```

[Senate Report 106-362]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                       Calendar No. 729
106th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     106-362
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

                                     

                      WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

                              ACT OF 2000

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                              COMMITTEE ON

                      ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                              to accompany

                                S. 2796

                                     

                                     

                 July 27, 2000.--Ordered to be printed.

                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
79-010                     WASHINGTON : 2000

                                     

               COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                       ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

                   BOB SMITH, New Hampshire, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia             MAX BAUCUS, Montana
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming                FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri        HARRY REID, Nevada
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio            BOB GRAHAM, Florida
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho              JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              BARBARA BOXER, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas          RON WYDEN, Oregon
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island
                      Dave Conover, Staff Director
                  Tom Sliter, Minority Staff Director

                                  (ii)

  

                            C O N T E N T S

                               __________
                                                                   Page
General statement................................................     1
Statement of committee policy....................................     2
2000 Water Resources Development Act.............................     3
Section-by-section analysis:
    Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.......................     4
    Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary..............................     4

                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

    Sec. 101. Project authorizations.............................     4
        (a). Projects with Chief's Report........................     4
            New York-New Jersey Harbor...........................     4
        (b.) Projects Subject to a Final Report..................     4
            False Pass Harbor, Alaska............................     4
            Unalaska Harbor, Alaska..............................     5
            Rio de Flag, Alaska..................................     5
            Tres Rios, Arizona...................................     5
            Los Angeles Harbor, California.......................     6
            Murrieta Creek, California...........................     6
            Pine Flat Dam, California............................     6
            Rancho Palos Verdes, California......................     7
            Santa Barbara Streams, California....................     7
            Upper Newport Bay Harbor, California.................     7
            Whitewater Bay, California...........................     8
            Tampa Harbor, Florida................................     8
            Barbers Point Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii...................     8
            John T. Myers Lock and Dam, Indiana and Kentucky.....     9
            Greenup Lock and Dam, Kentucky.......................     9
            Morganza, Louisiana to Gulf of Mexico................     9
            Chesterfield, Missouri...............................    10
            Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Inlet, New Jersey.......    10
            Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Cliffwood Beach, New 
              Jersey.............................................    10
            Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Port Monmouth, New 
              Jersey.............................................    11
            Memphis, Tennessee...................................    11
            Jackson Hole, Wyoming................................    11
            Ohio River...........................................    12
    Sec. 102. Small shore protection projects....................    12
    Sec. 103. Small navigation projects..........................    12
    Sec. 104. Removal of snags and clearing and straightening of 
      channels in navigable waters...............................    13
    Sec. 105. Small bank stabilization projects..................    13
    Sec. 106. Small flood control projects.......................    13
    Sec. 107. Small projects for improvement of the quality of 
      the environment............................................    13
    Sec. 108. Beneficial uses of dredged material................    13
    Sec. 109. Small aquatic ecosystem restoration projects.......    14
    Sec. 110. Flood mitigation and riverine restoration..........    14
    Sec. 111. Disposal of dredged material on beaches............    14

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    Sec. 201. Cooperation agreements with counties...............    14
    Sec. 202. Watershed and river basin assessments..............    14
    Sec. 203. Tribal partnership program.........................    15
    Sec. 204. Ability to pay.....................................    15
    Sec. 205. Property protection program........................    16
    Sec. 206. National Recreation Reservation Service............    26
    Sec. 207. Operation and maintenance of hydroelectric 
      facilities.................................................    17
    Sec. 208. Interagency and international support..............    17
    Sec. 209. Reburial and conveyance authority..................    17
    Sec. 210. Approval of construction of dams and dikes.........    18
    Sec. 211. Project deauthorization authority..................    19
    Sec. 212. Floodplain management requirements.................    19
    Sec. 213. Environmental dredging.............................    20
    Sec. 214. Regulatory analysis and management systems data....    20
    Sec. 215. Performance of specialized or technical services...    20

                 TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

    Sec. 301. Boydsville, Arkansas...............................    20
    Sec. 302. White River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri...........    21
    Sec. 303. Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida.............    21
    Sec. 304. Fort Hall Indian Reservation, Idaho................    21
    Sec. 305. Upper Des Plaines River and tributaries, Illinois..    21
    Sec. 306. Red River Waterway, Louisiana......................    21
    Sec. 307. William Jennings Randolph Lake, Maryland...........    22
    Sec. 308. Missouri River Valley, Missouri....................    22
    Sec. 309. New Madrid County, Missouri........................    22
    Sec. 310. Pemiscot County Harbor, Missouri...................    22
    Sec. 311. Pike County, Missouri..............................    22
    Sec. 312. Fort Peck fish hatchery, Montana...................    23
    Sec. 313. Sagamore Creek, New Hampshire......................    23
    Sec. 314. Passaic River Basin flood management, New Jersey...    23
    Sec. 315. Rockaway Inlet to Norton Point, New York...........    23
    Sec. 316. John Day Pool, Oregon and Washington...............    23
    Sec. 317. Fox Point hurricane barrier, Providence, Rhode 
      Island.....................................................    23
    Sec. 318. Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas.......    23
    Sec. 319. Joe Pool Lake, Trinity River Basin, Texas..........    24
    Sec. 320. Lake Champlain watershed, Vermont and New York.....    24
    Sec. 321. Mount St. Helens, Washington.......................    24
    Sec. 322. Puget Sound and adjacent waters restoration, 
      Washington.................................................    24
    Sec. 323. Fox River System, Wisconsin........................    24
    Sec. 324. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration..................    25
    Sec. 325. Great Lakes dredging levels adjustment.............    25
    Sec. 326. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration......    25
    Sec. 327. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment 
      remediation................................................    25
    Sec. 328. Great Lakes tributary model........................    25
    Sec. 329. Treatment of dredged material from Long Island 
      Sound......................................................    25
    Sec. 330. New England water resources and ecosystem 
      restoration................................................    25
    Sec. 331. Project deauthorizations...........................    26

                           TITLE IV--STUDIES

    Sec. 401. Baldwin County, Alabama............................    26
    Sec. 402. Bono, Arkansas.....................................    26
    Sec. 403. Cache Creek Basin, California......................    26
    Sec. 404. Estudillo Canal watershed, California..............    27
    Sec. 405. Laguna Creek watershed, California.................    27
    Sec. 406. Oceanside, California..............................    27
    Sec. 407. San Jacinto watershed, California..................    27
    Sec. 408. Choctawhatchee River, Florida......................    27
    Sec. 409. Egmont Key, Florida................................    27
    Sec. 410. Upper Ocklawaha River and Apopka/Palatlakaha River 
      basins, Florida............................................    27
    Sec. 411. Boise River, Idaho.................................    28
    Sec. 412. Wood River, Idaho..................................    28
    Sec. 413. Chicago, Illinois..................................    28
    Sec. 414. Boeuf and Black, Louisiana.........................    28
    Sec. 415. Port of Iberia, Louisiana..........................    28
    Sec. 416. South Louisiana....................................    28
    Sec. 417. St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana.............    28
    Sec. 418. Narraguagus River, Milbridge, Maine................    28
    Sec. 419. Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River, Maine and 
      New Hampshire..............................................    29
    Sec. 420. Merrimack River Basin, Massachusetts and New 
      Hampshire..................................................    29
    Sec. 421. Port of Gulfport, Mississippi......................    29
    Sec. 422. Upland disposal sites in New Hampshire.............    29
    Sec. 423. Missouri River basin, North Dakota, South Dakota, 
      and Nebraska...............................................    29
    Sec. 424. Cuyahoga River, Ohio...............................    30
    Sec. 425. Fremont, Ohio......................................    30
    Sec. 426. Grand Lake, Oklahoma...............................    30
    Sec. 427. Dredged material disposal site, Rhode Island.......    30
    Sec. 428. Chickamauga Lock and Dam, Tennessee................    30
    Sec. 429. Germantown, Tennessee..............................    31
    Sec. 430. Horn Lake Creek and Tributaries, Tennessee and 
      Mississippi................................................    31
    Sec. 431. Cedar Bayou, Texas.................................    31
    Sec. 432. Houston Ship Channel, Texas........................    31
    Sec. 433. San Antonio Channel, Texas.........................    31
    Sec. 434. White River watershed below Mud Mountain Dam, 
      Washington.................................................    32
    Sec. 435. Willapa Bay, Washington............................    32
    Sec. 436. Upper Mississippi River basin sediment and nutrient 
      study......................................................    32

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

    Sec. 501. Visitors centers...................................    33
    Sec. 502. CALFED Bay-Delta Program assistance, California....    33
    Sec. 503. Conveyance of lighthouse, Ontonagon, Michigan......    33
    Sec. 504. Land conveyance, Candy Lake, Oklahoma..............    34

          Title VI--Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan

Background.......................................................    34
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan........................    35
Restoring the Everglades, An American Legacy Act.................    36
Section-by-section summary:
    Section 1. Short Title.......................................    37
    Sec. 2. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan............    37
        (a). Definitions.........................................    37
        (b). Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan...........   38.
