoir, Oklahoma......................... 24
Sec. 139. Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway
System Navigation Modernization............................ 24
Sec. 140. Disposal of dredged material on beaches............ 25
Sec. 141. Fish and wildlife mitigation....................... 25
Sec. 142. Upper Mississippi River management................. 25
Sec. 143. Construction of flood control projects by non-
Federal interest........................................... 26
Sec. 144. Research and development program for Columbia and
Snake Rivers Salmon Survival............................... 26
Title II--Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and
State of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration
Sec. 201. Definitions........................................ 26
Sec. 202. Terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration........... 26
Sec. 203. South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat
Restoration Trust Fund..................................... 27
Sec. 204. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Lower Brule Sioux
Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Funds. 27
Sec. 205. Transfer of Federal land to State of South Dakota.. 27
Sec. 206. Transfer of Corps of Engineers land for Indian
Tribes..................................................... 27
Sec. 207. Administration..................................... 28
Sec. 208. Authorization of appropriations.................... 28
Hearings......................................................... 28
Rollcall votes................................................... 28
Regulatory impact statement...................................... 29
Mandates assessment.............................................. 29
Cost of legislation.............................................. 29
Additional views of Senators Boxer and Graham.................... 35
Changes to existing law.......................................... 37
Calendar No. 523
105th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 105-286
_______________________________________________________________________
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1998
_______
August 25, 1998.--Ordered to be printed.
Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of July 31, 1998.
_______________________________________________________________________
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. 2131]
The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was
referred the bill (S. 2131) 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 1998,
the committee has chosen to adhere to the policies established
in the 1986 Water Resources Development Act (P.L. 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 27 new
construction projects, for flood control, navigation, hurricane
protection and beach erosion control, and environmental
restoration.
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,
programs and agency policies 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 (P.L. 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
(P.L. 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 Committee on Public Works
was created in 1947.
Some of the major reforms included in the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (and maintained in this legislation)
are listed below:
Cost-sharing formulas were established for deep draft
harbor dredging (section 101), flood control (section 103),
shoreline protection (section 103), streambanks 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, capitalized by a new
Harbor Maintenance Fee, 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 (P.L. 100-676);
1990 (P.L. 101-640); 1992 (P.L. 102-580); 1996 (P.L. 104-303)
and will continue to apply to all projects contained in the
Water Resources Development Act of 1998.
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 projects to have undergone
full and final engineering, economic and environmental 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 of the two public works
committees of the Congress approves a committee resolution
requesting that the study of a potential project area 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. Army Corps policy now requires all
reconnaissance studies to completed within 12 months and at a
cost of no greater than $100,000.
If, after completion of the reconnaissance study, a project
is deemed to be in the Federal interest, the Federal government
and a non-Federal sponsor may enter into an equally cost-shared
feasibility study. The feasibility study includes a more
detailed set of engineering, economic and environmental
analyses to determine whether a project is justified to advance
to the construction phase. 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 either a 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 Chief of Engineers' review process ever
becomes unduly influenced by political or policy-related
considerations, the committee would reevaluate the practice of
using Chief of Engineers' reports for the purpose of helping to
determine project authorization.
The contingent authorization of water resources projects
not expected to have final reports of the Chief of Engineers in
the same calendar year as the Water Resources Development Act
under consideration is contrary to the policy of the committee.
Exceptions to this fundamental committee practice are not
supported.
Administration's Proposed Changes in Civil Works Mission
The Administration's Water Resources Development Act
proposal, introduced as S. 2131 on June 4, 1998, by Senators
Chafee, Warner, and Baucus by request, contains new project
authorizations and new programs, as well as several
modifications to existing projects and programs within its 20
sections. S. 2131, as reported by the committee, incorporates
some of these provisions as outlined below.
Shore Protection Projects
The Administration proposed dramatic changes in cost
sharing for coastal shore protection projects. The current cost
sharing for shore protection projects is 65 percent Federal and
35 percent non-Federal for initial construction and for the 50-
year renourishment life of the project. The Administration
proposed to modify the cost share so that the renourishment
work would be 35 percent Federal and 65 percent non-Federal.
After conducting detailed budgetary, economic and equity
analyses, the legislation reported by the committee instead
proposes that the renourishment be cost shared equally at 50-50
between the Federal and non-Federal project sponsors. An
amendment approved in committee and included in the reported
legislation would apply the new equal cost share to those
projects (that advance to construction) not having a completed
feasibility study before January 1, 1999.
Challenge 21 Flood Hazard Mitigation and Riverine Ecosystem Restoration
Program
One of the Administration's major proposals is to authorize
a new continuing authorities program (wherein the individual
projects do not require congressional authorization) for non-
structural flood control and riverine ecosystem restoration
projects. This section, also known as ``Challenge 21,''
proposes a major new initiative which would authorize the
Secretary of the Army to construct non-structural (upland water
storage, voluntary buyouts, setback levees, flood warning
systems) flood control projects at a cost share of 65 percent
Federal and 35 percent non-Federal. The Administration proposed
authorizing appropriations totaling $325 million over 6 years
with a $75 million per project cap. The legislation reported by
the committee instead recommends a two-year program with a
total authorization level of $75 million and a per project cap
of $25 million. Members of the committee reduced the cost and
duration of the new program in order to better assess its
efficacy after two years.
Recreational User Fees
Additionally, the Administration proposes to modify the
expenditure of fees collected at Corps recreation sites. The
provision would allow the Corps to use any recreation fees it
collects above an annual, national baseline level of $34
million to remain at the park from which the fee originated.
For the portion of the fee that remains at the park, the Corps
can only fund maintenance activities, such as campground or
trail upkeep. The legislation reported by the committee
includes said provision.
Title II. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and the
State of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration
This Title settles the claims of the Cheyenne River Sioux
Tribe, the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and the State of South
Dakota against the Federal government for the mitigation of
terrestrial wildlife habitat losses incurred as a result of the
construction of the Oahe and Big Bend Missouri River main stem
dams nearly forty years ago. The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe,
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and the State of South Dakota
Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration title achieves this
objective in two ways.
First, it transfers to the Department of Interior, to be
held in trust for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower
Brule Sioux Tribe, the Federal lands located within their
exterior reservation boundaries that were acquired for the
Pick-Sloan project and that remain above the exclusive flood
pool. Recreation areas currently operated by the Corps within
the boundaries of those Indian reservations will be transferred
into trust for the respective tribes. The title also transfers
to the State of South Dakota the Federal Pick-Sloan project-
lands above the exclusive flood pool and recreation areas
located outside Indian reservation boundaries.
Second, the legislation establishes trust funds for the
State of South Dakota and the two Indian tribes that are
sufficient to mitigate all of the terrestrial wildlife habitat
flooded as a result of construction of the mainstream Missouri
River dams. Through the trust funds, the tribes and State will
have a steady source of funding with which to implement formal
wildlife habitat mitigation plans. Since there is insufficient
Federal project land in South Dakota on which to perform the
necessary wildlife habitat mitigation, the tribes and State
will be able to use revenues from the trust funds to implement
plans developed in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the Secretary of the Army to lease private lands
for the protection of wildlife habitat, including habitat for
threatened and endangered species.
In addition, the tribes and the State will be able to use
proceeds from the trust funds to:
1) protect archeological, cultural, and
historic sites located along the river;
2) operate the recreation areas transferred
under the bill; and
3) develop and maintain public access to, and
protect, wildlife habitat and recreation areas.
This title provides the annual interest revenue from a $108
million trust fund to the State of South Dakota and the annual
revenue from trust funds of roughly $42 million for the
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and roughly $15 million for the
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe. The trust fund amounts are based on
the cost to fully mitigate the inundated terrestrial wildlife
habitat.
The trust funds are capitalized through annual payments by
the Treasury Department equal to 25 percent of the total
revenues of the Pick-Sloan project, which are roughly $250
million per year. The trust funds are expected to be fully
capitalized after four years. Pick-Sloan power rates will be
unaffected by the passage of the bill. The trust funds will be
fully paid for using the Pay-As-You-Go Scorecard surplus and
budget authority available to the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
The transfer of the recreation areas to the State of South
Dakota and the Indian tribes, combined with the willingness of
the State of South Dakota and the tribes to use trust fund
revenues to maintain the recreation areas, will ensure that a
sufficient investment is made to meet the needs of the more
than 5 million visitors to these facilities each year.
The rules governing jurisdiction over hunting and fishing
on the waters of the Missouri River and the adjacent lands
remain unaffected by the bill, except that the Indian tribes
will gain full jurisdiction for hunting and fishing over the
Federal lands that are transferred to the Interior Department
to be held in trust for them. The jurisdiction over the waters
of the Missouri River presently enjoyed by the State of South
Dakota and the Indian tribes shall continue in perpetuity under
this legislation.
The Corps of Engineers has noted that it has important
statutory responsibilities regarding the operation of the dams
and reservoirs to meet the purposes of the Pick-Sloan project,
including providing flood control and generating hydropower.
This legislation should not interfere with the ability of the
Corps of Engineers to operate the Pick-Sloan project. Language
is included to clarify that nothing in this title shall
interfere with the Corps of Engineers operations of the project
for any purpose authorized under the Flood Control Act of 1944
or other applicable law.
The title protects both Indian treaty rights and water
rights, stating explicitly that both shall be unaffected by the
passage of the legislation and preserves existing easements and
rights-of-way on any lands transferred to the Interior
Department for the Indian tribes and to the State of South
Dakota.
Section-by-Section Analysis
title i--water resources development
Section 1. Short Title; Table of Contents
This section designates the title of the bill as ``The
Water Resources Development Act of 1998'' and lists the table
of contents.
Sec. 101. Definitions
This section defines the term ``Secretary'' for the
purposes of this Act as the Secretary of the Army.
Sec. 102. Project Authorizations
This section provides authority for the Secretary to carry
out 6 projects for water resources development, conservation,
and other purposes substantially in accordance with the plans
recommended in the reports referenced in the bill language.
American River Watershed, California.--This provision
authorizes the Secretary to undertake efforts for flood
damage reduction described as the Folsom Stepped Release
Plan in the United States Army Corps of Engineers
Supplemental Information Report (SIR) for the American
River Watershed Project, California, dated March 1996, at a
total cost of $464,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost
of $302,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$162,600,000. The Stepped Release flood damage reduction
project shall be implemented after the stabilization of
existing levees and development of flood warning features,
authorized in Water Resources Development Act of 1996, and
after reviewing the design of such Stepped Release project
features to determine if modifications are necessary to
account for changes in hydrologic or other conditions. The
committee has received assurances in a July 29, 1998,
letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Army that the
Corps has the discretionary authority to consider measures
to minimize adverse project impacts or allow for more
timely implementation of a project. The Assistant Secretary
further confirms that the measures developed by the Corps
as part of the Stepped Release Plan will adequately
mitigate for all potential downstream impacts.
Implementation of the remaining downstream elements may be
undertaken only after the Secretary, in consultation with
affected Federal, State, regional, and local entities, has
reviewed the elements to determine if modifications, as
called for in the March 1996 SIR, including stepped
operation of Folsom Dam and Reservoir, are necessary.
Llagas Creek, California.--This provision authorizes the
Secretary to complete the remaining reaches of the National
Resources Conservation Service flood control project at
Llagas Creek, California, authorized in the Watershed
Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1005) at a
total cost of $34,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost
of $16,600,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$17,700,000.
Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project,
Florida.--This provision authorizes the Secretary to
construct related aquifer storage and recovery projects at
Hillsboro and Okeechobee, described in the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Central and Southern Florida Water Supply
Study, dated April 1989, at a total cost of $27,000,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $13,500,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $13,500,000. Aquifer storage
and recovery has been identified as one of the most cost-
effective methods of water storage. It is hoped that
delivery of the two related projects at Hillsboro and
Okeechobee will yield data to help determine the
feasibility of constructing aquifer storage and recovery
facilities at other locations throughout the United States.
Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels, Maryland and
Virginia.--This provision authorizes the Secretary to
construct a navigation project on the Baltimore Harbor
Anchorages and Channels, Maryland and Virginia, as
described in the report of the Chief, dated June 8, 1998,
at a total cost of $27,692,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $19,126,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$8,566,000.
Red Lake River at Crookston, Minnesota.--This provision
authorizes the Secretary to construct a flood damage
reduction project on the Red Lake River at Crookston,
Minnesota, as described in the report of the Chief, dated
April 20, 1998, at a total cost of $8,720,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $5,567,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $3,153,000.
Park River, North Dakota.--This provision authorizes the
Secretary to construct a flood control project on the Park
River, Grafton, North Dakota at a total cost of
$27,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $17,745,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $9,555,000. This
project was authorized in section 401(a) of Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662) and subsequently
deauthorized on November 18, 1991, in accordance with
section 1001(a) of Water Resources Development Act of 1986,
therefore, no construction may be initiated unless the
General Reevaluation report deems the project still to be
technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and
economically justified.
Sec. 102(b)--Project Authorizations Subject to a Final Report
Subsection (b) of Section 02 authorizes the following 21
projects for water resources and development and conservation
and other purposes to be carried out by the Secretary
substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to the
conditions recommended in a final report of the Chief of
Engineers as approved by the Secretary, if the report of the
Chief is completed not later than December 31, 1998.
Hamilton Airfield Wetland Restoration, California.--This
provision authorizes the Secretary to conduct wetlands
restoration and related environmental improvements at
Hamilton Airfield, California, at a total cost of
$39,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $29,000,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $10,000,000.
The committee encourages the Secretary to coordinate
remediation and closure of the Hamilton Air Field site in
Marin County, California, under the Base Realignment and
Closure Act to ensure that the site is cleaned to the level
that will allow implementation of the wetlands restoration
project and that any issues associated with base closure,
such as impacts to surrounding properties, are resolved by
January 1, 2000.
Oakland Harbor, California.--This provision authorizes the
Secretary to construct a navigation project in Oakland
Harbor, California at a total cost of $202,000,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $120,000,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $82,000,000. In addition, the non-
Federal interests shall provide berthing areas and other
local service facilities at an estimated cost of
$43,000,000.
South Sacramento County Streams, California.--This provision
authorizes the Secretary to construct a flood damage
reduction, environmental restoration and recreation project
in South Sacramento County Streams, California at a total
cost of $64,770,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$38,840,000, and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$25,930,000 at full Federal expense.
Upper Guadalupe River, California.--This provision authorizes
the Secretary to construct the locally preferred plan for
flood damage reduction and recreation on the Upper
Guadalupe River, California, described as the Bypass
Channel Plan of the Chief of Engineers, at a total cost of
$132,836,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $42,869,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $89,967,000.
Yuba River Basin, California.--This provision authorizes the
Secretary to construct a flood damage reduction project in
the Yuba River Basin, California, at a total cost of
$25,850,000 with an estimated Federal cost of $16,775,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $9,075,000.
Delaware Bay Coastline: Delaware and New Jersey-Broadkill
Beach, Delaware.--This provision authorizes the Secretary
to construct a shore protection project for hurricane and
storm damage reduction on the Delaware Bay Coastline:
Delaware and New Jersey-Broadkill Beach, Delaware at a
total cost of $8,871,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$5,593,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,278,000.
