21–815 PDF 

Calendar No. 130

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " SENATE ! 1st Session 109–84

ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2006

JUNE 16, 2005.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. DOMENICI, from the Committee on Appropriations,

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 2419]

The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the bill 

(H.R. 2419) making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other 

purposes, reports the same to the Senate with an amendment and 

recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

Amount in new budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2006

Total of bill as reported to the Senate .................... $31,245,000,000

Amount of 2005 appropriations ............................... 29,832,280,000

Amount of 2006 budget estimate ............................ 29,746,728,000

Amount of House allowance .................................... 29,746,000,000

Bill as recommended to Senate compared to—

2005 appropriations .......................................... ∂1,412,720,000

2006 budget estimate ........................................ ∂1,498,272,000

House allowance ................................................ ∂1,499,000,000
(2)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 4

Summary of Estimates and Recommendations ..................................................... 4

Title I—Department of Defense—Civil: Department of the Army: 

Corps of Engineers—Civil: 

General Investigations .............................................................................. 14

Construction, General ............................................................................... 33

Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries ................................... 52

Operation and Maintenance, General ..................................................... 57

Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies ................................................. 91

Regulatory Program .................................................................................. 91

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ................................ 91

General Expenses ...................................................................................... 92

General Provisions—Corps of Engineers—Civil ..................................... 93

Title II—Department of the Interior: 

Central Utah Project Completion Account ..................................................... 95

Bureau of Reclamation: 

Water and Related Resources .................................................................. 95

Central Valley Project Restoration Fund ................................................ 109

California Bay-Delta Restoration ............................................................. 109

Policy and Administration ........................................................................ 110

General Provisions—Department of the Interior ........................................... 110

Title III—Department of Energy: 

Energy Supply and Conservation .................................................................... 116

Office of Electricity Delivery Energy Reliability ..................................... 125

Nuclear Energy Programs ........................................................................ 127

Environment, Safety, and Health ............................................................ 132

Fossil Energy Research and Development .............................................. 132

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves ............................................... 134

Elk Hills School Lands Fund ................................................................... 135

Strategic Petroleum Reserve .................................................................... 135

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve ..................................................... 135

Energy Information Administration ........................................................ 136

Non-defense Environmental Cleanup ............................................................. 137

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund ......... 138

Science ............................................................................................................... 139

High Energy Physics ................................................................................. 141

Nuclear Physics ......................................................................................... 141

Biological and Environmental Research .................................................. 142

Basic Energy Sciences ............................................................................... 145

Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund ......................................................................... 148

Departmental Administration ......................................................................... 150

Inspector General ............................................................................................. 150

Atomic Energy Defense Activities: 

National Nuclear Security Administration: 

Weapons Activities ............................................................................. 152

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation .................................................... 166

Naval Reactors ................................................................................... 170

Office of the Administrator ............................................................... 171

Environmental and Other Defense Activities: 

Defense Environmental Cleanup ...................................................... 172

Other Defense Activities .................................................................... 175

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal ...................................................... 177

Power Marketing Administrations: 

Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration ....................................................................................... 179
Page

3

Title III—Department of Energy—Continued

Atomic Energy Defense Activities—Continued

Environmental and Other Defense Activities—Continued

Power Marketing Administrations—Continued

Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration ....................................................................................... 179

Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, 

Western Area Power Administration ..................................... 179

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Salaries and Expenses .. 180

General Provisions—Department of Energy .................................................. 208

Title IV—Independent Agencies: 

Appalachian Regional Commission ................................................................. 210

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ........................................................ 210

Delta Regional Authority ................................................................................. 211

Denali Commission ........................................................................................... 211

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ..................................................................... 211

Office of Inspector General ....................................................................... 212

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ......................................................... 213

Tennessee Valley Authority Office of the Inspector General ........................ 213

Title V—General Provisions ................................................................................... 214

Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of the

Senate ................................................................................................................... 215

Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of the

Senate ................................................................................................................... 216

Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of the

Senate ................................................................................................................... 216

Budgetary Impact Statement ................................................................................. 226
(4)

PURPOSE 

The purpose of this bill is to provide appropriations for the fiscal 

year 2006 beginning October 1, 2005, and ending September 30, 

2006, for energy and water development, and for other related purposes. It supplies funds for water resources development programs 

and related activities of the Department of the Army, Civil Functions—U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Civil Works Program in title 

I; for the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation in 

title II; for the Department of Energy’s energy research activities, 

including environmental restoration and waste management, and 

atomic energy defense activities of the National Nuclear Security 

Administration in title III; and for related independent agencies 

and commissions, including the Appalachian Regional Commission, 

Delta Regional Authority, Denali Commission, and the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission in title IV. 

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The fiscal year 2006 budget estimates for the bill total 

$31,245,000,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The recommendation of the Committee totals $31,245,000,000. This is 

$1,498,272,000 above the budget estimates and $1,412,720,000 over 

the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year. 

SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS

The Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water held 

four sessions in connection with the fiscal year 2006 appropriation 

bill. Witnesses included officials and representatives of the Federal 

agencies under the subcommittee’s jurisdiction. 

The subcommittee received numerous statements and letters 

from Members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, 

Governors, State and local officials and representatives, and hundreds of private citizens of all walks of life throughout the United 

States. Information, both for and against many items, was presented to the subcommittee. The recommendations for fiscal year 

2006 therefore, have been developed after careful consideration of 

available data. 

VOTES IN THE COMMITTEE

By a vote of 28 to 0 the Committee on June 16, 2005, recommended that the bill, as amended, be reported to the Senate.
(5)

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

INTRODUCTION

In 1802, responding to the need for engineering talent to support 

both the defense of the young United States and its civilian infrastructure, President Thomas Jefferson proposed a body of engineers 

within the U.S. Army, readily available to tackle assignments of 

national importance. To train them, he opened the first engineering 

school in the United States—the U.S. Military Academy at West 

Point, NY. 

In the two centuries since, the expertise the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers has gained, especially in water resources, has led administrations and Congress to assign it missions in navigation, flood 

control, shore protection, hydropower, water supply, recreation, 

and, most recently, environmental stewardship, cleanup and restoration work. The public has also relied on the Corps to respond 

rapidly with engineering services when disaster strikes. 

Still, the question has often arisen why the Army of today carries 

out a Civil Works mission that appears, at first glance, far removed 

from its primary mission of deterring and winning wars. In fact, in 

the past 80 years there have been at least eight proposals to transfer the Civil Works mission to other Government agencies. All have 

been rejected after more careful consideration. 

The Army has traditionally relied on its Civil Works mission to 

train combat engineers, and to complement and augment its 

warfighting competencies, providing the capability to respond to 

situations across the spectrum of conflict. Specifically, Civil Works 

provides the Army: 

—A force in being of about 24,000 engineers and other professionals, familiar with the Army culture and responsive to the 

chain of command. The program provides attractive careers 

and professional challenges to maintain this force. This is a no 

cost asset to the Army until needed for warfighting. 

—Established relationships with Federal, State and local officials, and with the Nation’s engineering and construction industries—a force multiplier of hundreds of thousands. ‘‘On the 

shelf’’ contracts are available for emergencies. —Deployability.—Corps members engaged in Civil Works activities are available where needed. Today scores of Civil Works 

personnel are deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Specialists in 

such activities as real estate were sent before the main force 

to secure needed facilities. Meanwhile, Corps ‘‘tele-engineering’’ 

systems link combat commanders to Corps labs and other 

stateside experts for immediate on-the-ground feedback. 
6

—Support to Combat Forces.—Corps of Engineers knowledge of 

beach dynamics helps determine sites for landings over the 

shore, while expertise in soil mechanics determines the best 

routes for armored vehicles with technologies developed in the 

Civil Works program. Corps’ work on winter navigation helps 

the Army cross frozen rivers—and was a major factor in its 

crossing of the Sava River in Bosnia. Its experience with roller 

compacted concrete for dams was used for runways and 

hardstands. Civil Works experience with harbors allows the 

Army to build ports to support U.S. forces in places such as Somalia where facilities are primitive to non-existent. 

—Expertise in natural and cultural resources, water quality, 

flood plain management or toxic waste control, helping the 

Army comply with more than 70 Federal environmental statutes, and a breadth of experience and workload in dozens of 

specialized fields that would not otherwise be possible. —A Power Projection Platform.—Nearly all military equipment 

deployed overseas passes through ports maintained by the 

Civil Works program. So do most Navy ships. Corps flood control projects also play a role in force projection by protecting 

key highway and rail links. —International Goodwill.—Army Engineers experienced in Civil 

Works play a major role in infrastructure in developing nations. They help to improve economic conditions and strengthen democratic institutions in these nations; allow the Army a 

presence in politically sensitive areas; and foster good will 

through contact between governments and armed forces. Today 

Corps personnel are working in more than 90 nations around 

the world. In most of these nations, no other U.S. forces are 

present. 

Army management of the Nation’s water resources, in turn, benefits the program and the Nation in a number of ways: —Responsiveness.—Corps members and contractors are available 

to deploy, often within hours, wherever the need arises. This 

was dramatically demonstrated in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Civil Works personnel were on the 

scene within hours. Corps vessels operated a ferry service taking survivors to New Jersey and bringing rescue workers into 

the city. Corps personnel assisted with rescue and recovery operations. Structural engineers evaluated which buildings were 

safe for re-entry. The 249th Engineer Battalion (Prime Power) 

provided the expertise necessary to set up emergency generators that had New York’s financial district back in business the 

following Monday. The Corps also developed the plan for disposal of debris from ‘‘Ground Zero’’ and managed the Staten Island disposal site so that 1.35 million tons of material were 

safely disposed of months ahead of schedule and $55,000,000 

under budget. 

—A Bias For Action.—A unique mix of Army officers with a ‘‘can 

do’’ attitude working alongside world class engineering and scientific civilian expertise makes the Corps arguably the most 

positive and proactive agency in the Federal Government. 

—National Security Consideration in Planning for Infrastructure.—The Corps recently completed security assessments for 
7

more than 300 of its key projects. It also led the establishment 

in March 2002 of The Infrastructure Security Partnership 

[TISP], bringing together government and private organizations representing about 1.6 million engineers and other professionals to focus on securing the infrastructure necessary to 

maintain normal American life. Corps ‘‘hardening’’ measures, 

meanwhile, were credited with saving hundreds of lives in the 

9/11 attack on the Pentagon. —Impartiality in Recommendations for Projects, Permits, Etc.— Administrations and Congresses rely on the Corps to base investment recommendations on the best engineering, economic 

and environmental science available, not political considerations. —Concentration of Water Resources Expertise in One Agency.— The Corps, with the great majority of its civil works personnel 

located throughout the 50 States rather than in Washington, 

DC, is unique in the world in that it provides a common arena 

for water resources issues in the United States to be debated 

and solutions vetted. Governments of other countries study the 

Corps as they begin to understand the need for integrated solutions and seek to build the capability to achieve them by combining previously separate agency responsibilities. The Corps 

provides synergy among various uses of water, balance among 

uses and geographic areas, and the ability to plan water resources for watersheds as a whole instead of single projects for 

specific locations. Water resource planners and the public are 

increasingly coming to understand that water problems cannot 

be considered in isolation—the solution to one problem often 

generates others. Uses and protection of water resources cannot be separated, but require an integrated, watershed approach. Having different agencies in charge of water resource 

uses would guarantee conflicts among uses, while having all 

uses under the auspices of one agency is a major step in creating a balanced, holistic approach to the Nation’s water 

needs—a step that was taken 200 years ago. 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET OVERVIEW

The fiscal year 2006 budget request for the Corps of Engineers 

is composed of $4,332,000,000 in new budgetary authority and 

$181,000,000 in offsetting collections from the Power Marketing 

Authorities for a total program of $4,513,000,000. The Committee 

is unable to take advantage of the offsetting collections due to 

budgetary scoring impacts and therefore rejects this proposal for 

the fourth year in a row. 

The Committee recommends a total of $5,298,000,000 for the 

Corps of Engineers, an increase of $612,452,000 from fiscal year 

2005 enacted levels (adjusted for one-time emergency spending of 

$372,400,000). The Committee recommendation is $966,000,000 

above the request. The Committee recommendation provides for a 

robust planning program as well as providing significant increases 

to the construction and operation and maintenance accounts. Unfortunately, even with this large increase the Committee recommendation falls short of what is actually needed to provide efficient levels of funding for all on-going work. 
8

The Corps’ budget proposal is a departure from previous years. 

This budget is the first to be developed as a full business line program prioritization and then cross-walked to the traditional accounts summary. Projects compete in each of the three main mission areas (Flood Damage Reduction, Navigation and Environmental Restoration) and are classified as follows: 

—Coastal Navigation, 

—Inland Navigation, 

—Flood Damage reduction, 

—Storm Damage reduction, 

—Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, and 

—Other (including all major rehabilitation and Hydropower). 

Categories 1–4 comprise 70 percent or more of the Construction, 

General Program; Category 5 is 25 percent or less; and Category 

6 is 5 percent or more. Projects were ranked on two performance 

criteria—Remaining Benefits to Remaining Costs Ratio or effective 

use of resources to address significant ecological problems. Lower 

ranking projects are proposed for contract deferral, suspension or 

termination. The budget proposed another new shore protection 

policy, the fourth in 4 years. Additionally, the budget proposed repealing the current continuing contract language and replacing it 

with new multiple year contracting. Finally, the budget included a 

proposal that $200,000,000 of the construction funds should be contingent upon Congress accepting the administration’s budgetary 

prioritization criteria. 

The Committee is disappointed that the administration has included another ‘‘new’’ beach policy. Beaches are the leading tourist 

destination in the United States. California beaches alone receive 

nearly 600 million tourist visits annually. This is more tourist visits than to all of the lands controlled by the National Park Service 

and the Bureau of Land Management combined. Beach tourists 

contribute $260,000,000,000 to the U.S. economy and 

$60,000,000,000 in Federal taxes. Last year Congress provided legislation that beach policies will not be changed except by congressional direction. Congress has repeatedly demonstrated that the 

current beach policy is satisfactory. The Committee has attempted 

to provide sufficient funding for a number of the most critical shore 

protection projects. 

The Committee has chosen to reject all of these budget proposals. 

The Committee believes that this is no way to run a robust national infrastructure program. The Corps needs to seriously reexamine its ‘‘business line’’ budget model. The Corps program has always been a ‘‘big tent’’ where all aspects of water resource development were jointly discussed and budgeted. The business line approach segregates these interests and promotes discord among various water resource interests. There is already evidence of some 

‘‘business lines’’ attempting to find ways to take funding from 

‘‘business lines’’ with smaller constituent bases. This lack of unity 

will further the downward spiral of recent budget proposals. 

The Committee believes that the budget proposal’s blind emphasis on remaining benefits to remaining costs ratios to determine 

funding priorities is misplaced. The strict adherence to the metric 

of Remaining Benefit to Remaining Cost Ratio to the exclusion of 

all other possible metrics that could have been utilized such as 
9

widespread project net benefits, inclusion of system-wide values, 

acknowledgement of regional benefits, recognition of a wider set of 

benefits over a longer planning period than just 1 year, calculations 

using other interest rates that are more in accordance with the 

projects authorizations, as well as the GI metric of 3.0 RBRCR for 

the PED projects, is indeed narrow. 

Also, funding only the ‘‘highest potential return’’ studies to the 

detriment of many other studies that provide a future vision or address far-reaching problems while not yet showing any BCR data, 

can also be considered ‘‘penny wise and pound foolish.’’ These studies still add value and importance and have a place in the problem 

solving needs of the overall Nation’s water community. 

While this process may have led to a very focused performancebased set of final projects to study, design and construct, the 

metrics used led to a very skewed set of results with a few strong 

regional winners and many losers. Consideration of a more encompassing set of factors including those mentioned above, as well as 

a number still under development, would have provided a more 

comprehensive set of projects, yet continuing to deliver needed, effective, national water benefits. 

These ratios provide a ‘‘snapshot’’ view of a project. They tell you 

nothing of the relative value of one project to another, projects in 

rural areas with fewer beneficiaries are penalized and no consideration is given to the workforce. Congress has repeatedly demonstrated that it desires to keep the structure of the Corps of Engineers as it is currently configured. Yet if the budget were enacted, 

there would be no way to maintain this workforce, due to how the 

ratios skewed the projects to certain areas of the country. 

The program proposed in the budget is very unbalanced among 

planning, construction and maintenance. The planning program is 

decimated. The proposed program slows down the number of 

projects reaching construction by limiting funding for new study 

phases. The planning program is vital to a healthy Corps of Engineers; without a steady supply of new studies, eventually there will 

be no new construction projects, and then the Corps would gradually become an operation and maintenance organization with no 

real national capabilities. There is no shortage of water resource 

needs in the country today, and the Corps needs to maintain a robust planning program to be able to continue to address these 

needs. 

Continuing Contracts 

The Corps needs flexibility to manage their program. Unlike 

building a hospital or a barracks or a post office where the site is 

relatively contained, flood free, and accessible, water resource 

projects are constructed in physically challenging locations. By 

their nature, these projects involve large mobilization costs and 

great uncertainties. The Corps of Engineers has been tasked with 

providing hundreds of water infrastructure projects in challenging 

locations throughout the country. Historically, the Corps has done 

an outstanding job of managing these great water resource projects 

and has provided the water infrastructure that has greatly contributed to our economic security. 
10

One of the greatest tools that the Corps of Engineers has for 

managing its nationwide water resources infrastructure program is 

the ability to award multiyear continuing contracts. When an agency is managing, literally, hundreds of construction projects 

throughout the country, problems are inevitable. These can range 

from flood, to drought, to funding shortfalls, to unanticipated hazardous wastes encountered in the construction site, or discovery of 

unanticipated cultural resources. Any one of these items can bring 

a project to a temporary halt or slow construction. By the same 

token, projects can be accelerated due to mild winters or below average flows on a river allowing a longer construction season with 

more work to be done and more funds to be utilized. 

Water resources projects, because of the nature of the work involved, are funded on an incremental annual basis. As far back as 

1922, the Congress recognized the need for flexibility in management and execution of the Civil Works program and provided the 

Army Corps of Engineers with legislation that allowed the use of 

continuing contracts for specifically authorized projects. In a 1977 

decision, the Comptroller General confirmed that the authority 

found in the 1922 law constituted an exception to the Anti-deficiency Act. Accordingly, the Corps has had the discretion to use 

continuing contracts to execute any of its specifically authorized 

water resources projects since at least 1977. 

In the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (33 U.S.C. 

§ 2331), the Congress enacted another provision of law relating to 

continuing contracts. This legislation requires the Corps to award 

a continuing contract for a water resources project for which initiation of construction has occurred, but for which sufficient funds 

are not available to complete the project. The statute defines initiation of construction as the date of the enactment of an appropriations act in which the project receives funds from either the Construction, General, Operation and Maintenance, General or Flood 

Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries lump sum appropriations. Since Congress rarely appropriates sufficient funds for each 

project, the practical effect of the statute is that it requires the use 

of continuing contracts for the majority of civil works water resource projects. 

Continuing contracts allow the Corps to award large construction 

elements of a project to take advantage of the economies of scale 

available to construction contractors. Allowing these large construction elements to be managed over several years without requiring 

contracts to be fully funded before construction begins affords the 

Corps the ability to more efficiently manage multiple construction 

contracts. Multiyear funding, and the ability to reprogram funds, 

are tools that have allowed the Corps to maximize scarce resources 

to try to do as much as possible with the resources available to 

them; they also left the Corps open to charges that it has put contractors in charge of managing its funds. 

The Congress has expressed its concerns in the past that Corps 

of Engineers construction projects may have used the continuing 

contracts clause and the ability to reprogram funds to award some 

construction contracts that may not have been fiscally prudent in 

light of current budget realities. However, many of these construction contracts were awarded when surplus funds were available al-
11

lowing reprogramming of funds to make up for budget shortfalls. 

This process has resulted in most surplus funds being expended, 

leaving the Corps with very little flexibility to cover the financial 

obligations of the construction contracts. As a result, an increased 

number of reprogrammings are necessary to satisfy as many of the 

Corps’ financial obligations as possible. 

In the Conference Report accompanying the fiscal year 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (House Report 108–792), the Congress 

expressed its belief that the Corps had made great strides in resolving these financial issues by applying more stringent controls 

on financial obligations allowed on continuing contracts and allowed the Corps to continue to resolve the situation. The Congress 

also cautioned the Corps that it must regain control of all aspects 

of program execution and execute the program which Congress appropriates. The Committee believes that the Corps has made 

progress in tightening controls on the use of continuing contracts. 

For example, these types of contracts have traditionally been executed at a district level. However, the decision has been elevated 

to Corps headquarters on whether or not to award a continuing 

contract. The Committee sees this as an appropriate but temporary 

necessity and expects continuing contracts to remain a generally 

available contracting tool for program execution. 

The continuing contract clause has adequate controls to limit the 

future obligations of the Federal Government. The Committee expects the Corps to utilize these controls to limit Government exposure. The Committee expects the Corps to develop specific execution guidance to control and manage the implementation of continuing contracts, consistent with law and prudent fiscal policy, 

and to carry out the Civil Works program accordingly. 

Reprogramming 

The Committee expects the Corps to execute the Civil Works program following congressional direction. This includes moving individual projects forward in accordance with the funds annually appropriated. However, the Committee realizes that many factors 

outside the Corps’ control may dictate the progress of any given 

project or study. Therefore, the Committee believes that it is imperative to allow the Corps ample flexibility to manage the program 

and to utilize excess funds as they become available on a particular 

project to move the entire program forward. With this flexibility 

comes a responsibility to insure that appropriated funds are available for projects when necessary. The Committee expects the Corps 

to develop specific execution guidance to control and manage the 

reprogramming of funds, which is consistent with law and prudent 

fiscal policy, and to carry out the Civil Works program accordingly. 

As there were some ambiguities in the reprogramming guidance 

provided with the fiscal year 2005 Omnibus Report, the Committee 

has elected to redraft that guidance and present it here. 

Reprogramming is also to be used in very benign, fiscally responsible ways. The Corps financial management system uses thousands of work item codes to supply funding for everything from 

purchasing a screwdriver to ordering a computer to buying a miter 

gate for a lock and dam. As the Government cannot fund purchases 

in arrears, adequate funding estimates must be supplied into these 
12

work items prior to purchases being made. Rarely are these estimates an exact match for these purchases. Often funding is left in 

these work items that must be cleaned up at the end of the fiscal 

year. The remaining funds from these accounts must be reprogrammed to other accounts in order to be used. These remaining 

funds can range from a few pennies to thousands of dollars. The 

same is true when a cost shared project is completed with a local 

sponsor. A final accounting must be made and all of the old work 

items must be cleaned out in order to dispose of leftover project 

funding. 

Reprogramming Guidance 

A reprogramming action may not be used to eliminate or initiate 

a program, project or activity. 

General Investigations.—Reprogramming a cumulative total of up 

to 25 percent of the total General Investigations appropriation 

funding is permitted. Such reprogramming between studies and 

programs within the preceding limitation are permitted without approval of either House of Congress. However, the Chief of Engineers shall provide a quarterly report to both House and Senate 

Appropriations Committees of all reprogrammings for individual 

studies or programs with increases in excess of $250,000 but less 

than or equal to $500,000. Approval of both House and Senate Appropriations Committees is required for cumulative reprogramming 

increases greater than $500,000. Restoration of all savings and 

slippage shall not count toward the cumulative total. The Committee does not object to reprogramming up to $50,000 to any continuing study or program that did not receive an appropriation in 

the current year. All funds used to source reprogrammings described above should be surplus to current year needs for that effort. For the purpose of this section, the cumulative total is derived 

by summing the net increases of reprogrammings for only the gaining projects or programs. 

Construction, General.—Reprogramming a cumulative total of up 

to 15 percent of the total Construction, General appropriation funding is permitted. Such reprogramming between projects and programs within the preceding limitation are permitted without approval of either House of Congress. However, the Chief of Engineers shall provide a quarterly report to both House and Senate 

Appropriations Committees of all reprogrammings for individual 

projects or programs with increases in excess of $4,000,000 but less 

than or equal to $7,000,000. Approval of both House and Senate 

Appropriations Committees is required for cumulative reprogramming increases greater than $7,000,000. Restoration of all savings 

and slippage and prior year revocations shall not count toward the 

cumulative total. The Committee does not object to the restoration 

of prior year revocations or the additional reprogramming of up to 

$500,000 to any continuing project or program that did not receive 

an appropriation in the current year. All funds used to source 

reprogrammings described above should be surplus to current year 

needs for that effort. For the purpose of this section, the cumulative total is derived by summing the net increases of 

reprogrammings for only the gaining projects or programs. 
13

Operations and Maintenance.—Unlimited reprogramming authority is granted in order for the Corps to be able to respond to emergencies. The Chief of Engineers must notify the House and Senate 

Appropriations Committees as soon as practicable of these emergency situations. For all other situations, reprogramming a cumulative total of up to 50 percent of the total Operations and Maintenance appropriation funding is permitted. Such reprogramming between projects and programs within the preceding limitation are 

permitted without approval of either House of Congress. However, 

the Chief of Engineers shall provide a quarterly report to both 

House and Senate Appropriations Committees of all 

reprogrammings for individual projects or programs with increases 

in excess of $5,000,000 but less than or equal to $10,000,000. Approval of both House and Senate Appropriations Committees is required for cumulative reprogramming increases greater than 

$10,000,000. All funds used to source reprogrammings described 

above should be surplus to current year needs for that effort. For 

the purpose of this section, the cumulative total is derived by summing the net increases of reprogrammings for only the gaining 

projects or programs. 

Mississippi River and Tributaries.—The Corps should follow the 

same reprogramming guidelines for the General Investigations, 

Construction, and Operation and Maintenance portions of the Mississippi River and Tributaries Account as listed above. 

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.—The Corps 

may reprogram up to 15 percent of the appropriated funding level 

between FUSRAP projects without Committee approval. Restoration of prior year reprogramming amounts shall not count towards 

the cumulative total. 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTION AND MANAGEMENT

The Committee is extremely disappointed in the general lack of 

leadership being exhibited by the Chief of Engineers, the Director 

of Civil Works and the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil 

Works) in execution of the Civil Works program. The Corps of Engineers has been provided clear guidance on program execution in 

a number of Acts of Congress over the years and is provided annual direction and guidance through the Energy and Water Appropriations Act. The ASA[CW] provides the Chief of Engineers advice 

about policy matters and is generally the political spokesperson for 

the administration’s policies; however, the Chief of Engineers is responsible for carrying out the program. The Chief of Engineers receives his orders from the Army Chief of Staff and those orders 

flow through him to the Director of Civil Works and through the 

rest of the Civil Works hierarchy to carry out those orders. The 

Committee expects the Chief of Engineers to prepare management 

and execution plans in accordance with this guidance and to aggressively carry out those plans. The Committee has twice reminded the Chief of Engineers, in writing, of his obligations to execute the program for fiscal year 2005 contained in the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2005 (Public Law 108–447). The Committee 

also directed that all guidance provided by the Congress should be 

adhered to in carrying out his responsibilities. It is a simple matter 

to determine the consensus judgments of the Congress as to how 
14

executive branch programs should be administered. All one must 

do is look at the law and the accompanying reports as enacted. Any 

other congressional guidance should be viewed as suggestive and 

weighed in context with guidance that the Congress provided. The 

Committee expects the Chief of Engineers regain control and leadership over the Corps of Engineers and the Civil Works program 

immediately. 

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. 1 $143,344,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 95,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 100,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 180,000,000

1 Excludes emergency appropriations of $400,000.

This appropriation funds studies to determine the need, engineering feasibility, economic justification, and the environmental 

and social suitability of solutions to water and related land resource problems; and for preconstruction engineering and design 

work, data collection, and interagency coordination and research 

activities. 

The budget request and the recommended Committee allowance 

are shown on the following table:
15

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

Investigations Planning Investiga- tions Planning Investiga- tions Planning 

ALABAMA

BREWTON AND EAST BREWTON, AL ...................................................................................................................................................... 189 .................. .................. .................. 189 ..................VILLAGE CREEK, JEFFERSON COUNTY (BIRMINGHAM WATERSHED) ...................................................................................................... 253 .................. .................. .................. 253 ..................

ALASKA

AKUTAN HARBOR, AK ............................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 500ATKA HARBOR, AK ................................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................ALASKA REGIONAL PORTS, AK ............................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................ANCHORAGE HARBOR DEEPENING, AK .................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 1,000 ..................BARROW COASTAL STORM DAMAGE DEEPENING, AK ............................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 800 ..................CRAIG HARBOR, AK ............................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................DELONG MOUNTAIN HARBOR, AK .......................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 490 760EKLUTNA WATERSHED, AK ..................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................HAINES HARBOR, AK .............................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 300 ..................HOMER HARBOR MODIFICATION, AK ...................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................KENAI RIVER BLUFF EROSION,AK .......................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 500 ..................KETCHIKAN HARBOR, AK ........................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................KLANOCK HARBOR, AK ........................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................KNIK BRIDGE CROSSING, AK ................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 1,000 ..................KOTZEBUE SMALL BOAT HARBOR, AK ................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 500 ..................LITTLE DIOMEDE HARBOR, AK ............................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 400 ..................MATANUSKA RIVER WATERSHED, AK ..................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................MCGRATH, AK ........................................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 300 ..................MEKORYUK HARBOR, AK ........................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................PORT GRAHAM, AK ................................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................PORT LIONS HARBOR, AK ...................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................SAINT GEORGE HARBOR IMPROVEMENT, AK ......................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................UNALAKLEET, AK .................................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 500 ..................UNALASKA, AK ........................................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 500VALDEZ HARBOR EXPANSION, AK .......................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................WHITTIER BREAKWATER,AK .................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................YAKUTAT HARBOR, AK ........................................................................................................................................................................... 300 .................. .................. .................. 300 ..................
16

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

Investigations Planning Investiga- tions Planning Investiga- tions Planning 

ARIZONA

PIMA COUNTY, AZ .................................................................................................................................................................................. 488 .................. 488 .................. 488 ..................RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, AZ ......................................................................................................................................................... .................. 618 .................. 618 .................. 618RIO SALADO OESTA, SALT RIVER, AZ .................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 475 ..................SANTA CRUZ RIVER, GRANT RD TO FT LOWELL RD, AZ ....................................................................................................................... 400 .................. 400 .................. 400 ..................SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, AZ ............................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 100VA SHLY-AY AKIMEL SALT RIVER RESTORATION, AZ ............................................................................................................................. .................. 400 .................. 500 .................. 400

ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS CREEK, AR ...................................................................................................................................................................... 200 .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................LITTLE RIVER COUNTY (OGDEN LEVEE), AR .......................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 100NORTH LITTLE ROCK, DARK HOLLOW, AR .............................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 200PINE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR ..................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 400RED RIVER NAVIGATION STUDY, SW ARKANSAS, AR ............................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 400SOUTHWEST ARKANSAS, AR ................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................WHITE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, AR AND MO ............................................................................................................................. 1,000 .................. 900 .................. 1,000 ..................WHITE RIVER MINIMUM FLOWS, AR ....................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 100WHITE RIVER NAVIGATION TO NEWPORT, AR ........................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 100

CALIFORNIA

ALISO CREEK MAINSTEM, CA ................................................................................................................................................................. 350 .................. 450 .................. 350 ..................ARANA GULCH WATERSHED, CA ............................................................................................................................................................ 100 .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................ARROYO SECO WATERSHED, CA ............................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 300 ..................BALLONA CREEK ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA .................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 450 ..................BOLINAS LAGOON, CA ............................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. 200 .................. 200 ..................CALIFORNIA COASTAL SEDIMENT MASTER PLAN, CA ............................................................................................................................ 600 .................. 900 .................. 600 ..................CARPINTERIA SHORELINE STUDY, CA .................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................CITY ON INGLEWOOD, CA ...................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 275 ..................CITY OF NORWALK, CA .......................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 160 ..................CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA ................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................COAST OF CA, SOUTH COAST REGION (LA COUNTY) ............................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 300 ..................COYOTE CREEK, CA ............................................................................................................................................................................... 100 .................. 100 .................. 100 ..................
17

COYOTE DAM, CA ................................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................DESERT HOT SPRINGS, CA .................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 200 .................. .................. ..................EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, CA ........................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 1,000 .................. .................. ..................ESTUDILLO CANAL, CA ........................................................................................................................................................................... 600 .................. 900 .................. 600 ..................GRAYSON AND MURDERER’S CREEK, CA .............................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................HAMILITON CITY, CA .............................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 750HUMBOLT BAY LONG TERM SHOAL MGMT, CA ...................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................LAGUNA CREEK WATERSHED ................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................LAGUNA DE SANTA ROSA, CA ................................................................................................................................................................ 300 .................. 400 .................. 300 ..................LAGUNA CREEK, CA ............................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 900 ..................LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CORNFIELDS, CA .................................................................................................................. 600 .................. 1,300 .................. 600 ..................LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA .................................................................................................................................................................... 850 .................. 850 .................. 850 ..................MALIBU CREEK WATERSHED, CA ........................................................................................................................................................... 167 .................. .................. .................. 167 ..................MATILIJA DAM, CA .................................................................................................................................................................................. .................. 800 .................. 1,100 .................. 800MORRO BAY ESTUARY ........................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 348MUGU LAGOON, CA ................................................................................................................................................................................ 82 .................. 82 .................. 82 ..................NAPA RIVER SALT MARSH RESTORATION, CA ....................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 250 .................. ..................NAPA VALLEY WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, CA ...................................................................................................................................... 500 .................. 500 .................. .................. ..................OCEAN BEACH, SANFRANCISCO, CA ...................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 350 .................. .................. ..................ORANGE COUNTY SAMP ......................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 169 ..................PAJARO RIVER AT WATSONVILLE, CA ..................................................................................................................................................... .................. 477 .................. 1,000 .................. 477PENINSULA BEACH, CA .......................................................................................................................................................................... 308 .................. 308 .................. 308 ..................REDWOOD CITY NAVIGATION CHANNEL, CA ........................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................RUSSIAN RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA ................................................................................................................................... 400 .................. 600 .................. 400 ..................SACRAMENTO—SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, DELTA ISLANDS AND LEVEES CA .............................................................................................. 200 .................. .................. .................. 900 ..................SAN BERNARDO LAKES AND STREAMS, CA ........................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 250 .................. ..................SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE, CA ............................................................................................................................................................ 188 .................. 188 .................. 188 ..................SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHORELINE, CA ..................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK, CA ............................................................................................................................................................. 200 .................. 300 .................. 200 ..................SAN JACINTO RIVER, CA ........................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. 50 .................. .................. ..................SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY REGION, CA ........................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................SAN JUAN CREEK, SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY, CA .................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 350 .................. 350 ..................SAN PABLO BAY WATERSHED, CA ......................................................................................................................................................... 300 .................. 600 .................. 300 ..................SANTA ANA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, BIG BEAR LAKE, CA .................................................................................................................. 900 .................. 1,400 .................. 900 ..................SANTA CLARA RIVER WATERSHED, CA .................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 500 ..................SANTA ROSA CREEK ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA ............................................................................................................................ 400 .................. 400 .................. 400 ..................SOLANA-ENCINITAS SHORELINE, CA ...................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 750 .................. ..................SONOMA CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, CA ................................................................................................................................................ 300 .................. .................. .................. 300 ..................SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SHORELINE, CA ............................................................................................................................................... 600 .................. 600 .................. 800 ..................SUN VALLEY WATERSHED, CA ............................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 100 .................. 250 ..................
18

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

Investigations Planning Investiga- tions Planning Investiga- tions Planning 

SUTTER COUNTY, CA ............................................................................................................................................................................. 361 .................. 361 .................. 361 ..................TAHOE BASIN, CA AND NV ..................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 1,720THE COYOTE CREEK—LOWER SAN GABRIEL WATERSHED, CA ............................................................................................................. 500 .................. 500 .................. 500 ..................UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK, CA ............................................................................................................................................................. 628 .................. 628 .................. 628 ..................VENTURA AND SANTA BARBARA, CA ..................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................WESTMINSTER, EAST GARDEN GROVE, CA ............................................................................................................................................ 650 .................. 650 .................. 650 ..................WEST STANISLAUS COUNTY, ORESTIMBA CREEK, CA ............................................................................................................................ .................. .................. 200 .................. .................. ..................WILDCAT AND SAN PABLO CREEKS, CA ................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 150 ..................WILSON AND OAK GLEN CREEKS, SAN BERNADINO COUNTY, CA ......................................................................................................... .................. .................. 400 .................. .................. ..................

COLORADO

ADAMS COUNTY, CO .............................................................................................................................................................................. 300 .................. .................. .................. 300 ..................CACHE LA POUDRE, CO ......................................................................................................................................................................... 316 .................. .................. .................. 316 ..................CHATFIELD, CHERRY CREEK AND BEAR CREEK RESERVOIRS, CO ....................................................................................................... 276 .................. .................. .................. 276 ..................FOUNTAIN CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, CO .............................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................SOUTH BOULDER CREEK, CO ................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................ROARING FORK RIVER, BASALT, CO ...................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 50 ..................

CONNECTICUT

MYSTIC SEAPORT HARBOR, CT .............................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................

DELAWARE

DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, DE, NJ, NY, PA ................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................DELAWARE CANAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DE ........................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................

FLORIDA

DAYTONA BEACH SHORES, VOLUSIA COUNTY, FL ................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 325 ..................EGMONT KEY SHORELINE STABILIZATION, FL ........................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. 200 .................. .................. ..................LIDO KEY SARASOTA COUNTY, FL .......................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................MILE POINT, FL ...................................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 500 .................. 235 ..................PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL ........................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 125 .................. 250 ..................ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FL .......................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 225 ..................
19

ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FL ........................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................ST. PETERSBURG HARBOR, FL .............................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. 500 .................. ..................WALTON COUNTY, FL ............................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 200 500 .................. ..................

GEORGIA

ALLATOONA LAKE, GA ............................................................................................................................................................................ 750 .................. .................. .................. 750 ..................AUGUSTA, GA ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 200 .................. 200 100 200 ..................INDIAN, SUGAR, ENTRENCHMENT AND FEDERAL PRISON CREEKS ....................................................................................................... 680 .................. .................. .................. 680 ..................LONG ISLAND, MARSH AND JOHNS CREEKS, GA ................................................................................................................................... 676 .................. .................. .................. 676 ..................NORTH BEACH, GA ................................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 100 .................. .................. ..................SAVANNAH HARBOR ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, GA ............................................................................................................................ 400 .................. .................. .................. 400 ..................SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA ..................................................................................................................................................... .................. 800 .................. 800 .................. 800TYBEE ISLAND NORTH BEACH SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT, GA ....................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................

GUAM

HAGATNA RIVER FLOOD CONTROL, GUAM ............................................................................................................................................. 100 .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................

HAWAII

ALA WAI CANAL, OAHU, HI ..................................................................................................................................................................... 400 .................. 600 .................. 600 ..................BARBERS POINT HARBOR MODIFICATION, OAHU, HA ............................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................KAHUKU, HI ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 250 .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................KAWAIHAE DEEP DRAFT HARBOR MODIFICATIONS, HI ........................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 225 ..................LAUPAHOEHOE HARBOR PROJECT, HI .................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................MOANALUA STREAM FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION, HI ........................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................NAWILIWILI HARBOR MODIFICATION, KAUAI, HI ..................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 225 ..................WAILUPE STREAM, OAHU, HI ................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 860 ..................WEST MAUI WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT, HI ........................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 300 ..................

IDAHO

BOISE RIVER, BOISE, ID ........................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................

IOWA

CLEAR LAKE WATERSHED, IA ................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 400 .................. .................. ..................DES MOINES AND RACCOON RIVERS, IA ............................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 100 .................. 400FOURMILE CREEK WATERSHED, IA ........................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................GRAND RIVER BASIN COMP STUDY, IA AND MO ................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................

ILLINOIS

DES PLAINES RIVER, ILLINOIS, PHASE 2, IL .......................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 200 .................. .................. 1,200ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION, IL ............................................................................................................................................... 1,160 .................. 1,160 .................. 1,160 ..................
20

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

Investigations Planning Investiga- tions Planning Investiga- tions Planning 

ILLINOIS RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, IL ..................................................................................................................................... 350 .................. 350 .................. 350 ..................KEITH CREEK, ROCKFORD, IL ................................................................................................................................................................ 2 .................. .................. .................. 2 ..................UPPER MISSISSIPPI COMPREHENSIVE, IL .............................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 200 .................. .................. ..................PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, IL ................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 250UPPER MISS AND ILLINOIS NAV IMPROVEMENTS, IL, IA, MN, MO, WI .................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 20,000UPPER MISS RVR COMP PLAN, IL, IA MN, MO, AND WI ....................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 500WOOD RIVER LEVEE, IL ......................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 185 .................. ..................

INDIANA

INDIANA HARBOR, IN ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1,000 .................. 300 .................. 300 ..................ROCKY RIPPLE, FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, IN ................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................

KANSAS

BRUSH CREEK BASIN, KS AND MO ....................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 175 ..................MANHATTAN, KS ..................................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 155 ..................MISSOURI RIVER DEGRADATION STUDY, KS AND MO ........................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 1,000 ..................TOPEKA, KS ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 100 .................. 100 .................. 100 ..................UPPER ARKANSAS RIVER, KS ................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................UPPER TURKEY CREEK, KS .................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 300 ..................WALNUT AND WHITEWATER RIVER WATERSHEDS, KS ........................................................................................................................... 200 .................. 200 .................. 200 ..................

KENTUCKY

BARREN RIVER LAKE, GLASGOW, KY ..................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................GREENUP LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY AND OH ......................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 450 ..................LICKING RIVER, KY ................................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. 200 .................. .................. ..................METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, JEFFERSON COUNTY, KY .......................................................................................................................... 130 .................. 130 .................. 130 ..................METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, SOUTHWEST, KY ....................................................................................................................................... 132 .................. 132 .................. 132 ..................SALT LICK CREEK, KY ............................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................

LOUISIANA

AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA .......................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 425 ..................AMITA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, BAYOU MANCHAC, LA ....................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 275 ..................
21

ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF AND BLACK, LA .................................................................................................... 585 .................. .................. .................. 585 ..................BAYOU SORREL LOCK, LA ...................................................................................................................................................................... .................. 1,500 .................. 1,500 .................. 1,500BOSSIER PARISH, LA ............................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 150 ..................CALCASIEU LOCK, LA ............................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 450 ..................CALCASIEU RIVER BASIN, LA ................................................................................................................................................................. 612 .................. .................. .................. 612 ..................CALCASIEU RIVER PASS SHIP CHANNEL ENLARGEMENT, LA ................................................................................................................ 700 .................. 700 .................. 700 ..................CROSS LAKE WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT, LA ................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 200 .................. .................. ..................GRAND BAYOU, PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LA ........................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................HURRICANE PROTESCTION, LA .............................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................J. BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY STUDY, LA ...................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYST REST, LA (SCIENCE AND TEC ..................................................................................................... 5,000 .................. .................. .................. 5,000 ..................LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA ................................................................................................................... 15,000 .................. .................. .................. 15,000 ..................PLAQUEMINES PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA ............................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................PORT OF IBERIA ..................................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 750 ..................ST. BERNARD PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA ............................................................................................................................. 656 .................. .................. .................. 636 ..................ST. CHARLES PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA .............................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 450 ..................WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LA .......................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 150 ..................WEST PEARL NAVIGATION, LA AND MS .................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................WEST SHORE LAKE PONCHARTRAIN, LA ................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................

MAINE

SEARSPORT HARBOR, ME ...................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................

MARYLAND

ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MD AND DC .............................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 400 .................. .................. ..................ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, PG COUNTY LEVEE, MD & ........................................................................................................ 180 .................. .................. .................. 180 ..................BALTIMORE METRO WTR RES-PATAPSCO AND BACK RIVERS, MD ....................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 500 ..................CHESAPEAKE BAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MD ..................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE, MARYLAND COASTAL MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................... 525 .................. 1,000 .................. 525 ..................CHES BAY SHORELINE—SEDI BUDG, MODEL ....................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 900 ..................EASTERN SHORE, MID CHESAPEAKE BAY ISLAND, MD ......................................................................................................................... 500 .................. 500 .................. 500 ..................MIDDLE POTOMAC RIVER GREATER SENECA/MUDDY BRANCH, MD ..................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 500 ..................

MASSACHUSETTS

BLACKSTONE RIVER WATERSHED RESTORATION, MA AND RI ............................................................................................................... 170 .................. .................. .................. 170 ..................COASTAL MASSACHUSETTS ECOSYSTEM REST, MA ............................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................BOSTON HARBOR (45-FOOT CHANNEL), MA .......................................................................................................................................... 650 .................. .................. .................. 650 ..................

MICHIGAN

DETROIT RIVER MASTERPLAN, MI .......................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 150 ..................
22

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

Investigations Planning Investiga- tions Planning Investiga- tions Planning 

DETROIT RIVER SEAWALL IMPROVEMENTS, MI ...................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 200 .................. .................. ..................GREAT LAKES NAV SYST STUDY, MI, IL, IN, MN, NY, OH, PA ............................................................................................................... 315 .................. 2,400 .................. 315 ..................ROUGE RIVER SUPPLEMENTAL STUDY, MI ............................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................

MINNESOTA

BLUE EARTH RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, MN, SD, IA, ND ......................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 160 ..................CROOKSTON ........................................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 125 ..................MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED UMR LAKE ITASCA TO L&D 2, MN .................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 150 ..................MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN, MN AND SD ................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN, MN, ND, SD,& MANITOBA CN ........................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................ROSEAU RIVER, MN ............................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 244 ..................WILD RICE RIVER, MN ........................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................

MISSISSIPPI

HANCOCK COUNTY SEAWALL RESTORATION, MS ................................................................................................................................... 308 .................. .................. .................. 308 ..................PEARL RIVER WATERSHED, MS ............................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 650 ..................SHEAR’S CREEK AND DOWNTOWN DRAINAGE STUDY, MS .................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 500 ..................

MISSOURI

KANSAS CITYS, MO AND KS ................................................................................................................................................................... 500 .................. 500 .................. 500 ..................LITTLE BLUE RIVER BASIN, JACKSON COUNTY, MO .............................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, UNITS L455 AND R460–471, MO .................................................................................................... 350 .................. .................. .................. 350 ..................RIVER DES PERES, MO .......................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................SPRINGFIELD, MO .................................................................................................................................................................................. 250 .................. 250 500 250 ..................ST. LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, MO ...................................................................................................................................................... .................. 609 .................. 609 .................. 609ST. LOUIS MISSISSIPPI RIVERFRONT, MO AND IL .................................................................................................................................. 150 .................. .................. .................. 150 ..................ST. LOUIS, MO (WATERSHED) ................................................................................................................................................................ 400 .................. .................. .................. 400 ..................SWOPE PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA, KANSAS CITY, MO ............................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 200WEARS CREEK, JEFFERSON CITY, MO ................................................................................................................................................... 150 .................. .................. .................. 150 ..................

MONTANA

YELLOWSTONE RIVER CORRIDOR, MT ................................................................................................................................................... 800 .................. .................. .................. 1,000 ..................
23

NEBRASKA

LOWER PLATTE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NE ....................................................................................................................................... 131 .................. .................. .................. 131 ..................SALT CREEK WATERSHED, LINCOLN, NE ............................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................

NEVADA

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING, NV AND CA ............................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 500 ..................TRUCKEE MEADOWS, NV ........................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 3,500

NEW HAMPSHIRE

MERRIMACK RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, NH AND MA .......................................................................................................................... 200 .................. 200 .................. 200 ..................PISCATAQUA RIVER AND PORTSMOUTH HARBOR, NH ........................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 50 ..................

NEW JERSEY

HUDSON—RARITAN ESTUARY, HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS, NJ ........................................................................................................ 300 .................. 800 .................. 300 ..................HUDSON—RARITAN ESTUARY, LOWER PASSAIC RIVER, NJ .................................................................................................................. 400 .................. 1,000 .................. 400 ..................LOWER SADDLE RIVER, BERGON COUNTY, NJ ....................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................MANASQUAN INLET TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ ........................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 200NJ INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY ENV. RESTORATION, NJ ......................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 75 ..................NJ SHORELINE ALTERNATIVE LONG-TERM NOURISHMENT, NJ ............................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 150 ..................NEW JERSEY SHORE PROTECTION, HEREFORD TO CAPE MAY INLE ..................................................................................................... 400 .................. 400 .................. 400 ..................PASSAIC RIVER, HARRISON, NJ ............................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 375PECKMAN RIVER BASIN, NJ ................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 375 ..................RAHWAY RIVER BASIN, NJ ..................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 175 ..................RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, HIGHLANDS, NJ ......................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, KEYPORT, NJ ............................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, LEONARDO, NJ .......................................................................................................................... 100 .................. 100 .................. 100 ..................RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, UNION BEACH, NJ .................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 125SHREWSBURY RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NJ ......................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 125 ..................SOUTH RIVER, RARITAN RIVER BASIN, NJ ............................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 375STONY BROOK, MILLSTONE RIVER BASIN, NJ ........................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................UPPER ROCKWAY RIVER, NJ .................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 250

NEW MEXICO

EAST MESA, LAS CAUCES, NM .............................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 400 ..................ESPANOLA VALLEY, RIO GRANDE AND TRIBUTARIES, NM ..................................................................................................................... 250 .................. 250 .................. 500 ..................MIDDLE RIO GRANDE BOSQUE, NM ....................................................................................................................................................... 250 .................. 250 .................. 250 ..................RIO GRANDE BASIN, NM, CO, AND TX ................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................SANTA FE, NM ........................................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................SOUTHWEST VALLEY FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION, ALBBUQUERGUE, NM ............................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 180 .................. 500
24

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

Investigations Planning Investiga- tions Planning Investiga- tions Planning 

NEW YORK

BRONX RIVER BASIN, NY ....................................................................................................................................................................... 250 .................. 500 .................. 250 ..................BUFFALO RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, NY ................................................................................................................................. 200 .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................EAST RIVERS SEAWALLS, NY ................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 175 .................. .................. ..................EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK, NIAGRA COUNTY, NY ....................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 125 ..................FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY ............................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 170 .................. ..................HUDSON—RARITAN ESTUARY, GOWANUS CANAL, NY ........................................................................................................................... 400 .................. 600 .................. 400 ..................HUDSON—RARITAN ESTUARY, NY AND NJ ............................................................................................................................................ 800 .................. 1,000 .................. 800 ..................JAMAICA BAY, MARINE PARK AND PLUMP BEACH, NY .......................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 50 ..................LAKE CHAMPLAIN CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIER, NY AND VT ................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 50 ..................LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY ................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................MONTAUK POINT, NY .............................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, ASHAROKEN, NY ............................................................................................................................... 30 .................. 30 .................. 30 ..................NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, BAYVILLE, NY ................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................ONONDAGA LAKE, NY ............................................................................................................................................................................. 200 .................. 1,500 .................. 200 ..................SAW MILL RIVER, NY ............................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................SOUTH SHORE OF STATEN ISLAND, NY ................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, CATAONK CREEK, NY ................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................

NORTH CAROLINA

BOUGUE BANKS, NC .............................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 150 ..................CAPE FEAR RIVER LOCKS AND DAM, NC .............................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 300 ..................CURRITUCK SOUND, NC ......................................................................................................................................................................... 300 .................. .................. .................. 300 ..................NEUSE RIVER BASIN, NC ....................................................................................................................................................................... 260 .................. .................. .................. 260 ..................SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH, NC ........................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 350 ..................

OHIO

COLUMBUS METROPOLITAN AREA, OH .................................................................................................................................................. 53 .................. .................. .................. 53 ..................EUCLID LAKEFRONT, HARBOR TOWN, OH .............................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................OHIO RIVERFRONT, CINCINNATI, OH ...................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 500 .................. ..................WESTERN LAKE ERIE BASIN, OH, IN, AND MI ....................................................................................................................................... 560 .................. 650 .................. 560 ..................
25

OKLAHOMA

GRAND LAKE COMPREHENSIVE STUDY, OK ........................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................GRAND (NEOSHO) RIVER BASIN, OK, KS, MO, AND AR ......................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 300 ..................OOLOGAH LAKE WATERSHED, OK AND KS ............................................................................................................................................. 328 .................. 328 .................. 328 ..................RED RIVER BRUSH MGMT ABOVE DENISON DAM, TX AND OK ............................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................SE OKLAHOMA STUDY, OK ..................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 80 ..................SPAVINAW CREEK WATERSHED, OK AND AR ......................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 133 ..................WASHITA RIVER BASIN, OK .................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................WISTER LAKE WATERSHED, OK .............................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................

OREGON

AMAZON CREEK, OR .............................................................................................................................................................................. 264 .................. 264 .................. 264 ..................LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR AND WA ..................................................................................................... 300 .................. .................. .................. 300 ..................WALLA WALLA RIVER WATERSHED, OR AND WA ................................................................................................................................... 500 .................. 600 .................. .................. ..................WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN REVIEW, OR ................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................WILLAMETTE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OR ........................................................................................................................... 325 .................. .................. .................. 325 ..................WILLAMETTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION, OR ............................................................................................................................. 436 .................. 436 .................. 436 ..................

PENNSYLVANIA

BLOOMSBURG, PA .................................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................CHRISTINA RIVER WATERSHED, PA, DE, AND MD ................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 300 ..................MAHONING RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, PA .............................................................................................................................. 250 .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................SCHUYLKILL RIVER BASIN ESTUARINE, PA ............................................................................................................................................ 250 .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................SCHUYLKILL RIVER BASIN, WISSAHICKON CREEK BASIN, PA ................................................................................................................ 200 .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................SUSQUEHANNA AND DELAWARE RIVER BASINS, PA .............................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 170 .................. .................. ..................UPPER OHIO NAVIGATION STUDY, PA .................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 2,550 ..................

PUERTO RICO

GUYANES RIVER, YABUCOA, PR ............................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................

SOUTH CAROLINA

COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC .......................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................EDISTO ISLAND, SC ................................................................................................................................................................................ 100 .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................PAWLEYS ISLAND,SC .............................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 181REEDY RIVER, SC .................................................................................................................................................................................. 300 .................. .................. .................. 300 ..................SANTEE DELTA ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, SC ............................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................

SOUTH DAKOTA

JAMES RIVER, SD AND ND ..................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 600 ..................
26

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

Investigations Planning Investiga- tions Planning Investiga- tions Planning 

TENNESSEE

MILL CREEK WATERSHED, DAVIDSON COUNTY, TN ............................................................................................................................... 450 .................. .................. .................. 450 ..................

TEXAS

ABILENE, TX (BRAZOS RIVER BASIN) .................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, BROWNSVILLE CHANNEL, TX ....................................................................................................................... 2,500 .................. 2,000 .................. .................. ..................BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBS, TX (MAINSTEM) ....................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 50 ..................BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX ................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. 100 .................. .................. ..................CEDAR BAYOU, TX ................................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................COLONIAS-LWR RIO GRANDE BASIN ALONG TEX-MEX BORDORS ......................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................FREEPORT HARBOR, TX ......................................................................................................................................................................... 500 .................. 750 .................. 750 ..................GIWW, BRAZOS RIVER TO PORT O’CONNOR, TX .................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................GIWW, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER, TX (REALIGNMENTS) ............................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................GIWW, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER, TX .......................................................................................................................................... .................. 500 .................. 500 .................. 500GIWW, PORT O’CONNOR TO CORPS CHRISTIE BAY, TX ......................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 700 ..................GIWW, VICINITY OF PORT ISABEL, TX .................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 700 ..................GREENS BAYOU, TX ............................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 150 .................. ..................GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO RIVER BASINS, TX .............................................................................................................................. 300 .................. 1,000 .................. 300 ..................HARRIS GULLY, TX ................................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 500 ..................LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, TX .................................................................................................................................................... 300 .................. 400 .................. 1,000 ..................LOWER GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO RIVERS, TX ............................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX ............................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................MIDDLE BRAZOS RIVER, TX ................................................................................................................................................................... 300 .................. 400 .................. 300 ..................NECHES RIVER BASIN, TX ..................................................................................................................................................................... 500 .................. .................. .................. 500 ..................NUECES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, TX .................................................................................................................................................. 500 .................. 575 .................. 500 ..................RAYMONDVILLE DRAIN, TX ..................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 300 .................. 450RESACAS AT BROWNSVILLE, TX ............................................................................................................................................................. 150 .................. .................. .................. 150 ..................RIO GRANDE BASIN, TX ......................................................................................................................................................................... 50 .................. 50 .................. 250 ..................SABINE—NECHES WATERWAY, TX ........................................................................................................................................................ 419 .................. 800 .................. 419 ..................SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TX .................................................................................................................................................. 788 .................. 788 .................. 788 ..................SPARKS ARROYO COLONIA, EL PASO COUNTY, TX ................................................................................................................................ 198 .................. 198 .................. 198 ..................TEXAS CITY CHANNEL (50-FOOT PROJECT), TX ..................................................................................................................................... .................. 900 .................. 900 .................. 900
27

UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX .......................................................................................................................................................... 700 .................. 1,000 .................. 700 ..................

UTAH

VIRGIN AND SEVIER WATERSHEDS, UT .................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................

VIRGINIA

AIWW BRIDGES AT DEEP CREEK, VA ..................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 104 ..................CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE EROSION, MATHEWS COUNTY, VA ......................................................................................................... 40 .................. .................. .................. 40 ..................DISMAL SWAMP AND DISMAL SWAMP CANAL, VA ................................................................................................................................. 150 .................. 150 .................. 150 ..................ELIZABETH RIVER BASIN, ENV RESTORATION, VA (PHASE II) ............................................................................................................... 200 .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................ELIZABETH RIVER, HAMPTON ROADS, VA .............................................................................................................................................. .................. 500 .................. .................. .................. 500FOUR MILE RUN RESTORATION, VA ....................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 800 .................. .................. ..................JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA AND NC (SECTION 216) ....................................................................................................... 600 .................. .................. .................. 600 ..................LYNNHAVEN RIVER BASIN, VA ............................................................................................................................................................... 400 .................. 400 .................. 400 ..................MIDDLE POTOMAC RIVER BASIN, CAMERON/HOLMES RUN, VA ............................................................................................................ .................. .................. 800 .................. .................. ..................NEW RIVER BASIN, CLAYTOR LAKE STATE PARK, VA ............................................................................................................................ 200 .................. 200 .................. 200 ..................NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, CRANEY ISLAND, VA .................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................PHILPOTT LAKE, VA ................................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. 200 .................. .................. ..................POWELL RIVER WATERSHED, VA ............................................................................................................................................................ 400 .................. .................. .................. 400 ..................VICINITY OF WILLOUGHBY SPIT, VA ....................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 400 ..................

WASHINGTON

CENTRALIA, WA ...................................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 50 ..................CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN, WA .................................................................................................................................................................. 340 .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................ELLIOT BAY SEWALL, WA ....................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 1,500 ..................COLUMBIA RIVER AT BAKER BAY, WA ................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 150 ..................LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA ..................................................................................................................................................... 470 .................. 470 .................. .................. ..................PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE MARINE HABITAT RESTORATION, WA ........................................................................................................ 470 .................. 500 .................. 1,500 ..................SKAGIT RIVER,WA ................................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 600 ..................SKOKOMISH RIVER, WA .......................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 200 .................. .................. ..................

WEST VIRGINIA

CHERRY RIVER BASIN, WV .................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................LITTLE KANAWHA RIVER, WV ................................................................................................................................................................. 110 .................. .................. .................. 110 ..................PARKERSBURG/VIENNA RIVERFROUNT PARK, WV .................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. 400 .................. ..................

WISCONSIN

BARABOO RIVER, WI .............................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 135 ..................FOX RIVER, WI ....................................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................KENOSHA HARBOR, WI ........................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 ..................
28

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

Investigations Planning Investiga- tions Planning Investiga- tions Planning 

ST. CROIX RIVER, WI ............................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 120 .................. 120 ..................ST. CROIX RIVER RELOCATION OF ENDANGERED MUSSELS, WI ........................................................................................................... .................. .................. 500 .................. .................. ..................

WYOMING

BEAR RIVER FEASIBILITY STUDY, WY .................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................

MISCELLANEOUS

COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1,875 .................. 1,875 .................. 6,375 ..................ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES ............................................................................................................................................................ 94 .................. 94 .................. 94 ..................FLOOD DAMAGE DATA ............................................................................................................................................................................ 248 .................. 248 .................. 248 ..................FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES ................................................................................................................................................. 5,625 .................. 5,625 .................. 8,935 ..................HYDROLOGIC STUDIES ........................................................................................................................................................................... 300 .................. 300 .................. 300 ..................INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES ........................................................................................................................................................... 300 .................. 300 .................. 300 ..................NATIONAL SHORELINE ............................................................................................................................................................................ 375 .................. 375 .................. 375 ..................OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS ....................................................................................................................................................... 3,899 .................. .................. .................. 4,300 ..................AMERICAN HERITAGE RIVERS ................................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. 150 .................. .................. ..................CALFED .................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 94 .................. .................. ..................CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 75 .................. .................. ..................COORDINATION WITH OTHER WATER RESOURCES AGENCIES ............................................................................................................... .................. .................. 246 .................. .................. ..................FERC LICENSING .................................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 150 .................. .................. ..................GULF OF MEXICO ................................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 131 .................. .................. ..................INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT ...................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 113 .................. .................. ..................INTERAGENCY WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 750 .................. .................. ..................INVENTORY OF DAMS ............................................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 222 .................. .................. ..................LAKE TAHOE ........................................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 94 .................. .................. ..................NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM .............................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 75 .................. .................. ..................NORTH AMERICAN WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................................................................................................................ .................. .................. 75 .................. .................. ..................PACIFIC NORTHWEST FOREST CASE ...................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 75 .................. .................. ..................SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS AND REPORTS .............................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 1,649 .................. .................. ..................PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES ....................................................................................................................................................... 4,650 .................. 4,650 .................. 7,550 ..................PRECIPITATION STUDIES (NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE) ..................................................................................................................... 225 .................. 225 .................. 225 ..................REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM SUPPORT ....................................................................................................... 152 .................. 152 .................. 152 ..................RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................................................................. 22,000 .................. 19,643 .................. 34,500 ..................
29

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTERS ........................................................................................................................... 78 .................. 78 .................. 78 ..................STREAM GAGING (U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY) ....................................................................................................................................... 600 .................. 600 .................. 600 ..................TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ................................................................................................................................................................... 375 .................. 375 .................. 375 ..................TRI-SERVICE CADD/GIS TECHNOLOGY CENTER ..................................................................................................................................... 402 .................. 402 .................. 402 ..................REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE ....................................................................................................................... ¥20,911 .................. .................. .................. ¥40,126 ..................

Total, General Investigations ................................................................................................................................................... 87,896 7,104 88,597 12,362 138,662 41,338

95,000 100,000 180,000
30

Knik Bridge Crossing, AK.—The Committee has included 

$1,000,000 to initiate this technical study of the Federal channel. 

Kotzebue Harbor, AK.—The Committee has provided $500,000 to 

initiate this technical study to improve safety at the harbor. 

Little Diomede Harbor, AK.—The Committee has included 

$400,000 to initate the technical study of navigation improvements. 

Little River County (Ogden Levee), AR.—The Committee has included $100,000 to initiate Preconstruction Engineering and Design 

[PED] studies. It is the Committee’s understanding that Federal interest has been previously determined and that this project should 

proceed directly to PED. 

Pine Mountain Dam, AR.—$400,000 is provided to continue the 

General Reevaluation Report for the authorized project. 

Red River Navigation, Southwest Arkansas, AR and LA.—The 

Committee has included $400,000 to complete feasibility and initiate PED. 

White River Minimum Flows, AR and MO.—The Committee recognizes the importance of providing minimum flows from various 

Corps projects as vital to aquatic ecosystem restoration efforts 

along the river. However, the Committee understands that there 

are serious issues that need to be resolved prior to significant 

progress being made on this project. Therefore, the Committee has 

provided $100,000 to allow the Corps to continue to negotiate these 

contentious issues with the local sponsor. 

Coyote, CA.—$100,000 has been provided for this new reconnaissance study as provided in the budget request. 

Napa Valley Watershed Management, CA.—The Committee has 

deleted funding for this study as local interests have indicated a 

desire to terminate the study in fiscal year 2005. 

Orange County Special Area Management Plan [SAMP], CA.—

$169,000 has been provided to complete the SAMP. 

San Joaquin Valley Area, CA.—The Committee has provided 

$100,000 to initiate a reconnaissance study of the San Joaquin Valley in California (consisting of Stanislaus, Madera, Merced, Fresno, 

Kings, Tulare, and Kern Counties). 

Tahoe Basin, CA and NV.—$1,700,000 has been provided for continuation of PED. 

Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Environmental Restoration, 

DE.—The Committee has provided $100,000 for this reconnaissance study. 

Daytona Beach Shores, Volusia County, FL.—The Committee has 

provided $325,000 to continue the feasibility study. 

Tybee Island, GA.—$250,000 has been included to continue this 

storm damage reduction project. 

Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, IA.—$400,000 has been included 

PED. 

Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers Navigation Improvements, 

IL, IA, MN, MO, and WI.—The Committee recognizes the importance of modernizing our Nation’s waterways and has provided 

$20,000,000 for the continued PED on this important project. 

Rocky Ripple, IN.—The Committee has provided $100,000 for 

this feasibility study. 
31

Missouri River Degradation Study, KS and MO.—The Committee 

has provided $1,000,000 to initiate this study to investigate the 

scour problems and degradation of the riverbed. 

Salt Lick Creek, KY.—$100,000 is provided for this reconnaissance study. 

Louisiana Coastal Area, LA.—The Committee recognizes the tremendous value of these coastal wetlands to the Nation. Much of 

our national oil and gas infrastructure is protected by these wetlands which are being lost at an alarming rate. The Committee has 

provided the full budget request of $20,000,000 to further studies 

to determine ways to stop and reverse wetland loss. 

Pearl River Navigation, LA and MS.—The committee has provided $100,000 for reconnaissance studies directed towards deauthorization of this outdated project and to determine appropriate 

disposal of project facilities. 

Great Lakes Navigation Study, MI, IL, IN, MN, NY, OH, PA, and 

WI.—$315,000 has been provided to continue this study. These 

funds are to be used to complete the supplement to the reconnaissance report of Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Navigation 

Study, which, based on previous agreement between the secretary, 

the ministry of transportation Canada, and the Secretary of the 

U.S. Department of Transportation, is to be limited in scope to 

evaluating the economic, engineering and environmental impacts of 

maintaining the great lakes St. Lawrence Seaway at current size 

draft and length of locks. The Secretary is directed to complete the 

supplemental report by September 2006, after which Congress, interested State and Federal agencies, and the public shall review 

the report for 1 year to determine whether additional study is warranted. 

Pearl River Watershed, MS.—$650,000 is provided to complete 

the feasibility study. 

St. Louis Watershed, MO.—The Committee has included the 

budget request for this new reconnaissance study. 

Salt Creek Watershed, Lincoln, NE.—The Committee has provided $100,000 for this reconnaissance study. 

Truckee Meadows, NV.—The Committee has provided $3,500,000 

to continue PED for this important flood control project and encourages the Corps to complete the necessary studies as soon as 

possible. 

Piscataqua River and Portsmouth Harbor, NH.—$50,000 is provided to initiate the feasibility study. 

East Mesa, Las Cruces, NM.—The Committee has included 

$400,000 to pursue flood control and safety studies associated with 

aging flood control structures. 

Espanola Valley, Rio Grande and Tributaries, NM.—The Committee has provided an additional $250,000 to accelerate development of the environmental programs and other activities associated 

with the Espanola diversion project consistent with the cost-share 

agreement signed May 2005. 

Rio Grande Basin, NM, CO & TX.—The Committee has provided 

$250,000 for the feasibility study. 