        (c). Additional program authority........................    46
        (d). Authorization of future projects....................    46
        (e). Cost sharing........................................    47
        (f). Evaluation of projects..............................    49
        (g). Exclusions and limitations..........................    50
        (h). Assurance of project benefits.......................    51
        (i). Dispute resolution..................................    57
        (j). Independent scientific review.......................    57
        (k). Outreach and assistance.............................    58
        (l). Report to Congress..................................    59
Hearings.........................................................    60
Legislative history..............................................    60
Rollcall votes...................................................    61
Mandates assessment..............................................    61
Evaluation of regulatory impact..................................    61
Cost of legislation..............................................    61
Changes to existing law..........................................    62

                                                       Calendar No. 729
106th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     106-362

======================================================================

 
                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000

                                _______
                                

                 July 27, 2000.--Ordered to be printed.

   Mr. Smith, of New Hampshire from the Committee on Environment and 
                 Public Works, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 2796]

    The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was 
referred the bill (S. 2796) to provide for the conservation and 
development of water and related resources, to authorize the 
Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for 
improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and 
for other purposes, having considered the same, reports 
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the 
bill, as amended, do pass.

                           General Statement

    In reporting the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, 
the committee is adhering to the policies established in the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662), and 
continued in subsequent Acts, regarding the authorization of 
projects within the civil works program of the Army Corps of 
Engineers. This bill includes authorization for 24 new 
construction projects for flood control, navigation, hurricane 
protection and beach erosion control, and environmental 
restoration.
    The Water Resources Development Act of 1986, signed into 
law on November 17, 1986, marked the end of a 16-year deadlock 
between the Congress and the Executive Branch regarding 
authorization of the civil works program. In addition to 
authorizing numerous projects, the 1986 Act resolved 
longstanding disputes relating to cost sharing, user fees, and 
environmental requirements.
    Prior to 1986, disagreements over these and other matters 
had prevented enactment of major civil works legislation since 
1970. Between 1947 and 1970, civil works authorization bills 
were enacted every 2 to 3 years. This regular schedule had many 
advantages. It helped to avoid long delays between the planning 
and the execution of projects; assured that engineering work 
and economic analysis were applicable to current conditions; 
minimized the backlog of projects that have been considered but 
not authorized by Congress; and allowed the Public Works 
Committees of the Congress to review proposed projects, 
programs and agency policies on a regular schedule.
    Nevertheless, this system broke down in the 1970's. There 
was no legislation enacted between 1970 and 1986 to authorize 
civil works projects for construction. The Water Resources 
Development Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-587) made some changes to Army 
Corps policies, but authorized no projects.
    In 1986, a House-Senate Conference Committee produced a 
Conference Report (H. Rept. 99-1013) which was passed by the 
House and Senate and signed into law on November 17, 1986 (P.L. 
99-662). The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 was the 
largest and most comprehensive authorization of the Army Corps' 
Civil Works Program since the Senate Public Works Committee was 
created in 1947.
    Some of the major reforms included in the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 are listed below:
      Cost-sharing formulas were established for harbor 
dredging (section 101), flood control (section 103), shoreline 
protection (section 103), stream bank erosion control (section 
603), and other projects. Project Cooperation Agreements were 
required for all such projects. Projects for mitigation of fish 
and wildlife resources were allowed to be carried out at up to 
100 percent Federal expense under section 906 and modification 
of Army Corps projects in the interest of environmental quality 
were authorized to be carried out at 75 percent Federal expense 
under section 1135. The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
extended harbor cost sharing formulas to dredged material 
disposal facilities, increased the non-Federal cost share for 
flood control, and established cost sharing for environmental 
protection and restoration.
      The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, capitalized by 
a new Harbor Maintenance Fee, was established to pay 40 percent 
of the Federal cost of maintaining authorized deep draft 
navigation channels (sections 210, 1402 and 1403), and was 
subsequently increased to provide for 100 percent of the cost 
under the 1990 Water Resources Development Act.
      These policy changes applied to all projects 
contained in the Water Resources Development Acts of 1988 (P.L. 
100-676); 1990 (P.L. 101-640); 1992 (P.L. 102-580); 1996 (P.L. 
104-303); 1999 (P.L. 106-53); and will continue to apply to all 
projects contained in the Water Resources Development Act of 
2000.

                     Statement of Committee Policy

    Since 1986, it has been the policy of the committee to 
authorize only those construction projects that conform with 
cost-sharing and other policies established in the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986 and subsequent Water 
Resources Development Acts. In addition, it has been the policy 
of the committee to require projects to have undergone full and 
final engineering, economic and environmental review by the 
Chief of Engineers prior to project approvals by the committee.
    The Army Corps of Engineers water resources project study 
process can be initiated when either of the two Public Works 
Committees of the Congress approves a committee resolution 
requesting that the study of a potential project area be 
undertaken. Once such a resolution is approved by either 
committee, the Army Corps is authorized to proceed with a 
reconnaissance study of the proposed project at 100 percent 
Federal cost. The purpose of a reconnaissance study is to 
determine whether or not there is a Federal interest in the 
project. Authorization of a reconnaissance study may also be 
provided by statute. Army Corps policy now requires all 
reconnaissance studies to be completed within 12 months and at 
a cost of no greater than $100,000.
    If, after completion of the reconnaissance study, a project 
is deemed to be in the Federal interest, the Federal government 
and a non-Federal sponsor may enter into an equally cost-shared 
feasibility study. The feasibility study includes a more 
detailed set of engineering, economic and environmental 
analyses to determine whether a project is justified to advance 
to the construction phase. When the feasibility study is 
completed, the Army Corps District Engineer reviews the results 
and forwards a recommendation on the project to the Division 
Engineer. The Division Engineer issues a Division Engineer's 
notice and then submits the report to Army Corps Headquarters. 
Army Corps Headquarters performs a final review and submits the 
report for the mandatory (33 U.S.C. 701 1(a)) 30-day State and 
Federal agency review period. After these reviews are complete 
and the report is found favorable, a report is prepared for the 
final recommendation of the Chief of Engineers. The report of 
the Chief of Engineers is forwarded to the Assistant Secretary 
of the Army (Civil Works) for Administration review and 
submission to the Congress.
    Many of the projects sent to the Assistant Secretary of the 
Army by the Chief of Engineers are forwarded to the Congress 
with a recommendation that construction be authorized. Such a 
recommendation only occurs after the project has been reviewed 
by the Office of Management and Budget. It is the prerogative 
of the Administration to make recommendations regarding the 
authorization of Army Corps projects. However, the committee is 
not bound by these recommendations. The decision to authorize a 
project rests with the two houses of Congress.
    The policy of the committee limits contingent authorization 
of water resources projects to those projects that will have 
final reports of the Chief of Engineers in the same calendar 
year as the Water Resources Development Act under 
consideration.

                The 2000 Water Resources Development Act

    S. 2796, the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, 
introduced on June 27, 2000, by Senators Voinovich, Smith, and 
Baucus, contains several of the provisions requested by the 
Administration. S. 2796, as reported by the committee, 
incorporates some of these provisions as outlined below.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1. Short Title; Table of Contents
    This section designates the title of the bill as ``The 
Water Resources Development Act of 2000'' and lists the table 
of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary
    This section defines the term ``Secretary'' for the 
purposes of the Act as the Secretary of the Army.

                   Title I--Water Resources Projects

Section 101. Project Authorizations
    This section provides authority for the Secretary to carry 
out 24 projects for water resources development, conservation, 
and other purposes substantially in accordance with the plans 
recommended in the reports referenced in the bill language. 
Descriptions of the projects are as follows:
(a). Projects with Chief's Report
    Subsection (a) of Section 101 authorizes one project to be 
carried out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with 
the plan and subject to the conditions recommended in a final 
report of the Chief of Engineers.
New York-New Jersey Harbor
    Location. New York and New Jersey.
    Purpose. Navigation.
    Problem. Existing channel depths are not sufficient for 
larger, more efficient ships. Channel deepening would reduce 
the number of required vessel trips and congestion-related 
delays.
    Recommended Plan. The plan consists of deepening the 
Ambrose Channel to a depth of 53 feet mean low water (MLW) and 
deepening Anchorage, Port Jersey, Kill Van Kull, Newark Bay, 
Arthur Kill, and Bay Ridge Channels to a depth of 50 feet MLW.
    Project Costs. Total cost $1,781,235,000. Federal cost 
$738,631,000; non-Federal cost $1,042,604,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.6 to 1.
(b). Project Authorizations Subject to a Final Report
    Subsection (b) of Section 101 authorizes the following 23 
projects for water resources development, and conservation, and 
other purposes to be carried out by the Secretary substantially 
in accordance with the plan and subject to the conditions 
recommended in a final report of the Chief of Engineers as 
approved by the Secretary, if a favorable report of the Chief 
is completed not later than December 31, 2000.
False Pass Harbor, Alaska
    Location. False Pass, Alaska.