In addition, this section authorizes periodic nourishment
for a 50-year period at an estimated average annual cost of
$651,000, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $410,000
and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $241,000.
Delaware Bay Coastline: Delaware and New Jersey-Port Mahon,
Delaware.--This provision authorizes the Secretary to
construct a shore protection project for ecosystem
restoration on the Delaware Bay Coastline: Delaware and New
Jersey-Port Mahon, Delaware at a total cost of $7,563,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $4,916,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $2,647,000. In addition, this
section authorizes periodic nourishment for a 50-year
period at an estimated average annual cost of $238,000,
with an estimated annual Federal cost of $155,000 and an
estimated annual non-Federal cost of $83,000.
Delaware Bay Coastline: Delaware and New Jersey-Roosevelt
Inlet-Lewes Beach, Delaware.--This provision authorizes the
Secretary to construct a shore protection project for
navigation mitigation and hurricane and storm damage
reduction on the Delaware Bay Coastline: Delaware and New
Jersey-Roosevelt Inlet-Lewes Beach, Delaware at a total
cost of $3,326,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$2,569,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,647,000.
In addition, this section authorizes periodic nourishment
for a 50-year period at an estimated average annual cost of
$207,000, with an estimated annual Federal cost of $159,000
and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $47,600.
Delaware Coast From Cape Henelopen to Fenwick Island, Bethany
Beach/South Bethany Beach, Delaware.--This provision
authorizes the Secretary to construct a shore protection
project for hurricane storm damage reduction on the
Delaware Coast From Cape Henelopen to Fenwick Island,
Bethany Beach/South Bethany Beach, Delaware at a total cost
of $22,094,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$14,361,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$7,773,000. In addition, this section authorizes periodic
nourishment for a 50-year period at an estimated average
annual cost of $1,573,000, with an estimated annual Federal
cost of $1,022,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost
of $551,000.
Jacksonville Harbor, Florida.--This provision authorizes the
Secretary to construct a navigation project in Jacksonville
Harbor, Florida at a total cost of $27,758,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $9,632,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $18,126,000.
Little Talbot Island, Duval County, Florida.--This provision
authorizes the Secretary to construct a shore protection
project for hurricane and storm damage prevention on Little
Talbot Island, Duval County, Florida at a total cost of
$5,802,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $3,771,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,031,000.
Ponce De Leon Inlet, Volusic County, Florida.--This provision
authorizes the Secretary to construct a navigation and
recreation project at Ponce De Leon Inlet, Volusic County,
Florida at a total cost of $5,533,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $3,408,000, and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $2,125,000.
Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida.--This provision
authorizes the Secretary to construct a navigation project
at Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida at a total cost
of $11,348,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$5,747,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,601,000.
Brunswick Harbor Deepening, Georgia.--This provision authorizes
the Secretary to construct a navigation project in
Brunswick Harbor, Georgia at a total cost of $49,433,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $32,083,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $17,350,000.
Savannah Harbor Expansion, Georgia.--This provision authorizes
the Secretary to construct a navigation project in the
Savannah Harbor, Georgia at a total cost of $195,302,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $84,423,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $110,879,000.
Grand Forks, North Dakota, and East Grand Forks, Minnesota.--
This provision authorizes the Secretary to construct a
flood damage reduction and recreation project in Grand
Forks, North Dakota, and East Grand Forks, Minnesota at a
total cost of $281,754,000, with an estimated Federal cost
of $140,877,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$140,877,000.
Bayou Cassotte Extension, Pascagoula Harbor, Pascagoula,
Mississippi.--This provision authorizes the Secretary to
construct a navigation project in Pascagoula Harbor,
Pascagoula, Mississippi at a total cost of $5,700,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $4,300,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $1,400,000.
Turkey Creek Basin, Kansas City, Missouri.--This provision
authorizes the Secretary to construct a flood damage
reduction project in the Turkey Creek Basin, Kansas City,
Missouri and Kansas City, Kansas at a total cost of
$38,594,000 with and estimated Federal cost of $22,912,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,682,000.
Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey.--This
provision authorizes the Secretary to construct a
navigation mitigation, ecosystem restoration and hurricane
and storm damage reduction project on the Lower Cape May
Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey at a total cost of
$14,885,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $11,390,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,495,000. In
addition, this section authorizes periodic nourishment for
a 50-year period at an estimated average annual cost of
$4,565,000, with an estimated annual Federal cost of
$3,674,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of
$891,000.
New Jersey Shore Protection, Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg
Harbor, Brigantine Island, New Jersey.--This provision
authorizes the Secretary to construct a shore protection
and hurricane and storm damage reduction project at the
Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor, Brigantine Island,
New Jersey at a total cost of $4,861,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $3,160,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $1,701,000. In addition, this section authorizes
periodic nourishment for a 50-year period at an estimated
average annual cost of $2,600,000, with an estimated annual
Federal cost of $1,700,000 and an estimated annual non-
Federal cost of $900,000.
New Jersey Shore Protection, Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet,
New Jersey.--This provision authorizes the Secretary to
construct a shore protection, ecosystem restoration and
hurricane and storm damage reduction project on the
Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey at a total
cost of $55,203,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$35,882,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$19,321,000. In addition, this section authorizes periodic
nourishment for a 50-year period at an estimated average
annual cost of $6,319,000, with an estimated annual Federal
cost of $4,107,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost
of $2,212,000.
Sec. 103. Project Modifications
(a) Projects with Reports.--This section provides authority
for the Secretary to modify previously authorized projects for
water resources development, conservation, and other purposes
substantially in accordance with the plans recommended in the
reports referenced in the bill language.
Glenn-Colusa, California.--This provision authorizes the
Secretary to modify the project for flood control,
Sacramento River, California, authorized by section 2 of
the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the control of
floods of the Mississippi River and the Sacramento River,
and for other purposes'', approved March 1, 1917 (39 Stat.
949), as amended, to carry out a flood control project in
Glenn-Colusa, California, in accordance with Corps report
dated May 22, 1998, at a total cost of $20,700,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $15,570,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $5,130,000.
San Lorenzo River, California.--This provision authorizes the
Secretary to modify the flood control project for San
Lorenzo River, California, authorized by section 101(a)(5)
of Public Law 104-303, to include as part of the project,
stream bank erosion control measures at a total estimated
cost of $4,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$2,600,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,400,000.
Wood River, Grand Island, Nebraska.--This provision authorizes
the Secretary to modify the flood protection project
authorized in section 101(a)(19) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303) in accordance with
the Corps report dated June 29, 1998, at a total cost of
$16,632,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $9,508,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,124,000.
Absecon Island, New Jersey.--This provision authorizes the
Secretary to reimburse the non-Federal sponsor for work
performed that would otherwise have been the responsibility
of the Federal government at the project authorized at
Absecon Island, New Jersey, by section 101(h)(13) of Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303).
Waurika Lake, Oklahoma, Water Conveyance Facilities.--This
provision directs the Secretary to waive the requirement
for the Waurika Project Master Conservancy District to
repay the $2,900,000 in costs resulting from the October
1991 settlement of the claim of the Travelers Insurance
Company.
(b) Projects Subject to Reports.--The following projects
are modified as follows, except that no funds may be obligated
to carry out work under such modifications until completion of
a final report by the Chief of Engineers, as approved by the
Secretary, finding that such work is technically sound,
environmentally acceptable, and economically justified, as
applicable.
Sacramento Metro Area, California.--This provision modifies the
Sacramento Metro Area flood control project authorized in
section 101(4) of Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(P.L. 102-580), to authorize the Secretary to construct the
project at a total cost of $32,900,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $24,700,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $8,200,000.
New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels, Port Jersey, New
Jersey.--This provision modifies the New York Harbor and
Adjacent Channels, Port Jersey, New Jersey navigation
project, authorized by section 202(b) of the Water Resource
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4098) to authorize the
Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of
$100,689,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $74,998,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $25,701,000.
Arthur Kill, New York and New Jersey.--This provision modifies
the Arthur Kill, New York and New Jersey navigation project
authorized in section 202(b) of Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4098) and modified by section
301(b)(11) of Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110
Stat. 3711), to further modify the project to authorize
funds for the project at a total cost of $260,899,000 with
an estimated Federal cost of $195,705,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $65,194,000
(c) Flood Mitigation Near Pierre, South Dakota.--Subsection
(c) provides the Secretary of the Army with the authority to
acquire lands and property from willing sellers in the vicinity
of Pierre, South Dakota, or to floodproof or relocate such
property within the local community that the Secretary
determines are adversely affected by the full wintertime
release from the Oahe Powerplant at full Federal expense. The
Secretary must provide a report to Congress outlining the
implementation plan for such nonstructural measures to mitigate
the flooding problems. The Federal cost limit for all
activities carried out under this subsection is $35,000,000.
(d) Payment Option, Moorefield, West Virginia.--Subsection
(d) authorizes the Secretary to permit the non-Federal sponsor
for the Moorefield, West Virginia flood control project to pay,
without interest, the remaining non-Federal cost of the project
over a period to be determined by the Secretary, but not to
exceed thirty years.
(e) Elizabeth River, Chesapeake, Virginia.--This subsection
provides relief to the City of Chesapeake, Virginia for the
annual cash payments made by the City for the navigation
project on the Elizabeth River. The local sponsor has made the
annual payments for twenty years.
(f) Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection,
Virginia Beach, Virginia.--This subsection directs the
Secretary to accept additional annul payments from the City of
Virginia Beach for the hurricane protection in an effort to
maintain the projects construction schedule. Modification of
the project cooperation agreement is not required. The
Secretary is further directed to repay or credit the additional
payments toward the non-Federal cost sharing requirements.
(g) Beaver Lake, Arkansas, Water Supply Storage
Reallocation.--Subsection (g) authorizes the Secretary to
reallocate approximately 31,000 additional acre-feet at Beaver
Lake, Arkansas, to water supply storage at no cost to the
Beaver Water District or the Carroll-Boone Water District,
except that at no time shall the bottom of the conservation
pool be at an elevation less than 1076 feet, NGVD.
(h) Tolchester Channel S-Turn, Baltimore, Maryland.--
Subsection (h) authorizes the Secretary to straighten the
Tolchester Channel S-Turn as part of the maintenance of the
navigation project for Baltimore Harbor, authorized by section
101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958.
(i) Tropicana Wash and Flamingo Wash, Nevada.--Subsection
(i) directs the Secretary to reimburse any costs incurred by
the non-Federal interest to accelerate or modify construction
of the Tropicana Wash and Flamingo Wash, Nevada project.
Sec. 104. Project Deauthorizations
(a) Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut.--The navigation project
authorized by section 101 of the Rivers and Harbor Act of 1958
in Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut, consisting of a 2.4 acre
anchorage area 9 feet deep and an adjacent 0.60-area anchorage
6 feet deep, located on the west side of the Johnsons River,
Connecticut, is not authorized after the date of enactment of
this Act.
(b) Bass Harbor, Maine.--The portions of the navigation
project at Bass Harbor, Maine, authorized on May 7, 1962, and
described in this legislation, are not authorized after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(c) East Boothbay Harbor, Maine.--The remaining portions of
the navigation project authorized by ``and Act making
appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation
of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other
purposes'', approved June 25, 1910 (36 stat. 657) are not
authorized after the date of enactment of this Act.
Sec. 105. Studies
(a) Strawberry Creek, Berkeley, California.--The Secretary
shall conduct a study of the feasibility of restoring
Strawberry Creek, Berkeley, California, to determine the
Federal interest in environmental restoration, conservation of
fish and wildlife resources, recreation, and water quality.
(b) West Side Storm Water Retention Facility, City of
Lancaster, California.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of undertaking measures to construct
the West Side Storm Water Retention Facility in the City of
Lancaster, California.
(c) Apalachicola River, Florida.--The Secretary shall
conduct a study for the purpose of identifying alternatives for
the management of material dredged in connection with operation
and maintenance of the Apalachicola River navigation project,
as well as alternatives which reduce the requirements for such
dredging.
(d) Broward County, Sand Bypassing at Port Everglades
Inlet, Florida.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of constructing a sand bypassing
project whether there is a Federal interest in constructing a
sand bypassing project at the Port Everglades Inlet, Florida.
(e) City of Destin--Noriega Point Breakwater, Florida.--The
Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
restoring Noriega Point, Florida, to serve as a breakwater for
Destin Harbor, including the feasibility of including Noriega
Point as part of the East Pass, Florida, navigation project.
(f) Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area, Florida.--The
Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
undertaking measures to reduce the flooding problems in the
vicinity of Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area, Florida. The
study shall include a review and consideration of studies and
reports completed by the non-Federal sponsor.
(g) Hillsborough River, Withlacoochee River Basins,
Florida.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to identify
appropriate measures which can be undertaken in the Green
Swamp, Withlacoochee River, and the Hillsborough River, the
Water Triangle of West Central Florida to address comprehensive
watershed planning for water conservation, water supply,
restoration and protection of environmental resources, and
other water resource-related problems in the area.
(h) City of Plant City, Florida.--The Secretary shall
conduct a study to determine the feasibility of a flood control
project in the City of Plant City, Florida. In conducting this
study, the Secretary shall review and consider studies and
reports completed by the non-Federal sponsor.
(i) St. Lucie County, Florida Shore Protection.--The
Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
extending the current shore protection and hurricane and storm
damage reduction project for Fort Pierce Beach, Florida,
southward to the Martin County line.
(j) Acadiana Navigation Channel, Louisiana.--The Secretary
shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of assuming
operations and maintenance for the Acadiana Navigational
Channel located in Iberia and Vermillion Parishes, Louisiana.
(k) Contraband Bayou Navigation Channel, Louisiana.--The
Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
assuming the maintenance of Contraband Bayou, Calcasieu River
Ship Canal, Louisiana.
(l) Golden Meadow Lock, Louisiana.--The Secretary shall
conduct a study to determine the feasibility of converting the
Golden Meadow floodgate into a navigation lock to be included
in the Larose to Golden Meadow Hurricane Protection project.
(j) Gulf Intercoastal Waterway Ecosystem Protection, Chef
Menteur to Sabine River, Louisiana.--The Secretary shall
conduct a study to determine the feasibility of undertaking
ecosystem restoration and protection measures along the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway from Chef Menteur to Sabine River,
Louisiana. The study shall address saltwater intrusion, tidal
scour, erosion and other water resource- related problems in
this area.
(k) Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, and Vicinity, St.
Charles Parish Pumps.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of modifying the Lake Pontchartrain
Hurricane Protection project to include the St. Charles Parish
Pumps and the modification of the seawall fronting protection
along Lake Pontchartrain in Orleans Parish, from New Basin
Canal on the west to the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal on the
east.
(l) Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, and Vicinity Seawall
Restoration, Louisiana.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of extending and structurally
modifying the seawall for approximately 5 miles.
(m) Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee, Louisiana.--The
Secretary shall conduct a study of the impacts of crediting the
non-Federal sponsor for work performed in the project area of
the Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee.
(n) Tunica Lake Weir, Mississippi.--The Secretary shall
conduct a study to determine the feasibility of constructing an
outlet weir for the purpose of stabilizing the water levels in
the lake. The Secretary shall include the recreational uses and
economic benefits associated with restoration of fish and
wildlife habitat as a part of the economic analysis.