Santa Fe, NM.—The Committee has provided $250,000 to continue on-going projects. 
32

SW Valley Flood Damage Reduction, Albuquerque, NM.—The 

Committee has provided $500,000 toward completion of this 

project. 

Upper Ohio Navigation Study, PA.—The Committee has provided $2,550,000 for this navigation feasibility study. 

Lower Colorado River, TX.—The Committee has provided $1,000,000 to continue the feasibility study. 

Neches River Basin, TX.—The Committee has provided $500,000 

for this new reconnaissance study as proposed in the budget request. 

Virgin and Sevier Watersheds, UT.—The Committee has provided $100,000 for a reconnaissance study to investigate solutions to the 

devastating floods that recently occurred in these watersheds. 

AIWW Bridges at Deep Creek, VA.—The Committee has provided $104,000 to complete the PED studies for this project. 

Coastal Field Data Collection.—The Committee has provided $6,375,000 for this program. Within the funds provided, $1,000,000 

is for the Coastal Data Information Program, $1,000,000 is for the 

Southern California Beach Processes Study, $1,500,000 is for the 

Pacific Island Land Ocean Typhoon Experiment [PILOT] and 

$1,000,000 is for the Surge and Wave Island Modeling Studies 

[SWIMS]. 

Other Coordination Studies.—The Committee has provided $4,300,000 for this program. Within the funds provided, $500,000 

is to continue work associated with the Lake Tahoe Interagency 

Partnership. 

Flood Plain Management Services.—The Committee has provided $8,935,000 for this program. Within the funds provided, $1,000,000 

is for Hurricane Evacuation Studies in HI; $1,250,000 for Livingston Parish, LA, GIS; $160,000 to complete the East Baton Rouge 

Parish, LA, GIS; $400,000 for Rancocas Creek, NJ; and $500,000 

for the Navajo Nation, NM, Flood Plain Delineation. 

Planning Assistance to States.—The Committee has included 

$7,550,000 for the program. Within the funds provided $150,000 is 

for the Delaware Recreation Supply and Demand study; $150,000 

is for the Delaware Groundwater Investigation; $250,000 is for the 

Hilo Bay, HI, Water Quality Model; $100,000 is for Lafayette/West 

Lafayette, IN; $400,000 is for the Rock Creek, KS, Basin 

Stormwater project; $350,000 is for the Assabet River, MA, Sediment Remediation Study; $1,000,000 is for New Mexico Photogrammetric Mapping; $100,000 for the Bartlesville, OK, Water 

Supply Study; $100,000 for the Mangum, OK, Lake Phase V study; 

$50,000 is for the Waccamaw River Watershed Modeling, SC; 

$50,000 is for the Surfside Beach, SC, Stormwater Drainage Study; 

and $200,000 is for the Memphis Riverfront Development, TN. 

Research and Development.—The Committee has provided 

$34,500,000 for the Corps R&D program. Within the funds provided, $1,000,000 is for Chesapeake Bay submerged aquatic vegetation research, $1,000,000 is for the National Cooperative Modeling 

Demonstration Program (model based negotiation process piloted 

by the Institute for Water Resources), and $3,500,000 is provided 

for innovative technology demonstrations for urban flooding and 

channel restoration in New Mexico and Nevada. These demonstrations will be conducted in close coordination and cooperation with 
33

the Urban Water Research Program of the Desert Research Institute and the University of New Mexico. $750,000 is provided for 

the Southwest Urban Flood Damage Program research in New 

Mexico. $750,000 is provided for implementation of the Collaborative Planning and Management Demonstration Program within 

the Institute for Water Resources in collaboration with Sandia National Laboratories and the Idaho National Laboratory. An additional $5,000,000 has been provided to counter declining research 

and development budgets.

CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. 1 $1,781,720,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 1,637,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,900,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,086,664,000

1 Excludes emergency appropriations of $62,600,000.

This appropriation includes funds for construction, major rehabilitation and related activities for water resources development 

projects having navigation, flood control, water supply, hydroelectric, environmental restoration, and other attendant benefits to 

the Nation. The construction and major rehabilitation projects for 

inland and costal waterways will derive one-half of the funding 

from the Inland Waterway Trust Fund. Funds to be derived from 

the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund will be applied to cover the 

Federal share of the Dredged Material Disposal Facilities Program. 

The appropriation provides funds for the Continuing Authorities 

Program (projects which do not require specific authorizing legislation), which includes projects for flood control (Section 205), emergency streambank and shoreline protection (Section 14), beach erosion control (Section 103), mitigation of shore damages (Section 

111), navigation projects (Section 107), snagging and clearing (Section 208), aquatic ecosystem restoration (Section 206), beneficial 

uses of dredged material (Section 204), and project modifications 

for improvement of the environment (Section 1135). 

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 

shown on the following table:

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee 

recommendation 

ALABAMA

MOBILE HARBOR, AL .................................................................................. ........................ 2,000 ........................

TUSCALOOSA, AL ........................................................................................ ........................ ........................ 4,000

WALTER F. GEORGE POWERPLANT, AL AND GA (MAJOR REHAB) .............. 4,121 3,915 4,121

ALASKA

AKUTAN HARBOR, AK ................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 1,000

ALASKA COASTAL EROSION, AK .................................................................. ........................ ........................ 2,400

BETHEL BANK STABILIZATION .................................................................... ........................ ........................ 5,000

CHIGNIK HARBOR, AK ................................................................................. 2,000 1,900 2,000

COFFMAN COVE, AK ................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 600

DELONG MOUNTAIN HARBOR ..................................................................... ........................ ........................ 3,000

DILLINGHAM EMERGENCY BANK STABILIZATION, AK ................................. ........................ ........................ 4,000

FALSE PASS HARBOR, AK ........................................................................... ........................ ........................ 7,000

HAINES HARBOR, AK .................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 1,000
34

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

KAKE DAM, AK ............................................................................................ ........................ ........................ 5,000

NOME HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, AK .......................................................... ........................ ........................ 13,000

SAND POINT HARBOR, AK .......................................................................... ........................ ........................ 6,000

ST. PAUL HARBOR, AK ............................................................................... ........................ ........................ 8,000

UNALASKA HARBOR, AK ............................................................................. ........................ ........................ 1,000

ARIZONA

NOGALES WASH, AZ ................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 4,500

RIO DE FLAG, AZ ........................................................................................ ........................ 2,500 4,000

RIO SALADO, PHOENIX AND TEMP REACHES, AZ ....................................... ........................ 8,000 8,000

TRES RIOS, AZ ........................................................................................... ........................ 3,000 6,000

TUCSON, ARIZONA DRAINAGE AREA, AZ .................................................... ........................ 10,000 5,000

ARKANSAS

FOUCH BAYOU BASIN, LITTLE ROCK, AR ................................................... ........................ ........................ 800

MONTGOMERY POINT LOCK AND DAM, AR ................................................. 20,000 20,000 20,000

OZARK-JETA TAYLOR POWERHOUSE ........................................................... ........................ ........................ 4,500

RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM, LA, AR, OK AND TX ............................ ........................ ........................ 4,000

RED RIVER EMERGENCY BANK PROTECTION, AR AND LA ......................... ........................ ........................ 6,000

CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CA ............................................................ 28,960 28,960 ........................

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (COMMON FEATURES), CA ........................ ........................ ........................ 3,000

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM MODIFICATIONS), CA ......... ........................ ........................ 15,850

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM MINI RAISE), CA ............... ........................ ........................ 12,000

CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA (EI) ............................................................... ........................ ........................ 500

CORTE MADERA CREEK, CA ....................................................................... ........................ 200 250

COYOTE AND BERRYESSA CREEKS, CA ..................................................... ........................ ........................ 500

GUADALUPE RIVER, CA .............................................................................. 5,600 5,600 5,600

HAMILTON AIRFIELD WETLANDS RESTORATION, CA ................................... 13,000 13,000 13,000

HARBOR/SOUTH BAYWATER RECYCLING PROJECTS, LOS ANGELES .......... ........................ 4,000 4,000

KAWEAH RIVER, CA .................................................................................... 4,300 4,085 4,800

LOS ANGELES HARBOR MAIN CHANNEL DEEPENING, CA .......................... 2,700 2,700 2,732

LOWER WALNUT CREEK BASIN STUDY, CA ................................................ ........................ 250 ........................

MARYSVILLE/YUBA CITY LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION, CA ............................. ........................ ........................ 372

MURRIETA CREEK, CA ................................................................................ ........................ ........................ 5,000

NAPA RIVER, CA ......................................................................................... 6,000 6,000 16,000

OAKLAND HARBOR (50 FOOT PROJECT), CA .............................................. 48,000 48,000 42,000

SACRAMENTO AREA, CA ............................................................................. ........................ 6,000 ........................

SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA ............................. ........................ 6,300 ........................

SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO STOCKTON, CA ................................................... ........................ 250 ........................

SAN LORENZO RIVER, CA ........................................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,000

SAN RAMON VALLY RECYCLED WATER, CA ............................................... ........................ ........................ 3,000

SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA ............................................................. 50,000 61,650 42,500

SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY STREAMS, CA ............................................ 2,852 2,852 5,000

SURFSIDE, SUNSET AND NEWPORT BEACHES, CA ..................................... ........................ ........................ 400

STOCKTON METROPOLITIAN FLOOD CONTROL REIMBURSEMENT, CA ........ 5,000 5,000 5,000

SUCCESS DAM, TULE RIVER, CA (DAM SAFETY) ........................................ 8,000 8,000 8,000

UPPER GUDADALUPE RIVER, CA ................................................................ ........................ ........................ 3,250

UPPER NEWPORT BAY ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, CA ............................. ........................ 2,000 7,000

YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA .............................................................................. ........................ 200 1,200

DELAWARE

DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, ROOSEVELT INLET TO LEWES BEACH ........... 10 ........................ 60

DELAWARE COAST, BETHANY BEACH TO SOUTH BETHANY BEACH ........... ........................ ........................ 4,000

DELAWARE COAST, CAPE HENLOPEN TO FENWICK IS, DE ......................... ........................ 1,700 1,000

DELAWARE COAST PROTECTION, DE .......................................................... ........................ ........................ 320

DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, BROADKILL BEACH, DE ................................ ........................ ........................ 500

DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, PORT MAHON, DE ......................................... ........................ ........................ 1,000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WASHINGTON, DC AND VICINITY ................................................................ 400 ........................ 400
35

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

FLORIDA

BREVARD COUNTY, PROTECTION, FL ......................................................... ........................ 500 500

BROWARD COUNTY, REIMBURSEMENT, FL ................................................. ........................ 1,000 ........................

CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL ............................................................................ ........................ 1,500 ........................

CEDAR HAMMOCK/WARES CREEK, FL ........................................................ ........................ ........................ 1,000

CENTRAL AND SOUTH FLORIDA, FL ............................................................ ........................ ........................ 76,826

DADE COUNTY, FL ...................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,800

EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM PESTORATION ................ ........................ ........................ 12,000

FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS, FL ................................. ........................ 1,300 3,000

FORT PIERCE BEACH, FL ............................................................................ ........................ 200 ........................

HERBERT HOOVER DIKE, FL (MAJOR REHAB) ............................................ 16,900 16,055 16,900

JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL (GRR) ............................................................. ........................ ........................ 500

KISSIMMEE RIVER, FL ................................................................................ ........................ ........................ 13,174

LEE COUNTY, FL ......................................................................................... ........................ 750 1,500

NASSAU COUNTY, SHORE PRTECTION, FL .................................................. ........................ 3,000 ........................

PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL .......................................................................... ........................ 2,450 ........................

PONCE DE LEON INLET .............................................................................. ........................ ........................ 1,750

PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL ................................................................ ........................ 500 500

SOUTH FLORIDA EVERGLADES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL .................. 137,000 137,000 ........................

ST. LUCIE INLET, FL ................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 2,000

TAMPA HARBOR, FL (GRR) ......................................................................... ........................ ........................ 200

TAMPA HARBOR, BIG BEND, FL ................................................................. 5,000 4,000 5,000

TAMPA HARBOR, SUTTON CHANNEL, FL ..................................................... ........................ 1,000 ........................

GEORGIA

ATLANTA, GA (EI) ........................................................................................ ........................ ........................ 2,000

BRUNSWICK, GA ......................................................................................... ........................ 19,100 19,100

BUFORD POWERHOUSE, GA (MAJOR REHAB) ............................................. 5,812 ........................ 5,812

HARTWELL LAKE POWERHOUSE, GA AND SC (MAJOR REHAB) .................. 733 696 733

OATE CREEK, RICHMOND COUNTY, CA (DEF CORK) .................................. ........................ ........................ 500

TYBEE ISLAND, GA (LRR) ........................................................................... ........................ ........................ 18

RICHARD B. RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND SC .................................. 1,300 1,300 1,300

THURMOND LAKE POWERHOUSE, GA AND SC (MAJOR REHAB) ................. 5,700 5,415 5,700

HAWAII

HAWAII WATER MANAGEMENT, HI .............................................................. ........................ ........................ 2,000

IAO STREAM FLOOD CONTROL, MAUI, HI (DEF CORR) ............................... ........................ ........................ 500

KAUMALAPAU HARBOR, LANAI, HI .............................................................. ........................ ........................ 13,000

KIKIAOLA SMALL BOAT HARBOR, KAUAI, HI ............................................... 3,550 3,550 3,550

IDAHO

RURAL IDAHO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, ID .............................. ........................ 2,000 5,500

ILLINOIS

CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (DEF CORR) .................. 5,495 ........................ 5,495

CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIOR, IL ................ ........................ ........................ 4,000

CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL ............................................................................ 20,000 15,000 21,500

COOK COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, IL ............................. ........................ 500 ........................

DES PLAINES RIVER, IL .............................................................................. ........................ 5,000 4,000

EAST ST. LOUIS, IL ..................................................................................... 760 722 760

EAST ST. LOUIS (INTERIOR FLOOD CONTROL), IL ...................................... ........................ ........................ 400

LOCK AND DAM 24, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL AND MO (MAJOR REH ........... 4,300 4,300 4,300

LOCK NO. 27, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL AND MO .......................................... ........................ ........................ 1,000

MADISON AND CLAIRE COUNTIES ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTUR ....... ........................ 1,000 ........................

MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL ................................................ ........................ 25,000 30,000

MELVIN PRICE L&D, IL AND MO ................................................................ ........................ ........................ 750

NUTWOOD DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT, IL ......................................... ........................ ........................ 300

OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL AND KY ................................ 90,000 90,000 85,000

SOUTHERN ILLINIOS SHORELINE PROJECT, IL ............................................ ........................ 200 ........................

UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION, IL, IA, MN, MO & .................... 33,500 33,500 20,000

WOOD RIVER DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT, IL ..................................... ........................ 590 ........................
36

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

INDIANA

CALUMET REGION, ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, IN ...................... ........................ 3,500 ........................

INDIANA HARBOR (CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITY), IN .............................. 8,000 7,600 7,600

INDIANAN SHORELINE EROSION, IN ........................................................... ........................ 500 ........................

INDIANA UNIVERSITY, SOUTH BEND PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE, IN ................... ........................ 715 ........................

INDIANAPOLIS COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW, IN ...................................... ........................ 500 ........................

INDIANAPOLIS, WHITE RIVER (NORTH), IN ................................................. 3,200 3,040 3,040

JOHN T. MEYERS LOCK AND DAM, IN ........................................................ ........................ 700 ........................

LITTLE CALAMET RIVER, IN ........................................................................ ........................ 6,500 ........................

LITTLE CALAMET RIVER BASIN, CADY MARSH DITCH, IN .......................... ........................ 4,000 ........................

MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN (MAJOR REHAB) .................................................. 4,481 4,257 4,257

OHIO RIVER GREENWAY PUBLIC ACCESS, IN ............................................ ........................ 3,100 ........................

IOWA

DAVENPORT, IA ........................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 400

DES MOINES AND RACCOON RIVERS, IA ................................................... ........................ ........................ 400

DES MOINES RECREATIONAL RIVER AND GREENBELT, IA ......................... ........................ 5,000 3,500

LOCK AND DAM 11, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA (MAJOR REHAB) .................... 7,580 7,202 7,580

LOCK AND DAM 19, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA (MAJOR REHAB) .................... 17,502 17,502 17,502

MISSOURI RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE RECOVERY, IA, KS, MO, MT, NE .... 82,800 72,627 60,000

MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, IA, NE, KS, AND MO ............................. ........................ ........................ 750

PERRY CREEK, IA ....................................................................................... 10,000 10,000 10,000

KANSAS

ARKANSAS CITY, KS ................................................................................... 2,619 2,619 2,619

TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS AND MO ........................................................... ........................ ........................ 4,000

TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS (DAM SAFETY) .................................................... 27,000 25,650 27,000

KENTUCKY

KENTUCKY LOCK AND DAM, TENNESSEE RIVER, KY .................................. ........................ 21,750 32,000

MCALPINE LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY AND IN .............................. 70,000 70,000 65,000

METROPOLITAN LOUISVILLE, POND CREEK, KY .......................................... 3,670 3,670 3,670

ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY (DAM SAFETY ASSURANCE) ................................ 2,500 2,375 2,500

LOUISIANA

ASCENSION PARISH, LA (EI) ....................................................................... ........................ ........................ 500

COMITE RIVER, LA ...................................................................................... 6,254 6,254 6,254

EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LA (EI) ........................................................ ........................ ........................ 500

EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LA (FC) ....................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,000

GRAND ISLE AND VICINITY, LA ................................................................... ........................ ........................ 900

IBERIA PARISH, LA (EI) .............................................................................. ........................ ........................ 500

INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL LOCK, LA .......................................... ........................ 9,038 15,000

J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA ....................................................... 1,500 1,500 15,000

LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN AND VICINITY, LA (HURRICANE PROTECT ............. 2,977 2,977 7,500

LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION) ................. ........................ ........................ 1,000

LIVINGSTON PARISH, LA (EI) ...................................................................... ........................ ........................ 500

MISSISSIPPI RIVER SHIP CHANNEL, GULF TO BATON ROUGE .................... ........................ ........................ 229

NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE, LA (HURRICANE PROTECTION) ....................... ........................ ........................ 3,600

OUACHITA RIVER LEVEES, LA ..................................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,000

SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA, LA ........................................................................ 10,491 10,491 37,000

WEST BANK AND VICINITY, NEW ORLEANS, LA .......................................... 28,000 28,000 25,000

MARYLAND

ASSATEAGUE ISLAND, MD .......................................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,020

ATLANTIC COAST OF MARYLAND, MD ......................................................... ........................ ........................ 4,900

BALTIMORE METRO-WYNNS FALLS, MD ..................................................... ........................ ........................ 3,000

CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD AND VA ................................. ........................ 1,000 3,000

CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM, MD, VA AND PA .............. ........................ ........................ 2,950

CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV ..................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,200

JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD AND WV (DAM SAFETY) .......................... 400 380 400

POPLAR ISLAND, MD .................................................................................. 13,400 13,400 13,400
37

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

MASSACHUSETTS

MUDDY RIVER ECOSYSTEM AND FLOOD DAMAGE, MA .............................. ........................ 1,500 1,500

MICHIGAN

GENESEE COUNTY, MI (KEARSLYE CREEK INTERCEPTOR) ......................... ........................ ........................ 450

GEORGE W. KUHN DRAIN RETENTION FACILITY, MI ................................... ........................ 50 ........................

GREAT LAKE FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION ............................. ........................ ........................ 500

NEGAUNEE, MI ............................................................................................ ........................ ........................ 464

SAULT ST. MARIE REPLACEMENT LOCK, MI ............................................... ........................ 2,000 ........................

MINNESOTA

BRECKENRIDGE, MN ................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,500

L&D 3 NAVIGATION SAFETY AND EMBANKMENT REEVALUATION ............... ........................ ........................ 2,000

MILLE LACS REGIONAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT, MN .......................... ........................ 1,500 ........................

NORTHEAST, MN ......................................................................................... ........................ 5,000 ........................

MISSISSIPPI

COASTAL MISSISSIPPI WETLANDS RESTORATION ....................................... ........................ ........................ 2,500

DESOTO COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI WASTEWATER TREATMENT, MS ................. ........................ 3,000 20,000

GULFPORT, MS ........................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,200

MISSISSIPPI, MS (EI) .................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 25,000

NATCHEZ, MS ............................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 250

PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS ........................................................................ ........................ ........................ 3,500

MISSOURI

BLUE RIVER BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MO ...................................................... ........................ 4,000 ........................

BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO ................................................. 5,000 5,000 5,000

BOIS BRULE, MO ........................................................................................ ........................ ........................ 2,413

CAPE GIRARDEAU (FLOODWALL), MO ......................................................... ........................ 300 ........................

CHESTERFIELD, MO .................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,200

CLEARWATER LAKE, MO (MAJOR REHAB) .................................................. 22,000 22,000 22,000

MERAMEC RIVER BASIN, VALLEY PARK LEVEE, MO .................................. 7,582 7,582 7,582

MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO ........... 4,000 3,800 3,800

MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS ENHANCEMENT, MO ............ ........................ ........................ 1,750

STE GENEVIEVE, MO ................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 550

MONTANA

FT. PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT .................................................................... ........................ ........................ 700

RURAL MONTANA, MT (EI) .......................................................................... ........................ ........................ 5,000

NEBRASKA

ANTELOPE CREEK, LINCOLN, NE ................................................................ ........................ 1,000 3,250

MISSOURI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL RIVER, NE AND SD .......................... ........................ 648 ........................

SAND CREEK WATERSHED, NE ................................................................... ........................ ........................ 4,000

WESTERN SARPY AND CLEAR CREEK, NE .................................................. ........................ ........................ 3,000

NEVADA

RURAL NEVADA, NV .................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 25,000

TAHOE BASIN RESTORATION, NV AND CA (EI) ........................................... ........................ ........................ 5,200

TROPICANA AND FLAMINGO WASHES, NV .................................................. 13,000 13,000 18,000

NEW HAMPSHIRE

OTTER BROOK DAM, NH (DAM SAFETY) ..................................................... 1,430 1,359 1,430

NEW JERSEY

BARNEGAT INLET TO LITTLE EGG HARBOR INLET, NJ ................................ ........................ 5,000 5,000

CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP, NJ .............................................. 1,900 1,900 1,900

DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, OAKWOOD BEACH, NJ ................................... ........................ ........................ 250

DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, DE AND NJ, REEDS BEACH TO PIERCE ........ ........................ ........................ 1,100

DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, DE AND NJ VILLAS AND VICINITY ................. ........................ ........................ 2,450

DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ, PA AND DE ................................... ........................ ........................ 3,000
38

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET AND PECK BEACH, NJ .................................... ........................ ........................ 600

HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS, NJ ................ ........................ 1,500 ........................

LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY POINT, NJ ................................. 7,000 5,500 7,000

MANASQUAN INLET TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ ............................................. ........................ 400 ........................

MOLLY ANN’S BROOK, NJ ........................................................................... ........................ 3,000 1,500

PASSAIC RIVER BASIN FLOOD MANAGEMENT, NJ ...................................... ........................ ........................ 500

PASSAIC RIVER PRESERVATION OF NATURAL STORAGE, NJ ...................... ........................ 3,000 ........................

PASSAIC RIVER STREAMBANK PRESERVATION, NJ(MINISH PARK) ............. ........................ ........................ 3,000

RAMAPO RIVER AT OAKLAND, NJ ............................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,750

RAMAPO AND MAHWAH RIVERS, NEW JERSEY AND SUFFERN, NY ............ ........................ 250 ........................

RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, NJ .................................................. ........................ ........................ 250

RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, NJ (PORT MONMOUTH) ................. ........................ ........................ 2,000

RARITAN RIVER BASIN GREEN BROOK SUB-BASIN, NJ .............................. ........................ 5,000 5,000

SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ ...................................................... ........................ ........................ 4,000

TOWNSENDS INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET, NJ ............................................. 11,600 11,600 11,600

NEW MEXICO

ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM, NM .......................................................... 1,800 ........................ 3,100

ALAMOGORDO, NM ..................................................................................... 4,200 4,200 4,200

CENTRAL NEW MEXICO, NM (EI) ................................................................ ........................ ........................ 5,000

MIDDLE RIO GRANDE FLOOD PROTECTION, BERNALILLO TO BELE ............ ........................ ........................ 600

NEW MEXICO, NM (EI) ................................................................................ ........................ ........................ 5,000

RIO GRANDE FLOODWY, SAN ACACIA TO BOSQUE APACHE, NM ............... ........................ ........................ 700

SW VALLEY, ALBUQUERQUE, NM ................................................................ ........................ ........................ 100

NEW YORK

ATLANTIC COAST OF LONG ISLAND, LONG ISLAND BEACH, NY ................. ........................ 200 ........................

FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NY ............................................. 800 1,000 2,500

NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY AND NJ .................................. 101,000 101,000 90,000

NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED, NY .............................................................. ........................ ........................ 1,000

ONONDAGA LAKE, NY ................................................................................. ........................ 3,500 ........................

ORCHARD BEACH, NY ................................................................................ ........................ 300 ........................

NORTH CAROLINA

BRUNSWICK COUNTY BEACHES, NC .......................................................... ........................ 300 300

DARE COUNTY BECHES, NC ....................................................................... ........................ ........................ 2,500

WEST ONSLOW BEACH AND RIVER INLET, NC ........................................... ........................ ........................ 600

WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC ......................................................................... 19,900 19,900 19,900

WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC ......................................................................... 890 890 890

NORTH DAKOTA

BUFORD-TRENTON IRRIGATION DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION ND ............. ........................ 500 1,500

GARRISON DAM AND POWER PLANT, ND (MAJOR REHAB) ........................ 3,582 3,403 3,582

GRAND FORKS, ND—EAST GRAND FORKS, MN ......................................... 40,000 35,000 40,000

MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION ................................................................. ........................ ........................ 250

SHEYENNE RIVER, ND ................................................................................ 550 523 550

OHIO

METROPOLITAN REGION OF CINCINNATI, DUCK CREEK, OH ...................... 1,650 1,568 1,650

OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................. ........................ 13,000 ........................

OKLAHOMA

CANTON LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY) .............................................................. 6,000 6,000 6,000

ELM FORK, RED RIVER, OK (CHLORIDE CONTROL) .................................... ........................ ........................ 500

LAWTON, OK ............................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 50

TAR CREEK, OK .......................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 5,000

TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY) .............................................. 5,200 5,200 5,200

WEBBER FALLS LOCK AND DAM POWERHOUSE (MAJOR REHAB) .............. ........................ ........................ 4,000

OREGON

BONNEVILLE POWERHOUSE PHASE II, OR AND WA (MAJOR REHAB) ......... 5,000 4,750 5,000
39

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

COLUMBIA RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS, OR AND WA ....................... 15,000 15,000 15,000

COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING ACCESS SITES, OR AND WA ............... 4,000 ........................ 4,000

ELK CREEK LAKE, OR ................................................................................. 300 ........................ 300

LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR AND WA .......... ........................ ........................ 2,000

WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL, OR ..................................... 1,000 950 1,000

PENNSYLVANIA

EMSWORTH LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, PA (MAJOR REHAB) .............. 15,000 15,000 15,000

LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3 AND 4, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA ....................... 50,800 50,800 46,000

NORTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA INFRASTRUCTURE, PA ............................. ........................ 2,600 ........................

PRESQUE ISLE, PA (PERMANENT) .............................................................. ........................ ........................ 620

PROMPTON LAKE, PA .................................................................................. 8,480 8,056 8,480

SAW MILL RIVER RUN, PA .......................................................................... ........................ 1,000 ........................

SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE ...... ........................ 10,000 ........................

SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA COBBS CREEK PARK PHILADELPHIA ....... ........................ 310 ........................

SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TACONY CREEK, PA ................................. ........................ 500 ........................

THREE RIVERS WET WEATHER DEMO PROGRAM, PA ................................. ........................ ........................ 1,000

WYOMING VALLEY, PA (LEVEE RAISING) .................................................... 10,496 10,496 10,496

PUERTO RICO

ARECIBO RIVER, PR ................................................................................... 3,800 4,000 3,800

PORTUGUES AND BUCANA RIVERS, PR ...................................................... 14,000 14,000 14,000

RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR ............................................................................ 20,000 20,000 20,000

RHODE ISLAND

FOX POINT HURRICANE BARRIER, RI ......................................................... ........................ ........................ 700

SOUTH CAROLINA

FOLLY BEACH, SC ...................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 80

LAKE MARION, SOUTH CAROLINA REGIONAL WATER AGENCY ................... ........................ 6,000 ........................

MYRTLE BEACH, SC (RENOURISHMENT) .................................................... ........................ ........................ 100

PAWLEYS ISLAND, SC ................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 2,420

SOUTH DAKOTA

BIG SIOUX RIVER, SIOUX FALLS, SD .......................................................... ........................ ........................ 2,000

CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX, SD ...................... ........................ ........................ 5,000

MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, SD .......................................................... ........................ ........................ 100

TENNESSEE

CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TN ............................................................................ ........................ 10,000 10,000

TEXAS

BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX .................................................................... 11,800 11,800 11,800

CLEAR CREEK, TX ...................................................................................... ........................ 1,500 ........................

CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX ......................................................... ........................ ........................ 523

DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TX ........................................................... ........................ 2,000 15,000

GRAHAM, TX (BRAZOS RIVER BASIN) ........................................................ ........................ ........................ 1,000

HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TX ................................... 24,800 26,000 35,000

HUNTING BAYOU, TX .................................................................................. ........................ 500 ........................

JOHNSON CREEK, UPPER TRINITY BASIN, ARLINGTON, TX ........................ 500 500 500

LOWER SAN ANTONIO RIVER BASIN, TX ..................................................... ........................ 300 ........................

NORTH PADRE ISLAND, PACKERY CHANNEL, TX ........................................ ........................ ........................ 5,438

RED RIVER BASIN CHLORIDE CONTROL, OK, TX, AR AND LA .................... ........................ ........................ 1,500

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, TX ....................... ........................ 3,640 1,820

SIMS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX ....................................................................... 18,000 15,000 15,000

WHITNEY LAKE POWERHOUSE, TX (MAJOR REHAB) ................................... ........................ ........................ 4,551

UTAH

RURAL UTAH, UT (EI) ................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 10,000

VERMONT

BURLINGTON HARBOR, VT .......................................................................... ........................ ........................ 500
40

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

LAKE CHAMPLAIN WATERSHED, VT ............................................................ ........................ ........................ 2,000

VERMONT DAMS REMEDIATION, VT ............................................................ ........................ ........................ 130

VIRGINIA

EMBREY DAM, VA ....................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 2,000

JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA ....................................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,300

JOHN H. KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA AND NC (MAJOR REHAB) ......... 14,000 13,300 14,000

LAKE MERRIWEATHER, GOSHEN DAN AND SPILLWAY, VA .......................... ........................ ........................ 4,000

NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VA (DEEPENING) ............................... ........................ ........................ 4,295

ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS AREA, VA .......................... 5,000 5,000 5,000

SANDBRIDGE, VA ........................................................................................ ........................ ........................ 4,000

VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (HURRICANE PROTECTION) ....................................... 4,000 4,000 11,395

WASHINGTON

CHEIF JOSEPH DAM GAS ABATEMENT, VA ................................................. ........................ ........................ 8,000

COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR, ID ....................................... ........................ ........................ 85,000

COLUMBIA RIVER FISH RECOVERY, WA, OR AND ID ................................. 102,000 90,000 ........................

DUNAMISH AND GREEN RIVER BASIN, WA ................................................. ........................ ........................ 2,500

HOWARD HANSON DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, WA ........................... 14,100 14,100 14,100

LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE COMPENSATION, WA, OR ........ 900 ........................ 900

MT ST. HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA ................................................. 360 360 660

MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA (DAM SAFETY) .................................................. 4,400 4,400 4,400

PUGET SOUND AND ADJACENT WATERS RESTORATION ............................. ........................ ........................ 2,000

SHOALWATER BAY, WA ............................................................................... ........................ ........................ 2,000

WEST VIRGINIA

BLUESTONE LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY) ........................................................ 21,500 20,425 21,500

CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA, WV .................................................................... ........................ 750 ........................

GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WV ................................................................. ........................ ........................ 3,000

ISLAND CREEK AT LOGAN, WV ................................................................... ........................ ........................ 305

LEVISA AND TUG FORKS AND UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER, WV, V .......... ........................ 20,000 14,100

LOWER MUD RIVER, WV ............................................................................. ........................ ........................ 1,250

MARMET LOCK, KANAWHA RIVER, WV ........................................................ 68,830 68,830 73,500

ROBERT C. BYRD LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, WV AND OH ................ 914 914 914

SOUTHERN WEST VIRIGINIA ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE .............. ........................ 1,000 ........................

WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD CONTROL, WV ....................... ........................ 1,000 ........................

WINFIELD LOCKS AND DAM, KANAWHA RIVER, WV .................................... 2,400 ........................ 2,400

WISCONSIN

NORTHERN WISCONSIN, WI ........................................................................ ........................ 9,000 ........................

MISCELLANEOUS

ABANDONED MINE RESTORATION ............................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,705

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION 206) ................................. 15,000 18,000 25,000

AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM ......................................................... 3,000 4,500 4,500

BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL(SEC 204,SEC 207,SE ............. 3,000 4,000 6,200

DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY CORRECTION PROGRAM ............... 11,000 10,500 15,000

DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROGRAM ............................... 12,000 8,800 12,000

EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE PROTECTION (SECTION ........ 4,000 8,000 15,000

EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ...................................................................... 21,000 21,000 21,000

ESTUARY RESTORATION PROGRAM (PUBLIC LAW 106–457) ..................... 5,000 ........................ 5,000

FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205) .............................................. 13,000 25,000 41,000

INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD—BOARD EXPENSE ........................... 40 40 40

INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD—CORPS EXPENSE ........................... 170 170 170

MITIGATION OF SHORE DAMAGES (SECTION 111) ..................................... 1,500 500 2,000

PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT ...... 15,000 17,400 25,000

SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS (SECTION 103) ......................................... 500 1,000 7,000

SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT AND DEMO (SEC. 227) ... ........................ ........................ 3,800

SNAGGING AND CLEARING PROJECTS (SECTION 208) ............................... 400 400 400

SMALL NAVIGATION PROJECTS, SECTION 107 ............................................ ........................ 4,000 15,000

SUSPENSION FUND ..................................................................................... 80,000 ........................ ........................
41

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee 

recommendation 

TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM ............................................................... ........................ ........................ 800

REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE ............................ ¥1,441 ........................ ¥202,833

Total, Construction General .......................................................... 1,637,000 1,900,000 2,086,664

Tuscaloosa, AL.—The Committee has provided $4,000,000 for the 

relocation project at Tuscaloosa, AL. 

Akutan Harbor, AK.—The Committee has provided funding to 

initiate construction of this project. 

Alaska Coastal Erosion, AK.—The Committee has provided 

$2,400,000 for Alaska Coastal Erosion. The following communities 

are eligible recipients of these funds: Kivalina, Newtok, 

Shishmaref, Koyukuk, Barrow, Kaktovik, Point Hope, Unalakleet, 

and Bethel. Section 117 of Public Law 108–447 will apply to this 

project. 

Chignik Harbor, AK.—The Committee has provided $2,000,000 to 

complete the project. 

Coffman Cove, AK.—The Committee has provided funding to prepare the decision document for design of a dock system. 

Delong Mountain Harbor, AK.—The Committee has provided 

funding to complete the environmental documentation, plans and 

specifications and geotechnical investigations. 

Nome Harbor, AK.—The Committee has included $13,000,000 to 

continue construction of this project. 

Sand Point Harbor, AK.—The Committee has included 

$6,000,000 to continue construction of this project. 

St. Paul Harbor, AK.—The Committee has included $8,000,000 

to continue construction of this project. 

Rio Salado, Phoenix and Tempe Reaches, AZ.—The Committee 

has provided $8,000,000 for construction of this project. The Committee encourages the Corps to reprogram previously revoked 

funds in fiscal year 2006 to complete this project if possible. 

Ozark-Jeta Taylor Powerhouse, AR.—The Committee has provided $4,500,000 to continue the rehab of the powerhouse. 

Red River Below Denison Dam, AR, LA, OK and TX.—The Committee has provided $4,000,000 to continue levee rehabilitation 

work in Arkansas and Louisiana. 

Red River Emergency Bank Protection, AR and LA.—The Committee has provided $6,000,000 for bank stabilization along the Red 

River below Index, Arkansas. 

American River Watershed, CA.—The Committee has chosen not 

to combine the various, separately authorized, components of the 

project into a single line item as was proposed in the budget. The 

Committee believes that it is prudent to maintain visibility of the 

various project elements in the budget process. However, for purposes of reprogramming actions, the three elements should be 

treated as a single project when considering the reprogramming 

guidance provided in an earlier section of this report. 
42

American River Watershed (Folsom Dam Miniraise), CA.—The 

Committee has provided $12,000,000. Within the funds provided, 

$7,000,000 is for construction of the bridge. 

Kaweah River, CA.—The Committee has provided $4,800,000 to 

complete this project. 

Oakland Harbor, CA.—The Committee has provided $42,000,000 

to continue construction of this project. The reduction made to this 

project should not be viewed as any diminution of support for this 

project, rather an attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers 

nationwide program among the various missions of the Corps. 

Santa Ana River Mainstem, CA.—The Committee has provided $42,500,000 to continue construction of this project. No funds are 

included for the San Timoteo reach of the project. The reduction 

made to this project should not be viewed as any diminution of support for this project, rather an attempt to balance out the Corps of 

Engineers nationwide program among the various missions of the 

Corps. 

Upper Guadalupe River, CA.—The Committee has included 

$3,500,000 to initiate construction of this project. 

Delaware Bay Coastline, Bethany Beach to South Bethany Beach, 

DE.—$4,000,000 is provided for construction of this shore protection project. 

Delaware Coast, Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, DE.—The 

Committee has included $1,700,000 to continue construction of this 

project. 

Washington, DC and Vicinity, DC.—The Committee has provided $400,000 to initiate construction as proposed in the budget request. 

Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration, FL.—The 

Committee has chosen not to combine the various, separately authorized, components of the project into a single line item as was 

proposed in the budget. The Committee believes that it is prudent 

to maintain visibility of the various project elements in the budget 

process. However, for purposes of reprogramming actions, the Central and South Florida Project, the Everglades and South Florida 

Ecosystem Restoration Project and the Kissimmee River Project 

should be treated as a single project when considering the reprogramming guidance provided in an earlier section of this report. 

The Committee has chosen not to fund the $35,000,000 request 

for the Modified Waters Delivery Plan as proposed in the budget. 

The Committee does not believe sufficient current authorization exists for the Corps to fund this work. As the work involved primarily 

benefits Everglades National Park, budgeting for this work should 

be continued by the Interior Department as has been past practice. 

The Committee is unsure why this funding decision was made; 

however, much has been made of the increase in costs of the Modified Waters Delivery Plan since its authorization. The Committee 

understands that over 43 percent of cost growth is due to the extraordinary increase in real estate values in the Miami-Dade area. 

Prices for land and houses have been rising as much as 5 percent 

per month over the last 2 years. Another significant cost increase 

has been due to overseas demand for cement and high fuel prices 

that have driven up construction costs. 

The other major contributor to the cost increase is the inclusion 

of bridge work for the Tamiami Trail. The 1992 design which Con-
43

gress approved was based on a determination that existing culverts 

under the Trail could carry the flow expected for the Modified Waters Delivery Plan without overtopping the Tamiami Trail. Since 

then, the Corps has worked with the sponsor, the South Florida 

Water Management District, and the United States Geological Survey to determine actual capacities of these culverts based on actual 

conditions that exist. The Corps has also worked with the Florida 

Department of Transportation on ensuring a safe design for the 

roadway. Based on these analyses and design refinements, the 

Tamiami Trail fix is much more involved than originally conceived. 

In order to provide appropriate water deliveries to Everglades National Park, both the Corps and the Department of Interior believe 

building a bridge of some length, as well as raising the roadway, 

is required to allow the design flows to pass as well as ensure a 

safe highway. This is a significant part of the cost increase as well. 

Over $130,000,000 of the current estimate of $398,000,000 is for 

the Trail work. 

The Committee encourages the administration to include the 

Modified Waters Delivery Plan funding in the Interior budget in future budget submissions. 

Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration, FL.—Within the funds provided, the Corps may initiate construction of the 

Aquifer Storage and Recovery pilot projects. 

Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements, FL.—The Committee 

has provided $3,000,000 for continued implementation of this 

project. The Committee urges the administration to budget for this 

project due to the interrelationship of this work to the Everglades 

Restoration project, Biscayne Bay and all of the nearshore waters. 

Jacksonville Harbor, FL.—The Committee has provided $500,000 

to continue work on the General Reevaluation Report. 

Tampa Harbor, FL.—$200,000 is provided to continue the General Reevaluation Report. 

Atlanta, GA.—The Committee has included $2,000,000 to initiate 

this project. 

Brunswick Harbor, GA.—The Committee has included 

$19,900,000 to continue construction of this project. 

Oates Creek, Richmond County, GA.—The Committee has included $500,000 to continue construction of this project. 

Tybee Island, GA.—The Committee has provided $18,000 to complete the Limited Reevaluation Report for the shore protection 

project in preparation for the next scheduled renourishment. 

Kaumalapau Harbor, Lanai, HI.—The Committee has provided 

$13,000,000 to complete construction of this project. 

Rural Idaho Environmental Infrastructure, ID.—The Committee 

has provided $5,500,000 for this project. Within the funds provided 

the Corps should give consideration to projects at Emmett, Burley, 

Rupert, Bonners Ferry, Donnelly, Eastern Idaho Regional Water 

Authority, Driggs, and Smelterville. Other communities that meet 

the program criteria should be considered as funding allows. 

Des Plaines River, IL.—The Committee has included $4,000,000 

to continue construction of this project. 

McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, IL.—The Committee has included $30,000,000 for continued construction of this project. 
44

Olmsted Locks and Dam, Ohio River, IL and KY.—The Committee has provided $85,000,000 to continue construction of this 

project. The reduction made to this project should not be viewed as 

any diminution of support for this project, rather an attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide program among the 

various missions of the Corps. None of the funds provided for the 

Olmsted Locks and Dam Project are to be used to reimburse the 

Claims and Judgment Fund. 

Missouri Fish and Wildlife Recovery, IA, KS, MO, MT, NE, ND 

and SD.—The Committee has provided $60,000,000 for this project. 

This is a significant increase from fiscal year 2005 funding but considerably less than the request. The Committee is frustrated that 

the administration has not forwarded a legislative proposal to authorize endangered species recovery work along the Missouri River. 

Fish and Wildlife Mitigation for the lower river has been authorized for several years; however, habitat recovery for the upper river 

has yet to be addressed in authorization language. Estimates for 

recovery of species along the Missouri River are in excess of 

$3,500,000,000. The Committee would not fund a $3,500,000,000 

construction project without a specific authorization and we do not 

believe it prudent for the budget to continue asking for annual 

budget increases to this project without clear authorization as to 

the actions necessary for recovery. 

Missouri River Levee System, IA, NE, KS and MO.—The Committee has included $750,000 to continue construction of this 

project. 

Turkey Creek, KS and MO.—The Committee has included 

$4,000,000 to continue construction of this project. 

Kentucky Lock and Dam, Tennessee River, KY.—The Committee 

has included $32,000,000 to continue construction of this project. 

McAlpine Locks and Dam, Ohio River, KY and IN.—The Committee has provided $65,000,000 to continue construction of this 

project. The reduction made to this project should not be viewed as 

any diminution of support for this project, rather an attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide program among the 

various missions of the Corps. 

Inner Harbor Lock and Dam, LA.—The Committee has included 

$15,000,000 to continue construction of this project. 

J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA.—The Committee has provided $15,000 for navigation channel refinement features, land purchases and development for mitigation of project impacts, and construction of project recreation and appurtenant features. 

Larose to Golden Meadow, LA.—The Committee has included 

$1,000,000 to continue construction of this project. 

New Orleans to Venice, LA.—The Committee has included 

$3,600,000 to continue construction of this project. 

West Bank and Vicinity, New Orleans, LA.—The Committee has 

provided $25,000,000 to continue construction of this project. The 

reduction made to this project should not be viewed as any diminution of support for this project, rather an attempt to balance out 

the Corps of Engineers nationwide program among the various 

missions of the Corps. 

Chesapeake Bay Environmental Program, MD, PA and VA.—The 

Committee has included $2950 for continuation of this project. 
45

Within the funds provided, $273,000 is included to continue the environmental studies concerning non-native oysters. 

Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery, MD and VA.—The Committee 

has included $3,000,000 to continue construction of this project. 

Rural Montana, MT.—The Committee has provided $5,000,000 

for this project. Within the funds provided the Corps should give 

consideration to projects at Livingston, Missoula (Grant Creek), 

Meagher County, Stevensville, Helena, Wisdom, Bigfork, Sheridan, 

Butte and Drummond. Other communities that meet the program 

criteria should be considered as funding allows. 

Sand Creek, NE.—The Committee has included $4,000,000 to 

continue construction of this project. 

Rural Nevada, NV.—The Committee has provided $25,000,000 

for this project. Within the funds provided the Corps should give 

consideration to projects at North Lemmon Valley, Spanish Springs 

Valley, Phase II, Huffaker Hills Water Conservation, LawtonVerdi, Boulder City, Lyon County, Gerlach, Searchlight, Incline Village, Esmeralda County, Churchill County, West Wendover, 

Yearington, Virgin Valley Water District, Lovelock, and Carson 

City. Other communities that meet the program criteria should be 

considered as funding allows. 

Tropicana and Flamingo Washes, NV.—The Committee has provided $18,000,000 to continue construction of this flood control 

project. Within the funds provided $3,000,000 is provided for work 

performed in accordance with Section 211 of Public Law 104–303. 

Delaware Bay Coastline, Villas and Vicinity, NJ and DE.—The 

Committee has provided $2,450,000 to initiate construction of this 

project. 

Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub-Basin, NJ.—The Committee has included $5,000,000 to continue construction of this 

project. 

Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, NJ.—The Committee has provided 

$4,000,000 to initiate construction of this project. 

Acequias Irrigation System, NM.—The Committee has provided 

$3,100,000 to continue restoration of these historic irrigation distribution systems. 

Central New Mexico, NM.—The Committee has included 

$5,000,000 to continue construction of this project. 

New Mexico [EI], NM.—The Committee has included $5,000,000 

to continue construction of this project. 

Fire Island to Montauk Point, NY.—Additional funds above the 

budget request have been provided for the reformulation study. 

Dare County Beaches, NC.—$2,500,000 is included for construction for this project. 

Buford Trenton Irrigation District, ND.—The Committee has included $1,500,000 to continue construction of this project. 

Webber Falls Lock and Dam Powerhouse, OK.—The Committee 

has included $4,000,000 for construction of the powerhouse major 

rehabilitation project. 

Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4, Monongahela River, PA.—The Committee has provided $46,000,000 to continue construction of this 

project. The reduction made to this project should not be viewed as 

any dimunition of support for this project, rather an attempt to bal-
46

ance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide program among the 

various missions of the Corps. 

Presque Isle, PA.—The Committee has provided $620,000 to continue this project. 

Big Sioux River, SD.—The Committee has included $2,000,000 to 

continue construction of this project. 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, SD.—The Committee notes that Title IV of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1999, Public Law 106–53 as amended, authorizes funding to pay 

administrative expenses, implementation of terrestrial wildlife 

plans, activities associated with land transferred or to be transferred, and annual expenses for operating recreational areas. The 

Committee has included $5,000,000 for this effort. Within the funds 

provided, the Committee directs that not more than $1,000,000 

shall be provided for administrative expenses, and that the Corps 

is to distribute the remaining funds as directed by Title IV to the 

State of South Dakota, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the 

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe. 

Chickamauga Lock, TN.—The Committee has provided $10,000,000 to continue construction of this project. 

Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, TX.—The Committee 

has provided $35,000,000 for continued construction of this project. 

North Padre Island, Packery Channel, TX.—The Committee has 

provided $5,438,000 to complete this project. 

Red River Basin Chloride Control, TX, OK, AR and LA.—The 

Committee has included $1,500,000 to continue construction. 

Whitney Lake Powerhouse, TX.—The Committee has included 

$4,551,000 to continue construction of the powerhouse rehabilitation. 

Rural Utah. UT.—The Committee has included $10,000,000 to 

continue construction of this project. 

Burlington Harbor, VT.—The Committee has included $500,000 

to initiate removal of Oil bollards in the harbor. 

The Committee has included $$2,000,000 for continued 

deconstruction and environmental restoration efforts at the Embrey 

Dam project. 

Virginia Beach, VA.—The Committee has included $11,395,000 

to complete initial construction. 

Columbia River Fish Recovery, WA, OR, and ID.—The Committee has chosen not to combine the various, separately authorized, components of the project into a single line item as was proposed in the budget. The Committee believes that it is prudent to 

maintain visibility of the various project elements in the budget 

process and has therefore funded the three traditional line items 

combined in this heading. 

Mt. St. Helens Sediment Control, WA.—The Committee has included additional funds for the Corps to begin investigations for 

restoration actions in the Cowlitz and Toutle watersheds. 

Mud Mountain, Washington.—Out of the funds provided, the 

Corps is directed to use up to $600,000 to study fish passage. 

Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Cumberland 

River, WV, KY and VA.—The Committee has provided $14,100,000 

for the continuation of the project. Within the funds provided, the 

Committee recommendation includes $9,500,000 for the Buchanan 
47

County, Dickenson County, and Grundy, VA elements. Further, the 

recommendation includes $4,600,000 for Kermit, Lower Mingo 

County, McDowell County, Upper Mingo and Wayne County, WV. 

Aquatic Plant Control Program.—The Committee has provided $4,500,000 for this program. Within the funds provided, the Committee has provided $850,000 for a cost shared program for Lake 

Gaston, NC and $400,000 for a cost shared program for Lake 

Champlain, VT. 

Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material.—The Committee recommendation includes $6,200,000 for the program. Within the 

funds provided, $200,000 is provided for Dauphin Island, AL, and 

$3,000,000 for Morehead City Harbor, NC. 

Dam Safety and Seepage/Stability Correction Program.—The 

Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 to complete the 

Waterbury dam repairs. 

Shore Line Erosion Control Development and Demonstration Program.—The Committee has provided $3,800,000 for this program. Within the funds provided, $2,300,000 is for an Alternative Sand 

Test Beach and Breakwater Project in Florida and $1,500,000 is for 

the Sacred Falls Demonstration project in Hawaii. 

Ability to Pay.—Section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 Public Law 99–662, as amended, requires that all 

project cooperation agreements for flood damage reduction projects, 

to which non-Federal cost sharing applies, will be subject to the 

ability of non-Federal sponsors to pay their shares. Congress included this section in the landmark 1986 Act to ensure that as 

many communities as possible would qualify for Federal flood damage reduction projects, based more on needs and less on financial 

capabilities. The Secretary published eligibility criteria in 33 CFR 

241, which requires a non-Federal sponsor to meet an ability-to-pay 

test. However, the Committee believes that the Secretary’s test is 

too restrictive and operates to exclude most communities from 

qualifying for relief under the ability-to-pay provision. For example, 

33 CFR 241.4(f) specifies that the test should be structured so that 

reductions in the level of cost-sharing will be granted in ‘‘only a 

limited number of cases of severe economic hardship,’’ and should 

depend not only on the economic circumstances within a project 

area, but also on the conditions of the state in which the project 

area is located. 

CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM

When Congress authorized the initial Continuing Authorities in 

the 1940s and 1950s, they were envisioned to provide a small pool 

of money available to the Corps of Engineers to solve very small 

localized problems without being encumbered by the longer study 

and project authorization process. As more programs were added to 

the Continuing Authorities Program [CAP] they became increasingly popular with congressional Members and the public. More 

and more congressionally directed projects began to appear in the 

annual appropriations bills. At first these congressionally directed 

projects were added to the base program. As more and more of 

these congressionally directed projects came into the program it became difficult for these congressionally directed projects to be 

added to the base and as such, the base program began to shrink. 
48

Congressionally directed projects now dominate all sections of the 

CAP Program. Congressionally directed projects have proliferated 

to such an extent that several of the sections are over-subscribed. 

Below are the various CAP sections, their congressionally authorized appropriation limit and the current estimate of outstanding 

obligations:

CAP Section Program Limit Current Obliga- tions 

Section 103 ............................................................................................................................. $30,000,000 $6,000,000

Section 107 ............................................................................................................................. 35,000,000 17,000,000

Section 1135 ........................................................................................................................... 25,000,000 49,500,000

Section 14 ............................................................................................................................... 15,000,000 19,000,000

Sections 204, 207, 933 .......................................................................................................... 15,000,000 9,000,000

Section 205 ............................................................................................................................. 50,000,000 42,500,000

Section 206 ............................................................................................................................. 25,000,000 50,500,000

The Committee directs that the Corps should prioritize projects 

in the following manner to try to get the backlog of these projects 

reduced. The first priority for funding should be for construction 

projects that already have an executed Project Cooperation Agreement. The next priority should be for projects with executed design 

agreements. Third priority would be for those with executed feasibility agreement. The last priority should be new starts. To further 

this end, the Committee directs a moratorium on execution of new 

cost share agreements during fiscal year 2006. Work should continue on all phases as funding and priority allows, but no project 

should advance to the next stage during fiscal year 2006, except, 

of course, project completions. 

The Committee is aware that there are funding requirements for 

ongoing, continuing authorities projects that may not be accommodated within the funds provided for each program. It is not the 

Committee’s intent that ongoing projects should be terminated. If 

additional funds are needed to keep ongoing work in any program 

on schedule, the Committee urges the Corps to reprogram the necessary funds.

CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGAM 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Committee recommendation 

Small Beach Erosion Control Projects—Section 103

Unalakleet Seawall, AK .................................................................................................................................. 1,000

North Shore of Indian River Inlet, DE ............................................................................................................ 600

Pleasure Island, MD ....................................................................................................................................... 500

St. Mary’s River, MD ...................................................................................................................................... 630

Morris Island Lighthouse, SC ......................................................................................................................... 2,234

Small Navigation Projects—Section 107

Gustavis Harbor, AK ....................................................................................................................................... 100

Kokhanok Harbor, AK ...................................................................................................................................... 34

Nanwalek Harbor, AK ..................................................................................................................................... 100

Blytheville Harbor, AR .................................................................................................................................... 500

Kahoolawe Small Boat Harbor, HI ................................................................................................................. 250

Laupahoehoe Harbor Project, HI .................................................................................................................... 400

North Kohala Navigation Improvements, HI .................................................................................................. 150

Port Fuchon, LA .............................................................................................................................................. 88

Nanticoke Harbor, MD .................................................................................................................................... 250
49

CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGAM—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Committee recommendation 

Yazoo Diversion Canal, MS ............................................................................................................................ 2,900

Hampton Harbor, NH ...................................................................................................................................... 55

Charlestown Breachway and Ninigret Pond, RI ............................................................................................. 90

Point Judith Harbor, Narragansett, RI ........................................................................................................... 100

Northwest Tennessee Regional Harbor, TN .................................................................................................... 490

Wisconsin Lakeshore State Park Breakwater, WI .......................................................................................... 2,000

Project Modifications for the Improvement of the Environment—Section 1135

Ditch 28, AR ................................................................................................................................................... 130

Horseshoe Lake, AR ........................................................................................................................................ 160

Millwood Lake, Grassy Lake, AR .................................................................................................................... 114.8

Rock Creek, Little Rock, AR ........................................................................................................................... 150

Bellaview Wetlands, CO ................................................................................................................................. 377

Chatfield Downstream, South Platte River, CO ............................................................................................. 138.5

Oyster Revitilization in the Delaware Bay, DE and NJ .................................................................................. 2,000

Kanaha Pond Wildlife Sanctuary Restoration Project, HI .............................................................................. 200

Kawainui Marsh Environmental Restoration Project, HI ................................................................................ 700

Pelekane Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project, HI .......................................................................................... 400

Bayou Macon, LA ............................................................................................................................................ 187

Frazier/Whitehorse Oxbow Lake Weir, LA ....................................................................................................... 375

Lake St. Joseph, Tensas Parish, LA ............................................................................................................... 130

Old River North, Concordia Parish, LA .......................................................................................................... 10

Wild Cow Bayou, Concordia Parish, LA ......................................................................................................... 10

Hart Miller Island, MD ................................................................................................................................... 200

Duck Creek, Stoddard County, MO ................................................................................................................. 125

Kansas City Riverfront, Kansas City, Jackson County, MO ........................................................................... 998

Lower Decatur Bend Environmental Improvement, NE .................................................................................. 3,552

Salt Cedar Invasive Species Eradication/Restoration, NE ............................................................................. 150

Albuquerque Biological Park Wetland Restoration Project, NM .................................................................... 400

Ecosystem Revitalization at Route 66, NM ................................................................................................... 465

Carlsbad, Pecos River, NM ............................................................................................................................ 150

Las Cruces Dam Environmental Restoration, Dona Ana County, NM ........................................................... 300

Pecos River, Chaves County .......................................................................................................................... 279

Riparian Wetland Restoration, Pueblo of Santa Ana Reservation, NM ......................................................... 200

Socorro County Floodplain Restoration, NM ................................................................................................... 210

Lower Truckee River, McCarran Ranch, NV ................................................................................................... 3,037

Fairmount Dam Fishladder Project, PA .......................................................................................................... 820

Upper Tioga River Watershed, PA .................................................................................................................. 430

Allin’s Cove, RI ............................................................................................................................................... 300

Village of Oyster, VA Ecosystem Restoration, VA .......................................................................................... 165

City of Richland Ecosystem Restoration, WA ................................................................................................ 400

Mapes Creek Habitat Enhancement Project, WA ........................................................................................... 270

Battle Island, Desoto, WI ............................................................................................................................... 40

Kaunakakai Stream Environmental Restoration, HI ...................................................................................... 300

Streambank and Shoreline Protection for Public Facilities—Section 14

Deering Shoreline Protection, AK ................................................................................................................... 900

Kwethluk, AK .................................................................................................................................................. 55

27th Street Bridge (Glenwood Springs, CO) .................................................................................................. 353

Powers Boulevard (Colorado Springs, CO) ..................................................................................................... 500

Coal Creek, Monroe County, IA ...................................................................................................................... 60

Iowa River, Sac and Fox Tribe, IA ................................................................................................................. 378

Raccoon River, Panora County, IA ................................................................................................................. 92.3

Bayou Macon, Poverty Point, LA .................................................................................................................... 469

Ouachita River, City of Monroe, LA ............................................................................................................... 80

Patuxent River, Patuxent Beach Road, MD ................................................................................................... 700

Sturgeon River, Houghton County, MI ............................................................................................................ 120

Water Treatment Plant, St. Joseph, MI .......................................................................................................... 177

Red Lake River Bank Stabilization, MN ......................................................................................................... 40

Eubanks Creek, Jackson, MS ......................................................................................................................... 275

Elizabeth River, Valleyview Road, Hillside, NJ ............................................................................................... 576

South Branch Rahway River, Woodbridge, NJ ............................................................................................... 500
50

CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGAM—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Committee recommendation 

I–40 Bridge, Rio Puerco, NM ......................................................................................................................... 850

Shoreland Avenue Embankment Restoration, Toledo, OH ............................................................................. 660

Stayton Riverfront Park Bank Stabilization, OR ............................................................................................ 250

Mt. Moriah Culvert, TN ................................................................................................................................... 305

Kenosha Harbor Retaining Wall, WI ............................................................................................................... 281

Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material—Sections 204, 207 and 933

Dauphin Island Aquatic Restoration Project, AL ........................................................................................... 439

Morehead City Harbor, NC ............................................................................................................................. 4,625

Small Flood Control Projects—Section 205

Fort Yukon, AK ................................................................................................................................................ 200

Salcha, AK ...................................................................................................................................................... 400

Bono, AR ......................................................................................................................................................... 80

Grubbs, AR ..................................................................................................................................................... 50

Wynne, AR ...................................................................................................................................................... 75

Heacock and Cactus Channels, CA ............................................................................................................... 4,000

New Hogan Lake Reoperation, CA ................................................................................................................. 600

Santa Venetia Flood Control, CA ................................................................................................................... 91.5

Salmon River, CT ........................................................................................................................................... 650

Delaware City Dragon Run Flood Mitigation Project, DE .............................................................................. 300

Elsmere Stormwater Infrastructure, DE ......................................................................................................... 250

Little Mill Creek, New Castle County, DE ...................................................................................................... 2,018

Rutherford, New Castle County, DE ............................................................................................................... 150

Kuliouou Stream Flood Damage Reduction, HI .............................................................................................. 250

Palai Stream Flood Damage Reduction, HI ................................................................................................... 100

Waiakea Stream Flood Damage Reduction Project, HI .................................................................................. 200

Wailele Stream Flood Damage Reduction Project, HI .................................................................................... 150

Cedar River (Time Check Area), Cedar Rapids, IA ........................................................................................ 300

Denison, IA ..................................................................................................................................................... 1,400

Delphi, IN ....................................................................................................................................................... 100

Fort Wayne, St. Marys and Maumee Rivers, IN ............................................................................................. 200

Braithwaite Park, LA ...................................................................................................................................... 1,681

Jean Lafitte, Fisher School Basin, Jefferson Parish, LA ................................................................................ 2,900

Oakville to LaReussite, LA ............................................................................................................................. 88

Red Chute Bayou, Bossier Parish, LA ............................................................................................................ 425

Town of Carenco, Lafayette, LA ..................................................................................................................... 160

Elkton, MD ...................................................................................................................................................... 174

Canisteo Outflow Project, MN ........................................................................................................................ 100

Montevideo, MN .............................................................................................................................................. 2,828

Rockford Levee Upgrade, MN ......................................................................................................................... 100

Blacksnake Creek, St. Joseph, MO ................................................................................................................. 244

Little River Diversion, Ducthtown, MO ........................................................................................................... 175

Wilson, NC (Hominy Swamp Flood Control) ................................................................................................... 100

Fargo Ridgewood Addition, ND ...................................................................................................................... 1,245.9

Gila River, Grants and Hidalgo Counties, NM ............................................................................................... 100

Hatch, NM ...................................................................................................................................................... 158

Little Puerco River, Gallup, NM ..................................................................................................................... 100

Little Puerco Wash, Gallup, NM ..................................................................................................................... 100

Battle Mountain, NV ....................................................................................................................................... 1,111.5

City of Las Vegas, NV .................................................................................................................................... 300

North Spanish Springs, NV ............................................................................................................................ 140

Reno Flood Warning System, NV .................................................................................................................... 3

North Park Lake, Flood Control Project .......................................................................................................... 200

Sandy Creek, TN ............................................................................................................................................. 50

Passumpsic River, Lyndonville, VT ................................................................................................................ 42

West Virginia Statewide Flood Warning System ............................................................................................ 200

Henderson, WY Drainage Improvements ........................................................................................................ 100

Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Projects—Section 206

Eklutna, AK ..................................................................................................................................................... 300

Northway, AK .................................................................................................................................................. 350
51

CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGAM—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Committee recommendation 

Chattahoochee Fall Line Ecosystem Restoration Project, AL and GA ........................................................... 250

St Helena-Napa River Restoration, CA .......................................................................................................... 600

York Creek Dam Removal, CA ........................................................................................................................ 350

Bear Creek Reservoir, CO ............................................................................................................................... 100

Bow Tie Wetlands, CO .................................................................................................................................... 300

Goose Creek, CO ............................................................................................................................................. 200

Kingfisher Point, CO ....................................................................................................................................... 191

Lower Boulder Creek, CO ............................................................................................................................... 240

North Fork, Gunnison River, CO ..................................................................................................................... 2,201

Tamarisk Eradication, CO .............................................................................................................................. 400

Red Clay Creek Dam Realignment, DE .......................................................................................................... 250

Rose Bay, FL .................................................................................................................................................. 250

Mokuhinia/Mokuula Ecosystem Restoration, HI ............................................................................................. 220

Indian Creek, Caldwell, ID ............................................................................................................................. 3,300

Paradise Creek Ecosystem Restoration Project, ID ........................................................................................ 250

Salmon River, Challis, ID ............................................................................................................................... 611

Emiquon Preserve, IL ..................................................................................................................................... 313

South Fork of the South Branch of the Chicago River (Bubbly Creek), IL ................................................... 600

Squaw Creek Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, IL .......................................................................................... 160

Cocodrie Bayou, LA ........................................................................................................................................ 10

University Lakes, Baton Rouge, LA ................................................................................................................ 200

University Lakes, East Baton Rouge Parish, LA ............................................................................................ 200

Blackwater Refuge, MD .................................................................................................................................. 500

Paint Branch Fish Passage, MD .................................................................................................................... 282

Tidal Middle Branch, MD ............................................................................................................................... 250

Western Branch, Patuxent River, MD ............................................................................................................. 1,158

Painter Creek, MN .......................................................................................................................................... 300

Confluence Point State Park, MO .................................................................................................................. 100

Missouri Stream Restoration Pilot, MO .......................................................................................................... 200

Central Bath Branch Tributary, Winston-Salem, NC ..................................................................................... 100

Ore Knob, NC .................................................................................................................................................. 510

Heron Haven Wetland Restoration Project, NE .............................................................................................. 645

Bottomless Lakes State Park, Roswell, NM ................................................................................................... 350

Jemez River Aquatic and Riparian Habitat Restoration, Zia Pueblo, NM ..................................................... 211

Las Cruces Wetland Restoration, NM ............................................................................................................ 300

Carson River, NV ............................................................................................................................................ 75

Incline, Third, and Rosewood Creeks, NV ...................................................................................................... 90

Arcola Creek Ecosystem Restoration, OH ....................................................................................................... 528

Arrowhead Creek, OR ..................................................................................................................................... 250

Camp Creek-Zumwalt Prairie, OR .................................................................................................................. 333

Coffee Lake, OR ............................................................................................................................................. 250

Ingham Spring Dam and Lake Reconstruction, PA ....................................................................................... 300

Neshannock Creek, PA ................................................................................................................................... 600

Sheradon Park and Chartiers Creek, PA ........................................................................................................ 300

Blackstone Fisheries Restoration, RI ............................................................................................................. 150

Brush Neck Cove, Warwick, RI ....................................................................................................................... 150

Lower Blackstone River Fish Passage, RI ..................................................................................................... 250

Narrow, Narragansett, RI ............................................................................................................................... 150

Ten Mile River, East Providence, RI .............................................................................................................. 250

Winnipaug Pond, Westerly, RI ........................................................................................................................ 104

Potash Brook, South Burlington, VT .............................................................................................................. 350

West Branch of the Little River, Stowe, Lamoille County, VT ....................................................................... 200

Wild Branch of the Lamoille River, Town of Craftsbury, Orleans County and Town of Wolcott, Lamoille 

County, VT .................................................................................................................................................. 200

Carpenter Creek, WA ...................................................................................................................................... 300

Issaquah Salmon Hatchery, WA ..................................................................................................................... 300

Great Pierce Meadows, Essex and Morris Counties, NJ ................................................................................ 460

Tribal Partnership Program.—The Committee has also included 

$400,000 for Nevada to initiate cultural resource restoration on his-
52

toric Washoe lands; and $400,000 for New Mexico to further the 

tribal assistance efforts by the Corps in New Mexico.

FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES—ARKANSAS, ILLINOIS, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, AND TENNESSEE

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. 1 $321,904,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 270,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 290,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 433,336,000

1 Excludes emergency appropriation of $6,000,000.

This appropriation funds planning, construction, and operation 

and maintenance activities associated with water resource projects 

located in the lower Mississippi River Valley from Cape Girardeau, 

Missouri to the Gulf of Mexico. 