    Purpose. Navigation.
    Problem. Fishing vessels incur significant annual expenses 
at False Pass due to the shortage of moorage facilities.
    Recommended Plan. The plan consists of a 10-acre basin 
constructed just north of the community of False Pass. The 
basin would accommodate a fleet of 86 vessels ranging in size 
from 18 feet to 100 feet. The basin would be dredged to depths 
of -12 feet and -19 feet.
    Project Costs. Total cost $15,000,000. Federal cost 
$10,000,000; non-Federal cost $5,000,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1 to 1
Unalaska Harbor, Alaska
    Location. Unalaska, Alaska.
    Purpose. Navigation.
    Problem. There is limited long term and transient moorage 
space for large commercial and fishing vessels. Construction of 
a harbor for vessels in the 80- to 180-foot size range will 
allow savings in transportation costs for off season moorage to 
the Pacific Northwest and reduce damages and delays caused by 
rafting of vessels.
    Recommended Plan. The plan consists of new moorage 
facilities in Unalaska, with wave protection features 
consisting of a short rubblemound breakwater on the south end 
of the harbor and a floating breakwater protecting the length 
of the harbor from waves in the channel between islands.
    Project Costs. Total cost $20,000,000. Federal cost 
$12,000,000; non-Federal cost $8,000,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio.
Rio de Flag, Arizona
    Location. Rio de Flag, Arizona.
    Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction.
    Problem. The identified problem is flooding along the Rio 
de Flag and Clay Avenue Wash, which results in inundation 
damage to approximately 1,500 structures.
    Recommended Plan. The plan consists of detention upstream 
on the Rio de Flag, a detention basin on the Clay Avenue Wash, 
and channel improvements downstream of each detention basin to 
convey flows through the west Flagstaff area.
    Project Costs. Total cost $26,400,000. Federal cost 
$17,100,000; non-Federal cost $9,300,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.3 to 1.
Tres Rios, Arizona
    Location. Tres Rios, Arizona.
    Purpose. Environmental Restoration.
    Problem. The natural riparian ecosystem has been degraded 
within the study area. The causes of this degradation include 
elimination of natural flow events due to upstream dams, 
minimization of base flows, variations in surface waters due to 
effluent, and exotic species. In addition, significant flood 
and water quality problems exist.
    Recommended Plan. The plan includes a levee system, which 
will work in conjunction with the restoration features to 
provide 100-year flood protection. The restoration features 
include a pump station facility, constructed wetlands, 
pipelines to distribute water for cottonwood-willow riparian 
corridors, and large open water marsh areas.
    Project Costs. Total cost $90,000,000. Federal cost 
$58,000,000; non-Federal cost $32,000,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.9 to 1.
Los Angeles Harbor, California
    Location. Los Angeles, California.
    Purpose. Navigation.
    Problem. The use of larger, deeper-draft container ships 
has resulted in a need to provide deeper-draft channels and 
berths.
    Recommended Plan. The plan consists of deepening the 
channels and turning basins to a depth of -53 feet mean low 
water and disposal of 6.2 million cubic yards of material at 
four designated locations.
    Project Costs. Total cost $168,900,000. Federal cost 
$44,000,000; non-Federal cost $124,900,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2 to 1.
Murrieta Creek, California
    Location. Murrieta Creek, California.
    Purpose. Flood Damage Prevention and Ecosystem Restoration.
    Problem. Floodwater inundation is the most common water 
resource-related problem in the Murrieta Creek watershed. The 
potential for large flood events with high monetary damage 
remains a significant threat to the area.
    Recommended Plan. The plan consists of an on-line detention 
basin along the eastern side of Murrieta Creek between Warm 
Springs and Santa Gertrudis Creeks in conjunction with channel 
modifications downstream of the detention basin. A flow control 
structure would be placed just upstream of the Santa Gertrudis 
confluence, thereby only capturing flows from Murrieta and Warm 
Springs Creeks and allowing Santa Gertrudis Creek to remain 
uncontrolled.
    Project Costs. Total cost $43,100,000. Federal cost 
$27,800,000; non-Federal cost $15,300,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan for 
ecosystem restoration is justified by the restoration of 
valuable habitat. The benefit-to-cost ratio for the flood 
damage prevention component is 1.1 to 1.
Pine Flat Dam, California
    Location. Pine Flat Dam, Kings River, California.
    Purpose. Fish and Wildlife Restoration.
    Problem. Due to the design and operation of Pine Flat Dam, 
a portion of the reservoir can experience a significant 
increase in water temperature at certain times of the year. 
When there is adequate water, water temperatures are well 
within the optimal range for the survival of both cold water 
and warm water fish; however, in low water years, the 
availability of coldwater habitat can decrease dramatically.
    Recommended Plan. The plan includes construction of a 
multilevel intake structure consisting of three separate steel 
structures that extend from elevation 953.46 feet, mean sea 
level (msl), downward to elevation 616.5 feet msl on the 
upstream face of the dam to allow the release of colder water 
throughout the year to sustain the trout fishery. The plan also 
consists of reestablishing 143.5 acres of riparian vegetation 
and wildlife habitat along the Kings River near the Friant-Kern 
Canal siphon.
    Project Costs. Total cost $34,000,000. Federal cost 
$22,000,000; non-Federal cost $12,000,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is 
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
Ranchos Palos Verdes, California
    Location. Ranchos Palos Verdes, California.
    Purpose. Environmental Restoration.
    Problem. The Portuguese Bend landslide along the coast of 
the city of Rancho Palos Verdes has deposited millions of cubic 
yards of material into the Pacific Ocean, burying the highly 
valuable rocky benthic habitat and kelp forest ecosystem. The 
material has also caused high levels of turbidity, which is 
degrading the downcoast kelp forest.
    Recommended Plan. The plan consists of the construction of 
an 1800-foot containment dike approximately 400 feet offshore 
of the Portuguese Bend landslide to contain landslide material. 
The project will restore about 500 acres of valuable rocky 
habitat and kelp forest ecosystem that was buried or is 
continuing to be degraded.
    Project Costs. Total cost $18,100,000. Federal cost 
$11,800,000; non-Federal cost $6,300,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is 
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
Santa Barbara Streams, California
    Location. Santa Barbara Streams, Lower Mission Creek, Santa 
Barbara, California.
    Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction.
    Problem. The primary problem affecting the lower Mission 
Creek area is the continuing threat of flooding to property, 
which affects the health, safety, and well being of the 
residents of Santa Barbara. Secondary problems are the 
environmental impacts of flooding, urbanization, and the 
uncoordinated individual bank stabilization measures.
    Recommended Plan. This plan will increase the channel 
capacity to 3,400 cfs and will provide approximately a 20-year 
level of flood protection. The new wider creek doubles the 
habitat for the Tidewater Gobi. The plan also restores the 
creek bottom, enhancing it's potential as a migratory corridor 
for the Southern California Steelhead.
    Project Costs. Total cost $17,100,000. Federal cost 
$8,600,000; non-Federal cost $8,500,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.2 to 1.
Upper Newport Bay Harbor, California
    Location. Upper Newport Bay, Orange County, California.
    Purpose. Environmental Restoration.
    Problem. Rapid urbanization of the Newport Bay watershed 
has resulted in a significant increase in the amount of fine 
sediments depositing into the Bay. Sedimentation has filled in 
open water areas within the Upper Newport Bay Ecological 
Reserve, one of the last remaining southern California coastal 
wetlands that continues to play a significant role in providing 
critical habitat to a variety of species. Without continued 
maintenance of the sediment basins, sedimentation will result 
in significant changes to the balance of wetland habitats, 
adversely affecting resident and migratory species.
    Recommended Plan. The plan consists of expanding and 
deepening two existing sediment basins and seven associated 
habitat restoration measures.
    Project Costs. Total cost $28,280,000. Federal cost 
$18,390,000; non-Federal cost $9,890,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is 
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
Whitewater River Basin, California
    Location. Whitewater River Basin, Coachella Valley, 
Riverside County, California.
    Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction.
    Problem. The main problem affecting the area is flooding 
from the alluvial fan below Indio Hills. Streams carry water 
and sediment into the Thousand Palms area forming numerous 
intersecting alluvial fans below the mouth of the canyon and 
during large storms, these areas are subject to flooding.
    Recommended Plan. The plan consists of three levees and a 
floodway of approximately 700 acres.
    Project Costs. Total cost $26,000,000. Federal cost 
$16,900,000; non-Federal cost $9,100,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.4 to 1.
Tampa Harbor, Florida
    Location. Tampa Harbor, Port Sutton, Florida.
    Purpose. Navigation.
    Problem. The length of the authorized channel is not 
sufficient.
    Recommended Plan. The original authorization was to deepen 
the channel from the existing 34 feet to 43 feet, over a length 
of 3,700 feet. Since that authorization, the non-Federal 
sponsor has requested that the deepening be considered for the 
entire length of 6,000 feet. A General Reevaluation Report will 
be completed in July 2000 on this additional authorization.