(o) Yellowstone River, Montana.--The Secretary shall
conduct a comprehensive study to determine the hydrologic,
biological and socio-economic cumulative impacts on the
Yellowstone river. The study shall be conducted in consultation
with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, United States
Geological Survey, and the Natural Resources Conservation
Service and with the full participation of the State of
Montana, tribal and local entities, and provide public
participation, and be submitted to Congress not later than five
years after the date of enactment of this Act.
The study should be designed to recognize the river
functions in relation to the cumulative effects of flood damage
and the resulting stabilization projects through the assessment
of river and riparian conditions and processes along the
Yellowstone River floodplain from Gardiner to the confluence of
the Missouri River. The study shall involve the public through
input provided by local groups such as the Upper Yellowstone
River Task Force.
(p) Las Vegas Valley, Nevada.--The Secretary shall conduct
a comprehensive study to identify problems and opportunities
related to ecosystem restoration, water quality, particularly
the quality of surface run-off, water supply, and flood control
within this area.
(q) Oswego River Basin, New York.--The Secretary shall
conduct a study to determine the feasibility of establishing a
flood forecasting system within the Oswego River basin, New
York.
(r) Port of New York-New Jersey Navigation Study and
Environmental Restoration Study, Port of New York-New Jersey.--
The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study of
navigational needs to address improvements, including deepening
of existing channels. In determining navigational needs, the
Secretary shall examine other reports concerning the New York
Harbor to determine the Federal interest. Studies shall be
completed by December, 1999.
(s) Niobrara River and Missouri River Sedimentation Study,
South Dakota.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine
the feasibility of alleviating the bank erosion, sedimentation,
and related problems of the lower Niobrara River and the
Missouri River below Fort Randall Dam.
(t) City of Ocean Shores, Washington, Shore Protection
Project.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of undertaking a project for beach erosion and
flood control, including relocation of a primary dune and
periodic nourishment.
(u) Protective Facilities for the St. Louis, Missouri,
Riverfront Area, Missouri.--The Secretary shall conduct a study
to determine the optimal plan to protect facilities along the
Mississippi River within the boundaries of St. Louis, Missouri.
The Secretary is directed to identify alternatives which offer
safety and security as well as use of state-of-the-art
techniques. This report shall be submitted to Congress not
later that April 15, 1999.
(v) Escambia River, Alabama and Florida.--The Secretary
shall review the previous reports to determine whether project
modifications are justified in the vicinity of Brewton and East
Brewton, Alabama, for flood control, floodplain evacuation,
flood warning and preparedness, environmental restoration and
protection, and bank stabilization. This review shall be
coordinated with other local and Federal agencies.
(w) Baldwin County, Alabama, Watersheds.--The Secretary
shall review the report of the Chief of Engineers on the
Alabama Coast and other pertinent reports to determine whether
modification in the interest of flood damage reduction,
environmental restoration and protection, water quality, and
other purposes, to determine the feasibility of development of
a comprehensive coordinated watershed management plan in
Baldwin County, Alabama.
(x) National Alternative Water Sources Study.--This
provision directs the Administrator of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a study of the water
supply needs of States that are not currently eligible for
assistance under title XVI of the Reclamation Projects
Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992. The study is required
to identify the water supply needs of each State through 2020,
evaluate various alternatives water source technologies and
their feasibility, and assess how alternative water sources
technologies can be utilized. The Administrator shall make a
report to Congress not more than 180 days after the enactment
of this Act.
(y) Camden and Gloucester Counties, New Jersey, Streams and
Watersheds, New Jersey.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of undertaking ecosystem restoration,
floodplain management, flood control, water quality control,
comprehensive watershed management, and other related purposes
along tributaries of the Delaware River, Camden and Gloucester
Counties, New Jersey.
Sec. 106. Flood Hazard Mitigation and Riverine Ecosystem Restoration
Program
The purpose of this section is to address some of the broad
range of issues concerning the wise use of water and related
land resources. The development of high hazard floodplains,
alteration of hydrologic regimes, and disturbance of riverine
ecosystems has had adverse consequences for the nation's
economic and environmental health. Each year billions of
dollars, both public and private, are expended on costly repair
and reconstruction of floodplain property and associated
infrastructure following flood events. Development in upstream
areas has altered hydrology, aggravated flooding, and
contributed to the loss of important riverine, wetland and
floodplain environmental values.
Failure to appreciate and incorporate economic, hydrologic
and environmental considerations into local and regional growth
policies has led to uses of high hazard floodplains and the
loss of floodplain resources such as wetlands. Storm water
management in upstream areas often has not been sufficiently
comprehensive to avoid aggravating downstream flood problems
and environmental degradation. In addition, while many Federal
programs address these problems, they neither fully integrate
Federal assistance nor always complement non-Federal
activities. Consequently, opportunities to prevent or reduce
flood damages, restore riverine ecosystem values and the wise
use of floodplains and to conserve remaining hydrologic and
ecological resources in developing areas are not fully
utilized.
This provision provides authority for the Army Corps of
Engineers to work with other Federal agencies to more
efficiently and effectively help local governments both reduce
flood damages and conserve, restore, and manage riverine and
related land resources.
This program will emphasize is to be placed on non-
structural flood damage reduction measures and riverine and
wetland ecosystem restoration measures that conserve, restore,
and manage hydrologic and hydraulic regimes and restore the
natural functions and values of the floodplain. Related
benefits include prevention of future flood damages and Federal
flood disaster assistance costs, reduced risks and exposure to
flooding, reduced community displacement due to flooding,
improved water quality, improved habitat along streams,
additional open space, and overall improved community well
being. Modifying the use of upstream areas to reduce storm
water runoff is a key element in reducing future flood damages
and achieving revitalization of our riverine resources.
In the carrying out of this program, the Secretary is
expected to ensure that each comprehensive planning initiative
emphasizes non-structural flood hazard reduction measures and
is undertaken in collaboration and cooperation with the
respective Federal, State and local agencies that have
complementary programs and interests.
The Secretary may implement such projects after making a
determination that the projects will significantly reduce
potential flood damages, will improve the quality of the
environment, and are justified based on the monetary (National
Economic Development) and non-monetary environmental benefits
that the project provides. Federal and non-Federal cost sharing
for all studies and projects undertaken pursuant to this
authority will be in accordance with current laws and
regulations. No more than $25,000,000 in Army Civil Works
appropriations may be expended on any single project undertaken
under this authority. All studies and projects undertaken under
this authority from Army Civil Works appropriations shall be
fully funded within the program funding levels provided in this
subsection. Total Army Civil Works appropriations authorized
under this section are $75,000,000, to be expended over a total
of two years.
The program established under this authority will be
subject to an independent review, the purpose of which will be
to evaluate the efficiency of the program in achieving the dual
goals of flood hazard mitigation and ecosystem restoration.
This provision instructs the Secretary to examine the
potential for flood damage reductions in the following high
priority areas: Saint Genevieve, Missouri; Upper Delaware River
Basin; New York; Tillamook County, Oregon; Providence County,
Rhode Island; and Willamette River Basin, Oregon.
This provision authorizes $75,000,000 for the period of
fiscal years 2000 and 2001.
Sec. 107. Shore Protection
This provision creates a new cost sharing formula for the
periodic nourishment of shore protection projects. The non-
Federal share will be 50 percent of the cost of the periodic
nourishment except that the cost of the periodic nourishment of
privately owned shores will be borne by non-Federal interests,
and the cost of periodic nourishment of federally owned shores
will be borne by the Federal government. The provision
maintains the Federal and non-Federal cost sharing provisions
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 for the initial
construction of shore protection projects. In addition, this
section makes it clear that those projects for shore protection
that are authorized in this Act, as well as those projects that
complete a feasibility study by December 31, 1998, shall be
cost shared at the current 65 percent Federal and 35 percent
non-Federal. -
This proposal will provide for the orderly continuation of
the Federal and non-Federal partnerships on shore protection
projects by providing affordable projects in the context of a
balanced Federal budget. The majority of hurricane and storm
damage reduction projects are built in coastal areas. These
coastal projects most often involve the periodic nourishment of
beach areas over a 50-year project life. Besides reducing
hurricane and storm damages, which is essential to preserving
the viability of coastal areas, many of these projects are also
essential to the economic viability of State, regional, and
local recreation and tourism activities. To reflect the long-
term non-Federal benefits that accrue to such shoreline
protection projects, the provision amends section 103(d) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to increase the non-
Federal contribution associated with the periodic nourishment
of such projects.
Sec. 108. Small Flood Control Projects
The Army Corps of Engineers' small flood control project
continuing authority program is a popular program that provides
a means for quick implementation for flood damage reduction
studies and projects. During fiscal year 1997, there were nine
projects initiated under this program, and there is a demand
for more. The Federal project limits for section 205 were last
increased in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. This
proposed increase in the Federal share of project cost from
$5,000,000 to $7,000,000 will offset the rise in costs due to
inflation during that period. Additionally, the provision
encourages consideration of non-structural flood control
measures in implementing projects under the authority.
Sec. 109. Use of Non-Federal Funds for Compiling and Disseminating
Information on Flood and Flood Damages
This provision allows the Secretary to accept and expend
certain funds provided by States and local governments to
compile and disseminate information on floods and flood
damages. The Water Resources Development Act of 1990 prohibited
the collection of fees from such entities; nevertheless, the
demand for information on floods and flood damages continues to
increase. There have been a number of instances where States
and local governments have offered to contribute funds to
expand the services provided pursuant to this authority, but
the agency has been unable to accept such contributions because
of the statutory prohibition on collecting fees for such
services. This section will allow the agency to accept
voluntary contributions from State and local governments. By
clarifying that this statutory prohibition does not apply to
funds voluntarily contributed, the agency will be able to
disseminate information on flooding and flood damages to a
wider segment of the public.
Sec. 110. Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
This provision amends section 528 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303) to extend the
authorization of appropriations for critical restoration
projects in South Florida through fiscal year 2000. This is
necessary because funds were not available to begin work on
this project in fiscal year 1997 as anticipated.
Sec. 111. Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration
This provision will allow non-profit entities to
participate as non-Federal project sponsors in aquatic
ecosystem restoration and protection projects carried out under
the authority of section 206 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303), thereby expanding the universe for
potential project sponsors beyond those that meet the
definition of ``non-Federal interest'' as set forth in section
221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970.
Sec. 112. Beneficial Uses of Dredged Materials
This provision will allow non-profit entities to
participate as non-Federal project sponsors in beneficial uses
of dredged material projects carried out under the authority of
section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(P.L. 102-580), thereby expanding the universe for potential
project sponsors beyond those that meet the definition of
``non-Federal interest'' as set forth in section 221 of the
Flood Control Act of 1970.
Sec. 113. Voluntary Contributions by States and Political Subdivisions
This provision expands the authority of the Secretary to
receive funds from States and political subdivisions to be
expended in connection with funds appropriated by the United
States for any authorized flood control work to allow the
Secretary to receive funds from States and political
subdivisions to be expended in connection with funds
appropriated by the United States for any authorized
environmental restoration project.
Sec. 114. Recreation User Fees
This provision allows the Secretary to retain and expend,
without further appropriation, 100 percent of recreation user
fee revenues above the base line of $34,000,000 for each fiscal
year 1999 through 2002. The revenues retained by the Corps
would be available through fiscal year 2005 for specific
purposes, including repair and maintenance work and habitat for
facility enhancement.
Under current law, all recreation user fee revenues
collected at water resources development projects under the
jurisdiction of the Department of the Army must be deposited
into a special account in the Treasury and are made available
to the Corps only after Congress provides an appropriation in
subsequent fiscal years. Although the Corps has authority to
collect recreation user fees and is encouraged to do so, to
maximize revenues, the cost of collecting those revenues is
provided for with funds that could be used for other recreation
activities. This reduces the funds available for those
activities. It also reduces the incentive for project managers
to pursue expanded fee collection aggressively, since the cost
of that collection is not reimbursed.
Sec. 115. Water Resources Development Studies for the Pacific Region
This provision expands studies authorized for the Pacific
Region that includes American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands to allow the Secretary to
conduct studies in that region that cover the full panoply of
water resources issues.
Sec. 116. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers Enhancement Project
This provision authorizes the Secretary to develop projects
to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat of the
Missouri and middle Mississippi Rivers. The projects shall
provide for such activities as are necessary to protect and
enhance fish and wildlife habitat without adversely affecting
flood control, navigation, recreation, enhancement of water
supply and private property rights. $30,000,000 is authorized
to carry out the section for the period of fiscal years 2000
and 2001. The Federal share of the cost of each project shall
not exceed $5,000,000 and the non-Federal share of the cost of
each project shall be 35 percent.
Sec. 117. Outer Continental dredging
This provision amends section 8(k)(2)(B) of the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act to prohibit the Department of
Interior from assessing fees on non-Federal sponsors of water
resource projects. Currently, the Department of Interior is
precluded from collecting fees from other Federal agencies who
receive minerals, sand or other natural resources from the
outer continental shelf.
This section reimburses the City of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, for fees assessed by the Department of Interior for
use of Outer Continental Shelf sand for the Sandbridge
Hurricane Protection project.
Sec. 118. Environmental Dredging
This provision adds Snake Creek in Bixby, Oklahoma, to the
list of rivers contained in the Water Resources Development Act
of 1990 (P.L. 101-640) where the Corps is authorized to conduct
dredging to restore environmental resources.
Sec. 119. Benefit of Primary Flood Damages Avoided Included in Benefit
Cost Analysis
This provision amends section 308(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-640) to direct the Secretary
to include primary flood damage reduction benefits in the
benefit base for justifying non-structural flood damage
reduction projects. Failure to count these essential benefits
in economic benefit cost evaluations has resulted in an
unwarranted impediment to justification of non-structural flood
damage reduction projects. These benefits, such as flood plain
evacuation and relocation, are appropriate to be counted in
benefit cost analysis for such projects. This provision does
not modify the existing calculation of benefits for structural
flood control projects.
Sec. 120. Control of Aquatic Plant Growth
This provision adds two plants, Arundo donax, and tarmarix,
to the list of noxious weeds that the Secretary has authority
to control and eradicate.
Sec. 121. Environmental Infrastructure
This provision amends section 219(c) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-580) by adding Lake Tahoe,
California and Nevada; Lancaster, California, and San Ramon,
California to the list of watersheds the Secretary is
authorized to provide technical and planning and design
assistance for water-related environmental infrastructure and
resource protection and development.
Sec. 122. Watershed Management, Restoration, and Development
This provision amends section 503(d) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303) by adding Clear Lake
watershed, California; Fresno Slough watershed, California;
Kaweah River watershed, California; Lake Tahoe, California, and
Nevada, Malibu Creek watershed, California; Truckee River
basin, Nevada; Walker River basin, Nevada; and Hayward Marsh,
Southern San Francisco Bay watershed, California to the list of
watersheds the Secretary is authorized to provide technical,
planning and design assistance for watershed management,
restoration and development projects.