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 

shown on the following table:
53

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

BAYOU METO, AR ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 1,640 ........................SOUTHEAST ARKANSAS, AR ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 350ALEXANDRIA TO THE GULF, LA ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 450 428 500ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM LAND STUDY, LA ..................................................................................................................................................................... 100 ........................ 150DONALDSON TO THE GULF, LA .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 400MORGANZA TO THE GULF, LA ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 1,000 5,000POINTE COUPEE TO ST. MARY PARISH, LA ............................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 100SPRING BAYOU, LA ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 500TENSAS RIVER BASIN, LA ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 250BEAR CREEK, MS ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 500COLDWATER RIVER BASIN BELOW ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 500 475 750QUIVER RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, MS ................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 150MILLINGTON AND VICINITY, TN ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 112 107 112MEMPHIS METRO AREA, STORM WATER MGMT STUDY, TN AND MS ....................................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 150COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 720 685 720UNSPECIFIED REDUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ ¥1,640

Subtotal, General Investigations ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,882 2,695 9,632

CONSTRUCTION

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN ..................................................................................................................................................................... 42,500 40,413 42,500FRANCIS BLAND FLOODWAY DITCH (EIGHT MILE CREEK), AR .................................................................................................................................................................. 3,446 3,277 ........................GRAND PRAIRIE REGION, AR .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 10,000MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN .................................................................................................................................................................. 39,200 37,275 59,000ST. FRANCIS BASIN, AR AND MO .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. ........................ 6,800 6,800ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,324 2,210 7,000ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21,000 19,969 21,000MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2,244 2,134 2,244HORN LAKE CREEK MODIFICATIONS, MS .................................................................................................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 200YAZOO BACKWATER, LESS ROCKY BAYOU, YAZOO F AND WL MITIGATION LANDS .................................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 300YAZOO BASIN—BACKWATER PUMPING PLANT, MS .................................................................................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 25,000YAZOO BASIN—BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS ........................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 2,000YAZOO BASIN—DELTA HEADWATERS PROJECT, MS ................................................................................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 25,000
54

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

YAZOO BASIN—MAINSTEM, MS ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ 25YAZOO BASIN—REFORMULATION UNIT, MS ............................................................................................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 2,200YAZOO BASIN/UPPER YAZOO PROJECT, MS .............................................................................................................................................................................................. ........................ 5,600 20,000ST. JOHNS BAYOU AND NEW MADRID FLOODWAY, MO ............................................................................................................................................................................. ........................ 5,500 5,500NONCONNAH CREEK, TN AND MS ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 500 475 800WEST TENNESSEE TRIBUTARIES, TN ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 500WOLF RIVER, TN ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ........................ 3,500 3,500SUSPENSION FUND .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8,000 ........................ ........................

Subtotal, Construction ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 119,214 127,153 233,569

MAINTENANCE

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO AND TN ..................................................................................................................................................................... 70,609 67,142 70,609HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 172 164 402INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 611 581 611LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 560 533 560LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 310 295 310MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO, AND TN ................................................................................................................................................................. 9,256 9,902 21,191ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR AND MO ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6,600 8,800 6,600TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, AR AND LA ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2,600 2,472 2,600WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,400 1,331 1,400INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 55 52 55INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 37 35 37ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,860 2,720 2,860ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13,400 12,742 13,400BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA ............................................................................................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 420BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 65 62 65BONNET CARRE, LA .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2,713 2,580 2,713INSPECTION OF COMPELTED WORKS, LA .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 538 512 538LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 66 63 66MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 239 227 239OLD RIVER, LA .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10,200 9,699 10,200TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 3,950 3,756 3,950GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ 500
55

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 317 301 317YAZOO BASIN: 

ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6,151 5,849 14,810BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 210 200 2,210ENID LAKE, MS ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5,232 4,975 12,300GREENWOOD, MS ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 620 590 2,070GRENADA LAKE, MS ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5,674 5,395 12,278MAIN STEM, MS ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,080 1,027 4,033SARDIS LAKE, MS ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7,153 5,802 16,500TRIBUTARIES, MS ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,130 1,075 1,130WILL M WHITTINGTON AUX CHAN, MS ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 430 409 430YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 470 447 956YAZOO CITY, MS .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 770 732 770

Subtotal, YAZOO BASIN ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28,920 26,501 67,487

VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 387INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 182 173 182WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4,676 4,446 4,676INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 110 105 110MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 992 943 992WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 540EMERGENCY REPAIR RESERVES ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 1,700 ........................MAPPING ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,384 1,316 1,384UNSPECIFIED REDUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ ¥1,000 ........................REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE .......................................................................................................................................................................... ¥13,918 ........................ ¥25,266

Subtotal, Maintenance ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 148,904 158,512 190,135Total, Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries ............................................................................................................................................................. 270,000 290,000 433,336
56

The Committee believes that it is essential to provide adequate 

resources and funding to the Mississippi River and Tributaries program in order to protect the large investment in flood control facilities. Although much progress has been made, considerable work remains to be done for the protection and economic development of 

the rich natural resources in the Valley. The Committee expects 

the additional funds to be used to advance ongoing studies, initiate 

new studies, and advance important construction and maintenance 

work. 

General Investigations 

Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System Land Study, LA.—The Committee has provided $150,000 to initiate this study as recommended in the budget request. 

Morganza to the Gulf, LA.—The Committee has provided $5,000,000 to continue Preconstruction Engineering and Design for 

this study. 

Quiver River, MS.—The Committee has provided $150,000 to initiate this study. 

Memphis Metro, Storm Water Management Study, TN and MS.— The Committee has provided $150,000 to initiate this study. 

Construction 

Grand Prairie, AR.—The Committee has provided $10,000,000 

for continued construction of the project. 

Mississippi River Levees, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO and TN.—The 

Committee has provided $59,000,000 to continue construction of 

this project. Within the funds provided, $19,800,000 could be used 

to continue construction on St. Johns-New Madrid Levee Closure/

Box Culvert, MO ($3,000,000); Carlisle-Tallula, MS Item 488–L 

($6,000,000); and Above Cairo, IL Slurry Trench P–4 ($600,000) 

and initiate construction on Willow Point-Youngs Point, LA Items 

445–R ($1,300,000); Pecan Point, AR, Relief Wells P–2 ($200,000); 

Trotters, MS Berm P–2 ($100,000); Council Bend, AR Relief Wells 

($200,000); Willow Point-Youngs Point, LA Items 450–R 

($1,500,000); Farrell, MS Relief Wells ($200,000); Badger-Cottonwood Point, MO Seepage Control ($200,000); Tallula-Magna Vista, 

LA Items 474–R ($1,500,000) and ($5,000,000) could be used to 

complete plans and specifications and initiate construction of the 

Lower Mississippi River Museum and Riverfront Interpretive Site. 

Yazoo Basin, Backwater Pumping Plant, MS.—The Committee 

has provided $25,000,000 to continue construction of the project. 

Within the funds provided, $150,000 is provided for the Teddy Roosevelt Environment Education Center. 

Yazoo Basin, Delta Headwaters Project, MS.—The Committee 

has provided $25,000,000 to continue construction of this project. 

Yazoo Basin, Upper Yazoo Project, MS.—The Committee has provided $20,000,000 to accelerate completion of this project. Within 

the funds provided, $1,000,000 is for bank stabilization. 

Maintenance 

Mississippi River Levees, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO and TN.—The 

Committee has provided $21,191,000 to continue construction of 

this project. Funds are provided to complete Levee Restoration, 
57

Mellwood, AR; initiate and complete Levee Repairs, Torras, LA; 

Levee Slide Repairs, Above Old River, LA; initiate Slope Pavement 

Repairs, Various Locations, LA; Floodwall Renovations, Mound 

City, IL; Replacement of Cache Levee Culvert, IL; Provide Levee 

Gravel, AR, LA and MS; Provide Levee Gravel, Commerce to Birds 

Point, MO; Provide Levee Gravel, Below Helena, AR and Provide 

Levee Gravel, Main Line Levee, LA. 

Atchafalaya Basin, LA.—The Committee has provided $13,400,000 for maintenance of this project. Additional funds are 

provided for levee gravel. 

The Committee has provided funding for necessary maintenance 

dredging for the harbor projects located along the main stem of the 

Mississippi River. 

The Committee has provided additional funding to address the 

maintenance backlog at Arkabutla, Sardis, Enid and Grenada 

Lakes in Mississippi.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. 1 $1,943,428,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 1,979,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 2,000,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,100,000,000

1 Excludes emergency appropriation of $155,400,000.

The Committee continues to believe that it is essential to provide 

adequate resources and attention to operation and maintenance requirements in order to protect the large Federal investment. Yet, 

current and projected budgetary constraints require the Committee 

to limit the amount of work that can be accomplished in the fiscal 

year. In order to cope with the current situation, the Corps has had 

to defer or delay scheduled maintenance activities. 

Maintenance backlogs continue to grow, with much of the backlog being essential maintenance dredging needed to keep the Nation’s ports, harbors, and waterways open and able to efficiently 

handle important national and international trade activities. Yet, 

the Committee is aware that out-year budget planning guidance for 

the Corps of Engineers projects is such that the current appropriations for their critical operation and maintenance activities will 

continue to decline for the foreseeable future. If additional resources are not made available, the Corps will be forced to cut back 

on services, and begin to terminate and close many projects and activities. 

The Committee is aware of the Corps’ efforts to stretch the limited resources to cover all of its projects and to effect savings 

through a variety of means. With an increasing number of projects 

entering the inventory, and budgetary constraints increasing, it is 

clear that the Corps will have to find innovative ways of accomplishing required maintenance work, while reducing operational 

and other costs. 

The budget request has proposed that no navigation project with 

less than 1 billion ton-miles of cargo be eligible for maintenance 

dredging. The Committee believes that this is in direct conflict with 

the way projects are evaluated, authorized, and analyzed. Project 

analysis is based upon Economic and Environmental Principles and 

Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation 
58

Studies (1983), the Corps of Engineers Planning Guidance Notebook (2000), and other polices and procedures. For navigation studies, the analysis centers on transportation savings to the Nation 

considering the ultimate origins and destinations of commodities to 

be moved. Operation and maintenance costs are considered as a 

part of this analysis and are figured into the benefit to cost ratio 

utilized to make the investment decision. By applying an arbitrary 

ton-mile figure to determine O&M funding decisions, the budget request has essentially obviated the need for any of the previous 

studies undertaken to determine the investment decision. 

The Committee is concerned about the annual proposals for reductions of maintenance funding for ‘‘low use waterways and 

ports’’. These tributary waterways naturally do not enjoy the same 

level of relative efficiencies as mainstem waterways. The Mississippi and Ohio Rivers handle tremendous volumes of traffic over 

long distances and so generate impressive ton-mile statistics. Tributaries, by nature, provide generally short, smaller channels with 

lower traffic densities. Consequently, ‘‘ton-mile’’ statistics for tributary waterways are dwarfed by statistics for the mainstem waterways. It is important to recognize that the commerce on the tributaries is usually only a small part of the total journey between producer and consumer. When these statistics are compared on a system basis, nearly all of these waterways appear to ‘‘pay their way’’ 

and are performing as the economic analysis indicated when they 

were originally authorized. 

Uncertainties in maintenance funding for lower use projects seriously impacts their ability to compete and become higher use facilities. Without funding to provide a stable channel and authorized 

depths and widths, industries and shippers are reluctant to make 

the necessary investments in using these projects. The Committee 

believes that proposed elimination of maintenance funding for authorized projects is not only a serious disservice to the public, but 

it demonstrates a profound lack of respect for the Congressional 

oversight committees that have jurisdiction for authorization and 

deauthorization of such projects. 

The Committee is not in favor of funding projects which are no 

longer economically viable nor environmentally sustainable. Unfortunately, the administration has chosen a path of underfunding, or 

an entire lack of funding, for projects in an effort to achieve de 

facto deauthorization through the appropriations process by utilizing the billion-ton-mile model. 

Further, the Committee believes much could be learned by the 

open exchange of how ‘‘low-use’’ waterways and ports are calculated, for the billion-ton-mile does not adequately reflect the flow 

of commerce today. The Committee remains concerned about the 

economic impacts of not maintaining all of our waterways and 

ports at their authorized depths. As a result of waterways not 

being maintained at the authorized depths, shippers are forced to 

divide their cargo and place it on a number of smaller ships in 

order to make passage to the final destination. This adds significantly to the cost and time of the movement of products in and 

around our waterways, something which the administration does 

not appropriately take into account when formulating the budget 

for the Corps. Therefore, the Committee strongly encourages the 
59

administration to put forth a proposal for a model which better reflects the flow of goods along all of our ports and waterways, including lightering. Until then, however, the Committee believes the 

administration has the responsibility to budget for each and every 

project such that the authorized widths and depths are maintained. 

CORPS HOPPER DREDGE FLEET

During fiscal year 2002, the Committee requested the General 

Accounting Office [GAO] to review the benefits and effects of current and proposed restrictions on the Corps’ hopper dredge fleet. 

The Committee faces significant future investments in the Corps 

hopper dredge fleet, as it is rapidly aging. The Committee believes 

that the investment decisions must take into consideration the subsequent use of the fleet. The final GAO report, released March, 

2003, reviewed the impacts of operational changes to the fleet since 

fiscal year 1993. GAO’s findings made it clear to the Committee 

that additional costs have been imposed upon the Corps with the 

decreased use of the fleet, but that the benefits have not been realized. Additionally, the GAO found that the Corps’ contracting process for hopper dredges was not effective. Most importantly, the 

GAO reported that the Corps of Engineers did not have even a limited system to evaluate the costs and benefits of the varying operational levels of its hopper dredge fleet, nor did it have a means 

to make maintenance and repair decisions of the fleet taking operational use into consideration. The Committee remains concerned 

that since 2000, the Corps has provided a report to Congress which 

has been found to have no analytical basis, thus calling into question the ready reserve policy. Therefore, the Committee has provided legislative language which changes the current dredge policy. 

DIRECT FUNDING OF OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE WORK AND THE

PMAS

The President’s Budget includes user charge proposals to offset 

discretionary spending. In particular, the Administration proposes 

that, starting in 2006, receipts from the sale of hydroelectric power 

generated at certain Federal dams operated by the Corps of Engineers be used to finance the operation and maintenance of those 

facilities. This direct financing arrangement already exists for the 

Bonneville Power Administration. However, due to budgetary scoring impacts the Committee is unable to extend this proposal to the 

Southeastern, Southwestern, and Western Power Administrations 

in the Department of Energy. 

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 

shown on the following table:
60

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget es- timate House al- lowance Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to (∂ or ¥) 

Budget estimate House allow- ance 

ALABAMA

ALABAMA—COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER STUDY, AL ............................................................................................................................................ 180 180 180 .................. ..................ALABAMA—COOSA RIVER, AL ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,591 1,591 3,091 ∂1,500 ∂1,500BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL ........................................................................................................................................................... 22,117 22,117 22,117 .................. ..................GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL ........................................................................................................................................................................... 4,050 4,050 4,050 .................. ..................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AL ..................................................................................................................................................................... 50 50 50 .................. ..................MILLERS FERRY LOCK AND DAM, WILLIAM .................................................................................................................................................................. 7,315 7,315 7,315 .................. ..................MOBILE HARBOR, AL .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20,248 20,248 20,248 .................. ..................PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL .............................................................................................................................................................................. 100 100 100 .................. ..................ROBERT F. HENRY LOCK AND DAM, AL ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7,125 7,125 7,125 .................. ..................SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AL .................................................................................................................................................................. 140 140 140 .................. ..................TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY WILDLIFE MITIGATION, AL .................................................................................................................................. 1,400 1,400 2,000 ∂600 ∂600TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL AND MS ....................................................................................................................................................... 20,103 20,103 24,000 ∂3,897 ∂3,897WALTER F. GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL AND GA ....................................................................................................................................................... 7,171 7,171 7,171 .................. ..................

ALASKA

ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 11,470 11,470 11,470 .................. ..................CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3,051 3,051 3,051 .................. ..................CORDOVA HARBOR, AK ................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ 600 ∂600 ∂600DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 622 622 622 .................. ..................HOMER HARBOR, AK .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 299 299 299 .................. ..................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK ..................................................................................................................................................................... 45 45 45 .................. ..................LOWELL CREEK TUNNEL, AK ........................................................................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ 100 ∂100 ∂100NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 248 248 248 .................. ..................NOME HARBOR, AK ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,496 2,496 2,496 .................. ..................PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK .............................................................................................................................................................................. 588 588 588 .................. ..................

AMERICAN SAMOA

OFU HARBOR, AMERICAN SAMOA ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1,480 1,480 1,480 .................. ..................TAU HARBOR, AMERICAN SAMOA ................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,372 1,372 1,372 .................. ..................
61

ARIZONA

ALAMO LAKE, AZ .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,280 1,280 1,730 ∂450 ∂450INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ ..................................................................................................................................................................... 92 92 92 .................. ..................PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,220 1,220 1,220 .................. ..................SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ ................................................................................................................................................................. 37 37 37 .................. ..................WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 190 190 190 .................. ..................

ARKANSAS

BEAVER LAKE, AR ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5,744 5,744 5,744 .................. ..................BLAKELY MT. DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR ..................................................................................................................................................................... 10,084 10,084 10,084 .................. ..................BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,292 1,292 1,292 .................. ..................BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 6,392 6,392 6,392 .................. ..................DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM, AR ............................................................................................................................................................................... 6,524 6,524 6,524 .................. ..................DEGRAY LAKE, AR ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 6,828 6,828 6,828 .................. ..................DEQUEEN LAKE, AR ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,193 1,193 1,193 .................. ..................DIERKS LAKE, AR ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,161 1,161 1,161 .................. ..................GILLHAM LAKE, AR ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,093 1,093 1,093 .................. ..................GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 5,608 5,608 5,608 .................. ..................HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR ..................................................................................................................................................................... 30 30 430 ∂400 ∂400INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR ..................................................................................................................................................................... 199 199 199 .................. ..................MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR .................................................................................................................................. 35,065 34,230 35,065 .................. ∂835MILLWOOD LAKE, AR .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,782 1,782 1,782 .................. ..................NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR ........................................................................................................................................................................... 4,342 4,342 4,342 .................. ..................NIMROD LAKE, AR ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1,656 1,656 1,656 .................. ..................NORFORK LAKE, AR ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4,540 4,540 4,540 .................. ..................OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 29 299 29 .................. ¥270OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR AND LA ................................................................................................................................................................ 8,500 10,400 10,400 ∂1,900 ..................OZARK-JETA TAYLOR LOCK AND DAM, AR ................................................................................................................................................................... 5,151 5,151 5,151 .................. ..................PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AR .............................................................................................................................................................................. 7 7 7 .................. ..................WHITE RIVER, AR ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 215 215 1,000 ∂785 ∂785YELLOW BEND PORT, AR .............................................................................................................................................................................................. ................ ................ 176 ∂176 ∂176

CALIFORNIA

BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,989 1,989 1,989 .................. ..................BUCHANAN DAM, HV EASTMAN LAKE, CA .................................................................................................................................................................... 1,781 1,781 1,781 .................. ..................CHANNEL ISLANDS HARBOR, CA .................................................................................................................................................................................. 310 310 310 .................. ..................COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA ............................................................................................................................................................. 4,084 4,000 4,084 .................. ∂84CRESENT CITY HARBOR ............................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 500 ∂500 ∂500DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND CHANNEL, CA ............................................................................................................................................. 5,272 5,825 5,272 .................. ¥553FARMINGTON DAM, CA ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 202 202 202 .................. ..................
62

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget es- timate House al- lowance Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to (∂ or ¥) 

Budget estimate House allow- ance 

HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA ................................................................................................................................................................................ 2,090 2,090 2,090 .................. ..................HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA .............................................................................................................................................................................. 5,069 5,000 5,069 .................. ∂69INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1,396 1,396 1,396 .................. ..................ISABELLA LAKE, CA ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,291 2,291 2,291 .................. ..................JACK D. MALTESTER CHANNEL, CA (SAN LEANDRO) ................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 750 ∂750 ∂750LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA ............................................................................................................................................................... 4,287 4,287 4,287 .................. ..................LOWER PETALUMA RIVER, CA ...................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 750 ∂750 ∂750MARINA DEL REY, CA ................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 1,000 ∂1,000 ∂1,000MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA .................................................................................................................................................................................. 251 251 251 .................. ..................MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 290 290 290 .................. ..................MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 1,616 1,616 1,616 .................. ..................MOSS LANDING HARBOR, CA ....................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 1,475 ...................... .................. ¥1,475NAPA RIVER, CA ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 750 ∂750 ∂750NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,994 1,994 1,994 .................. ..................NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA .................................................................................................................................................... 1,634 1,634 1,634 .................. ..................NOYO RIVER AND HARBOR, CA .................................................................................................................................................................................... 28 28 250 ∂222 ∂222OAKLAND HARBOR, CA ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6,205 6,205 6,205 .................. ..................OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,040 1,040 1,040 .................. ..................PILLAR POINT HARBOR ................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................ ................ 500 ∂500 ∂500PINE FLAT LAKE, CA ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,831 2,831 2,831 .................. ..................PINOLE SHOAL MANAGEMENT STUDY, CA .................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 250 ...................... .................. ¥250PORT HUENEME, CA ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 500 ∂500 ∂500PORT SAN LUIS, CA ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 500 +500 +500PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1,891 1,891 1,891 .................. ..................REDWOOD CITY HARBOR, CA ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 4,967 4,967 4,967 .................. ..................RICHMOND HARBOR, CA .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 7,972 7,972 7,972 .................. ..................SACRAMENTO RIVER (BASULE BRIDGE), CA ................................................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ 1,000 ∂1,000 ∂1,000SACRAMENTO RIVER (30 FOOT PROJECT), CA ............................................................................................................................................................. 2,790 2,790 2,790 .................. ..................SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS CONTROL), CA ................................................................................................................................ 1,299 1,299 1,299 .................. ..................SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL, CA .................................................................................................................................................. 119 119 119 .................. ..................SAN FRANCISCO BAY, DELTA MODEL STRUCTURE, CA ................................................................................................................................................ 1,185 1,185 1,185 .................. ..................SAN FRANCISCO BAY LONG TERM MANAGEMENT STUDY, CA ..................................................................................................................................... ................ 1,600 ...................... .................. ¥1,6000
63

SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY, CA (DRIFT REMOVAL) ........................................................................................................................................ 2,000 2,000 2,000 .................. ..................SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,223 2,223 2,223 .................. ..................SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, CA .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 2,886 2,886 2,886 .................. ..................SAN PABLO BAY AND MARE ISLAND STRAIT, CA ......................................................................................................................................................... 3,320 3,320 3,320 .................. ..................SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 3,321 3,321 3,321 .................. ..................SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,408 1,408 1,408 .................. ..................SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA ................................................................................................................................................................. 1,499 1,499 1,499 .................. ..................SUCCESS LAKE, CA ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,809 1,809 1,809 .................. ..................SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 5,132 5,132 5,132 .................. ..................TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1,692 1,692 1,692 .................. ..................UPPER PETALUMA RIVER,CA ........................................................................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ 300 ∂300 ∂300VENTURA HARBOR, CA ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2,200 2,200 2,900 ∂700 ∂700YUBA RIVER, CA ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 29 29 29 .................. ..................

COLORADO

BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 407 407 407 .................. ..................CHATFIELD LAKE, CO .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,233 1,233 1,900 ∂667 ∂667CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 1,941 1,941 2,607 ∂666 ∂666INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO .................................................................................................................................................................... 107 107 107 .................. ..................JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,926 2,926 2,926 .................. ..................SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO ................................................................................................................................................................. 590 590 590 .................. ..................TRINIDAD LAKE, CO ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,021 1,021 1,688 ∂667 ∂667COMMONWEALTH OF NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS ROTA HARBOR, CNMI ................................................................................................................ 260 260 260 .................. ..................

CONNECTICUT

BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 592 592 592 .................. ..................BRIDGEPORT HARBOR, CT ........................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 1,500 ∂1,500 ∂1,500CLINTON HARBOR, CT .................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................ 100 250 ∂250 ∂150COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 583 583 583 .................. ..................HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 599 599 599 .................. ..................HOP BROOK LAKE, CT .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,005 1,005 1,005 .................. ..................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT ..................................................................................................................................................................... 79 79 79 .................. ..................MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 535 535 535 .................. ..................NORTH COVE HARBOR, CT ........................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 2,000 ∂2,000 ∂2,000NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 527 527 527 .................. ..................NORWALK FEDERAL NAVIGATION PROJECT, CT ............................................................................................................................................................ ................ 500 1,000 ∂1,000 ∂500PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CT .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1,000 1,000 1,000 .................. ..................STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT .......................................................................................................................................................................... 417 417 417 .................. ..................THOMASTON DAM, CT ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 951 951 951 .................. ..................WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 724 724 724 .................. ..................
64

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget es- timate House al- lowance Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to (∂ or ¥) 

Budget estimate House allow- ance 

DELAWARE

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE RIVER TO CHESAPEAKE BAY ......................................................................................................................... 11,475 11,475 12,475 ∂1,000 ∂1,000MISPILLION RIVER, DE ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 20 20 20 .................. ..................MURDERKILL RIVER, DE ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 20 20 .................. ..................PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DE .............................................................................................................................................................................. 86 86 86 .................. ..................WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 3,860 3,800 3,860 .................. ∂60

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DC .................................................................................................................................................................... 9 9 9 .................. ..................POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS, DC (DRIFT REMOVAL) ......................................................................................................................................... 744 744 744 .................. ..................PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DC ............................................................................................................................................................................. 37 37 37 .................. ..................WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 600 600 600 .................. ..................

FLORIDA

AIWW, NORFOLK, VA TO ST. JOHNS RIVER, FL, GA, SC, NC, VA .................................................................................................................................. ................ ................ 500 ∂500 ∂500CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3,828 6,000 3,000 ¥828 ¥3,000CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL ....................................................................................................................................................................... 14,213 14,213 14,213 .................. ..................ESCAMBIA AND CONECUH RIVERS, FL ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,000 1,000 1,000 .................. ..................FERNANDINA HARBOR, FL ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 1,513 1,513 1,513 .................. ..................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL ..................................................................................................................................................................... 300 300 300 .................. ..................INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, CALOOSAHATCHEE TO ANCLOTE, FL ................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ 1,000 ∂1,000 ∂1,000INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI, FL ........................................................................................................................................... 250 250 4,000 ∂3,750 ∂3,750JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 3,637 3,637 3,637 .................. ..................JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE SEMINOLE, FL, AL, AND GA ............................................................................................................................ 8,188 8,188 8,188 .................. ..................MANATEE HARBOR, FL ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2,000 2,000 2,000 .................. ..................MIAMI HARBOR, FL ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,530 1,530 1,530 .................. ..................MIAMI RIVER, FL .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 1,000 3,500 ∂3,500 ∂2,500OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,060 2,060 2,060 .................. ..................PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,183 1,183 1,183 .................. ..................PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 906 906 906 .................. ..................PENSACOLA HARBOR, FL .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,315 1,315 1,315 .................. ..................
65

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1,325 1,325 1,325 .................. ..................REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2,306 2,306 2,306 .................. ..................SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, FL .................................................................................................................................................................. 30 30 30 .................. ..................SUWANEE RIVER, FL ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 500 ...................... .................. ¥500TAMPA HARBOR, FL ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4,500 10,000 4,000 ¥500 ¥6,000

GEORGIA

ALLATOONA LAKE, GA ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7,322 7,322 7,322 .................. ..................APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT RIVERS, GA, AL & ................................................................................................................................ 1,050 1,050 6,500 ∂5,450 ∂5,450ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA .................................................................................................................................................................... 286 286 286 .................. ..................BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 2,396 2,396 2,396 .................. ..................BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA .............................................................................................................................................................. 8,519 8,519 8,519 .................. ..................CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 10,637 10,637 10,637 .................. ..................HARTWELL LAKE, GA AND SC ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 16,619 16,619 16,619 .................. ..................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA ..................................................................................................................................................................... 41 41 41 .................. ..................J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA AND SC ...................................................................................................................................................................... 11,047 11,047 11,047 .................. ..................PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, GA .............................................................................................................................................................................. 90 90 90 .................. ..................RICHARD B. RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA AND SC .................................................................................................................................................... 12,283 12,283 12,283 .................. ..................SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 13,521 13,521 13,521 .................. ..................WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA AND AL .................................................................................................................................................................... 11,449 11,449 11,449 .................. ..................

HAWAII

BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 231 231 231 .................. ..................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI ...................................................................................................................................................................... 189 189 189 .................. ..................POHIKI BAY HAWAII, HI ................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ 100 ∂100 ∂100PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI ............................................................................................................................................................................... 200 200 200 .................. ..................

IDAHO

ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,792 1,792 1,792 .................. ..................DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2,464 2,464 2,464 .................. ..................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID ...................................................................................................................................................................... 78 78 78 .................. ..................LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2,567 2,567 2,567 .................. ..................SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID .................................................................................................................................................................. 430 430 430 .................. ..................

ILLINOIS

CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL AND IN .................................................................................................................................................................. 2,900 2,900 2,900 .................. ..................CARLYLE LAKE, IL ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 6,745 6,745 6,745 .................. ..................CHICAGO HARBOR, IL ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3,499 3,499 3,499 .................. ..................CHICAGO RIVER, IL ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 385 385 385 .................. ..................FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 214 214 214 .................. ..................
66

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget es- timate House al- lowance Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to (∂ or ¥) 

Budget estimate House allow- ance 

ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), IL AND IN ......................................................................................................................................................... 24,702 25,767 24,702 .................. ¥1,065ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL AND IN ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,065 1,065 1,065 .................. ..................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL ...................................................................................................................................................................... 631 631 631 .................. ..................KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1,189 1,189 1,189 .................. ..................LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL .................................................................................................................................................................................... 547 547 547 .................. ..................LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5,186 5,186 6,186 ∂1,000 ∂1,000MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS ....................................................................................................................................................... ................ 67,030 ...................... .................. ..................MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVR PORTION) ............................................................................................................................. 48,107 ................ 50,407 ∂2,300 ∂2,300MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVS PORTION) ............................................................................................................................. 18,923 ................ 18,923 .................. ..................PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL ............................................................................................................................................................................... 33 33 33 .................. ..................REND LAKE, IL .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5,254 5,254 5,254 .................. ..................SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IL ............................................................................................................................................... 114 114 114 .................. ..................WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 680 2,680 680 .................. ¥2,000

INDIANA

BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 872 872 872 .................. ..................BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN .................................................................................................................................................................................. ................ 800 ...................... .................. ¥800CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 600 600 600 .................. ..................CECIL M. HARDEN LAKE, IN ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 687 687 687 .................. ..................INDIANA HARBOR, IN .................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 300 ...................... .................. ¥300INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN ...................................................................................................................................................................... 370 370 370 .................. ..................J. EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 643 643 643 .................. ..................MICHIGAN CITY HARBOR, IN ........................................................................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ 500 ∂500 ∂500MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 751 751 751 .................. ..................MONROE LAKE, IN ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 689 689 689 .................. ..................PATOKA LAKE, IN .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 619 619 619 .................. ..................PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN ............................................................................................................................................................................... 59 59 59 .................. ..................SALAMONIE LAKE, IN .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 637 637 637 .................. ..................SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IN .............................................................................................................................................. 111 111 111 .................. ..................

IOWA

CORALVILLE LAKE, IA ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,537 2,537 2,537 .................. ..................
67

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA ...................................................................................................................................................................... 202 202 202 .................. ..................MISSOURI RIVER-KENSLERS BEND, NE TO SIOUX CITY, IA ......................................................................................................................................... 152 152 152 .................. ..................MISSOURI RIVER-RULO TO MOUTH, IA, NE, KS, AND MO ............................................................................................................................................ 6,475 6,475 6,475 .................. ..................MISSOURI RIVER-SIOUX CITY TO RULO, IA AND NE .................................................................................................................................................... 2,417 2,417 2,417 .................. ..................RATHBUN LAKE, IA ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,081 2,081 2,081 .................. ..................RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA ................................................................................................................................................................... 3,415 3,415 3,415 .................. ..................SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3,952 4,202 4,202 ∂250 ..................

KANSAS

CLINTON LAKE, KS ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1,987 1,987 1,987 .................. ..................COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,544 1,544 1,544 .................. ..................EL DORADO LAKE, KS ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 339 339 339 .................. ..................ELK CITY LAKE, KS ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 692 692 692 .................. ..................FALL RIVER LAKE, KS ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,154 2,154 2,154 .................. ..................HILLSDALE LAKE, KS .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 703 703 703 .................. ..................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 85 85 85 .................. ..................JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS ................................................................................................................................................................. 1,081 1,081 1,081 .................. ..................KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,634 1,634 1,634 .................. ..................MARION LAKE, KS ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,551 1,551 1,551 .................. ..................MELVERN LAKE, KS ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,828 1,828 1,828 .................. ..................MILFORD LAKE, KS ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,903 2,903 2,903 .................. ..................PEARSON-KUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,052 1,052 1,052 .................. ..................PERRY LAKE, KS ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,211 2,211 2,211 .................. ..................POMONA LAKE, KS ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1,810 1,810 1,810 .................. ..................SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS ................................................................................................................................................................. 32 32 32 .................. ..................TORONTO LAKE, KS ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 402 402 402 .................. ..................TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 2,189 2,189 2,189 .................. ..................WILSON LAKE, KS ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,509 1,509 1,609 ∂100 ∂100

KENTUCKY

BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY, AND TN ........................................................................................................................................................ 9,507 9,507 9,507 .................. ..................BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 2,102 2,102 3,000 ∂898 ∂898BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,091 1,091 1,091 .................. ..................BUCKHORN LAKE, KY ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,195 1,195 1,195 .................. ..................CARR CREEK LAKE, KY ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1,252 1,652 1,252 .................. ¥400CAVE RUN LAKE, KY ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 733 733 733 .................. ..................DEWEY LAKE, KY .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,245 1,245 1,245 .................. ..................ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY ......................................................................................................................................................................... 40 40 40 .................. ..................FISHTRAP LAKE, KY ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,621 1,621 1,621 .................. ..................GRAYSON LAKE, KY ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,140 1,140 1,140 .................. ..................
68

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget es- timate House al- lowance Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to (∂ or ¥) 

Budget estimate House allow- ance 

GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1,178 1,178 1,178 .................. ..................GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,882 1,882 1,882 .................. ..................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY ..................................................................................................................................................................... 98 98 98 .................. ..................LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,814 1,814 1,814 .................. ..................MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 599 599 599 .................. ..................MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY .......................................................................................................................................................... 62 62 62 .................. ..................NOLIN LAKE, KY ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1,817 1,817 1,817 .................. ..................OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN, AND OH ................................................................................................................................................... 32,210 32,210 32,210 .................. ..................OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, IN, AND OH ............................................................................................................................................. 3,928 3,928 3,928 .................. ..................PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 912 912 912 .................. ..................PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, KY .............................................................................................................................................................................. 7 7 7 .................. ..................ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,945 1,945 1,945 .................. ..................TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,149 1,149 1,149 .................. ..................WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY ................................................................................................................................................................ 5,902 5,902 5,902 .................. ..................YATESVILLE LAKE, KY ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,070 1,070 1,070 .................. ..................

LOUISIANA

ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF AND BLACK, LA ........................................................................................................................... 15,948 15,948 24,948 ∂9,000 ∂9,000BARATARIA BAY ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ 1,300 ∂1,300 ∂1,300BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA .................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,402 1,402 1,402 .................. ..................BAYOU LACOMBE ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 500 ∂500 ∂500BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP WATERWAY, LA ....................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 1,000 ∂1,000 ∂1,000BAYOU PIERRE, LA ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 32 32 32 .................. ..................BAYOU SEGNETTE, LA .................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................ ................ 1,450 ∂1,450 ∂1,450BAYOU TECHE .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................ ................ 800 ∂800 ∂800CADDO LAKE, LA .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 330 330 330 .................. ..................CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA ................................................................................................................................................................................. 9,032 9,032 14,032 ∂5,000 ∂5,000FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,466 1,466 1,466 .................. ..................GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA ........................................................................................................................................................................... 19,614 19,000 19,614 .................. ∂614HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA ................................................................................................................................................................................... 253 253 253 .................. ..................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA ..................................................................................................................................................................... 856 856 856 .................. ..................J. BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA ........................................................................................................................................................................ 10,115 10,115 13,115 ∂3,000 ∂3,000
69

LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA .................................................................................................................................................................................. ................ ................ 491 ∂491 ∂491MADISON PARISH PORT, LA ......................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 86 ∂86 ∂86MERMENTAU RIVER, LA ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2,538 2,538 2,538 .................. ..................MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE GULF OF MEXICO .................................................................................................................................... 54,053 54,053 54,053 .................. ..................MISSISSIPPI RIVER, GULF OUTLET, LA ......................................................................................................................................................................... 14,111 13,500 14,111 .................. ∂611MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA ............................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 2,500 ∂2,500 ∂2,500PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA .............................................................................................................................................................................. 60 60 60 .................. ..................REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2,000 2,000 2,000 .................. ..................WALLACE LAKE, LA ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 291 291 291 .................. ..................WATERWAY FROM EMPIRE TO THE GULF, LA ............................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 240 ∂240 ∂240WATERWAY FROM INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY TO BAYOU DULAC, LA ......................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 200 ∂200 ∂200

MAINE

BASS HARBOR, ME ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 95 95 95 .................. ..................CARVERS HARBOR, ME ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 270 270 270 .................. ..................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME .................................................................................................................................................................... 21 21 21 .................. ..................INTERNATIONAL ST. CROIX RIVER BOARD OF CONTROL, ME ...................................................................................................................................... 17 17 17 .................. ..................KENNEBUNK RIVER, ME ............................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 700 ...................... .................. ¥700PORTLAND HARBOR, ME .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 520 520 520 .................. ..................PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME ............................................................................................................................................................................. 866 866 866 .................. ..................

MARYLAND

BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT), MD ................................................................................................................................................. 15,214 15,214 19,214 ∂4,000 ∂4,000BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD (DRIFT REMOVAL) ............................................................................................................................................................... 326 326 326 .................. ..................CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV ....................................................................................................................................................................... 126 126 750 ∂624 ∂624HERRING CREEK, TALL TIMBERS, MD .......................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 450 ∂450 ∂450INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD .................................................................................................................................................................... 36 36 36 .................. ..................JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD AND WV .................................................................................................................................................................... 1,907 1,907 1,907 .................. ..................KANPPS NARROWS, MD ................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ 700 ∂700 ∂700NANTICOKE RIVER NORTHWEST FORK, MD .................................................................................................................................................................. 240 240 240 .................. ..................OCEAN CITY HARBOR AND INLET AND SINEPUXENT BAY, MD .................................................................................................................................... 220 220 1,900 ∂1,680 ∂1,680PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD ............................................................................................................................................................................. 379 379 379 .................. ..................SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD ................................................................................................................................................................ 97 97 97 .................. ..................ST. JEROME CREEK, MD ............................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 850 ∂850 ∂850TILGHMAN ISLAND HARBOR,MD ................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 450 ∂450 ∂450WICOMICO RIVER, MD .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 500 500 500 .................. ..................

MASSACHUSETTS

AUNT LYDIA’S COVE, MA .............................................................................................................................................................................................. ................ 250 ...................... .................. ¥250BARRE FALLS DAM, MA ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 637 637 637 .................. ..................
70

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget es- timate House al- lowance Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to (∂ or ¥) 

Budget estimate House allow- ance 

BIRCH HILL DAM, MA ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 607 607 607 .................. ..................BOSTON HARBOR, MA .................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................ ................ 7,500 ∂7,500 ∂7,500BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 592 592 592 .................. ..................CAPE COD CANAL, MA ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 8,896 8,750 8,896 .................. ∂146CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE AREA, MA .............................................................................................................................................. 312 312 312 .................. ..................CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 362 362 362 .................. ..................EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 458 458 458 .................. ..................GREEN HARBOR, MA .................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 350 ∂350 ∂350HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 591 591 591 .................. ..................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA .................................................................................................................................................................... 114 114 114 .................. ..................KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 677 677 677 .................. ..................LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 541 541 541 .................. ..................MERRIMACK RIVER, MA ............................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 200 ∂200 ∂200NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET HURRICANE BARRIER ............................................................................................................................. 337 337 337 .................. ..................PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1,300 1,300 1,300 .................. ..................TULLY LAKE, MA ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 595 595 595 .................. ..................WEST HILL DAM, MA .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 798 798 798 .................. ..................WESTVILLE LAKE, MA ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 579 579 579 .................. ..................WEYMOUTH-FORE RIVER, MA ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 3,774 3,700 3,774 .................. ∂74

MICHIGAN

ALPENA HARBOR, MI .................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 290 ∂290 ∂290ARCADIA HARBOR, MI .................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................ ................ 80 ∂80 ∂80CASEVILLE HARBOR, MI ............................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 128 ∂128 ∂128CEDAR RIVER HARBOR, MI .......................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 550 ∂550 ∂550CHANNELS IN LAKE ST. CLAIR, MI ............................................................................................................................................................................... 183 183 183 .................. ..................CHARLEVOIX HARBOR, MI ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 89 89 89 .................. ..................DETROIT RIVER, MI ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4,347 4,347 4,347 .................. ..................FRANKFORT HARBOR, MI .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 37 37 37 .................. ..................GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,879 1,879 1,879 .................. ..................GRAND MARAIS HARBOR, MI ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 14 1,714 ∂1,700 ∂1,700HARBOR BEACH HARBOR, MI ...................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 100 500 ∂500 ∂400
71

HOLLAND HARBOR, MI ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,354 1,354 1,354 .................. ..................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI ..................................................................................................................................................................... 144 144 144 .................. ..................KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 370 370 370 .................. ..................LAC LA BELLE, MI ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 92 92 92 .................. ..................LELAND HARBOR, MI .................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 88 ∂88 ∂88LITTLE LAKE HARBOR, MI ............................................................................................................................................................................................. ................ ................ 186 ∂186 ∂186LUDINGTON HARBOR, MI .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 500 500 500 .................. ..................MENOMINEE HARBOR, MI AND HI ................................................................................................................................................................................ ................ 400 400 ∂400 ..................MONROE HARBOR, MI .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 550 550 550 .................. ..................MUSKEGON HARBOR, MI .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 525 525 525 .................. ..................NEW BUFFALO HARBOR, MI ......................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 79 ∂79 ∂79ONTONAGON HARBOR, MI ............................................................................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ 300 ∂300 ∂300PENTWATER, MI ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................ 100 100 ∂100 ..................PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI .............................................................................................................................................................................. 178 178 178 .................. ..................ROUGE RIVER, MI ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,161 1,161 1,161 .................. ..................SAGINAW RIVER, MI ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,427 2,427 2,427 .................. ..................SEBEWAING RIVER, MI ................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................ ................ 360 ∂360 ∂360ST. CLAIR RIVER, MI .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 920 920 920 .................. ..................ST. JOSEPH HARBOR, MI .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 470 470 1,085 ∂615 ∂615ST. MARYS RIVER, MI .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 17,134 17,134 17,134 .................. ..................SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MI .............................................................................................................................................. 2,314 2,314 2,314 .................. ..................

MINNESOTA

BIGSTONE LAKE WHETSTONE RIVER, MN AND SD ....................................................................................................................................................... 164 164 164 .................. ..................DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN AND WI ................................................................................................................................................................... 5,081 5,381 5,081 .................. ¥300INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN .................................................................................................................................................................... 129 129 129 .................. ..................LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN .......................................................................................................................................................... 363 363 363 .................. ..................MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVP PORTION) ............................................................................................................................. 58,073 58,073 57,073 ¥1,000 ¥1,000ORWELL LAKE, MN ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 261 261 261 .................. ..................PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN ............................................................................................................................................................................. 67 67 67 .................. ..................RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 320 320 320 .................. ..................RESERVOIR PLAN OPERATING EVALUATION, MN .......................................................................................................................................................... ................ 400 ...................... .................. ¥400RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN ......................................................................................................................................... 2,263 2,263 2,263 .................. ..................SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MN ............................................................................................................................................ 310 310 310 .................. ..................WARROAD HARBOR, MN ............................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 250 ∂250 ∂250

MISSISSIPPI

CLAIBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS .................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 62 ∂62 ∂62EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 102 102 170 ∂68 ∂68GULFPORT HARBOR, MS ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,500 2,500 4,000 ∂1,500 ∂1,500
72

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget es- timate House al- lowance Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to (∂ or ¥) 

Budget estimate House allow- ance 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS .................................................................................................................................................................... 57 57 57 .................. ..................MOUTH OF THE YAZOO RIVER, MS .............................................................................................................................................................................. ................ ................ 110 ∂110 ∂110OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,680 1,680 2,300 ∂620 ∂620PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 5,156 5,156 5,156 .................. ..................PEARL RIVER, MS AND LA ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 276 276 276 .................. ..................PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MS ............................................................................................................................................................................. 181 181 181 .................. ..................ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS .............................................................................................................................................................................................. ................ ................ 580 ∂580 ∂580YAZOO RIVER, MS ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ 140 ∂140 ∂140

MISSOURI

CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO ................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 23 350 ∂327 ∂327CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE, MO .............................................................................................................................................. 6,107 6,107 6,107 .................. ..................CLEARWATER LAKE, MO ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,677 2,600 2,677 .................. ∂77HANNIBAL, MO .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................ ................ 76 ∂76 ∂76HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO ............................................................................................................................................................ 9,140 9,140 9,140 .................. ..................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO .................................................................................................................................................................... 768 768 768 .................. ..................LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO ................................................................................................................................................................................... 730 730 730 .................. ..................LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 848 848 848 .................. ..................MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO ............................................................................................................................. 29,559 29,559 29,559 .................. ..................NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO .......................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 360 ∂360 ∂360POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,963 1,963 1,963 .................. ..................PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MO ............................................................................................................................................................................. 7 7 7 .................. ..................SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MO ................................................................................................................................................................ 319 319 319 .................. ..................SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,237 1,237 1,237 .................. ..................SOUTHEAST MISSOURI PORT, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MO ................................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ 350 ∂350 ∂350STOCKTON LAKE, MO .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3,742 3,742 3,742 .................. ..................TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7,556 7,556 7,556 .................. ..................UNION LAKE, MO .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 6 6 .................. ..................

MONTANA

FT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 4,154 4,154 4,154 .................. ..................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT .................................................................................................................................................................... 19 19 19 .................. ..................
73

LIBBY DAM, LAKE KOOCANUSA, MT ............................................................................................................................................................................. 2,189 2,189 2,189 .................. ..................SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MT ................................................................................................................................................................. 87 87 87 .................. ..................

NEBRASKA

GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE, NE AND SD ......................................................................................................................................... 8,231 8,231 8,231 .................. ..................HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,863 1,863 1,863 .................. ..................HARLAN COUNTY LAKE DAM SAFETY STUDY, NE ......................................................................................................................................................... ................ 355 ...................... .................. ¥355INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE ..................................................................................................................................................................... 102 102 102 .................. ..................MISSOURI R. MASTER WTR CONTROL MANUAL, NE, IA, KS, MO, ................................................................................................................................ 203 203 203 .................. ..................PAPILLION CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES LAKES, NE ......................................................................................................................................................... 625 625 ...................... .................. ..................SALT CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, NE ............................................................................................................................................................................. 845 845 845 .................. ..................

NEVADA

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV ..................................................................................................................................................................... 46 46 46 .................. ..................MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV AND CA ............................................................................................................................................................................... 586 586 586 .................. ..................PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV .................................................................................................................................................................. 214 214 214 .................. ..................

NEW HAMPSHIRE

BLACKWATER DAM, NH ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 644 644 644 .................. ..................COCHECO RIVER .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 2,000 ∂2,000 ∂2,000EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH .................................................................................................................................................................................. 555 555 555 .................. ..................FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 768 768 768 .................. ..................HOPKINTON-EVERETT LAKES, NH ................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,228 1,228 1,228 .................. ..................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NH .................................................................................................................................................................... 12 12 12 .................. ..................OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 806 806 806 .................. ..................PORTSMOUTH HARBOR/PISCATAQUA RIVER, NH .......................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 500 ∂500 ∂500PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NH ............................................................................................................................................................................. 300 300 300 .................. ..................SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 736 736 736 .................. ..................

NEW JERSEY

ABSECON INLET ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ 110 ∂110 ∂110BARNEGAT INLET, NJ .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 95 95 500 ∂405 ∂405COLD SPRING INLET, NJ ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 540 540 540 .................. ..................DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ ............................................................................................................................................................................... 10 10 10 .................. ..................DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA, NJ, PA, AND DE ................................................................................................................................ 20,465 20,465 20,465 .................. ..................DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO TRENTON, NJ .............................................................................................................................................. 720 720 720 .................. ..................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ ..................................................................................................................................................................... 106 106 106 .................. ..................MANASQUAN RIVER, NJ ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 510 510 510 .................. ..................NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC RIVERS, NJ ............................................................................................................................................... 8,120 8,120 8,120 .................. ..................NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY ..................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 1,250 ∂1,250 ∂1,250
74

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget es- timate House al- lowance Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to (∂ or ¥) 

Budget estimate House allow- ance 

PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS, NJ ........................................................................................................................................................... 450 450 450 .................. ..................PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NJ .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1,675 1,675 1,675 .................. ..................RARITAN RIVER TO ARTHUR KILL CUT-OFF, NJ ............................................................................................................................................................ 150 150 150 .................. ..................RARITAN RIVER, NJ ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,500 2,400 2,500 .................. ∂100SALEM RIVER, NJ ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 965 ∂965 ∂965SAVOY HOOK AT LEONARDO, NJ ................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 150 ∂150 ∂150SHARK RIVER, NJ ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 80 80 230 ∂150 ∂150SHREWSBURY RIVER MAIN CHANNEL, NJ .................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 400 ∂400 ∂400

NEW MEXICO

ABIQUIU DAM, NM ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3,168 3,168 3,168 .................. ..................ALBUQUERQUE LEVEES, NM ......................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 2,000 ∂1,000 ∂1,000COCHITI LAKE, NM ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3,726 3,726 4,426 ∂700 ∂700CONCHAS LAKE, NM ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,579 1,579 2,579 ∂1,000 ∂1,000GALISTEO DAM, NM ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 779 750 779 .................. ∂29INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM .................................................................................................................................................................... 221 221 221 .................. ..................JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 3,561 3,561 5,061 ∂1,500 ∂1,500RIO GRANDE BOSQUE REHABILITATION, NM ................................................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ 4,000 ∂4,000 ∂4,000SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1,213 1,213 1,213 .................. ..................SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM ................................................................................................................................................................ 1,221 1,221 1,221 .................. ..................TWO RIVERS DAM, NM ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 552 552 552 .................. ..................UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL ....................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 2,000 ∂2,000 ∂2,000

NEW YORK

ALMOND LAKE, NY ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 509 509 509 .................. ..................ARKPORT DAM, NY ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 294 294 294 .................. ..................BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, NY .............................................................................................................................................. 1,308 1,308 1,308 .................. ..................BROWNS CREEK, NY .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 100 100 100 .................. ..................BUFFALO HARBOR, NY ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,030 1,030 1,030 .................. ..................BUTTERMILK CHANNEL, NY .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 60 60 60 .................. ..................EAST RIVER, NY ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,350 1,350 1,350 .................. ..................EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 140 140 140 .................. ..................
75

EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 517 517 517 .................. ..................EASTCHESTER CREEK, NY ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 100 100 100 .................. ..................FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY ..................................................................................................................................................................... 220 220 220 .................. ..................FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY ................................................................................................................................................................................... 150 150 150 .................. ..................GREAT SOUTH BAY, NY ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 200 200 200 .................. ..................HUDSON RIVER CHANNEL, NY ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 350 350 350 .................. ..................HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT) ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 1,794 1,794 1,794 .................. ..................HUDSON RIVER, NY (O&C) ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,090 1,090 1,090 .................. ..................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY ..................................................................................................................................................................... 659 659 659 .................. ..................JAMAICA BAY, NY ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 140 140 140 .................. ..................LONG ISLAND INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NY ............................................................................................................................................................. 200 200 200 .................. ..................MORICHES INLET, NY ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 80 80 80 .................. ..................MT MORRIS LAKE, NY .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3,845 3,845 3,845 .................. ..................NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY ............................................................................................................................................................. 7,200 7,200 7,200 .................. ..................NEW YORK HARBOR, NY .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3,410 3,410 3,410 .................. ..................NEW YORK HARBOR, NY AND NJ (DRIFT REMOVAL) .................................................................................................................................................... 4,400 4,400 4,400 .................. ..................NEW YORK HARBOR, NY AND NJ (PREV OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSIT ........................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 950 ∂950 ∂950PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1,310 1,310 1,310 .................. ..................SHINNECOCK INLET, NY ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 120 120 120 .................. ..................SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS, NY ............................................................................................................................................. 662 662 662 .................. ..................SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, NY ............................................................................................................................................. 710 710 710 .................. ..................WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 678 678 678 .................. ..................

NORTH CAROLINA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC ................................................................................................................................................................... 860 860 5,860 ∂5,000 ∂5,000B. EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC .................................................................................................................................................................... 1,849 1,849 1,849 .................. ..................CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC ................................................................................................................................................................ 635 635 635 .................. ..................CAROLINA BEACH INLET ............................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 550 ∂550 ∂550FALLS LAKE, NC ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,097 2,097 2,097 .................. ..................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC .................................................................................................................................................................... 35 35 35 .................. ..................LOCKWOODS FOLLY RIVER, NC .................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 950 ∂950 ∂950MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC ................................................................................................................................................................................ 7,855 7,855 15,855 ∂8,000 ∂8,000MASONBORO INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC ............................................................................................................................................... 3,700 3,700 3,700 .................. ..................MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 3,575 3,575 3,575 .................. ..................NEW RIVER INLET, NC .................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................ ................ 1,050 ∂1,050 ∂1,050NEW TOPSAIL INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC .............................................................................................................................................. ................ ................ 675 ∂675 ∂675PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC ............................................................................................................................................................................. 226 226 226 .................. ..................SILVER LAKE HARBOR, NC ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,540 1,540 1,540 .................. ..................W. KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC ................................................................................................................................................................. 2,817 2,817 2,817 .................. ..................WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 13,963 13,963 13,963 .................. ..................
76

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget es- timate House al- lowance Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to (∂ or ¥) 

Budget estimate House allow- ance 

NORTH DAKOTA

BOWMAN-HALEY LAKE, ND ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 156 156 156 .................. ..................GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND ....................................................................................................................................................................... 13,266 13,516 14,266 ∂1,000 ∂750HOMME LAKE, ND ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 266 266 266 .................. ..................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND .................................................................................................................................................................... 85 85 85 .................. ..................LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND ................................................................................................................................................................. 1,242 1,242 1,242 .................. ..................PIPESTEM LAKE, ND ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 459 459 459 .................. ..................SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ND ................................................................................................................................................................. 117 117 117 .................. ..................SOURIS RIVER, ND ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 422 422 422 .................. ..................SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ND ............................................................................................................................................. 31 31 31 .................. ..................

OHIO

ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 948 948 948 .................. ..................ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,063 1,063 1,063 .................. ..................BERLIN LAKE, OH ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,544 1,544 1,544 .................. ..................CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 1,222 1,222 1,222 .................. ..................CLARENCE J. BROWN DAM, OH .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,358 1,358 1,358 .................. ..................CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3,305 3,305 3,305 .................. ..................CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 2,315 2,315 2,315 .................. ..................DEER CREEK LAKE, OH ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 815 815 815 .................. ..................DELAWARE LAKE, OH .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 794 794 794 .................. ..................DILLON LAKE, OH ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,790 1,790 1,790 .................. ..................HURON HARBOR, OH .................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 105 ∂105 ∂105INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH .................................................................................................................................................................... 280 280 280 .................. ..................LORAIN HARBOR, OH .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 600 600 600 .................. ..................MASSILLON LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH ............................................................................................................................................................ 25 25 25 .................. ..................MICHAEL J. KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH .......................................................................................................................................................... 718 718 718 .................. ..................MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 717 717 717 .................. ..................MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH .................................................................................................................................................................................... 6,754 6,754 6,754 .................. ..................NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH ............................................................................................................................................................... 125 125 125 .................. ..................PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 721 721 721 .................. ..................
77

PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH ............................................................................................................................................................................. 240 240 240 .................. ..................ROSEVILLE LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, OH ............................................................................................................................................................. 30 30 30 .................. ..................SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 890 850 890 .................. ∂40SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OH ............................................................................................................................................. 170 170 170 .................. ..................TOLEDO HARBOR, OH ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3,682 3,650 3,682 .................. ∂32TOM JENKINS DAM, OH ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 290 290 290 .................. ..................WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH ........................................................................................................................................................................ 403 403 403 .................. ..................WILLIAM H. HARSHA LAKE, OH ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 710 710 710 .................. ..................

OKLAHOMA

ARCADIA LAKE, OK ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 429 429 429 .................. ..................BIRCH LAKE, OK ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 475 475 475 .................. ..................BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,493 1,493 1,493 .................. ..................CANTON LAKE, OK ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1,723 1,723 1,723 .................. ..................COPAN LAKE, OK .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,511 1,511 1,511 .................. ..................EUFAULA LAKE, OK ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5,312 5,312 5,312 .................. ..................FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 5,053 5,053 5,053 .................. ..................FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 733 733 733 .................. ..................GRAND LAKE, OR .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 650 ∂650 ∂650GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 166 166 166 .................. ..................HEYBURN LAKE, OK ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 529 529 529 .................. ..................HUGO LAKE, OK ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1,451 1,451 1,451 .................. ..................HULAH LAKE, OK .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 626 626 750 ∂124 ∂124INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK ..................................................................................................................................................................... 88 88 88 .................. ..................KAW LAKE, OK .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2,378 2,378 2,378 .................. ..................KEYSTONE LAKE, OK ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4,300 4,300 4,300 .................. ..................OOLOGAH LAKE, OK ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,955 1,955 1,955 .................. ..................OPTIMA LAKE, OK ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 61 61 61 .................. ..................PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE CHEROKEES, OK ............................................................................................................................................ 57 57 57 .................. ..................PINE CREEK LAKE, OK .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 857 857 857 .................. ..................ROBERT S. KERR LOCK AND DAM AND RESERVOIRS, OK ........................................................................................................................................... 4,517 4,517 4,517 .................. ..................SARDIS LAKE, OK ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,192 1,192 1,192 .................. ..................SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK ................................................................................................................................................................. 508 508 508 .................. ..................SKIATOOK LAKE, OK ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,086 1,086 1,086 .................. ..................TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 2,998 2,998 2,998 .................. ..................WAURIKA LAKE, OK ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,528 1,528 1,528 .................. ..................WEBBERS FALLS LOCK AND DAM, OK .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4,815 4,815 4,815 .................. ..................WISTER LAKE, OK ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 460 460 460 .................. ..................
78

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget es- timate House al- lowance Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to (∂ or ¥) 

Budget estimate House allow- ance 

OREGON

APPLEGATE LAKE, OR ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 595 595 595 .................. ..................BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 312 312 312 .................. ..................BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA .................................................................................................................................................................. 7,792 7,792 7,792 .................. ..................CHETCO RIVER, OR ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 348 348 348 .................. ..................COLUMBIA AND LWR WILLAMETTE R. BLW VANCOUVER, WA AND PORTLA ................................................................................................................. 16,829 16,829 17,579 ∂750 ∂750COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR AND WA ........................................................................................................................................................... 10,186 10,186 27,186 ∂17,000 ∂17,000COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND THE DALLES, OR ......................................................................................................................... 254 254 254 .................. ..................COOS BAY, OR ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4,594 4,594 4,594 .................. ..................COQUILLE RIVER, OR ................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 348 ∂348 ..................COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 780 780 780 .................. ..................COUGAR LAKE, OR ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 766 766 766 .................. ..................DEPOE BAY, OR ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ 400 ∂400 ∂400DETROIT LAKE, OR ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 729 729 729 .................. ..................DORENA LAKE, OR ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 613 613 613 .................. ..................FALL CREEK LAKE, OR ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 555 555 555 .................. ..................FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 966 966 2,100 ∂1,134 ∂1,134GREEN PETER-FOSTER LAKES, OR ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1,186 1,186 1,186 .................. ..................HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3,807 3,807 3,807 .................. ..................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR .................................................................................................................................................................... 167 167 167 .................. ..................JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4,692 4,692 4,692 .................. ..................LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,272 1,272 1,272 .................. ..................LOST CREEK LAKE, OR ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5,096 5,096 5,096 .................. ..................MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR AND WA ........................................................................................................................................................................ 7,129 7,129 7,129 .................. ..................PORT ORFORD, OR ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 723 ∂723 ∂723PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR ............................................................................................................................................................................. 177 177 177 .................. ..................ROGUE RIVER AT GOLD BEACH, OR ............................................................................................................................................................................ 394 394 394 .................. ..................SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR ................................................................................................................................................................. 62 62 62 .................. ..................SIUSLAW RIVER, OR ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 449 449 449 .................. ..................SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OR ............................................................................................................................................. 134 134 134 .................. ..................TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, OR (PORT OF GARIBALDI) ................................................................................................................................................. ................ ................ 1,500 ∂1,500 ∂1,500
79

UMPQUA RIVER, OR ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 225 679 ∂679 ∂454WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR .......................................................................................................................................................... 72 72 72 .................. ..................WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR ................................................................................................................................................................ 80 80 80 .................. ..................WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 538 538 538 .................. ..................YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR .................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,006 1,006 1,006 .................. ..................

PENNSYLVANIA

ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4,393 4,393 4,393 .................. ..................ALVIN R. BUSH DAM, PA .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 727 727 727 .................. ..................AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA .................................................................................................................................................................................... 251 251 251 .................. ..................BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,026 1,026 1,026 .................. ..................BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2,662 2,662 2,662 .................. ..................CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,074 1,074 1,074 .................. ..................COWANESQUE LAKE, PA ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,793 2,793 2,793 .................. ..................CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,033 1,033 1,033 .................. ..................CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 717 717 717 .................. ..................EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA .................................................................................................................................................................... 799 799 799 .................. ..................FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA ............................................................................................................................................................................... 745 745 745 .................. ..................FRANCIS E. WALTER DAM, PA ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 731 731 731 .................. ..................GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR, PA ................................................................................................................................................... 249 249 249 .................. ..................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA ..................................................................................................................................................................... 196 196 196 .................. ..................JOHNSTOWN, PA ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,603 1,603 1,603 .................. ..................KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,147 1,447 1,147 .................. ¥300LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 785 785 785 .................. ..................MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 946 946 946 .................. ..................MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 17,138 17,138 17,138 .................. ..................OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH AND WV ........................................................................................................................................................ 18,362 18,362 18,362 .................. ..................PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA .............................................................................................................................................................................. 30 30 30 .................. ..................PROMPTON LAKE, PA .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 483 483 483 .................. ..................PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 13 13 .................. ..................RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5,449 5,849 5,449 .................. ¥400SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, PA ................................................................................................................................................................. 66 66 66 .................. ..................SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PA ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 70 70 70 .................. ..................SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,831 1,831 1,831 .................. ..................STILLWATER LAKE, PA .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 386 386 1,000 ∂614 ∂614SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, PA ............................................................................................................................................. 80 80 80 .................. ..................TIOGA-HAMMOND LAKES, PA ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 3,365 3,365 3,365 .................. ..................TIONESTA LAKE, PA ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,331 1,331 1,331 .................. ..................UNION CITY LAKE, PA ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 147 147 147 .................. ..................WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 714 714 714 .................. ..................
80

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget es- timate House al- lowance Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to (∂ or ¥) 

Budget estimate House allow- ance 

YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 556 556 556 .................. ..................YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA AND MD ................................................................................................................................................................... 2,124 2,124 2,124 .................. ..................

PUERTO RICO

SAN JUAN HARBOR, PR ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1,800 1,800 1,800 .................. ..................

RHODE ISLAND

BULLOCKS POINT COVE, RI .......................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 700 ∂700 ∂700BLOCK ISLAND HARBOR, RI ......................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 120 ∂120 ∂120INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI ...................................................................................................................................................................... 15 15 15 .................. ..................PAWTUXET COVE, RI ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 1,600 ∂1,600 ∂1,600PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, RI ............................................................................................................................................................................... 400 400 400 .................. ..................

SOUTH CAROLINA

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC .................................................................................................................................................................... 467 467 3,000 ∂2,533 ∂2,533CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 11,038 11,038 11,038 .................. ..................COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC ................................................................................................................................................................ 2,905 2,905 2,905 .................. ..................FOLLY RIVER, SC .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 987 987 987 .................. ..................GEORGETOWN HARBOR, SC ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,342 1,342 4,000 ∂2,658 ∂2,658INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC ..................................................................................................................................................................... 30 30 30 .................. ..................PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC .............................................................................................................................................................................. 349 349 349 .................. ..................TOWN CREEK, SC ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 459 ∂459 ∂459

SOUTH DAKOTA

BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD .............................................................................................................................................................................. 7,577 7,577 7,577 .................. ..................CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRVLE SIOUS, SD ........................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ 2,000 ∂2,000 ∂2,000COLD BROOK LAKE, SD ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 275 275 275 .................. ..................COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD ................................................................................................................................................................................ 192 192 192 .................. ..................FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD ........................................................................................................................................................... 9,635 9,635 9,635 .................. ..................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD ..................................................................................................................................................................... 17 17 17 .................. ..................LAKE TRAVERSE, SD AND MN ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 434 434 434 .................. ..................MISSOURI R. BETWEEN FORT PECK DAM AND GAVINS PT, SD, MT ............................................................................................................................ 350 350 350 .................. ..................
81

OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD AND ND ........................................................................................................................................................................... 11,421 11,421 11,421 .................. ..................SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD ................................................................................................................................................................. 52 52 52 .................. ..................

TENNESSEE

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 6,397 6,397 6,397 .................. ..................CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN ................................................................................................................................................................................... 5,103 5,103 5,103 .................. ..................CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TN .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 2,430 2,430 2,430 .................. ..................CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN .................................................................................................................................................................. 6,226 6,226 6,226 .................. ..................DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 5,531 5,531 5,531 .................. ..................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN ..................................................................................................................................................................... 137 137 137 .................. ..................J. PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN ................................................................................................................................................................ 3,738 3,738 3,738 .................. ..................OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN .............................................................................................................................................................................. 6,385 6,385 6,385 .................. ..................PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TN .............................................................................................................................................................................. 7 7 7 .................. ..................TENNESSEE RIVER, TN ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 18,537 18,537 18,537 .................. ..................WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 23 23 23 .................. ..................