    Project Costs. Total cost $7,245,000. Federal cost 
$4,709,000; non-Federal cost $2,536,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 6.3 to 1 on the original authorization. 
2.1 to 1 on the additional request.
Barbers Point Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii
    Location. Oahu, Hawaii.
    Purpose. Navigation.
    Problem. Significant changes have occurred in the shipping 
industry since the initiation of the Barbers Point Harbor 
project and service ships are larger than originally 
anticipated. The existing harbor's depth limitations result in 
increased transportation costs to the shippers as they must 
either light-load their larger vessels or continue to use less 
efficient smaller ones.
    Recommended Plan. The plan consists of improvements to a 
450-foot long jetty adjacent to the entrance channel and 
deepening of the 92-acre inshore basin to a maximum depth of 45 
feet and the entrance channel to 47 feet.
    Project Costs. Total cost $51,000,000. Federal cost 
$21,000,000; non-Federal cost $30,000,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.5 to 1.
John T. Meyers Lock and Dam, Indiana and Kentucky
    Location. Ohio River, Indiana and Kentucky.
    Purpose. Navigation.
    Problem. The primary problem involves traffic delays during 
main chamber closures.
    Recommended Plan. The plan consists of an extension of the 
auxiliary lock to provide an overall length of 1200 feet, 
extension of the lock approach walls, supplemental filling and 
emptying system improvements, Miter Gate Quick Changeout System 
improvements, and environmental mitigation measures.
    Project Costs. Total cost $182,000,000. One-half of costs 
shall be paid from the general fund of the Treasury and one-
half from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.8 to 1.
Greenup Lock and Dam, Kentucky
    Location. Ohio River, Greenup, Kentucky.
    Purpose. Navigation.
    Problem. The primary problems involve traffic delays during 
main chamber closures. Greenup is one of the most heavily used 
locks on the Ohio River and when the main chamber is closed due 
to maintenance or accidents, traffic must lock through the 
smaller auxiliary chamber, resulting in lengthy delays.
    Recommended Plan. The plan consists of a 600-foot extension 
of the 600-foot auxiliary lock to provide an overall length of 
1200 feet, extension of the lock approach walls, supplemental 
filling and emptying system improvements, Miter Gate Quick 
Changeout System improvements, and environmental mitigation 
measures.
    Project Costs. $183,000,000 One-half of costs shall be paid 
from the general fund of the Treasury and one-half from the 
Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2.5 to 1.
Morganza, Louisiana, to Gulf of Mexico
    Location. Morganza, Louisiana.
    Purpose. Hurricane Protection.
    Problem. The area is significantly affected by tides and 
the impacts of storm surge inundation have increased, along 
with deterioration of coastal marshes. In addition, saltwater 
intrusion continues to plague the wetland habitat throughout 
the area.
    Recommended Plan. The plan consists of floodgates, which 
will operate when water surface elevations reach a certain 
level or an impending storm event requires system closure. 
Otherwise, the floodgates will remain in an open position most 
of the year and allow navigational passage. The Houma 
Navigational Canal Lock and Bayou Gram Caillou floodgate will 
be operated together approximately three months each year to 
reduce salinity intrusion. Additional drainage structures are 
built into the levee to maintain the ebb and flow of tides for 
wetland habitat enclosed by the protection levee.
    Project Costs. Total cost $550,000,000. Federal cost 
$358,000,000; non-Federal cost $192,000,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.09 to 1.
Chesterfield, Missouri
    Location. Chesterfield, Missouri.
    Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction.
    Problem. During the Great Flood of 1993, the levee system 
protecting 4,200 acres of the Chesterfield Valley failed and 
flooded its interior with up to eight feet of water. Subsequent 
repairs were made, but the levee system is still considered 
substandard.
    Recommended Plan. The plan consists of levee improvements 
to provide flood protection to the Chesterfield Valley area, 
including landside seepage berms and relief wells to control 
underseepage, a new railroad closure structure and a small 
floodwall near Centaur Road, a closure structure and a 
floodwall at Airport Road, two closure structures and a 
floodwall at Long Road, four pump stations, and several gravity 
drains.
    Project Costs. Total cost $63,000,000. Federal cost 
$40,950,000; non-Federal cost $22,050,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.76 to 1.
    Inclusion of this project on the contingent authorization 
list was an amendment by Smith and Bond.
Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Inlet, New Jersey
    Location. Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Inlet, New Jersey.
    Purpose. Shore Protection.
    Problem. Communities along the entire length of Long Beach 
Island are vulnerable to hurricanes, northeasters and other 
storm induced damages.
    Recommended Plan. This plan consists of a combination of 
dune and berm restoration, with a berm width of 125 feet and a 
30-foot side dune. Beachfill would be placed on various 
stretches of Long Beach Island where the existing berm and dune 
profiles are below the minimum measurements of the design 
profile. This plan also authorizes periodic nourishment for a 
50-year period at an annual cost of $1,751,000, with a Federal 
cost of $1,138,000 and a non-Federal cost of $613,000.
    Project Costs. Total cost $51,203,000. Federal cost 
$33,282,000; non-Federal cost $17,921,000
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.9 to 1.
Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Cliffwood Beach, New Jersey.
    Location. Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Cliffwood Beach, 
New Jersey.
    Purpose. Shore Protection.
    Problem. Tidal flooding and beach erosion progressively 
threaten the protective beaches, a freshwater lake, and nearby 
residential areas at Cliffwood Beach.
    Recommended Plan. The plan consists of seawall repair with 
a 60-foot wide berm. This plan also authorizes periodic 
nourishment for a 50-year period at an annual cost of $110,000, 
with a Federal cost of $55,000 and a non-Federal cost of 
$55,000.
    Project Costs. Total cost $5,219,000. Federal cost 
$3,392,000; non-Federal cost $1,827,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.2 to 1.
Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Port Monmouth, New Jersey
    Location. Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Port Monmouth, 
New Jersey.
    Purpose. Shore Protection.
    Problem. Nearly 1000 residential, commercial, and public 
structures and properties are affected by tidal inundation from 
coastal storm events. Storm waters surround the area from the 
overflow of tidal creeks which form at the eastern and western 
boundaries of the Port Monmouth community. Wave driven waters 
also overtop the thin, eroding beach and dune line along 
Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay. Despite efforts by the State of 
New Jersey, the shoreline continues to erode. Long term erosion 
has resulted in a persistent reduction of hurricane and storm 
damage protection by reducing the height and width of the 
beachfront.
    Recommended Plan. The plan consists of floodwalls, levees, 
and beach nourishment. This plan also includes dune grass, dune 
fencing, dune walk-overs and suitable beachfill, with periodic 
nourishment for a 50-year period at an annual cost of 
$2,468,000, with a Federal cost of $1,234,000 and a non-Federal 
cost of $1,234,000.
    Project Costs. Total cost $30,081,000. Federal cost 
$19,553,000; non-Federal cost $10,528,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.2 to 1.
Memphis, Tennessee
    Location. Wolf River, Memphis, Collierville, and 
Germantown, Tennessee.
    Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
    Problem. The Wolf River and Tributaries Project 
significantly reduced seasonal flooding, eliminated large 
amounts of riparian and fisheries habitat and initiated 
erosion, headcutting and long-term drying of wetlands. Erosion 
and headcutting continues to progress up the main channel and 
tributaries, clogging tributaries, reducing fish and wildlife 
habitat, filling wetlands, killing trees, and changing the 
hydraulic regime of the wetlands.
    Recommended Plan. The plan consists of stabilization weirs, 
channel restoration, a waterfowl management area, wildlife 
corridors, trails, and three boat ramps for public access.
    Project Costs. Total cost $10,933,000. Federal cost 
$7,106,000; non-Federal cost $3,827,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is 
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
Jackson Hole, Wyoming
    Location. Jackson Hole, Wyoming.
    Purpose. Environmental Restoration.
    Problem. River channel instability was identified as a 
major source of problems in the area, including reduced 
diversity of species and diminished production of vegetation in 
area habitats. The main river channel has a tendency to fill 
and shift. As the river changes its course, it can impinge on 
river island habitats, often resulting in complete destruction. 
With the loss of these island habitats, aquatic species can no 
longer survive.
    Recommended Plan. The plan consists of restoration of the 
entire 22-mile reach of the Snake River, starting approximately 
2 miles downstream of Moose, Wyoming, to Flat Creek at South 
Park Elk Feed grounds.
    Project Costs. Total cost $66,500,000. Federal cost 
$43,225,000; non-Federal cost $23,275,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is 
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
Ohio River
    Location. Ohio River Corridor, within the States of 
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia, and 
Pennsylvania.
    Purpose. Fish and Wildlife Restoration.
    Problem. Forest harvest, agriculture, industrialization, 
urbanization, water pollution, river impoundment, and a variety 
of other factors have affected the environmental quality of the 
Ohio River and its floodplain. Many habitats are in need of 
improvement for the benefit of a wide variety of species.