Sec. 123. Lakes Program
This provision amends the existing silt and aquatic growth
removal program at specified lakes in the United States,
authorized by section 602(a) of the 1986 Water Resources
Development Act (100 Stat. 4148), by adding two additional
lakes, located in Clear Lake, Lake County, California; and
Osgood Pond, Milford, New Hampshire.
Sec. 124. Dredging of Salt Ponds in the State of Rhode Island
This provision authorizes the Secretary to acquire a small
dredge for the State of Rhode Island to perform dredging for
environmental mitigation purposes at numerous coastal salt
ponds in the State.
Sec. 125. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York
This provision amends section 567(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303) by adding the Chemung
River watershed, New York, to the list of watersheds the
Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture and
the States of Pennsylvania and New York, is authorized to
conduct a study and develop a strategy for using wetland
restoration, soil and water conservation practices, and
nonstructural measures to reduce flood damage, improve water
quality, and create wildlife habitat.
Sec. 126. Repaupo Creek and Delaware River, Gloucester County, New
Jersey
This provision amends section 102 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303) by adding Repaupo Creek
and Delaware River, Gloucester County, New Jersey, and Tioga
County, Pennsylvania to the list of small flood control
projects the Secretary is authorized to study, and, if
feasible, carry out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act
of 1948.
Sec. 127. Small Navigation Projects
This provision amends section 104 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303) by adding Fortescue
Inlet, Delaware Bay, New Jersey, to the list of small
navigation projects the Secretary is authorized to study, and,
if feasible, carry out under section 107 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1960.
Sec. 128. Streambank Protection Projects
This provision directs the Secretary to carry out a small
emergency streambank stabilization project to prevent eroded
debris underlying Coulson Park from being released into the
Yellowstone River at Billings, Montana.
Sec. 129. Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, Springfield, Oregon
This provision authorizes the Secretary to reconfigure the
existing pond at Springfield, Oregon, if the Secretary
determines harmful impacts are a result of a previously
constructed flood control project by the Corps of Engineers.-
Sec. 130. Guilford and New Haven, Connecticut
This provision urges the Corps of Engineers to
expeditiously complete the activities authorized under section
346 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-
580) at Sluice Creek in Guilford, Connecticut, and Lighthouse
Point Park in New Haven, Connecticut. In July 1998, the Corps
completed a reconnaissance study for Coastal Connecticut
Ecosystem Restoration. The completion of a feasibility study is
consistent with the long-term goal of the Corps' water
resources development program for increasing the quality and
quantity of the Nation's wetlands and is of ecological
significance for the State of Connecticut, including Long
Island Sound. The Corps is urged to complete the feasibility
study within 48 months of the date of enactment of this Act.
Sec. 131. Francis Bland, Arkansas Floodway Ditch No. 5
This provision names the Eight Mile Creek, Paragould,
Arkansas, flood control project the ``Francis Bland, Arkansas
Floodway Ditch No. 5''.
Sec. 132. Point Judith Breakwater
This provision directs the Secretary to restore the
breakwater located at Point Judith, Rhode Island authorized by
the ``River and Harbor Appropriations Act of 1907'' (34 stat.
1075, chapter 2509) and the ``River and Harbor Appropriations
Act of 1910'' (36 stat 632, chapter 382), at a total estimated
cost of 10,000,000 with an estimated Federal cost of
6,5000,000, and an estimated non-Federal cost of 3,5,000,000.
Operation and maintenance shall be the responsibility of the
non-Federal sponsor.
Sec. 133. Caloosahatchee River Basin, Florida
This provision amends section 528(e)(4) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (104-303) by adding the
Caloosahatchee River Basin as a potential area which may be
acquired by the non-Federal sponsor for water storage purposes
within the Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
project area. The terms of crediting the non-Federal sponsor
for land acquisition are not changed by this section.
Sec. 134. Cumberland, Maryland, Flood Project Mitigation
This provision authorizes the Secretary to participate in
the restoration of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, consistent
with the recommendations of the National Park Service's
Rewatering Design Analysis. The project will be cost shared and
operations and maintenance of the canal will be the full
responsibility of the National Park Service. The project will
be authorized at 65 percent Federal, 35 percent non-Federal.
Sec. 135. Sediments Decontamination Policy
This provision amends section 405 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-580) by requiring that
sediment decontamination technologies result in practical end-
use products and increases the authorized program level from
$5,000,000 to $22,000,000.
Sec. 136. City of Miami Beach, Florida
This provision amends section 5(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act of
August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426h) by adding the city of Miami
Beach, Florida, to those areas eligible for assistance under
the National Shoreline Erosion Control Development and
Demonstration Program.
Sec. 137. Small Storm Damage Reduction Projects
This provision amends section 3 of the Act of August 13,
1962 (33 U.S.C. 426g) by increasing the authorized level for
Federal funding of small storm damage reduction projects from
$2,000,000 to $3,000,000.
Sec. 138. Sardis Reservoir, Oklahoma
This provision authorizes the Secretary to accept a
prepayment of the full costs of water supply storage the
project at Sardis Reservoir, Oklahoma. The amount to be paid by
the State of Oklahoma will be determined through an independent
audit.
Sec. 139. Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System
Navigation Modernization
This provision directs the Secretary, in accordance with
the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System Navigation
Study, to proceed immediately to prepare preconstruction
engineering design, plans and specifications for 1,200 foot
extensions of locks 20-25 on the Mississippi River and the
LaGrange and Peoria Locks on the Illinois River. This provision
does not authorize construction and does not preempt the future
findings of the Secretary on the engineering, economic and
environmental feasibility of any specific approach to improve
navigation along these waterways.
This provision also includes ``Findings'' to emphasize what
is at stake should the United States fail to modernize this
critical transportation option to meet the needs of the next
century. The United States is anticipated to experience
increased trade activity over the next 50 years that will place
greater demands on our transportation system. It should be the
policy of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to aggressively
pursue modernization of water transportation infrastructure
authorized by the Congress to promote the relative competitive
position of the United States in the international marketplace.
Sec. 140. Disposal of Dredged Material on Beaches
This provision amends section 145 of Water Resources
Development Act of 1976 ( 33 U.S.C. 426j) by changing the non-
Federal cost share for beneficial reuse projects from 50
percent to 35 percent. This change is necessary to allow the
use of dredged materials from navigation projects on nearby
shoreline projects at a lower overall cost to the Federal
government and State or local entities. It is noted that local
communities need to be advised of the cost-share provisions of
such beneficial use in a timely manner to budget for their
cost-share of such use.
Sec. 141. Fish and Wildlife Mitigation
This provision amends section 906(e) of Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 to allow non-Federal project sponsors
to contribute in-kind facilities, supplies and services for up
to 80 percent of allowable first costs of enhancement projects.
The committee is including such modifications to make the cost-
sharing requirements with respect to Environmental Management
Program enhancements consistent with all other Corps
enhancement cost-share requirements,
Sec. 142. Upper Mississippi River Management
This provision amends section 1103 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662) by extending the existing
authorization for the Upper Mississippi River Environmental
Management Program for the period from 2002 through 2009. In
addition, this provision increases the authorization level for
fish and wildlife habitat rehabilitation and enhancement
activities, from 8,200,000 to 22,750,000 for each of fiscal
years 1999 through 2009. For the long term resources monitoring
program action the authorization level is increased from
7,680,000 to 10,420,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 to 2009.
For all enhancement and mitigation projects carried out on non-
Federal land, the non-Federal share of the cost of each project
shall be 35 percent and the cost of operation and maintenance
of each project shall also be 100 percent non-Federal
responsibility.
In addition this provision authorizes the Secretary to
investigate, and, if appropriate, carry out restoration of
urban wildlife habitat in the St. Louis, Missouri, area with an
emphasis on greenways. To the extent possible this project
should include reclamation and wetlands restoration
opportunities such as that at the Columbia Bottoms and the
Rivers South Restoration Project near the River des Peres in
LeMay in St. Louis County.
Sec. 143. Construction of Flood Control Projects by Non-Federal
Interest
This provision amends section 211(e) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303) to clarify the
Secretary's authority to reimburse non-Federal interests under
the special rules provided in section 211(e)(2)(A).
Sec. 144. Research and Development Program for Columbia and Snake
Rivers Salmon Survival
This provision amends section 511 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303) by increasing the
existing authorization level in subsection 511(b)(2) from
$12,000,000 to $35,000,000 for the Advanced Turbine Development
program. Additionally, section 511 of P.L. 104-303 is modified
by providing the Secretary of the Army with authority to
develop and carry out methods to reduce Caspian Tern and
cormorant nesting populations on and in the vicinity of certain
Army Corps dredge spoil islands in the Columbia River. An
authorization level of $1,000,000 is provided for this purpose.
Nothing in this section shall interrupt or preclude any ongoing
salmon recovery program. It is noted that the report requested
in 1999 on activities under subsection 511(a) remains
unchanged.
title ii--cheyenne river sioux tribe, lower brule sioux tribe, and
state of south dakota terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration
Sec. 201. Definitions
This section defines the terms restoration, Secretary,
terrestrial wildlife habitat, and wildlife.
Sec. 202. Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration
This section requires the State of South Dakota, the
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, as
a condition of receipt of funds under this title, to prepare
plans for the restoration of wildlife habitat that was lost as
a result of construction of the Big Bend and Oahe dams. Plans
are to be submitted to the Secretary of the Army and to the two
Congressional committees. Upon receipt of the plans, the
respective committees are required to notify the Secretary of
the Treasury, who then is required to make funds available for
the implementation of the plans from trust funds established
under this title. To supplement the formal habitat restoration
plans, the State and tribes are authorized to lease wildlife
habitat from private landowners, based on plans developed
cooperatively with the Secretary of the Army and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
In addition, this provision clarifies that the
establishment of the trust funds and the implementation of the
terrestrial wildlife habitat plans developed under this section
satisfies the Federal obligation for wildlife habitat
mitigation by the State of South Dakota, the Cheyenne River
Sioux Tribe, and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe for the Oahe and
Big Bend projects under the Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Coordination Act of 1958.
Sec. 203. South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust
Fund
This section establishes a trust fund of $108 million for
use by the State of South Dakota to 1) implement its
terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration plan, 2) protect
archaeological and cultural sites threatened by the operation
of the Pick-Sloan project, 3) operate and develop Corps of
Engineers recreation areas transferred to the State under this
title, 4) implement the wildlife habitat leasing plan, and 5)
develop and maintain public access to, and protect, wildlife
habitat and recreation areas along the Missouri River. The
Secretary of the Treasury is required to provide the annual
interest revenue from the trust fund to the State of South
Dakota for these purposes.
Sec. 204. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Lower Brule Sioux Tribe
Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Funds.
This section establishes trust funds of roughly $42 million
for use by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and roughly $15
million for use by the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe to 1) implement
their terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration plans, 2)
protect archaeological and cultural sites threatened by the
operation of the Pick-Sloan project, 3) operate and develop
Corps of Engineers recreation areas transferred to the
respective tribes under this title, 4) implement the wildlife
habitat leasing plan, and 5) develop and maintain public access
to, and protect, wildlife habitat and recreation areas along
the Missouri River. The Secretary of the Treasury is required
to provide the annual interest revenue from the trust fund to
the tribes for these purposes.
Sec. 205. Transfer of Federal Land to State of South Dakota
This section transfers to the State of South Dakota the
Federal lands located outside of the Indian reservation
boundaries that were acquired for the Pick-Sloan project and
that remain above the exclusive flood pool and recreation areas
outside reservation boundaries. It requires the State of South
Dakota to use the transferred lands for wildlife habitat
restoration and recreation development. The transfer is
required to occur no later than one year after the full
capitalization of the trust fund. The section preserves
existing easements and rights-of-way on any lands transferred
to the Interior Department for the Indian tribes and to the
State of South Dakota.
On the lands transferred to the State of South Dakota, the
State retains its current jurisdiction in perpetuity for
hunting and fishing over these lands, and over the waters of
the Missouri River for all areas outside reservation boundaries
and for non-Indians within reservation boundaries.
Sec. 206. Transfer of Corps of Engineers Land for Indian Tribes
This provision transfers to the Interior Department to be
held in trust for the Indian tribes the Federal lands located
within reservation boundaries that were acquired for the Pick-
Sloan project and that remain above the exclusive flood pool
and recreation areas inside reservation boundaries. The
transfer is required to occur no later than one year after the
full capitalization of the trust fund. The section preserves
existing easements and rights-of-way on any lands transferred
to the Interior Department for the Indian tribes and to the
State of South Dakota.
Jurisdiction over hunting and fishing on the waters of the
Missouri River and the adjacent lands remain unaffected by the
bill, except that the Indian tribes will gain full jurisdiction
for the regulation of hunting and fishing on the Federal lands
that are transferred to the Interior Department to be held in
trust for them.
The provisions of this title, including the jurisdictional
provisions, are not intended to serve as precedent with regard
to any tribe not included in such title. The provisions of the
Native American Indian Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
shall apply to all lands transferred under this Act.
Sec. 207. Administration
The section clarifies that Indian water rights, treaty
rights, and reservation boundaries shall remain unaffected by
enactment of this title, and that nothing in this legislation
waives the applicability of Federal laws related to the lands
and waters affected by this title.
Sec. 208. Authorization of Appropriations
This section authorizes appropriations to pay the
administrative expenses of the Secretaries of the Interior and
the Army in carrying out the requirements of this title.
Hearings
On June 23, 1998, the Subcommittee on Transportation and
Infrastructure held a hearing on the Administration's Water
Resources Development Act proposal, S. 2131 and to examine the
President's budget request for fiscal year 1999 for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. Testimony received from the Honorable
Joseph Westphal, Assistant Secretary for Civil Works, U.S.
Department of the Army; accompanied by Mr. Michael L. Davis,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Civil Works for Policy and
Legislation and General Russell L. Fuhrman, Director of Civil
Works; Mr. Kurt J. Nagle, President, American Association of
Port Authorities, Alexandria, Virginia; Mr. Scott E. Faber,
Director of Floodplain Programs, American Rivers; the Honorable
Louisa M. Strayhorn, Councilwoman, Virginia, Beach, Virginia;
Mr. Grover Fugate, Executive Director, Rhode Island Coastal
Resources Management Council, Wakefield, Rhode Island; the
Honorable Kenneth Pringle, Mayor, Borough of Belmar, New
Jersey; and Mr. Stephen Higgins, Beach Erosion Administrator,
Broward County, Florida.
Rollcall Votes
The Committee on Environment and Public Works met on July
22, 23, and 29, 1998 to consider S. 2131, the Water Resources
Development Act of 1998. On July 22, the committee agreed en
bloc to the chairman's mark, two managers' amendments, and a
second degree amendment to the first managers' amendment; all
managers' amendments were agreed to by voice vote. Also on July
22, Senator Graham offered an amendment to strike the
provisions of Sec. 131 from the chairman's mark (authorizing
certain highway funds). The Graham amendment was agreed to by a
rollcall vote of 12 ayes to 6 noes. Voting in the affirmative
were Senators Allard, Bond, Boxer, Graham, Hutchinson, Inhofe,
Kempthorne, Lautenberg, Reid, Smith of New Hampshire, Thomas,
and Wyden. Voting in the negative were Senators Baucus, Chafee,
Lieberman, Moynihan, Sessions, and Warner.