TEXAS

AQUILLA LAKE, TX ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1,108 1,108 1,108 .................. ..................ARKANSAS-RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE CONTROL—AREA VI ................................................................................................................................. 1,051 1,051 1,051 .................. ..................BARDWELL LAKE, TX .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,538 1,538 1,538 .................. ..................BAYPORT SHIP CHANNEL, TX ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,875 2,875 2,875 .................. ..................BELTON LAKE, TX ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3,041 3,041 3,041 .................. ..................BENBROOK LAKE, TX .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,097 2,097 2,097 .................. ..................BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 3,775 3,775 3,775 .................. ..................BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2,875 2,875 2,875 .................. ..................CANYON LAKE, TX ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3,667 3,667 3,667 .................. ..................CHOCOLATE BAYOU ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 2,000 ∂2,000 ∂2,000CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3,900 3,900 3,900 .................. ..................DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX ................................................................................................................................................................................ 5,569 5,569 5,569 .................. ..................ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT, TX ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 5 5 .................. ..................FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O’ THE PINES, TX ........................................................................................................................................................ 3,075 3,075 3,075 .................. ..................FREEPORT HARBOR, TX ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3,610 3,610 3,610 .................. ..................GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4,800 4,800 4,800 .................. ..................GIWW, CHANNEL TO VICTORIA, TX ............................................................................................................................................................................... 6,975 6,975 6,975 .................. ..................GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,004 2,004 2,004 .................. ..................GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3,349 3,349 3,349 .................. ..................GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX ........................................................................................................................................................................... 29,312 29,312 29,312 .................. ..................HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,665 1,665 1,665 .................. ..................HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 3,261 3,261 11,056 ∂7,795 ∂7,795INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX ..................................................................................................................................................................... 557 557 557 .................. ..................
82

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget es- timate House al- lowance Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to (∂ or ¥) 

Budget estimate House allow- ance 

JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,897 2,897 2,897 .................. ..................JOE POOL LAKE, TX ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,023 1,023 1,023 .................. ..................LAKE KEMP, TX ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 422 422 422 .................. ..................LAVON LAKE, TX ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3,885 3,885 3,885 .................. ..................LEWISVILLE DAM, TX .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4,290 4,290 4,290 .................. ..................MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX .................................................................................................................................................................................. 8,700 8,700 8,700 .................. ..................NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 2,353 2,353 2,353 .................. ..................NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE GEORGETOWN, TX ............................................................................................................................................ 2,320 2,320 2,320 .................. ..................O. C. FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1,260 1,260 1,260 .................. ..................PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,266 1,266 1,266 .................. ..................PROCTOR LAKE, TX ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,221 2,221 2,221 .................. ..................PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TX .............................................................................................................................................................................. 50 50 50 .................. ..................RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,070 1,070 1,070 .................. ..................SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX .................................................................................................................................................................................. 13,478 13,478 13,478 .................. ..................SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX ................................................................................................................................................................... 11,578 11,578 11,578 .................. ..................SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX .................................................................................................................................................................. 84 84 84 .................. ..................SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3,068 3,068 3,068 .................. ..................STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,951 1,951 1,951 .................. ..................TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TX ................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,150 2,150 2,500 ∂350 ∂350TEXAS WATER ALLOCATION ASSESSMENT, TX .............................................................................................................................................................. 500 500 1,600 ∂1,100 ∂1,100TOWN BLUFF DAM, B. A. STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX ......................................................................................................................................................... 3,995 3,995 3,995 .................. ..................WACO LAKE, TX ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3,295 3,295 3,295 .................. ..................WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,662 1,662 1,662 .................. ..................WHITNEY LAKE, TX ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5,603 6,803 5,603 .................. ¥1,200WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX .......................................................................................................................................................................... 3,416 3,416 3,416 .................. ..................

UTAH

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT ..................................................................................................................................................................... 40 40 40 .................. ..................SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT ................................................................................................................................................................. 631 631 631 .................. ..................

VERMONT

BALL MOUNTAIN LAKE, VT ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 801 801 801 .................. ..................
83

CONNECTICUT RIVER FLOOD CONTROL DAMS ............................................................................................................................................................. ................ ................ 500 ∂500 ∂500INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT ..................................................................................................................................................................... 45 45 45 .................. ..................NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 706 706 706 .................. ..................NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 892 892 892 .................. ..................TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 786 786 786 .................. ..................UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 684 684 684 .................. ..................

VIRGINIA

APPOMATTOX RIVER, VA ............................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 500 ∂500 ∂500ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—ACC, VA ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,670 1,670 1,670 .................. ..................ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—DSC, VA ......................................................................................................................................................... 275 275 850 ∂575 ∂575BENNETT’S CREEK, VA ................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................ ................ 352 ∂352 ∂352CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 900 900 900 .................. ..................GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA ................................................................................................................................................................... 2,084 2,084 2,084 .................. ..................HAMPTON RDS, NORFOLK AND NEWPORT NEWS HBR, VA (DRIFT REM ...................................................................................................................... 825 825 825 .................. ..................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA ..................................................................................................................................................................... 127 127 127 .................. ..................JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 3,295 3,295 3,295 .................. ..................JOHN H. KERR LAKE, VA AND NC ................................................................................................................................................................................ 11,513 11,513 11,513 .................. ..................JOHN W. FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,435 1,435 1,435 .................. ..................NORFOLK HARBOR, VA ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 11,203 11,203 14,672 ∂3,469 ∂3,469NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA .................................................................................................................................................................... 346 346 346 .................. ..................PHILPOTT LAKE, VA ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5,391 5,391 5,391 .................. ..................PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA .............................................................................................................................................................................. 793 793 793 .................. ..................RUDEE INLET, VA ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 635 635 1,275 ∂640 ∂640TANGIER CHANNEL, VA ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 600 600 600 .................. ..................WATERWAY ON THE COAST OF VIRGINIA, VA ............................................................................................................................................................... 200 200 200 .................. ..................

WASHINGTON

CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,419 2,419 2,419 .................. ..................COLUMBIA RIVER AT BAKER BAY, WA (PORT OF ILWACO) .......................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 1,000 ∂1,000 ∂1,000COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN CHINOOK AND THE HEAD OF SAND ................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ 1,000 ∂1,000 ∂1,000EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA .......................................................................................................................................................... 1,508 1,508 1,508 .................. ..................GRAYS HARBOR AND CHEHALIS RIVER, WA ................................................................................................................................................................ 8,582 9,000 8,582 .................. ¥418HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,481 2,481 2,481 .................. ..................ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA ............................................................................................................................................................................... 5,670 5,670 5,670 .................. ..................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA .................................................................................................................................................................... 311 311 311 .................. ..................LAKE CROCKETT (KEYSTONE HARBOR), WA ................................................................................................................................................................. 342 342 342 .................. ..................LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA ........................................................................................................................................................................... 4,387 4,387 6,480 ∂2,093 ∂2,093LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA ............................................................................................................................................................................. 2,165 2,165 2,165 .................. ..................LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2,422 2,422 2,422 .................. ..................
84

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget es- timate House al- lowance Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to (∂ or ¥) 

Budget estimate House allow- ance 

LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA ................................................................................................................................................................. 1,996 1,996 1,996 .................. ..................MILL CREEK LAKE, WA ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,041 1,041 1,041 .................. ..................MT. ST. HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA .................................................................................................................................................................. 257 257 257 .................. ..................MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 2,516 2,516 3,419 ∂903 ∂903NEAH BAY, WA ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................ ................ 1,000 ∂1,000 ∂1,000OLYMPIA HARBOR, WA ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 400 400 400 .................. ..................PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA ............................................................................................................................................................................. 403 403 403 .................. ..................PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA .............................................................................................................................................................. 864 864 864 .................. ..................QUILLAYUTE RIVER, WA ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 58 58 58 .................. ..................SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA ................................................................................................................................................................. 485 485 485 .................. ..................SEATTLE HARBOR, WA .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 555 555 555 .................. ..................STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 226 226 226 .................. ..................SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WA ............................................................................................................................................. 66 66 66 .................. ..................TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA ................................................................................................................................................................................... 112 112 112 .................. ..................THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA AND OR .................................................................................................................................................................. 3,667 3,667 3,877 ∂210 ∂210WILLAPA RIVER AND HARBOR, WA ............................................................................................................................................................................... 158 158 158 .................. ..................

WEST VIRGINIA

BEECH FORK LAKE, WV ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1,014 1,014 1,014 .................. ..................BLUESTONE LAKE, WV .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3,828 3,828 3,828 .................. ..................BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,517 1,517 1,517 .................. ..................EAST LYNN LAKE, WV ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,799 1,799 1,799 .................. ..................ELK RIVER HARBOR, WV .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 10 10 10 .................. ..................ELKINS, WV ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 16 16 .................. ..................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV .................................................................................................................................................................... 117 117 117 .................. ..................KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV ..................................................................................................................................................................... 13,661 13,661 13,661 .................. ..................OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY AND OH ........................................................................................................................................................ 19,530 19,530 20,530 ∂1,000 ∂1,000OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY AND OH ................................................................................................................................................. 2,019 2,019 2,519 ∂500 ∂500R. D. BAILEY LAKE, WV ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1,515 1,515 1,515 .................. ..................STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV .................................................................................................................................................................................. 640 640 640 .................. ..................SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 1,657 1,657 1,657 .................. ..................SUTTON LAKE, WV ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1,788 1,788 1,788 .................. ..................
85

TYGART LAKE, WV ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2,950 2,950 2,950 .................. ..................

WISCONSIN

ASHLAND HARBOR, WI ................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................ ................ 166 ∂166 ∂166EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 647 647 647 .................. ..................FOX RIVER, WI .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,748 1,748 1,748 .................. ..................GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 2,476 2,476 2,476 .................. ..................INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI ..................................................................................................................................................................... 40 40 40 .................. ..................KEWAUNEE HARBOR, WI ............................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ 288 ∂288 ∂288MANITOWOC HARBOR, WI ............................................................................................................................................................................................. ................ ................ 450 ∂450 ∂450MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WI ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 844 844 844 .................. ..................PORT WASHINGTON HARBOR, WI ................................................................................................................................................................................. ................ ................ 213 ∂213 ∂213PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI .............................................................................................................................................................................. 105 105 105 .................. ..................STURGEON BAY HARBOR AND LAKE MICHIGAN SHIP CANAL, WI ................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ 257 ∂257 ∂257SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WI .............................................................................................................................................. 472 472 472 .................. ..................TWO RIVERS HARBOR, WI ............................................................................................................................................................................................ ................ 420 ...................... .................. ¥420

WYOMING

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WY .................................................................................................................................................................... 11 11 11 .................. ..................JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,094 1,094 1,094 .................. ..................SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WY ................................................................................................................................................................. 86 86 86 .................. ..................

MISCELLANEOUS

AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL RESEARCH ................................................................................................................................................................... 690 690 690 .................. ..................COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2,475 2,475 2,475 .................. ..................CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/CURATION) .............................................................................................................................................................. 1,391 1,391 1,391 .................. ..................DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE ........................................................................................................................................................................... 8,000 8,000 8,000 .................. ..................DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM ............................................................................................................................ 1,062 1,000 1,062 .................. ∂62DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH (DOER) ............................................................................................................................ 6,080 5,660 6,080 .................. ∂420DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT PROGRAM (DOTS) ............................................................................................................................... 1,391 1,300 1,391 .................. ∂91EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM ........................................................................................................................................................... 270 270 270 .................. ..................FACILITY PROTECTION .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 12,000 12,000 12,000 .................. ..................GREAT LAKES SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MODELS ........................................................................................................................................................... 900 900 900 .................. ..................HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA COLLECTION .......................................................................................................................................................... 608 608 608 .................. ..................INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION CHARTS .................................................................................................................................................................... 3,708 3,708 3,708 .................. ..................LONG TERM OPTION ASSESSMENT FOR LOW USE NAVIGATION ................................................................................................................................... 1,500 ................ ...................... ¥1,500 ..................MONITORING OF COMPLETED NAVIGATION PROJECTS ................................................................................................................................................. 1,575 1,500 1,575 .................. ∂75NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................................................................... 250 250 250 .................. ..................NATIONAL DAM SECURITY PROGRAM ........................................................................................................................................................................... 31 31 31 .................. ..................NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM (NEPP) ........................................................................................................................................ 5,000 5,000 5,000 .................. ..................
86

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget es- timate House al- lowance Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation 

compared to (∂ or ¥) 

Budget estimate House allow- ance 

NATIONAL LEWIS AND CLARK COMMEMORATION COORDINATION ................................................................................................................................ 319 319 319 .................. ..................PERFORMANCE BASED BUDGETING SUPPORT PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................................ 2,540 734 734 ¥1,806 ..................PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT TECHNICAL SUPPORT (ABS–P2) ......................................................................................................................................... 250 250 250 .................. ..................PROTECT, CLEAR AND STRAIGHTEN CHANNELS (SEC 3) ............................................................................................................................................. 45 45 45 .................. ..................RECREATION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT PROGRAM (RMSP) ........................................................................................................................................... 1,600 1,500 1,600 .................. ∂100REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................... 1,391 1,391 10,016 ∂8,625 ∂8,625RELIABILITY MODELS PROGRAM FOR MAJOR REHABILITATION .................................................................................................................................... 608 608 608 .................. ..................REMOVAL OF SUNKEN VESSELS ................................................................................................................................................................................... 500 500 775 ∂275 ∂275RESERVE FOR KEY EMERGENCY MAINTENANCE/REPAIRS ........................................................................................................................................... 20,000 20,000 ...................... ¥20,000 ¥20,000WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT (WOTS) ..................................................................................................................................................... 653 653 653 .................. ..................WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4,271 4,200 4,271 .................. ∂71REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE .............................................................................................................................................. ¥12,766 ................ ¥66,232 ¥52,341 ¥65,107

Total, Operation and Maintenance ................................................................................................................................................................. 1,977,894 2,000,000 2,100,000 ∂122,106 ∂100,000
87

Alabama-Coosa River, AL.—The Committee has included an additional $1,500,000 for maintenance dredging. 

Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, AL & MS.—The Committee has 

included for additional maintenance dredging and for aquatic plant 

control activities. 

Cordova Harbor, AK.—The Committee has included $600,000 for 

maintenance dredging of the harbor. 

Lowell Creek Tunnel, AK.—The Committee has included 

$100,000 for maintenance of the Lowell Creek Tunnel project. 

Nome Harbor, AK.—The Committee has included an additional 

$2,496,000 for maintenance dredging of the harbor. 

Alamo Lake, AZ.—The Committee has provided an additional $450,000 for ecological restoration studies at the lake. 

Helena Harbor, AR.—The Committee has included $400,000 for 

maintenance dredging of this harbor. 

McClellan-Kerr, Arkansas River Navigation System, AR and 

OK.—Additional funds are provided to initiate replacement of towhaulage equipment at Locks 1 and 2. 

Ouachita and Black Rivers, AR and LA.—The Committee has included an additional, $1,800,000 for maintenance dredging. 

Crescent City, CA.—The Committee has provided $500,000 for 

the continued work on the dredge material management plan. 

Sacrement River (Bascule Bridge), CA.—The Committee has pro- vided $1,000,000 to initiate transfer of the Bascule Bridge to the 

City. 

Cherry Creek, Chatfield, and Trinidad Lakes, CO.—The Committee has included an additional $2,000,000 for continued repairs 

at these three lakes. This action in no way is intended to alter the 

Corps of Engineers’ lease and property accountability policies. It is 

the Committee’s understanding that the State of Colorado has 

agreed to cost share this project on a 50–50 basis. It is also the understanding of the Committee that the Secretary is not to assume, 

nor share in the future of the operation and maintenance of these 

recreation facilities. Of the funds provided, the Corps is directed to 

conduct a reallocation study for Chatfield Reservoir project. 

Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, DE 

and MD.—The Committee recommendation includes $12,475,000 

for this project. Within the funds provided, $1,000,000 is included 

for maintenance costs of the SR–1 Bridge. 

AIWW, Norfolk, VA to St. Johns River, FL, GA, SC, NC, and 

VA.—The Committee has included $1,000,000 for maintenance 

dredging. 

Intracoastal Waterway, Caloosahatchee to Anclote, FL.—The 

Committee has included $1,000,000 for maintenance dredging. 

Intracoastal Waterway, Jacksonville to Miami, FL.—The Committee has included $4,250,000 for maintenance dredging. 

Miami River, FL.—The Committee is aware of the ongoing economic analysis of the Miami River maintenance project. The Corps 

has reported to the local sponsors on several occasions that the 

study was nearing completion, only to postpone its final completion. 

Most recently, the Corps has directed the consultant to complete 

the study by August 15, in order for the Corps to utilize the results 

of the study in its preparation of the fiscal year 2007 budget request, and has conveyed its intention once again to the local spon-
88

sors. The Committee expects the Corps to complete and approve 

this analysis by August 15. 

Apalachiacola, Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers, GA, AL, and 

FL.—The Committee has included an additional $6,500,000, which 

includes annual dredging of the river channel, annual operations 

and maintenance of the George W. Andrews Lock, spot dredging of 

shoals, continuation of slough mouth restoration, and routine operations and maintenance of the project. 

Pohiki Bay, Hawaii, HI.—The Committee has included $100,000 

to initiate plans and specifications for the breakwater repair. 

Lake Shelbyville, IL.—The Committee has included an additional 

$1,000,000 for deferred maintenance activities at recreation sites. 

Mississippi River Between Missouri River and Minneapolis (MVR 

Portion), IL.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$50,407,000. Within the funds provided, $3,000,000 is for continuation of the rehab of Lock and Dam 11 and $2,500,000 is for the 

rehab of Lock and Dam 19. 

Saylorville Lake, IA.—The Committee has provided an additional 

$250,000 to maintain the project’s basic service level as determined 

by the Corps. 

Michigan City Harbor, IN.—The Committee has provided 

$500,000 for the dredged material management plan and plans and 

specifications for dredging the harbor. 

Wilson Lake, KS.—The Committee has provided an additional 

$100,000 for the Corps to conduct a reallocation study. 

Barren River Lake, KY.—The Committee has provided an additional $898,000 for the repair and upgrade of public use facilities. 

Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf and Black, LA.—The 

Committee has provided an additional $9,000,000 for maintenance 

dredging activities. 

Barataria Bay Waterway, LA.—The Committee has provided 

funds for maintaining the authorized depth of the project. 

Calcasieu River and Pass, LA.—The Committee has provided an 

additional $5,000,000 for maintenance dredging of this channel. 

J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, LA.—The Committee has included an additional $3,000,000 for bank stabilization repairs, 

dredging entrances to oxbow lakes, routine operation and maintenance activities, annual dredging requirements, and backlog maintenance. 

Baltimore Harbor and Channels (50 foot), MD.—The Committee 

has provided an additional $4,000,000 for maintenance dredging. 

Herring Creek, Tall Timbers, MD.—With the funds provided, the 

Committee expects the Corps to complete construction of the revetment. 

Boston Harbor, MA.—The Committee has provided $7,500,000 to 

initiate dredging in the Inner Harbor. 

Grand Marais Harbor, MI.—The Committee has provided 

$1,714,000 to initiate construction of the replacement breakwater. 

Clairborne County Port, MS.—The Committee has included additional funds to continue maintenance dredging of the port. 

Gulfport Harbor, MS.—The Committee has included an additional $1,500,000 for ongoing maintenance projects and dredging of 

the bar channel. 
89

Mouth of the Yazoo River, MS.—The Committee has included additional funds for the maintenance dredging of the entrance to 

Vicksburg Harbor. 

Okatibbee Lake, MS.—The Committee has included additional 

funds for maintenance of public user facilities. 

Rosedale Harbor, MS.—The Committee has included $580,000 

for maintenance dredging of the harbor. 

Cocheco River, NH.—The Committee has provided $2,000,000 

continue dredging of the Cocheco River project. 

New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway, NJ.—The Committee has included an additional $1,250,000 for dredging of the project. 

Albuquerque Levees, NM.—The Committee has provided 

$2,000,000 to assess damage to and make immediate repairs to levees damaged as a result of spring run-off flooding in 2005. 

Cochiti Lake, NM.—The Committee has provided additional 

funds for the continuation of studies that were initiated in fiscal 

year 2004, which include the proposed operational changes and 

gate automation and to begin the relocation of the Al Black area. 

Jemez Canyon Dam, NM.—The Committee has provided an additional $1,500,000 to modify headworks to allow management of 

sediment flows to meet 2003 Biological Opinion requirements. 

Rio Grande Bosque Rehabilitation, NM.—The Committee has 

provided $4,000,000 to continue fire reduction work and general 

Bosque rehabilitation in order to complete repairs and fire protection resulting from 2003 and 2004 fires in the urban interface. 

Upper Rio Grande Water Operations Model, NM.—The Committee has provided $2,000,000 to improve data management, coordinate river operations, automate data in partnership with the 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 

Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, NC.—The Committee has included an additional $5,000,000 for dredging of the project. 

Manteo (Shallowbag Bay), NC.—The Committee has included an 

additional $8,000,000 for dredging of the project. 

Garrison Dam and Lake Sakakawea, ND.—The Committee has 

provided $100,000 for mosquito control and $900,000 for the Corps 

to work in cooperation with the Friends of Lake Sakakawea to ensure the recreation sites around the lake can be utilized. 

Columbia & Lower Willamette River Below Vancouver, WA and 

Portland, OR.—The committee recommendation includes $750,000 

for continued work at the Astoria Boat Basin. 

Columbia River at the Mouth, OR and WA.—The Committee has 

provided an additional $17,000,000 to continue jetty repairs initiated with fiscal year 2005 budgeted funds, but not budgeted in fiscal year 2006. 

Fern Ridge Dam, OR.—The Committee has provided $2,100,000 

for this project. The Committee understands that the additional 

$1,134,000 will complete the emergency repairs begun in fiscal year 

2005 using emergency reprogramming procedures. The Committee 

understands that the repairs will cost in excess of $25,000,000. The 

Committee directs that these costs should be considered as dam 

safety repairs for cost allocation purposes. 

Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, SC.—The Committee has included an additional $2,533,000 for dredging of the project. 
90

Georgetown Harbor, SC.—The Committee has included additional funds for maintenance dredging of the harbor. 

Oahe Dam, Lake Oahe, SD & ND.—The Committee understands 

that the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe’s water system is facing a potential water shortage due to extremely low water levels on the 

Missouri River. The tribe’s water intake is likely to become inoperable, as the Corps of Engineers continues to draw down the water 

level on Lake Oahe. The Committee urges the Corps to take all 

necessary steps to relocate the tribe’s water intake on the Missouri 

River to ensure continued operation of the water system and an 

uninterrupted water supply for the Reservation. 

Chocolate Bayou, TX.—The Committee has provided additional 

funds for maintenance dredging of the channel. 

Houston Ship Channel, TX.—The Committee has provided an ad- ditional $7,795,000 for additional dredging and dredging related activities. 

Texas Water Allocation Study, TX.—The Committee has provided 

additional funds for the ongoing study. 

Norfolk Harbor, VA.—The Committee has provided an additional $3,469,000 for maintenance dredging and to raise the containment 

dikes to provide the capacity needed for the Norfolk Harbor Deepening project. 

Connecticut River Flood Control Dams, VT.—$500,000 has been 

provided for continued work on fish passage facilities at these 

projects. 

Lake Washington Ship Channel, WA.—The Committee has included an additional $2,093,000 to maintain basic service levels at 

the Ballard Locks. 

Mud Mountain, WA.—Out of the funds provided, the Corps is di- rected to use up to $903,000 to satisfy Federal fish passage obligations for the term of the cooperative agreement with Puget Sound 

Energy. 

The Dalles Lock and Dam, WA and OR.—The Committee has 

provided an additional $210,000 for Lewis and Clark activities at 

Celilo Park. 

Ohio River Locks and Dams, WV, KY and OH.—The Committee 

has provided $600,000 for security monitoring and $400,000 for full 

levels of service at the lock. 

Ohio River Open Channel Work, WV, KY and OH.—The Committee has provided $500,000 for channel condition surveys. 

Long Term Option Assessment for Low Use Navigation.—The 

Committee has not provided funding for this study. 

Regional Sediment Management Demonstration Program.—The 

Committee has provided $10,016,000 for this program. Within the 

funds provided, $500,000 is for the southeast coast of Oahu, HI; 

$2,500,000 is for the Littoral Drift Restoration Program, Benson 

Beach, WA; $375,000 is for Lido Key, Sarasota, FL, and Vicinity 

and central and southern Brevard County to Dade County; 

$350,000 is for South Jetty and Clatsop Spit, OR; and $4,900,000 

is for Coastal Zone Mapping and Imaging Laser to be conducted in 

accordance with the University of Southern Mississippi. 

Removal of Sunken Vessels.—The Committee has provided 

$275,000 to remove the sunken vessel State of Pennsylvania from 

the Christina River at Wilmington, DE. 
91

FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. ( 1 ) 

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... $70,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 43,000,000

1 Exclude emergency appropriation of $148,000,000.

The Committee has included $43,000,000 for the FCCE account. 

This account provides funds for preparedness activities for natural 

and other disasters, response, and emergency flood fighting and 

rescue operations, hurricane response, and emergency shore protection work. It also provides for emergency supplies of clean water 

where the source has been contaminated or where adequate supplies of water are needed for consumption. 

REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $143,840,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 160,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 160,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 150,000,000

An appropriation of $150,000,000 is recommended for the regulatory program of the Corps of Engineers. 

This appropriation provides for salaries and costs incurred administering regulation of activities affecting U.S. waters, including 

wetlands, in accordance with the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 

33 U.S.C. § 401, the Clean Water Act of 1977 Public Law 95–217, 

and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 

Public Law 92–532. 

The appropriation helps maintain program performance, protects 

important aquatic resources, and supports partnerships with States 

and local communities through watershed planning efforts.

FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $163,680,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 140,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 140,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 140,000,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $140,000,000 to 

continue activities related to the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial 

Action Program [FUSRAP] in fiscal year 2005. 

The responsibility for the cleanup of contaminated sites under 

the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program was transferred to the Army Corps of Engineers in the Fiscal Year 1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, Public Law 105–

62. 

FUSRAP is not specifically defined by statute. The program was 

established in 1974 under the broad authority of the Atomic Energy Act and, until fiscal year 1998, funds for the cleanup of contaminated defense sites had been appropriated to the Department 

of Energy through existing appropriation accounts. In appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the Committee 

intended to transfer only the responsibility for administration and 

execution of cleanup activities at eligible sites where remediation 

had not been completed. It did not intend to transfer ownership of 
92

and accountability for real property interests that remain with the 

Department of Energy. 

The Corps of Engineers has extensive experience in the cleanup 

of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes through its work for the 

Department of Defense and other Federal agencies. The Committee 

always intended for the Corps’ expertise be used in the same manner for the cleanup of contaminated sites under FUSRAP. The 

Committee expects the Corps to continue programming and budgeting for FUSRAP as part of the Corps of Engineers—Civil program. 

GENERAL EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $165,664,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 162,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 152,021,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 165,000,000

This appropriation finances the expenses of the Office, Chief of 

Engineers, the Division Offices, and certain research and statistical 

functions of the Corps of Engineers. The Committee recommendation is $165,000,000. The Committee understands that the cost of 

the required financial audit of the Corps of Engineers may exceed 

$20,000,000 for fiscal year 2006. Therefore, the Committee encourages the Corps to use the Revolving Fund to undertake this audit 

and budget appropriation for this audit in future years. 

Executive Direction and Management.—The Office of the Chief of 

Engineers and eight division offices supervise work in 38 district 

offices. 

Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity.—This support center provides administrative services (such as personnel, logistics, 

information management, and finance and accounting) for the Office of the Chief of Engineers and other separate field operating activities. 

Institute for Water Resources.—This institute performs studies, 

analyses, and develops planning techniques for the management 

and development of the Nation’s water resources. 

United States Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center.—This 

center provides centralized support for all Corps finance and accounting. 

Office of Congressional Affairs.—The Committee has included 

statutory language for the past several years prohibiting any funds 

from being used to fund an Office of Congressional Affairs within 

the executive office of the Chief of Engineers. The Committee believes that an Office of Congressional Affairs for the Civil Works 

Program would hamper the efficient and effective coordination of 

issues with the Committee staff and Members of Congress. The 

Committee believes that the technical knowledge and managerial 

expertise needed for the Corps headquarters to effectively address 

Civil Works authorization, appropriation, and Headquarters policy 

matters resides in the Civil Works organization. Therefore, the 

Committee strongly recommends that the office of Congressional 

Affairs not be a part of the process by which information on Civil 

Works projects, programs, and activities is provided to Congress. 
93

The Committee reminds the Corps that the General Expenses 

Account is to be used exclusively for executive oversight and management of the Civil Works Program. 

In 1998, The Chief of Engineers issued a Command Directive 

transferring the oversight and management of the General Expenses account, as well as the manpower associated with this function, from the Civil Works Directorate to the Resource Management Office. General Expense funds are appropriated solely for the 

executive management and oversight of the Civil Works Program 

under the direction of the Director of Civil Works. 

The Committee is pleased with the efforts of the Corps to restructure the management of general expense funds. It continues 

to believe that the general expense dollars are ultimately at the 

discretion of the Chief of Engineers and are intended to be utilized 

in his effort to carry out the Corps’ mission. The new controls put 

in place to manage the general expense dollars and evaluate the 

needs of the Corps address the Committee’s previous concerns. The 

Committee requests the Corps continue to provide biannual written 

notification of the dispersal of general expense funds.

GENERAL PROVISIONS—CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

Section 101. The bill includes language limiting reimbursements. 

Section 102. The bill includes language prohibiting the divesting 

or transferring Civil Works functions. 

Section 103. The bill includes language prohibiting any steps to 

dismantle the St. Georges Bridge in Delaware. 

Section 104. The bill includes language concerning report notifications. 

Section 105. The bill includes language concerning report notifications. 

Section 106. The bill includes language making a technical correction to the Baltimore Metropolitan Watershed Feasibility StudyGwnns Falls, MD. 

Section 107. The bill includes language that provides for increasing the cost ceiling for the Marmet Lock, Kanawha River, WV 

project. 

Section 108. The bill includes language that provides for increasing the cost ceiling for the Lower Mud River, Milton, WV project. 

Section 109. The bill includes language regarding water reallocation at Lake Cumberland, KY, the San Luis Unit and the 

Kesterson Reservoir in California. 

Section 110. The bill includes language regarding the Lower Las 

Vegas Wash, NV. 

Section 111. The bill includes language regarding the Yazoo 

Basin, Upper Yazoo Projects in Mississippi. 

Section 112. The bill includes language regarding the Lower Mississippi River Museum and Riverfront Interpretive Site, MS. 

Section 113. The bill includes language regarding the Central 

New Mexico, NM. 

Section 114. The bill includes language regarding the Los Angeles Harbor, CA. 

Section 115. The bill includes language regarding the Missouri 

and Middle Mississippi Rivers Enhancement Project. 
94

Section 116. The bill includes language regarding the Missouri 

and Middle Mississippi Rivers Enhancement Project. 

Section 117. The bill includes language regarding the Missouri 

and Middle Mississippi Rivers Enhancement Project. 

Section 118. The bill includes language regarding the Missouri 

River Levee System, Unit L–15 Levee, MO. 

Section 119. The bill includes language regarding the Alpine, CA 

project. 

Section 120. The bill includes language regarding regulatory permit processing. 

Section 121. The bill includes language regarding the Middle Rio 

Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program, NM. 

Section 122. The bill includes language regarding Bluestone 

Dam, WV. 

Section 123. The bill includes language deauthorizing a portion 

of a project in Washington. 

Section 124. The bill includes language regarding Fern Ridge 

Dam, WV. 

Section 125. The bill includes language regarding the Federal 

dredges. 

Section 126. The bill includes language regarding Federal 

dredges. 

Section 127. The bill includes language regarding a Dispersal 

Barrier in Vermont and New York.
(95)

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $47,625,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 34,350,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 34,350,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 34,350,000

The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2006 to carry out 

the provisions of the Central Utah Project Completion Act totals 

$34,350,000. An appropriation of $31,668,000 has been provided for 

Central Utah project construction; $946,000 for fish, wildlife, and 

recreation, mitigation and conservation. The Committee recommendation provides $1,736,000 for program administration and 

oversight. 

The Central Utah Project Completion Act (titles II–VI of Public 

Law 102–575) provides for the completion of the central Utah 

project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. The Act 

also authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish, wildlife, recreation, mitigation, and conservation; establishes an account in the 

Treasury for the deposit of these funds and of other contributions 

for mitigation and conservation activities; and establishes a Utah 

Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission to administer funds in that account. The Act further assigns responsibilities 

for carrying out the Act to the Secretary of the Interior and prohibits delegation of those responsibilities to the Bureau of Reclamation. 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $852,605,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 801,569,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 832,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 899,569,000

An appropriation of $899,569,000 is recommended by the Committee for general investigations of the Bureau of Reclamation. The 

water and related resources account supports the development, 

management, and restoration of water and related natural resources in the 17 Western States. The account includes funds for 

operating and maintaining existing facilities to obtain the greatest 

overall level of benefits, to protect public safety, and to conduct 

studies on ways to improve the use of water and related natural 

resources. Work will be done in partnership and cooperation with 

non-Federal entities and other Federal agencies. 

The Committee has divided underfinancing between the Resources Management Subaccount and the Facilities Operation and 

Maintenance Subaccount. The Committee directs that the underfinancing amount in each subaccount initially be applied uniformly 
96

across all projects within the subaccounts. Upon applying the 

underfinanced amounts, normal reprogramming procedures should 

be undertaken to account for schedule slippages, accelerations or 

other unforeseen conditions. 

The amounts recommended by the Committee are shown on the 

following table along with the budget request. 

BUILDING AND SITE SECURITY

Security Costs and Allocations.—Following the attacks on September 11, 2001, the Bureau of Reclamation strengthened security 

at Federal dams and similar facilities and has undertaken but not 

completed extensive risk assessments for over 400 units throughout 

the West. Many of these are multi-purpose facilities providing flood 

control, water storage for contract irrigators, municipal and industrial water supplies, power generation, recreation and environmental mitigation benefits. The Committee understands that beginning in fiscal year 2006, Reclamation will no longer make a distinction between pre-September 11, 2001, security costs and post-September 11, 2001, security costs. The Committee recognizes that the 

security posture of Reclamation will likely not approach pre-September 11, 2001, levels for many years, if ever. The Committee recognizes that project beneficiaries benefit from this enhanced security. However, the Committee remains concerned about the 

reimbursability of increased security costs for Reclamation projects. 

The Committee wants to ensure that all project beneficiaries that 

benefit from the enhanced security posture, pay a fair share of the 

costs. Therefore, Reclamation shall provide a report to the Committee, no later than, May 1, 2007, with a breakout of planned reimbursable and non-reimbursable security costs by project pro 

rated by project purposes. The Committee directs the Commissioner not to begin the reimbursement process until the Congress 

provides direct instruction to do so. 

Direct Funding of Operations and Maintenance Work and the PMAs 

The Committee has chosen not to include the legislative proposal 

to directly fund reclamation hydropower operation and maintenance activities through receipts from the power marketing administrations due to budgetary scoring implications.
97

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

ARIZONA

AK CHIN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT ............................................................................................................................ .................. 7,200 .................. 7,200 .................. 7,200CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT, COLORADO RIVER BASIN ........................................................................................................................ 22,128 95 22,128 95 22,128 95COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM .......................................................................................................................... 2,455 .................. 3,200 .................. 8,200 ..................FORT MCDOWELL SETTLEMENT ACT ...................................................................................................................................................... 400 .................. 400 .................. 400 ..................NORTHERN ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM .................................................................................................................................. 250 .................. 250 .................. 250 ..................PHOENIX METROPOLITAN WATER REUSE PROJECT ................................................................................................................................ 200 .................. 200 .................. 200 ..................SALT RIVER PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................................. 300 .................. 300 .................. 300 ..................SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE WATER SETTLEMENT ACT ........................................................................................................................ 100 .................. 100 .................. 100 ..................SOUTHERN ARIZONA WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT ......................................................................................................... 4,725 .................. 4,725 .................. 4,725 ..................SOUTH/CENTRAL ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ......................................................................................................................... 795 .................. 795 .................. 1,354 ..................TRES RIOS WETLANDS DEMONSTRATION ............................................................................................................................................... 300 .................. 300 .................. 300 ..................YUMA AREA PROJECTS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,722 20,378 1,722 20,878 1,722 20,378

CALIFORNIA

CACHUMA PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................................... 988 588 988 588 988 588CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................................ 580 .................. 580 .................. 580 ..................CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT RECYCLING PLANT ............................................................................................................... 1,350 .................. 2,500 .................. 2,000 ..................CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION ........................................................................................................................................................... 2,060 7,437 2,060 7,437 2,060 7,437AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT ..................................................................................................................................................... 5,966 .................. 5,966 .................. 5,966 ..................DELTA DIVISION ............................................................................................................................................................................ 10,441 5,752 10,441 5,752 10,441 5,752EAST SIDE DIVISION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1,907 2,297 1,907 2,297 1,907 2,297FRIANT DIVISION ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2,235 3,481 2,235 3,481 2,435 3,481MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS ......................................................................................................................................... 12,511 1,114 12,511 1,114 15,074 1,114REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND EXTRAORDINARY MAINT ......................................................................................................... .................. 23,200 .................. 23,200 .................. 23,200SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION ...................................................................................................................................................... 2,381 1,759 2,381 1,759 2,458 1,759SAN FELIPE DIVISION .................................................................................................................................................................... 846 .................. 846 .................. 846 ..................SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION ................................................................................................................................................................. 300 .................. 300 .................. 300 ..................SHASTA DIVISION .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,050 7,606 1,050 7,606 1,050 7,606TRINITY RIVER DIVISION ............................................................................................................................................................... 7,621 3,242 7,621 3,242 8,121 3,242
98

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 1,707 10,211 1,707 10,211 1,707 10,211WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT ............................................................................................................................. 5,191 7,146 5,191 7,146 5,191 7,146YIELD FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................................................................... 500 .................. 500 .................. 500 ..................

EL DORADO TEMPERATURE CONTROL DEVICE ...................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 1,000 .................. .................. ..................LAKE CACHUMA WATER AND SEWAGE TREATMENT ............................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 500 ..................LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................................... 100 .................. 100 .................. 3,000 ..................LONG BEACH AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJECT ......................................................................................................... 650 .................. 650 .................. 650 ..................LONG BEACH DESALINATION PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 1,250 .................. 1,250 ..................MISSION SPRINGS WATER REUSE, DESERT HOT SPRINGS, CA ............................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 150 ..................NAPA—SONOMA—MARIN AGRICULTURAL REUSE PROJECT ................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 ..................NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY AREA WATER RECYCLING PROJECT ......................................................................................................... 1,250 .................. 2,500 .................. 1,250 ..................ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL WATER RECLAMATION PROJECT, PHAS .................................................................................................... 1,250 .................. 2,250 .................. 2,250 ..................ORLAND PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................................................. 41 920 41 920 41 920PASADENA RECLAIMED WATER PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 160 ..................SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVERSION STUDY ................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. 1,000 .................. .................. ..................SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,000 .................. 4,800 .................. 1,000 ..................SAN DIEGO AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM .......................................................................................................... 3,500 .................. 3,500 .................. 3,500 ..................SAN GABRIEL BASIN PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................... 500 .................. 500 .................. 500 ..................SAN GABRIEL BASIN RESTORATION PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. 10,000 .................. .................. ..................SAN JOSE WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM ...................................................................................................................... 300 .................. 300 .................. 1,000 ..................SANTA MARGARITA RIVER CONJUNCTIVE USE PROJECT ........................................................................................................................ .................. .................. 500 .................. .................. ..................SOLANO PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,502 2,863 1,502 2,863 1,502 2,863SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................. 550 .................. 1,050 .................. 550 ..................VENTURA RIVER PROJECT ...................................................................................................................................................................... 596 .................. 596 .................. 596 ..................WATSONVILLE AREA WATER RECYCLING PROJECT ................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. 2,000 .................. .................. ..................

COLORADO

ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT, CRSP SECTION 5 AND 8 .......................................................................................................................... 52,000 .................. 56,000 .................. 60,000 ..................COLLBRAN PROJECT .............................................................................................................................................................................. 166 1,277 166 1,277 166 1,277COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................... 438 16,151 438 16,151 438 16,151COLORADO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................................. 200 .................. 200 .................. 200 ..................FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT .............................................................................................................................................................. 20 128 20 128 20 128FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................................... 173 8,579 173 8,579 173 8,579
99

GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II ................................................................................................................................................ 233 670 233 670 233 670LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY ............................................................................................................................................... 72 2,250 72 2,250 72 2,250MANCOS PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................................................. 86 88 86 88 86 88PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II ............................................................................................................................................ 62 2,055 62 2,055 62 2,055PINE RIVER PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................................. 114 128 114 128 114 128SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................................... 279 5,490 279 5,490 279 5,490UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT ....................................................................................................................................................................... 172 126 172 126 172 126

HAWAII

HAWAIIAN RECLAIM AND REUSE STUDY ................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 1,000 ..................

IDAHO

BOISE AREA PROJECTS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2,480 2,520 2,480 2,520 2,480 2,520COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY PROJECT ............................................................................................................... 17,500 .................. 17,500 .................. 17,500 ..................IDAHO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ........................................................................................................................................................ 548 .................. 548 .................. 548 ..................MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS .................................................................................................................................................................... 3,169 2,639 3,169 2,639 3,169 2,639MINIDOKA NORTHSIDE DRAIN WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ........................................................................................................... 200 .................. 200 .................. 200 ..................MINIDOKA PROJECT, GRASSY LAKE SOD ............................................................................................................................................... .................. 310 .................. 310 .................. 310

KANSAS

KANSAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ...................................................................................................................................................... 150 .................. 150 .................. 150 ..................WICHITA PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................................................. 261 334 261 334 261 334

MONTANA

FORT PECK DRY PRAIRIE RURAL WATER SYSTEM ................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. 13,000 .................. 19,000 ..................HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT ...................................................................................................................................................................... .................. 331 .................. 331 .................. 331HUNTLEY PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................................................. 26 125 26 125 26 125MILK RIVER PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................................. 455 852 455 852 455 852MONTANA INVESTIGATIONS .................................................................................................................................................................... 385 .................. 385 .................. 385 ..................NORTH CENTRAL MONTANA RURAL WATER PROJECT ........................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 7,500 .................. .................. ..................ST. MARY’S FACILITIES REHABILITATION ............................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 1,000 ..................SUN RIVER PROJECT .............................................................................................................................................................................. .................. 241 .................. 241 .................. 241

NEBRASKA

MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 12 71 12 71 12 71NEBRASKA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................................. 128 .................. 128 .................. 128 ..................

NEVADA

HALFWAY WASH PROJECT STUDY .......................................................................................................................................................... 200 .................. 200 .................. 1,000 ..................LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................................... 4,520 3,057 4,520 3,057 4,520 3,057
100

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

LAKE MEAD/LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM .............................................................................................................................................. 1,200 .................. 1,200 .................. 2,775 ..................NORTH LAS VEGAS WATER REUSE ........................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 1,000 ..................SOUTHERN NEVADA WATER RECYCLING PROJECT ................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 3,423 ..................

NEW MEXICO

ALBUQUERQUE METRO AREA WATER AND RECLAMATION REUSE ......................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 1,000 ..................CARLSBAD PROJECT .............................................................................................................................................................................. 2,297 822 2,297 822 2,297 822CHIMAYO WATER PLAN .......................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 1,000 ..................EASTERN NEW MEXICO WATER SUPPLY ................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................EASTERN NEW MEXICO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................................ 70 .................. 70 .................. 70 ..................ESPANOLA WATER DIVERSION ............................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 1,000 ..................JICARILLA APACHE RESERVATION RURAL WATER SYSTEM .................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 500 .................. .................. ..................MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT .............................................................................................................................................................. 9,150 9,850 9,150 9,850 15,650 9,850MIDDLE RIO GRANDE OFF-CHANNEL SANCTUARIES .............................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 2,000 ..................NAVAJO GALLUP WATER SUPPLY ........................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 500 .................. 500 ..................NAVAJO NATION INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ......................................................................................................................................... 180 .................. 180 .................. 180 ..................PECOS RIVER BASIN WATER SALVAGE PROJECT ................................................................................................................................... .................. 181 .................. 181 .................. 181RIO GRANDE PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1,134 3,567 1,134 3,567 1,134 3,567SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................. 150 .................. 150 .................. 150 ..................SANTA FE—WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJECT ..................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO/WEST TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ...................................................................................................... 230 .................. 230 .................. 230 ..................TUCUMCARI PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................................ 56 7 56 7 56 7

NORTH DAKOTA

DAKOTAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM .................................................................................................................................................... 237 .................. 237 .................. 237 ..................DAKOTAS TRIBES INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ....................................................................................................................................... 84 .................. 84 .................. 84 ..................PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN PROGRAM, GARRISON DIVERSION ......................................................................................................... 22,640 4,197 22,640 4,197 26,640 4,197

OKLAHOMA

ARBUCKLE PROJECT .............................................................................................................................................................................. 17 183 17 183 17 183MCGEE CREEK PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 33 518 33 518 33 518MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT ..................................................................................................................................................................... 17 338 17 338 17 338
101

NORMAN PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................................................. 17 384 17 384 17 384NORMANIOR FEASISBILITY STUDY ......................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 300 ..................NORTH FORK OF THE RED RIVER PROJECT, (OKLAHOMA INVESTI ........................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................OKLAHOMA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................................. 155 .................. 155 .................. 155 ..................WASHITA BASIN PROJECT ...................................................................................................................................................................... 30 1,155 30 1,155 30 1,155W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................................................... 137 389 137 389 137 389

OREGON

CROOKED RIVER PROJECT ..................................................................................................................................................................... 661 446 661 446 661 446DESCHUTES ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT ................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 2,000 ..................DESCHUTES PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................................ 301 147 301 147 301 147EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS ................................................................................................................................................................ 544 362 544 362 544 362KLAMATH PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................................................. 21,310 690 21,310 690 21,310 690OREGON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ..................................................................................................................................................... 450 .................. 450 .................. 450 ..................ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT DIVISION ................................................................................................................................. 780 223 780 223 780 223SAVAGE RAPIDS DAM REMOVAL ............................................................................................................................................................ 1,000 .................. 1,000 .................. 2,000 ..................TUALATIN PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................................................ 475 147 475 147 475 147TUALATIN VALLEY WATER SUPPLY FEASIBILITY PROJECT ...................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 300 .................. 300 ..................UMATILLA BASIN PROJECT, PHASE III STUDY ........................................................................................................................................ 200 .................. 200 .................. 200 ..................UMATILLA PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................................................ 803 3,127 803 3,127 803 3,127

SOUTH DAKOTA

LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM ........................................................................................................................................... 15,000 .................. 15,000 .................. 20,000 ..................MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................... .................. 15 .................. 300 4,000 15MNI WICONI PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................................ 22,447 7,053 14,947 7,053 26,447 7,053PERKINS COUNTY RURAL WATER DISTRICT ........................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 2,000 ..................RAPID VALLEY PROJECT, DEERFIELD DAM ............................................................................................................................................ .................. 50 .................. 50 .................. 50

TEXAS

BALMORHEA PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................................ 24 .................. 24 .................. 24 ..................CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................................... 69 97 69 97 69 97EL PASO WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE ......................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 100 .................. 103 ..................LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY WATER RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................ 50 .................. 2,900 .................. 50 ..................NUECES RIVER ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 36 503 36 503 36 503SAN ANGELO PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................................................... 17 344 17 344 17 344TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ........................................................................................................................................................ 214 .................. 214 .................. 214 ..................TRINITY RIVER WASTEWATER STUDY ..................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 200 .................. .................. ..................WILLIAMSON COUNTY WATER RECYLING PROJECT ................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 ..................
102

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

UTAH

HYRUM PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................................................... 125 30 125 30 125 30MOON LAKE PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................................ 13 27 13 27 13 27NEWTON PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................................................. 43 23 43 23 43 23NORTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ....................................................................................................................................... 154 .................. 154 .................. 654 ..................OGDEN RIVER PROJECT ......................................................................................................................................................................... 228 35 228 35 228 35PARK CITY FEASIBILITY STUDY .............................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. 500 .................. 500 ..................PROVO RIVER PROJECT ......................................................................................................................................................................... 894 319 894 319 894 319PROVO RIVER PROJECT, DEER CREEK DAM .......................................................................................................................................... .................. 4,900 .................. 4,900 .................. 4,900SCOFIELD PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................................................ 86 27 86 27 86 27SOUTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ....................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................. 177 8 177 8 177 8WEBER BASIN PROJECT ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,841 357 1,841 357 1,841 357WEBER BASIN PROJECT, PINEVIEW PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................WEBER RIVER PROJECT ......................................................................................................................................................................... 41 80 41 80 41 80

WASHINGTON

COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................................... 4,047 7,616 4,047 7,616 4,047 7,616LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM WATER SUPPLY FEASIBILITY STUDY .............................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................MAKAH INDIAN COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY FEASIBILITY STUDY ......................................................................................................... .................. .................. 300 .................. 300 ..................STORAGE DAM FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY ............................................................................................................................... 780 .................. 780 .................. 780 ..................WASHINGTON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................................. 300 .................. 550 .................. 950 ..................YAKIMA PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,524 6,398 1,524 6,398 1,524 6,398YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE ................................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. 1,500 .................. 1,500 ..................YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT ........................................................................................................................ 8,500 .................. 7,000 .................. 8,500 ..................

WYOMING

KENDRICK PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................................... 50 4,010 50 4,010 50 4,010NORTH PLATTE PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 79 1,817 79 1,817 79 1,817SHOSHONE PROJECT .............................................................................................................................................................................. 62 740 62 740 62 740WYOMING INVESTIGATION PROGRAM ..................................................................................................................................................... 40 .................. 40 .................. 40 ..................
103

VARIOUS

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT, TITLE I ........................................................................................................... .................. 10,673 .................. 10,673 .................. 10,673COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL, TITLE II ......................................................................................................................... 10,000 .................. 10,000 .................. 10,000 ..................COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, SECTION 5 ............................................................................................................................... 6,293 3,403 6,293 3,403 6,293 3,403COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, SECTION 8 ............................................................................................................................... 4,030 .................. 4,030 .................. 4,030 ..................COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM .............................................................................................................. 465 .................. 465 .................. 465 ..................DAM SAFETY PROGRAM ......................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

DEPARTMENT DAM SAFETY PROGRAM .......................................................................................................................................... .................. 1,500 .................. 1,500 .................. 1,500INITIATE SOD CORRECTIVE ACTION .............................................................................................................................................. .................. 44,578 .................. 44,578 .................. 44,578SAFETY OF DAMS CORRECTIVE ACTION STUDIES ......................................................................................................................... .................. 100 .................. 100 .................. 100SAFETY OF EVALUATION OF EXISTING DAMS ................................................................................................................................ .................. 18,500 .................. 18,500 .................. 18,500

DEPARTMENTAL IRRIGATION DRAINAGE PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 1,900 ..................DROUGHT EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE ..................................................................................................................................................... 500 .................. 500 .................. 500 ..................EMERGENCY PLANNING AND DISASTER RESPONSE PROGRAM ............................................................................................................. .................. 1,360 .................. 1,360 .................. 1,360ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................................................... 9,734 .................. 9,734 .................. 9,734 ..................ENVIRONMENTAL AND INTERAGENCY COORDINATION ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................... 1,790 .................. 1,790 .................. 1,790 ..................ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ....................................................................................................................................... 965 .................. 965 .................. 965 ..................EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES .............................................................................................................................................. .................. 5,699 .................. 5,699 .................. 5,699FEDERAL BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................... .................. 1,575 .................. 1,575 .................. 1,575GENERAL PLANNING STUDIES ................................................................................................................................................................ 2,006 .................. 2,006 .................. 2,006 ..................LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ......................................................................................................................................... 7,000 .................. 7,000 .................. 7,000 ..................LOWER COLORADO RIVER INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ......................................................................................................................... 300 .................. 300 .................. 300 ..................LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................... 17,894 .................. 17,894 .................. 17,894 ..................MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................... .................. 631 .................. 631 .................. 631NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM .................................................................................................................................................. 7,525 .................. 7,525 .................. 9,025 ..................NATURAL RESOURCES DAMAGE ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................................................... 300 .................. 300 .................. 300 ..................NEGOTIATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF WATER MARKETING ................................................................................................................ 1,745 .................. 1,745 .................. 1,745 ..................OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................... 165 876 165 876 165 876PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN—OTHER PROJECTS ............................................................................................................................... 3,537 38,553 3,537 38,553 3,537 38,553POWER PROGRAM SERVICES ................................................................................................................................................................. 1,020 212 1,020 212 1,020 212PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................................... 634 124 634 124 634 124RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION .................................................................................................................................................... 2,368 .................. 2,368 .................. 2,368 ..................RECLAMATION RECREATION MANAGEMENT—TITLE XXVIII .................................................................................................................... 582 .................. 582 .................. 582 ..................RECREATION & FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ......................................................................................................... 1,570 .................. 1,570 .................. 1,570 ..................RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

DESALINATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ........................................................................................................... 25 .................. 25 .................. 11,025 ..................SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ........................................................................................................................................ 9,684 .................. 9,684 .................. 10,684 ..................

SITE SECURITY ....................................................................................................................................................................................... .................. 50,000 .................. 40,000 .................. 50,000SOIL AND MOISTURE CONSERVATION .................................................................................................................................................... 293 .................. 293 .................. 293 ..................TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES ...................................................................................................................................................... 1,884 .................. 1,884 .................. 1,884 ..................
104

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

TITLE XVI, WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM ..................................................................................................................... 1,229 .................. .................. .................. 4,229 ..................UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES—TECHNICAL SUPPORT ....................................................................................................... 80 .................. 80 .................. 80 ..................WATER CONSERVATION FIELD SERVICE PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................... 8,950 .................. 9,875 .................. 9,250 ..................

EFFICIENCY INCENTIVES PROGRAM .............................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PROGRAM ................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

WATER 2025 .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 30,000 .................. .................. .................. 20,000 ..................WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 1,500 ..................UNDISTRIBUTED REDUCTION BASED ON ANTICIPATED DELAYS ............................................................................................................ ¥30,172 .................. ¥6,967 .................. ¥30,749 ¥2,978RESCISSION—PUBLIC LAW 108–447 .................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

Total, Water and Related Resources ....................................................................................................................................... 409,892 391,677 449,488 382,462 510,870 388,699

801,569 832,000 899,569
105

Colorado Front Work and Levee System, AZ.—The Committee 

has included $8,200,000 for continuation of this project. Additional 

funds were provided above the budget request for continued work 

on the regulating reservoirs and for initiation of appropriate studies to determine if additional capacity can be economically realized 

behind Laguna Dam if sediment is removed. The Committee understands that these projects have the potential of saving as much as 

300,000 acre-feet of Colorado River System water that would otherwise be over-delivered to Mexico. Due to the potential for such 

water savings (essentially Nevada’s entire annual share of Colorado River Water), the Committee urges Reclamation to increase 

budgeting for these items. 

South/Central Arizona Investigations Program, AZ.—Within the 

funds provided, the Committee has included $300,000 for the Central Arizona Salinity Study and $250,000 for the West Salt River 

Study. 

Central Valley Project.—

—Delta Division.—Within the funds provided for the Delta Division, $4,000,000 is provided for the Interagency Ecological Program. 

—Friant Division.—$200,000 has been provided for appraisal 

level studies of the Madera Irrigation District Water Supply 

Enhancement. 

—Miscellaneous Project Programs.—Additional funds above the 

budget request are provided for the Kaweah River Delta Corridor Enhancement Study ($63,000) and the Sacramento Valley 

Regional Integrated Water Management Plan ($2,500,000). 

—Sacramento River Division.—Additional funds above the budget request are provided to complete the Glen Colusa Irrigation 

District Fish Screen Improvement Project. 

—Trinity River Division.—The Committee has provided $500,000 

above the budget request for the Fishery Restoration program. 

These funds are to be used in concert with the $2,000,000 provided in the Central Valley Project Restoration Program to 

meet Federal trust responsibilities to protect the fishery resources of the Hoopa Valley Tribe. The Commissioner is urged 

to continue to support a Co-Management Agreement between 

the Hoopa Valley Tribe and the Bureau of Reclamation. 

Animas-La Plata, CO.—The Committee has provided $60,000,000 

for construction of this project. 

Colorado-Big Thompson Project, CO.—The Committee is aware of 

the recently completed pipeline study and urges Reclamation to 

work with the stakeholders with relation to the Colorado-Big 

Thompson project as authorities allow. 

Fort Peck, Dry Prairie Rural Water System, MT.—The Committee 

has provided $19,000,000 for continued construction of the project. 

Lahontan Basin Project, NV.—The Committee has learned that 

dam safety issues have arisen concerning Tahoe Dam. As this dam 

provides more than 70 percent of the water supply for the area, it 

is imperative that safety remediation activities be undertaken as 

soon as possible. The Committee understands that preliminary investigations are underway and will be continued with budgeted 

funds in fiscal year 2006. The Committee expects Reclamation to 
106

ask for the appropriate funding level in the fiscal year 2007 budget 

to address safety issues. 

Southern Nevada Water Recycling Project, NV.—The Committee 

has provided $3,423,000 to complete the Federal share of this 

project. 

Chimayo Water Plan, NM.—The Committee has provided 

$1,000,000 to initiate this project. 

Espanola Water Diversion, NM.—The Committee has provided 

$1,000,000 to initiate this project. 

Middle Rio Grande Project, New Mexico.—The conferees support 

the reorganization of the Endangered Species Act Collaborative 

Program resulting in the Army Corps of Engineers in collaboration 

with the Fish and Wildlife Service taking responsibility to provide 

the administrative support for the program and the Army Corps of 

Engineers taking responsibility to meet the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative of the 2003 Biological Opinion required by section 

205 of Public Law 108–447 (118 Stat 2949) other than the water 

acquisition and management functions set out in the Reasonable 

and Prudent Alternative. Additionally, the Army Corps of Engineers will assume responsibility for providing a detailed spending 

plan for fiscal year 2006 funds to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees for approval; completion of the baseline LongTerm Plan and completion of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement before the end of fiscal year 2006. The Bureau of 

Reclamation retains responsibility to meet the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative regarding water acquisition and management, including acquisition of water to meet the flow requirements articulated in the 2003 Biological Opinion and development of a longterm plan to meet these flow requirements. The conferees expect 

the Bureau of Reclamation to facilitate a smooth transition of administrative functions for the program to the Army Corps of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife Service within 3 months of the beginning of fiscal year 2006. Of the total $25,500,000 provided for 

the Middle Rio Grande Project, the conferees have provided 

$12,900,000 for the collaborative program. Of these funds, The Bureau of Reclamation is provided $5,000,000 for water acquisition 

and associated administrative support within the Bureau; the Bureau is to transfer $7,500,000 to the Army Corps of Engineers to 

fund populations management, habitat restoration, water management studies, fish passage and river connectivity, minnow management, water quality, science and monitoring, biological opinion 

monitoring, and program management to meet the 2003 Biological 

Opinion Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives; and to provide 

$400,000 to the Fish and Wildlife Service for program management 

support. The cost-share requirements of the program remain 75 

percent Federal/25 percent non-Federal for all activities except 

water acquisition and program administration. Non-Federal cost 

share may be provided through in-kind services and participation 

on the administration team. 

Middle Rio Grande Off-Channel Sanctuaries, New Mexico.—The 

Committee provides $2,000,000 for completion of construction and 

initial operation of the off-channel sanctuary authorized under section 6014 of Public Law 109–13. 
107

Norman, OK.—The Committee has included $300,000 to initiate 

this study. 

Deschutes Ecosystem Restoration Project, OR.—The Committee 

has provided $2,000,000 to continue this project. 

Mid-Dakota Rural Water Project, SD.—The Committee has provided $4,000,000 to close out this project that was completed in fiscal year 2005. 

El Paso, Water Reclamation and Reuse, TX.—The Committee has 

included $103,000 to complete the project as currently authorized. 

Williamson County Water Reclamation and Reuse Project, TX.—

The Committee has provided $200,000 to initiate this project. 

Northern Utah Investigations Program, UT.—The Committee has 

included an additional $500,000 for the Rural Water Technology 

Alliance. 

Washington Investigations Program, WA.—The Committee has 

provided $950,000 for this program. Within the funds provided, 

$600,000 is for the Odessa Sub Area study, and $50,000 is for the 

West Canal study. 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project, Title I.—The Committee is concerned about drought conditions in the west and particularly how they relate to the Colorado River System. As was discussed under the Colorado Front Work and Levee System Project, 

it is imperative that Reclamation, working with the stakeholders, 

determine how to retain additional water in the system to avoid 

making excess releases to Mexico. 

The Yuma desalting plant was constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation to address Treaty water, quality and quantity, issues with 

Mexico; however, it has never been operated at more than about 

one-third capacity for about 6 months. Without the plant, about 

100,000 acre feet of Colorado River water is bypassed to Mexico 

through the Welton-Mohawk Drain. Treaty obligations have been 

met by other means over the last 10–12 years rather than using 

the desalting plant. However, with the persistent drought the loss 

of that 100,000 acre feet of water is becoming more of an issue as 

Lake Mead and Lake Powell have dropped. 

The Committee understands that the Yuma plant is antiquated 

and expensive to operate. However, it appears to the Committee 

that it might be the best short-term alternative to respond to the 

drought. Therefore, the Committee directs the Commissioner of 

Reclamation to provide an engineering report to the Committee no 

later than 30 days after the enactment of this act detailing the 

costs and current progress towards modernizing the Yuma plant to 

where it could be used as intended. Further, the Committee directs 

the Commissioner to include realistic operational costs in the report for the plant. The Committee would entertain discussions of 

alternate ideas for water sources or operation of the plant provided 

they do not infringe upon property rights, state or local laws. 

Departmental Irrigation Program.—The Committee has provided 

$1,900,000 for this program. $150,000 is provided for the 

Uncompaghre selenium control project and $1,750,000 is for irrigation modernization activities for Elephant Butte Irrigation District. 

Drought Emergency Assistance.—The Committee has provided 

the budget request for this program. Within the funds provided, 
108

the Committee urges Reclamation to provide full and fair consideration for drought assistance from the State of Hawaii. 

Native American Affairs Program.—Additional funds provided 

above the budget request are for continued work on the AAMODT 

settlement. 

Research and Development, Science and Technology Program.— The Committee has provided $1,000,000 above the request for the 

further refinement of the Upper Rio Grande Water Operations 

Model in collaboration with the Army Corps of Engineers and 

Sandia National Laboratories. 

Research and Development, Desalination Research and Development Program.—The Committee has provided $11,025,000 for this program. Within the funds provided, $4,000,000 is for desalination 

R&D efforts directed by the Bureau of Reclamation. The Committee 

continues to urge the Bureau of Reclamation to place a higher priority on desalination activities in future budgets given the importance of sustainable water supplies to the West and to other regions of the country. Additionally, the Committee has provided 

$7,000,000 for the completion of construction of the Tularosa Basin 

Desalination Facility, New Mexico and initial operation. Upon completion of the facility, the Bureau is directed to select an organization to operate the facility under Bureau direction. In this selection 

the Bureau should give priority to local education institutions who 

have expertise, do not need to relocate and have on-going water research activities. 

Site Security.—The Committee has provided the budget request 

for this item and directs that increased security costs continue to 

be non-reimbursible until the Committee notifies Reclamation otherwise. 

Title XVI, Water Reclamation and Reuse.—The Committee has 

provided $4,229,000 for this program. Within the funds provided, 

the Committee has included $3,000,000 for the WateReuse Foundation. These funds shall be available to support the Foundation’s research priorities. 

Water Conservation Field Service Program.—The Committee has 

included $300,000 for urban water conservation projects identified 

through the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Innovative Conservation Program that will increase water-use efficiency. In addition, $100,000 is provided for the Bureau of Reclamation to initiate a study to identify concurrent and overlapping 

Government programs aimed at improving water resource efficiency. It is hoped that the study will encourage agencies to look 

beyond their individual areas of responsibility in an effort to bring 

about greater resource efficiencies to the Southern California region. 

Water 2025.—The dire drought the West is currently experiencing, combined with an unprecedented number of water users 

and endangered species and related requirements, make water use 

efficiencies more critical than ever. The Committee has provided 

$20,000,000 for this initiative proposed by the administration. The 

Committee believes that water resource and efficiency issues, combined with the drought and endangered species listings, make the 

Rio Grande River in New Mexico the embodiment of the Water 

2025 initiative. Therefore, the Committee has included $1,000,000 
109

to provide for continued efficiency and water improvements related 

to the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District and $1,000,000 for 

work related to water efficiency and supply supplementation in the 

Pecos consistent with the partnership between the Carlsbad Irrigation District and the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission. 

A critical component of reducing tension among multiple water 

users is collaborative planning and joint operations. Within the 

funds provided, $2,000,000 is for the Desert Research Institute to 

address water quality and environmental issues in ways that will 

bring industry and regulators to mutually acceptable answers. 

Wetlands Development.—The Committee recommendation includes $1,500,000 for the Yuma East Wetlands project. 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $54,628,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 52,219,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 52,219,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 52,219,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $52,219,000, the 

same as the budget request for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund. 

The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized in 

the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, title 34 of Public Law 

102–575. This fund was established to provide funding from project 

beneficiaries for habitat restoration, improvement and acquisition, 

and other fish and wildlife restoration activities in the Central Valley project area of California. Revenues are derived from payments 

by project beneficiaries and from donations. Payments from project 

beneficiaries include several required by the Act (Friant Division 

surcharges, higher charges on water transferred to non-CVP users, 

and tiered water prices) and, to the extent required in appropriations acts, additional annual mitigation and restoration payments. 

CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... $35,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 35,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 37,000,000

This account funds activities that are consistent with the 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program, a collaborative effort involving 18 

State and Federal agencies and representatives of California’s 

urban, agricultural, and environmental communities. The goals of 

the program are to improve fish and wildlife habitat, water supply 

reliability, and water quality in the San Francisco Bay-San Joaquin River Delta, the principle hub of California’s water distribution system. 

The Committee has provided $37,000,000, $2,000,000 above the 

budget request for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. The Committee is aware of recent declines in the Delta smelt population in 

the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Within the funds provided, 

$1,000,000 is for the Interagency Ecological Program to identify the 

causes of and propose remedies for the smelt’s population decline 
110

and $1,000,000 is for the Westside Regional Drainage Program in 

the San Luis Division of the Central Valley Project. 

POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $57,688,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 57,917,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 57,917,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 57,917,000

The Committee recommendation for general administrative ex- penses is $57,917,000. This is the same as the budget request. 

The policy and administrative expenses program provides for the 

executive direction and management of all reclamation activities, 

as performed by the Commissioner’s offices in Washington, DC, 

Denver, CO, and five regional offices. The Denver office and regional offices charge individual projects or activities for direct beneficial services and related administrative and technical costs. These 

charges are covered under other appropriations. 

Bureau of Reclamation Transformation for the Future.—The 

Committee notes that the core activities of the Bureau have largely 

transitioned from design and construction of dams and power 

plants to maintenance, repair, and renovation of these facilities. It 

is appropriate to ask whether Reclamation has the appropriate organizational structure, core competencies, and resource allocations 

to meet the current realities of the Bureau’s mission. The Committee therefore directs that Reclamation contract with the National Research Council to conduct a study to advise Reclamation 

on the appropriate organizational, management, and resource configurations to meet its construction, maintenance, and infrastructure missions of the 21st Century. Once completed, the Bureau 

shall submit the findings to the Committee. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Section 201. The bill includes language regarding the San Luis 

Unit and the Kesterson Reservoir in California. 

Section 202. The bill includes language that states requirements 

for purchase or lease of water from the Middle Rio Grande or 

Carlsbad Projects in New Mexico. 

Section 203. The bill includes language regarding Drought Emergency Assistance. 

Section 204. The bill includes language authorizing Water 2025 

and making it permanent. 

Section 205. The bill includes language regarding the Rio Grande 

Collaborative water operations team. 

Section 206. The bill includes language extending the Desalination Act by 5 years, regarding the San Luis Unit and the Kesterson 

Reservoir in California. 

Section 207. The bill includes language extendeing the completion date for the Animas-La Plata. 

Section 208. The bill includes language regarding the Humbolt 

Project Title transfer. 

Section 209. The bill includes language regarding Desert Terminus Lakes. 

Section 210. The bill includes language authorizing a feasibility 

study for Norman, OK. 
111

Section 211. The Committee has included a provision concerning 

Animas-La Plata.
(112)

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Title III provides for the Department of Energy’s programs relating to energy supply, environmental management, science, national 

security and other related programs, including the power marketing administrations, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

REPROGRAMMINGS

The Committee requires the Department to promptly and fully 

inform the Committee when a change in program execution or 

funding is required during the fiscal year. A reprogramming includes the reallocation of funds from one activity to another within 

an appropriation, or any significant departure from a program, 

project, or activity described in the agency’s budget justification, including contemplated site budgets as presented to and approved or 

modified by Congress in an appropriations act or the accompanying 

statement of managers or report. For construction projects, a reprogramming constitutes the reallocation of funds from one construction project identified in the justifications to another or a significant change in the scope of an approved project. 

Reprogrammings should not be employed to initiate new programs or to change program, project, or activity allocations specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the Act or report. 