    Recommended Plan. The plan consists of conducting an 
inventory of existing ecosystem resources; developing a 
comprehensive program implementation plan to establish the 
objectives and priorities for the restoration and protection of 
the ecosystem resources; conducting detailed planning and 
design and implementing site-specific projects to restore and 
protect aquatic, wetland, floodplain, and riparian areas; 
conducting detailed planning and design and implementing 
appropriate recreation features in conjunction with site-
specific restoration projects; and monitoring of individual 
project performance as a basis for adaptive management of 
individual projects and periodic update of the comprehensive 
program implementation plan.
    Project Costs. Total cost $200,000,000. Federal cost 
$130,000,000; non-Federal $70,000,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is 
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
Sec. 102. Small Shore Protection Projects
    This provision amends section 105 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (P.L.104-303) by adding Lake Palourde, 
Louisiana and St. Bernard, Louisiana to the list of projects 
the Secretary is authorized to study, and, if feasible, carry 
out under section 3 of the Act of August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 
426g).
Sec. 103. Small Navigation Projects
    This provision amends section 104 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999 (P.L.106-53) by adding Houma Navigation 
Channel, Louisiana and Vidalia Port, Louisiana to the list of 
small navigation projects the Secretary is authorized to study, 
and, if feasible, carry out under section 107 of the River and 
Harbor Act of 1960.
Sec. 104. Removal of Snags and Clearing and Straightening of Channels 
        in Navigable Waters
    This provision adds Bayou Manchac, Louisiana, and Black 
Bayou and Hippolyte Coulee, Louisiana to the list of projects 
the Secretary is authorized to study, and, if feasible, carry 
out under section 3 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (33 U.S.C. 
604).
Sec. 105. Small Bank Stabilization Projects
    This provision amends section 103 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999 (P.L.106-53) by adding Bayou Des 
Glaises, Louisiana; Bayou Plaquemine, Louisiana; Hammond, 
Louisiana; Iberville Parish, Louisiana; Lake Arthur. Louisiana; 
Lake Charles, Louisiana; Loggy Bayou, Louisiana; and 
Scotlandville Bluff, Louisiana to the list of small bank 
stabilization projects the Secretary is authorized to study, 
and, if feasible, carry out under section 14 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r).
Sec. 106. Small Flood Control Projects
    This provision amends section 102 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999 (P.L.106-53) by adding Weiser River, 
Idaho; Bayou Tete L'Ours; Louisiana, Bossier City, Louisiana; 
Braithwaite Park, Louisiana; Cane Bend Subdivision, Louisiana; 
Crown Point, Louisiana; Donaldsonville Canals, Louisiana; Goose 
Bayou, Louisiana; Gumby Dam, Louisiana; Hope Canal, Louisiana; 
Jean Lafitte, Louisiana; Lockport to Larose, Louisiana; Lower 
Lafitte Basin, Louisiana; Oakville to Lareussite, Louisiana; 
Pailet Basin, Louisiana; Pochitolawa Creek, Louisiana; 
Rosethorn Basin, Louisiana; Shreveport, Louisiana; 
Stephensville, Louisiana; St. John the Baptist Parish, 
Louisiana; Magby Creek and Vernon Branch, Mississippi; and 
Fritz Landing, Tennessee to the list of small flood control 
projects the Secretary is authorized to study, and, if 
feasible, carry out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act 
of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s)
Sec. 107. Small Projects for the Improvement of the Quality of the 
        Environment
    This provision amends section 105 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999 (P.L.106-53) by adding Bayou Sauvage 
National Wildlife Refuge, Louisiana; Gulf Intracoastal 
Waterway; Bayou Plaquemine, Louisiana; Gulf Intracoastal 
Waterway, Miles 220 to 222.5, Louisiana; Gulf Intracoastal 
Waterway, Weeks Bay, Louisiana; Lake Fausse Point, Louisiana; 
Lake Providence, Louisiana; New River, Louisiana; Erie County, 
Ohio; and Mushingum County, Ohio to the list of small projects 
of the improvement of the quality of the environment the 
Secretary is authorized to study, and, if feasible, carry out 
under section 1135(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a(a)).
Sec. 108. Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material
    This provision adds Houma Navigation Canal, Louisiana; 
Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, Mile -3 to Mile -9, Louisiana; 
Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, Mile 11 to Mile 4, Louisiana; 
Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana; and Ottawa County, Ohio to the 
list of projects the Secretary is authorized to study, and, if 
feasible, carry out under section 204 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326).
Sec. 109. Small Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Projects
    This provision amends section 106 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999 (P.L.106-53) by adding Braud Bayou, 
Louisiana; Buras Marina, Louisiana; Comite River, Louisiana; 
Department of Energy 21-Inch Pipeline Canal, Louisiana; Lake 
Borgne, Louisiana; Lake Martin, Louisiana; Luling, Louisiana; 
Mandeville, Louisiana; St. James, Louisiana; Mines Falls Park, 
New Hampshire; North Hampton, New Hampshire; Highland County, 
Ohio; Hocking County, Ohio; Tuscarawas County, Ohio; Central 
Amazon Creek, Oregon; Delta Ponds, Oregon; Eugene Millrace, 
Oregon; Medford, Oregon; and Roslyn Lake, Oregon to the list of 
projects the Secretary is authorized to study, and, if 
feasible, carry out under section 206 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330).
Sec. 110. Flood Mitigation and Riverine Restoration
    This provision amends section 212 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999 (P.L.106-53) by adding Perry Creek, 
Iowa to the list of projects the Secretary is authorized to 
study, and if feasible, carry out under the authority provided 
by section 212 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
(33 U.S.C. 2322(e)).
Sec. 111. Disposal of Dredged Material on Beaches
    This provision amends section 217 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999 (P.L.106-53) by adding Fort Canby State 
Park, Benson Beach, Washington to the list of projects the 
Secretary is authorized to study, and if feasible, carry out 
under Section 145 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1976 (33 U.S.C. 426(j)).

                      Title II--General Provisions

Section 201. Cooperation Agreements with Counties
    Section 201 amends the Flood Control Act of 1970 to provide 
local entities the same indemnification protections as State 
governments.
Section 202. Watershed and River Basin Assessments
    This provision amends Section 729 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4164) by enhancing the 
ability of the Army Corps to address complex water resource 
problems across large geographic areas with multiple 
governmental jurisdictions. The watershed and river basin 
assessments will be conducted in cooperation with the 
Departments of the Interior and Agriculture, the Environmental 
Protection Agency, and other agencies such as the Departments 
of Commerce and Transportation, and the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, as appropriate, and with Tribal, State, 
interstate, and local governmental entities.
    The assessments will be conducted for a broad variety of 
water resources needs, including ecosystem protection and 
restoration, flood damage reduction, navigation, watershed 
protection, water supply, and drought preparedness. The 
assessments will be tailored to the specific situation in a 
river basin or watershed. To the extent practicable, the 
assessments will consider assessments already conducted by 
other Federal, State, and interstate agencies. This provision 
does not authorize the implementation of feasibility studies on 
specific projects or the projects themselves.
    This provision will increase the total authorized 
appropriations from $5,000,000 to $15,000,000, and add a non-
Federal cost sharing requirement. The non-Federal share of the 
cost of the assessments will be 50 percent. The Secretary is 
authorized to accept contributions of services, materials, 
supplies and cash from Federal, Tribal, State, interstate, and 
local governmental entities where such contributions will help 
complete the assessments and meet all or part of the non-
Federal share.
Sec. 203. Tribal Partnership Program
    This provision authorizes the Secretary to work with 
Federally recognized Tribal governments, including Alaskan 
Natives, and other Federal agencies, to plan and determine the 
feasibility of water resources development projects, including 
projects for flood damage reduction, environmental restoration 
and protection, and preservation of cultural and natural 
resources. The Secretary shall consider traditional cultural 
knowledge and values when formulating project studies and 
consider the applicability and value of in-kind contributions. 
The Secretary may utilize unique Tribal capabilities.
    Projects to be studied will be located primarily within the 
boundaries of reservations, or within traditional communities, 
or substantially benefit tribal lands or resources, or preserve 
cultural values. Studies undertaken under this authority are 
subject to normal study cost sharing requirements. The 
Secretary shall give priority to studying the project along the 
upper Snake River within and adjacent to the Fort Hall Indian 
Reservation, Idaho, and the project for the Tribal Reservation 
of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe on Willapa Bay, Washington.
    The Secretary shall develop ability-to-pay procedures to 
assist the non-Federal interest in funding studies conducted 
under this authority. The Secretary should use existing policy 
and regulatory flexibility to consider non-economic factors and 
unique tribal conditions when making recommendation under this 
authority.
    The provision authorizes $5,000,000 for fiscal years 2002 
through 2006, with a $1,000,000 limit for any tribe.
Sec. 204. Ability to Pay
    This provision amends existing ability to pay authority by 
adding environmental protection and restoration navigation, 
storm damage reduction, shoreline erosion, hurricane protection 
and recreation projects to the types of Army Corps projects 
which the ability to pay provision applies. Senator Warner 
offered an amendment to expand the provision from the proposal 
submitted by the Administration to include all these missions 
of the Army Corps. The amendment was adopted by unanimous 
consent.