On July 23, 1998, the committee continued consideration of
S. 2131. An amendment offered by Senator Kempthorne relative to
salmon conservation was agreed to by voice vote. No rollcall
votes on S. 2131 occurred at this meeting of the committee.
On July 29, 1998, the committee continued consideration of
S. 2131, and the bill was ordered reported, as amended, by
voice vote. No rollcall votes on S. 2131 occurred at this
meeting of the committee.
Regulatory Impact Statement
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. 2131. The
bill will not affect the personal privacy of individuals.
Mandates Assessement
In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Public Law 104-4), the Committee finds that this bill would
impose no Federal intergovernmental unfunded mandates on State,
local, or tribal governments. All of its governmental
directives are imposed on Federal agencies. The bill does not
directly impose any private sector mandates.
Cost of Legislation
Section 403 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act requires that a statement of the cost of the
reported bill, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, be
included in the report. That statement follows:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, August 20, 1998.
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. 2131, the Water
Resources Development Act of 1998.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Gary Brown
(for Federal costs), who can be reached at 226-2860, and
Marjorie Miller (for the State and local impact), who can be
reached at 225-3220.
Sincerely,
June E. O'Neill,
Director.
------
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
S. 2131, Water Resources Development Act of 1998, as ordered
reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works on July 29, 1998
Summary
S. 2131 would authorize the appropriation of about $1.9
billion (in 1998 dollars) over the 1999-2008 period for the
Secretary of Army, acting through the Army Corps of Engineers,
to conduct studies and undertake projects for flood control,
port development, inland navigation, storm damage reduction,
and environmental restoration. Adjusting for anticipated
inflation, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would
require appropriations of $2.1 billion over that period the
bill also would authorize prepayment of or waive amounts owed
to the Federal Government and make a portion of the fees
collected at Corps recreation sites available for spending
without further appropriation.
The bill also would settle potential claims of the Cheyenne
River and Lower Brule Sioux Tribes and the State of South
Dakota against the Federal Government for losses of terrestrial
(land) habitat incurred as a result of the construction of the
Missouri River Basin Pick-Sloan project. The bill would
transfer to the Department of the Interior, to be held in trust
for the tribes, and to the State, Federal lands that were
acquired for the Pick-Sloan project. The United States would
relinquish all fees associated with recreation, permits,
easements, and rights-of-way, on these lands. S. 2131 would
establish funds for the tribes and the State and make interest
from the funds available for restoring habitat flooded as a
result of the project.
CBO estimates that implementing S. 2131 would result in
additional outlays of about $1.5 billion over the 1999-2003
period, assuming the appropriation of the necessary amounts.
The remaining amounts authorized by the bill would be spent
after 2003. Enacting the bill would affect direct spending,
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply. CBO estimates
that enacting S. 2131 would reduce direct spending by $17
million in 1999, but would cause a net increase in direct
spending of $21 million over the 1999-2003 period. The
legislation contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
Estimated Cost to the Federal Government
The estimated budgetary impact of S. 2131 is shown in the
following table. For constructing, operating, and maintaining
projects that are already authorized, CBO estimates that the
Corps will need about $4 billion annually over the 1999-2003
period (roughly the level appropriated in 1998). The table
shows the estimates of additional spending necessary to
implement the bill. The costs of this legislation fall within
budget function 300 (natural resources and environment).
By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO
APPROPRIATION
Estimated Authorization Level... 340 425 403 273 132
Estimated Outlays............... 170 332 401 341 222
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
Estimated Budget Authority...... -17 6 10 13 14
Estimated Outlays............... -17 4 8 12 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis of Estimate
For the purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 2131
will be enacted at or near the beginning of fiscal year 1999,
and that all amounts estimated to be authorized by the bill
will be appropriated for each fiscal year.
Spending Subject to Appropriation
Estimates of annual budget authority needed to meet design
and construction schedules were provided by the Corps. CBO
adjusted the estimates to reflect the impact of anticipated
inflation during the time between authorization and
appropriation. Estimated outlays are based or historical
spending rates for Corps activities.
Direct Spending
Prepayments and Waivers of Payments. S. 2131 would
authorize the State of Oklahoma to pay the present value of its
outstanding obligation to the United States for water supply.
CBO estimates that, if the bill is enacted, a prepayment of
about $20 million would be made in 1999 and that payments
forgone would be about $2 million a year over the 1999-2033
period. The bill would authorize the Corps to partly or fully
waive payments from the Waurika Project Master Conservancy
District and the cities of Chesapeake, Virginia, and
Moorefield, West Virginia, for other projects. CBO estimates
that, under current law, payments from these entities would
total less than $500,000 annually over the 1999-2031 period.
Thus, any forgone payments from those activities would not be
significant..
Spending of Recreational Fees. S. 2131 would authorize the
Corps to retain and spend each year any recreation fees that
are in excess of $34 million, the amount that the
Administration and CBO estimate will be collected under current
law. At present, all recreation fees are deposited as
offsetting receipts in the Treasury and are unavailable for
spending unless appropriated. By allowing the Corps to spend
receipts in excess of $34 million, this provision creates the
possibility of new direct spending. Because recreation fees do
not vary significantly from year to year, CBO estimates that
the expected increase in spending from any annual receipts
collected in excess of $34 million would be less than $500,000
a year.
Land Transfers and Trust Funds. S. 2131 would direct the
Corps to transfer lands to the Department of the Interior, to
be held in trust for the Cheyenne River and Lower Brule Sioux
Tribes, and to the State of South Dakota. The United Stales
would relinquish all revenues from permits, easements, rights-
of-way, and recreational use of these lands. CBO anticipates
that the transfers would occur over the 2000-2002 period. CBO
estimates that the amount of offsetting receipts forgone under
this provision would total less than $500,000 in 2000 and about
$1 million annually thereafter.
S. 2131 also would establish habitat restoration funds for
the Cheyenne River and Lower Brule Tribes and the State of
South Dakota. Beginning with the year that S. 2131 is enacted,
the bill would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to deposit
25 percent of the previous year's receipts from the Pick-Sloan
Missouri River basin program into separate accounts in the U.S.
Treasury on behalf of the Tribes and the State. Once a total of
$165 million is deposited--$57 million for the tribes and $108
million for the State--no further principal deposits would be
made. The bill would direct that principal amounts be invested
in interest-bearing Treasury securities and that the funds'
interest earnings be made available to the tribes and the State
without fiscal year limitation or the need for further
appropriation.
Based on information from the Western Area Power
Administration--which markets electricity produced from the
Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin--CBO estimates that receipts
from the Pick-Sloan project will total about $250 million
annually over the 1998-2001 period; therefore, if S. 2131 is
enacted in fiscal year 1999, the funds would be fully
capitalized in fiscal year 2001. The deposits to the trust
finds would be intragovernmental transfers, and thus, there
would be no net outlays associated with them.
S. 2131 would make the interest on the amounts in the funds
available to the tribes and the State for restoring terrestrial
habitat. For the purpose of this estimate, CBO assumes that
deposits into the funds will be made by January 1 of each year;
the initial deposits would be made by January 1, 1999, and earn
interest for three quarters of fiscal year 1999. Interest
earnings would first become available for spending in fiscal
year 2000. We assume that the balances in the funds would earn
interest at an annual rate of about 6.2 percent, which is CBO's
baseline projection of the interest rate on 30-year Treasury
bonds. Unspent interest in the accounts also would earn
interest, but as a lower (short-term) rate of about 5 percent.
As a result, CBO estimates the interest earnings in the
following amounts would be made available to the tribes and the
State: $3 million in 2000, $7 million in 2001, $10 million in
2002, and $11 million a year thereafter. Estimated outlays are
based on historical spending rates for similar programs.
It is possible that enacting S. 2131 would allow the United
States to avoid potential costs from possible claims by the
tribes and South Dakota related to the restoration of
terrestrial habitat. The State has indicated that it may file
suit against the United States for failing to restore such
wildlife habitat affected by the construction of the Missouri
River Basin Pick-Sloan project if provisions similar to those
included in S. 2131 are not enacted. It is possible that the
tribes would do the same. Because the bill would provide for
completely restoring such habitat affected by the project, CBO
estimates that enacting the bill would probably be more costly
than any potential judgment (which might provide for only
partial restoration). However, CBO has no basis for estimating
the likelihood, timing or amount of any judgment. Enacting the
bill would not settle any potential claims related to aquatic
habitat. The impact of the project on these resources is still
under evaluation.
Pay-as-you-go Considerations
The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act sets
up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct
spending or receipts. The net changes in outlays that are
subject to pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the following
table. (The bill would not affect governmental receipts.) For
the purposes of enforcing pay-as-you-go procedures, only the
effects in the current year, the budget year, and the
succeeding four years are counted.
By Fiscal Year in Millions of Dollars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes us outlays................. 0 -17 4 8 12 14 14 14 14 14 14
Changes in receipts\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not applicable
Estimated Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments
S. 2131 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined
in UMRA. State and local governments that choose to participate
in water resources development projects and programs carried
out by the Corps would incur costs as described below. In
addition, some State, local, and tribal governments would
benefit from provisions in this bill that would alter their
obligations to make payments to the Federal Government, order
transfers of land, and increase habitat restoration trust
funds.
Authorizations of New Projects
CBO estimates the non-Federal entities (primarily State and
local governments) that choose to participate in the projects
authorized by this bill would spend about $1.1 billion during
fiscal years 1999 through 2010 to help construct these
projects. These estimates are based on information provided by
the Corps. In addition to these costs, non-Federal entities
would pay for the operation and maintenance of many of the
projects after they are constructed.
Changes in Cost-Sharing Policies
S. 2131 would make a number of changes to Federal laws that
specify the share of water resources project costs borne by
State end local governments. Section 107 would increase the
non-Federal share of recurring costs associated with new
coastal shore protection projects from 35 percent to 50
percent. This change would not affect the initial construction
of these projects. In the case of projects to place on beaches
sand that has been dredged from adjacent navigation inlets and
channels, section 140 of this bill would reduce the non-Federal
share of costs from 50 percent to 35 percent.
Several provisions in S. 2131 would expend the
opportunities State and local governments to participate in
water resources projects. Other parts of the bill would alter
the responsibility of specific State and local governments to
pay amounts owed to the Federal Government in association with
water resource projects, either by allowing the prepayment of
amounts owed or by waiving amounts owed under current law.
New Programs
S. 2131 would authorize two new programs that would assist
State and local governments. Specifically, the bill would
authorize total appropriations of $75 million for fiscal years
2000 and 2001 for a program to reduce flood hazards and $30
million for the same period for activities to protect and
enhance fish and wildlife habitat of the Missouri River and the
middle Mississippi River. State and local governments choosing
to participate in these programs would have to provide 35
percent of the initial cost of any funded project and all the
subsequent operation and maintenance costs.
Land Transfers and Trust Funds
S. 2131 would direct the Corps to transfer certain lands to
the State of South Dakota and to the Department of the
Interior. The latter lands would be held in trust for two
tribes in that State--the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe. Further, the bill would create habitat
restoration funds for the State and the tribes. The interest
earnings of those funds would be made available to those
governments for restoration activities. The amounts available
would reach about $11 million a year by 2003. In addition, the
State, the tribes, and affected counties in the State would
receive all the revenues now collected by the Federal
Government on the lands to be transferred--about $1 million per
year.
The State and the tribes would incur some costs initially
to complete plans for restoration of wildlife habitat. Based on
information provided by State and tribal officials, CBO
estimates that these costs would total less than $500,000.
Estimated Impact on the Private Sector: This bill would
impose no new private-sector mandates as defined UMRA.
Estimate Prepared by: Federal Costs: Gary Brown (226-2860);
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie Miller
(225-3220).
Estimate Approved by: Paul A. Van de Water, Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATORS BOXER AND GRAHAM
In recent years the Environment and Public Works Committee
has blazed new trails in terms of innovative financing for
transportation infrastructure in the United States. In the
National Highway System Designation Act of 1995, it developed
the State Infrastructure Bank pilot program. This year the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century established the
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation program to
provide Federal loans and lines of credit. Innovative financing
was also extended to Intelligent Transportation Systems.
We believe that it is also time that we extend innovative
financing to maritime investments, particularly for small craft
harbors and medium-sized ports. These harbors and ports face
eroding support in Federal assistance. Meanwhile, obtaining
conventional financing at affordable rates for high- cost
navigation and other improvements has proved difficult.
In some cases, ports have been unable to take advantage of
new benefits. For example, two years ago the Committee provided
much needed relief for local ports by inserting Section 201 of
WRDA 1996 to provide cost-sharing for upland disposal sites.
Still, the financing of the local share of these upland sites,
or other navigation projects, is a challenging endeavor for
which public and private capital markets charge a considerable
premium, if financing can be obtained at all.
A revolving fund is an ideal financing alternative to
increase the availability and cost of maritime infrastructure
financing.
Several states already have innovative financing for their
ports. California has established the California Maritime
Infrastructure Authority and its development arm, the nonprofit
California Maritime Infrastructure Bank, as a mechanism for
addressing infrastructure needs for 12 general cargo and deep
draft ports and 24 small craft harbor districts. Other existing
revolving funds include the Florida Seaport Transportation and
Economic Development Bond Program, the Oregon Port Revolving
Fund, the Maryland Boating Revolving Fund, and the Virginia
Small Port Development Fund.
State assistance to these revolving loan programs is
minimal. However, the ports and harbors provide significant
economic benefits. In California, for example, every $1 spent
on Federal port and harbor maintenance generates more than $160
in Federal revenues, according to a 1997 economic benefit study
conducted for the California Marine Affairs and Navigation
Conference. While major ports provide important national
benefits from international trade, even smaller ports and
harbors contribute economically from commercial fishing, marine
construction, mineral extraction, ocean research, recreational
boating and public safety.
We urge the Administration to propose innovative financing
for our ports when it submits to the Congress an overhaul of
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Reform should include help
for the needs of the neediest sector of the national port
network, the shallow draft harbors that clearly contribute to
national well being even though they do not contribute to the
harbor trust fund.
One option to finance this Federal assistance is the use of
the only Federal fuel tax revenue not devoted for
transportation purposes. Under current law, 5 cents of the 18
\1/2\ cents paid by recreational vessel owners as the motorboat
fuel tax is currently deposited in the General Fund of the U.S.
Treasury. One penny of that 5 cents could be used as the source
of matching funds for state maritime banks, revolving loan
programs or similar entities. The Secretary of the Army could
use this funding to enter into cooperative agreements with
eligible entities in selected states to finance water resources
development.
This is just one option for consideration. We urge the
Administration to consider this and other alternatives for
financing future construction, operations and maintenance of
projects in small and medium ports. The State Infrastructure
Bank program gives States the capacity to increase the
efficiency of their transportation investment and significantly
leverage Federal resources by attracting public and private
investment. Our ports and harbors are part of our greater
transportation network, and we believe the Federal government
should provide similar assistance.
4Barbara Boxer.
Bob Graham.