In cases where unforeseen events or conditions are deemed to require such changes, proposals shall be submitted in advance to the 

Committee and be fully explained and justified. The Committee has 

not provided the Department with any internal reprogramming 

flexibility in fiscal year 2005, unless specifically identified in the 

House, Senate, or conference reports. Any reallocation of new or 

prior year budget authority or prior year deobligations must be 

submitted to the Committees in writing and may not be implemented prior to approval by the Committees on Appropriations. 

SMALL BUSINESS PROCUREMENTS

The Committee is concerned that the Department of Energy’s 

current efforts at breaking out procurements for small business 

contracts do not represent a systematic approach for consideration 

of small business statutory goals together with other legitimate acquisition objectives. 

Beginning with its roots in the Manhattan Project, the Department of Energy [DOE] has executed a broad mandate with regard 

to the Nation’s nuclear and energy challenges. The Department 

maintains the primary responsibility for energy security, ensuring 

the safety, security and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile, 

cleaning up the environment from the legacy of the Cold War, and 

developing innovations in science and technology. A significant portion of DOE’s mission (approximately 83 percent of DOE’s budget) 
113

is carried out by industrial and academic contractors operating 

DOE-owned plants and laboratories under large facilities management contracts where it is essential to meeting mission needs for 

the work to be fully integrated at a site. Although DOE has aggressively sought out new opportunities for small businesses as both 

prime contractors and subcontractors, there is a limit to what it 

can do since DOE’s facility management contracts are not, for the 

most part, suitable for award to small businesses as prime contractors. 

Nevertheless, DOE has increased the amount of DOE dollars 

awarded to small businesses and over $4,000,000,000 a year is 

awarded to small businesses under DOE prime contracts and subcontracts. However, DOE’s recent innovative efforts to increase 

small business prime contracts have met with mixed results. For 

example, major small business set-a-sides by the Office of Environmental Management [EM] have continued EM’s preferred, but complicated, cost-plus-incentive fee type contracts for mission reasons, 

but have also attempted to streamline the process for small businesses. The complexities of the Federal procurement process and 

the clean up mission requirements for these procurements often resulted in schedule delays which negatively impact the small business participants who may be less able to absorb such delays than 

larger businesses may be. NNSA’s attempts to break out work from 

facility management contracts have been met with concerns over 

mission fragmentation and the ability to properly administer new 

cadres of newly awarded prime Federal contracts. 

Language was included in section 6022 of Public Law 109–13, 

the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the 

Global War on Terror and Tsunami Relief Act of 2005 (Public Law 

109–13) directing the Secretary of Energy and Administrator of the 

Small Business Administration to negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding on developing a better methodology of counting prime 

and subcontracts awarded by the Department of Energy’s management and operating, management and integration and other facility management prime contractors. During this period of negotiation, the Committee expects the Department and the National Nuclear Security Administration to refrain from implementing new 

contracting schemes, such as the Tri-lab Initiative, until an MOU 

has been filed with the Congress. Consistent with section 6022 of 

the Emergency Supplemental, the Committee also urges the Department to increase it efforts to ensure that any efforts to break 

out of prime contracts are provided to local small businesses. 

Contracting requirements for the Department designed to assist 

small businesses access the Federal procurement market has created inequitable competition amongst 8(a) firms. In the attempt to 

comply with the current contracting requirements, the Department 

has turned to Alaska Native Corporations [ANC] as a means to increase its Federal prime contracting numbers. Since October 2003, 

the Department has signed contracts with Alaska Native Corporations totaling more that $500,000,000 as 8(a) firms, despite the size 

and income of some ANCs. In New Mexico, for example, the National Nuclear Security Administration has used ANC contractors 

at the expense of New Mexico small businesses. 
114

The Committee is aware of an ongoing Government Accountability Office [GAO] investigation into Federal contracting rules 

that are applied to Indian tribes and Native American businesses, 

including Alaska Native Corporations and Hawaiian Native Organizations. The Committee looks forward to the completion of the 

GAO report and the study conducted by the Department so that it 

may identify where appropriate reforms are necessary to ensure 

that the spirit of the Small Business Act is fulfilled. 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY LABS

In February 2005, the Government Accountability Office [GAO] 

issued a report entitled, ‘‘Equal Employment Opportunity: Information on Personnel Actions, Employee Concerns, and Oversight at 

Six Department of Energy Laboratories’’ (GAO–05–190). This report examined six Department of Energy laboratories to determine 

whether differences existed for managerial and professional women 

and minorities compared with men and whites in salaries, merit 

pay increases, separation patterns, and promotion rates; what concerns these women and minorities have raised; and how the Office 

of Federal Contract Compliance Programs [OFCCP] and the Department of Energy are responding to these issues. Based on the 

recommendations of the GAO, the Committee directs the Department of Energy to work with Department of Labor’s OFCCP to determine the causes of the disparities and take the necessary corrective steps to address the problems identified. 

LABORATORY DIRECTED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT [LDRD]

The Committee is concerned with the continued lack of recognition of the value of the LDRD, Plant Directed Research and Development [PDRD] and Site Directed Research and Development 

[SDRD] programs to DOE, other Federal agencies, and the American taxpayer. For example, the most recent DOE report submitted 

to Congress on the LDRD program clearly indicates that other Federal agencies continue to receive a very favorable return on their 

limited investment in the LDRD program. The LDRD program continues to provide solutions to future science and defense mission 

needs before program problems or requirements are even realized. 

Building on extensive understanding of radiation transport, 

LDRD efforts successfully developed a method for simulating dose 

response in radiation treatment of cancer. This system, dubbed 

Peregrine, has been licensed and approved by the FDA, and is currently in use for treating patients. The technology is a substantial 

improvement over previous approaches, providing more precise targeting of cancerous cells with radiation therapy, lowering the overall dose to the patient, and protecting healthy tissue from unnecessary exposure. LDRD research has resulted in systems for detecting biological and chemical warfare agents which have been deployed in recent combat zones. Specifically, Sniffer-Star has as its 

core technology the ‘‘chem-lab-on-a-chip’’ developed under the 

LDRD program, and has been flown over combat areas on unmanned aerial vehicles, ensuring that these areas were safe for our 

troops. 

The LDRD program provides the Nation the flexibility needed to 

support various research activities that result in many additional 
115

scientific breakthroughs and advances that would not have occurred otherwise, since DOE program funding is limited in its ability to fund these critical research efforts. Limiting the amount of 

funding provided to this program is counter-intuitive to the continued strength of American science and defense programs in the long 

run, and the Committee strongly resists any penny-wise but poundfoolish calls to arbitrarily limit the amounts provided for LDRD. 

As currently structured, the LDRD program ensures that a very 

small fraction of the laboratories’ budgets are invested in innovative research and new ideas that are relevant to the missions of 

DOE/NNSA and the laboratories. In fact, the current funding level 

for the LDRD program is relatively small compared to the overall 

laboratory and Departmental budgets, but the program has been 

able to produce significant scientific and technical results that benefit the Nation’s science and defense missions, and the Committee 

is hard-pressed to think of another program that produces results 

as beneficial to the taxpayer with such a paltry amount of funds. 

In this regard, the Committee is concerned that the current funding ceiling for the LDRD program is not adequate to continue to 

achieve the objectives of the program. Therefore, we recommend 

the LDRD funding ceiling be raised to effectively meet the increasing challenges faced by the laboratories to maintain their critical 

scientific competencies and attract and retain the best and brightest scientists. The new LDRD funding ceiling shall now be set at 

8 percent (up from the current 6 percent) and PDRD and SDRD 

shall now be set at 4 percent (up from the current 2 percent) and 

continue to be annually approved by the Department. 

Further, the Committee would like to compliment the Department for its strong and effective management of the LDRD program. The Department has been subject to several internal and external reviews over the last 5 years which have indicated the 

LDRD program continues to be well-managed by the Department. 

In fact, the most recent GAO review specifically indicated that 

DOE has implemented procedures for the LDRD program to ensure 

compliance with existing laws. The report also states that the GAO 

contacted the CFO and/or General Counsel of six Federal agencies 

and ‘‘each agency told us that the LDRD program’s inclusion as an 

indirect cost does not limit their ability to comply with their agency’s statutory or appropriations requirements. Similarly, none of 

the research managers and/or contracting officers at the agencies 

expressed concern about the LDRD program or its funding method.’’ The White House Federal Laboratory Review Panel (called the 

Packard Panel) recommended the Federal laboratories conduct discretionary research programs at the 5–10 percent level with appropriate Federal oversight. The Panel’s report also states:

‘‘If U.S. taxpayers are to get the most return from their support 

of R&D, government laboratories must have sufficient discretionary 

funding for independent research and development. Almost every 

laboratory has found that the most important innovation often 

comes from the scientists’ independent ideas or actions. Thus the 

productivity of the U.S. R&D establishment depends on a vigorous 

independent R&D program.’’
116

Over the years, LDRD-funded research has resulted in many scientific breakthroughs and advances, benefiting and furthering not 

only DOE’s mission, but the missions of all sponsors of work at the 

laboratories. LDRD is a cost of doing business at the laboratories, 

and the Department should continue to ensure its laboratories distribute LDRD as indirect costs, in accordance with cost accounting 

standards [CAS], to all work performed at its laboratories. The Department must maintain a funding mechanism that is: (1) stable, 

to ensure the laboratories continue to perform long-term, fundamental research—which is among their most distinctive contributions to the Nation; (2) flexible because of the uniqueness of each 

institution; (3) equitable for all customers; and (4) consistent with 

cost accounting standards in order to allocate expenses to cost objectives that cause, or benefit from, the expenses in accordance 

with CAS (a model consistent with government contracts placed 

with private industry). The Committee supports the current method for accumulating LDRD program dollars and believes that it is 

a fair and equitable approach to funding the program. Therefore, 

funds provided in Title III of this Act may be used to finance the 

total cost of work performed for other Federal sponsors, including 

LDRD costs, until they are reimbursed through the Department’s 

normal billing and collection processes. 

Given the evidence reiterating the well managed LDRD program 

and the public benefits it provides, the Committee strongly supports the LDRD program as currently structured and managed by 

the Department, and specifically rejects the program changes suggested by the House Committee on Appropriations in their report 

(House Report 109–86) accompanying the fiscal year 2006 Energy 

and Water Appropriations bill. The Department and its laboratories have clearly demonstrated the need for the LDRD program 

to continue. The Committee recognizes LDRD as a legitimate cost 

for keeping the laboratories vibrant, cutting edge and creative in 

ideas and new fields, and thereby benefits all customers using the 

DOE laboratories as well as the DOE and its missions. For the future of the Department and its laboratories, the Committee suggests that the Secretary of Energy should consider expanding the 

LDRD program to other DOE laboratories to further enhance the 

clear benefits of the program. 

The Committee recognizes that scientific discovery does not always coincide with the annul budget cycles and promising scientific 

discovery occasionally fails to capture the attention of this Committee. The LDRD program will continue to provide scientists the 

best opportunity to pursue discoveries as they develop, regardless 

if it was never contemplated by the Congress or the Office of Management and Budget. The Committee strongly endorses the LDRD 

program, as authorized, to ensure researchers sufficient funding 

and flexibility to pursue useful and relevant scientific discovery.

ENERGY SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $1,806,936,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 1,749,446,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,763,888,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,945,330,000
117

The purposes of the programs funded under Energy Supply are 

to develop new energy technologies and improve existing energy 

technologies through basic and applied research and targeted programs in technology development. This account provides funds for 

both operating expenses and capital equipment for the advancement of the various energy technologies. 

The Energy Supply and Conservation account includes the following programs: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Nuclear Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, 

Environment, Safety and Health (non-defense) and Legacy Management. Energy Conservation programs previously funded by the 

Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act are now funded 

by the Energy Supply and Conservation appropriation, and are 

combined with energy efficiency activities in the Energy Supply 

and Conservation activities. These funds shall remain available 

until expended. 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS

The Committee recommendation provides $1,253,819,000 for re- newable energy resources, an increase of $53,405,000 from the current year level. 

This program undertakes research and development of renewable 

energy and related technologies to meet the growing need for clean 

and affordable energy. Program activities range from basic research in universities and national laboratories to cost-shared applied research, development, and field validation in partnership 

with the private sector. 

The recommendation for Renewable Energy Resources reflects 

the Committee’s strong belief that only a balanced portfolio of production and distribution technologies and strategies will fulfill our 

Nation’s long-term needs and goals for both energy and the environment. The Committee continues to support the efforts of the National Center on Energy Management and Building Technologies to 

improve energy efficiency in buildings. The Committee directs that 

this project shall be subject to the cost-sharing requirements of a 

research project rather than a demonstration project and directs 

the Department to continue to fund this project at the fiscal year 

2005 level of $5,000,000. 

Hydrogen Research.—As a key component of the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, this program develops hydrogen production, 

storage and delivery technologies that are more energy efficient, 

cleaner, safer and lower in cost. The long-term aim is to develop 

hydrogen technologies that will allow the Nation to aggressively 

move forward to achieve a vision of a cleaner, more secure energy 

future. Current research will facilitate a decision by industry to 

commercialize hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles by 2015. 

As such, the Committee recommendation includes $182,694,000 

for hydrogen research, which is consistent with the request and 

$13,188,000 above the current year level. The Committee also directs the Department to provide the budget request for Hydrogen 

Storage Centers of Excellence. 

The Committee recognizes the importance of DOE’s ‘‘Controlled 

Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Demonstration Validation Program’’ for further development of hydrogen technology to meet our 
118

Nation’s energy needs. This demonstration program is unique in 

that for the first time vehicles and energy infrastructure are integrated in real world settings that serve as test laboratories. The 

DOE requires extensive data collection and sharing that will be 

used to help advance this technology towards commercialization. 

The demonstration program requires full cost sharing. The Committee specifically provides $14,900,000 for infrastructure and 

$24,000,000 for vehicles for the demonstration projects as requested in the Department’s fiscal year 2006 budget. 

Industrial consumption of hydrogen, especially by the petrochemical and fertilizer communities is large and growing. The rate 

of petro-chemical hydrogen consumption necessary for gasolinepowered vehicles will accelerate as global reserves of sweet crude 

oil diminish. The dominant resource for hydrogen production today 

is natural gas whose reformation into hydrogen and carbon dioxide 

contributes significantly to atmospheric greenhouse gases. Moreover, natural gas reserves are insufficient to service simultaneously 

domestic heating and electricity requirements, industrial hydrogen 

consumption, and future demands by hydrogen powered vehicles 

and other fuel cell applications that would accompany the future 

‘‘Hydrogen Economy.’’ Thus, the Committee recommendation seeks 

to focus the resources of the initiative on developing the most economical means of producing hydrogen from renewable sources and 

nuclear power. In addition, the Committee supports the recommendations of the National Academy of Science, and requests 

that the Department integrate their recommendations into the program. The Committee is aware of an ethanol-to-hydrogen fueling 

station and vehicle demonstration project in Chicago and encourages the Department to provide appropriate technical and financial 

assistance. 

For the UNLV Research Foundation the Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 to continue evaluation of solarpowered thermochemical production of hydrogen and $4,000,000 for 

on-going hydrogen fuel cell and storage research and development. 

Biomass/Biofuels—Energy Systems.—The Committee recommendation includes $92,164,000 for biomass/biofuels energy systems, an increase of $20,000,000 above the request. 

The Committee believes that the Regional Biomass Energy Program [RBEP] has been a successful partnership with the five distinct regions it has served. The Committee recommendation includes $15,000,000 for product development for the State and Regional Partnership Activity, of which $11,000,000 shall be provided 

to establish the Southeastern Center at Mississippi State University to support regional biomass research and development efforts 

and identify the best commercial opportunities in the Southeast for 

the use of biofuels and biomass to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources. Within the funds provided, the Committee recommends $5,000,000, the amount of the budget request, for the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to sustain the bioproducts program focused on catalysis and fungal biotechnology for replacing 

petroleum derived chemicals and materials. 

The Committee recommendation also includes $4,000,000 for the 

Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research, a successful consor-
119

tium of 34 universities and 33 agribusinesses and trade associations. 

Geothermal.—The Committee recommends $23,299,000 for geothermal technology development, the same as the request, including continued funding (at current year levels) for GeoPowering the 

West. The Committee recommendation also includes $1,300,000 for 

the Geothermal and Renewable Energy Laboratory of Nevada; 

$500,000 to continue funding of operations at the GeoHeat Center 

at Oregon Institute of Technology; and $500,000 for the Pyramid 

Lake Paiute Tribe Energy Project. 

Hydropower.—The Committee recommends $500,000 for hydropower, the same as the budget request. 

Solar Energy.—The Committee recommendation for solar energy programs is $83,953,000. The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 for the 

Southeast and Southwest photovoltaic experiment stations. The 

Committee recommends $1,200,000 for Sandia National Laboratories for the development of advanced cells and modules using 

ultra-thin back-contact multicrystalline-silicon solar cells employing micromachining. The Department should continue to fully support the public/private Million Solar Roofs initiative or another effective solar deployment program. The Committee recommendation 

includes $11,000,000 from within available funds for concentrating 

solar power, including $5,000,000 to validate the commercial viability by supporting a one megawatt demonstration at Sandia National Laboratory for dish concentrating solar power. 

Wind.—The Committee recommendation includes $34,249,000 for 

wind energy systems. The Committee recognizes that wind energy 

has succeeded in penetrating the energy markets as a cost-effective 

renewable energy resource. Between 1990 and 2003, the United 

States added 6,347 MW of wind-based generating capacity. The 

Committee concurs with the assessment of the Government Accountability Office in its September 2004 report (GAO–04–756) 

that noted that the driving factor behind wind deployment is the 

production of tax credit. 

The budget request also provides support for offshore wind research and development. Due to Federal regulatory uncertainty in 

permitting offshore facilities, the Committee recommends that the 

Department not expend any funds to support offshore wind energy 

research until the Federal rules and permitting requirements are 

implemented through legislation. In addition, the Committee recognizes that the intermittent nature of wind energy has made interconnection to the electricity grid a barrier to entry. The Committee 

supports Federal efforts to integrate renewable energy, but believes 

this activity is better suited to the Office of Electricity Delivery and 

Energy Reliability. 

Vehicles Technology.—This program was previously funded in the 

Energy Conservation account in the Interior and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act, and now is funded within the Energy Supply 

and Conservation account of this Act. The mission of the Vehicle 

Technologies Program is to develop more energy efficient and environmentally friendly highway transportation technologies that will 

enable America to use significantly less petroleum. The long-term 

aim is to develop ‘‘leapfrog’’ technologies that through improve-
120

ments in vehicle energy efficiency will provide Americans with continuing freedom of mobility and greater energy security, at lower 

costs and with lower impacts on the environment than current vehicles. The program focuses its research and development investments specifically on potential technology improvements that have 

uncertain or long-term outcomes, yet have significant public benefit. The high risks associated with these projects make it unlikely 

that they would be pursued by industry alone. The Committee recommends $199,943,000, an increase of $34,000,000 above the request. The Committee includes $15,000,000 above the budget request for the Oak Ridge National Lab to be divided evenly between 

materials development and computational modeling to develop 

more energy efficient and environmentally friendly highway transportation technologies. The Committee provides an additional 

$4,500,000 for the CAVS Center located at Mississippi State University. The Committee also recommends an additional $2,600,000 

to support the VULCAN beam line. Within available funds, 

$2,000,000 is provided for the Transportable Emissions Testing 

Laboratory; $1,000,000 is provided for the lightweight composite 

materials for heavy duty vehicles program; and $500,000 is provided for the hydrogen natural gas vehicles cylinder safety, inspection and maintenance program. The Committee recommendation 

includes $3,500,000, the same as current year, for the Off-Highway 

Program. The Committee expects the Department to fund the Automotive Lightweight Vehicles program account at the President’s request of $18,000,000. The Committee recommends $12,000,000 for 

support of natural gas fueled vehicles. The Committee recognizes 

the Department’s cooperative turbocharger research and development program and its contribution to increasing fuel efficiency in 

diesel engines. The Committee urges the continuation of the turbocharger initiative and seeks to facilitate the integration of such 

technology into engine and vehicle designs. 

The Committee recognizes the need to ensure that materials research funding within the vehicles technology program supports 

strategic advances in science and innovation and the long-term 

competitiveness of U.S. industry. The Committee directs DOE to 

expand research in the area of computational predictive engineering and testing of lightweight thermoplastic polymer composites as 

an enabling technology supporting the future design and manufacture of safer, more fuel efficient, and lower emissions vehicles competitive in global markets. In addition, the Committee acknowledges the important work in this area being undertaken by Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory in cooperation with the American Plastics Council. 

Building Technologies.—This program was previously funded in 

the Energy Conservation account in the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, and now is funded within the Energy Supply and Conservation account of this Act. The Building Technologies program aims to reduce energy use in homes and commercial buildings by developing advanced lighting and appliances 

which, when coupled with improved building design, will yield 

maximum results. The Committee recommends $67,000,000, which 

includes $22,000,000 for lighting R&D, an increase of $5,000,000 to 

support through this office and the Office of Science a National 
121

Center for Solid State Lighting Research affiliated with the Center 

for Integrated Nanotechnologies. The Committee recommendation 

also includes $20,000,000, an increase of $2,250,000 above the request, for Residential Buildings Research. The Committee notes 

there are a number of proposed activities within the Building Technologies program that seek to reduce electricity through demand 

side management. The Secretary should consider transferring these 

activities to the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. At a minimum, the Committee directs the Department to 

provide the Committee with a brief report on how the research between the two programs will add value to both programs and not 

needlessly duplicate research efforts. The Committee recommendation includes a $4,000,000 increase for Thermal Energy Technologies. Within the $12,000,000 recommended, $4,000,000 is for 

gas engine-driven heat pump development; $2,000,000 shall be 

used to complete the on-going Ammonia Absorption Technology Development for HVAC&R activity; $2,500,000 shall be available for 

a CHP engineering prototype & field test activity of ammonia absorption technology; Desiccant research shall be continued at a 

level of $1,500,000; and heat and mass transfer activities shall be 

continued at a level of $2,000,000. 

Industrial Technologies.—This program was previously funded in 

the Energy Conservation account in the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, and now is funded within the Energy Supply and Conservation account of this Act. The Industrial Technologies program aims to develop more efficient industrial processes in energy intensive industries through the cost-sharing of research. The Committee recommends $56,489,000. 

FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

This program was previously funded in the Energy Conservation 

account in the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 

and now is funded within the Energy Supply and Conservation account of this act. The Federal Energy Management Program advances energy efficiency and use of renewable energy in Federal 

buildings through financial and technical assistance and project 

evaluation. The Committee recommends $17,147,000 for Federal 

Energy Management Programs. 

FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee recommendation for Facilities and Infrastructure 

is $16,315,000. The recommendation includes $5,800,000 for operation and maintenance of facilities and $10,515,000 for construction of Project 04–E–001, Science and Technology Facility, National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado. 

WEATHERIZATION AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES

The mission of the Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program is to develop and accelerate the adoption of energy efficiency, 

renewable energy, and oil displacement technologies and practices 

by a wide range of stakeholders. These include State and local governments, weatherization agencies, communities, companies, fleet 

managers, building code officials, technology developers, Native 
122

American tribal governments, and international agencies. This program was previously funded in the Energy Conservation account in 

the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, and now is 

funded within the Energy Supply and Conservation account of this 

Act. The Committee recommends $240,000,000 for weatherization 

assistance program grants, an increase of $15,000,000 above the request, $4,600,000 for training and technical assistance, $41,000,000 

for State energy program grants, $500,000 for State energy activities, and $26,657,000 for gateway deployment. The Committee recommends that gateway deployment funds be distributed as follows: 

$6,571,000 for Rebuild America; $350,000 for energy efficiency information and outreach; $4,550,000 for building codes training and 

assistance; $6,510,000 for Clean Cities; $5,776,000 for Energy Star; 

and $2,400,000 for inventions and innovations. The intergovernmental total includes $2,910,000 for the International Renewable 

Energy program to promote the use of renewable energy resources 

in international markets. The Committee directs the Department 

to avoid using funds appropriated to the International Renewable 

Energy Program to fund domestic programs and projects. From 

within the funds provided, the Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for the Renewable Energy Production Incentive 

[REPI]. The Intergovernmental total includes $4,000,000 for the 

tribal energy program to help Native Americans develop renewable 

energy resources on their lands and help tribal leaders develop energy plans. Within the funds provided to the tribal energy program, 

the Committee includes $1,000,000 for the Council of Renewable 

Energy Resource Tribes [CERT] to provide technical expertise and 

training of Native Americans in renewable energy resource development and electric generation facilities management. The Committee provides $600,000 above the President’s request, 

to be made available to the Office of International Energy Market 

Development in the Department of Energy to carry out a program 

in support of the multi-agency Clean Energy Technology Exports 

Initiative. 

Program Support.—The Committee recommendation for Program 

Support is $9,456,000, the same as the budget request. The Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 to continue the efforts 

of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory [NREL] to develop 

renewable energy resources uniquely suited to the Southwestern 

United States through its virtual site office in Nevada. 

Program Direction.—The Committee recommendation for Program Direction is $86,524,000. 

Regional Offices.—The Committee recognizes and applauds 

EERE’s efforts to strengthen project management through its creation of the EERE Project Management Center [PMC] and notes 

that the National Academy for Public Administration has identified 

it as a best management practice in the Department of Energy. To 

accelerate and strengthen its development, the Committee directs 

that the six Regional Offices be consolidated into the PMC locations at the Golden Field Office and the National Energy Technology Laboratory. To allow for an orderly implementation, contract close-out and personnel relocations, the Committee provides 

that this consolidation be fully implemented by June 1, 2006. The 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy originally estab-
123

lished 10 regional offices in 1973 in response to the Arab Oil Embargo. The original function of the offices was to coordinate gasoline and petroleum allocations to distributors and resellers and to 

promote energy conservation. They were located in what used to be 

standard Federal Regions. In addition to the current regional offices in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Denver, Philadelphia, and Seattle, offices were located in San Francisco/Oakland, Kansas City, 

New York City, and Dallas. In 1996, as part of Secretary O’Leary’s 

Strategic Realignment Initiative, regional offices in San Francisco, 

Dallas, Kansas City and New York City were closed and the programmatic responsibilities of those offices were distributed among 

the remaining regions. In order to support weatherization assistance, the Committee recommends the Department close the remaining offices and develop a more cost effective outreach plan 

that minimizes the impact on employees. The Committee has reserved 20 percent for necessary close-out cost and severance payments. The Committee recognizes this is a Presidential priority and 

is confident the distribution of the formula based grants will not 

be negatively impacted. The Committee will apply $15,000,000 toward weatherization grants. 

Congressionally Directed Projects.—The Committee recommendation includes the following congressionally directed projects. The 

Committee has provided sufficient funding to cover the cost of 

these additions so as not to impact essential research. 

—$1,000,000 for Missouri biodiesel demonstration project (Biomass); 

—$2,000,000 for Alternative Uses for Asphalt Shingle Waste, UT 

(Biomass); 

—$1,200,000 for Auburn Alternative Fuel Source Study of Cement Kilns, AL (Biomass); 

—$1,000,000 for Canola-based Automotive Oil Research and Development, PA (Biomass); 

—$1,000,000 for Center for Advanced Bio-based Binders, IA (Biomass); 

—$1,000,000 for Biomass Power for Rural Development, IA (Biomass); 

—$500,000 for the Development of Applied membrane Technology for Processing Ethanol from Biomass, DE (Biomass); 

—$500,000 for the National Ag-Based Industrial Lubricants Center at the University of Northern Iowa (Biomass); 

—$1,000,000 for the University of North Dakota Center for Biomass Utilization (Biomass); 

—$1,000,000 for the Michigan Biotechnology Institute (Biomass); 

—$500,000 for the Washington State Ferries Biodiesel Demonstration Project (Biomass); 

—$500,000 for the Oxydiesel demonstration project in California 

and Nevada (Biomass); 

—$500,000 for the Louisiana State University Biorefinery for 

Ethanol, Chemicals, Animal Feed and Biomaterials (Biomass); 

—$500,000 for the Vermont Biomass Energy Resource Center 

(Biomass); 

—$500,000 for a demonstration project on alternative sources of 

energy at St. Joseph College in West Hartford, CT (Biomass); 
124

—$4,000,000 for the UNLV Research Foundation for development of biofuels utilizing ionic transfer membranes (Biomass); —$500,000 for the Lake County Full Circle Project, CA (Geothermal); 

—$3,000,000 for the Montana Palladium Research Center (Hydrogen); —$1,100,000 for the Ohio Distributed Hydrogen Project (Hydrogen); —$3,000,000 for the hydrogen fuel cell project for the Regional 

Transportation Commission of Washoe County, NV (Hydrogen); —$500,000 for the production of Hydrogen at the Nanotechnology 

Center of Excellence University of Arkansas, Little Rock (Hydrogen); —$4,000,000 for the UNLV Research Foundation for the renewable hydrogen refueling station system, including development 

of high pressure electrolysis using photovoltaics (Hydrogen); —$3,000,000 for the UNLV Research Foundation for development of photoelectric chemical production of hydrogen (Hydrogen); —$500,000 for the Michigan Technological University Fuel Cell 

Research, MI (Hydrogen); —$500,000 for the University of Southern Mississippi’s School of 

Polymers and High Performance Materials’ Improved Materials for Fuel Cell Membranes program (Hydrogen); —$5,000,000 for the photoelectrochemical generation of hydrogen 

by solid nanoporous titanium dioxide project at the University 

of Nevada-Reno (Hydrogen); —$1,000,000 for the California Hydrogen Infrastructure Project 

(Hydrogen); —$500,000 for the Southern Nevada Alternative Fuels Demonstration Project (Hydrogen); —$400,000 for the University of Louisville Sustainable Buildings 

Project, KY (Building Technologies); 

—$4,000,000 for the Hackensack University Medical Center 

Green Building, NJ (Building Technologies); 

—$500,000 Portland Center Stage Armory Theater Energy Conservation Project, OR (Building Technologies); 

—$1,000,000 for the Brigham City, UT Wind Energy Project 

(Wind); 

—$1,500,000 for Alaska Wind Energy (Wind); 

—$500,000 for Renewable Energy for Rural Economic Development [RERED] Program, UT (Wind); 

—$500,000 for Synchronous Wind Turbines, ID (Wind); 

—$2,000,000 for Texas Tech Great Plains Wind Power Test Facility (Wind); 

—$500,000 for the North Dakota Hydrogen Wind Pilot Project, 

ND (Wind); 

—$500,000 for the Fox Ridge Renewable Energy Education Center, SD (Wind); 

—$250,000 for the PowerJet Wind Turbine project, NV (Wind); 

—$300,000 for Portland State University’s Solar Photovoltaic 

Test Facility System, OR (Solar); 

—$1,000,000 for Next Generation Hydraulic Actuator Technology 

for Solar Power, OH (Solar); 
125

—$3,000,000 for the UNLV Research Foundation for photonics 

research, including evaluation of advanced fiber optics for hybrid solar lighting (Solar); 

—$2,000,000 for Waste Heat Recovery Program, IN (Vehicle 

Technologies); 

—$500,000 for the Gerlach Green Energy Project, NV (Energy 

Conservation); 

—$500,000 for the Minnesota Center for Renewable Energy, MN 

(Energy Conservation); 

—$500,000 for the Wireless Sensor Network for Advanced Energy Management, WI (Energy Conservation); and 

—$2,000,000 for ITM/Syngas Project (PA). 

OFFICE OF ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $120,185,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 95,604,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 99,849,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 178,083,000

Electric Transmission and Distribution 

Consistent with the direction from Congress in fiscal year 2005, 

this office has merged the old Offices of Transmission and Distribution and Energy Assurance to create this entity. The office has responsibility for modernizing our national electric grid to increase 

reliability and security and respond to widespread interruption or 

failure in our energy infrastructure. Without enforcement authority, this office will find numerous challenges in trying to lead a national reform effort. However, this office must support investment 

in research and development initiatives such as high temperature 

superconductivity and next generation wire, in areas where utilities or State regulatory authorities are unlikely to support such investment. These technological developments have the potential to 

drastically increase line capacity and serve areas that are currently 

transmission constrained as a result of either an unwillingness or 

inability to increase transmission capacity. This office should also 

take the lead in working to integrate alternative technologies such 

as distributed generation and renewable energy sources into the 

grid for the Department of Energy. This office also has the responsibility for understanding and correcting vulnerabilities in our energy transmission infrastructure. Drawing on the technical expertise of our national laboratories through testing on Supervisory 

Control and Data Acquisition [SCADA] systems this office should 

identify and support the deployment of a technology based architecture that will reduce the vulnerability of our energy infrastructure 

at both a cyber and physical level. 

The Committee provides $178,083,000 for the Office of Electricity 

Delivery and Energy Reliability, an increase of $82,479,000 over 

the budget request. 

Research and Development.—The Committee provides 

$128,386,000, an increase of $56,629,000 above the budget request. 

This increase is a result of transferring the Distributed Generation 

program to the Office of Electricity Reliability and Energy Assurance. 
126

The Committee recommends $50,500,000 for continued development of high temperature superconductivity [HTS], which promises 

to revolutionize electrical generation, transmission and distribution, conditioning and, ultimately, consumption. This is an increase 

of $5,500,000. 

The Committee recommends eliminating funding for Gridwise 

and Gridworks and has shifted this funding to the R&D budget to 

support superconductivity research and transmission reliability. 

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 to conduct research and 

development at the National Energy Technology Laboratory associated with electricity transmission, distribution and energy assurance activities. Additionally, $2,500,000 shall be for the continued 

development of an energy information training facility at Camp 

Dawson, and related activities. The Committee recommendation 

also includes $1,000,000 for the integrated control of next generation power systems project at West Virginia University. The Committee provides $10,000,000 to support critical research at SCADA 

test facilities. The funds are to be equally divided between the 

Sandia and Idaho National Labs. 

The Distributed Energy and Electricity Reliability Program.— This program was previously funded in the Energy Conservation 

account in the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 

and is now funded within the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability [OE] account within this Act. The activities within 

this account complement the mission of OE and are consistent with 

the research and development initiatives related to advanced composite conductors and high temperature superconductive cable and 

wire. If the distributed generation platform is to be successfully deployed it must be integrated into the electricity transmission and 

distribution network, which is a primary responsibility for the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. This program 

has been merged with the Electricity distribution transformation 

R&D program and the Committee recommends $64,666,000 to support these activities. Both programs are funded at the requested 

level. The Committee urges the Secretary to reorganize these activities as appropriate in the fiscal year 2007 budget request. 

The Committee is aware that program managers with the Distributed Energy Program have failed to adequately support the 

telecommunications sector that has high electric power requirements and represents a critical element in our first response needs 

during emergencies. The Committee directs the Department to provide $3,000,000 for deployment testing and analysis of advanced 

energy storage systems for telecommunication applications in Kansas. 

Program Direction.—The Committee recommends $15,477,000, 

an additional $4,000,000 for Program Direction to support the transition of staff to this new office and to properly align staff and mission responsibilities. 

Congressionally Directed Projects.—The Committee recommendation includes the following congressional directed projects. The 

Committee has provided sufficient funding to cover the cost of 

these additions so as not to impact essential research. 

—$5,000,000 for Hawaii/New Mexico Sustainable Energy Security Partnership [OE]; 
127

—$2,000,000 for the Navajo Electrification Project, NM [OE]; 

—$2,350,000 for Load Control System Reliability, MT [OE]; 

—$10,000,000 for SCADA test beds in New Mexico and Idaho 

[OE]; —$2,500,000 for advancing AC- and DC-power communications, 

OH [OE]; —$2,000,000 for Grid Computing in KY and its Impact of Research and Education Project [OE]; —$1,500,000 to University of Missouri-Rolla for electric grid 

modernization [OE]; and —$1,000,000 for the Integrated Distribution Management System in Alabama [OE]. 

NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $385,568,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 389,906,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 377,701,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 449,906,000

The Committee recommendation provides $449,906,000 for nu- clear energy, an increase of $60,000,000 above the request. 

University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support.—The Committee 

recommends $24,000,000 for university reactor fuel assistance and 

support. The Committee recommends $4,500,000 from within available funds for the Institute of Nuclear Science and Engineering at 

the Idaho National Laboratory. 

University nuclear engineering programs and university research 

reactors represent a fundamental and key capability in supporting 

our national policy goals in health physics, materials science and 

energy technology. The Committee strongly supports the University 

Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support program’s efforts to provide 

fellowships, scholarships, and grants to students enrolled in nuclear energy, science and engineering programs and related areas 

like health physics at U.S. universities, as well as efforts to provide 

fuel assistance and reactor upgrade funding for university-owned 

research reactors. 

The Committee remains concerned about the ability of the Nation to respond to the growing demand for trained experts in nuclear science and technology in the face of financial and other challenges affecting engineering programs and research reactor facilities at American universities. 

The Committee strongly endorses the administration’s commitment to cooperate with the People’s Republic of China in its expansion of nuclear power. The Committee believes that the deployment 

of advanced U.S. reactor technology is critical to meet the growing 

energy demands in China and to contribute to improved air quality. 

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommendation for nuclear energy research and 

development includes a total of $251,000,000, an increase of 

$60,000,000 over the budget request. 

Nuclear Energy Research Initiative.—The Committee strongly 

supports the NERI program. Consistent with the goals of the November 1997 President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and 
128

Technology [PCAST] that addresses energy research, the Committee directs the Department to maintain the existing, standalone NERI program that provides funding to peer-reviewed 

projects proposed by national laboratories, universities and industry on issues facing the nuclear energy industry. As provided in the 

PCAST report, research topics should include research into developing a proliferation resistant fuel cycle, improvements to reactor 

designs of new and existing designs, increased efficiency, as well as 

better knowledge of materials and fuel characteristics to support 

the Next Generation Nuclear Plant and Generation IV programs. 

The Committee is aware that the budget proposes to merge the 

NERI funding into the various research and development programs. The Committee concurs with the request and provides 

NERI funding in the following manner: $4,000,000 within the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative; $4,000,000 within the Generation IV 

program; and $2,000,000 for Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative. 

Nuclear Power 2010.—The recommendation includes $76,000,000 

for nuclear power 2010. The Department is directed to focus the resources on the demonstration of the regulatory licensing processes 

of 10 CFR Part 52 for early site permits, design certifications, and 

combined construction and operating licenses. This is to be costshared with industrial and governmental entities. 

The Committee recommendation supports demonstration of key 

regulatory approval processes in order to encourage the deployment 

of new, advanced nuclear plants in the United States by the 2010 

timeframe. The strong industry response to the Department’s request for proposals for a Combined Operating License is a turning 

point in the future of nuclear energy in the country and presents 

the Department with a unique opportunity to facilitate the deployment of one or more new nuclear plants in a generation. Support 

for such a program is critical in order to diversify our electric generation fuel supply with the added benefit of not producing any 

greenhouse gas emissions. 

Generation IV.—The recommendation includes $60,000,000 for 

the Generation IV nuclear energy systems initiative, an increase of 

$15,000,000 over the request. The Committee directs $40,000,000 

to be used for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant [NGNP] program. 

Prior to the submission of this budget the Office of Nuclear Energy 

had worked expeditiously on a process to select a reactor design 

from a competitive solicitation in order to deploy and test the design at the Idaho National Laboratory where it will serve as a test 

bed for electric and hydrogen cogeneration. The Department had 

received a strong response to the expression of interest and was 

preparing a request for proposal. Unfortunately, the current budget 

recommendation fails to adequately support the Next Generation 

Nuclear Plant. The Committee is concerned that the administration’s strategy of collaborative international research lacks sufficient focus and doesn’t support a specific schedule to facilitate the 

construction of a next generation reactor at the Idaho National 

Lab. The Generation IV budget should be used as an initiative to 

build and demonstrate new technologies and rebuild U.S. nuclear 

capabilities as opposed to the current proposal of indefinite research. 
129

This funding shall be used to support a design competition conducted by DOE as well as fund R&D efforts linked to the NGNP 

program. The Committee urges the Department to complete the 

competition by the end of fiscal year 2006. The Committee expects 

the Department to submit a budget for fiscal year 2007 that will 

fund a pre-engineering design that is consistent with the goal of 

testing hydrogen production or electricity generation by 2017 at 

Idaho National Laboratory. The Committee encourages the Department to give priority consideration to fast spectrum technologies. 

Coupled with efforts of the Advanced Fuel Cycle initiative, research 

in this program must keep nonproliferation as a primary objective 

to reduce the amount of plutonium and other high level wastes 

that are a by-product of current technology. The Committee also 

recognizes that new advances in materials and fuels must be developed before these technologies can be deployed. In addition, the Department shall develop a R&D road map by which the Department 

identifies the current technical challenges, proposes a research and 

development plan to resolve existing fast spectrum challenges within the Generation IV program, and downselects to no more than 

two technologies by the end of fiscal year 2007. The Department 

shall provide a copy of the Generation IV R&D roadmap to the 

Committee by the end of fiscal year 2006. 

The Committee remains interested in the potential use and application of small modular reactors that would be inherently safe, 

be relatively cost effective, contain intrinsic design features which 

would deter sabotage or diversion, require infrequent refuelings, 

and be primarily factory constructed and deliverable to remote 

sites. The Committee is particularly interested in design of a small 

modular fast reactor that can serve as both a test bed for small 

commercial reactors and to test fast spectrum technologies. Within 

available funds, $5,000,000 is provided for the development of high 

temperature fuel fabrication capabilities in Virginia, in support of 

the Generation IV program, under the direction of the Idaho National Laboratory. 

Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $30,000,000, an increase of $10,000,000. 

The Committee provides an additional $7,000,000 above the 

budget request for the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative to accelerate essential materials research and development and component design, 

test and evaluation for implementing the high temperature sulfuriodine water spitting process for hydrogen production necessary to 

the advanced reactor hydrogen co-generation project at Idaho National Laboratory. In addition, the Department is directed to establish a 5-year Cooperative Agreement with the UNLV Research 

Foundation for advanced Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative materials research and development. 

Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $85,000,000, an increase of $15,000,000 over the budget 

request. The initiative should continue to focus on development of 

fuel cycle technologies that minimize the toxicity of final waste 

products resulting from spent fuel while recovering energy remaining in spent fuel; minimize proliferation concerns and environmental impacts of the fuel cycle and minimize the number of reprocessing steps so as to minimize system costs. The initiative shall 
130

assist the Secretary with development of alternative technology options. 

Based on the success learned at the Savannah River Technology 

Center of the Uranium Extraction Technology, known as UREX in 

2002, the Committee expects the Department to expand its efforts 

to advance research of aqueous spent fuel treatment and to begin 

the engineering scale demonstrations. The Committee recommends 

an additional $10,000,000 to accelerate the design activities associated with a proposed Engineering Scale Demonstration [ESD]. The 

ESD will provide the United States with the capability to conduct 

research and development into advanced spent fuel separations and 

transmutation from laboratory scale through engineering scale 

prior to commercial deployment. The budget request provided funds 

for pre-conceptual design activities only. This funding will allow 

completion of the conceptual design in fiscal year 2006 and enable 

preengineering design to commence in fiscal year 2007. In addition 

to studying light water reactors, the Committee expects the Department to evaluate fast reactors that are capable of destroying 

larger amounts of long-lived radioactive material. 

To provide confidence in the technology options proposed, the 

project will use Department of Energy national laboratory and university expertise to perform research and development of advanced 

technologies for spent fuel treatment and transmutation of plutonium, higher actinides and long-lived fission products. Advanced 

nuclear material recycle and safeguard technologies, proliferationresistant nuclear fuels, and transmutation systems shall be investigated. Both reactor-based and a combination of reactor and accelerator-based transmutation approaches may be included as part of 

the research and systems analysis. 

The project shall use international and university collaborations 

to provide cost effective use of research funding. The Committee 

has provided an additional $6,000,000 to the Advanced Fuel Cycle 

Initiative for the UNLV Research Foundation and directs the Department to enter into a 5-year cooperative agreement to study 

deep burn-up of nuclear fuel and other fuel cycle research to eliminate the need for multiple spent nuclear fuel repositories, to eliminate weapons useable material from disposed spent fuel, and to 

maintain forever potential radiological releases from a repository 

below currently legislated limits. 

The Committee is aware of the excellent recent progress in the 

jointly funded U.S./Russian program to develop the GT–MHR. The 

recent completion of the particle fuel fabrication and testing facilities in Russia along with continued progress in the area of the 

power conversion system indicates the continued support of the 

Russians for the development of this option. The Committee also 

notes that the GT–MHR is a leading Gen IV reactor type. Within 

the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, $3,000,000 is provided for the 

Idaho Accelerator Center and the Department is directed to enter 

into a 5-year cooperative agreement with IAC. The Department is 

provided $7,000,000 to develop a Nuclear Energy Materials Test 

Station at Los Alamos Neutron Science Center to advance the technology needed to support the materials and fuel experiments required by the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative and for the exploration of Generation IV fast neutron spectrum systems. Since the 
131

closure of the Fast Flux Test Facility, resulting in no domestic fast 

neutron source for conducting actinide transmutation, the Materials Test Station will advance the development of improved fuel 

cycles that can reduce the quantity, heat generation and toxicity of 

spent nuclear fuel. The Committee recommendation includes 

$1,000,000 for the Center for Materials Reliability and $750,000 for 

nuclear transportation hazard research at the University of Nevada-Reno. 

The Committee is aware of the fact that the Department is responsible for the maintenance of 62 metric tons of sodium bonded 

spent nuclear fuel located in Idaho. Of these amounts, the Office 

of Environmental Management manages 34 tons (55 percent of the 

total) from the Detroit Edison Fermi plant which is stored at the 

Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center. The remaining 

28 tons (45 percent) is from the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II 

and is managed by the Office of Nuclear Energy, AFCI program. 

The AFCI program spends $18,000,000 annually to maintain this 

stockpile, funding that could be more effectively used to explore 

critical materials and fuels research and development. The EBR–

II reactor fuel adds little to the AFCI program, which is focused on 

Generation IV fuel types such as nitride fuels, and not solid metal 

fuels such as the EBR–II fuels. The AFCI program only needs 3 

percent of the inventory for future pyroprocessing experiments. The 

Committee directs the Department to undertake a study to evaluate and propose a disposal solution for the entire 62 tons of sodium 

bonded spent fuel and to consider what minimal amount of fuel is 

needed for future experiments under the AFCI. The Department 

shall provide a report recommending the preferred disposal pathway to the Committee no later than March 1, 2006. 

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

Radiological Facilities Management.—The Committee recommends $64,800,000. The purpose of this program is to maintain 

the critical user facilities in a safe, environmentally compliant and 

cost-effective manner to support national priorities in serving our 

space missions or medical fields. Facilities located at Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory, Los Alamos, Sandia, Brookhaven and Idaho 

National Labs all support this mission. The Committee supports 

the ongoing efforts at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The Committee recommends the investment of $1,300,000 in new equipment 

for Los Alamos National Lab and $12,700,000 provided to operate 

the bench-scale scrap recovery line and to address the long-term 

storage and disposal of waste residues. 

Idaho National Lab.—This program funds the site-wide landlord 

infrastructure activities for the Idaho National Laboratory. These 

activities are required to support the laboratory’s technical efforts 

such as research on the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, Generation 

IV nuclear energy systems, the Space and Defense Power Systems 

program, and the Navy’s nuclear propulsion research and development program. The Committee recommendation for these infrastructure activities is $111,362,000. Of this total budget request 

$80,100,000 is funded in the Energy Supply appropriation, which 

includes $10,955,000 for construction activities. The Committee 

provides $17,762,000 in the Other Defense Activities appropriation 
132

and $13,500,000 to be transferred from Naval Reactors program to 

support the ATR Gas Loop. 

PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommendation includes $30,006,000 for program direction, the amount of the request. The Committee has also 

provided $31,103,000 from Other Defense Activities. 

LEGACY MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommendation includes $33,522,000 as provided in the budget request. Funding is provided to support the 

long-term surveillance and maintenance of non-defense sites where 

remediation has been substantially completed, to oversee post-retirement benefits for former DOE contractor employees, and for 

records management and retrieval. 

ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY, AND HEALTH

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $27,778,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 30,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 26,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 30,000,000

The Committee recommendation includes $30,000,000 for non-defense environment, safety, and health, which includes $20,900,000 

for Program Direction. 

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

(DEFERRAL)

The Committee recommends the deferral of $257,000,000 in clean 

coal technology funding until fiscal year 2007. These balances are 

not needed to complete active projects in this program. 

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $571,854,000

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... 491,456,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 502,467,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 641,646,000

The mission of the Fossil Energy R&D Program is to create public benefits by enhancing U.S. economic, environmental, and energy 

security. The program carries out three types of activities: (1) managing and performing energy-related research that reduces market 

barriers to the reliable, efficient, and environmentally sound use of 

fossil fuels for power generation and conversion to other fuels such 

as hydrogen; (2) partnering with industry and others to advance 

clean and efficient fossil energy technologies toward commercialization in United States and international markets; and (3) supporting 

the development of information and policy options that benefit the 

public by ensuring access to adequate supplies of affordable and 

clean energy. 

Clean Coal Power Initiative.—By 2010, demonstration of advanced coal-based power generation technologies will be initiated 

that will lead to long-range economic and environmental public 

benefits. The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for the Clean 

Coal Power Initiative, an increase of $50,000,000. 
133

FutureGen.—The FutureGen research prototype facility within 

the Clean Coal Power Initiative subprogram will demonstrate the 

technical feasibility and economic viability of the zero emission (including carbon) coal concepts. The Committee recommends 

$18,000,000 for FutureGen as requested. 

Fuels and Power Systems.—The Committee recommends a total 

of $306,550,000 for fuels and power systems, an increase of 

$23,550,000. The recommendation includes $99,850,000 for central 

systems (innovations for existing plants, advanced integrated gasification combined cycle, and advanced turbines). The Committee 

recommends $74,200,000 for carbon sequestration, including 

$10,000,000 for the Center for Zero Emissions Research and Technology, and $5,000,000 above the request for the Energy and Environmental Research Center. The Committee recommendation includes $29,000,000 for fuels, $69,000,000 for fuel cells, (including 

$7,500,000 for High Temperature Electrochemistry), and 

$34,500,000 for Advanced Research. Within funds made available 

for Advanced Fuels Research, $700,000 is provided for development 

of continuous solvent extraction processes for coal derived carbon 

products; and $500,000 is provided within the amount for fuels to 

West Virginia University to study the long-term environmental and 

economic impacts of the development of coal liquefaction in China. 

U.S./China Energy and Environmental Center.—The Committee 

recommends the Department continues support for the U.S./China 

Energy and Environmental Center. The Center provides essential 

services to assist U.S. industries entering the complex and expanding Chinese energy market. 

Natural Gas Technologies.—The Committee recommendation includes $27,000,000, an increase of $17,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee recommends $2,000,000 to support the efforts of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. 

Petroleum—Oil Technologies.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $32,000,000, an increase of $22,000,000 above the budget 

request. 

Program Direction.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$106,941,000, an increase of $8,000,000 above the budget request 

for the National Energy Technology Laboratory. 

Plant and Capital Equipment.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $23,000,000 for plant and capital equipment, an increase 

of $23,000,000 above the budget request. Within these funds, 

$20,000,000 is for the infrastructure improvement program at the 

National Energy Technology Laboratory and $3,000,000 is for general plant projects. 

Fossil Energy Environmental Restoration.—The Committee recommendation includes $9,600,000, an increase of $1,600,000 above 

the budget request. 

Congressionally Directed Projects.—The Committee recommendation includes the following congressionally directed projects, within 

available funds. 

—$2,500,000 for the Coal to Liquids program—Phase II, MT 

(Coal); 

—$2,000,000 for the Utah Center for Ultra-Clean Coal Utilization (Coal); 

—$500,000 for the Coal-Waste Slurry Reburn Project, PA (Coal); 
134

—$1,500,000 for the Multi-Disciplinary Coal-bed Natural Gas Research Center at the University of Wyoming (Coal); 

—$3,000,000 for the National Center for Hydrogen Technology, 

ND (Fuels and Power); 

—$5,000,000 for the High Temperature Electrochemistry Center 

in Montana (Fuels and Power); 

—$5,000,000 for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells, PA (Fuels and Power); 

—$1,500,000 for Fuel Processors for megawatt-scale solid oxide 

fuel cell systems for stationary power generation, OH (Fuels 

and Power); 

—$2,000,000 for National Biofuel Energy Laboratory, MI (Fuels 

and Power); 

—$1,000,000 for the Oil Heat Research Project (Oil and Gas); 

—$7,000,000 for Arctic Energy Office, AK (Oil and Gas); 

—$400,000 Risk Base Data Management System, AK (Oil and 

Gas); 

—$1,750,000 for the Utah Center for Heavy Oil Research (Oil 

and Gas); and 

—$1,000,000 for hydrates research at the University of Mississippi (Oil and Gas). 

NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $17,750,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 18,500,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 18,500,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 21,500,000

The Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves no longer serve the 

national defense purpose envisioned in the early 1900’s, and consequently the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

1996 (Public Law 104–106) required the sale of the Government’s 

interest in the Naval Petroleum Reserve 1 [NPR–1]. To comply 

with this requirement, the Elk Hills field in California was sold to 

Occidental Petroleum Corporation in 1998. Following the sale of 

Elk Hills and the transfer of the oil shale reserves, DOE retains 

two Naval Petroleum Reserve properties: the Naval Petroleum Reserve 3 in Wyoming (Teapot Dome field), a stripper well oil field 

that the Department is maintaining until it reaches its economic 

production limit; and the Buena Vista Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve 2 in California, a checkerboard pattern of Government and 

privately owned tracts adjacent to the Elk Hills field. The DOE 

continues to be responsible for routine operations and maintenance 

of NPR–3, management of the Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing 

Center at NPR–3, lease management at NPR–2, and continuing environmental and remediation work at Elk Hills. 

The Committee recommends $21,500,000, an increase of 

$3,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee has provided 

the additional funding to support the activities under the NPR/Colorado, Utah Wyoming program. 
135

ELK HILLS SCHOOL LANDS FUND

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. 1 $36,000,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 48,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 48,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 48,000,000

1The fiscal year 2005 enacted level reflects an advanced appropriation available on October 

1, 2005.

Payment to the Elk Hills school lands fund was part of the settlement associated with the sale of the Naval Petroleum Reserve 

Number 1. Under the settlement, payments to the fund are to be 

made over a period of 7 years. The payments to date ($216,000,000) 

were based on an estimate of the amount that would be required 

to pay the State of California nine percent of the net sales of proceeds. 

The Committee recommends $48,000,000, the same as the budget 

request, and combined with the fiscal year 2005 advance appropriation of $36,000,000, will make available a total of $84,000,000 in 

fiscal year 2006. While this represents Payment #7 in a series of 

seven payments, the Committee understands that the final amount 

due will be based on the resolution of equity determinations, which 

cannot be determined until all divestment-related expenses are accounted for. 

STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $169,710,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 166,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 166,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 166,000,000

The mission of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve [SPR] is to store 

petroleum to reduce the adverse economic impact of a major petroleum supply interruption to the United States and to carry out obligations under the international energy program. The reserve will 

be filled to 700 million barrels in 2005, providing 59 days of net 

import protection. 

The Committee recommends $166,000,000, the same as the budget request, for operation of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a decrease of $3,710,000 from the fiscal year 2005 level. 

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $4,960,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... ........................... 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ...........................

The acquisition and storage of heating oil for the Northeast 

States began in August 2000 when the Department of Energy, 

through the Strategic Petroleum Reserve account, awarded contracts for the lease of commercial storage facilities and acquisition 

of heating oil. The purpose of the reserve is to assure home heating 

oil supplies for the Northeast States during times of very low inventories and significant threats to immediate supply of heating 

oil. The Northeast Heating Oil Reserve was established as a separate entity from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve on March 6, 2001. 

The 2 million barrel reserve is stored in commercial facilities in 
136

New York Harbor, New Haven, Connecticut, and the Providence, 

Rhode Island area. 

The Committee recommends no new appropriation, the same as 

the budget request, for the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve, 

a decrease of $4,960,000 from the fiscal 2005 level. All activities in 

fiscal year 2006 are funded from carryover balances. 

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, 2005 ............................................................................... $83,819,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 85,926,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 86,426,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 85,926,000

The Committee recommends $85,926,000, the same as the budget 

request. 

The Energy Information Administration is a leader in providing 

high-quality, policy-neutral energy information to meet the requirements of Congress, the Federal Government, industry, energy markets and the public in a manner that promotes sound policymaking 

and efficient markets. As the energy industry becomes more complex and interdependent, it has been EIA’s responsibility to update 

its energy data to keep pace with changing energy industry and 

markets. It is critical that EIA continue to adapt to rapid changes 

and provide data that is relevant and helpful to industry, policymakers, the media and Federal enforcement officials.

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

The Non-Defense Environmental Management program includes 

funds to manage and clean up sites used for civilian energy research, and non-defense related activities. These past activities resulted in radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste contamination 

that requires remediation, stabilization, or some other type of action. 

The Non-Defense Environmental Management activities were 

previously funded in three separate accounts, two of which are now 

combined: Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion, and Non-Defense Environmental Services are now one account, Non-Defense 

Environmental Cleanup. The Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund for environmental management 

responsibilities at the three gaseous diffusion enrichment plants 

(Oak Ridge, Portsmouth, and Paducah) and for reimbursement of 

licensees conducting cleanup of uranium and thorium processing 

sites remains the same. 

The Committee remains committed to the strategy of accelerating cleanup and closing sites. However, the categorization of 

funding activities by planning goals has diminished in utility over 

time—dates slip, and activities that do not fit the ‘‘2012’’ timeframe 

were merely moved into the ‘‘2035’’ timeframe as a matter of 

course. As such, the Committee no longer finds this display of activities useful, and has moved to a location/site-based display, to increase the transparency of where environmental cleanup dollars 

are being spent. The Committee requests that congressional budget 

submissions be submitted in this format in the future. 

Reprogramming Authority.—The Committee continues to support 

the need for flexibility to meet changing funding requirements at 
137

sites. In fiscal year 2006, the Department may transfer up to 

$2,000,000 between control points, to reduce health or safety risks 

or to gain cost savings as long as no program or project is increased 

or decreased by more than $2,000,000 once during the fiscal year. 

The control points for reprogramming are the Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility, West Valley Demonstration Project, Gaseous Diffusion 

Plants, Small Sites, and construction line items. This reprogramming authority may not be used to initiate new programs or programs specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the 

Act or report. The Committees on Appropriations of the House and 

Senate must be notified within 30 days prior to the use of this reprogramming authority. 

Economic Development.—None of the Non-Defense Environmental Management funds, including those provided in the NonDefense Environmental Cleanup, and Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, are available for economic 

development activities. 

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $439,601,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 259,934,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 319,934,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 353,219,000

The Committee recommendation for Non-Defense Environmental 

Cleanup is $353,219,000, an increase of $3,285,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee provides $77,100,000 for solid waste stabilization 

and disposition, and nuclear facility decontamination and decommissioning at the West Valley Demonstration Project, and 

$48,813,000 for decontamination and decommissioning of the gaseous diffusion plants. The Committee provides $46,113,000 for the 

decontamination and decommissioning of the Fast Flux Test Facility [FFTF]. 

The Committee provides $85,803,000 for depleted uranium 

hexafluoride conversion at Portsmouth and Paducah. The Committee provides $28,006,000, for soil and water remediation measures at the former Atlas uranium mill tailings site at Moab, Utah. 

Small Sites.—The Committee provides $34,328,000 for soil and 

water remediation, graphite research reactor and high flux beam 

reactor decontamination and decommissioning at Brookhaven National Laboratory; $10,487,000 for soil and water remediation and 

nuclear facility decontamination and decommissioning at Argonne 

National Laboratory; and $5,274,000 for spent nuclear fuel stabilization and disposition at Idaho National Laboratory. 

The Committee recommendation provides $3,900,000 for soil and 

water remediation at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; 

$3,500,000 for soil and water remediation at the Stanford Linear 

Accelerator Center; $9,000,000 for nuclear facility decontamination 

and decommissioning for the Energy Technology Engineering Center; $490,000 for decontamination and decommissioning of the Tritium System Test Assembly Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory; and $305,000 for soil and water remediation at Inhalation 

Toxicology Laboratory. 
138

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING

FUND

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $415,655,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 571,498,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 571,498,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 561,498,000

The Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund supports projects to maintain, decontaminate, decommission and otherwise remediate the 

gaseous diffusion plants at Portsmouth, Ohio; Paducah, Kentucky; 

and Oak Ridge, Tennessee. In addition, the Uranium/Thorium Licensee Reimbursement program activities are funded within this 

appropriation. 

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning.— The Committee recommendation includes $561,498,000, a decrease 

of $10,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee recommendation includes $281,329,000 for activities at Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee. The Committee recommends $105,000,000 at Paducah, 

Kentucky, an increase of $7,000,000 above the budget request. The 

Department shall use the additional funds to accelerate the characterization and disposition of waste offsite, including the Designated 

Material Storage Areas, low-level wastes, TSCA waste, and mixed 

low level waste. Within the funds provided the Department shall 

undertake a study of the potential purchase of property or options 

to purchase property that is located above the plume of contaminated groundwater near the facility site. The study shall evaluate 

the adequate protection of human health and environment from exposure to contaminated groundwater and consider whether such 

purchase, when taking into account the cost of remediation, longterm surveillance, and maintenance, is in the best interest of taxpayers. 

The Department of Energy Inspector General published a report 

on March 10, 2005, which found that the Department had spent 

$17,000,000 for ‘‘activities that are not specifically related to accelerating the cleanup at Portsmouth’’. The IG found that $14,000,000 

was used to move equipment in order to accommodate USEC’s 

schedule to develop a gas centrifuge facility. The IG also found that 

the Department has expended $3,000,000 to move equipment to a 

temporary storage site to benefit USEC. The IG believes these expenditures and another $16,000,000 in possible future expenditures 

are in violation of the terms of the 2002 Agreement in which the 

Department agreed to clean up the Portsmouth site, leaving USEC 

to build and operate the enrichment facility at its own expense. It 

was the IG’s determination that the Department had gone out of 

its way to support the commercial operations. The Committee also 

recognizes that the fiscal year 2003 House Energy and Water report (H. Rept. 107–681) provided clear direction that the Department was only to provide assistance on a reimbursable basis. As 

such, the Committee recommends a $17,000,000 reduction in funding and directs the Department to recover the funding reduction 

from USEC. The Committee directs the Department to provide a 

full accounting and justification of all future expenditures at Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant to the Department of Energy Inspector General for review to ensure compliance with the 2002 

agreement between the Department and USEC in fiscal year 2006. 
139

The Committee recommends $175,157,000 for cleanup activities at 

Portsmouth, Ohio, a reduction of $17,000,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee does not approve of and has provided no funds 

for direct or indirect costs; and prohibits the Department from 

transferring any uranium assets for trade, sale or barter with 

USEC as proposed in the budget. The Department has failed to 

adequately specify proposed costs associated with these activities 

and the Committee is skeptical that this proposal is in the best interests of Federal Government and U.S. taxpayers. The Committee 

understands that the Government Accountability Office is undertaking a study of the terms and conditions of this arrangement and 

will provide a report to Congress to clarify if this activity is in the 

best interest of taxpayers. Until Congress has an opportunity to review the GAO report, the Congress does not provide any funds to 

support the barter arrangement. The Committee is also skeptical 

of the proposed benefits of the USEC-proposed Project Isaiah to 

down blend highly enriched uranium and undertake a complicated 

scheme of transactions to provide low enriched fuel to the market. 

The Committee provides no funding to the Department to undertake Project Isaiah or support this effort. 

Uranium/Thorium Reimbursement.—The Committee recommendation includes no funding for this activity. 

SCIENCE

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $3,599,871,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 3,462,718,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 3,666,055,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,702,718,000

The Committee recommendation for the Office of Science is 

$3,702,718,000, an increase of $240,000,000 above the request and 

$102,847,000 above the current year level. 

The Science account funds investment in basic research critical 

to the success of the Department’s missions in national security, 

energy security and economic security. Programs funded under this 

account perform a leadership role in advancing the frontiers of 

knowledge in the physical sciences and areas of biological, environmental and computational sciences. The Department provides 40 

percent of the total Federal spending that supports the research of 

15,000 PhDs, post doctorate and graduate students, as well as operating 10 facilities used by over 19,000 researchers each year. 

GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES

Investment in the physical sciences and engineering plays a critical role in enabling U.S. technological innovation and global economic leadership. It is essential to the development and utilization 

of our energy resources, as well as innovations in the areas of defense, the environment, communications and information technologies, health care and much more. Over the past 50 years, half 

of U.S. economic growth has come from prior investment in science 

and technological innovation. Life expectancy has grown from 55 

years in 1900 to nearly 80 years today. 

The United States has been the undisputed world leader in the 

physical sciences for the past six decades, an investment strategy 
140

that has led to huge gains in our national security, economic prosperity and overall quality of life for all U.S. citizens. Federal support for fundamental research in physics, chemistry, materials 

sciences, and other scientific disciplines crucial to U.S. industry has 

been a major contributor to this national success story. 

But the foundations for the future of the physical sciences are 

eroding. The Department of Energy’s Office of Science, which is the 

leading source of Federal investment for R&D facilities and fundamental research in the physical sciences, is at a crossroads. At a 

time when our international competitors are significantly scaling 

up their investments in the physical sciences (the European Union 

will soon double its overall funding for R&D), funding for the Office 

of Science and other U.S. agencies has been flat or even declining. 

This comes at a time when U.S. industry is scaling back its investments in long-term research in the physical sciences in an effort to 

remain competitive in the short term. 

This trend is not uniform or irreversible. Significant investments 

in key areas of science, most of which are supported by DOE’s Office of Science, will keep our Nation at the forefront of future research into the physical sciences. The future health of our national 

system of physical sciences R&D can be restored by focused investments in three areas: major scientific user facilities that support 

the physical sciences; the university scientists who conduct world 

class research and train our next generation of scientific talent; 

and DOE’s national laboratories, which are the Nation’s crucible 

for multidisciplinary work in challenging aspects of the physical 

sciences that cannot be performed elsewhere. 

The Office of Science has done commendable work planning for 

the future of the physical sciences in the United States. A 20-year 

investment plan for the new research facilities that our Nation 

needs is being implemented but existing capabilities cannot be sacrificed to purchase new facilities. The Committee urges that the Office of Science research programs work closely with their university 

counterparts to make joint investments that ensure the vitality of 

physical science academic departments. 

The Government must tap into the enormous capabilities of the 

Office of Science and regain world leadership in the physical 

sciences. DOE user facilities should be operating at their designed 

capacity, providing key discovery opportunities for thousands of 

new researchers every year. University research programs in 

nanoscience, catalysis, mathematics and physics should be expanded to ensure training of the next generation of outstanding scientists needed to solve important national problems. Multidisciplinary research at the national laboratories should be encouraged 

to meet national challenges in defense, energy production and the 

environment. Taken as a whole, these investments will ensure U.S. 

leadership in the physical sciences and the vitality of the U.S. economy. 

The Office of Science operates many of the Nation’s most advanced large-scale user facilities of importance to all areas of 

science. These state-of-the-art facilities are shared with the science 

community world-wide and contain technologies and instrumentation that are available nowhere else. These facilities serve tens of 

thousands of users in laboratories, universities, industry, and other 
141

Federal agencies, and represent large Federal capital investments. 

Over the last several years many of these facilities have operated 

below optimal levels. In order to rectify this situation, the Committee has provided funding to restore operations of the SC user 

facilities to optimal levels by providing an additional $100,000,000 

for facility operations allocated as follows: $20,000,000 in Basic Energy Sciences; $3,000,000 in High Energy Physics; $49,000,000 in 

Nuclear physics; and $28,000,000 in Fusion Energy Sciences. 