    Under existing law, the ability to pay procedures are only 
authorized for reducing the non-Federal share of the cost of 
constructing flood damage reduction and agricultural water 
supply projects. The provision further provides assistance to 
financially distressed communities by allowing ability to pay 
procedures to apply to the non-Federal cost of feasibility 
studies for the same types of projects.
    Application of the ability to pay procedures to feasibility 
studies is needed because many communities do not have the 
financial ability to finance studies, let alone projects. The 
provision also allows the Secretary to consider additional 
criteria to account for the non-Federal sponsor's financial 
ability to carry out its cost-sharing responsibilities, or to 
account for additional financial assistance that may be 
available from other Federal agencies or the State or States in 
which the project is located.
    The provision directs the Secretary to revise the ability 
to pay criteria and procedures not later than 18 months after 
the date of enactment.
Sec. 205. Property Protection Program
    This provision authorizes the Secretary to carry out a 
program to reduce vandalism and destruction of property at Army 
Corps projects and allows rewards for information or evidence 
leading to the arrest and prosecution of individuals causing 
damages. An appropriation of $500,000 annually is authorized 
for this program.
    Recently, recreation areas, natural resource sites, 
cultural/historical property, hydroelectric power plants and 
navigation locks and dams have been vandalized routinely, and 
the cost of this criminal activity to the taxpayer is great. 
For example, during the period 1986 through 1997, recreation 
areas sustained losses approximating $12.5 million due to 
vandalism, arson, and burglary. This provision is intended to 
reduce the potential for property damage from criminal activity 
at water resources projects under the jurisdiction of the 
Department of the Army.
Sec. 206. National Recreation Reservation Service.
    This provision provides the statutory authority for the 
Army Corps to jointly fund an Interagency Contract Management 
Office for the National Recreation Reservation Service (NRRS) 
with the U.S. Forest Service. Section 611 of the Treasury and 
General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 (P.L. 105-277; 
112 Stat. 2681-515) provides that no part of any appropriations 
shall be available for interagency financing of boards, 
commissions, councils, committees, or similar groups which do 
not have a prior and specific statutory approval to receive 
financial support from more than one agency or instrumentality.
    In 1995, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. 
Forest Service began discussions regarding the development of a 
reservation service for recreation sites and facilities 
operated by each agency. The agencies planned an easy, one-
stop-shopping for the public for reservations to all 
participating agencies' recreation opportunities. The Forest 
Service advertised, awarded, and is currently administering the 
NRRS, a state-of-the-art reservation service for Federal 
recreation sites and facilities across the country.
    The provision allows the Army Corps to participate on a 
day-to-day basis in the management of the reservation service 
for the Federal recreation sites and facilities held in the 
Army Corps' inventory. It allows the NRRS to become a joint 
agency venture receiving policy guidance and input from all 
participating agencies. The provision allows the NRRS to 
provide the public with a more efficient and user-friendly 
system of reserving Federal recreation sites and facilities by 
encouraging all agencies, such as the National Park Service and 
the Bureau of Land Management, which hold such sites in their 
inventory, to participate.
Sec. 207. Operation and Maintenance of Hydroelectric Facilities.
    This provision authorizes the Secretary to determine which 
maintenance activities at Corps hydroelectric plants can be 
most cost effectively maintained by contract employees.
    The Army Corps operates and maintains hydroelectric power 
plants with a total of nearly 21,000 megawatts of capacity, 
making it the largest hydropower owner in the United States. 
These large hydroelectric generating facilities require 
specially-trained craftsmen for their operation and 
maintenance. The skills that are required for the main power 
train of these hydroelectric facilities are not generally 
available in the private sector. There are, however, auxiliary 
support systems that can be maintained more cost efficiently by 
the private sector. Such systems include heating, ventilating 
and air conditioning, water systems, lighting, low to medium 
voltage power distribution, and fish by-pass equipment and 
facilities that are similar to those found in non-power 
industrial facilities. This provision allows the Secretary to 
contract for needed specialized skills for maintenance of 
hydroelectric plants.
Sec. 208. Interagency and International Support.
    This provision increases the Interagency and International 
Support Authorization from $1,000,000 to $2,000,0000. Under 
current law, the Secretary is authorized to receive funds to 
support Federal agencies or international organizations (after 
consultation with the Secretary of State) to address problems 
of national significance to the United States, including 
problems related to water resources, infrastructure 
development, and environmental protection.
Sec. 209. Reburial and Conveyance Authority.
    This provision authorizes the Secretary to identify areas 
at civil works projects that may be used to reinter Native 
American remains that have been discovered on project lands, 
and which have been rightfully claimed by a lineal descendant 
or an Indian tribe in accordance with applicable Federal law. 
The Secretary, in consultation and consent of the lineal 
descendant or tribe, is authorized to recover and rebury the 
remains at such sites at full Federal expense. This provision 
is not intended to affect or limit rights under the Native 
American Graves and Repatriation Act.
    The Secretary may transfer to the Department of the 
Interior the land identified by the Secretary used to reinter 
Native American remains to be held in trust for the benefit of 
respective Native American tribes. In this case, the Secretary 
shall retain any necessary rights-of-way, easements, or other 
property interests that is necessary to carry out the 
authorized project purpose.
Sec. 210. Approval of Construction of Dams and Dikes.
    This provision amends Section 9 of the Act of March 3, 1899 
to exempt dams and dikes that do not completely span a waterway 
used to transport interstate or foreign commerce from the 
requirements of the Act.
    Obtaining authorization for dams or dikes under the Act of 
March 3, 1899 involves considerable time, effort, and 
expenditure of resources by the proponent of the structure, the 
Department of the Army, the Corps of Engineers, and either the 
U.S. Congress or the appropriate State legislature. The effort 
is justified for dams or dikes proposed to span waterways that 
are navigable and currently used to transport interstate or 
foreign commerce. However, for water bodies that have the legal 
status of navigable waters of the United States only because 
those water bodies are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, 
or because they were historically navigable, or because they 
could be made navigable with reasonable improvements, 
authorization of proposed dams or dikes under the Act of March 
3, 1899 is neither needed nor practicable. For those categories 
of water bodies, authorization of any and all proposed 
structures by the Corps of Engineers under 33 USC 403 would be 
fully adequate to ensure protection for all aspects of the 
public interest, including environmental quality and the 
interests of non-commercial (i.e., recreational) navigation.
    For many years the Corps of Engineers regulations governing 
the regulatory program under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 
(including 33 USC Sections 401 and 403) has provided that 
authorization under 33 USC 401 was required only for any dike 
or dam that `` . . . completely spans a navigable water of the 
United States and that may obstruct interstate waterbourne 
commerce.'' (33 CFR 321.2(b)) The Corps of Engineers has 
interpreted and applied that provision of Army Corps 
regulations as requiring authorization under 33 USC 401 for a 
proposed dam or dike only if it would completely span a 
waterway that currently supports interstate waterborne 
commerce. To some degree this provision in Army Corps 
regulations was upheld as legally permissible in Hart and 
Miller Islands Area Environmental Group v. Corps of Engineers, 
621 F.2d. 1281 (4th Cir. 1980). Because of the wording of the 
Corps' regulations, the Corps for many years has been requiring 
that any dam or dike proposed to be built in any navigable 
water of the United States that is not currently used to 
transport interstate waterborne commerce would not need 
authorization under 33 USC 401, but must receive a permit from 
the Corps under 33 USC 403, and under 33 USC 1344 if a 
discharge of dredged or fill material would be involved in the 
construction of the dam or dike (as is usually the case). 
Section 201 will require that every new dam or dike proposed to 
be built in any navigable water of the United States that does 
not require authorization under 33 USC 401 must receive a 
permit from the Corps under 33 USC 403, so that all aspects of 
the public interest can be protected in a permit review.
Sec. 211. Project Deauthorization Authority.
    This provision amends Section 1001 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986, as amended, which established criteria 
for the deauthorization of projects. WRDA 86 also requires a 
biennial submission to the Congress of a list of projects, or 
separable elements of projects, which have been authorized but 
have not met the criteria for continued authorization. Under 
current law, an authorized project must receive an obligation 
of funds during the 7 full years immediately preceding the 
transmittal of the list for it to remain authorized. If no 
obligations are made within 30 months after the list is 
submitted to Congress, the project is no longer authorized.
    Currently, the Army Corps has a substantial backlog of 
authorized projects which are not receiving sufficient funding 
for construction. This provision establishes a more orderly 
deauthorization process, and one that directly relates to 
actual conditions that would effect the actual construction of 
a project (significant adverse environmental impacts, lack of 
local support, no longer economically justified, premature 
authorization, lack of funds, etc.).
    The provision has two parts. First, if construction of a 
water resources development project or separable element is not 
initiated within seven years from the date the project or 
separable element was last authorized, it will automatically 
become deauthorized.