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:
UNITED STATES CODE
Title 33--Navigation and Navigable Waters
Chapter 9--Protection of Navigable Waters and of Harbor and River
* * * * * * *
Sec. 426g. Authorization of small projects not specifically authorized;
expenditures; local cooperation; work to be complete;
exceptions
The Secretary of the Army is authorized to undertake
construction of small shore and beach restoration and
protection projects not specifically authorized by Congress,
which otherwise comply with section 426e of this title, when he
finds that such work is advisable, and he is further authorized
to allot from any appropriations hereafter made for civil
works, not to exceed $30,000,000 for any one fiscal year for
the Federal share of the costs of construction of such
projects: Provided, That not more than [$2,000,000] $3,000,000
shall be allotted for this purpose for any single project and
the total amount allotted shall be sufficient to complete the
Federal participation in the project under this section
including periodic nourishment as provided for under section
426e(c) of this title: Provided further, That the provisions of
local cooperation specified in section 426e of this title shall
apply: And provided further, That the work shall be complete in
itself and shall not commit the United States to any additional
improvement to insure its successful operation, except for
participation in periodic beach nourishment in accordance with
section 426e(c) of this title, and as may result from the
normal procedure applying to projects authorized after
submission of survey reports.
Sec. 426h. ``Shores'' defined
As used in sections 426e to 426h of this title, 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, including the
city of Miami Beach, Florida.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 426j. Placement on State beaches of sand dredged in constructing
and maintaining navigation inlets and channels adjacent to such
beaches
The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, is authorized upon request of the State, to place on
the beaches of such State beach-quality sand which has been
dredged in constructing and maintaining navigation inlets and
channels adjacent to such beaches, if the Secretary deems such
action to be in the public interest and upon payment by such
State of [50] 35 percent of the increased cost thereof above
the cost required for alternative methods of disposing of such
sand. At the request of the State, the Secretary may enter into
an agreement with a political subdivision of the State to place
sand on the beaches of the political subdivision of the State
under the same terms and conditions required in the first
sentence of this section; except that the political subdivision
shall be responsible for providing any payments required under
such sentence in lieu of the State. In carrying out this
section, the Secretary shall give consideration to the schedule
of the State, or the schedule of the responsible political
subdivision of the requesting State, for providing its share of
funds for placing such sand on the beaches of the State or the
political subdivision and shall, to the maximum extent
practicable, accommodate such schedule.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 12--RIVER AND HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS GENERALLY
SUBCHAPTER IV--PARTICULAR WORK OR IMPROVEMENTS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 610. Control of aquatic plant growths
(a) There is hereby authorized a comprehensive program to
provide for control and progressive eradication of water-
hyacinth, Arundo dona, alligatorweed, Eurasian water milfoil,
malaleuca, tarmarix 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.
(b) There are authorized to be appropriated such amounts,
not in excess of $12,000,000 annually, as may be necessary to
carry out the provisions of this section. Any such funds
employed for control operations shall be allocated by the Chief
of Engineers on a priority basis, based upon the urgency and
need of each area, and the availability of local funds.
* * * * * * *
Chapter 15--Flood Control
* * * * * * *
Sec. 701h. Contributions by states and political subdivisions
The Secretary of the Army is authorized to receive from
States and political subdivisions thereof, such funds as may be
contributed by them to be expended in connection with funds
appropriated by the United States for any authorized flood
control or environmental restoration work whenever such work
and expenditure may be considered by the Secretary of the Army,
on recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, as advantageous in
the public interest, and the plans for any reservoir project
may, in the discretion of the Secretary of the Army, on
recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, be modified to
provide additional storage capacity for domestic water supply
or other conservation storage, on condition that the cost of
such increased storage capacity is contributed by local
agencies and that the local agencies agree to utilize such
additional storage capacity in a manner consistent with Federal
uses and purposes: Provided, That when contributions made by
States and political subdivisions thereof, are in excess of the
actual cost of the work contemplated and properly chargeable to
such contributions, such excess contributions may, with the
approval of the Secretary of the Army, be returned to the
proper representatives of the contributing interests.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 701s. Small flood control projects; appropriations; amount
limitation for single locality; conditions
The Secretary of the Army is authorized to allot from any
appropriations heretofore or hereafter made for flood control,
not to exceed $40,000,000 for any one fiscal year, for the
[construction of small projects] implementation of small
structural and nonstructural projects for flood control and
related purposes not specifically authorized by Congress, which
come within the provisions of section 701a of this title, when
in the opinion of the Chief of Engineers such work is
advisable. The amount allotted for a project shall be
sufficient to complete Federal participation in the project.
Not more than [$5,000,000] $7,000,000 shall be allotted under
this section for a project at any single locality. The
provisions of local cooperation specified in section 701c of
this title shall apply. The work shall be complete in itself
and not commit the United States to any additional improvement
to insure its successful operation, except as may result from
the normal procedure applying to projects authorized after
submission of preliminary examination and survey reports.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 709a. Information on floods and flood damage
(a) Compilation and dissemination.--In recognition of the
increasing use and development of the flood plains of the
rivers of the United States and of the need for information on
flood hazards to serve as a guide to such development, and as a
basis for avoiding future flood hazards by regulation of use by
States and political subdivisions thereof, and to assure that
Federal departments and agencies may take proper cognizance of
flood hazards, the Secretary of the Army, through the Chief of
Engineers, is hereby authorized to compile and disseminate
information on floods and flood damages, including
identification of areas subject to inundation by floods of
various magnitudes and frequencies, and general criteria for
guidance of Federal and non-Federal interests and agencies in
the use of flood plain areas; and to provide advice to other
Federal agencies and local interests for their use in planning
to ameliorate the flood hazard. Surveys and guides will be made
for States and political subdivisions thereof only upon the
request of a State or a political subdivision thereof, and upon
approval by the Chief of Engineers, and such information and
advice provided them only upon such request and approval.
(b) Fees.--The Secretary of the Army is authorized to
establish and collect fees from Federal agencies and private
persons for the purpose of recovering the cost of providing
services pursuant to this section. Funds collected pursuant to
this section shall be deposited into the account of the
Treasury of the United States entitled ``Contributions and
Advances, Rivers and Harbor, Corps of Engineers (8862)'' and
shall be available until expended to carry out this section. No
fees shall be collected from State, regional, or local
governments or other non-Federal public agencies for services
provided pursuant to this section, but the Secretary of the
Army may accept funds voluntarily contributed by such entities
for the purpose of expanding the scope of the services
requested by the entities.
(c) Fiscal year limitation on expenditures.--The Secretary
of the Army is authorized to expend not to exceed $15,000,000
per fiscal year for the compilation and dissemination of
information under this section.
* * * * * * *
UNITED STATES CODE--TITLE 43--PUBLIC LANDS
CHAPTER 29--SUBMERGED LANDS
SUBCHAPTER III--OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1337. Grant of leases by Secretary
(a) * * *
(k) Other mineral leases; award to highest bidder; terms
and conditions; agreements for use of resources for shore
protection, beach or coastal wetlands restoration, or other
projects.--
(1) The Secretary is authorized to grant to the
qualified persons offering the highest cash bonuses on
a basis of competitive bidding leases of any mineral
other than oil, gas, and sulphur in any area of the
outer Continental Shelf not then under lease for such
mineral upon such royalty, rental, and other terms and
conditions as the Secretary may prescribe at the time
of offering the area for lease.
(2)(A) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Secretary
may negotiate with any person an agreement for the use
of Outer Continental Shelf sand, gravel and shell
resources--
(i) for use in a program of, or project
for, shore protection, beach restoration, or
coastal wetlands restoration undertaken by a
Federal, State, or local government agency; or
(ii) for use in a construction project,
other than a project described in clause (i),
that is funded in whole or in part by or
authorized by the Federal Government.
(B) In carrying out a negotiation under this
paragraph, the Secretary may assess a fee based on an
assessment of the value of the resources and the public
interest served by promoting development of the
resources. No fee shall be assessed directly or
indirectly under this subparagraph against an agency of
the Federal Government or any other non-Federal
interest subject to an agreement entered into under
section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C.
1962d-5b).
(C) The Secretary may, through this paragraph and
in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, seek to
facilitate projects in the coastal zone, as such term
is defined in section 1453 of title 16, that promote
the policy set forth in section 1452 of title 16.
(D) Any Federal agency which proposes to make use
of sand, gravel and shell resources subject to the
provisions of this subchapter shall enter into a
Memorandum of Agreement with the Secretary concerning
the potential use of those resources. The Secretary
shall notify the Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries and the Committee on Natural Resources of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources of the Senate on any proposed
project for the use of those resources prior to the use
of those resources.
* * * * * * *
Public Law 99-662
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1986
[As Amended Through P.L. 105-153, December 17, 1997]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act many be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 1986''.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 103. FLOOD CONTROL AND OTHER PURPOSES.
(a) Flood Control.--
* * * * * * *
(d) Certain Other Costs Assigned to Project Purposes.--
[Costs of constructing]
(1) Construction.--Costs of construction projects
or measures for beach erosion control and water quality
enhancement shall be assigned to appropriate project
purposes listed in subsections (a), (b), and (c) and
shall be shared in the same percentage as the purposes
to which the costs are assigned, except that all costs
assigned to benefits to privately owned shores (where
use of such shores is limited to private interests) or
to prevention of losses of private lands shall be borne
by non-Federal interests and all costs assigned to the
protection of federally owned shores shall be borne by
the United States.
(2) Periodic nourishment.--In the case of a project
authorized for construction after December 31, 1998, or
for which a feasibility study is completed after that
date, the non-Federal cost of the periodic nourishment
of projects or measures for shore protection or beach
erosion control shall be 50 percent, except that--
(A) all costs assigned to benefits to
privately owned shores (where use of such
shores is limited to private interests) or to
prevention of losses of private land shall be
borne by non-Federal interests; and
(B) all costs assigned to the protection of
federally owned shores shall be borne by the
United States.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 202. GENERAL CARGO AND SHALLOW HARBOR PROJECTS.
(a) Authorization of Construction.-- * * *
arthur kill, new york and new jersey
The project for navigation, Arthur Kill, New York and New
Jersey, Report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and
Harbors, dated March 31, 1986, at a [total cost of $42,600,000,
with an estimated first Federal cost of $27,500,000, and an
estimated first non-Federal cost of $15,100,000] total cost of
$260,899,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $195,705,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $65,194,000. At such time
as construction may be initiated in accofdance with the terms
of this subsection, the project shall be included in and joined
with the Kill van Kull and Newark Bay Channel, New York and New
Jersey project under subsection (a) of this section.
new york harbor and adjacent channels, new york and new jersey
The project for (1) an access channel 45 feet deep below
man low water and generally 450 feet wide with suitable bends
and turning areas to extend from deep water in the Anchorage
Channel, New York Harbor, westward approximately 12,000 feet
along the southern boundary of the Port Jersey peninsula to the
head of navigation in Jersey City, New Jersey, at [a total cost
of $29,700,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of
$21,000,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of
$8,700,000; and (2) for a channel 42 feet deep below mean low
water and generally 300 feet wide with suitable bends and
turning areas to extend from deep water in the Anchorage
Channel westward approximately 11,000 feet to the head of
navigation in Claremont Terminal Channel, at a total cost of
$16,000,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of
$11,300,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of
$4,700,000] at a total cost of $100,689,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $74,998,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $25,701,000. No disposal of dredged material from
construction, operation, and maintenance of such project shall
take place at Bowery Bay, Flushing Bay, Powell's Cove, Little
Bay, or Little Neck Bay, Queens, New York.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 401. AUTHORIZATION OF PROJECTS.
(a) Authorization for construction.--* * *
eight mile creek, paragould, arkansas
The project for flood control, [Eight Mile Creek,
Paragould, Arkansas] Francis Bland, Arkansas Floodway Ditch No.
5: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated August 10, 1979, at
a total cost of $16,100,000, with and estimated first Federal
cost of $11,200,000, and an estimated first non-Federal cost of
$4,900,000.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 602. LAKES PROGRAM.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(17) Clear Lake, Lake County, California, removal
of silt and aquatic growth and development of a
sustainable weed and algae management program.
(18) Osgood Pond, Milford, New Hampshire, removal
of excessive aquatic vegetation.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 906. FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION.
(a)(1) * * *
(e) In those cases when the Secretary, as part of any
report to Congress, recommends activities to enhance fish and
wildlife resources, the fish costs of such enhancement shall be
a Federal cost when--
(1) such enhancement provides benefits that are
determined to be national, including benefits to
species that are identified by the National Marine
Fisheries Service as of national economic importance,
species that are subject to treaties or international
convention to which the United States is a party, and
anadromous fish;
(2) such enhancement is designed to benefit species
that have been listed as threatened or endangered by
the Secretary of the Interior under the terms of the
Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et
seq.), or
(3) such activities are located on lands managed as
a national wildlife refuge.
When benefits of enhancement do not qualify under the preceding
sentence, 25 percent of such first costs of enhancement shall
be provided by non-Federal interests under a schedule of
reimbursement determined by the Secretary. The non-Federal
share of operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of
activities to enhance fish and wildlife resources shall be 25
percent. Not more than 80 percent of the non-Federal share of
such first costs may be in kind, including a facility, supply,
or service that is necessary to carry out the enhancement
project.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1103. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER PLAN.
(a)(1) This section may be cited as the ``Upper Mississippi
River Management Act of 1986.''
* * * * * * *
[(e)(1) The Secretary, in consultation wit the Secretary of
the Interior and the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota,
Missouri, and Wisconsin, is authorized to undertake, as
identified in the master plan--
[(A) a program for the planning, construction, and
evaluation of measures for fish and wildlife habitat
rehabilitation and enhancement;
[(B) implementation of a long-term resource
monitoring program; and
[(C) implementation of a computerized inventory and
analysis system.
[(2) Each program referred to in paragraph (1) shall be
carried out for ten years. Before the last day of such ten-year
period, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of
the Interior and the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota,
Missouri, and Wisconsin, shall conduct an eveluation of such
programs and submit a report on the results of such evaluation
to Congress. Such evaluation shall determine each such
program's effectiveness, strengths, and weaknesses and contain
recommendations for the modification and continuance or
termination of such program.]
(e) Undertakings.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Authority.--The Secretary, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior
and the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota,
Missouri, and Wisconsin, may undertake, as
identified in the master plan--
(i) a program for the planning,
construction, and evaluation of
measures for fish and wildlife habitat
rehabilitation and enhancement;
(ii) implementation of a long-term
resource monitoring, computerized data
inventory and analysis, and applied
research program; and
(iii) for each pool and the open
reach, a natural resource blueprint to
guide habitat rehabilitation and long-
term resource monitoring.
(B) Requirements for projects.--Each
project carried out under subparagraph (A)
shall--
(i) to the maximum extent
practicable, simulate natural river
processes; and
(ii) include an outreach and
education component.
(C) Review committee.--In carrying out
subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall create an
independent technical review committee to
review projects, monitoring plans, and
blueprints.
(D) Criteria for habitat rehabilitation.--
In carrying out subparagraph (A), the Secretary
shall revise criteria for habitat
rehabilitation for projects to promote the
simulation of natural river processes, to the
maximum extent practicable.