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $735,699,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 713,933,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 735,933,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 716,933,000

The Committee recommendation includes $716,933,000 for high energy physics, an increase of $3,000,000, to provide operational 

funding to ensure full utilization of facilities. 

The high energy physics program focuses on gaining insights into 

the fundamental constituents of matter, the fundamental forces in 

nature, and the transformations between matter and energy at the 

most elementary level. The program encompasses both experimental and theoretical particle physics research and related advanced accelerator and detector technology R&D. The primary 

mode of experimental research involves the study of collisions of 

energetic particles using large particle accelerators or colliding 

beam facilities. 

The Committee recognizes the critical importance of the DOE/

NASA Joint Dark Energy Mission [JDEM] in answering fundamental questions about the nature and substance of the universe. 

Consequently, the Committee encourages the Department to move 

JDEM forward aggressively to ensure the timely accomplishment of 

this important work. 

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $404,778,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 370,741,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 408,341,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 419,741,000

The Committee recommends $419,741,000 for nuclear physics, an 

increase of $49,000,000 to ensure full utilization of experimental facilities. 

The nuclear physics program supports and provides experimental 

equipment to qualified scientists and research groups conducting 

experiments at nuclear physics accelerator facilities. These facilities provide new insights and advance our knowledge of the nature 

of matter and energy and develop the scientific knowledge, technologies and trained manpower needed to underpin the Department’s nuclear missions. 

Rare Isotope Accelerator.—The Committee requests the Department to submit a report within 120 days after the enactment of 

this Act, with information critical to moving forward with the site 

selection of the Rare Isotope Accelerator. The report shall include, 

but not be limited to, (1) the status and progress of the conceptual 

research and development supporting the development of RIA over 
142

the past 6 years; (2) the priority research areas the Department 

will complete prior to site selection for RIA; (3) the process by 

which the Department selects recipients for its research and development funding; (4) how the results of current and future research 

and development may affect the design of RIA or the path forward; 

(5) what technical hurdles remain before RIA site selection can resume; and (6) what funding will be required to clear those hurdles 

and what is the expected length of time for completion of these activities. 

Finally, the Committee requests the Department clarify its plans 

to move forward with RIA, provide an estimate of when the draft 

request for proposals will be reissued, and assess whether in a constrained budget environment the Department has any concern that 

RIA, as it is currently envisioned, will not be built. If the Department anticipates that future budgets will not allow for RIA, the 

Committee requests the report provide alternatives and explain 

how the Nation would meet our need for the fundamental physics 

knowledge and training of scientists applicable to national security 

and homeland security that RIA would provide. 

BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $571,922,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 455,688,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 525,688,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 503,688,000

The Committee recommendation includes $503,688,000 for biological and environmental research, an increase of $48,000,000 over 

the budget request. 

The biological and environmental research program develops the 

knowledge base necessary to identify, understand, and anticipate 

the long-term health and environmental consequences of energy 

use and development. The program utilizes the Department’s 

unique scientific and technological capabilities to solve major scientific problems in the environment, medicine, and biology. The 

Committee recommendation includes the budget request for low 

dose radiation research. The Department is in the process or reorganizing the National Institute for Global Environmental Change 

[NIGEC] into the National Institute for Climatic Change Research 

[NICCR]. The Committee directs that a center be created that will 

work in collaboration with the other four regional centers of 

NICCR and will address the need for the development of methodologies and tools for the understanding and modeling of the impacts of global and regional climatic changes on riparian and coastal environmental and ecological systems that are throughout the 

Nation. 

Genomes.—Funding for the Human Genome program is provided 

to understand the genes identified in the Human Genome Project 

and to meet growing demand for sequencing in the broader scientific community. The Genome to Life activity aimed at understanding the composition and function of biochemical networks that 

carry our essential processes of living organisms. Current estimates 

project that the energy needs of the world will double by the year 

2050. Energy supply and demand are expected to exert strong economic pressure on the United States and become one of the most 
143

important factors in the security of the country in this time frame. 

Biology-based solutions that contribute to increasing U.S. energy 

supply and decreasing its dependence on foreign sources of energy 

offer an exceptionally attractive alternative to petroleum-based 

sources. Microbes can act as catalysts to convert biomass to clean 

fuels and feedstock for key chemicals. To develop practical and economical biology-based systems for generation of energy and highvalue chemicals, we must increase our knowledge of key biological 

systems, metabolic pathways, gene regulatory systems, and molecular structures and function. Understanding these key areas will 

provide new insights in microbial systems and permit biology-based 

resources to be harnessed. 

The Committee is supportive of the Department’s effort to move 

ahead with a request for proposal for the first of four GTL facilities. The Committee is concerned that under the current budget 

and timetable, it is unlikely the Office of Science will be able to 

successfully prepare timely procurements for the three remaining 

facilities unless changes are made to the program. The Committee 

recommends the Department apply the same model as was used for 

the competition of the five nanotechnology centers. The Department was able to complete the five regional centers for a total cost 

of $301,000,000. Using the nanotechnology centers as the model, 

the Committee directs the Office of Science to accelerate the deployment of these world class genomic facilities. 

Each of the four proposed facilities already identified by the Office of Science will support research and development to understand and develop solutions related to bioenergy and biobased 

products. However, due to the nature of the research there is a 

need for all four facilities to be deployed in order to meet the separate scientific challenges of molecular characterization, analysis of 

microbial response, and developing a better understanding of biological systems. The Committee has provided $40,000,000 to accelerate the Genomics: GTL program. Within the funds provided 

$20,000,000 shall be used to support research and development to 

support the GTL program and $20,000,000 to conduct preliminary 

engineering and design for the remaining 3 facilities in the 

Genomes To Life program. 

Molecular Medicine.—The Committee continues to support research that brings together PET imaging, systems biology and 

nanotechnology to develop new molecular imaging probes. These 

probes should provide a biological diagnosis of disease that is informative of the molecular basis of disease and specific for guiding 

the development of new molecular therapies. 

The Committee is concerned about the consequences mitigation 

activities and public health impact associated with the threat of 

any radiological event and strongly encourages the Department to 

develop therapeutical radiological countermeasures to protect 

against exposure to the effects of ionizing radiation. The Committee 

is aware of the potential of inositol signaling molecules as a therapy for exposure to ionizing radiation and encourages the Department to support research of this emerging technology. The Committee recommends $7,000,000 for UCLA Institute for Molecular 

Medicine to protect the public health against radiation exposure. 
144

The Committee strongly supports DOE’s efforts to maintain the 

scientific infrastructure of the Nation’s structural biology assets, 

and encourages the Department to work to address the needs within the broader community. 

The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for the purchase of 

equipment at the New York Structural Biology Center. 

Within available funds, the Department shall continue to fund 

the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. 

The Committee recommendation includes an additional 

$3,500,000 to the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory 

[EMSL] for upgrades to instrumentation at this national user facility. 

Congressionally Directed Projects.—The Committee recommendation includes the following Congressionally directed projects, within 

available funds. The Committee reminds recipients that statutory 

cost sharing requirements may attach to these projects. 

—$12,000,000 for the Mind Institute in New Mexico; 

—$1,000,000 for the Mississippi State University Bio-fuel Application Center; 

—$1,500,000 for the University of Louisville Institute for Advanced Materials, KY; 

—$400,000 for Center for River Dynamics and Restoration at 

Utah State University; 

—$3,000,000 for Texas’ Metroplex Comprehensive Imaging Center; 

—$1,000,000 for Ultra Dense Memory Storage for Supercomputing in CO; 

—$2,000,000 for Health Sciences Research and Education Facility, MO; 

—$1,500,000 for the National Center for Regenerative Medicine, 

OH; 

—$1,000,000 for the University of Alabama at Birmingham-Radiation Oncology Functional Imaging Program; 

—$1,762,000 for the University City Science Park, Philadelphia, 

PA; 

—$2,500,000 for Jackson State University Bioengineering Complex, MS; 

—$800,000 for the Science Building Renovation Project, CO; 

—$538,000 for St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, TN; 

—$500,000 for the California Hospital medical Center PET/CT 

Fusion imaging system; 

—$1,000,000 for Mount Sinai Medical Center Imaging and Surgical Equipment, FL; 

—$350,000 for Benedictine University Science Lab. & Research 

Equipment, IL; 

—$350,000 for Swedish American Health Systems, IL; 

—$350,000 for La Rabida Children’s Hospital, Chicago, IL; 

—$500,000 for Edward Hospital, Plainfield, IL; 

—$1,000,000 for Morgan State University Center for Environmental Toxicology, MD; 

—$500,000 for the University of Massachusetts at Boston Multidisciplinary Research Facility and Library; 

—$500,000 for the CIBS Solar Cell Development, NE; 
145

—$1,000,000 for the University Medical Center of Southern Nevada Radiology/Oncology Program Equipment; —$1,000,000 for Mega Cargo Imaging Program at the Nevada 

Test Site; 

—$500,000 for the University of Delaware Medical Research Facility; —$500,000 for the St. Francis Hospital Linear Accelerator, DE; 

—$500,000 for the ViaHealth/Rochester General Hospital Emergency Department, NY; —$1,000,000 for University of Vermont Functional MRI Research; 

—$1,000,000 for the Nevada Cancer Institute; 

—$3,000,000 for the Vermont Institute of Natural Sciences; 

—$500,000 for the Queen’s Medical Center Telemedicine Project, 

HI; 

—$250,000 for the Sarcoma Alliance for Research through Collaboration, MI; 

—$250,000 for Rush Medical Center, IL; 

—$500,000 for the North Shore Long Island Jewish Health System, NY; 

—$250,000 for the Hackensack University Medical Center Ambulatory Adult Cancer Center, NJ; —$250,000 for the College of New Jersey Genomic Analysis Facility; —$500,000 for the Western Michigan University Expanded Energy and Natural Resources Learning Center; —$500,000 for the Arnold Palmer Prostate Center, CA; 

—$500,000 for the Louisiana Immersive Tech Enterprise program at the University of Louisiana-Lafayette; —$500,000 for the Brown University MRI Scanner, RI; 

—$350,000 for the University of Dubuque Environmental Science 

Center, IA; 

—$500,000 for the New School University in New York City, NY; 

—$500,000 for the Oregon Nanoscience and Microbiologies Institute; 

—$350,000 for Mt. Sinai Hospital Cardiac Catheterization Lab, 

MD; 

—$250,000 for the University of Massachusetts Medical School 

NMR Spectrophotometer; 

—$250,000 for the Mojave Bird Study, NV; 

—$250,000 for the Science Center at Maltby Nature Preserve in 

Minnesota; and 

—$2,000,000 for the Existing Business Enhancement Program 

Building, University of Northern IA. 

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $1,104,632,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 1,146,017,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,173,149,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,241,017,000

The Committee recommendation provides $1,241,017,000, an increase of $95,000,000. 

The basic energy sciences [BES] program funds basic research in 

the physical, biological and engineering sciences that support the 
146

Department’s nuclear and non-nuclear technology programs. The 

BES program is responsible for operating large national user research facilities, including synchrotron light and neutron sources, 

and a combustion research facility, as well as smaller user facilities 

such as materials preparation and electron microscopy centers. The 

BES program supports a substantial basic research budget for materials sciences, chemical sciences, energy biosciences, engineering 

and geosciences. 

Within available funds, the Committee recommendation includes 

$7,280,000 for the Department’s Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research. The Committee provides $5,000,000 to 

purchase additional fuel for the High Flux Isotope Reactor. 

Research 

The Committee recommendation includes $1,062,944,000, the 

amount of the request, for materials sciences, engineering research, 

chemical sciences, geosciences, and energy biosciences. The Committee recommendation includes $4,500,000 for Altair Nanotech for 

nanotechnology, nanosensors, and nanomaterials research, development, and deployment. 

Energy-Water Supply Technologies.—The Committee recommendation includes an additional $25,000,000, within the chemical sciences, geosciences, and energy biosciences account, to support a research and demonstration program to study energy-related 

issues associated with water resources and issues associated with 

sustainable water supplies for energy production. Within available 

funds, the Committee recommends $25,000,000 for energy and 

water resources management including $8,000,000 for advanced 

concept desalination and arsenic treatment research in partnership 

with American Water Works Research Foundation and WERC; 

$12,000,000 for water supply technology development in partnership with other national laboratories to initiate demonstration 

projects and technology transfer activities; and $5,000,000 for 

water management decision support including demonstration programs in partnership with the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, transboundary applications and support for international 

energy and water efficiency. 

Construction 

Spallation Neutron Source.—The Committee recommendation includes the budget request of $41,744,000 to continue construction 

at Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the Spallation Neutron 

Source [SNS] to meet the Nation’s neutron scattering needs. 

Nanoscale Science Research Centers.—The Committee recommendation supports the high priority given to nanoscale research and has included the budget request for the nanoscale 

science research centers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory, Brookhaven National Laboratory, and the joint effort between 

Sandia National Laboratories and Los Alamos National Laboratory. 

National Nanotechnology Enterprise Development Center.—The 

Committee directs $30,000,000 for the establishment of the National Nanotechnology Enterprise Development Center [NNEDC], 

to be co-located with the Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies 
147

[CINT], a joint facility of Sandia National Laboratory and Los Alamos National Laboratory. The Committee intends that the NNEDC 

will assist in the technological maturation of nanotechnologies developed at the National Nanoscience Initiative facilities. The mission of the NNEDC will be to identify nanotechnologies developed 

at the national laboratories and partnered universities that are 

promising candidates for commercialization and to assist in their 

transition to the marketplace. The Center will be directed by employees of Sandia National Laboratory and Los Alamos National 

Laboratory and will emphasize opportunities for industry partnership with the CINT. 

ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

The Committee recommendation provides $207,055,000 for advanced scientific computing research. The Advanced Scientific 

Computing Research [ASCR] program supports advanced computational research—applied mathematics, computer science, and networking—to enable the analysis, simulation and prediction of complex physical phenomena. The program also supports the operation 

of large supercomputer user facilities. 

The National Leadership Computing Facility at Oak Ridge National Laboratory will provide the scientific community with the 

computing capability needed to solve problems out of reach of currently available systems and lead to significant advancements in 

areas such as biology, fusion, and climate change. Unfortunately, 

the budget request for this effort would halt the next phase of machine acquisitions and provides inadequate funding to operate the 

system that will be installed during fiscal year 2005. 

The Committee strongly supports the National Leadership Computing Facility and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s leadership 

in this important area. Full operation of the National Leadership 

Computing Facility at ORNL is necessary to keep domestic researchers and industries competitive with their global counterparts. The Committee will work to ensure that sufficient funding 

is provided to meet the next phase of machine acquisitions and encourages the Department to focus its efforts on enhancing and expanding activities at the National Leadership Computing Facility. 

SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee recommends $40,105,000, to support infrastructure activities at the five national labs under the direction of the 

Office of Science. 

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

Fusion Energy.—The Committee provides $290,550,000, the same 

as the budget request. The Committee has provided $28,000,000 in 

additional funding to ensure the full operations on the DIII–D, 

Alcator C-Mod, and NSTX fusion research facilities. The current 

budget reduces operations from 48 weeks to just 17 weeks, which 

the Committee believes is an irresponsible use of the taxpayer investment in these facilities. The Committee has reduced funding 

for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor [ITER] 

by $28,000,000, equal to the amount domestic research has been 
148

increased. The Committee is disappointed that a decision has not 

been made in selecting a site for the location of this international 

burning plasma user facility. Without a final decision on a location 

or allocation, the Committee is skeptical the Department will be 

able to expend the full budget request for this project in fiscal year 

2006. If a site is selected, the Committee will work with the Department to provide an allocation that is consistent with the expected needs for this project. Within available funds, the Committee includes $1,000,000 for non-defense research activities at 

the Atlas Pulse Power facility. 

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The Committee recommendation provides $74,317,000 for safeguards and security, the same level as the request. 

The safeguards and security line identifies the funding necessary 

for the physical protection, protective forces, physical security, protective systems, information security, cyber security, personnel security, materials control and accountability and program management activities for national laboratories and facilities of the Office 

of Science. 

SCIENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommendation provides $7,192,000 for science 

workforce development. 

The science workforce development program provides limited 

funding to train young scientists, engineers, and technicians to 

meet the demand for a well trained scientific and technical workforce, including the teachers that educate the workforce. 

The Committee encourages the Department of Energy to provide 

funds and technical expertise for high school students to participate in the 2005 For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and 

Technology [FIRST] Robotics competition. FIRST has proven to be 

a valuable program to introduce and mentor students in math and 

science. 

SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommendation provides $207,725,000 for 

science program direction. Within available funds, the Committee provides $5,000,000 for 

the Office of Science to conduct project engineering and design in 

support of replacement facilities at the Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory in order to support accelerated cleanup of Hanford site. 

The Committee has provided a total of $18,000,000 for preliminary 

engineering and design in this account and in Defense Nuclear 

Nonproliferation. 

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL FUND

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $343,232,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 300,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 310,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 300,000,000

The Committee provides $300,000,000 from fees collected by the 

Secretary and deposited into the fund established by Public Law 
149

97–425 as amended. In addition to the defense contribution of 

$277,000,000, funding for Yucca Mountain will be provided at the 

fiscal year 2004 level of $577,000,000. 

The Department plans to submit its nuclear waste repository license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission during fiscal year 2006. In view of the authority granted to the State of Nevada and the affected units of local government to participate in licensing activities under this Act, the Congress wants to ensure 

that conflicts of interest are avoided between the Department as license applicant and the affected governments as potential parties 

to the license proceeding. The Department’s practice of reviewing 

and approving annual work plans for affected government oversight programs is inconsistent with its role as a license applicant 

because the affected governments are potential parties to the proceeding. In place of an approval function, the Department shall advise and consult with affected governments for the sole purpose of 

assisting them to comply with the requirements of the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act (Public Law 97–425). The affected governments 

are required, under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act [NWPA], to provide certification to the Department that all funds have been expended for activities authorized by the NWPA and this Appropriations Act. The prior approval of the Department is not required by 

these acts. Such certification and any audits carried out by the Department or others are sufficient to ensure that affected governments are using funds for the purpose intended. Audits shall be 

carried out at regular intervals by auditors from the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, or by independent auditors, 

using uniform criteria and procedures. Funds appropriated under 

this Act may be used for review of repository activities authorized 

in Section 116(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, for review of any 

proposal to develop a Monitored Retrievable Storage facility or an 

Interim Storage facility, and for monitoring lessons learned from 

related facilities for the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel 

and high-level radioactive waste. Such review activities may include potential economic, social, public health and safety, and environmental impacts of the transportation, storage and disposal of 

nuclear wastes. 

The Committee has provided $3,500,000 for the State of Nevada 

and $8,500,000 for the affected units of local government in accordance with the statutory restrictions contained in the Nuclear Waste 

Policy Act. The Committee directs that $500,000 be provided to 

Nye County, Nevada, to conduct on-site activities pursuant to Section 117(d) of that Act. These funds shall be separate and apart 

from oversight funding under Section 116(c) of the Act, and shall 

be made available to Nye County by direct payment subject to the 

same restrictions as apply to oversight payments for affected units 

of local government. Nye County is still permitted to seek funding 

under the Section 116(c) program, but the Committee expects the 

county to seek a lesser percentage of that program’s annual funding. 

The administration has requested that the funds provided to the 

AULG’s be provided for a period of 21 months. The Committee rejects this approach and directs the Department to provide this 

funding in the traditional annual (i.e., 12 month) manner. The 
150

Committee expects to provide fiscal year 2007 funding in the fiscal 

year 2007 Appropriations bill. 

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

(GROSS)

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $238,503,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 279,976,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 252,909,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 280,976,000

(MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES)

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $121,024,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 123,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 123,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 123,000,000

The Committee recommends $280,976,000 for departmental administration, a net appropriation of $157,976,000. 

The Departmental Administration account funds policy development and analysis activities, institutional and public liaison functions, and other program support requirements necessary to ensure 

effective operation and management. The account also covers salaries and expenses for the Office of the Secretary; Board of Contract 

Appeals; Chief Information Officer; Congressional and intergovernmental affairs; Economic impact and diversity; General Counsel; 

Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation; Policy and International Affairs; and Public Affairs. The Committee recommends 

an increase of $1,000,000 for Public Affairs. 

INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $41,176,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 43,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 43,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 43,000,000

The Committee has provided $43,000,000 for the Office of the Inspector General, the same as the budget request. 

The Office of the Inspector General provides agency-wide audit, 

inspection, and investigative functions to identify and correct management and administrative deficiencies which create conditions for 

existing or potential instances of fraud, waste, and mismanagement. 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

Atomic energy defense activities of the Department of Energy are 

provided for in two categories—the National Nuclear Security Administration and Environmental and Other Defense Activities. Appropriation accounts under the National Nuclear Security Administration [NNSA] are Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, and the Office of the Administrator. 

Environmental and Other Defense Activities include appropriation 

accounts for Defense Site Acceleration Completion, Defense Environmental Services, Other Defense Activities, and Defense Nuclear 

Waste Disposal.
151

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

The National Nuclear Security Administration [NNSA], a separately organized and semi-autonomous agency within the Department of Energy, came into existence on March 1, 2000. The missions of the NNSA are: (1) to enhance United States national security through the military application of nuclear energy; (2) to maintain and enhance the safety, reliability, and performance of the 

United States nuclear weapons stockpile, including the ability to 

design, produce, and test, in order to meet national security requirements; (3) to provide the United States Navy with safe, militarily effective nuclear propulsion plants and to ensure the safe 

and reliable operation of those plants; (4) to promote international 

nuclear safety and nonproliferation; (5) to reduce global danger 

from weapons of mass destruction; and (6) to support United States 

leadership in science and technology. The programs and activities 

of the NNSA are funded through the following appropriation accounts: Weapons Activities, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, 

Naval Reactors, and Office of the Administrator. 

The committee is pleased that the administration has submitted 

the revised nuclear weapons stockpile plan as required by the fiscal 

year 2004 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act 

(Public Law 108–137). The plan outlines how the Nation will 

achieve the 1,700–2,200 operationally deployed strategic warheads 

first outlined by the President in 2001 and subsequently codified 

in the Moscow Treaty. Once the reductions are achieved, the U.S. 

active nuclear weapons stockpile will be the smallest since the Eisenhower Administration. It clearly shows that the Administration 

undertook a careful analysis of the size and composition of the nuclear weapons stockpile that will be needed in the years ahead to 

ensure U.S. national security. To mitigate the risks of a smaller 

stockpile requires the United States must make continued progress 

in restoring a modern nuclear weapons infrastructure that can rapidly respond to geopolitical changes that may challenge U.S. national security or address potential problems in the Nation’s nuclear deterrent. 

NNSA Complex Review.—Initiated under former Secretary Abraham, a task force was commissioned to study potential reforms to 

the nuclear weapons complex. This is the ninth such study commissioned since 1988. Previous studies have proposed a multitude of 

wide-ranging proposals, of which many were justifiably ignored. 

The challenge for the latest study panel will be to develop a modest 

package of reforms that identify cost savings and improvement to 

the complex without undermining the safety and security of our 

nuclear deterrent. It is the hope of this Committee that the study 

group will support the ongoing reforms to modernize the stockpile, 

through the Reliable Replacement Warhead program. This initiative, which was first proposed in the fiscal year 2005 Consolidated 

Appropriations Conference Report (H. Rept. 108–447) by the Energy and Water subcommittee, is a means to assure continued certification of the existing stockpile and to make it more affordable 

to manufacture, maintain and secure weapons. Such a plan will 

challenge weapons designers, manufacturing experts, computer scientists and experimentalists at our national labs to modernize the 
152

stockpile and will require sufficient funding in Science and Engineering Campaigns. The RRW program is not a new weapon, and 

this fact should be clear to the study panel members. 

The Committee recognizes the temptation for panel members to 

recommend comprehensive changes to shake up the complex and 

set it on a new direction. However, the Committee disagrees with 

the purported proposal to consolidate all of the nuclear material 

and the entire weapons manufacturing capability, including the 

construction of a Modern Pit Facility, at a single location. There 

are very strong opinions in Congress regarding the siting of a new 

pit facility or changing the military capability of the existing weapons. As such, the Committee believes it is unlikely that Congress 

would support such comprehensive reforms as currently proposed 

by the NNSA Complex study panel. 

It would be premature for this study to recommend significant 

changes to the complex until it is clear to both the Department of 

Defense and the Department of the Energy agree on what the 

stockpile will look like in the future and has the concurrence of the 

Congress before policy makers are likely to support the deployment 

of a brand new weapon into the stockpile, even if the military requirements remain the same. Those who support broad complexwide reforms to the complex must be realistic in their expectations 

in reinventing the complex. Such a task will take time to ensure 

that the necessary improvement adequately supports science based 

stockpile stewardship. 

To protect the interests of the Committee and to ensure that this 

report and it proposed recommendations are carefully considered, 

no funds shall be used to implement any of the panel’s recommendations in fiscal year 2006. This delay will provide Congress 

the opportunity to fully review the impact of the proposed recommendations. Since this report was not contemplated in President’s fiscal year 2006 request, Congress will consider the implementation of any reforms as part the President’s fiscal year 2007 

budget request. 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $6,331,590,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 6,630,133,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 6,181,121,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,554,354,00

The Weapons Activities account provides for the maintenance 

and refurbishment of nuclear weapons in order to sustain confidence in their safety, reliability, and performance; the expansion 

of scientific, engineering, and manufacturing capabilities to enable 

certification of the enduring nuclear weapons stockpile; and the 

manufacture of nuclear weapon components under a comprehensive 

test moratorium. The Weapons Activities account also provides for 

maintaining the capability to return to the design and production 

of new weapons and to underground nuclear testing if so directed 

by the President and Congress. The major elements of the program 

include the following: directed stockpile work, campaigns, readiness 

in technical base and facilities, facilities and infrastructure, secure 

transportation asset, and safeguards and security. 
153

Weapons Activities Reprogramming Authority.—The Committee 

provides limited reprogramming authority within the Weapons Activities account without submission of a reprogramming to be approved in advance by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The reprogramming categories will be as follows: directed 

stockpile work, science campaigns, engineering campaigns, inertial 

confinement fusion, advanced simulation and computing, pit manufacturing and certification, readiness campaigns, and operating expenses for readiness in technical base and facilities. In addition, 

funding of not more than $5,000,000 may be transferred between 

each of these categories and each construction project subject to the 

following limitations: only one transfer may be made to or from any 

program or project; the transfer must be necessary to address a 

risk to health, safety or the environment or to assure the most efficient use of weapons activities funds at a site; and funds may not 

be used for an item for which Congress has specifically denied 

funds or for a new program or project that has not been authorized 

by Congress. Congressional notification within 15 days of the use 

of this reprogramming authority is required. Transfers during the 

fiscal year which would result in increases or decreases in excess 

of $5,000,000 or which would be subject to the limitations outlined 

above require prior notification and approval from the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

The Committee recommendation includes $1,458,786,000 for directed stockpile work. 

Directed Stockpile Work [DSW] includes all activities that directly support weapons in the nuclear stockpile, including maintenance, research, development, engineering, certification and dismantlement and disposal activities. 

The Committee supports a degree of flexibility in executing this 

budget by providing limited reprogramming authority within Directed Stockpile Work [DSW]. The control levels for the DSW program are: 

(1) Life Extension Programs; 

(2) Stockpile Systems; 

(3) Retired Warhead Stockpile Systems; and 

(4) Stockpile Services. 

Life Extension Program.—Within Life Extension Programs, the 

Committee fully funds LEP activities at $348,318,000 including the 

administration’s request for the B61 at $50,810,000 to refurbish 

the canned subassembly and replacement of associated seals, supports, cables and connectors. The Committee provides full funding 

of $162,268,000 for the W76 to provide among other activities funding to support the design of the refurbished warheads to meet the 

military characteristics. The Committee provides for the W80 at 

$135,240,000 in order to accelerate process prove-in activities, 

ground qualification tests for hardware that supports future flight 

tests, hydrodynamic tests, the system thermal mechanical tests 

and the full system engineering tests. 

Stockpile System.—Within Stockpile Systems, the Committee 

fully endorses $311,804,000 for Stockpile Systems including the 

W80 at $26,315,000 in order to conduct vital surveillance lab tests, 
154

Canned Subassembly [CSA] surveillance and significantly decrease 

the current surveillance backlog of work. Other critical activities 

include support of the annual assessment process, providing support for all agency safety studies, accelerating completion of Significant Finding Investigations [SFIs], conducting key integrated experiments per the baseline plan; maintain steady production of the 

1K reservoir, timely production of telemetry units and other Joint 

Test Assembly [JTA] hardware for support of flight tests. Also, 

these improvements and acceleration of activities will support the 

Seamless Safety for the 21st Century [SS–21] initiative. Within the 

Stockpile Systems program the Committee supports the budget request and provides $66,050,000 for the B61; $8,967,000 for the 

W62; $63,538,000 for the W76; $32,632,000 for W78; $26,315,000 

for the W80; $26,391,000 for B83; $4,402,000 for the W84; 

$50,678,000 for the W87; and $32,831,000 for the W88. 

Stockpile Services.—The Committee fully endorses the Presi- dent’s request at $798,664,000 for Stockpile Services with the areas 

of: Production Support; Research and Development Support; Research and Development Certification and Safety; Management, 

Technology, and Production; and, the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. The Stockpile Services Program provides essential funding 

for production activities that supports all of the weapons systems. 

Any reduction to this program would undermine the U.S. infrastructure and the critical R&D and production support, including 

quality control, certification, and training. The Committee recommends $267,246,000 for Production Support in order to facilitate, expedite and improve activities in the 

areas of Engineering Support; Manufacturing Support; Quality Supervision and Control; Tool, Gage and Test Equipment support; 

Purchasing and Material Support; and, Information Systems Support that were previously allocated to weapon types. The Committee recommends $71,753,000 for R&D Support in 

order to continue to conduct timely and essential activities directly 

supporting research, development, design, and maintenance functions where the work is performed by the same functional organization, the work supports two or more weapon types, and the work 

is essentially the same for each weapon-type and association of 

project costs to a weapon type would be arbitrary and are not directly identified or allocated to specific weapon types. The Committee directs the NNSA to fund the Nevada Test Site at 

$40,000,000, $5,000,000 above the request, to maintain the Subcritical Experiment Program, including the Phoenix Explosive Pulse 

Power program. 

The Committee recommends $243,727,000 for R&D Certification 

and Safety in order to promote core competencies and capabilities 

not directly attributable to a single warhead type. Critical activities 

include modeling and assessment; safety, surety, and quality; warhead effects and system analysis studies, and model-based engineering and manufacturing; preparing and performing hydrodynamic tests; providing engineering and infrastructure support; 

multi-system surveillance; material science support and legacy 

archiving. The Committee recommends that an additional 

$21,000,000 be provided for Research and Development Certification and Safety to integrate new technologies into the stockpile 
155

consistent with the RRW program. The Committee provides an additional $10,000,000 to Los Alamos National Laboratory to conduct 

hydrodynamic testing in support of the Stockpile Stewardship program. The Committee recommends $171,587,000 for Management, 

Technology, and Production in order to continue key management 

and workload activities, not associated with a particular weapon 

type, which includes updating the Stockpile Dismantlement Database for the Nuclear Weapons Complex; Gas Transfer System 

[GTS] Redevelopment Reclamation for the First Production Unit 

[FPU]; core surveillance diagnostics; timely close-out of Significant 

Finding Investigations [SFIs]; conducting component engineering 

activities, reservoir forging development and special stockpile studies. The Committee provides $4,000,000 above the request to fund 

independent assessments of the safety of the stockpile and secure 

information exchange within the weapons complex. 

Reliable Replacement Warhead.—In response to a Los Alamos 

National Lab proposal to improve the sustainability of our national 

nuclear deterrent, Congress adopted the Reliable Replacement 

Warhead [RRW] Program in the fiscal year 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 108–447). NNSA is undertaking the 

RRW Program to understand if warhead design constraints imposed on Cold War systems (e.g. high yield to weight ratios that 

have typically driven ‘‘tight’’ performance margins in nuclear design) are relaxed, could replacement components for existing stockpile weapons be more easily manufactured with more readily available and more environmentally benign materials, and whose safety 

and reliability could be assured with high confidence, without nuclear testing. This effort does not call into question the safety or 

reliability of the current stockpile but acknowledges the long-term 

sustainability of the legacy stockpile will be difficult. Implementation of RRW should also result in reduced life-cycle costs for supporting the stockpile. The Committee recognizes that RRW is early 

in its development and will not significantly alter the near-term 

plans for stockpile support such as LEPs, but NNSA is encouraged 

to move aggressively to incorporate benefits from RRW into the 

stockpile as soon as possible. 

The Committee recommends $25,351,000 for RRW to accelerate 

the planning, development and design for a comprehensive RRW 

strategy that improves the reliability, longevity and certifiability of 

existing weapons and their components. 

Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.—The Committee recommends 

$4,000,000 to support the funding of the Air Force led study. The 

NNSA–DOD teams will conduct B83 impact studies and analyze 

test data. Sandia National Laboratory is the site of the RNEP tests 

and the Laboratory possesses a unique set of capabilities to conduct 

the test on a qualified test track where they are able to design and 

produce necessary instrumentation. Sandia is also able to maintain 

a Secret/Restricted Data Protected Environment in which to conduct the test and disassemble test materials that include hazardous material such as depleted uranium and insensitive high explosives. There are no other facilities aside from Sandia and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory where the test data can be 

readily used to validate computer models that require terra-scale 
156

computers to model the data. If this test were moved to another 

site, it would cost at least 100 percent more than the existing budget request in order to replicate the test facility, prepare the test in 

a Secret/Restricted Data environment and handle the appropriate 

material. Any alternative site would need to conduct the appropriate environmental impact statement to ensure full compliance 

with environmental statutes. The Committee urges the Department 

to quickly complete the testing and opposes the Department moving this test to any other facility, as it would be a waste of taxpayer resources. The Committee reminds the administration that 

none of the funds provided may be used for activities at the engineering development phases, phase 3 or 6.3 or beyond, in support 

of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. 

The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for the warhead dismantlement program within stockpile services. The Committee 

urges the NNSA to explore alternatives to more aggressively work 

off the dismantlement backlog, but acknowledges that effectively 

utilizing NNSA site/plant space and throughput capacities is challenging in order to balance the priority commitment to support the 

Life Extension Programs. 

CAMPAIGNS

Campaigns focus on scientific, technical and engineering efforts 

to develop and maintain critical capabilities and tools needed to 

support stockpile refurbishment and continued assessment and certification of the stockpile for the long term in the absence of underground nuclear testing. The major elements of the campaigns are: 

science campaigns, engineering campaigns, inertial confinement fusion and high yield, advanced simulation and computing, pit manufacturing and certification, and readiness campaigns. 

Within available funds, the Department is directed to work with 

the UNLV Research Foundation and a consortium of universities 

to continue design, preparation and experimentation on the Atlas 

Machine. 

Science Campaigns.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$307,925,000 for the Science campaign, an increase of $46,000,000 

above fiscal year 2005 levels. The Science Campaign is the principal mechanism for supporting the science required to maintain 

the technical viability of the national nuclear weapons laboratories 

to enable them to respond to emerging national security needs. As 

such the campaign maintains the scientific infrastructure of the 

three weapons laboratories. 

The Department is directed to renew for 5 years the existing cooperative agreements with the University of Nevada Las Vegas and 

the University of Nevada Reno. The Department is also directed to 

provide funding of $3,000,000 to each institution per year. 

Primary Assessment Technologies.—The Committee recommends 

$55,179,000, an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget request, to 

improve the understanding of boost physics, one of the most complex challenges facing weapons designers. To understand the performance of materials subjected to extreme pressures that occur 

during a nuclear event, the laboratories have developed the capabilities to replicate the extreme physical environment in order to 

support the stockpile stewardship activities. The Committee ex-
157

pects the laboratories to support these activities with experiments 

using radiography and hydrotests. This data will be used to reduce 

the uncertainties in performance codes. Within the increased level 

of funding $5,000,000 is provided to Los Alamos to initiate preliminary design activities and demonstrate the capability of proton radiography of the LANSCE facilities in supporting stockpile stewardship activities. 

The Committee directs NNSA to fund the Nevada Test Site at 

$15,000,000, an increase of $5,000,000 to maintain NTS dynamic 

experiments, diagnostics, and data analysis, including past UGT 

analysis, at the level necessary to sustain the critical personnel 

skills and institutional viability to meet national program goals. 

Test Readiness.—The Committee recommends $25,000,000, the 

same as the budget request and a decrease of $1,784,000 below fiscal year 2005 funding levels. 

Dynamic Materials Properties.—The Committee recommends 

$90,894,000, an increase of $10,000,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee provides an additional $5,000,000 above the budget 

request of $20,000,000 to fund the Dynamic Materials Properties at 

the Nevada Test Site [NTS], and directs NNSA to make full use 

of plutonium experiments at the Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental Research facility [JASPER] and experiments on dynamic materials properties at the Atlas facility. The Committee opposes the budget request since it is unable to adequately support 

necessary experiments to validate thermodynamic properties and 

better understand material properties. Without additional funding, 

the Atlas Machine at the Nevada Test Site would be put on standby. The Committee directs the Department to use the increased 

funds to support experiments using the Z machine at Sandia National Lab, gas guns at Los Alamos, dynamic materials property 

tests using Atlas and plutonium experiments at the Joint Actinide 

Shock Physics Experimental facility [JASPER] located at the Nevada Test Site. The Committee directs the Department to support 

additional funding to Lawrence Livermore National Lab for experiments on equation-of-state measurements at JASPER needed for 

primary certification. The Committee recommendation includes 

$1,000,000 for LCS laser upgrades to the Idaho Accelerator Center. 

Advanced Radiography.—The Committee recommends 

$59,520,000, an increase of $10,000,000 above the budget request. 

The goal of the Advanced Radiography program is to develop multiaxis, multi-time radiographic hydrotest capability and to develop 

techniques for focused physical studies. The top priority for NNSA 

has been the refurbishment and reinstallation of the 2nd axis on 

DARHT. This is a joint effort among LANL, LLNL and Lawrence 

Berkley National Lab. The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to 

support improvements in radiography improvements to better diagnostic support on future subcritical experiments ad to ensure timely completion of the DARHT 2nd axis. 

Secondary Assessment Technologies.—The Committee recommends $77,332,000, an increase of $16,000,000. This program 

plays a critical role in developing the Advanced Scientific Computing effort to validate experimental data in modeling the yield 

performance of our nuclear systems and the impact of aging of ma-
158

terials. This program supports hydrodynamic and high-energy-density experiments. 

As a result of NNSA’s decision to focus on construction of the National Ignition Facility [NIF] rather than focus on stockpile research there will be an increased reliance on the Z facility at 

Sandia and the Omega laser at the University of Rochester to support critical R&D efforts. As such, the Committee directs the NNSA 

to support additional experiments on Z machine and Omega laser 

using the increase in funding. Failure to provide adequate funding 

would prevent the labs from meeting the necessary campaign milestones. 

Engineering Campaigns 

The Committee recommends $272,756,000 for the Engineering Campaign, an increase of $14,013,000 over fiscal year 2005 levels. 

This campaign provides validation of engineering science, modeling 

and simulation tools necessary to support design, qualification and 

the certification of the stockpile. This campaign also supports at an 

increased level the development of surety technologies that are critical to ensuring the safe storage and transportation of these weapons. 

Enhanced Surety.—The Committee recommends $45,845,000, an 

increase of $16,000,000 above the request, to provide validation 

technology for inclusion in the stockpile refurbishment program to 

assure that modern nuclear safety standards are fully met and a 

new level of use-denial performance is achieved. The Committee 

recommends $16,000,000 in additional funding to be provided to research, develop and design architectures to integrate required safety, security, reliability and use control functions. Work performed 

under this campaign supports all of the current and future stockpile activities that will utilize MESA developed micro technologies. 

This funding increase will allow restoration of activities for developing surety architectures that will provide increased security during storage, transportation and mission-related activities. This 

funding should be used to supplement the increased investment in 

the RRW initiative to ensure that enhanced safeguards are included in future modifications to the stockpile. 

Weapons Systems.—The Committee recommends $20,040,000, to 

accelerate the acquisition of experimental data necessary to validate new models and simulation tools being developed in the Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign. 

Nuclear Survivability.—The Committee recommends 

$25,386,000, an increase of $16,000,000 above the budget request 

to develop and validate tools to simulate nuclear environments for 

survivability assessments and certification; restore the capability to 

provide nuclear-hardened microelectronics and microsystem components for the enduring stockpile; and accelerate the qualification 

and certification of the neutron generator and the arming, fusing 

and firing system for the refurbished W76. The Committee provides 

$16,000,000 to support work at the MESA facility to design work 

for the W76–1 and other reentry systems to meet the requirement 

for radiation hardening. Sandia National Laboratory retains the 

only expertise in the Nation to develop equipment and electronics 

capable of withstanding intense radiation environments. 
159

Enhanced Surveillance.—The Committee recommendation includes $111,207,000 for the Enhanced Surveillance Campaign, 

$15,000,000 above the request. The increase is provided to begin 

enhanced surveillance work to take advantage of the accelerated 

MESA completion and newly-developed ASC simulation codes, as 

well as to encourage the development and deployment of advanced 

surveillance technologies and techniques into RRW and the sustainable stockpile. Modern stockpile evaluation based upon the enhanced surveillance program activities is intended to provide an accurate, more timely and more cost-effective means for assuring performance of existing stockpile systems, upcoming LEPs, and RRW. 

Funding increases will enable the development and implementation 

of these new techniques, and improving their readiness for RRW 

and the sustainable stockpile. 

The Enhanced Surveillance program provides component and 

material lifetime assessments and develops predictive capabilities 

for early identification and assessment of stockpile aging concerns. 

This program supports the University Research Program in Robotics at $4,465,000. 

Project 01–D–108 Microsystem and Engineering Science Applications [MESA], SNL, Albuquerque, New Mexico.—The Committee 

recommendation includes $65,564,000 to maintain the construction 

schedule consistent with projected stockpile needs. The budget also 

provides $4,714,000 in operating funds to support other project 

costs that are related to the MESA line item construction project 

but are not capitalized. 

Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield 

The Committee recommends $314,023,000, a reduction of 

$4,482,000 from the budget request for the Inertial Confinement 

Fusion and High Yield Campaign. This allocation restores 

$61,000,000 in funding to the Support of Stockpile and Inertial Fusion Technology program that was cut from the budget request. 

National Ignition Facility [NIF].—The Committee is disappointed 

in the long-term funding outlook for Weapons Activities contained 

in the fiscal year 2006 FYNSP. Compared to the budget request in 

fiscal year 2005, Weapons Activities funding is reduced by 

$3,000,000,000 over the next 5 years. This decline is likely to have 

significant programmatic impacts and drastically curtail NNSA’s 

scientific capabilities. It is difficult to conceive of a single program 

not being severely impacted, including NIF, as a result of the declining budget. The Committee is cognizant that the modest funding reduction of $25,000,000 in fiscal year 2005 to the NIF program 

forced NNSA managers to rebaseline the entire project. As a result 

of the rebaselining effort, the NNSA has made the decision to support the NIF construction effort at the expense of the Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield Campaigns, putting in jeopardy 

critical high energy stewardship research at Los Alamos, Sandia, 

and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories. The fiscal year 

2006 budget cuts experimental programs that are essential in obtaining scientific data for ASC codes. The budget proposes the 

elimination of the Inertial Fusion Technology program that supported research on the Z machine and High Average Power Laser 
160

program. Currently, NIF is able to operate four beamlines, making 

NIF the most powerful laser in the world. 

The NNSA has not completed the rebaselining of the NIF program, and the Committee directs that no funds be expended on 

project 96–D–111 in order to focus on supporting a comprehensive 

stewardship program. 

Ignition.—The Committee recommends $68,800,000 to support 

experiments at Inertial Confinement facilities to demonstrate the 

principles of thermonuclear fusion. Sufficient funding is provided to 

support computer simulation, target fabrication, and target design 

calculation. 

Support for Other Stockpile Programs.—In order to avoid drastic 

cuts to the ICF program, the Committee recommends restoring 

funding to $41,000,000 to perform experiments on the Z-machine to 

validate computer models as well as experiments on OMEGA at the 

University of Rochester, NY. This is an increase of $31,128,000 

above the budget request. 

NIF Diagnostics, Cryogenics and Experimental Support.—The 

Committee provides $30,000,000. It is clear from recent advances 

in target research that targets may hold the key to significant increases in efficiency. Targets with cryogenic fuel, composite 

ablators, foams, double shells and advanced hohlraum designs can 

compensate for limitation for both indirect and direct target concepts. The Committee directs the Department to provide 

$10,000,000 from within available funds to accelerate development 

of targets to support experiments on NIF, OMEGA and Z-machine. 

Pulsed Power Inertial Confinement Fusion.—The Committee’s 

recommendation provides $10,900,000, a $910,000 increase over 

the budget request for pulsed power ICF to assess Z pinches as 

drivers for ignition and high yield fusion. 

University Grants/Other ICF Support.—The Committee provides $7,700,000 for research assistance in high energy density science, 

a level consistent with fiscal year 2005. 

The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 to Nevada 

Terawatt Facility. Within the funds provided, $3,000,000 is for research into strongly magnetized highly density energy matter and 

$2,000,000 is for construction of the high energy, short-pulse laser 

system. 

Facility Operations and Target Production.—The Committee provides $54,623,000 as requested to support operations on OMEGA 

and Z-machine. Funds will support target production, engineering 

support, and maintenance. 

Inertial Fusion Technology.—The Committee is disappointed that 

the budget completely eliminated funding with this account. As 

such the Committee has restored the funding to $41,000,000 and 

provides $6,000,000 to prepare Z-machine to support extended operations. 

NIF Demonstration.—The Committee recommends $50,000,000 to 

support the NIF Demonstration program. The committee directs 

the NNSA to use this funding to support Stockpile Stewardship responsibilities necessary for closeout costs or other impacts as a result of the halt in construction and installation. 

High Energy Petawatt Laser Development.—The Committee 

strongly supports the OMEGA petawatt laser and provides 
161

$10,000,000 an increase of $7,000,000 above the request. The funding supports the development and testing of two short pulsed laser 

beams to support the existing capabilities at OMEGA in Rochester, 

New York. The Committee recommendation includes an additional 

$7,000,000 for university grants and other support. Of this amount, 

$3,000,000 is provided for continued development of petawatt laser 

at the University of Texas at Austin; $2,000,000 is provided to the 

University of Nevada, Reno to continue its collaboration with 

Sandia National Laboratories on highly diagnosed studies of exploding wire arrays and implosion dynamics. The Committee provides $2,000,000 to Sandia National Laboratories for Z-Petawatt 

Consortium experiments using the Sandia Z-Beamlet and ZPetawatt lasers. 

Construction—Project 96–D–111.—The Committee directs that no 

funds shall be expended for this project. 

The Committee directs the NNSA to continue working with the 

Office of Science and the NSF on interagency coordination and support of high energy density physics and high intensity laser 

science. The Committee recommends that the Department form a 

High Energy Density Physics Advisory Committee, drawn from the 

scientific and technical community, to assist in this effort. The 

Committee further directs the Department to provide to the Committee a plan for funding and managing non-defense high energy 

density physics research and facilities development by March 1, 

2006. 

Advanced Simulation and Computing 

The Committee recommends $735,830,000, an increase of 

$75,000,000 above the President’s budget request, to support stockpile refurbishments, annual assessment and certification. The Committee acknowledges the important role of the ASC Program in 

Stockpile Stewardship as affirmed by the JASONs’ study directed 

by Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, Public Law 108–

7. The Committee shares the concerns raised by the JASONs about 

ensuring both adequate capacity and capability to meet the growing computational demands of the weapons designers and engineers at the laboratories. The Committee urges NNSA to further 

improve code confidence through more rigorous analysis. The Committee recognizes that without the Advanced Computing program 

the labs will be unable to certify the life extension program designs 

in the required timeframes. Codes based in experimental data are 

critical to validating the calculated changes to a physics package 

that will be included in the life extension program. As the labs 

enter a new phase in the life extension program through the RRW 

program, improved computer modeling will be critical to designing 

and deploying more reliable and interchangeable parts. 

The Committee is aware of the enormous management and technical challenge the NNSA has faced in establishing the ASC program over the past 10 years. The Committee is supportive of 

NNSA’s proposed transition to a product-focused initiative that will 

integrate the experimental data and enhance the predictability to 

answer challenging questions researchers have yet to solve. In fiscal year 2006, the ASC program is expected to deliver an advanced 

physics and engineering simulation capability to support the W76 
162

and the W80 life extension certifications. The Committee supports 

the ASC challenge to complete the modern baseline that reflects 

the comprehensive physics baseline of our enduring stockpile with 

ASC codes by fiscal year 2009. In order for the NNSA to meet these 

milestones and complete its transition to a product based program 

that serves, the Committee directs the Secretary to withhold funding of earmarks that do not directly support the stockpile stewardship mission within the ASC program until the Secretary certifies 

in writing to Congress on an annual basis that the ASC program 

remains on track to meet the annual milestones, as well as goals 

laid out in the NNSA 5-year plan. 

The Committee recognizes that there is a need for much faster 

computer systems to perform the most complicated weapons systems analyses. The Committee recommends an increase of 

$75,000,000 to acquire a 150 teraflop computing system at Los Alamos to decrease the time required for the large weapons related 

calculations and to increase the productivity of the scientists. Currently, Los Alamos is working on a life extension program for the 

W76. The Committee has been informed that one calculation to 

support the LEP has been running for 19 months on a 20 teraflop 

machine. This is an unacceptable timeframe. The purchase of the 

new 150 TF machine will reduce the runtime from 19 months to 

just 3 months for the same calculation. In 2003 the Committee 

charged JASON and the National Academies to report on the requirements drivers and computer architectural directions chosen by 

the Advanced Simulation and Computing program. The studies recognized that Stockpile Stewardship simulation demands oversubscribe current resources and that a diversity of supercomputer architectures is needed to meet the demanding obligations of Stewardship. Demands of the Life Extension Programs in particular and 

Stockpile Stewardship in general do not allow the reallocation of 

leading systems to single problems for any extended period of time. 

The Blue Gene/L system at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and its focus on critical nuclear weapons science, only fulfills 

part of the mission needs. While this system effectively targets 

weapons aging issues, by design it is not suited to advance the 

complex full-weapons-systems simulation. The Committee agrees 

with study recommendations and recognizes the need to support 

the most demanding requirements. 

From within amounts provided, the Committee recommends that 

no less than $269,800,000 is provided to Los Alamos National Laboratory; $243,700,000 for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; 

and $162,500,000 for Sandia National Laboratory to support the 

Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign. In addition, the 

Committee provides $55,000,000 for the capacity computing requirements to support the W76–1 LEP. 

Pit Manufacturing and Certification 

The Committee recommendation includes a total of $248,760,000 

for the pit manufacturing and certification campaign, the same as 

the budget request. This amount includes $182,821,000 to support 

the manufacturing and certification of a W88 pit consistent with 

the project baseline. The Committee directs the NNSA to revise as 

appropriate the pit production and certification plan and submit 
163

the report to the relevant congressional committees by March 31, 

2005, and annually thereafter. 

Modern Pit Facility.—The Committee recommendation includes a 

total of $7,686,000, the same as the budget request. 

Readiness Campaigns 

Stockpile Readiness Campaign.—The Committee recommends 

$218,755,000 for the stockpile readiness campaign, the amount of 

the request. This program, initiated in fiscal year 2001, enables the 

Y–12 National Security Complex to replace or restore production 

capability and to modernize aging facilities. At present, all of the 

critical manufacturing capabilities required for weapons refurbishments at Y–12 do not exist. 

High Explosives and Weapons Operations.—The Committee recommends $17,097,000 to establish production-scale high explosives 

manufacturing and qualification; to deploy and validate technologies and facilities for production re-qualification; and, to demonstrate and validate Enterprise Integration and Collaborative 

Manufacturing. 

Non-Nuclear Readiness.—The Committee recommends 

$28,630,000, to deploy commercial products and processes for components supporting the B61, W80, and W76 stockpile life extension 

programs; to modify existing tritium loading and cleaning facilities 

to support stockpile life extension programs; and, to support neutron target loading and detonator production. 

Tritium Readiness.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$87,588,000 for the tritium readiness campaign, the same as the 

request. This includes funding for the construction of the Tritium 

extraction facility at the requested level of $24,894,000. 

Advanced Design and Production Technologies.—The Committee 

recommends $54,040,000. 

Cooperative Agreements.—The Committee recognizes that cooperative agreements with universities are important resources for developing essential technical data for stockpile stewardship. Additionally, such long-term relationships with universities allow considerable opportunity for promoting advanced studies and recruiting the future workforce in technical areas that are critical to the 

continuing stewardship enterprise. The Committee remains supportive of this activity and directs the administration to honor existing cooperative agreements as this new office implements its responsibilities. The Committee is aware of the successful partnerships between the NNSA and the University of Nevada-Las Vegas 

and the University of Nevada-Reno that have been fostered 

through a series of cooperative agreements. The Department is encouraged to renew these agreements. 

READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES

The Committee recommendation includes $1,696,336,000 an increase of $64,950,000 from the budget request. 

The readiness in technical base and facilities [RTBF] program 

provides the underlying physical infrastructure and operational 

readiness for the directed stockpile work and campaign programs. 

RTBF activities include ensuring that facilities are operational, 

safe, secure, and in compliance with regulatory requirements, and 
164

that a defined level of readiness is sustained at facilities funded by 

the Office of Defense Programs. 

Operations of Facilities.—The Committee recommends 

$1,200,483,000, an increase of $39,700,000, to maintain readiness 

for all RTBF facilities. The Committee provides an additional 

$15,000,000 above the budget request to support operation and recapitalization of facilities at the Nevada Test Site [NTS], specifically the Device Assembly Facility preparations for expanded missions, the Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental Research facility, Big Explosive Experimental Facility [BEEF], U1a Complex, 

and other projects. The Committee recommendation includes an additional $11,000,000 within the funds provided for modification of 

the Z-Beamlet laser at the Z Pinch at Sandia National Laboratories. The Committee provides $12,000,000 from within available 

funds to support MESA Operations. The Committee provides an 

additional $20,000,000 for facility upgrades at the Kansas City 

Plant, to be distributed as follows: $5,000,000 is provided to replace 

machinery essential to support the Life Extension Programs; 

$7,000,000 to address deferred maintenance to machinery; and 

$5,700,000 to support infrastructure improvement. 

The Committee recommendation includes $2,500,000 for the 

UNLV Research Foundation to support the ongoing programs of 

the Institute for Security Studies. The Committee provides an additional $3,000,000 above the budget request for the Advanced Monitoring Systems Initiative at the NTS to continue micro-sensing 

technology deployment and prototype deployment of remote monitoring systems for the underground test area. 

The Committee recommendation provides an additional 

$15,000,000 to improve and upgrade existing roads at the Nevada 

Test Site and an additional $4,000,000 to install two new water 

storage tanks in Area 6 of the NTS. The Committee provides 

$1,000,000 to purchase and install a Geographic Information Center at the NTS. Additionally, the Committee recommendation provides $4,000,000 to install a 17-mile fiber optic link between the 

Nevada Test Site and Indians Springs Air Force Base; and 

$4,500,000 to upgrade the Emergency Operations Center within 

the Nevada Support Facility to meet national program goals. 

The recommendation also includes, within funds provided, 

$3,000,000 for the Consortium for Terrorism and Fire Science at 

UNR. 

Program Readiness.—The Committee recommends $105,738,000, 

the same as the budget request, to enhance readiness and maintain 

materials processing and component manufacturing readiness. 

Special Projects.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$19,869,000 for special projects. Within the available funds, 

$250,000 for the continuing operations and security at the Atomic 

Testing History Institute; $2,000,000 to the UNLV Research Foundation to continue support of the radioanalytical services laboratory. The Committee provides $3,500,000 to the not-for-profit Technology Ventures Corporations to continue the successful technology 

transfer and commercialization efforts at the National Laboratories 

and the Nevada Test Site. The Committee provides $2,500,000 for 

the National Museum of Nuclear Science and History. 
165

The Committee recommends $1,250,000 for the Arrowhead Center at New Mexico State University. The Committee provides 

$2,000,000 for Rapid Prototyping activities at the Special Technology Laboratory in Santa Barbara, CA to accelerate development 

of sensor and live plume tracking capabilities at the Nevada Test 

Site. The Committee recommendation also includes $2,000,000 for 

a public-private partnership to continue the test and evaluation of 

water filtration technology to protect the public against nuclear, biological, and chemical threats. The Committee recommends 

$1,000,000 to continue the ongoing administration infrastructure 

support grant for the UNLV Research Foundation. 

Material Recycle and Recovery.—The Committee recommends 

$72,730,000, the amount of the budget request. 

Construction Projects.—The Committee recommends an appropriation of $255,047,000, for construction projects under Readiness 

in Technical Base and Facilities. 

The Committee continues to be concerned about the fire station 

support at the Nevada Test Site and is pleased by the decision to 

use a design-build acquisition strategy for the fire stations and encourages completion at the earliest possible time within the funding that has been provided. $65,000,000 is provided to the 4–D–125 

the CMR Replacement facility. In 1999, NNSA approved a strategy 

to managing risk at CMR that recognized the facility could not continue its mission at acceptable level of risk to the workforce without operational restrictions. The CMRR project will allow the 

NNSA to consolidate the critical stewardship mission support functions including analytical chemistry, materials characterization, 

and actinide R&D located in the existing facility. The Committee 

recognizes and fully supports the NNSA’s efforts to construct the 

CMR Replacement facility near the TA–55 plutonium facility to ensure Los Alamos will be able to fully support its ongoing plutonium 

mission. 

Project 05–D–140, Project Engineering and Design [PED]—RTBF, 

Various Locations.—The Committee recommends an additional 

$2,000,000 for the Test Capabilities Revitalization project at 

Sandia National Laboratory. 

FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION PROGRAM

The Committee recommendation includes $261,809,000, a reduction of $21,700,000 below the request. 

The facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program is a 

multi-year but limited term effort to restore the physical infrastructure of the weapons complex and eliminate the maintenance 

backlog. The program provides funds to accomplish deferred maintenance and utilities replacement while improving facility management practices to preclude further deterioration. 

SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET

The Committee recommendation includes a total of $212,100,000. 

The secure transportation asset program provides for the safe, 

secure movement of nuclear weapons, special nuclear material, and 

weapon components between military locations and nuclear complex facilities within the United States. 
166

NUCLEAR WEAPONS INCIDENT RESPONSE

Formerly funded in the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities account, the program funding for emergency management and 

radiological emergency response activities ensures a central point 

of contact and an integrated response to radiological emergencies. 

The Committee recommends $118,796,000, the amount of the request. 

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The Committee recommendation includes $740,478,000, the same 

as the request. 

The safeguards and security line identifies the funding necessary 

for all safeguard and security requirements (except for personnel 

security investigations) at NNSA landlord sites, specifically the 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos National 

Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, the Nevada Test Site, 

Kansas City Plant, Pantex Plant, Y–12 Plant, and the Savannah 

River Site Tritium Facilities. The Committee directs NNSA to fund 

the Nevada Site Office security budget at the fiscal year 2006 request of $62,000,000 and provide an additional $20,000,000 to fully 

staff the security force at the Device Assembly Facility, including 

the full implementation of the protective force Special Response 

Team program. The Committee provides $20,000,000 to complete 

the expansion of the red network at Los Alamos in order to reduce 

the necessity for CREM. The Committee provides within available 

funds $12,000,000 to reinvigorate security research development, 

test and evaluation. Without the assistance of innovative technological solutions, most sites are forced to rely on protective forces. 

Technology can be a force multiplier, but without investment in advanced security technology research and development new technologies will not be realized. The Committee provides $1,900,000 to 

deploy and demonstrate an enterprise PKI for secure authentication and communication at Sandia National Laboratory.

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $1,409,033,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 1,637,239,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,500,959,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,729,066,000

The Committee recommendation includes $1,729,066,000 for defense nuclear nonproliferation, an increase of $91,827,000. 

The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account funds programs 

and activities to (1) prevent the spread of materials, technology, 

and expertise relating to weapons of mass destruction; (2) detect 

the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction worldwide; (3) provide for international nuclear safety, and (4) eliminate inventories 

of surplus fissile materials usable for nuclear weapons. These highly important initiatives address the danger that hostile nations or 

terrorist groups may acquire weapons of mass destruction or weapons-usable material, dual-use production technology or weapons of 

mass destruction expertise. The major elements of the program include the following: nonproliferation and verification research and 
167

development, nonproliferation and international security, and nonproliferation programs with Russia. 

The Committee recognizes the importance of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty [NPT] in preventing states of concern and terrorists from acquiring or developing nuclear weapons. Developments with North Korea and Iran as well as the A.Q. Khan nuclear 

black market underscore the need to strengthen the NPT. The 

Committee is concerned that efforts to strengthen the NPT have 

been weakened by the allegation that U.S. nuclear weapons policy 

is not consistent with its commitment under Article VI of the NPT 

to work toward general and complete disarmament. The nuclear 

posture and nonproliferation policies of the United States are consistent with its obligations under Article VI. The United States nuclear stockpile is the smallest in many decades, and it is not developing new generations of nuclear weapons. The Committee urges 

the Department of Energy to focus on the primary challenge of 

strengthening the NPT by closing the loopholes that enable countries to develop weapons programs under the guise of peaceful nuclear energy programs. The Committee also urges the Department 

to use any and all incentives available to accelerate conversion of 

research reactors fueled with highly-enriched uranium [HEU] to 

low enriched uranium to eliminate the use of HEU in the civilian 

sector. 

NONPROLIFERATION VERIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommendation includes $297,218,000, an increase of $30,000,000. 

The nonproliferation and verification research and development 

program conducts applied research, development, testing, and evaluation leading to prototype demonstrations and detection systems 

that are critical to the United States response to current and projected threats posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and 

diversion of special nuclear material. The program works directly 

with agencies responsible for monitoring proliferation and combating terrorism. 

The Committee recommendation includes $2,500,000 for the 

UNLV Research Foundation support of nonproliferation activities 

at Institute for Security Studies. 

The Committee supports the nuclear and radiological national security program. The NNSA is directed to provide for the sustained 

development of advanced technologies needed to counter nuclear 

terrorism threats and should focus on improving capabilities 

through research and development in threat assessment and prediction, basic nuclear understanding, sensors and detection systems, consequence mitigation, forensics and attribution and rendersafe technologies. 

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 to support a research 

and development program in the NNSA, through the national laboratories and drawing on the expertise of the Science programs, to 

provide a foundation and long term R&D capability in chemical 

and biological detection. 

Project 06–D–180, National Nuclear Security Administration Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program, Project Engineering and 
168

Design [PED], National Security Laboratory, PPNL, Washington.— The Committee recommendation includes $13,000,000. 

The Committee recommends $2,000,000 to begin the conceptual 

design effort to design a facility to accommodate the security category of III/IV radiological mission, materials and activities currently housed at TA–18. 

NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

The Committee recommendation includes $90,173,000, an increase of $9,827,000 from the request to adequately fund Global 

Threat Reduction Initiative. The Committee supports the administration’s efforts to remove and secure high-risk nuclear and radiological materials and equipment around the world that pose a 

threat to the United States and its allies by: consolidating, accelerating, and expanding the Department’s nuclear materials removal efforts; enhancing the security of vulnerable radiological materials worldwide; and identifying nuclear and radiological materials and equipment not being addressed by current nonproliferation activities. 

The nonproliferation and international security program supports 

activities to: control the export of items and technology useful for 

weapons of mass destruction [WMD]; implement international safeguards in conjunction with the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA]; monitor and implement treaties and agreements; develop and implement policy in support of international security efforts aimed at securing high-risk nuclear material; develop and implement transparency measures to assure international nonproliferation and arms control commitments; and explore and implement innovative approaches to improve regional security. The 

Committee directs the Department to provide $5,000,000 in grants 

to institutions of higher learning and non-profit entities for research related to nuclear nonproliferation and chemical and biological weapons detection. Each individual grant provided shall not exceed $500,000. 

The recommendation includes $10,000,000 to reinvigorate initiatives focused on removing nuclear materials from vulnerable sites 

around the world. These activities are essential to prevent terrorist 

groups or states hostile to the United States from acquiring destructive nuclear capabilities. 

INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS PROTECTION AND COOPERATION

The Committee recommendation includes $343,435,000, the same 

as the request. This program will continue to improve the security 

for nuclear material and weapons in Russia by installing basic 

rapid upgrades and through comprehensive security improvements. 

The Committee continues to believe that these activities are critical elements of the United States nonproliferation efforts. 

Regarding the second line of defense activities, the Committee 

urges the NNSA to continue its efforts in the use of integrated 

monitoring methodology for special nuclear monitoring detection at 

airports, ports, and border crossing in the former Soviet Union and 

newly independent States. The Committee provides $97,929,000 for 

Second Line of Defense Activities, including $73,929,000 for the 

Megaports program. 
169

GLOBAL INITIATIVE FOR PROLIFERATION PREVENTION

The Committee recommendation includes $50,890,000 to support 

the Global Initiative for Proliferation Prevention [GIPP]. In fiscal 

year 2005, this account was formerly named the Russian Transition Initiatives [RTI] and supported the funding for the Initiatives 

for Proliferation Prevention and the Nuclear Cities Initiative [NCI]. 

Although the names have changed the purpose remains the same. 

The Department recognizes that scientists in other countries are 

seeking to, or are already working on developing the capability for 

nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. Consistent with the successful mission of the former RTI programs, the Department should 

look to engage scientists outside the former Soviet Union in useful 

scientific discovery and cooperation. The Department should continue to support the original activities within Russia, but seek to 

expand its cooperation with other countries that pose the highest 

risk of developing weapons of mass destruction. 

HEU Transparency Implementation.—The Committee recommendation includes $20,483,000 to support continued work with 

Russia to provide confidence to the United States that the Russian 

highly enriched uranium [HEU] being converted is from its military stockpile, consistent with the 1993 United States-Russia HEU 

Purchase Agreement. 

Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production Program.—

The Committee recommendation includes $152,000,000 for this program to assist the Russian Federation in ceasing its production of 

weapons-grade plutonium production by providing replacement 

power production capacity. 

The Committee recommends $20,000,000 to support conversion of 

the Zheleznogorsk plutonium reactor. 

In 2004, Congress authorized the Department to use international funds for the EWGPP program without further appropriation and without fiscal year limitation. Additionally, the Department is authorized and encouraged to develop and implement costsharing options with the Russian Federation, when practicable. 

Fissile Materials Disposition.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $653,065,000. This program conducts activities in both the 

United States and Russia to dispose of fissile materials that would 

pose a threat to the United States if acquired by hostile nations or 

terrorist groups. 

Excess weapons grade plutonium in Russia is a clear and present 

danger to the security of the United States because of the possibility that it will fall into the hands of non-Russian entities or provide Russia with the ability to rebuild its nuclear arsenal at a rate 

the United States may be unable to equal. For that reason, the 

Committee considers the Department’s material disposition program of comparable importance to weapons activities; both are integral components of our national effort to reduce any threat posed 

to the United States and to deter the threat that remains. 

The Committee understands the important role the U.S. plutonium disposition program plays in the Department’s domestic efforts to consolidate and dispose of inventories of surplus weaponsgrade plutonium. The consolidation and the safe disposals of this 

material from across the complex will significantly lower safety and 
170

security costs, and facilitate the closure of former nuclear weapons 

sites across the NNSA complex. Any effort to eliminate funding for 

this project will likely foreclose a disposal pathway for plutonium 

stored at Savannah River causing the Department to pay the State 

of South Carolina up to $100,000,000 per year in fines starting in 

2011. Without a viable disposal solution, the cleanup of the Hanford Site and arrangements for decreasing inventories of plutonium 

at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the Pantex Plant 

will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars annually for 

storage and related Design Basis Threat activities. 