    Second, those water resources development projects and any 
separable element of such a project, for which funds have once 
been obligated for construction, shall be deauthorized if 
Congressional identified appropriations have not been obligated 
for construction of the project or separable element during any 
five consecutive fiscal years. The provisions will not become 
effective until three years after the date of enactment. In 
each case, the Congress will be notified in advance of the 
pending deauthorizations, and a list of all projects or 
separable elements proposed for deauthorization would be 
published in the Federal Register.
Sec. 212. Flood Plain Management Requirements.
    This provision amends Section 402 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986, as it was amended by Section 202(c) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. The provision 
strengthens the ability of Army Corps of Engineers to work with 
non-Federal interests to reduce the impacts of future flood 
damages. The potential for additional flood damages remain even 
after the construction of a flood damage reduction project. The 
provision makes it clear that the non-Federal interests should 
adopt and enforce measures, practices and policies that they 
identify in their ``Flood Plain Management Plans.''
    This provision also addresses the need to preserve the 
level of flood protection initially identified as being 
provided by a flood damage reduction project. The Army Corps 
should take into account the effects of future development in 
the design of the project. Non-Federal interests should be 
fully involved in this process and the design should reflect 
the effects of non-Federal development and the level of flood 
protection identified with the project should remain over its 
life.
    Since Army Corps projects become local projects once 
completed, this provision makes it clear that the ``Flood Plain 
Management Plans'' will identify those measures that would be 
undertaken by the non-Federal interests to preserve the level 
of flood protection. This provision will apply to a project or 
separable element for which a project cooperation agreement is 
signed after the date of enactment.
Sec. 213. Environmental Dredging.
    This provision amends Section 312 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1990 by allowing non-profit entities to 
participate in environmental dredging projects, with the 
consent of the affected local government. Under current law, 
non-profit entities are not eligible to be non-Federal sponsors 
for environmental dredging projects.
Sec. 214. Regulatory Analysis and Management Systems Data.
    This provision requires the Secretary to publish on the 
Army Corps' Regulatory Program website, quarterly reports that 
include all Regulatory Analysis and Management Systems (RAMS) 
data, including the date on which an individual or nationwide 
permit application under Section 404 of the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act is received, the date on which the 
application is considered complete, the date on which the Corps 
either grants or denies the permit. Also, if an application is 
not complete when first received by the Corps, a description of 
the reason the application is not complete should be included 
in the RAMS. This provision was an amendment offered by Senator 
Inhofe and adopted by unanimous consent.
Sec. 215. Performance of Specialized or Technical Services.
    This provision requires that the Chief Executive Officer of 
an entity requesting specialized or technical services from the 
Army Corps submit to the Secretary a written request describing 
the scope of the services to be performed and agreeing to 
reimburse the Corps for all costs associated with the 
performance of the services and a certification that the 
services are not reasonably and quickly available through 
ordinary business channels.
    Before the Secretary can enter into an agreement to perform 
the services, he shall ensure that the requirements of the 
request are met and certify that the Army Corps is uniquely 
qualified to perform the services. The Secretary shall report 
annually to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public 
Works and the House Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure requests submitted for specialized or technical 
services section. This provision was an amendment offered by 
Senator Thomas and agreed to10-8 in a roll call vote.

                 Title III--Project-Related Provisions

Sec. 301. Boydsville, Arkansas
    This provision amends section 402 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 322) to allow the Secretary 
to credit up to $250,000 for work performed by local interests 
prior to initiation of a feasibility study if the Secretary 
finds that the investigations are integral to the scope of the 
study.
Sec. 302. White River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri
    This provision modifies section 374 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 322) to extend the 
authorization period until 2002 for the Secretary to conduct a 
study and provide a report regarding the reallocation of five 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reservoirs to provide for minimum 
flows necessary to sustain tailwater trout fisheries.
Sec. 303. Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida
    This provision amends section 201 of the Flood Control Act 
of 1965 (79 Stat.1073) to authorize the Secretary to enter into 
an agreement with non-Federal interests to carry out the shore 
protection project in accordance with Section 206 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4828) if the 
Secretary determines that the project is technically sound, 
environmentally acceptable and economically justified.
Sec. 304. Fort Hall Indian Reservation, Idaho
    This provision directs the Secretary to carry out planning, 
engineering, and design of an adaptive ecosystem restoration, 
flood damage reduction, and erosion protection project along 
the upper Snake River within and adjacent to Fort Hall Indian 
Reservation, Idaho. The Secretary must determine that the 
project is a cost-effective means of providing ecosystem 
restoration, flood damage reduction, and erosion protection, 
and is environmentally acceptable and technically feasible. 
Furthermore, the Secretary must determine that the project will 
improve the economic and social conditions of the Shoshone-
Bannok Indian Tribe. The Shoshone-Bannok Indian Tribe is 
required to provide all land, easements, and rights-of-way 
necessary for implementation of the project.
Sec. 305. Upper Des Plaines River and Tributaries, Illinois
    This provision amends Section 419 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 324) to allow, subject to 
entering into the feasibility cost sharing agreement, the non-
Federal interest to receive credit toward the Federal share of 
the project costs for construction work performed by the non-
Federal interest before execution of the project cooperation 
agreement if the Secretary finds the work integral to the 
project.
Sec. 306. Red River Waterway, Louisiana
    This provision amends section 601 (a) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142) as modified 
by section 4(h) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 
(102 Stat. 4016), section 102 (p) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat.4613), and section 301(b)(7) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3710) 
to authorize the Secretary to purchase mitigation land from 
willing sellers in the following Louisiana parishes: Avoyelles, 
Bossier, Caddo, Grant, Natchitoches, Rapides, and Red River.
Sec. 307. William Jennings Randolph Lake, Maryland
    This provision authorizes the Secretary to share in the 
cost of designing and constructing recreational facilities in 
the State of Maryland at the William Jennings Randolph Lake 
(Bloomington Dam), Maryland and West Virginia. The project will 
be cost shared 50 percent Federal, 50 percent non-Federal.
Sec. 308. Missouri River Valley , Missouri
    This provision provides for the protection, enhancement, 
and restoration of fish and wildlife habitat on the Missouri 
River. Section 601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986 authorized the Secretary to study the need for additional 
measures for mitigation losses of aquatic and terrestrial 
habitat. This provision contingently authorizes $20,000,000 for 
each of fiscal years 2001 through 2010, to carry out the study, 
if the study is complete by December 31, 2000. Further, this 
provision authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study to 
analyze any adverse effects on aquatic and riparian-dependent 
fish and wildlife resulting from the operation and maintenance 
of the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir Project in the States 
of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Montana; recommend 
measures appropriate to mitigate the adverse effects; and 
develop baseline geologic and hydrologic data relating the 
aquatic and riparian habitat. This provision also amends 
Section 514 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 
Stat. 342) to increase the level of appropriations to 
$5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2004.
Sec. 309. New Madrid County, Missouri
    The project for navigation is authorized as described in 
the Feasibility Report under section 107 of the River and 
Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) to include both phase 1 and 
phase 2 of the project if the Secretary finds that the 
construction work is integral to phase 2 of the project. The 
Secretary is further authorized and directed to provide credit 
to local interests for their costs incurred in constructing 
phase 1 of the project, if the Secretary finds that the 
construction work is integral to phase 2 of the project. The 
credit shall not exceed the required non-Federal cost sharing 
for the Federal project.
Sec. 310. Pemiscot County Harbor, Missouri
    This provision amends section 107 of the River and Harbor 
Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) to allow the Secretary to credit up 
to $222,000 for work performed by local interests after 
December 1997, if the Secretary finds that the construction 
work is integral to the project.
Sec. 311. Pike County, Missouri
    This provision authorizes an exchange of land between SSS 
Lumber Company, Inc. and the Corps of Engineers. SSS Lumber 
will acquire a 9-acre tract it currently leases from the Corps 
of Engineers and will convey to the Corps of Engineers a tract 
of land approximately the same acreage it plans to acquire from 
a private landowner.
Sec. 312. Fort Peck Fish Hatchery, Montana.
    This provision authorizes the Secretary to design and 
construct a multi-species fish hatchery and associated 
facilities at Fort Peck Lake, Montana. The authorized cost of 
the fish hatchery is $20,000,000 and will be cost shared 75 
percent Federal, 25 percent non-Federal. The costs to the State 
of Montana of stocking Fort Peck Lake during the period 
beginning January 1, 1947, and the costs to the State of 
Montana and the counties surrounding Fort Peck Lake of 
construction of local access roads to the lake shall be 
credited toward the non-Federal share of the costs of the 
project. Although the multi-purpose project at Fort Peck, 
Montana, authorized by the first section of the Act of August 
30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1034, chapter 831), was intended to include 
other activities designed to promote economic benefits, many of 
the projects were never completed, to the detriment of the 
local communities flooded by the Fort Peck Dam. Building the 
fish hatchery will provide one of the initially envisioned 
purposes of this project.
Sec. 313. Sagamore Creek, New Hampshire
    This provision authorizes the Secretary to carry out 
maintenance dredging of the Sagamore Creek Channel in New 
Hampshire.