(E) Blueprints.--
(i) Data.--The natural resource
blueprint shall, to the maximum extent
practicable, use data in existence on
the date of enactment of this
subparagraph.
(ii) Timing.--The Secretary shall
complete a natural resource blueprint
for each pool not later than 6 years
after the date of enactment of this
subparagraph.
(F) Authorization of appropriations.--There
is authorized to be appropriated to carry out
this paragraph $350,000 for each of fiscal
years 1999 through 2009.
(2) Reports.--On December 31, 2004, in consultation
with the Secretary of the Interior and the States of
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin, the
Secretary shall prepare and submit to Congress a report
that--
(A) contains an evaluation of the programs
described in paragraph (1);
(B) describes the accomplishments of each
program;
(C) provide updates of a systemic habitat
needs assessment; and
(D) identifies any needed adjustments in
the authorization under paragraph (1) or the
authorized appropriations under paragraphs (3)
and (4).
(3) For purposes of carrying out paragraph [1(A)] 1(A)(i)
of this subsection, there is authorized to be appropriated to
the [Secretary not to exceed $8,200,000 for the first fiscal
year beginning after the date of enactment of this Act, not to
exceed $12,400,000 for the second fiscal year beginning after
the date of enactment of this Act, and not to exceed
$13,000,000 per fiscal year for each of the succeeding eight
fiscal years] Secretary not to exceed $22,750,000 for each of
fiscal years 1999 through 2009.
(4) For purposes of carrying out paragraph [1(B)]
(1)(A)(ii) of this subsection, there is authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary not to exceed [$7,680,000 for the
first fiscal year beginning after the date of enactment of this
Act and not to exceed $5,080,000 per fiscal year for each of
the succeeding nine fiscal years] $10,420,000 for each of
fiscal years 1999 through 2009.
[(5) For purposes of carrying out paragraph 1(C) of this
subsection, there is authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary not to exceed $40,000 for the first fiscal year
beginning after the enactment of this Act, not to exceed
$280,000 for the second fiscal year beginning after the
enactment of this Act, not to exceed $1,220,000 for the third
fiscal year beginning after the enactment of this Act, and not
to exceed $875,000 per fiscal year for each of the succeeding
seven fiscal years.
[(6)(A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(2)
of this section, the costs of each project carried out pursuant
to paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection shall be allocated
between the Secretary and the appropriate non-Federal sponsor
in accordance with the provisions of section 906 of this Act.
[(B) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(2) of
this section, the cost of implementing the activities
authorized by paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C) of this subsection
shall be allocated in accordance with the provisions of section
906 of this Act, as if such activity was required to mitigate
losses of fish and wildlife.
(5) Transfer of amounts.--For each fiscal year beginning
after September 30, 1992, the Secretary, in consultation with
the Secretary of the Interior and the States of Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin, may transfer appropriated
amounts between the programs under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
paragraph (1).
[(7)] (6) (A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection
(a)(2) of this section, the costs of each project carried out
pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection shall be
allocated between the Secretary and the appropriate non-Federal
sponsor in accordance with the provisions of section 2283(e) of
this title; except that the costs of operation and maintenance
of projects located on Federal lands or lands owned or operated
by a State or local government shall be borne by the Federal,
State, or local agency that is responsible for management
activities for fish and wildlife on such lands and, in the case
of any project carried out on non-Federal land, the non-Federal
share of the cost of the project shall be 35 percent and the
non-Federal share of the cost of operation and maintenance of
the project shall be 100 percent.
(B) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(2) of
this section, the cost of implementing the activities
authorized by [paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C) of this subsection]
paragraph (1)(B) shall be allocated in accordance with the
provisions of section 2283 of this title, as if such activity
was required to mitigate losses to fish and wildlife.
[(8)] (7) None of the funds appropriated pursuant to any
authorization contained in this subsection shall be considered
to be chargeable to navigation.
* * * * * * *
(k) St. Louis Area Urban Wildlife Habitat.--The Secretary
shall investigate and, if appropriate, carry out restoration of
urban wildlife habitat, with a special emphasis on the
establishment of greenways in St. Louis, Missouri, area and
surrounding communities.
* * * * * * *
Public Law 101-640
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1990
[As Amended Through P.L. 105-153, December 17, 1997]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 1990''.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
Except as provided in this section, the following projects
for water resources development and conservation and other
purposes are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary
substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to the
conditions, recommended in the respective reports designated in
this section:
(1) Southeast alaska harbors of refuge, alaska.-- *
* *
(4) Sacramento metro area, california.--The project
for flood control, Sacramento Metro Area, California:
Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated June 29, 1992,
at a total cost of $17,000,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $12,800,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $4,200,000, is modified to authorize
the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost
of $32,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$24,700,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$8,200,000.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 308. FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT.
(a) [Benefit-Cost Analysis] Elements Excluded From Cost-
Benefit Analysis.--The Secretary shall not include in the
benefit base for justifying Federal flood damage reduction
projects--
(1)(A) any new or substantially improved structure
(other than a structure necessary for conducting a
water-dependent activity) built in the 100-year flood
plain with a first floor elevation less than the 100-
year flood elevation after July 1, 1991; or
(B) in the case of a county substantially located
within the 100-year flood plain, any new or
substantially improved structure (other than a
structure necessary for conducting a water-dependent
activity) built in the 10-year flood plain after July
1, 1991; and
(2) any structure which becomes located in the 100-
year flood plain with a first floor elevation less than
the 100-year flood elevation or in the 10-year flood
plain, as the case may be, by virtue of constrictions
placed in the flood plain after July 1, 1991.
(b) Elements Included in Cost-Benefit Analysis.--The
Secretary shall include primary flood damages avoided in the
benefit base for justifying Federal nonstructural flood damage
reduction projects.
[(b)] (c) Counties Substantially Located Within 100-Year
Flood Plain.--For the purposes of subsection (a), a county is
substantially located within the 100-year flood plain--
(1) if the county is comprised of lands of which 50
percent or more are located in the 100-year flood
plain; and
(2) if the Secretary determines that application of
the requirement contained in subsection (a)(1)(A) with
respect to the county would unreasonably restrain
continued economic development or unreasonably limit
the availability of needed flood control measures.
[(c)] (d) Cost Sharing.--Not later than January 1, 1992,
the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the
feasibility and advisability of increasing the non-Federal
share of costs for new projects in areas where new or
substantially improved structures and other constrictions are
built or placed in the 100-year flood plain or the 10-year
flood plain, as the case may be, after the initial date of the
affected governmental unit's entry into the regular program of
the national flood insurance program of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968.
[(d)] (e) Regulations.--Not later than 6 months after the
date on which a report is transmitted to Congress under
subsection (b), the Secretary, in consultation with the
Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, shall
issue regulations to implement subsection (a). Such regulations
shall define key terms, such as new or substantially improved
structure, constriction, 10-year flood plain, and 100-year
flood plain.
[(e)] (f) Applicability.--The provisions of this section
shall not apply to any project, or separable element thereof,
for which a final report of the Chief of Engineers has been
forwarded to the Secretary before the last day of the 6-month
period beginning on the date on which regulations are issued
pursuant to subsection (a) but not later than July 1, 1993.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 312. ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING.
(a) Operation and Maintenance of Navigation Projects.-- * *
*
(f) Priority Work.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall give priority to work in the following areas:
(1) Brooklyn Waterfront, New York.
(2) Buffalo Harbor and River, New York.
(3) Ashtabula River, Ohio.
(4) Mahoning River, Ohio.
(5) Lower Fox River, Wisconsin.
(6) Snake Creek, Bixby, Oklahoma.
* * * * * * *
Public Law 102-580
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1992
[As Amended Through P.L. 105-153, December 17, 1997]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 1992''.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 204. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.
(a) In General.-- * * *
(g) Nonprofit entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of the
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for any
project carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest
may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of the
affected local government.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 405. SEDIMENTS DECONTAMINATION TECHNOLOGY.
(a) Decontamination Project.--
(1) Selection of Technologies.--Based upon a review
of decontamination technologies identified pursuant to
section 412(c) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1990, 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.
(3) Project purpose.--The purpose of the project to
be carried out under this section is to provide for the
development of 1 or more sediment decontamination
technologies on a pilot scale demonstrating a capacity
of at least 500,000 cubic yards per year.
(4) Practical end-use products.--Technologies
selected for demonstration at the pilot scale shall
result in practical end-use products.
(5) Assistance by the secretary.--The Secretary
shall assist the project to ensure expeditious
completion by providing sufficient quantities of
contaminated dredged material to conduct the full-scale
demonstrations to stated capacity.
(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 for
fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1992] There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section a total
of $22,000,000 to complete technology testing, technology
commercialization, and the development of full scale processing
facilities within the New York-New Jersey Harbor. Such sums
shall remain available until expended.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 219. ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to provide
assistance to non-Federal interests for carrying out water-
related environmental infrastructure and resource protection
and development projects described in subsection (c), including
waste water treatment and related facilities and water supply,
storage, treatment, and distribution facilities. Such
assistance may be in the form of technical and planning and
design assistance. If the Secretary is to provide any design or
engineering assistance to carry out a project under this
section, the Secretary shall obtain by procurement from private
sources all services necessary for the Secretary to provide
such assistance, unless the Secretary finds that--
(1) the service would require the use of a new
technology unavailable in the private sector; or
(2) a solicitation or request for proposal has
failed to attract 2 or more bids or proposals.
(b) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost
of projects for which assistance is provided under this section
shall not be less than 25 percent, except that such share shall
be subject to the ability of the non-Federal interest to pay,
including the procedures and regulations relating to ability to
pay established under section 103(m) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986.
(c) Project Descriptions.--The projects for which the
Secretary is authorized to provide assistance under subsection
(a) are as follows:
(1) Lake Tahoe, California and Nevada.--Regional
water system for Lake Tahoe, California and Nevada.
(2) Lancaster, California.--Fox Field Industrial
Corridor water facilities, Lancaster, California.
(3) San Ramon, California.--San Ramon Valley
recycled water project, San Ramon, California.
[(1)] (4) Washington, D.C. and Maryland.--Measures
to alleviate adverse water quality impacts resulting
from storm water discharges from Federal facilities in
the Anacostia River watershed, Washington, D.C. and
Maryland.
[(2)] (5) Atlanta, Georgia.--A combined sewer
overflow treatment facility for the city of Atlanta,
Georgia.
[(3)] (6) Hazard, Kentucky.--A water system
(including a 13,000,000 gallon per day water treatment
plant), intake structures, raw water pipelines and
pumps, distribution lines, and pumps and storage tanks
for Hazard, Kentucky.
[(4)] (7) Rouge River, Michigan.--Completion of a
comprehensive streamflow enhancement project for the
Western Townships Utility Authority, Rouge River, Wayne
County, Michigan.
[(5)] (8) Jackson County, Mississippi.--Provision
of an alternative water supply for Jackson County,
Mississippi.
[(6)] (9) Epping, New Hampshire.--Evaluation and
assistance in addressing expanded and advanced
wastewater treatment needs for Epping, New Hampshire.
[(7)] (10) Manchester, New Hampshire.--Elimination
of combined sewer overflows in the city of Manchester,
New Hampshire.
[(8)] (11) Rochester, New Hampshire.--Provision of
advanced wastewater treatment for the city of
Rochester, New Hampshire.
[(9)] (12) Paterson and Passaic County, New
Jersey.--Drainage facilities to alleviate flooding
problems on Getty Avenue in the vicinity of St.
Joseph's Hospital for the city of Paterson, New Jersey,
and Passaic County, New Jersey.
[(10)] (13) State of New Jersey and New Jersey
Wastewater Treatment Trust.--The development of
innovative beneficial uses of sewage sludge and
conventional and innovative facilities to dispose of
sewage sludge or to make reusable products from sewage
sludge for local government units that ceased the
discharge of sewage sludge in the Atlantic Ocean.
[(11)] (14) Erie County, New York.--A tunnel from
North Buffalo, New York, to Amherst Quarry to relieve
flooding and improve water quality.
[(12)] (15) Erie County, New York.--A sludge
processing disposal facility to serve the Erie County
Sewer District 5, New York.
[(13)] (16) Otsego County, New York.--A water
storage tank and an adequate water filtration system
for the Village of Milford, Otsego County, New York.
[(14)] (17) Chenango County, New York.--A primary
source water well and improvement of a water
distribution system for New Berlin, Chenango County,
New York.
[(15)] (18) Greensboro and Glassworks,
Pennsylvania.--A sewage treatment plant for the borough
of Greensboro, Pennsylvania, and the unincorporated
village of Glassworks, Pennsylvania.
[(16)] (19) Lynchburg, Virginia.--Alleviation of
combined sewer overflows for Lynchburg, Virginia, in
accordance with combined sewer overflow control plans
adopted by, and currently being implemented by, the
non-Federal sponsor.
[(17)] (20) Richmond, Virginia.--Alleviation of
combined sewer overflows for Richmond, Virginia, in
accordance with combined sewer overflow control plans
adopted by, and currently being implemented by, the
non-Federal sponsor.
[(18)] (21) Colonias along United States-Mexico
Border.--Wastewater treatment facilities, water systems
(including water treatment plants), intake structures,
raw water pipelines and pumps, distribution lines, and
pumps and storage tanks for colonias in the United
States along the United States-Mexico border.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated for providing assistance under this section
$5,000,000. Such sums shall remain available until expended.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations for Construction
Assistance.--There are authorized to be appropriated for
providing construction assistance under this section--
(1) $10,000,000 for the project described in
subsection (c)(5);
(2) $2,000,000 for the project described in
subsection (c)(6);
(3) $10,000,000 for the project described in
subsection (c)(7);
(4) $11,000,000 for the project described in
subsection (c)(8);
(5) $20,000,000 for the project described in
subsection (c)(16); and
(6) $20,000,000 for the project described in
subsection (c)(17).
* * * * * * *
Public Law 104-303
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996
[As Amended Through P.L. 105-153, December 17, 1997]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water
Resources Development Act of 1996''.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) Projects With Chief's Reports.-- * * *
(5) San lorenzo river, california.--The project for
flood control, San Lorenzo River, California: Report of
the Chief of Engineers, dated June 30, 1994, at a total
cost of $21,800,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$10,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$10,900,000 and 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; is modified to authorize the Secretary to
include as a part of the project streambank erosion
control measures to be undertaken substantially in
accordance with the report entitled ``Bank
Stabilization Concept, Laurel Street Extension'', dated
April 23, 1998, at a total cost of $4,000,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $2,600,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $1,400,000.
* * * * * * *
(19) Wood river, grand island, nebraska.--The
project for flood control, Wood River, Grand Island,
Nebraska: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated May
3, 1994, at a total cost of $11,800,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $6,040,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $5,760,000; is modified to
authorize the Secretary to construct the project in
accordance with the Corps of Engineers report dated
June 29, 1998, at a total cost of $16,632,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $9,508,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $7,124,000.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 102. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that the
project is feasible, may carry out the project under section
205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s):
(1) South upland, san bernadino county,
california.-- * * *
(15) Repaupo Creek and Delaware River, Gloucester
County, New Jersey.--Project for tidegate and levee
improvements for Repaupo Creek and the Delaware River,
Gloucester County, New Jersey.