CONSTRUCTION

Project 99–D–141 Pit Disassembly & Conversion Facility.—The 

Committee recommends $24,000,000, the same as the budget request. 

Project 99–D–143 Mixed Oxide [MOX] Fuel Fabrication Facility.—The Committee recommends $338,565,000, the same as the 

request. 

GLOBAL THREAT REDUCTION INITIATIVE

The Global Threat Reduction Initiative mission is to identify, secure, remove high-risk, vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials and equipment around the world that pose a potential threat 

to the United States and the International community. The Committee encourages the Department to increase its efforts to accelerate the return of highly enriched uranium [HEU] from research 

and test reactors worldwide. The Committee provides $108,975,000, 

an increase of $11,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee has provided this funding increase to the Radiological 

Threat Reduction program to establish a pilot program that would 

utilize commercial or non-governmental resources for recovery, 

storage and monitoring of greater than class C domestic radiological sealed sources. 

The Committee provides an addition $7,000,000 to support the 

conversion of highly enriched uranium core to a low enriched uranium core for as many as four university research reactors located 

in the United States. The reactors targeted for conversion are Purdue University, Oregon State, University of Wisconsin and Washington State. 

NAVAL REACTORS

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $801,437,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 786,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 799,500,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 799,500,000

The Committee recommendation includes $799,500,000, an increase of $13,500,000 above the budget request. The increase is to 

be transferred to the office of Nuclear Energy to support the Idaho 

National Laboratory’s Advanced Test Reactor. 

The Naval Reactors account funds the design, development, and 

testing necessary to provide the Navy with safe, militarily effective 

nuclear propulsion plants in keeping with the Nation’s nuclearpowered fleet defense requirements. Naval Reactors will continue 
171

to develop nuclear reactor plant components and systems for the 

Navy’s new attack submarine and next-generation aircraft carriers, 

and continue to maintain the highest standards of environmental 

stewardship by responsibly inactivating shut down prototype reactor plants. 

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $353,350,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 343,869,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 366,869,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 343,869,000

The Committee recommendation includes the budget request of 

$343,869,000. 

The Office of the Administrator account provides corporate planning and oversight for programs funded by the Weapons Activities, 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Naval Reactors appropriations including the National Nuclear Security Administration field 

offices. This account provides the Federal salaries and other expenses of the Administrator’s direct staff, headquarters employees, 

and employees at the field service center and site offices. Program 

Direction for Naval Reactors remains within that program’s account, and program direction for the Secure Transportation Asset 

remains in Weapons Activities. 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.—The Committee provides 

$70,000,000 for the Federal Employees in Office of Defense Nuclear 

Nonproliferation to allow for greater flexibility for that office for 

hiring and supporting the Federal staff. Both the budget request 

and the Committee recognize the increasing role this office and 

staff play in global nonproliferation efforts. As such it is critical 

that this office is provided sufficient funding and support to fulfill 

it national security mission.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT TRANSITION TO NNSA 

On March 24, 2004, the Administrator of the National Nuclear 

Security Administration [NNSA] announced that NNSA would assume responsibilities for both newly generated and legacy wastes, 

and environmental remediation at NNSA sites beginning in fiscal 

year 2006. In his announcement, the Administrator stated that 

NNSA management of newly generated waste would reside with 

the generator, in this case principally the Office of Defense Programs [NA–10]. Having been assigned authority for the long-term 

stewardship of the Nation’s nuclear weapons program by the NNSA 

Act, the Committee was concerned that in accepting responsibility 

for managing legacy waste and environmental remediation, the 

NNSA may be forced to divert funds from or dilute its focus on 

weapons activities. As such, the Committee does not support the 

transfer of cleanup responsibility to the NNSA and expects the Office of Environmental Management make environmental remediation its sole responsibility. The Committee has adopted a new 

budget structure that more accurately tracks environmental cleanup expenditures by site and project. 
172

The mission of the Office of Environmental Management is the 

cleanup and risk reduction of the environmental impact as a result 

of the nuclear weapons program. For over 50 years, the Department and its predecessor agencies supported nuclear weapons production and energy research that has created million of gallons of 

waste and thousands of tons of contaminated soil, material and nuclear fuel. All of this legacy material must be addressed in an effective way. 

Since 2001 the program has succeeded in making significant 

progress by reducing the life-cycle cost on a comparable scope basis 

by $50,000,000,000 and reducing the time frame by 35 years. The 

Committee is supportive of these efforts and encourages the Department to continue keep the remaining sites on track. 

Reprogramming.—The Committee continues to support the need 

for flexibility to meet the changing funding requirements at the 

sites. In fiscal year 2006, the Department may transfer up to 

$5,000,000 between control points, as noted in the table below, to 

reduce health or safety risks or to gain cost savings as long as no 

program or project is increase or decreased by more than 

$5,000,000 once during the fiscal year. This reprogramming authority may not be used to initiate new program or programs specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the Act or report. 

The Committees on Appropriations of the House and the Senate 

must be notified within 30 days of the use of this reprogramming 

authority. 

CONTROL LEVELS FOR REPROGRAMMING

Savannah River site, 2012 accelerations 

Savannah River site, 2035 accelerations 

Savannah River Tank Farm 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

Idaho National Laboratory 

Oak Ridge Reservation 

Hanford site, 2012 accelerated 

completions 

Hanford site, 2035 accelerated 

completions 

Office of River Protection, waste 

treatment & immobilization 

Office of River Protection, tank farm 

activities 

Closure sites 

Program direction 

Program support 

UE D&D fund contribution 

Technology development 

All construction line items 

NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites 

Safeguards and Security. 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $6,808,319,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 6,015,044,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 6,468,366,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,366,441,000

The Committee’s recommendation for Defense Environmental 

Cleanup totals $6,366,441,000, an increase of $351,397,000 above 

budget request of $6,015,044,000. The Committee does not support 

the proposed transfer of environmental cleanup responsibilities 

from the Office of Environmental Management to the National Nuclear Security Administration [NNSA]. By restoring these core 

cleanup responsibilities to the Office of Environmental Management the Defense Environmental Cleanup budget is increased by 

$222,887,000. The Committee recommends that the Department 

provide any carry over balances for WERC a consortium for environmental education and technology development, be provided to 
173

support an educational foundation with that organization. Within 

the amounts provided, the Department is directed to fund hazardous waste worker training at $10,000,000. 

Closure Sites.—The Committee recommendation provides $1,008,589,000, the same as the budget request. Cleanup of this 

category of sites is expected to be complete in fiscal year 2006. The 

recommendation provides $579,950,000 for Rocky Flats, Colorado; 

$327,609,000 for Fernald, Ohio; $16,000,000 for Ashtabula, Ohio; 

$75,530,000 for Miamisburg, Ohio; and $9,500,000 for West Jefferson site, Columbus, Ohio. 

Savannah River Site.—The Committee recommendation provides $1,247,082,000, an increase of $18,000,000 to address solid waste 

stabilization and soil and water remediation for cleanup at the Savannah River Site. The Committee supports the request of 

$10,000,000 for the melt and dilute technology for excess weaponsgrade plutonium. The Committee believes this project is appropriately managed by the Office of Environmental Management. 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant [WIPP].—The Committee recommendation provides $230,629,000 for the Waste Isolation Pilot 

Project. The Committee recommends $6,000,000 to purchase 

TRUPACT–III shipping containers which will allow the Department to accommodate large shipments to WIPP and reduce worker 

exposure by not requiring materials to be repackaged. The recommendation includes an additional $3,500,000 which shall be 

made available to the Carlsbad community for educational support, 

infrastructure improvements, and related initiatives to address the 

impacts of accelerated operations. 

The Committee understands that the Carlsbad Field Office has 

established a joint task force with the City of Carlsbad to evaluate 

the needs, functions, and requirements of a record center in Carlsbad. In order to provide more timely information in a useable format to citizens, researchers, stakeholders, and regulators, the Committee provides an additional $5,000,000 and directs the Department to consolidate at Carlsbad all record archives relevant to the 

operations of WIPP and the TRU waste in the repository under a 

new contract. 

The Committee directs the Department to utilize up to 

$2,000,000 from within funds available to the Office of Environmental Management to support the important work of the Center 

for Excellence in Hazardous Materials. 

The Committee provides $1,500,000 from within available funds 

for Neutrino research. 

Waste Analysis Requirements for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

[WIPP].—The Committee recognizes that the WIPP facility is central to the cleanup of the nuclear weapons complex and that waste 

should be emplaced as quickly and safely as possible—for reasons 

of reducing clean-up costs, public safety, and with the growing 

threat of radiological terrorism and for national security. Current 

law and regulation regarding the sampling and analysis of waste 

destined for WIPP produces substantial health and safety risks to 

workers with little if any corresponding public benefit. 

Idaho National Laboratory.—The Committee recommendation 

provides $544,725,000, an increase of $13,000,000 above the request. The Committee has modified the request to accelerate the 
174

construction of the Sodium Bearing Waste Treatment Project at 

Idaho National Laboratory. The Committee recommends an additional $39,270,000 to begin construction of Project 06–D–401, Sodium Bearing Waste Treatment Project. The Committee has offset 

this increase by reducing PBS ID–0014B, operating expenses by 

$26,700,000 and $13,000,000 in additional budget authority. 

Oak Ridge Reservation.—The Committee recommendation provides $221,854,000, an increase of $25,302,000 above the budget request. The Committee recommends reallocating funds to restore 

funding to the original closure contract baseline for the Melton Valley. The Department has recommended offsets be taken from Safeguards and Security PBS OR–0040 without any impact to the program. 

Hanford Site.—The Committee recommendation provides 

$749,717,000, the same as the budget request for the Hanford Site. 

The Committee recommendation provides $5,861,000 to operate 

the waste disposal facility, $1,813,000 for spent fuel stabilization 

and storage, and $15,411,000 for Richland community and regulatory support, the same as the budget request. Within available 

funds, the Committee recommendation includes $6,500,000 for the 

Volpentest Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response [HAMMER] training and education center. The Department 

is expected to continue making PILT payments at last year’s level 

to counties that have the Hanford reservation within their boundaries. The Committee recognizes that the Department has been 

taking steps to increase the involvement of, and cooperation with, 

its co-trustees on natural resource damages issues. The Committee 

encourages the Department to continue those efforts, including 

funding for the other natural resource trustees to provide technical 

assistance in cleanup matters. 

Office of River Protection.—The Committee recommendation provides $962,699,000, an increase of $34,393,000 above the budget request. Within the available funds, the Committee recommends 

$328,840,000 an increase of $34,393,000 to address tank waste stabilization and disposition. 

Program Direction.—The Committee recommendation provides 

$230,931,000. 

Program Support.—The Committee recommendation provides 

$32,846,000 for program support, the same as the budget request. 

Federal Contribution to Uranium Enrichment Decontamination 

and Decommissioning Fund.—The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law 102–486) created the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund to pay for the cost of cleanup of 

the gaseous diffusion facilities located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Paducah, Kentucky; and Portsmouth, Ohio. The Committee recommendation includes the budget request of $451,000,000 for the 

Federal contribution to the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination 

and Decommissioning Fund as authorized in Public Law 102–486. 

Technology Development and Deployment.—The Committee recommendation provides $56,389,000, an increase of $35,000,000 over 

the budget request. This program focuses on high priority technical 

needs at near-term closure sites and projects. In addition, the technology program will focus on identifying technical vulnerabilities 
175

and alternative solutions in support of the Department’s accelerated cleanup strategies. 

Within available funds, the Committee provides $6,000,000 for 

the Western Environmental Technology Office; $5,000,000 for the 

UNR School of Medicine Core Facilities equipment; $4,500,000 for 

the Great Basin Science Sample and Records Library; $2,000,000 

for the Desert Research Institute’s CAVE project; $1,000,000 to the 

UNLV Research Foundation to continue earthquake hazard and 

seismic risk research; and $1,500,000 is provided for work on the 

subsurface science research institute by Idaho National Laboratory 

and the Inland Northwest Research Alliance institutions; 

$5,000,000 is provided for the Diagnostic Instrumentation and 

Analysis Laboratory. 

The Department is directed to renew its cooperative agreements 

with the University of Nevada-Las Vegas and the University of Nevada-Reno. The Committee is concerned that the Department has 

ignored direction in prior Conference Reports regarding these cooperative agreements. The Department is specifically directed to reinstitute the NRAMP cooperative agreement at a level consistent 

with the original agreement. 

Within available funds, $3,000,000 is provided to continue the 

development of an electrochemical system utilizing ceramic ionic 

transport membranes for the recycle and disposal of radioactive sodium ion waste. 

The Department shall continue its support of the Tribal Colleges 

Initiative grant, involving Crownpoint Institute of Technology, Dine ́

College, Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute, to develop 

high-quality environmental programs at tribal colleges. The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for the continued support of the international agreement and collaboration with AEA 

Technology to address alternative cost effective technologies for 

cleaning up legacy waste. 

Within available funds, $3,000,000 is provided for the Desert Research Institute’s Environmental Monitoring Program; $2,000,000 

for the Nye County Groundwater Evaluation Program; $2,000,000 

for emergency and non-emergency communications systems upgrades in Nye County, Nevada, for areas closest to the Nevada Test 

Site and Yucca Mountain; and $1,500,000 for the City of Caliente, 

Nevada. 

NNSA Sites and Nevada Off-sites.—The Committee recommendation provides $352,757,000, an increase of $207,702,000 over the 

budget request. The increase reflects the return of cleanup activities to the Environmental Management program that otherwise 

would have transferred to the NNSA. The Committee recommends 

$5,300,000 for Stabilization of Los Alamos Airport Landfill. 

Safeguards and Security.—The Committee recommendation provides $287,223,000, the same as the budget request.

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $687,149,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 635,998,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 702,498,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 661,998,000
176

The Other Defense Activities account provides funding for the 

following Departmental offices and functions: security; intelligence; 

counterintelligence; independent oversight and performance assurance; defense-related environment, safety and health support; 

worker and community transition, legacy management; and hearings and appeals. 

OFFICE OF SECURITY AND PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE

The Committee recommendation includes $321,095,000, 

$20,000,000 above the budget request. 

The security program consists of the following elements: nuclear 

safeguards and security, security investigations, and program direction. These programs provide policy for the protection of the Department’s nuclear weapons, nuclear materials, classified information, and facilities. They ensure a Department-wide capability to 

continue essential functions across a wide range of potential emergencies, allowing DOE to uphold its national security responsibilities and provide security clearances for Federal and contractor 

personnel. 

ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

The Committee recommendation includes a total of $83,029,000 

in the budget request. The Committee provides $7,000,000 to undertake the Chernobyl Research and Service Project. 

The defense-related environment, safety and health program is a 

corporate resource that provides Departmental leadership and 

management to protect the workers, public, and environment in the 

areas of oversight, health studies, radiation effects research, employee compensation support, and program direction. 

The Committee supports the Radiation Effects Research Foundation at the requested level to carry out the scientific work, which 

the United States has funded since 1947, to study the health effects associated with the atomic blast over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 

The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for the DOE 

Worker Records Digitization project in Nevada. 

Former Worker Medical Screening.—The Committee directs the 

Secretary to allocate $16,500,000 for the former worker medical 

screening programs, $4,000,000 above the budget request. From 

within available funds the Committee directs $465,000 to extend 

medical screening and outreach to current and former workers at 

the three gaseous diffusion plants [GDP] in Portsmouth, Ohio, Paducah, Kentucky and Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The Committee directs the Secretary to allocate $1,000,000 to carry out medical 

screening and outreach to former workers at the Mound facility in 

Miamisburg, Ohio; and $1,000,000 for medical screening and outreach for former workers at the Fernald facility in Harrison, Ohio, 

who were employed after 1985. The Committee directs the Secretary to commence a program of early lung cancer detection using 

helical low dose CT technology for all workers who are at elevated 

risk of lung cancer at the Y–12 and X–10 facilities in Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee, consistent with the eligibility protocols established for 

the three GDPs. Given that the cancer screening program carried 

out at the three GDPs since 2000 has identified the majority of 
177

lung cancers at early stages where surgical intervention is likely to 

be successful, and which has led to an increase in survival rates; 

and given the increased rates of lung cancer identified in health 

studies at Y–12, it is appropriate to extend lung screening to atrisk workers at the Oak Ridge Y–12 and X–10 facilities. The Committee supports DOE’s plan to continue and extend its regional 

medical screening projects in fiscal year 2006. To offset the increases, the Committee allocates $2,700,000 in fiscal year 2006, for 

activities under the DOE–HHS Memorandum of Agreement, and 

directs the Department to prioritize funds for the work of the National Center for Environmental Health at Los Alamos National 

Labs, and to fully support the research work of the Health Energy 

Related Branch of the National Institute for Occupational Safety 

and Health. 

LEGACY MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommendation includes $45,076,000, the same 

as the budget request. 

DEFENSE-RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

The Committee recommendation includes $87,575,000 for National Security Programs Administrative support. This fund pays 

for departmental services that are provided in support of the National Nuclear Security Administration. 

FUNDING FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES IN IDAHO

The Committee recommendation includes $123,873,000 to fund 

the defense-related activities at the Idaho National Laboratory 

[INL] and associated Idaho cleanup sites. This amount includes 

$17,762,000 for INL infrastructure, the same as the budget request, $75,008,000 for Idaho site-wide safeguards and security, the 

same as the budget request; and $31,103,000 for program direction 

to support headquarters and Idaho Field Office personnel. 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

The Committee recommendation includes $4,353,000 for the Office of Hearings and Appeals, the same as the budget request. 

The Office of Hearings and Appeals conducts all of the Department’s adjudicative processes and provides various administrative 

remedies as may be required. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $229,152,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 351,447,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 351,447,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 277,000,000

The Committee recommends $277,000,000 for defense nuclear 

waste disposal. 

This account provides the Federal Government’s fiscal year 2006 

contribution to the nuclear waste repository program to support 

nuclear waste repository activities attributed to atomic energy defense activities. 
178

The Committee understands that the Department formally approved in 1995 the right of the Affected Units of Local Government 

to retain interest earned on unexpended balances in their oversight 

accounts. The Committee affirms that this policy reflects the intent 

of Congress and should be maintained by the Department.

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

Public Law 95–91 transferred to the Department of Energy the 

power marketing functions under section 5 of the Flood Control Act 

of 1944 and all other functions of the Department of the Interior 

with respect to the Bonneville Power Administration, Southeastern 

Power Administration, Southwestern Power Administration, and 

the power marketing functions of the Bureau of Reclamation, now 

included in the Western Area Power Administration. 

All Power Marketing Administrations except Bonneville are 

funded annually with appropriations, and related receipts are deposited in the Treasury. Bonneville operations are self-financed 

under authority of Public Law 93–454, the Federal Columbia River 

Transmission System Act of 1974, which authorizes Bonneville to 

use its revenues to finance operating costs, maintenance and capital construction, and sell bonds to the Treasury if necessary to finance any remaining capital program requirements. 

BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION FUND

The Bonneville Power Administration [BPA] is the Federal electric power marketing agency in the Pacific Northwest, a 300,000 

square-mile service area that encompasses Oregon, Washington, 

Idaho, western Montana, and small portions of adjacent States in 

the Columbia River basin. BPA markets hydroelectric power from 

21 multipurpose water resource projects of the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers and 10 projects of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, plus 

some energy from non-Federal generating projects in the region. 

These generating resources and BPA’s transmission system are operated as an integrated power system with operating and financial 

results combined and reported as the Federal Columbia River 

Power System [FCRPS]. BPA is the largest power wholesaler in the 

Northwest and provides about 45 percent of the region’s electric energy supply and about three-fourths of the region’s electric power 

transmission capacity. 

BPA finances its operations on the basis of the self-financing authority provided by Federal Columbia River Transmission System 

Act of 1974 (Transmission Act) (Public Law 93–454) and the borrowing authority provided by the Pacific Northwest Electric Power 

Planning and Conservation Act (Pacific Northwest Power Act) 

(Public Law 96–501) for energy conservation, renewable energy resources and capital fish facilities. Authority to borrow is available 

to the BPA on a permanent, indefinite basis. 

The Committee is concerned about the increasing cost of salmon 

recovery efforts in the Columbia River Basin, and about the potential adverse impact of those increased costs on customers of the 

Bonneville Power Administration. The Committee also is concerned 

about the quality and efficiency of some of the fish data collection 

efforts and analyses being performed. As a result, during fiscal 
179

year 2006, the Bonneville Power Administration may make no new 

obligations from the Bonneville Power Administration Fund in support of the Fish Passage Center. The Committee understands that 

there are universities in the Pacific Northwest that already collect 

fish data for the region and are well-positioned to take on the responsibilities now being performed by the Fish Passage Center, 

and that the universities can carry out those responsibilities at a 

savings to the region’s ratepayers that fund these programs. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $5,158,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... ........................... 

House allowance .................................................................................... 5,600,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,600,000

The Southeastern Power Administration markets hydroelectric 

power produced at Corps of Engineers projects in 11 Southeastern 

States. Southeastern does not own or operate any transmission facilities and carries out its marketing program by utilizing the existing transmission systems of the power utilities in the area. This is 

accomplished through transmission arrangements between Southeastern and each of the area utilities with transmission lines connected to the projects. The utility agrees to deliver specified 

amounts of Federal power to customers of the Government, and 

Southeastern agrees to compensate the utility for the wheeling 

service performed. The Committee recommendation includes $32,713,000 for purchase power and wheeling activities. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $29,117,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 3,166,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 30,166,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 30,166,000

The Southwestern Power Administration is the marketing agent 

for the power generated at Corps of Engineers’ hydroelectric plants 

in the six-State area of Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana with a total installed capacity of 2,158 

megawatts. It operates and maintains some 1,380 miles of transmission lines, 24 generating projects, and 24 substations, and sells 

its power at wholesale primarily to publicly and cooperatively 

owned electric distribution utilities. 

The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 for purchase power and wheeling activities. 

CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $171,715,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 53,957,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 226,992,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 240,757,000

The Western Area Power Administration is responsible for marketing electric power generated by the Bureau of Reclamation, the 
180

Corps of Engineers, and the International Boundary and Water 

Commission which operate hydropower generating plants in 15 

Central and Western States encompassing a 1.3-million-squaremile geographic area. Western is also responsible for the operation 

and maintenance of almost 17,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines with more than 260 substations. 

Utah Mitigation and Conservation Fund.—This fund is dedicated 

primarily for environmental mitigation expenditures covering fish 

and wildlife, and recreation resources impacted by the Central 

Utah Project and the Colorado River Storage Project in the State 

of Utah. For fiscal year 2004, the President’s Budget proposes to 

transfer the authorities and future contributions for the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account from the Secretary 

of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, to the Secretary of 

the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 

The Committee recommendation includes $279,500,000 for purchase power and wheeling activities, and provides $53,957,000 for 

construction and rehabilitation as requested. 

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

The Committee recommendation is $2,692,000, the same as the 

budget request. 

Creation of the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance 

Fund was directed by the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, fiscal years 1994–95 (Public Law 103–236). This legislation also directed that the fund be administered by the Administrator of the 

Western Area Power Administration for use by the Commissioner 

of the United States Section of the International Boundary and 

Water Commission to defray operation, maintenance, and emergency costs for the hydroelectric facilities at the Falcon and 

Amistad Dams in Texas. 

The Committee understands that WAPA has included $6,700,000 

in its request to be transferred to the Utah Reclamation Mitigation 

and Conservation Fund. The Committee expects WAPA to continue 

budgeting for and transferring these funds to the fund as required 

by section 214 of Public Law 108–137. 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $210,000,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 220,400,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 220,400,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 220,400,000

SALARIES AND EXPENSES—REVENUES APPLIED

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $210,000,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 220,400,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 220,400,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 220,400,000

The Committee recommendation includes $220,400,000, the 

amount of the budget request, for the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission [FERC]. Revenues are established at a rate equal to 
181

the amount provided for program activities, resulting in a net appropriation of zero. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee’s detailed funding recommendation for programs 

in Title III, Department of Energy, are contained in the following 

table.
182

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

ENERGY SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION

ENERGY EFFICENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

Hydrogen Technology: 

Hydrogen technology ..................................................................................... 94,562 99,094 99,094 99,094 ∂4,532 .......................... ..........................Fuel cell technologies ................................................................................... 74,944 83,600 83,600 83,600 ∂8,656 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, hydrogen technology ................................................................. 169,506 182,694 182,694 182,694 ∂13,188 .......................... ..........................

Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D ................................................................. 89,063 72,164 86,164 92,164 ∂3,101 ∂20,000 ∂6,000Solar energy ........................................................................................................... 85,841 83,953 83,953 83,953 ¥1,888 .......................... ..........................Wind energy systems ............................................................................................. 41,267 44,249 44,249 34,249 ¥7,018 ¥10,000 ¥10,000Geothermal technology ........................................................................................... 25,594 23,299 23,299 23,299 ¥2,295 .......................... ..........................Hydropower ............................................................................................................. 4,960 500 500 500 ¥4,460 .......................... ..........................Vehicle technologies ............................................................................................... 166,905 165,943 167,943 199,943 ∂33,038 ∂34,000 ∂32,000Building technologies ............................................................................................. 67,138 57,966 64,966 67,000 ¥138 ∂9,034 ∂2,034Industrial technologies ........................................................................................... 75,349 56,489 58,891 56,489 ¥18,860 .......................... ¥2,402Distributed energy and electricity reliability ......................................................... 60,626 56,629 56,629 .......................... ¥60,626 ¥56,629 ¥56,629Federal Energy Management Program: 

Departmental energy management program ................................................ 1,951 2,019 2,019 2,019 ∂68 .......................... ..........................Federal energy management program .......................................................... 18,144 17,147 17,147 17,147 ¥997 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Federal Energy Management Program ...................................... 20,095 19,166 19,166 19,166 ¥929 .......................... ..........................

Facilities and infrastructure: 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory ........................................................ 4,762 5,800 5,800 5,800 ∂1,038 .......................... ..........................Construction: 02–E–001 Science and technology facility, NREL ................. 6,627 10,515 10,515 10,515 ∂3,888 .......................... ..........................

Total, Facilities and infrastructure .......................................................... 11,389 16,315 16,315 16,315 ∂4,926 .......................... ..........................

Weatherization and Intergovernmental program: 

Weatherization assistance ............................................................................ 224,738 225,400 235,400 240,400 ∂15,662 ∂15,000 ∂5,000Training and technical assistance ............................................................... 3,422 4,600 4,600 4,600 ∂1,178 .......................... ..........................State energy program grants ........................................................................ 44,176 41,000 41,000 41,000 ¥3,176 .......................... ..........................
183

State energy activities .................................................................................. 2,320 500 500 500 ¥1,820 .......................... ..........................Gateway deployment ..................................................................................... 34,973 26,657 26,657 26,657 ¥8,316 .......................... ..........................International renewable energy program ...................................................... 6,449 2,910 3,910 2,910 ¥3,539 .......................... ¥1,000Tribal energy activities ................................................................................. 5,457 4,000 4,000 4,000 ¥1,457 .......................... ..........................Renewable energy production incentive ....................................................... 4,960 5,000 5,000 5,000 ∂40 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Weatherization and Intergovernmental program ...................... 326,495 310,067 321,067 325,067 ¥1,428 ∂15,000 ∂4,000

Congressionally directed priorities ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... 57,000 ∂57,000 ∂57,000 ∂57,000Program Direction .................................................................................................. 93,129 101,524 101,524 86,524 ¥6,605 ¥15,000 ¥15,000Program Support .................................................................................................... 16,837 9,456 9,456 9,456 ¥7,381 .......................... ..........................Use of prior year balances .................................................................................... ¥5,318 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂5,318 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, ENERGY EFFICENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY ........................... 1,248,876 1,200,414 1,236,816 1,253,819 ∂4,943 ∂53,405 ∂17,003

ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION

Research and development .................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................High temperature superconductivity R&D ............................................................. 54,560 45,000 45,000 50,500 ¥4,060 ∂5,500 ∂5,500Transmission reliability R&D ................................................................................. 15,594 9,220 13,220 14,220 ¥1,374 ∂5,000 ∂1,000Electricity distribution transformation R&D .......................................................... 5,415 4,037 4,037 60,666 ∂55,251 ∂56,629 ∂56,629Energy storage R&D ............................................................................................... 3,968 3,000 3,000 3,000 ¥968 .......................... ..........................Gridwise .................................................................................................................. 6,448 5,500 6,745 .......................... ¥6,448 ¥5,500 ¥6,745Gridworks ................................................................................................................ 5,456 5,000 5,000 .......................... ¥5,456 ¥5,000 ¥5,000

Total, Research and development ............................................................ 91,441 71,757 77,002 128,386 ∂36,945 ∂56,629 ∂51,384

Electricity restructuring .......................................................................................... 19,840 12,400 12,400 12,400 ¥7,440 .......................... ..........................Congressionally directed priorities ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... 21,850 ∂21,850 ∂21,850 ∂21,850Program direction ................................................................................................... 8,135 11,447 10,447 15,447 ∂7,312 ∂4,000 ∂5,000Construction: 04–E–001 Project engineering and design (PED), Energy Reliability and Efficiency Laboratory ....................................................................... 769 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥769 .......................... ..........................Use of prior year balances .................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION ......................... 120,185 95,604 99,849 178,083 ∂57,898 ∂82,479 ∂78,234

NUCLEAR ENERGY

University reactor infrastructure and education assist ........................................ 23,808 24,000 24,000 24,000 ∂192 .......................... ..........................Research and development: 

Nuclear energy plant optimization ................................................................ 2,480 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥2,480 .......................... ..........................Nuclear energy research initiative ................................................................ 2,480 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥2,480 .......................... ..........................
184

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

Nuclear power 2010 ...................................................................................... 49,600 56,000 46,000 76,000 ∂26,400 ∂20,000 ∂30,000Generation IV nuclear energy systems initiative .......................................... 39,680 45,000 45,000 60,000 ∂20,320 ∂15,000 ∂15,000Nuclear hydrogen initiative ........................................................................... 8,928 20,000 20,000 30,000 ∂21,072 ∂10,000 ∂10,000Advanced fuel cycle initiative ....................................................................... 67,456 70,000 75,500 85,000 ∂17,544 ∂15,000 ∂9,500

Total, Research and development ............................................................ 170,624 191,000 186,500 251,000 ∂80,376 ∂60,000 ∂64,500

Infrastructure: 

Radiological facilities management: 

Space and defense infrastructure ....................................................... 33,530 31,200 39,700 31,200 ¥2,330 .......................... ¥8,500Medical isotopes infrastructure ........................................................... 21,024 14,395 14,395 14,395 ¥6,629 .......................... ..........................

Construction: 05–E–203 Facility modifications for U–233 di disposition, 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN ....................................... 13,507 18,705 .......................... 18,705 ∂5,198 .......................... ∂18,705

Subtotal, Medical isotopes infrastructure ........................................... 34,531 33,100 14,395 33,100 ¥1,431 .......................... ∂18,705

Enrichment facility and uranium management .................................................... 496 500 500 500 ∂4 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Radiological facilities management ......................................... 68,557 64,800 54,595 64,800 ¥3,757 .......................... ∂10,205

Idaho facilities management: 

INL Operations and infrastructure ................................................................ 120,555 86,907 102,907 86,907 ¥33,648 .......................... ¥16,000ANL—West operations .................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................INL infrastructure .......................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Construction: 

06–E–200 Project engineering and design (PED), INL, ID ........ .......................... 7,870 7,870 7,870 ∂7,870 .......................... ..........................06–E–201 Gas test loop in the ATR, INL, ID ............................. .......................... 3,085 3,085 3,085 ∂3,085 .......................... ..........................99–E–200 Test reactor area electrical utility upgrade, Idaho 

National Engineering Lab, ID ................................................. 1,511 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥1,511 .......................... ..........................

95–E–201 Test reactor area fire and life safety improvements 

(INEL) ...................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Construction ....................................................... 1,511 10,955 10,955 10,955 ∂9,444 .......................... ..........................
185

Subtotal, Idaho facilities management .................................. 122,066 97,862 113,862 97,862 ¥24,204 .......................... ¥16,000

Idaho sitewide safeguards and security ............................................................... 58,103 75,008 75,008 75,008 ∂16,905 .......................... ..........................

Total, Infrastructure .................................................................................. 248,726 237,670 243,465 237,670 ¥11,056 .......................... ¥5,795

Spent nuclear fuel management ........................................................................... 6,681 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥6,681 .......................... ..........................Program direction ................................................................................................... 60,076 61,109 61,109 61,109 ∂1,033 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Nuclear Energy .......................................................................... 509,915 513,779 515,074 573,779 ∂63,864 ∂60,000 ∂58,705

Funding from other defense activities .................................................................. ¥114,347 ¥123,873 ¥123,873 ¥123,873 ¥9,526 .......................... ..........................Funding from Naval Reactors ................................................................................ ¥10,000 .......................... ¥13,500 .......................... ∂10,000 .......................... ∂13,500

TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY ......................................................................... 385,568 389,906 377,701 449,906 ∂64,338 ∂60,000 ∂72,205

ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH

Office of Environment, Safety and Health (non-defense) ..................................... 7,936 9,100 5,100 9,100 ∂1,164 .......................... ∂4,000Program direction ................................................................................................... 19,842 20,900 20,900 20,900 ∂1,058 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH ........................................... 27,778 30,000 26,000 30,000 ∂2,222 .......................... ∂4,000

OFFICE OF LEGACY MANAGEMENT

Legacy management .............................................................................................. 30,881 33,522 23,522 33,522 ∂2,641 .......................... ∂10,000

Subtotal, Energy supply and conservation ............................................... 1,813,288 1,749,446 1,763,888 1,945,330 ∂132,042 ∂195,884 ∂181,442

Use of prior year balances .................................................................................... ¥6,352 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂6,352 .......................... ..........................Less security charge from reimbursable work ...................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Miscellaneous appropriations (Public Law 108–199) ........................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION .......................................... 1,806,936 1,749,446 1,763,888 1,945,330 ∂138,394 ∂195,884 ∂181,442

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2005 ............................................. ¥257,000 257,000 257,000 257,000 ∂514,000 .......................... ..........................Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2007 ............................................. .......................... .......................... ¥257,000 ¥257,000 ¥257,000 ¥257,000 ..........................Rescission .............................................................................................................. .......................... ¥257,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂257,000 ..........................

Total, Clean Coal Technology ................................................................... ¥257,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂257,000 .......................... ..........................
186

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Clean coal power initiative .................................................................................... 49,305 50,000 50,000 100,000 ∂50,695 ∂50,000 ∂50,000FutureGen ............................................................................................................... 17,750 18,000 18,000 18,000 ∂250 .......................... ..........................Advance appropriation, fiscal year 2007 .............................................................. .......................... 257,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥257,000 ..........................Fuels and Power Systems: 

Innovations for existing plants ..................................................................... 19,081 23,850 23,850 25,400 ∂6,319 ∂1,550 ∂1,550Advanced integrated gasification combined cycle ....................................... 45,805 56,450 56,450 56,450 ∂10,645 .......................... ..........................Advanced turbines ........................................................................................ 15,383 18,000 18,000 18,000 ∂2,617 .......................... ..........................Carbon sequestration .................................................................................... 45,361 67,200 50,000 74,200 ∂28,839 ∂7,000 ∂24,200Fuels .............................................................................................................. 32,147 22,000 22,000 29,000 ¥3,147 ∂7,000 ∂7,000Fuel cells ....................................................................................................... 77,386 65,000 65,000 69,000 ¥8,386 ∂4,000 ∂4,000Advanced research ........................................................................................ 42,699 30,500 30,500 34,500 ¥8,199 ∂4,000 ∂4,000Combustion systems ..................................................................................... 5,227 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥5,227 .......................... ..........................U.S./China Energy and Environmental Center .............................................. 986 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥986 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Fuels and power systems ......................................................... 284,075 283,000 265,800 306,550 ∂22,475 ∂23,550 ∂40,750Subtotal, Coal ........................................................................................... 351,130 608,000 333,800 424,550 ∂73,420 ¥183,450 ∂90,750

Natural Gas Technologies ...................................................................................... 44,839 10,000 33,000 27,000 ¥17,839 ∂17,000 ¥6,000Petroleum—Oil Technologies ................................................................................. 33,921 10,000 29,000 32,000 ¥1,921 ∂22,000 ∂3,000Program direction ................................................................................................... 104,528 98,941 105,152 106,941 ∂2,413 ∂8,000 ∂1,789Plant and Capital Equipment ................................................................................ 6,902 .......................... .......................... 23,000 ∂16,098 ∂23,000 ∂23,000Fossil energy environmental restoration ................................................................ 9,467 8,060 8,060 9,600 ∂133 ∂1,540 ∂1,540Import/export authorization .................................................................................... 1,774 1,799 1,799 1,799 ∂25 .......................... ..........................Advanced metallurgical research .......................................................................... 9,861 8,000 8,000 8,000 ¥1,861 .......................... ..........................National Academy of Sciences program review .................................................... 493 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥493 .......................... ..........................Special recruitment programs ............................................................................... 656 656 656 656 .......................... .......................... ..........................Cooperative research and development ................................................................. 8,283 3,000 3,000 3,000 ¥5,283 .......................... ..........................Congressionally directed priorities ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... 25,100 ∂25,100 ∂25,100 ∂25,100

Use of prior year balances ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥20,000 ¥20,000 ¥20,000 ¥20,000 ..........................

Subtotal, FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ...................... 571,854 491,456 502,467 641,646 ∂69,792 ∂150,190 ∂139,179
187

Advance appropriations ................................................................... .......................... 257,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥257,000 ..........................

TOTAL, FOSSIL ENERGY R&D INCLUDING ADVANCES .................. 571,854 748,456 502,467 641,646 ∂69,792 ¥106,810 ∂139,179

NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES ..................................................... 17,750 18,500 18,500 21,500 ∂3,750 ∂3,000 ∂3,000ELK HILLS SCHOOL LANDS FUNDS ......................................................................... 72,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 ∂12,000 .......................... ..........................STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE ......................................................................... 169,710 166,000 166,000 166,000 ¥3,710 .......................... ..........................NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE ............................................................ 4,930 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥4,930 .......................... ..........................ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION ............................................................... 83,819 85,926 86,426 85,926 ∂2,107 .......................... ¥500

NON–DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

West Valley Demonstration Project ........................................................................ 73,628 77,100 77,100 77,100 ∂3,472 .......................... ..........................Gaseous Diffusion Plants ....................................................................................... 143,962 45,528 45,528 48,813 ¥95,149 ∂3,285 ∂3,285Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion, 02–U–101 ....................................... 99,200 85,803 70,803 85,803 ¥13,397 .......................... ∂15,000Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility (WA) ...................................................................... 45,715 46,113 41,113 46,113 ∂398 .......................... ∂5,000Small Sites: 

Argonne National Lab ................................................................................... 785 10,487 10,487 10,487 ∂9,702 .......................... ..........................Brookhaven National Lab .............................................................................. 42,316 34,328 34,328 34,328 ¥7,988 .......................... ..........................Idaho National Lab ....................................................................................... .......................... 5,274 5,274 5,274 ∂5,274 .......................... ..........................Consolidated Business Center: 

California Site support ......................................................................... 98 100 100 100 ∂2 .......................... ..........................Inhalation Toxicology Lab ..................................................................... 487 305 305 305 ¥182 .......................... ..........................Lawrence Berkeley National Lab .......................................................... 4,038 3,900 3,900 3,900 ¥138 .......................... ..........................Stanford Linear Accelerator Center ...................................................... 2,480 3,500 3,500 3,500 ∂1,020 .......................... ..........................Energy Technology Engineering Center ................................................ 18,238 9,000 9,000 9,000 ¥9,238 .......................... ..........................Los Alamos National Lab ..................................................................... 447 490 490 490 ∂43 .......................... ..........................Lab for Energy-Related Health Research ............................................ 496 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥496 .......................... ..........................Moab ..................................................................................................... 7,711 28,006 18,006 28,006 ∂20,295 .......................... ∂10,000

Subtotal, small sites ....................................................................... 77,096 95,390 85,390 95,390 ∂18,294 .......................... ∂10,000TOTAL, NON–DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP ......................... 439,601 349,934 319,934 353,219 ¥86,382 ∂3,285 ∂33,285

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING FUND

Decontamination and decommissioning ................................................................ 415,655 571,498 571,498 561,498 ∂145,843 ¥10,000 ¥10,000Uranium/thorium reimbursement ........................................................................... 79,360 20,000 20,000 .......................... ¥79,360 ¥20,000 ¥20,000

TOTAL, URANIUM ENRICHMENT D&D FUND .............................................. 495,015 591,498 591,498 561,498 ∂66,483 ¥30,000 ¥30,000
188

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

SCIENCE

High energy physics: 

Proton accelerator-based physics ................................................................. 401,120 387,093 398,093 390,093 ¥11,027 ∂3,000 ¥8,000Electron accelerator-based physics .............................................................. 143,929 132,822 132,822 132,822 ¥11,107 .......................... ..........................Non-accelerator physics ................................................................................ 46,934 38,589 38,589 38,589 ¥8,345 .......................... ..........................Theoretical physics ........................................................................................ 48,995 49,103 49,103 49,103 ∂108 .......................... ..........................Advanced technology R&D ............................................................................ 94,721 106,326 117,326 106,326 ∂11,605 .......................... ¥11,000

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 735,699 713,933 735,933 716,933 ¥18,766 ∂3,000 ¥19,000

Construction: 98–G–304 Neutrinos at the main injector, Fermilab ............ 745 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥745 .......................... ..........................

Total, High energy physics ....................................................................... 736,444 713,933 735,933 716,933 ¥19,511 ∂3,000 ¥19,000

Nuclear physics ...................................................................................................... 404,778 368,741 406,341 417,741 ∂12,963 ∂49,000 ∂11,400

Construction: 06–SC–02 Project engineering and design (PED), Electron 

beam ion source, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY ............... .......................... 2,000 2,000 2,000 ∂2,000 .......................... ..........................

Total, Nuclear physics .......................................................................... 404,778 370,741 408,341 419,741 ∂14,963 ∂49,000 ∂11,400

Biological and environmental research ................................................................. 571,992 455,688 525,688 503,688 ¥68,304 ∂48,000 ¥22,000

Construction: 05–SC–004 Project engineering and design (PED), Facility 

for the Production and Characterization of Proteins and Molecular Tags .......................................................................................................... 9,920 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥9,920 .......................... ..........................

Basic energy sciences: 

Research: 

Materials sciences and engineering research ..................................... 635,132 746,143 772,025 816,143 ∂181,011 ∂70,000 ∂44,118Chemical sciences, geosciences and energy biosciences ................... 239,475 221,801 223,051 246,801 ∂7,326 ∂25,000 ∂23,750

Subtotal, Research .......................................................................... 874,607 967,944 995,076 1,062,944 ∂188,337 ∂95,000 ∂67,868

Construction: 

05–R–320 LINAC coherent light source (LCLS) .................................. 29,760 83,000 83,000 83,000 ∂53,240 .......................... ..........................05–R–321 Center for Functional Nanomaterials (BNL) ...................... 18,317 36,553 36,553 36,553 ∂18,236 .......................... ..........................
189

04–R–313 The molecular foundry (LBNL) ........................................... 31,828 9,606 9,606 9,606 ¥22,222 .......................... ..........................03–SC–002 Project engineering & design (PED) SLAC ...................... 19,914 2,544 2,544 2,544 ¥17,370 .......................... ..........................03–R–312 Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences, ORNL ............. 17,669 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥17,669 .......................... ..........................03–R–313 Center for Integrated Nanotechnology ............................... 30,650 4,626 4,626 4,626 ¥26,024 .......................... ..........................02–SC–002 Project engineering and design (VL) ............................... 1,996 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥1,996 .......................... ..........................99–E–334 Spallation neutron source (ORNL) ..................................... 79,891 41,744 41,744 41,744 ¥38,147 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Construction ..................................................................... 230,025 178,073 178,073 178,073 ¥51,952 .......................... ..........................Total, Basic energy sciences ........................................................... 1,104,632 1,146,017 1,173,149 1,241,017 ∂136,385 ∂95,000 ∂67,868

Advanced scientific computing research ............................................................... 232,468 207,055 246,055 207,055 ¥25,413 .......................... ¥39,000Science laboratories infrastructure: 

Laboratories facilities support: 

Infrastructure support .......................................................................... 1,752 1,520 1,520 1,520 ¥232 .......................... ..........................General plant projects ......................................................................... .......................... 3,000 3,000 3,000 ∂3,000 .......................... ..........................Construction: 

04–SC–001 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations .................................................................................... 4,960 3,000 3,000 3,000 ¥1,960 .......................... ..........................03–SC–001 Science laboratories infrastructure ........................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................MEL–001 Multiprogram Energy Laboratory infrastructure 

projects, various locations ..................................................... 19,236 12,869 14,869 12,869 ¥6,367 .......................... ¥2,000

Subtotal, Construction ....................................................... 24,196 15,869 17,869 15,869 ¥8,327 .......................... ¥2,000Subtotal, Laboratories facilities support ........................... 25,948 20,389 22,389 20,389 ¥5,559 .......................... ¥2,000

Oak Ridge landlord ....................................................................................... 5,039 5,079 5,079 5,079 ∂40 .......................... ..........................Excess facilities disposal .............................................................................. 6,051 14,637 14,637 14,637 ∂8,586 .......................... ..........................Safety-related corrective actions .................................................................. 4,960 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥4,960 .......................... ..........................

Total, Science laboratories infrastructure ................................................ 41,998 40,105 42,105 40,105 ¥1,893 .......................... ¥2,000

Fusion energy sciences program ........................................................................... 273,903 290,550 296,155 290,550 ∂16,647 .......................... ¥5,605Safeguards and security ........................................................................................ 72,773 74,317 74,317 74,317 ∂1,544 .......................... ..........................Workforce development for teachers and scientists ............................................. 7,599 7,192 7,192 7,192 ¥407 .......................... ..........................Science program direction: 

Field offices ................................................................................................... 88,809 92,593 92,593 92,593 ∂3,784 .......................... ..........................Headquarters ................................................................................................. 65,222 70,132 70,132 70,132 ∂4,910 .......................... ..........................Technical information management program .............................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Energy research analyses ............................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................
190

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

Congressionally directed priorities ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... 45,000 ∂45,000 ∂45,000 ∂45,000

Total, Science program direction ............................................................. 154,031 162,725 162,725 207,725 ∂53,694 ∂45,000 ∂45,000Subtotal, Science ...................................................................................... 3,610,538 3,468,323 3,671,660 3,708,323 ∂97,785 ∂240,000 ∂36,663

Use of prior year balances .................................................................................... ¥5,062 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂5,062 .......................... ..........................Less security charge for reimbursable work ......................................................... ¥5,605 ¥5,605 ¥5,605 ¥5,605 .......................... .......................... ..........................Miscellaneous appropriations (Public Law 108–199) ........................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, SCIENCE ........................................................................................ 3,599,871 3,462,718 3,666,055 3,702,718 ∂102,847 ∂240,000 ∂36,663

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Repository program ................................................................................................ 263,872 218,536 228,536 218,536 ¥45,336 .......................... ¥10,000Program direction ................................................................................................... 79,360 81,464 81,464 81,464 ∂2,104 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL .......................................................... 343,232 300,000 310,000 300,000 ¥43,232 .......................... ¥10,000

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

Administrative operations: 

Salaries and expenses: 

Office of the Secretary ......................................................................... 4,644 5,399 4,843 5,399 ∂755 .......................... ∂556Board of Contract Appeals .................................................................. 648 648 680 648 .......................... .......................... ¥32Chief Information Officer ..................................................................... 37,967 51,122 39,865 51,122 ∂13,155 .......................... ∂11,257Congressional and intergovernmental affairs ..................................... 4,826 5,089 5,067 5,089 ∂263 .......................... ∂22Economic impact and diversity ........................................................... 5,099 5,352 5,352 5,352 ∂253 .......................... ..........................General Counsel ................................................................................... 21,774 24,217 22,780 24,217 ∂2,443 .......................... ∂1,437Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation .................................. 106,850 111,806 110,300 111,806 ∂4,956 .......................... ∂1,506Policy and international affairs ........................................................... 14,993 18,844 15,743 18,844 ∂3,851 .......................... ∂3,101Public affairs ....................................................................................... 2,459 4,504 2,566 5,504 ∂3,045 ∂1,000 ∂2,938

Subtotal, Salaries and expenses ..................................................... 199,260 226,981 207,196 227,981 ∂28,721 ∂1,000 ∂20,785
191

Program support: 

Minority economic impact ............................................................................. 823 830 823 830 ∂7 .......................... ∂7Policy analysis and system studies .............................................................. 392 395 392 395 ∂3 .......................... ∂3Environmental policy studies ........................................................................ 562 567 562 567 ∂5 .......................... ∂5Cybersecurity and secure communications .................................................. 24,733 32,000 24,733 32,000 ∂7,267 .......................... ∂7,267Corporate management information program .............................................. 31,881 23,055 23,055 23,055 ¥8,826 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Program support ....................................................................... 58,391 56,847 49,565 56,847 ¥1,544 .......................... ∂7,282

Competitive sourcing initiative (A–76) .................................................................. 2,480 3,000 3,000 3,000 ∂520 .......................... ..........................

Total, Administrative operations .............................................................. 260,131 286,828 259,761 287,828 ∂27,697 ∂1,000 ∂28,067

Cost of work for others .......................................................................................... 71,048 80,723 80,723 80,723 ∂9,675 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Departmental Administration .................................................... 331,179 367,551 340,484 368,551 ∂37,372 ∂1,000 ∂28,067

Use of prior year balances and other adjustments .............................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Funding from other defense activities .................................................................. ¥91,700 ¥87,575 ¥87,575 ¥87,575 ∂4,125 .......................... ..........................

Total, Departmental administration (gross) ............................................. 239,479 279,976 252,909 280,976 ∂41,497 ∂1,000 ∂28,067

Miscellaneous revenues ......................................................................................... ¥122,000 ¥123,000 ¥123,000 ¥123,000 ¥1,000 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION (net) ........................................ 117,479 156,976 129,909 157,976 ∂40,497 ∂1,000 ∂28,067

Office of Inspector General .................................................................................... 41,176 43,000 43,000 43,000 ∂1,824 .......................... ..........................

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Directed stockpile work: 

Stockpile research and development ............................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Stockpile maintenance .................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Stockpile evaluation ...................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Dismantlement/disposal ................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Production support ........................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Field engineering, training and manuals ..................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Life extension program ................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... 348,318 ∂348,318 ∂348,318 ∂348,318
192

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

B61 ....................................................................................................... 116,984 50,810 50,810 .......................... ¥116,984 ¥50,810 ¥50,810W76 ...................................................................................................... 234,536 162,268 162,268 .......................... ¥234,536 ¥162,268 ¥162,268W80 ...................................................................................................... 145,239 135,240 100,240 .......................... ¥145,239 ¥135,240 ¥100,240

Subtotal, Life extension program .................................................... 496,759 348,318 313,318 348,318 ¥148,441 .......................... ∂35,000

Stockpile systems: .................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... 311,804 ∂311,804 ∂311,804 ∂311,804

B61 ................................................................................................................ 90,526 66,050 66,050 .......................... ¥90,526 ¥66,050 ¥66,050W62 ............................................................................................................... 18,254 8,967 8,967 .......................... ¥18,254 ¥8,967 ¥8,967W76 ............................................................................................................... 136,427 63,538 63,538 .......................... ¥136,427 ¥63,538 ¥63,538W78 ............................................................................................................... 43,958 32,632 32,632 .......................... ¥43,958 ¥32,632 ¥32,632W80 ............................................................................................................... 39,191 26,315 16,315 .......................... ¥39,191 ¥26,315 ¥16,315B83 ................................................................................................................ 44,635 26,391 26,391 .......................... ¥44,635 ¥26,391 ¥26,391W84 ............................................................................................................... 6,070 4,402 4,402 .......................... ¥6,070 ¥4,402 ¥4,402W87 ............................................................................................................... 79,245 50,678 50,678 .......................... ¥79,245 ¥50,678 ¥50,678W88 ............................................................................................................... 48,700 32,831 32,831 .......................... ¥48,700 ¥32,831 ¥32,831

Subtotal, Stockpile systems ..................................................................... 507,006 311,804 301,804 311,804 ¥195,202 .......................... ∂10,000

Stockpile services: 

Production support ........................................................................................ .......................... 267,246 200,246 267,246 ∂267,246 .......................... ∂67,000Research and development ........................................................................... .......................... 66,753 50,753 71,753 ∂71,753 ∂5,000 ∂21,000Research and development certification and safety .................................... 146,802 211,727 150,727 243,727 ∂96,925 ∂32,000 ∂93,000Management, technology, and production .................................................... 112,196 166,587 131,589 171,587 ∂59,391 ∂5,000 ∂39,998Reliable replacement warhead ..................................................................... 8,928 9,351 25,000 25,351 ∂16,423 ∂16,000 ∂351Robust nuclear earth penetrator .................................................................. .......................... 4,000 .......................... 4,000 ∂4,000 .......................... ∂4,000Warheads Dismantlement ............................................................................. 74,400 35,245 110,245 15,000 ¥59,400 ¥20,245 ¥95,245

Subtotal, Stockpile services ..................................................................... 342,326 760,909 668,560 798,664 ∂456,338 ∂37,755 ∂130,104Total, Directed stockpile work .................................................................. 1,346,091 1,421,031 1,283,682 1,458,786 ∂112,695 ∂37,755 ∂175,104

Campaigns: 

Science campaigns: 

Primary assessment technologies ........................................................ 73,381 45,179 35,179 55,179 ¥18,202 ∂10,000 ∂20,000
193

Test readiness ...................................................................................... .......................... 25,000 15,000 25,000 ∂25,000 .......................... ∂10,000Dynamic materials properties .............................................................. 85,829 80,894 70,894 90,894 ∂5,065 ∂10,000 ∂20,000Advanced radiography .......................................................................... 54,928 49,520 40,500 59,520 ∂4,592 ∂10,000 ∂19,020Secondary assessment technologies .................................................... 63,088 61,332 55,332 77,332 ∂14,244 ∂16,000 ∂22,000

Subtotal, Science campaigns .......................................................... 277,226 261,925 216,905 307,925 ∂30,699 ∂46,000 ∂91,020

Engineering campaign: 

Enhanced surety ................................................................................... 32,856 29,845 22,000 45,845 ∂12,989 ∂16,000 ∂23,845Weapons system engineering assessment technology ........................ 27,052 24,040 15,040 20,040 ¥7,012 ¥4,000 ∂5,000Nuclear survivability ............................................................................ 9,384 9,386 9,386 25,386 ∂16,002 ∂16,000 ∂16,000Enhanced surveillance ......................................................................... 99,080 96,207 76,000 111,207 ∂12,127 ∂15,000 ∂35,207Microsystem and engineering science applications (MESA), other 

project costs .................................................................................... 4,563 4,714 4,714 4,714 ∂151 .......................... ..........................

Construction: 01–D–108 Microsystem and engineering science applications (MESA), SNL, Albuquerque, NM ...................................... 85,808 65,564 65,564 65,564 ¥20,244 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, MESA ............................................................................ 90,371 70,278 70,278 70,278 ¥20,093 .......................... ..........................Subtotal, Engineering campaign ................................................ 258,743 229,756 192,704 272,756 ∂14,013 ∂43,000 ∂80,052

Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield campaign ............................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Ignition .......................................................................................................... 68,882 75,615 75,615 68,800 ¥82 ¥6,815 ¥6,815Support of stockpile program ....................................................................... 38,675 9,872 9,872 41,000 ∂2,325 ∂31,128 ∂31,128NIF diagnostics, cryogenics and experiment support ................................... 48,631 43,008 43,008 30,000 ¥18,631 ¥13,008 ¥13,008Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion .................................................... 10,991 10,111 10,111 10,900 ¥91 ∂789 ∂789University grants/other support .................................................................... 7,714 9,946 9,946 7,700 ¥14 ¥2,246 ¥2,246Facility operations and target production .................................................... 62,552 54,623 69,623 54,623 ¥7,929 .......................... ¥15,000Inertial fusion technology ............................................................................. 33,728 .......................... 40,000 41,000 ∂7,272 ∂41,000 ∂1,000NIF demonstration program .......................................................................... 94,934 112,330 112,330 50,000 ¥44,934 ¥62,330 ¥62,330High-energy petawatt laser development ..................................................... 41,639 3,000 29,000 10,000 ¥31,639 ∂7,000 ¥19,000

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 407,746 318,505 399,505 314,023 ¥93,723 ¥4,482 ¥85,482

Construction: 96–D–111 National ignition facility, LLNL ............................ 128,960 141,913 141,913 .......................... ¥128,960 ¥141,913 ¥141,913

Subtotal, Inertial confinement fusion ...................................................... 536,706 460,418 541,418 314,023 ¥222,683 ¥146,395 ¥227,395

Advanced simulation and computing .................................................................... 694,928 660,830 500,830 735,830 ∂40,902 ∂75,000 ∂235,000

Construction: 

01–D–101 Distributed information systems laboratory, SNL, Livermore, CA .......................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................
194

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

00–D–103, Terascale simulation facility, LLNL, Livermore, CA .......... 3,202 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥3,202 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Construction ..................................................................... 3,202 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥3,202 .......................... ..........................Subtotal, Advanced simulation and computing .............................. 698,130 660,830 500,830 735,830 ∂37,700 ∂75,000 ∂235,000

Pit manufacturing and certification: 

W88 pit manufacturing ................................................................................. 130,949 120,926 120,926 120,926 ¥10,023 .......................... ..........................W88 pit certification ..................................................................................... 60,472 61,895 61,895 61,895 ∂1,423 .......................... ..........................Pit manufacturing capability ........................................................................ 13,392 23,071 23,071 23,071 ∂9,679 .......................... ..........................Modern pit facility ......................................................................................... 6,944 7,686 .......................... 7,686 ∂742 .......................... ∂7,686Pit campaign support activities at NTS ....................................................... 51,788 35,182 35,182 35,182 ¥16,606 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Pit manufacturing and certification ......................................... 263,545 248,760 241,074 248,760 ¥14,785 .......................... ∂7,686

Readiness campaign: 

Stockpile readiness ....................................................................................... 45,446 31,400 31,400 31,400 ¥14,046 .......................... ..........................High explosives readiness/assembly campaign ........................................... 33,946 17,097 17,097 17,097 ¥16,849 .......................... ..........................Non-nuclear readiness .................................................................................. 32,693 28,630 28,630 28,630 ¥4,063 .......................... ..........................Advanced design and production technologies ............................................ 79,150 54,040 54,040 54,040 ¥25,110 .......................... ..........................Tritium readiness .......................................................................................... 58,379 62,694 62,694 62,694 ∂4,315 .......................... ..........................

Construction: 98–D–125 Tritium extraction facility, SR ..................... 20,832 24,894 24,894 24,894 ∂4,062 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Tritium readiness ............................................................. 79,211 87,588 87,588 87,588 ∂8,377 .......................... ..........................Subtotal, Readiness campaign ....................................................... 270,446 218,755 218,755 218,755 ¥51,691 .......................... ..........................Total, Campaigns ............................................................................ 2,304,796 2,080,444 1,911,686 2,098,049 ¥206,747 ∂17,605 ∂186,363

Readiness in technical base and facilities: 

Operations of facilities ................................................................................. 1,112,585 1,160,783 1,204,786 1,200,483 ∂87,898 ∂39,700 ¥4,303Program readiness ........................................................................................ 105,354 105,738 105,738 105,738 ∂384 .......................... ..........................Special projects ............................................................................................. 41,168 6,619 .......................... 19,869 ¥21,299 ∂13,250 ∂19,869Material recycle and recovery ....................................................................... 86,269 72,730 72,730 72,730 ¥13,539 .......................... ..........................
195

Containers ..................................................................................................... 17,767 17,247 17,247 17,247 ¥520 .......................... ..........................Storage .......................................................................................................... 18,830 25,222 25,322 25,222 ∂6,392 .......................... ¥100Nuclear weapons incident response ............................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Readiness in technical base and facilities ......................... 1,381,973 1,388,339 1,425,823 1,441,289 ∂59,316 ∂52,950 ∂15,466

Construction: 

06–D–140 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations ................................................................................................. .......................... 14,113 14,113 14,113 ∂14,113 .......................... ..........................06–D–402 NTS replace fire stations 1 & 2 Nevada Test Site, NV .... .......................... 8,284 8,284 8,284 ∂8,284 .......................... ..........................06–D–403 Tritium facility modernization Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA ..................................................... .......................... 2,600 2,600 2,600 ∂2,600 .......................... ..........................06–D–404 Building remediation, restoration, and upgrade, Nevada 

Test Site, NV .................................................................................... .......................... 16,000 16,000 16,000 ∂16,000 .......................... ..........................

05–D–140 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations ................................................................................................. 16,467 5,000 5,000 7,000 ¥9,467 ∂2,000 ∂2,00005–D–401 Building 12–64 production bays upgrades, Pantex plant, 

Amarillo, TX ..................................................................................... 24,899 11,000 11,000 11,000 ¥13,899 .......................... ..........................

05–D–402 Berylium capability (BEC) project, Y–12 National security 

complex, Oak Ridge, TN .................................................................. 3,598 7,700 7,700 7,700 ∂4,102 .......................... ..........................

04–D–101 Test capabilities revitalization, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM .................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................04–D–102 Exterior communications infrastructure modernization, 

Sandia National Laboratories .......................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

04–D–103 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations ................................................................................................. 1,488 2,000 2,000 2,000 ∂512 .......................... ..........................04–D–104 National security sciences building, Los Alamos National 

Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM ............................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

04–D–125 Chemistry and metallurgy facility replacement project, 

Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM ......................... 39,680 55,000 .......................... 65,000 ∂25,320 ∂10,000 ∂65,000

04–D–126 Building 12–44 production cells upgrade, Pantex plant, 

Amarillo, TX ..................................................................................... 2,579 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥2,579 .......................... ..........................

04–D–127 Cleaning and loading modifications, Savannah River 

site, Aiken, SC ................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

04–D–128 TA–18 mission relocation project, Los Alamos Laboratory, 

Los Alamos, NM ............................................................................... .......................... 13,000 13,000 13,000 ∂13,000 .......................... ..........................

03–D–102, National Security Sciences building, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM ................................................. 37,049 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥37,049 .......................... ..........................03–D–103 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations ................................................................................................. 15,153 29,000 15,000 29,000 ∂13,847 .......................... ∂14,000
196

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

03–D–121 Gas transfer capacity expansion, Kansas City Plant, 

Kansas City, MO .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

03–D–122 Purification facility, Y–12 plant, ....................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................3–D–123 Special nuclear materials requalification, Pantex plant, 

Amarillo, TX ..................................................................................... 4,565 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥4,565 .......................... ..........................

02–D–103 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations ................................................................................................. 5,208 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥5,208 .......................... ..........................02–D–105 Engineering technology complex upgrade, LLNL, CA ........ 5,357 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥5,357 .......................... ..........................02–D–107 Electrical power systems safety communications and 

bus upgrades, NV ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

01–D–103 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations ................................................................................................. 5,952 9,000 9,000 9,000 ∂3,048 .......................... ..........................01–D–124 HEU materials facility, Y–12 plant, Oak Ridge, TN .......... 113,088 70,350 81,350 70,350 ¥42,738 .......................... ¥11,00001–D–126 Weapons Evaluation Test Laboratory, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, TX ............................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................99–D–104 Protection of real property (roof reconstruction—Phase 

II), LLNL, Livermore, CA ................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

99–D–127 Stockpile management restructuring initiative, Kansas 

City plant, Kansas City, MO ............................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

96–D–102 Stockpile stewardship facilities revitalization (Phase VI), 

various locations ............................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Construction ................................................................ 275,083 243,047 185,047 255,047 ¥20,036 ∂12,000 ∂70,000Total, Readiness in technical base and facilities ..................... 1,657,056 1,631,386 1,610,870 1,696,336 ∂39,280 ∂64,950 ∂85,466

Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program ......................................... 289,239 233,484 200,484 211,784 ¥77,455 ¥21,700 ∂11,300

Construction: 

06–D–160 Project engioneering and design (PED), various locations ................................................................................................. .......................... 5,811 5,811 5,811 ∂5,811 .......................... ..........................06–D–601 Electrical distribution system upgrade, Pantex Plant, 

Amarillo, TX ..................................................................................... .......................... 4,000 4,000 4,000 ∂4,000 .......................... ..........................

06–D–602 Gas main and distribution system upgrade, Pantex 

Plant, Amarillo, TX ........................................................................... .......................... 3,700 3,700 3,700 ∂3,700 .......................... ..........................
197

06–D–603 Steam plant life extension project (SLEP), Y–12 National 

Security Complex, Oak Ridge, TN .................................................... .......................... 729 729 729 ∂729 .......................... ..........................

05–D–160 Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program 

project engineering design (PED), various locations ...................... 8,630 10,644 10,644 10,644 ∂2,014 .......................... ..........................

05–D–601 Compressed air upgrades project (CAUP), Y–12, National 

security complex, Oak Ridge, TN ..................................................... 4,365 9,741 9,741 9,741 ∂5,376 .......................... ..........................

05–D–602 Power grid infrastructure upgrade (PGIU), Los Alamos 

National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM ............................................. 9,920 8,500 8,500 8,500 ¥1,420 .......................... ..........................

05–D–603 New master substation (NMSU), SNL ................................ 595 6,900 6,900 6,900 ∂6,305 .......................... ..........................04–D–203 Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program 

(FIRP), project engineering design (PED), various locations .......... 973 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥973 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Construction ................................................................ 24,483 50,025 50,025 50,025 ∂25,542 .......................... ..........................Total, Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program .... 313,722 283,509 250,509 261,809 ¥51,913 ¥21,700 ∂11,300

Secure transportation asset: 

Operations and equipment ........................................................................... 142,722 143,766 143,766 143,766 ∂1,044 .......................... ..........................Program direction .......................................................................................... 56,968 68,334 68,334 68,334 ∂11,366 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Secure transportation asset ..................................................... 199,690 212,100 212,100 212,100 ∂12,410 .......................... ..........................

Use of prior year balances ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Total, Secure transportation asset ........................................................... 199,690 212,100 212,100 212,100 ∂12,410 .......................... ..........................

Nuclear weapons incident response ...................................................................... 98,415 118,796 118,796 118,796 ∂20,381 .......................... ..........................Environmental projects and operations: 

Environmental projects and operations program ......................................... .......................... 156,504 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥156,504 ..........................Program direction .......................................................................................... .......................... 17,885 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥17,885 ..........................

Subtotal, Environmental projects and operations .................................... .......................... 174,389 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥174,389 ..........................

Safeguards and security ........................................................................................ 714,913 699,478 784,478 699,478 ¥15,435 .......................... ¥85,000

Construction: 

05–D–170 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations ................................................................................................. 16,864 41,000 41,000 41,000 ∂24,136 .......................... ..........................05–D–701 Security perimeter project, Los Alamos, National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM ....................................................................... 19,840 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥19,840 .......................... ..........................99–D–132 SMRI nuclear material safeguards and security upgrade 

project (LANL), Los Alamos, NM ...................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................
198

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

Total, Safeguards and security ................................................... 751,617 740,478 825,478 740,478 ¥11,139 .......................... ¥85,000Subtotal, Weapons activities ...................................................... 6,671,387 6,662,133 6,213,121 6,586,354 ¥85,033 ¥75,779 ∂373,233

Use of prior year balances .................................................................................... ¥14,039 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂14,039 .......................... ..........................Less security charge for reimbursable work ......................................................... ¥29,760 ¥32,000 ¥32,000 ¥32,000 ¥2,240 .......................... ..........................Undistributed miscellaneous adjustment .............................................................. 4,002 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥4,002 .......................... ..........................Excluding transfer of DOD ppropriations ............................................................... ¥300,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂300,000 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES .................................................................... 6,331,590 6,630,133 6,181,121 6,554,354 ∂222,764 ¥75,779 ∂373,233

Transfer from Department of Defense appropriations .......................................... (300,000) .......................... .......................... .......................... (¥300,000) .......................... ..........................

Total, Weapons Activities (program level) ............................................... (6,631,590) (6,630,133) (6,181,121) (6,554,354) (¥77,236) (¥75,779) (∂373,233)

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Nonproliferation and verification, R&D .................................................................. 223,944 267,218 322,218 297,218 ∂73,274 ∂30,000 ¥25,000Construction: 06–D–180 Project engineering and design (PED), National Security Laboratory, PNNL ......................................................................................... .......................... 5,000 13,000 13,000 ∂13,000 ∂8,000 ..........................

Subtotal, Nonproliferation & verification R & D ...................................... 223,944 272,218 335,218 310,218 ∂86,274 ∂38,000 ¥25,000

Nonproliferation and international security ........................................................... 152,768 80,173 75,836 90,000 ¥62,768 ∂9,827 ∂14,164

International nuclear materials protection and cooperation ........................ 319,424 343,435 428,435 343,435 ∂24,011 .......................... ¥85,000Accelerated highly enriched uranium (HEU) ................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Global initiatives for proliferation prevention .............................................. 40,672 37,890 30,312 50,890 ∂10,218 ∂13,000 ∂20,578HEU transparency implementation ............................................................... 20,782 20,483 20,483 20,483 ¥299 .......................... ..........................International nuclear safety .......................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Elimination of weapons-grade plutonium production program ................... 39,776 132,000 197,000 152,000 ∂112,224 ∂20,000 ¥45,000Fissile materials disposition: 

U.S. surplus materials disposition ...................................................... 158,422 226,500 168,700 226,500 ∂68,078 .......................... ∂57,800Russian surplus materials disposition ................................................ 63,488 64,000 64,000 64,000 ∂512 .......................... ..........................
199

Construction: 

01–D–407 Highly enriched uranium (HEU) blend ...................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................99–D–141 Pit disassembly and conversion facility, Savannah 

River, SC ................................................................................. 32,042 24,000 24,000 24,000 ¥8,042 .......................... ..........................

99–D–143 Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility, Savannah 

River, SC ................................................................................. 365,056 338,565 35,000 338,565 ¥26,491 .......................... ∂303,565

Subtotal, Construction ....................................................... 397,098 362,565 59,000 362,565 ¥34,533 .......................... ∂303,565

Melt and dilute immobilization project ........................................................ .......................... .......................... 10,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥10,000

Subtotal, Fissile materials disposition ..................................................... 619,008 653,065 301,700 653,065 ∂34,057 .......................... ∂351,365

Offsite source recovery project .............................................................................. 7,539 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥7,539 .......................... ..........................Global threat reduction initiative .......................................................................... .......................... 97,975 111,975 108,975 ∂108,975 ∂11,000 ¥3,000

Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ............................................. 1,423,913 1,637,239 1,500,959 1,729,066 ∂305,153 ∂91,827 ∂228,107

Use of prior year balances .................................................................................... ¥14,880 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂14,880 .......................... ..........................Emergency appropriations (Public Law 109–13) .................................................. 84,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥84,000 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION ...................................... 1,493,033 1,637,239 1,500,959 1,729,066 ∂236,033 ∂91,827 ∂228,107

NAVAL REACTORS

Naval reactors development .................................................................................. 755,121 738,800 738,800 738,800 ¥16,321 .......................... ..........................

Construction: 

06–D–901 Central office building II ................................................... .......................... 7,000 7,000 7,000 ∂7,000 .......................... ..........................Transfer to Nuclear Energy .................................................................. 9,920 .......................... 13,500 13,500 ∂3,580 ∂13,500 ..........................05–N–900 Materials development facility building, Schenectady,

NY .................................................................................................... 6,151 9,900 9,900 9,900 ∂3,749 .......................... ..........................

03–D–201 Cleanroom technology facility, Bettis atomic power lab, 

West Mifflin, PA ............................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

90–N–102 Expended core facility dry cell project, Naval Reactors 

Facility, ID ........................................................................................ 981 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥981 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Construction ................................................................ 17,052 16,900 30,400 30,400 ∂13,348 ∂13,500 ..........................Total, Naval reactors development ............................................. 772,173 755,700 769,200 769,200 ¥2,973 ∂13,500 ..........................

Program direction ................................................................................................... 29,264 30,300 30,300 30,300 ∂1,036 .......................... ..........................
200

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

Subtotal, Naval Reactors .......................................................................... 801,437 786,000 799,500 799,500 ¥1,937 ∂13,500 ..........................

Use of prior year balances .................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS ......................................................................... 801,437 786,000 799,500 799,500 ¥1,937 ∂13,500 ..........................

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

Office of the Administrator .................................................................................... 353,350 350,765 373,765 350,765 ¥2,585 .......................... ¥23,000Defense nuclear nonproliferation ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Use of prior year balances .................................................................................... .......................... ¥6,896 ¥6,896 ¥6,896 ¥6,896 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR ................................................... 353,350 343,869 366,869 343,869 ¥9,481 .......................... ¥23,000TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ......................... 8,979,410 9,397,241 8,848,449 9,426,789 ∂447,379 ∂29,548 ∂578,340

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Closure Sites: 

Ashtabula ...................................................................................................... 15,752 16,000 16,000 16,000 ∂248 .......................... ..........................Columbus ...................................................................................................... 19,690 9,500 9,500 9,500 ¥10,190 .......................... ..........................Fernald .......................................................................................................... 317,725 327,609 327,609 327,609 ∂9,884 .......................... ..........................Miamisburg ................................................................................................... 110,905 75,530 105,530 75,530 ¥35,375 .......................... ¥30,000Rocky Flats .................................................................................................... 641,700 579,950 579,950 579,950 ¥61,750 .......................... ..........................

Total, closure sites ................................................................................... 1,105,772 1,008,589 1,038,589 1,008,589 ¥97,183 .......................... ¥30,000

Savannah River site: 

04–D–423 Container surveillance capability in 235F ................................. 20,475 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥20,475 .......................... ..........................04–D–414 Container surveillance capability in 235F PED .......................... 2,976 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥2,976 .......................... ..........................Nuclear material stabilization and disposition 2012 ................................... 355,111 250,303 250,303 250,303 ¥104,808 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, 2012 accelerated completions .................................................. 378,562 250,303 250,303 250,303 ¥128,259 .......................... ..........................

SNF stabilization, disposition/storage .......................................................... 11,240 13,889 13,889 13,889 ∂2,649 .......................... ..........................
201

SR community and regulatory support ......................................................... 11,592 13,046 13,046 13,046 ∂1,454 .......................... ..........................Nuclear material stabilization and disposition ............................................ 43,218 75,105 65,105 75,105 ∂31,887 .......................... ∂10,000Spent nuclear fuel stabilization and disposition ......................................... 22,767 11,273 11,273 11,273 ¥11,494 .......................... ..........................Solid waste stabilization and disposition .................................................... 88,313 112,993 112,993 112,993 ∂24,680 .......................... ..........................Soil and water remediation .......................................................................... 100,896 103,665 103,665 112,665 ∂11,769 ∂9,000 ∂9,000Nuclear facility D&D ..................................................................................... 68,198 66,516 66,516 75,516 ∂7,318 ∂9,000 ∂9,000

Subtotal, 2035 accelerated completions .................................................. 346,224 396,487 386,487 414,487 ∂68,263 ∂18,000 ∂28,000

Radioactive liquid tank waste stabil. & disposition .................................... 381,858 500,975 500,975 500,975 ∂119,117 .......................... ..........................HLW legislative proposal ............................................................................... 112,039 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥112,039 .......................... ..........................03–D–414, Salt waste processing facility PED SR ...................................... 23,469 4,342 4,342 4,342 ¥19,127 .......................... ..........................04–D–408, Glass waste storage building #2 .............................................. 43,476 6,975 6,975 6,975 ¥36,501 .......................... ..........................05–D–405, Salt waste processing facility ................................................... 25,792 70,000 70,000 70,000 ∂44,208 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Tank farm activities ................................................................. 586,634 582,292 582,292 582,292 ¥4,342 .......................... ..........................Total, Savannah River site ....................................................................... 1,311,420 1,229,082 1,219,082 1,247,082 ¥64,338 ∂18,000 ∂28,000

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant: 

Operate WIPP ................................................................................................. 146,430 111,948 111,948 117,948 ¥28,482 ∂6,000 ∂6,000Central Characterization Project ................................................................... 26,242 38,502 38,502 38,502 ∂12,260 .......................... ..........................Transportation ............................................................................................... 29,248 37,631 37,631 37,631 ∂8,383 .......................... ..........................Community and regulatory support .............................................................. 23,452 24,548 24,548 36,548 ∂13,096 ∂12,000 ∂12,000

Total, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant ............................................................. 225,372 212,629 212,629 230,629 ∂5,257 ∂18,000 ∂18,000

Idaho National Laboratory: 

SNF stabilization and disposition/storage .................................................... 32,419 12,666 12,666 12,666 ¥19,753 .......................... ..........................Nuclear material stabilization and disposition ............................................ 1,889 1,555 1,555 1,555 ¥334 .......................... ..........................SNF stabilization and disposition—2012 .................................................... 10,224 19,158 19,158 19,158 ∂8,934 .......................... ..........................Solid waste stabilization and disposition .................................................... 109,472 140,015 140,015 140,015 ∂30,543 .......................... ..........................Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition ....................... 127,635 124,965 124,965 98,695 ¥28,940 ¥26,270 ¥26,27006–D–401, Sodium bearing waste treatment project, ID ............................ .......................... 15,000 15,000 54,270 ∂54,270 ∂39,270 ∂39,27004–D–414, Sodium bearing waste treatment facility, PED ID .................... .......................... 9,200 9,200 9,200 ∂9,200 .......................... ..........................04–D–402, Cathodic Protection System Expansion PED ID ......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Soil and water remediation—2012 .............................................................. 124,994 161,489 161,489 161,489 ∂36,495 .......................... ..........................Nuclear facility D&D ..................................................................................... 5,425 5,026 5,026 5,026 ¥399 .......................... ..........................Non-nuclear facility D&D .............................................................................. 26,993 39,105 39,105 39,105 ∂12,112 .......................... ..........................Soil and water remediation—2035 .............................................................. 1,984 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥1,984 .......................... ..........................Idaho community and regulatory support .................................................... 3,088 3,546 3,546 3,546 ∂458 .......................... ..........................
202

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

HLW legislative proposal ............................................................................... 96,522 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥96,522 .......................... ..........................

Total, Idaho National Laboratory .............................................................. 540,645 531,725 531,725 544,725 ∂4,080 ∂13,000 ∂13,000

Oak Ridge Reservation: 

Solid waste stabilization and completion—2006 ........................................ 39,775 .......................... .......................... 4,630 ¥35,145 ∂4,630 ∂4,630Soil and water remediation—Melton Valley ................................................. 71,099 15,146 15,146 35,818 ¥35,281 ∂20,672 ∂20,672Solid waste stabilization and disposition—2012 ........................................ 46,744 68,360 68,360 68,360 ∂21,616 .......................... ..........................Soil and water remediation—offsites .......................................................... 12,753 16,483 16,483 16,483 ∂3,730 .......................... ..........................Nuclear facility D&D, E. Tenn. Technology Park ........................................... 6,540 6,034 12,534 6,034 ¥506 .......................... ¥6,500Nuclear facility D&D Y–12 ............................................................................ 27,323 40,558 40,558 40,558 ∂13,235 .......................... ..........................Nuclear facility D&D ORNL ........................................................................... 19,626 16,034 25,634 16,034 ¥3,592 .......................... ¥9,600Solid waste stabilization & disp.—science current gen ............................. 18,220 18,267 18,267 18,267 ∂47 .......................... ..........................Solid waste stabilization & disp—NNSA current gen ................................. 19,619 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥19,619 .......................... ..........................OR contract/post closure liabilites/admin .................................................... 14,583 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥14,583 .......................... ..........................OR reservation community & regulatory support ......................................... 3,592 5,670 5,670 5,670 ∂2,078 .......................... ..........................

Total, Oak Ridge Reservation ................................................................... 279,874 186,552 202,652 211,854 ¥68,020 ∂25,302 ∂9,202

Hanford Site: 

Nuclear material stabilization & disposition PFP ........................................ 179,097 190,772 206,565 190,772 ∂11,675 .......................... ¥15,793SNF stabilization and disposition ................................................................. 122,885 58,479 58,479 58,479 ¥64,406 .......................... ..........................Nuclear facility D&D, river corridor closure project ..................................... 212,033 168,501 188,501 168,501 ¥43,532 .......................... ¥20,000HAMMER facility ............................................................................................ .......................... .......................... 7,500 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥7,500B-reactor museum ........................................................................................ .......................... .......................... 1,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥1,000

Subtotal, 2012 accelerated completions .................................................. 514,015 417,752 462,045 417,752 ¥96,263 .......................... ¥44,293

Solid waste stabilization & disposition 200 Area ........................................ 219,139 165,113 173,113 165,113 ¥54,026 .......................... ¥8,000Soil & water remediation—groundwater/vadose zone ................................. 50,231 72,955 86,955 72,955 ∂22,724 .......................... ¥14,000Nuclear facility D&D—remainder of Hanford .............................................. 118,182 70,812 75,812 70,812 ¥47,370 .......................... ¥5,000Operate waste disposal facility .................................................................... 6,103 5,861 5,861 5,861 ¥242 .......................... ..........................SNF stabilization and disposition/storage .................................................... 991 1,813 1,813 1,813 ∂822 .......................... ..........................Richland community and regulatory support ............................................... 13,124 15,411 15,411 15,411 ∂2,287 .......................... ..........................
203

Subtotal, 2035 accelerated completions .................................................. 407,770 331,965 358,965 331,965 ¥75,805 .......................... ¥27,000Total, Hanford Site ................................................................................... 921,785 749,717 821,010 749,717 ¥172,068 .......................... ¥71,293

Office of River Protection: 

01–D–416 Waste treatment & immobilization plant ................................... 684,480 625,893 690,000 625,893 ¥58,587 .......................... ¥64,107Tank Farm activities: 

Rad liquid tank waste stabil. and disposition ................................... 332,878 294,447 361,447 328,840 ¥4,038 ∂34,393 ¥32,607HLW rad liquid tank waste stabil & disp leg prop ............................ 31,793 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥31,793 .......................... ..........................03–D–403 Immobilized HLW interim storage facility ......................... .......................... 7,495 .......................... 7,495 ∂7,495 .......................... ∂7,495River protection community and regulatory support ........................... .......................... 471 471 471 ∂471 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Tank Farm activities ........................................................ 364,671 302,413 361,918 336,806 ¥27,865 ∂34,393 ¥25,112Total, Office of River Protection ...................................................... 1,049,151 928,306 1,051,918 962,699 ¥86,452 ∂34,393 ¥89,219

Program direction ................................................................................................... 270,016 230,931 248,816 230,931 ¥39,085 .......................... ¥17,885Program support .................................................................................................... 32,707 32,846 32,846 32,846 ∂139 .......................... ..........................Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution ......................................................... 459,296 451,000 451,000 451,000 ¥8,296 .......................... ..........................Technology development ........................................................................................ 59,726 21,389 21,389 56,389 ¥3,337 ∂35,000 ∂35,000NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites: 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ...................................................... 57,948 .......................... 54,578 54,578 ¥3,370 ∂54,578 ..........................NNSA Service Center ..................................................................................... 9,002 .......................... 8,304 8,304 ¥698 ∂8,304 ..........................Nevada .......................................................................................................... 90,095 .......................... 85,024 85,024 ¥5,071 ∂85,024 ..........................Kansas City Plant ......................................................................................... 3,478 .......................... 4,526 4,526 ∂1,048 ∂4,526 ..........................California site support .................................................................................. 746 .......................... 550 550 ¥196 ∂550 ..........................Pantex ............................................................................................................ 24,016 .......................... 19,654 19,654 ¥4,362 ∂19,654 ..........................Pinellas (Post Closure Benefits) ................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... 9,769 ∂9,769 ∂9,769 ∂9,769Sandia National Laboratories ....................................................................... 20,084 .......................... 9,769 21,997 ∂1,913 ∂21,997 ∂12,228Y–12 newly generated waste ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... 21,997 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥21,997Nevada off-sites ............................................................................................ .......................... 2,846 2,846 2,846 ∂2,846 .......................... ..........................Los Alamos National Laboratory ................................................................... 116,752 142,209 142,209 145,509 ∂28,757 ∂3,300 ∂3,300

Total, NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites .................................................. 322,121 145,055 349,457 352,757 ∂30,636 ∂207,702 ∂3,300

Safeguards and Security: 

Waste Isolation Pilot Project ......................................................................... 4,072 4,223 4,223 4,223 ∂151 .......................... ..........................Oak Ridge Reservation .................................................................................. 21,850 28,855 28,855 28,855 ∂7,005 .......................... ..........................Fernald .......................................................................................................... 1,157 1,391 1,391 1,391 ∂234 .......................... ..........................Miamisburg ................................................................................................... 524 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥524 .......................... ..........................West Valley .................................................................................................... 2,648 1,800 1,800 1,800 ¥848 .......................... ..........................
204

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

Paducah ........................................................................................................ 7,760 11,014 11,014 11,014 ∂3,254 .......................... ..........................Portsmouth .................................................................................................... 16,009 17,842 17,842 17,842 ∂1,833 .......................... ..........................Richland/Hanford Site ................................................................................... 56,276 82,155 82,155 82,155 ∂25,879 .......................... ..........................Rocky Flats .................................................................................................... 16,455 3,200 3,200 3,200 ¥13,255 .......................... ..........................Savannah River Site ..................................................................................... 136,191 136,743 136,743 136,743 ∂552 .......................... ..........................

Total, Safeguards and Security ................................................................ 262,942 287,223 287,223 287,223 ∂24,281 .......................... ..........................

Use of prior year balances .................................................................................... ¥32,508 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂32,508 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN UP .......................................... 6,808,319 6,015,044 6,468,336 6,366,441 ¥441,878 ∂351,397 ¥101,895

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Other national security programs: 

Energy security and assurance: 

Energy security ..................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Program direction ................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Energy security and assurance ....................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Office of Security: 

Nuclear safeguards and security ......................................................... 193,794 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥193,794 .......................... ..........................Security investigations ......................................................................... 44,561 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥44,561 .......................... ..........................Program direction ................................................................................. 57,763 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥57,763 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Office of Security ............................................................. 296,118 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥296,118 .......................... ..........................

Office of Security and Safety Performance Assurance: 

Nuclear safeguards and security ......................................................... .......................... 176,878 233,378 196,878 ∂196,878 ∂20,000 ¥36,500Security investigations ......................................................................... .......................... 48,725 48,725 48,725 ∂48,725 .......................... ..........................Program direction ................................................................................. .......................... 75,492 75,492 75,492 ∂75,492 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Office of Security and Safety Performance ..................... .......................... 301,095 357,595 321,095 ∂321,095 ∂20,000 ¥36,500

Intelligence .................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................
205

Counterintelligence ........................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Independent oversight and performance assurance .................................... 24,472 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥24,472 .......................... ..........................Environment, safety and health (Defense) ................................................... 108,352 56,483 56,483 62,483 ¥45,869 ∂6,000 ∂6,000

Program direction—EH ........................................................................ 20,251 20,546 20,546 20,546 ∂295 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Environment, safety & health (Defense) ......................... 128,603 77,029 77,029 83,029 ¥45,574 ∂6,000 ∂6,000

Worker and community transition ................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Program direction—WT ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Worker and community transition ................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Office of Legacy Management: 

Legacy management ............................................................................ 33,425 31,421 41,421 31,421 ¥2,004 .......................... ¥10,000Program direction ................................................................................. 13,095 13,655 13,655 13,655 ∂560 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Office of Legacy Management ......................................... 46,520 45,076 55,076 45,076 ¥1,444 .......................... ¥10,000

Nuclear energy: 

Infrastructure: 

Idaho facilities management ...................................................... .......................... 17,762 17,762 17,762 ∂17,762 .......................... ..........................Idaho sitewide safeguards and security .................................... .......................... 75,008 75,008 75,008 ∂75,008 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Infrastructure .......................................................... .......................... 92,770 92,770 92,770 ∂92,770 .......................... ..........................

Program direction ................................................................................. .......................... 31,103 31,103 31,103 ∂31,103 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Nuclear energy ................................................................. .......................... 123,873 123,873 123,873 ∂123,873 .......................... ..........................

Defense related administrative support ....................................................... 91,700 87,575 87,575 87,575 ¥4,125 .......................... ..........................Defense activities at INEEL .......................................................................... 113,456 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥113,456 .......................... ..........................Office of Hearings and Appeals ................................................................... 4,283 4,353 4,353 4,353 ∂70 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Other Defense Activities ........................................................... 705,152 639,001 705,501 665,001 ¥40,151 ∂26,000 ¥40,500

Use of prior year balances .................................................................................... ¥15,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂15,000 .......................... ..........................Less security charge for reimbursable work ......................................................... ¥3,003 ¥3,003 ¥3,003 ¥3,003 .......................... .......................... ..........................Supplemental appropriations (Public Law 108–11) .............................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES ......................................................... 687,149 635,998 702,498 661,998 ¥25,151 ∂26,000 ¥40,500
206

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation Committee recommendation compared to— Revised enacted Budget estimate House allowance 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Defense nuclear waste disposal ............................................................................ 229,152 351,447 351,447 277,000 ∂47,848 ¥74,447 ¥74,447

TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES ......................................... 16,704,030 16,399,730 16,370,730 16,732,228 ∂28,198 ∂332,498 ∂361,498

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance: 

Purchase power and wheeling ...................................................................... 34,000 32,713 32,713 32,713 ¥1,287 .......................... ..........................Program direction .......................................................................................... 5,158 5,600 5,600 5,600 ∂442 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ................................................. 39,158 38,313 38,313 38,313 ¥845 .......................... ..........................

Offsetting collections ............................................................................................. ¥34,000 ¥38,313 ¥32,713 ¥32,713 ∂1,287 ∂5,600 ..........................Offsetting collections (Public Law 106–377) ........................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION .................................... 5,158 .......................... 5,600 5,600 ∂442 ∂5,600 ..........................

SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance: 

Operating expenses ....................................................................................... 4,639 7,042 7,042 7,042 ∂2,403 .......................... ..........................Purchase power and wheeling ...................................................................... 2,900 1,235 1,235 3,000 ∂100 ∂1,765 ∂1,765Program direction .......................................................................................... 19,169 19,958 19,958 19,958 ∂789 .......................... ..........................Construction .................................................................................................. 5,309 3,166 3,166 3,166 ¥2,143 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ..................................................... 32,017 31,401 31,401 33,166 ∂1,149 ∂1,765 ∂1,765

Offsetting collections ............................................................................................. ¥2,900 ¥28,235 ¥1,235 ¥3,000 ¥100 ∂25,235 ¥1,765Offsetting collections (Public Law 106–377) ........................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION ................................... 29,117 3,166 30,166 30,166 ∂1,049 ∂27,000 ..........................
207

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Operation and maintenance: 

Construction and rehabilitation .................................................................... 20,029 53,957 40,192 53,957 ∂33,928 .......................... ∂13,765Operation and maintenance ......................................................................... 39,510 47,295 47,295 47,295 ∂7,785 .......................... ..........................Purchase power and wheeling ...................................................................... 227,600 148,500 148,500 279,000 ∂51,400 ∂130,500 ∂130,500Program direction .......................................................................................... 115,844 143,667 143,667 143,667 ∂27,823 .......................... ..........................Utah mitigation and conservation ................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ..................................................... 402,983 393,419 379,654 523,919 ∂120,936 ∂130,500 ∂144,265

Offsetting collections ............................................................................................. ¥227,600 ¥335,300 ¥148,500 ¥279,000 ¥51,400 ∂56,300 ¥130,500Offsetting collections (Public Law 98–381) .......................................................... ¥3,668 ¥4,162 ¥4,162 ¥4,162 ¥494 .......................... ..........................Offsetting collections (Public Law 106–377) ........................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION .................................... 171,715 53,957 226,992 240,757 ∂69,042 ∂186,800 ∂13,765

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Operation and maintenance .................................................................................. 2,804 2,692 2,692 2,692 ¥112 .......................... ..........................Offsetting collections ............................................................................................. .......................... ¥2,692 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂2,692 ..........................

TOTAL, FALCON AND AMISTAD O&M FUND ............................................... 2,804 .......................... 2,692 2,692 ¥112 ∂2,692 ..........................TOTAL, POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS ......................................... 208,794 57,123 265,450 279,215 ∂70,421 ∂222,092 ∂13,765

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ................................................................. 210,000 220,400 220,400 220,400 ∂10,400 .......................... ..........................FERC revenues ....................................................................................................... ¥210,000 ¥220,400 ¥220,400 ¥220,400 ¥10,400 .......................... ..........................Economic Regulation—Office of Hearings and Appeals ...................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ................................................ 24,419,197 24,213,307 24,317,857 25,074,256 ∂655,059 ∂860,949 ∂756,399

(Total amount appropriated) ........................................................... (24,263,197) (23,920,307) (24,281,857) (25,038,256) (∂775,059) (∂1,117,949) (∂756,399) (Advance appropriations from previous years) ............................... (36,000) (36,000) (36,000) (36,000) .......................... .......................... ..........................(Advance appropriations, fiscal year 2007) .................................... (36,000) (257,000) .......................... .......................... (¥36,000) (¥257,000) ..........................(Emergency appropriations) ............................................................. (84,000) .......................... .......................... .......................... (¥84,000) .......................... ..........................
208

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

The following list of general provisions are recommended by the 

Committee. The recommendation includes several provisions which 

have been included in previous Energy and Water Development 

Appropriations Acts and new provisions as follows: 

Section 301. Language is included under section 301 which prohibits the use of funds in this Act to develop or implement a workforce restructuring plan or enhanced severance payments and other 

benefits for Federal employees of the Department of Energy under 

section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal 

Year 1993, Public Law 484. A similar provision was contained in 

the Energy and Water Development Act, 2004 (Public Law 108–

137). 

Section 302. Language is included under section 302 which prohibits the use of funds for severance payments under the worker 

and community transition program. A similar provision was contained in the Energy and Water Development Act, 2004. 

Section 303. Language is included under section 303 which prohibits the use of funds in this Act to initiate requests for proposals 

or expression of interest for new programs which have not yet been 

presented to Congress in the annual budget submission, and which 

have not yet been approved and funded by Congress. A similar provision was contained in the Energy and Water Development Act, 

2004. 

Section 304. Language is included which permits the transfer 

and merger of unexpended balances of prior appropriations with 

appropriation accounts established in this bill. A similar provision 

was contained in the Energy and Water Development Act, 2004. 

Section 305. Language is included that prohibits the use of funds 

by the Bonneville Power Administration to enter into energy efficiency contracts outside its service area. 

Section 306. This section requires the Secretary to compete the 

management and operating contracts of certain Department of Energy or National Nuclear Security Administration laboratories. 

Section 307. This section establishes certain notice and competition requirements for Department of Energy user facilities. 

Section 308. The Committee provides a provision allowing the 

Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration to 

authorize certain nuclear weapons production plants, including the 

Nevada Test Site, to use not more than 4 percent of available fund 

for research, development and demonstration activities. This provision has been carried in previous Energy and Water Development 

Appropriations Acts. 

Section 309. Language is included specifically authorizing intelligence activities pending enactment of the fiscal year 2004 Intelligence Authorization Act (Public Law 108–381). 

Section 310. Language is included that requires that waste characterization at WIPP be limited to determining that the waste is 

not ignitable, corrosive, or reactive. This confirmation will be performed using radiography or visual examination of a representative 

subpopulation of the waste. 

Section 311. This section is included to require that all the national security milestones in the Advanced Simulation Computing 
209

program are achieved before congressionally directed priorities are 

funded. 

Section 312. Language is included under section 312 clarifying 

the cost-share requirements for a hydrogen fuel project. 

Section 313. This provision allows the Secretary to authorize up 

to 8 percent of laboratory funds be used for laboratory directed research and development. 

Section 314. Language is included to ensure the funds provided 

to the Department are available for payment of Laboratory Directed Research and Development, Plant Directed Research and 

Development and Site Directed Research and Development activities. 

Section 315. Language is included to ensure the funds provided 

to the Department are available for direct and indirect cost of research performed on behalf of other Federal agencies. 

Section 316. Language is included to limit funds from being 

spent on unbudgeted NNSA complex reforms.
(210)

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $65,472,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 65,472,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 38,500,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 65,482,000

The Committee recommendation for the Appalachian Regional Commission totals $65,482,000. 

The Appalachian Regional Commission [ARC] is a regional economic development agency established in 1965. It is composed of 

the Governors of the 13 Appalachian States and a Federal cochairman who is appointed by the President. 

Consistent with the administration’s budget request, the Committee recommendation does not include funding for ARC highways. Funding for ARC development highways is provided through 

the Highway Trust Fund in fiscal years 1999 through 2004 consistent with provision contained in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (Public Law 102–240). 

The Committee recognizes the importance of trade and investment opportunities to the Appalachian region, and is encouraged 

by the findings of a preliminary trade report determining that Appalachian firms might find significant trade and investment opportunities, particularly in the energy, high technology, and transportation sectors, in the Republic of Turkey and the surrounding region. In this regard, the Committee supports the AppalachianTurkish Trade Project [ATTP], a project to promote opportunities 

to expand trade, encourage business interests, stimulate foreign 

studies, and to build a lasting and mutually meaningful relationship between the Appalachian States and the Republic of Turkey, 

as well as the neighboring regions, such as Greece. The Committee 

commends the ARC for its leadership role in helping to implement 

the mission of the ATTP. The Committee expects the ARC to continue to be a prominent ATTP sponsor. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $20,106,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 22,032,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 22,032,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 22,032,000

An appropriation of $22,032,000, the amount of the request, is 

recommended for fiscal year 2006. 

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board was created by the 

Fiscal Year 1989 National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 

100–180). The Board, composed of five members appointed by the 

President, provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of 
211

Energy regarding public health and safety issues at the Department’s defense nuclear facilities. The Board is also responsible for 

investigating any event or practice at a defense nuclear facility 

which has or may adversely affect public health and safety. The 

Board is responsible for reviewing and evaluating the content and 

implementation of the standards relating to the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of defense nuclear facilities of 

the Department of Energy. 

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $6,000,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 6,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 6,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 12,000,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,000,000 for 

the Delta Regional Authority, an increase of $6,000,000 above the 

request. 

The Delta Regional Authority [DRA], authorized by Public Law 

106–554, was established to assist an eight-state, 236-county region of demonstrated distress in obtaining transportation and basic 

public infrastructure, skills training, and opportunities for economic development essential to strong local economies. 

DENALI COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $66,464,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 2,562,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 2,562,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 67,000,000

The Committee recommendation includes $67,000,000 for the 

Denali Commission. 

The Denali Commission is a regional economic development 

agency established in 1998 for the intended purpose of delivering 

basic utilities, including affordable power, and other essential infrastructure to the nation’s most geographically isolated communities. The Committee is encouraged by the progress of the Denali 

Commission in assisting distressed communities throughout Alaska, and urges continued work among local and State agencies, nonprofit organizations and other participants in meeting the most 

pressing infrastructure needs.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $657,475,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 693,376,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 714,376,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 734,376,000
212

REVENUES

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $530,079,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 559,643,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 580,643,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 598,643,000

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $128,142,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 134,564,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 134,564,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 136,564,000

Fee Recovery.—The Committee recommendation includes bill language providing for a 1 year extension of the authority to continue 

the fee recovery percentage used in fiscal year 2005. This language 

requires the NRC to recover 90 percent of its budget authority, less 

the appropriation derived from the Nuclear Waste fund and the 

amount necessary to implement Section 3116 of the Ronald W. 

Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 

(Public Law 108–375), by assessing license and annual fees. 

New Reactor Licensing.—The Committee recommends 

$20,000,000 to support the preparatory activities and pre-application consultations for expected combined license applications beginning fiscal year 2008. The investment over 2 years includes accelerating efforts update NRC’s regulatory infrastructure, training 

and preparing new technical staff and putting into place the infrastructure for additional NRC staff. The Committee urges the NRC 

to utilize these resources in a manner to ensure the effective and 

timely consideration of new combined license applications. The 

Committee expects three to five applications to be submitted in the 

next 2 years. 

Security and Personnel.—The Committee recommends an additional $21,000,000 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to be 

used to conduct site-specific assessments of spent fuel pools at each 

of the nuclear reactor sites consistent with the recommendations of 

the National Academy of Sciences study. The Committee expects 

the NRC to provide written updates as to its findings and any 

changes to the current regulations as a result of the assessments. 

The Committee directs the NRC to allocate $4,000,000 to supporting the establishment of Department of Homeland Security’s 

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office and to use $5,600,000 to meet 

the salary and benefits requirements consistent with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108–447). 

The Committee recommendation for the NRC is $734,376,000. 

This amount is offset by estimated revenues of $598,643,000 resulting in a net appropriation of $136,564,000.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $7,458,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 8,316,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 8,316,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,316,000
213

REVENUES

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $6,712,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 7,485,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 7,485,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,485,000

This appropriation provides for the Office of Inspector General of 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Committee recommends 

an appropriation of $7,485,000 for fiscal year 2006. 

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $3,152,000

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 3,608,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 3,608,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,608,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,608,000 for 

the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. The Nuclear Waste 

Policy Amendments Act of 1987 (Public Law 100–203) directed the 

Board to evaluate the technical and scientific validity of the activities of the Department of Energy’s nuclear waste disposal program. 

The Board must report its findings not less than two times a year 

to the Congress and the Secretary of Energy. 

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR

GENERAL

Appropriations, 2004 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2005 ........................................................................... $9,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ...........................

The Office of the Inspector General, for fiscal year 2006, proposes 

to appropriate funds for TVA’s IG out of TVA’s revenues beginning 

in 2006. The Committee has not included the administration’s proposal to establish a congressionally-funded Office of the Inspector 

General to over the Tennessee Valley Authority. The Committee 

believes the current relationship between the Inspector General 

and the TVA Board is working well and sees no reason to change 

that relationship.
(214)

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

The following list of general provisions are recommended by the 

Committee. The recommendation includes several provisions which 

have been included in previous Energy and Water Development 

Appropriations Acts: 

Section 501. The provision prohibits the transfer of unexpended 

balances of appropriations to another Federal department, agency 

or instrumentality of the U.S. Government. 
(215)

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment to 

the House bill ‘‘which proposes an item of appropriation which is 

not made to carry out the provisions of an existing law, a treaty 

stipulation, or an act or resolution previously passed by the Senate 

during that session.’’

The Committee recommends funding for the following programs 

or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal year 2006: 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial 

Action program; Middle Rio Grande ESA Collaborative Program; 

Bank Stabilization on Upper Yazoo Project, MS; Lower Mississippi 

River Museum Interpretative Site, MS; Missouri and Middle Mississippi Enhancement Project; Lake Champlain Canal Dispersal 

Barrier Study, Vermont and New York; 

Bureau of Reclamation: Water 2025, Norman, OK Feasibility 

Study; Water Desalination Act of 1996; Rio Grande Collaborative 

Water Operations Team; 

Department of Energy: Energy Conservation and Supply Activities: Hydrogen Technology, Solar Energy, Wind Energy, Hydropower, Geothermal Technology Biomass and Biorefinery R&D, 

Intergovernmental Activities, Department Energy Management 

Programs, Program Direction, Facilities and Infrastructure, Weatherization; 

Office of Nuclear Energy; 

Office of Fossil Energy: Fossil Energy R&D, Clean Coal, Naval 

Petroleum and Oil Shale Research; 

Office of Environment, Safety and Health; 

Non-Defense Environmental Management; 

Federal Lab Consortium; 

Office of Science; 

Department of Administration; Office of Inspector General; Office 

of Economic Impact and Diversity; 

National Nuclear Security Administration: Weapons Activities; 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation; Naval Reactors; Office of the Administrator; 

Defense Environmental Management, Defense Site Acceleration 

Completion; 

Other Defense Activities; 

Defense Nuclear Waste Fund; 

Office of Security and Performance Assurance; 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; 

Power Marketing Administrations: Southeastern, Southwestern, 

Western Area; and 

Energy Information Administration. 
216

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI, OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on June 16, 2005, the 

Committee ordered reported, en bloc, H.R. 2419, an Act making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year 

ending September 30, 2006, with an amendment in the nature of 

a substitute, and H.R. 2360, an Act making appropriations for the 

Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, 

both subject to further amendment and subject to the budget allocations, by a recorded vote of 28–0, a quorum being present. The 

vote was as follows:

Yeas Nays 

Chairman Cochran 

Mr. Stevens 

Mr. Specter 

Mr. Domenici 

Mr. Bond 

Mr. McConnell 

Mr. Burns 

Mr. Shelby 

Mr. Gregg 

Mr. Bennett 

Mr. Craig 

Mrs. Hutchison 

Mr. DeWine 

Mr. Brownback 

Mr. Allard 

Mr. Byrd 

Mr. Inouye 

Mr. Leahy 

Mr. Harkin 

Ms. Mikulski 

Mr. Reid 

Mr. Kohl 

Mrs. Murray 

Mr. Dorgan 

Mrs. Feinstein 

Mr. Durbin 

Mr. Johnson 

Ms. Landrieu 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI, OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports on 

a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or part 

of any statute include ‘‘(a) the text of the statute or part thereof 

which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a comparative print of 

that part of the bill or joint resolution making the amendment and 

of the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended, showing by 

stricken-through type and italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical devices the omissions and insertions which 
217

would be made by the bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form 

recommended by the Committee.’’

In compliance with this rule, changes in existing law proposed to 

be made by the bill are shown as follows: existing law to be omitted 

is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is printed in italic; and 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman.

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1992, 

PUBLIC LAW 102–580

TITLE I—WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS 

SEC. 101. * * *

* * * * * * *

SEC. 103. VISITOR CENTERS. 

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER MUSEUM AND RIVERFRONT INTERPRETIVE SITE—

(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary shall establish and operate in accordance with this subsection an interpretive facility 

(including a museum and interpretive site) in Vicksburg, Mississippi, which shall be known as the ‘‘Lower Mississippi River 

Museum and Riverfront Interpretive Site’’. 

(2) LOCATION OF MUSEUM.—The museum shall be located 

on øproperty currently held by the Resolution Trust Corporation in the vicinity of the Mississippi River Bridge¿ riverfront 

property in Vicksburg, Mississippi. Title to the property shall 

be transferred to the Secretary at no cost. 

* * * * * * *

(7) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—øThere is¿

(A) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appropriated ø$2,000,000 to carry out this subsection, including 

acquiring and restoring under paragraph (2) the property 

held by the Resolution Trust Corporation and planning, 

designing, and constructing the museum and riverfront interpretive site under this subsection.¿ $15,000,000 to plan, 

design, and construct generally in accordance with the conceptual plan to be prepared by the Corps of Engineers.

(B) FUNDING.—The planning, design, and construction 

of the Lower Mississippi River Museum and Riverfront Interpretive Site shall be carried out using funds appropriated as part of the Mississippi River Levees feature of 

the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project, authorized 

by the Act of May 15, 1928 (45 Stat. 534, chapter 569).

* * * * * * *
218

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996, 

PUBLIC LAW 104–303

TITLE I—WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS 

SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS. 

(a) PROJECTS WITH CHIEF’S REPORTS.—Except as provided in 

this subsection, the following projects for water resources development and conservation and other purposes are authorized to be 

carried out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with the 

plans, and subject to the conditions, described in the respective reports designated in this subsection: 

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(31) MARMET LOCK, KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA.—The 

project for navigation, Marmet Lock, Kanawha River, West 

Virginia: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated June 24, 

1994, at a total cost of ø$229,581,000¿ $358,000,000. The costs 

of construction of the project are to be paid 1⁄2 from amounts 

appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and 1⁄2

from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust 

Fund. 

* * * * * * *

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1999, 

PUBLIC LAW 106–53

* * * * * * *

TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

SEC. 501. * * *

* * * * * * *

SEC. 514. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS 

ENHANCEMENT PROJECT. 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

* * * * * * *

(e) COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW.—In carrying out the 

plan and the activities described in subsections (b) and (c), the Secretary shall comply with any applicable Federal law, including the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

(f) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—Notwithstanding section 221(b) of 

the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), for any 

project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest may 

include a Regional or National nonprofit entity with the consent of 

the affected local government. 

(g) COST LIMITATION.—Not more than $5,000,000 in Federal 

funds may be allotted under this section for a project at any single 

locality.

ø(f)¿ (h) COST SHARING.—

(1) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal share of the 

cost of the project shall be 35 percent which may be in cash, 
219

by the provision of lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations 

or disposal areas, by in-kind services to implement the project, 

or by any combination of the foregoing. Land needed for a 

project under this authority may remain in private ownership 

subject to easements satisfactory to the Secretary necessary to 

assure achievement of the project purposes. (2) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost of any 

1 activity described in subsection (b) shall not exceed 

$5,000,000. 

(3) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The operation and 

maintenance of the project shall be a non-Federal responsibility. 

(g) (i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to pay the Federal share of the cost of carrying out this section $30,000,000 øfor the period of fiscal years 

2000 and 2001¿ per year, and such authority shall extend until 

Federal fiscal year 2015. 

* * * * * * *

SEC. 593. CENTRAL NEW MEXICO. 

(a) DEFINITION OF CENTRAL NEW MEXICO.—In this section, ***

* * * * * * *

(h) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section ø$25,000,000¿

$50,000,000 for the period beginning with fiscal year 2000, to remain available until expended. 

* * * * * * *

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000, 

PUBLIC LAW 106–541

* * * * * * *

TITLE II—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

SEC. 201. * * *

* * * * * * *

SEC. 214. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—In fiscal years 2001 through ø2005¿ 2006, the Secretary, after public notice, may accept and expend funds 

contributed by non-Federal public entities to expedite the evaluation of permits under the jurisdiction of the Department of the 

Army. 

* * * * * * *

TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

SEC. 501. * * *

* * * * * * *
220

SEC. 529. LAS VEGAS, NEVADA. 

(a) * * *

(b) PARTICIPATION IN PROJECT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, * * * 

* * * * * * *

(3) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated ø$10,000,000¿ $20,000,000 to carry out 

this section. 

* * * * * * *

SEC. 547. BLUESTONE, WEST VIRGINIA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood control, Bluestone Lake, 

Ohio River basin, West Virginia, authorized by section 4 of the 

Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1217), is modified to 

authorize construction of hydroelectric generating facilities at the 

project by the Tri-Cities Power Authority of West Virginia under 

the terms and conditions of the agreement referred to in subsection 

(b). 

(b) AGREEMENT.—

(1) AGREEMENT TERMS.—The Secretary and the Secretary 

of Energy, acting through the Southeastern Power Administration, shall enter into a binding agreement with the Tri-Cities 

Power Authority that contains mutually acceptable terms and 

conditions and under which the Tri-Cities Power Authority 

agrees to each of the following: 

(A) To design and construct the generating facilities 

referred to in subsection (a) within ø4 years¿ 5 years after 

the date of such agreement. 

(B) To reimburse the Secretary for—

(i) the cost of approving such design and inspecting such construction; 

(ii) the cost of providing any assistance authorized 

under subsection (c)(2); and 

(iii) the redistributed costs associated with the 

original construction of the dam and dam safety øif all 

parties agree with the method of the development of 

the chargeable amounts associated with hydropower at 

the facility¿ assurance project. 

(C) To release and indemnify the United States from 

any claims, causes of action, or liabilities that may arise 

from such design øand construction¿, construction, and operation and maintenance of the facilities referred to in subsection (a), including any liability that may arise out of the 

removal of the facility if directed by the Secretary. 

(2) ADDITIONAL TERMS.—The agreement shall also specify 

each of the following: 

(A) The procedures and requirements for approval and 

acceptance of design, construction, and operation and 

maintenance of the facilities referred to in subsection (a). 

(B) The rights, responsibilities, and liabilities of each 

party to the agreement. 
221

(C) The amount of the payments under subsection (f) 

and the procedures under which such payments are to be 

made.

(3) OPERATION AND OWNERSHIP.—The Tri-Cities Power Authority shall be the owner and operator of the hydropower facilities referred to in subsection (a).

(c) OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—

(1) PROHIBITION.—øNo¿ Unless otherwise provided, no Federal funds may be expended for the planning, design, construction, and operation and maintenance of the facilities referred 

to in subsection (a) øprior to the date on which such facilities 

are accepted by the Secretary under subsection (d)¿. 

(2) REIMBURSEMENT.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if requested by the Tri-Cities Power Authority, the 

Secretary may provide, on a reimbursable basis, assistance in 

connection with the ødesign¿ planning, design, and construction of the generating facilities referred to in subsection (a). 

(d) COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION.—

ø(1) TRANSFER OF FACILITIES.—Notwithstanding any other 

provision of law, upon completion of the construction of the facilities referred to in subsection (a) and final approval of such 

facilities by the Secretary, the Tri-Cities Power Authority shall 

transfer without consideration title to such facilities to the 

United States, and the Secretary shall—

ø(A) accept the transfer of title to such facilities on behalf of the United States; and 

ø(B) operate and maintain the facilities. 

ø(2) CERTIFICATION.—The Secretary may accept title to the 

facilities pursuant to paragraph (1) only after certifying that 

the quality of the construction meets all standards established 

for similar facilities constructed by the Secretary.¿

(1) APPROVAL.—The Secretary shall review the design and 

construction activities for all features of the hydroelectric project 

that pertain to and affect stability of the dam and control the 

release of water from Bluestone Dam to ensure that the quality 

of construction of those features meets all standards established 

for similar facilities constructed by the Secretary.

ø(3)¿ (2) AUTHORIZED PROJECT PURPOSES.—The operation 

and maintenance of the facilities shall be conducted in a manner that is consistent with other authorized project purposes of 

the Bluestone Lake facilityø.¿, except that hydroelectric power 

is no longer a project purpose of the facility so long as Tri-Cities 

Power Authority continues to exercise its responsibilities as the 

builder, owner, and operator of the hydropower facilities at 

Bluestone Dam. Water flow releases and flood control from the 

hydropower facilities shall be determined and directed by the 

Corps of Engineers.

(3) COORDINATION.—Construction of the hydroelectric generating facilities shall be coordinated with the dam safety assurance project currently in the design and construction phases.

(e) EXCESS POWER.—Pursuant to any agreement under subsection (b), the Southeastern Power Administration shall market 

the excess power produced by the facilities referred to in subsection 
222

(a) øin accordance with section 5 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 

December 22, 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s; 58 Stat. 890)¿. 

(f) PAYMENTS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 

the Secretary of Energy, acting through the Southeastern Power 

Administration, may pay, in accordance with the terms of the 

agreement entered into under subsection (b), out of the revenues 

from the sale of power produced by the generating øfacility of the 

interconnected systems of reservoirs operated by the Secretary¿ facilities under construction under such agreements and marketed by 

the Southeastern Power Administration—

(1) to the Tri-Cities Power Authority all reasonable costs 

incurred by the Tri-Cities Power Authority in the ødesign¿

planning, design and construction of the facilities referred to in 

subsection (a), including the capital investment in such facilities and a reasonable rate of return on such capital investment; and 

(2) to the øSecretary¿ Tri-Cities Power Authority, in accordance with the terms of the agreement entered into under 

subsection (b) out of the revenues from the sale of power produced by the generating øfacility of the interconnected systems 

of reservoirs operated by the Secretary¿ facilities under construction under such agreements and marketed by the Southeastern Power Administration, all reasonable costs incurred by 

the øSecretary¿ Tri-Cities Power Authority in the operation 

and maintenance of øfacilities referred to in subsection (a)¿

such facilities. 

(g) AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF ENERGY.—Notwithstanding 

any other provision of law, the Secretary of Energy, acting through 

the Southeastern Power Administration, is authorized—

ø(1) to construct such transmission facilities as necessary 

to market the power produced at the facilities referred to in 

subsection (a) with funds contributed by the Tri-Cities Power 

Authority; and¿

(1) to arrange for the transmission of power to the market 

or to construct such transmission facilities as necessary to market the power produced at the facilities referred to in subsection 

(a) with funds contributed by the Tri-Cities Power Authority; 

and

(2) to repay those funds, including interest and any administrative expenses, directly from the revenues from the sale of 

power produced by øsuch facilities of the interconnected systems of reservoirs operated by the Secretary¿ the generating 

facility and marketed by the Southeastern Power Administration. 

(h) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Nothing in this section affects any requirement under Federal or State environmental law relating to 

the licensing or operation of the facilities referred to in subsection 

(a).

(i) TRI-CITIES POWER AUTHORITY DEFINED.—In this section, the 

‘‘Tri-Cities Power Authority’’ refers to the entity established by the 

City of Hinton, West Virginia, the City of White Sulphur Springs, 

West Virginia, and the City of Philippi, West Virginia, pursuant to 

a document entitled ‘‘Second Amended and Restated Intergovern-
223

mental Agreement’’ approved by the Attorney General of West Virginia on February 14, 2002.

* * * * * * *

CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001, PUBLIC 

LAW 106–554

* * * * * * *

DIVISION B 

TITLE I 

SEC. 101. * * * 

* * * * * * *

SEC. 108. ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE. (a) TECHNICAL, 

PLANNING, AND DESIGN ASSISTANCE.—Section 219(c) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835) is amended by 

adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(19) MARANA, ARIZONA.—Wastewater treatment and distribution infrastructure, Marana, Arizona. 

* * * * * * *

(d) ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR CRITICAL RESOURCE

PROJECTS.—Section 219(f) of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335) is amended by adding at 

the end the following: 

‘‘(45) WASHINGTON, D.C., AND MARYLAND.—$15,000,000 for 

the project described in subsection (c)(1), modified to include 

measures to eliminate or control combined sewer overflows in 

the Anacostia River watershed. 

* * * * * * *

‘‘(70) WASHINGTON, GREENE, WESTMORELAND, AND FAYETTE

COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA.—$8,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, Washington, Greene, Westmoreland, and 

Fayette Counties, Pennsylvania.’’. 

* * * * * * *

(72) ALPINE, CALIFORNIA.—$10,000,000 is authorized for a 

water transmission main, Alpine, CA.

* * * * * * *

TITLE III—COLORADO UTE SETTLEMENT ACT 

AMENDMENTS OF 2000

SEC. 301. * * *

SEC. 303. MISCELLANEOUS. 

The Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988 

(Public Law 100–585; 102 Stat. 2973) is amended by adding at the 

end the following: 

* * * * * * *
224

‘‘SEC. 17. COLORADO UTE SETTLEMENT FUND. 

‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF FUND.—There is hereby established 

within the Treasury of the United States a fund to be known as 

the ‘Colorado Ute Settlement Fund’. 

‘‘(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to the Colorado Ute Settlement Fund such funds 

as are necessary to complete the construction of the facilities described in sections 6(a)(1)(A) and 15(b) øwithin 7 years of the date 

of enactment of this section. Such funds are authorized to be appropriated for each of the first 5 fiscal years beginning with the first 

full fiscal year following the date of enactment of this section¿ for 

each of fiscal years 2006 through 2012. 

* * * * * * *

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS 

ACT, 2004, PUBLIC LAW 108–137

* * * * * * *

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

SEC. 123. GWYNNS FALLS WATERSHED, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. 

The Secretary of the Army shall implement the project for ecosystem restoration, Gwynns Falls, Maryland, øin accordance with 

the Baltimore Metropolitan Water Resources-Gwynns Falls Watershed Feasibility Report prepared by the Corps of Engineers and the 

City of Baltimore, Maryland.¿ in accordance with the ‘‘Baltimore 

Metropolitan Water Resources-Gwynns Falls Watershed Study’’ report prepared by the Corps of Engineers and the City of Baltimore, 

Maryland, dated September 2002. 

* * * * * * *

CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005, PUBLIC 

LAW 108–447

* * * * * * *

DIVISION C—ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 

APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL 

* * * * * * *

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

* * * * * * *

GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

SEC. 201. * * *

* * * * * * *
225

SEC. 207. ANIMAS-LA PLATA NON-INDIAN SPONSOR OBLIGA- TIONS. In accordance with the nontribal repayment obligation specified in Subsection 6(a)(3)(B) of the Colorado Ute Indian Rights Settlement Act of 1988 (Public Law 100–585), as amended by the Colorado Ute Settlement Act Amendments of 2000 (Public Law 106–

554), the reimbursable cost upon which the cost allocation shall be 

based shall not exceed $43,000,000, plus interest during construction for those parties not utilizing the up front payment option, of 

the first $500,000,000 (January 2003 price level) of the total project 

costs. Consequently, the Secretary may forgive the obligation of the 

non-Indian sponsors relative to the $163,000,000 increase, and any 

effects of inflation thereon, in estimated total project costs that occurred in 2003. 

* * * * * * *

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT 

FOR DEFENSE, THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR, AND 

TSUNAMI RELIEF, 2005, PUBLIC LAW 109–13

* * * * * * *

TITLE VI—GENERAL PROVISIONS AND TECHNICAL 

CORRECTIONS 

AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS

SEC. 6001. * * *

* * * * * * *

DESALINATION ACT EXTENSION

SEC. 6015. Section 8 of Public Law 104–298 (The Water Desalination Act of 1996) (110 Stat. 3624) as amended by section 210 of 

Public Law 108–7 (117 Stat. 146) is amended by—

(1) in paragraph (a) by striking ‘‘2004’’ and inserting in 

lieu thereof ‘‘ø2005¿’’ 2010; and 

(2) in paragraph (b) by striking ‘‘2004’’ and inserting in 

lieu thereof ‘‘ø2005¿’’ 2010. 

* * * * * * *
226

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL

PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 

308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget authority Outlays 

Committee 

allocation 1

Amount

of bill 

Committee 

allocation 1

Amount

of bill 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations 

to its subcommittees of amounts in the Budget Resolution 

for 2006: Subcommittee on Energy and Water: 

Discretionary ........................................................................ 31,245 31,245 31,155 1 31,118

Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2006 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 2 20,026

2007 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 9,167

2008 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 1,832

2009 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 106

2010 and future years ........................................................ .................... .................... .................... 81

Financial assistance to State and local governments for

2006 ......................................................................................... NA 450 NA 186

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable. 
227

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2005 appropria- tion Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with

(∂ or ¥) 

2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Corps of Engineers—Civil

General investigations ........................................................................................... 143,344 95,000 100,000 180,000 ∂36,656 ∂85,000 ∂80,000

Hurricane Disasters Assistance (emergency) ............................................... 400 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥400 .......................... ..........................

Construction ........................................................................................................... 1,781,720 1,637,000 1,900,000 2,086,664 ∂304,944 ∂449,664 ∂186,664

Hurricane Disasters Assistance (emergency) ............................................... 62,600 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥62,600 .......................... ..........................

Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee ............................................. 321,904 270,000 290,000 433,336 ∂111,432 ∂163,336 ∂143,336

Hurricane Disasters Assistance (emergency) ............................................... 6,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥6,000 .......................... ..........................

Operation and maintenance .................................................................................. 1,943,428 1,979,000 2,000,000 2,100,000 ∂156,572 ∂121,000 ∂100,000

Offsetting collection ...................................................................................... .......................... ¥181,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂181,000 ..........................Hurricane Disasters Assistance (emergency) ............................................... 145,400 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥145,400 .......................... ..........................

Storm damage—(Public Law 108–324—Sec. 401) (emergency) ........................ 10,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥10,000 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ..................................................... 2,098,828 1,798,000 2,000,000 2,100,000 ∂1,172 ∂302,000 ∂100,000

Regulatory program ................................................................................................ 143,840 160,000 160,000 150,000 ∂6,160 ¥10,000 ¥10,000FUSRAP ................................................................................................................... 163,680 140,000 140,000 140,000 ¥23,680 .......................... ..........................Flood control and coastal emergencies ................................................................. .......................... 70,000 .......................... 43,000 ∂43,000 ¥27,000 ∂43,000

Hurricane Disasters Assistance (emergency) ............................................... 148,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥148,000 .......................... ..........................

General expenses ................................................................................................... 165,664 162,000 152,021 165,000 ¥664 ∂3,000 ∂12,979Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) ....................................... 3,968 .......................... 4,000 .......................... ¥3,968 .......................... ¥4,000

Total, title I, Department of Defense—Civil ............................................ 5,039,948 4,332,000 4,746,021 5,298,000 ∂258,052 ∂966,000 ∂551,979
228

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2005 appropria- tion Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with

(∂ or ¥) 

2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Central Utah Project Completion Account

Central Utah project construction ......................................................................... 30,560 31,668 31,668 31,668 ∂1,108 .......................... ..........................Fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation .................................. 15,345 946 946 946 ¥14,399 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 45,905 32,614 32,614 32,614 ¥13,291 .......................... ..........................

Program oversight and administration .................................................................. 1,720 1,736 1,736 1,736 ∂16 .......................... ..........................

Total, Central Utah project completion account ...................................... 47,625 34,350 34,350 34,350 ¥13,275 .......................... ..........................

Bureau of Reclamation

Water and related resources .................................................................................. 852,605 801,569 832,000 899,569 ∂46,964 ∂98,000 ∂67,569

Offsetting collection ...................................................................................... .......................... ¥30,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂30,000 ..........................

Subtotal, water and related resources ..................................................... 852,605 771,569 832,000 899,569 ∂46,964 ∂128,000 ∂67,569

Central Valley project restoration fund ................................................................. 54,628 52,219 52,219 52,219 ¥2,409 .......................... ..........................California Bay-Delta restoration ............................................................................ .......................... 35,000 35,000 37,000 ∂37,000 ∂2,000 ∂2,000Policy and administration ...................................................................................... 57,688 57,917 57,917 57,917 ∂229 .......................... ..........................Drought conditions Nevada (Public Law 108–324) (emergency) .......................... 5,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥5,000 .......................... ..........................

Total, Bureau of Reclamation .................................................................. 969,921 916,705 977,136 1,046,705 ∂76,784 ∂130,000 ∂69,569Total, title II, Department of the Interior ................................................. 1,017,546 951,055 1,011,486 1,081,055 ∂63,509 ∂130,000 ∂69,569

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Energy supply and conservation ............................................................................ 1,806,936 1,749,446 1,763,888 1,945,330 ∂138,394 ∂195,884 ∂181,442
229

Clean coal technology: 

Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2005 .................................... ¥257,000 257,000 257,000 257,000 ∂514,000 .......................... ..........................Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2007 .................................... .......................... .......................... ¥257,000 ¥257,000 ¥257,000 ¥257,000 ..........................Rescission ..................................................................................................... .......................... ¥257,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂257,000 ..........................

Total, Clean coal technology .................................................................... ¥257,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂257,000 .......................... ..........................

Fossil Energy Research and Development ............................................................. 571,854 491,456 502,467 641,646 ∂69,792 ∂150,190 ∂139,179

Advance appropriations, fiscal year 2007 .................................................... .......................... 257,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥257,000 ..........................

Total, Fossil Energy Research and Development ..................................... 571,854 748,456 502,467 641,646 ∂69,792 ¥106,810 ∂139,179

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves .............................................................. 17,750 18,500 18,500 21,500 ∂3,750 ∂3,000 ∂3,000Elk Hills school lands fund ................................................................................... 72,000 84,000 84,000 84,000 ∂12,000 .......................... ..........................Strategic petroleum reserve ................................................................................... 169,710 166,000 166,000 166,000 ¥3,710 .......................... ..........................Northeast home heating oil reserve ...................................................................... 4,930 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥4,930 .......................... ..........................Energy Information Administration ........................................................................ 83,819 85,926 86,426 85,926 ∂2,107 .......................... ¥500Non-defense site environmental clean up ............................................................. 439,601 349,934 319,934 353,219 ¥86,382 ∂3,285 ∂33,285Uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund ..................... 495,015 591,498 591,498 561,498 ∂66,483 ¥30,000 ¥30,000Science ................................................................................................................... 3,599,871 3,462,718 3,666,055 3,702,718 ∂102,847 ∂240,000 ∂36,663Nuclear Waste Disposal ......................................................................................... 343,232 300,000 310,000 300,000 ¥43,232 .......................... ¥10,000Departmental administration ................................................................................. 238,503 279,976 252,909 280,976 ∂42,473 ∂1,000 ∂28,067

Miscellaneous revenues ................................................................................ ¥121,024 ¥123,000 ¥123,000 ¥123,000 ¥1,976 .......................... ..........................

Net appropriation ...................................................................................... 117,479 156,976 129,909 157,976 ∂40,497 ∂1,000 ∂28,067

Office of the Inspector General ............................................................................. 41,176 43,000 43,000 43,000 ∂1,824 .......................... ..........................

Atomic Energy Defense Activities

National Nuclear Security Administration: 

Weapons activities ........................................................................................ 6,331,590 6,630,133 6,181,121 6,554,024 ∂222,434 ¥76,109 ∂372,903

Transfer from Department of Defense approps ................................... (300,000) .......................... .......................... .......................... (¥300,000) .......................... ..........................

Total, Weapons activities (program level) ...................................... (6,631,590) (6,630,133) (6,181,121) (6,554,024) (¥77,566) (¥76,109) (∂372,903)

Defense nuclear nonproliferation .................................................................. 1,409,033 1,637,239 1,500,959 1,729,066 ∂320,033 ∂91,827 ∂228,107

Emergency appropriations (H.R. 1268) ................................................ 84,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥84,000 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Defense nuclear nonproliferation ..................................... 1,493,033 1,637,239 1,500,959 1,729,066 ∂236,033 ∂91,827 ∂228,107

Naval reactors ............................................................................................... 801,437 786,000 799,500 799,500 ¥1,937 ∂13,500 ..........................
230

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2005 appropria- tion Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with

(∂ or ¥) 

2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

Office of the Administrator ........................................................................... 353,350 343,869 366,869 343,869 ¥9,481 .......................... ¥23,000

Subtotal, National Nuclear Security Administration ................................ 8,979,410 9,397,241 8,848,449 9,426,459 ∂447,049 ∂29,218 ∂578,010

Defense site environmental cleanup ..................................................................... 6,808,319 6,015,044 6,468,336 6,366,771 ¥441,548 ∂351,727 ¥101,565Other defense activities ......................................................................................... 687,149 635,998 702,498 665,001 ¥22,148 ∂29,003 ¥37,497Defense nuclear waste disposal ............................................................................ 229,152 351,447 351,447 277,000 ∂47,848 ¥74,447 ¥74,447

Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities ................................................... 16,704,030 16,399,730 16,370,730 16,735,231 ∂31,201 ∂335,501 ∂364,501

Power Marketing Administrations

Operation and maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration ........................ 5,158 38,313 38,313 38,313 ∂33,155 .......................... ..........................

Offsetting collection ...................................................................................... .......................... ¥38,313 ¥32,713 ¥32,713 ¥32,713 ∂5,600 ..........................

Subtotal, O&M, Southeastern Power Administration ................................ 5,158 .......................... 5,600 5,600 ∂442 ∂5,600 ..........................

Operation and maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration ....................... 29,117 31,401 31,401 33,166 ∂4,049 ∂1,765 ∂1,765

Offsetting collection ...................................................................................... .......................... ¥28,235 ¥1,235 ¥3,000 ¥3,000 ∂25,235 ¥1,765

Subtotal, O&M, Southwestern Power Administration ............................... 29,117 3,166 30,166 30,166 ∂1,049 ∂27,000 ..........................

Construction, rehabilitation, operation and maintenance, Western Area Power 

Administration ................................................................................................... 171,715 393,419 379,654 523,919 ∂352,204 ∂130,500 ∂144,265

Offsetting collection ...................................................................................... .......................... ¥335,300 ¥148,500 ¥279,000 ¥279,000 ∂56,300 ¥130,500Offsetting collection (Public Law 98–381) ................................................... .......................... ¥4,162 ¥4,162 ¥4,162 ¥4,162 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, O&M, Western Area Power Administration ............................... 171,715 53,957 226,992 240,757 ∂69,042 ∂186,800 ∂13,765

Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance fund ........................................ 2,804 2,692 2,692 2,692 ¥112 .......................... ..........................

Offsetting collection ...................................................................................... .......................... ¥2,692 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂2,692 ..........................
231

Subtotal, Falcon and Amistad O&M fund ................................................ 2,804 .......................... 2,692 2,692 ¥112 ∂2,692 ..........................Total, Power Marketing Administrations .................................................. 208,794 57,123 265,450 279,215 ∂70,421 ∂222,092 ∂13,765

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Salaries and expenses ........................................................................................... 210,000 220,400 220,400 220,400 ∂10,400 .......................... ..........................Revenues applied ................................................................................................... ¥210,000 ¥220,400 ¥220,400 ¥220,400 ¥10,400 .......................... ..........................

Total, title III, Department of Energy ....................................................... 24,419,197 24,213,307 24,317,857 25,077,259 ∂658,062 ∂863,952 ∂759,402

Appropriations .................................................................................. (24,263,197) (23,920,307) (24,281,857) (25,041,259) (∂778,062) (∂1,120,952) (∂759,402) Advance appropriations from previous years .................................. (36,000) (36,000) (36,000) (36,000) .......................... .......................... ..........................Advance appropriations, fiscal year 2007 ...................................... (36,000) (257,000) .......................... .......................... (¥36,000) (¥257,000) ..........................Emergency appropriations ............................................................... (84,000) .......................... .......................... .......................... (¥84,000) .......................... ..........................

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Appalachian Regional Commission ....................................................................... 65,472 65,472 38,500 65,482 ∂10 ∂10 ∂26,982Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ............................................................... 20,106 22,032 22,032 22,032 ∂1,926 .......................... ..........................Delta Regional Authority ........................................................................................ 6,000 6,000 6,000 12,000 ∂6,000 ∂6,000 ∂6,000Denali Commission ................................................................................................ 66,464 2,562 2,562 67,000 ∂536 ∂64,438 ∂64,438Nuclear Regulatory Commission:.

Salaries and expenses .................................................................................. 657,475 693,376 714,376 734,376 ∂76,901 ∂41,000 ∂20,000Revenues ....................................................................................................... ¥530,079 ¥559,643 ¥580,643 ¥598,643 ¥68,564 ¥39,000 ¥18,000

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 127,396 133,733 133,733 135,733 ∂8,337 ∂2,000 ∂2,000

Office of Inspector General ........................................................................... 7,458 8,316 8,316 8,316 ∂858 .......................... ..........................Revenues ....................................................................................................... ¥6,712 ¥7,485 ¥7,485 ¥7,485 ¥773 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 746 831 831 831 ∂85 .......................... ..........................Total, Nuclear Regulatory Commission .................................................... 128,142 134,564 134,564 136,564 ∂8,422 ∂2,000 ∂2,000

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ................................................................ 3,152 3,608 3,608 3,608 ∂456 .......................... ..........................Tennessee Valley Authority: Office of Inspector General ....................................... .......................... 9,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥9,000 ..........................

Offset ............................................................................................................. .......................... ¥9,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂9,000 ..........................

Total, title IV, Independent agencies ....................................................... 289,336 234,238 207,266 306,686 ∂17,350 ∂72,448 ∂99,420Grand total ............................................................................................... 30,766,027 29,730,600 30,282,630 31,763,000 ∂996,973 ∂2,032,400 ∂1,480,370
232

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2005 appropria- tion Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with

(∂ or ¥) 

2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

Appropriations .................................................................................. (30,489,627) (29,437,600) (30,246,630) (31,727,000) (∂1,237,373) (∂2,289,400) (∂1,480,370) Emergency appropriations ............................................................... (461,400) .......................... .......................... .......................... (¥461,400) .......................... ..........................Advance appropriations from previous years .................................. (36,000) (36,000) (36,000) (36,000) .......................... .......................... ..........................Advance appropriations, fiscal years 2006 and 2007 ................... (36,000) (257,000) .......................... .......................... (¥36,000) (¥257,000) ..........................

Æ