(16) Tioga County, Pennsylvania.--Project for flood
control, Tioga River and Cowanesque River and their
tributaries, Tioga County, Pennsylvania.
[(15)] (17) Buffalo Creek, Erie County, New York.--
Project for flood control, Buffalo Creek, Erie County,
New York.
[(16)] (18) Cazenovia Creek, Erie County, New
York.--Project for flood control, Cazenovia Creek, Erie
County, New York.
[(17)] (19) Cheektowaga, Erie County, New York.--
Project for flood control, Cheektowaga, Erie County,
New York.
[(18)] (20) Fulmer Creek, Village of Mohawk, New
York.--Project for flood control, Fulmer Creek, village
of Mohawk, New York.
[(19)] (21) Moyer Creek, Village of Frankfort, New
York.--Project for flood control, Moyer Creek, village
of Frankfort, New York.
[(20)] (22) Sauquoit Creek, Whitesboro, New York.--
Project for flood control, Sauquoit Creek, Whitesboro,
New York.
[(21)] (23) Steele Creek, Village of Ilion, New
York.--Project for flood control, Steele Creek, village
of Ilion, New York.
[(22)] (24) Willamette River, Oregon.--Project for
nonstructural flood control, Willamette River, Oregon,
including floodplain and ecosystem restoration.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 104. SMALL NAVIGATION PROJECTS.
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that the
project is feasible, may carry out the project under section
107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577):
(1) Akutan, alaska.-- * * *
(9) Fortescue inlet, delaware bay, new jersey.--
Project for navigation for Fortesque Inlet, Delaware
Bay, New Jersey.
[(9)] (10) Brooklyn, new york.--Project for
navigation, Brooklyn, New York, including restoration
of the pier and related navigation support structures,
at the Sixty-Ninth Street Pier.
[(10))] (11) Buffalo inner harbor, buffalo, new
york.--Project for navigation, Buffalo Inner Harbor,
Buffalo, New York, including enlargement of the
existing harbor and bank stabilization measures.
[(11))] (12) Glenn cove creek, new york.--Project
for navigation, Glenn Cove Creek, New York, including
bulkheading.
[(12))] (13) Union ship canal, buffalo and
lackawanna, new york.-- Project for navigation, Union
Ship Canal, Buffalo and Lackawanna, New York.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 206. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.
(a) General Authority.-- * * *
(c) Agreements.--[Construction]
(1) In general.--Construction of a project under
this section shall be initiated only after a non-
Federal interest has entered into a binding agreement
with the Secretary to pay the non-Federal share of the
costs of construction required by this section and to
pay 100 percent of any operation, maintenance, and
replacement and rehabilitation costs with respect to
the project in accordance with regulations prescribed
by the Secretary.
(2) Nonprofit entities.--Notwithstanding section
221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-
5b(b)), for any project undertaken under this section,
a non-Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity
with the consent of the affected local government.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 211. CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS BY NON-FEDERAL
INTERESTS.
(a) Authority.-- * * *
(e) Reimbursement.--
(1) General rule.-- * * *
(2) Special rules.--
(A) Reimbursement.--For work (including
work associated with studies, planning, design,
and construction) carried out by a non-Federal
interest with respect to a project described in
subsection (f), the Secretary shall, [subject
to amounts being made available in advance in
appropriations Acts] subject to the
availability of appropriations, reimburse,
without interest, the non-Federal interest an
amount equal to the estimated Federal share of
the cost of such work if such work is later
recommended by the Chief of Engineers and
approved by the Secretary.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 301. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS.
(a) Projects With Reports.-- * * *
(b) Projects Subject to Reports.--The following projects
are modified as follows, except that no funds may be obligated
to carry out work under such modifications until completion of
a report by the Corps of Engineers finding that such work is
technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and economic, as
applicable:
(1) Alamo dam, arizona.-- * * *
(3) Glenn-colusa, california.--The project for
flood control, Sacramento River, California, authorized
by section 2 of the Act entitled ``An Act to provide
for the control of the floods of the Mississippi River
and of the Sacramento River, California, and for other
purposes'', approved March 1, 1917 (39 Stat. 949), and
modified by section 102 of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 1990 (103 Stat. 649),
and further modified by section 301(b)(3) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3709), [is
further modified to authorize the Secretary to carry
out the portion of the project at Glenn-Colusa,
California, at a total cost of $14,200,000] is further
modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out the
portion of the project in Glenn-Colusa, California in
accordance with the Corps of Engineers report dated May
22, 1998, at a total cost of $20,700,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $15,570,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $5,130,000.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 364. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.
The following projects are not authorized after the date
of the enactment of this Act:
(1) Branford Harbor, Connecticut.-- * * *
[(9) East Boothbay Harbor, Maine.--The following
portion of the navigation project for East Boothbay
Harbor, Maine, authorized by the 1st section of the Act
entitled ``An Act making appropriations for the
construction, repair, and preservation of certain
public works on rivers and harbors, and for other
purposes'', approved June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 657),
containing approximately 1.15 acres and described in
accordance with the Maine State Coordinate System, West
Zone: Beginning at a point noted as point number 6 and
shown as having plan coordinates of North 9, 722, East
9, 909, on the plan entitled, ``East Boothbay Harbor,
Maine, examination, 8- foot area'', and dated August 9,
1955, Drawing Number F1251 D-6- 2, that point having
Maine State Coordinate System, West Zone coordinates of
Northing 74514, Easting 698381. Thence, North 58
degrees, 12 minutes, 30 seconds East a distance of
120.9 feet to a point. Thence, South 72 degrees, 21
minutes, 50 seconds East a distance of 106.2 feet to a
point. Thence, South 32 degrees, 04 minutes, 55 seconds
East a distance of 218.9 feet to a point. Thence, South
61 degrees, 29 minutes, 40 seconds West a distance of
148.9 feet to a point. Thence, North 35 degrees, 14
minutes, 12 seconds West a distance of 87.5 feet to a
point. Thence, North 78 degrees, 30 minutes, 58 seconds
West a distance of 68.4 feet to a point. Thence, North
27 degrees, 11 minutes, 39 seconds West a distance of
157.3 feet to the point of beginning.]
(9) East Boothbay Harbor, Maine.--The project for
navigation, East Boothbay Harbor, Maine, authorized by
the first section of the Act entitled ``An Act making
appropriations for the construction, repair, and
preservation of certain public works on rivers and
harbors, and for other purposes'', approved June 25,
1910 (36 Stat. 657).
* * * * * * *
SEC. 444. PACIFIC REGION.
The Secretary may conduct studies in the [interest of
navigation] interests of water resources development (including
navigation, flood damage reduction, and environmental
restoration) in that part of the Pacific region that includes
American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 503. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, RESTORATION, AND DEVELOPMENT.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may provide technical,
planning, and design assistance to non-Federal interests for
carrying out watershed management, restoration, and development
projects at the locations described in subsection (d).
(b) Specific Measures.--Assistance provided under
subsection (a) may be in support of non-Federal projects for
the following purposes:
(1) Management and restoration of water quality.
(2) Control and remediation of toxic sediments.
(3) Restoration of degraded streams, rivers,
wetlands, and other waterbodies to their natural
condition as a means to control flooding, excessive
erosion, and sedimentation.
(4) Protection and restoration of watersheds,
including urban watersheds.
(5) Demonstration of technologies for nonstructural
measures to reduce destructive impacts of flooding.
(c) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost
of assistance provided under subsection (a) shall be 50
percent.
(d) Project Locations.--The Secretary may provide
assistance under subsection (a) for projects at the following
locations:
(1) Gila River and Tributaries, Santa Cruz River,
Arizona.
(2) Rio Salado, Salt River, Phoenix and Tempe,
Arizona.
(3) Colusa basin, California.
(4) Los Angeles River watershed, California.
(5) Napa Valley watershed, California.
(6) Russian River watershed, California.
(7) Sacramento River watershed, California.
(8) San Pablo Bay watershed, California.
(9) Santa Clara Valley watershed, California.
(10) Nancy Creek, Utoy Creek, and North Peachtree
Creek and South Peachtree Creek basin, Georgia.
(11) Lower Platte River watershed, Nebraska.
(12) Juniata River watershed, Pennsylvania,
including Raystown Lake.
(13) Upper Potomac River watershed, Grant and
Mineral Counties, West Virginia.
(14) Clear Lake watershed, California.
(15) Fresno Slough watershed, California.
(16) Hayward Marsh, Southern San Francisco Bay
watershed, California.
(17) Kaweah River watershed, California.
(18) Lake Tahoe watershed, California and Nevada.
(19) Malibu Creek watershed, California.
(20) Truckee River basin, Nevada.
(21) Walker River basin, Nevada.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 511. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM TO IMPROVE SALMON SURVIVAL.
[(a) Salmon Survival Activities.--
[(1) In general.--The Secretary shall accelerate
ongoing research and development activities, and may
carry out or participate in additional 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.
[(2) Accelerated activities.--Accelerated research
and development activities referred to in paragraph (1)
may include research and development related to--
[(A) impacts from water resources projects
and other impacts on salmon life cycles;
[(B) juvenile and adult salmon passage;
[(C) light and sound guidance systems;
[(D) surface-oriented collector systems;
[(E) transportation mechanisms; and
[(F) dissolved gas monitoring and
abatement.
[(3) Additional activities.--Additional research
and development activities referred to in paragraph (1)
may include research and development related to--
[(A) marine mammal predation on salmon;
[(B) studies of juvenile salmon survival in
spawning and rearing areas;
[(C) estuary and near-ocean juvenile and
adult salmon survival;
[(D) impacts on salmon life cycles from
sources other than water resources projects;
and
[(E) other innovative technologies and
actions intended to improve fish survival,
including the survival of resident fish.
[(4) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate
any activities carried out under this subsection with
appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies,
affected Indian tribes, and the Northwest Power
Planning Council.
[(5) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
transmit to Congress a report on the research and
development activities carried out under this
subsection, including any recommendations of the
Secretary concerning the research and development
activities.
[(6) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out
research and development activities under paragraph
(3).
[(b) Advanced Turbine Development.--
[(1) In general.--In conjunction with the Secretary
of Energy, the Secretary shall accelerate efforts
toward developing innovative, efficient, and
environmentally safe hydropower tur bines, including
design of ``fish-friendly'' turbines, for use on the
Columbia River hydrosystem.
[(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated $12,000,000 to carry out
this subsection.
[(c) Implementation.--Nothing in this section affects the
authority of the Secretary to implement the results of the
research and development carried out under this section or any
other law.]
(a) Salmon Survival Activities.--
(1) In general.--In conjunction with the Secretary
of Commerce and Secretary of the Interior, the
Secretary shall accelerate ongoing research and
development activities, and may carry out or
participate in additional research and development
activities, for the purpose of developing innovative
methods and technologies for improving the survival of
salmon, especially salmon in the Columbia/Snake River
Basin.
(2) Accelerated activities.--Accelerated research
and development activities referred to in paragraph (1)
may include research and development related to--
(A) impacts from water resources projects
and other impacts on salmon life cycles;
(B) juvenile and adult salmon passage;
(C) light and sound guidance systems;
(D) surface-oriented collector systems;
(E) transportation mechanisms; and
(F) dissolved gas monitoring and abatement.
(3) Additional activities.--Additional research and
development activities referred to in paragraph (1) may
include research and development related to--
(A) studies of juvenile salmon survival in
spawning and rearing areas;
(B) estuary and near-ocean juvenile and
adult salmon survival;
(C) impacts on salmon life cycles from
sources other than water resources projects;
(D) cryopreservation of fish gametes and
formation of a germ plasm repository for
threatened and endangered populations of native
fish; and
(E) other innovative technologies and
actions intended to improve fish survival,
including the survival of resident fish.
(4) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate
any activities carried out under this subsection with
appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies,
affected Indian tribes, and the Northwest Power
Planning Council.
(5) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit
to Congress a report on the research and development
activities carried out under this subsection, including
any recommendations of the Secretary concerning the
research and development activities.
(6) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out
research and development activities under paragraph
(3).
(b) Advanced Turbine Development.--
(1) In general.--In conjunction with the Secretary
of Energy, the Secretary shall accelerate efforts
toward developing and installing in Corps of Engineers
operated dams innovative, efficient, and
environmentally safe hydropower turbines, including
design of ``fish-friendly'' turbines, for use on the
Columbia/Snake River hydrosystem.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated $35,000,000 to carry out
this subsection.
(c) Management of Predation on Columbia/Snake River System
Native Fishes.--
(1) Nesting avian predators.--In conjunction with
the Secretary of Commerce and Secretary of the
Interior, and consistent with a management plan to be
developed by the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, the Secretary shall carry out methods to
reduce nesting populations of avian predators on dredge
spoil islands in the Columbia River under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated $1,000,000 to carry out
research and development activities under this
subsection.
(d) Implementation.--Nothing in this section affects the
authority of the Secretary to implement the results of the
research and development carried out under this section or any
other law.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 528. EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.
(a) Definitions.-- * * *
(b) Restoration Activities.--
(1) Comprehensive plan.-- * * *
(3) Critical restoration projects.--
(A) In general.--In addition to the
activities described in paragraphs (1) and (2),
if the Secretary, in cooperation with the non-
Federal project sponsor and the Task Force,
determines that a restoration project for the
South Florida ecosystem will produce
independent, immediate, and substantial
restoration, preservation, and protection
benefits, and will be generally consistent with
the conceptual framework described in paragraph
(1)(A)(ii)(II), the Secretary shall proceed
expeditiously with the implementation of the
restoration project.
(B) Initiation of projects.--After
September 30, [1999] 2000, no new projects may
be initiated under subparagraph (A).
(C) Authorization of appropriations.--
(i) In general.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to the
Department of the Army to pay the
Federal share of the cost of carrying
out projects under subparagraph (A)
$75,000,000 for the period consisting
of fiscal years 1997 through [1999]
2000.
(ii) Federal share.--The Federal
share of the cost of carrying out any 1
project under subparagraph (A) shall be
not more than $25,000,000.
* * * * * * *
(e) Cost Sharing.--
(1) In general.-- * * *
(4) Credit.--Regardless of the date of acquisition,
the value of lands or interests in land acquired by
non-Federal interests for any activity described in
subsection (b) shall be included in the total cost of
the activity and credited against the non-Federal share
of the cost of the activity , including potential land
acquisition in the Caloosahatchee River basin or other
areas. Such value shall be determined by the Secretary.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 567. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW YORK.
(a) Study and Strategy Development.--The Secretary, in
cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture, the State of
Pennsylvania, and the State of New York, shall conduct a study,
and develop a strategy, for using wetland restoration, soil and
water conservation practices, and nonstructural measures to
reduce flood damage, improve water quality, and create wildlife
habitat in the following portions of the Upper Susquehanna
River basin:
(1) The Juniata River watershed, Pennsylvania, at
an estimated Federal cost of $8,000,000.
(2) The Susquehanna River watershed upstream of the
Chemung River, New York, at an estimated Federal cost
of $5,000,000.
(3) The Chemung River watershed, New York, at an
estimated cost of $5,000,000.