Sec. 314. Passaic River Basin Flood Management, New Jersey
    This provision authorizes the Secretary to reevaluate the 
Passaic River Mainstem project and consider non-structural 
solutions that provide flood protection and protect the 
region's environmental resources.
Sec. 315. Rockaway Inlet to Norton Point, New York
    This provision amends section 501(a) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4135) to allow the Secretary 
to construct T-groins to improve sand retention downdrift of 
the West 37th Street groin in the community of Sea Gate, New 
York.
Sec. 316. John Day Pool, Oregon and Washington
    This provision extinguishes use restrictions and 
reversionary interests on specified properties located on the 
John Day Pool.
Sec. 317. Fox Point Hurricane Barrier, Providence, Rhode Island
    This provision amends section 352 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 310) to allow the non-
Federal interest credit toward the non-Federal share of project 
costs, or reimbursement for the Federal share of the costs of 
repairs that were incurred by the non-Federal interest before 
the date of the execution of the project cooperation agreement.
Sec. 318. Houston-Galveston
    This provision allows for the contingent authorization, 
upon a favorable report by the Chief of Engineers by December 
31, 2000, of the project for navigation and environmental 
restoration, Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas, 
authorized by section 101(a)(30) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3666). The Secretary is 
contingently authorized to modify the project to design and 
construct barge lanes adjacent to both sides of the Houston 
Ship Channel from Redfish Reef to Morgan Point, a distance of 
approximately 15 miles, to a depth of 12 feet, at a total cost 
of $34,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $30,600,000.
Sec. 319. Joe Pool Lake, Trinity River Basin, Texas
    This provision authorizes the Secretary to change by 
agreement the non-Federal sponsorship of the recreation program 
at Joe Pool Lake. The provision will relieve the current non-
Federal sponsor, Trinity River Authority, of its 
responsibilities and obligation of $9,540,000 to the Federal 
government, and allow the Secretary to enter into a new 
agreement with the city of Grand Prairie, Texas. The city of 
Grand Prairie would accept the non-Federal responsibilities of 
the recreation program, except the current $14.9 million 
obligation. Instead, the city would pay $4.29 million for the 
estimated current value of the parklands. This payment would be 
paid in two installments. The city would assume all operations 
and maintenance responsibilities.
Sec. 320. Lake Champlain Watershed, Vermont and New York
    This provision authorizes the Secretary to provide 
ecosystem restoration planning, design and construction 
assistance to non-Federal interests in the Lake Champlain 
watershed. The non-Federal interests will receive credit for 
design work completed prior to entering into an agreement with 
the Secretary. The Federal share of critical projects may be in 
the form of financial assistance for project implementation. 
$20,000,000 is authorized to carry out this section.
Sec. 321. Mount St. Helens, Washington
    This provision changes the existing project for sediment 
control, included in the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1985, 
Title I, Chapter IV (P.L.99-88, 99 Stat. 318), authorizing the 
Secretary of the Army to maintain the flood protection levels 
cited in the October 1985 Report titled, ``Mount St. Helens, 
Washington, Decision Document'' for Longview, Kelso, Lexington, 
and Castle Rock on the Cowlitz River, Washington.
Sec. 322. Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters Restoration, Washington
    This provision authorizes ecosystem studies and restoration 
in the Puget Sound and adjacent waters in the State of 
Washington to expedite construction of critical restoration 
projects by concurrently developing a comprehensive plan, 
conducting project implementation studies, and initiating 
construction of specific projects. $20,000,000 is authorized to 
carry out this section.
Sec. 323. Fox River System, Wisconsin
    This provision clarifies that the Federal Government may 
make a payment to the State of Wisconsin as part of a transfer 
agreement for the navigation portion of the Fox River System. 
These funds would be used toward repair and rehabilitation of 
the transferred locks and appurtenant features.
Sec. 324. Chesapeake Bay Oyster Restoration
    This provision increases the funding for Section 704 (b) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4157), 
as amended by Section 505 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3757), from $7,000,000 to $20,000,000.
Sec. 325. Great Lakes Dredging Levels Adjustment
    This provision authorizes the Secretary to adjust 
maintenance depths in the Great Lakes to adjust for low water 
conditions. Dredging depths for operation and maintenance of 
authorized projects are measured against a mean low water 
level. Lake levels are dropping below these levels resulting in 
inadequate depths.
Sec. 326. Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration
    This provision authorizes the Secretary to plan, design, 
implement and monitor an ecosystem, fishery and beneficial uses 
restoration program in the Great Lakes Basin in cooperation 
with the States, other Federal agencies and other interests. 
The projects would include habitat restoration, removal of 
impediments to upstream habitat, and constructing spawning 
grounds. $40,000,000 is authorized to carry out this section.
Sec. 327. Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans and Sediment Remediation
    This provision amends section 401 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 1268 note; 104 Stat. 4644; 
110 Stat. 3763; 113 Stat. 338) to provide for $10 million 
annually through 2010 for the development and implementation of 
Remedial Action Plans to restore water quality in the Great 
Lakes ``Areas of Concern.'' Support under this authority 
includes demonstrations of sediment remediation technologies to 
States, local governments, and non-profit groups.
Sec. 328. Great Lakes Tributary Model
    This provision directs the Secretary to develop models that 
will support States and local agencies responsible for soil 
conservation and pollution prevention. Sediments and sediment 
contaminants hinder navigation and increase maintenance costs 
at Federal navigation channels and have impaired water quality 
uses at Great Lakes ``Areas of Concern.''
Sec. 329. Treatment of Dredged Material from Long Island Sound
    This provision authorizes a demonstration project for the 
use of innovative sediment treatment technologies for the 
treatment of dredged material from Long Island Sound.
Sec. 330. New England Water Resources and Ecosystem Restoration
    This provision authorizes the Secretary to undertake 
ecosystem restoration projects in New England, an area defined 
as Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, 
and Connecticut. Initially, an assessment will be conducted to 
determine the condition of water resources and related 
ecosystems; identify and prioritize the most critical needs; 
and develop a framework for regional or watershed management 
plans. These management plans will identify projects the Corps 
can undertake that will produce independent, immediate, and 
substantial restoration, preservation, and protection benefits. 
$40,000,000 is authorized to carry out this section.
Sec. 331. Project Deauthorizations
    This provision authorizes the Secretary to deauthorize the 
following projects:
    1) Kennebunk River, Kennebunk and Kennebunkport, Maine. The 
Town Manager of Kennebunkport has requested deauthorization to 
resolve an encroachment issue. The proposal would deauthorize 
an area of the northernmost 6-foot deep anchorage, consisting 
of approximately 0.15 acres;
    2) Wallabout Channel, Brooklyn, New York . Currently, there 
is no commercial vessel trips or commerce reported in the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers Waterborne Commerce Statistics. The 
proposal would deauthorize a small portion of the existing 
Federal channel at the head of the channel; and
    3) New York and New Jersey Channels, New York and New 
Jersey.

                           Title IV--Studies

Sec. 401. Baldwin County, Alabama.
    This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out beach erosion 
control, storm damage reduction, and other measures along the 
shores of Baldwin County, Alabama.
Sec. 402. Bono, Arkansas
    This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of and need for a reservoir and 
associated improvements to provide for flood control, 
recreation, water quality, and fish and wildlife habitat in the 
vicinity of Bono, Arkansas.
Sec. 403. Cache Creek Basin, California
    This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of modifying the Cache Creek Basin, 
California flood control project, authorized by section 401(a) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 
4112). The original project authorization was to construct 
features to mitigate impacts of the project on the storm 
drainage system of the City of Woodland, California, that have 
been caused by construction of a new south levee of the Cache 
Creek Settling Basin. The study shall include consideration of 
outlet works through the Yolo Bypass capable of receiving up to 
1,600 cubic feet per second of storm drainage from the city of 
Woodland and Yolo County; a low-flow cross-channel across the 
Yolo Bypass, including all appurtenant features, that is 
sufficient to route storm flows of 1,600 cubic feet per second 
between the old and new south levees of the Cache Creek 
Settling Basin, across the Yolo Bypass and into the Tule Canal; 
and such other features as the Secretary determines to be 
appropriate.
Sec. 404 Estudillo Canal Watershed, California
    This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of constructing flood control 
measures in the Estudillo Canal watershed, San Leandro, 
California.
Sec. 405. Laguna Creek Watershed, California
    This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of construction flood control 
measures in the Laguna Creek watershed, Fremont, California, to 
provide a 100-year level of flood protection.
Sec. 406. Oceanside, California
    This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a special 
study, not later than 32 months after the date of enactment of 
this Act and at full Federal expense, of plans to mitigate for 
the erosion and other impacts resulting from the construction 
of Camp Pendleton Harbor, Oceanside, California, as a wartime 
measure; and to restore beach conditions along the affected 
public and private shores to the conditions that existed before 
the construction of Camp Pendleton Harbor. Previous studies 
have indicated that Federal navigation structures at Camp 
Pendleton, California have obstructed transport of sand to the 
beaches downcoast and is the major source of erosion to these 
beaches.
Sec. 407. San Jacinto Watershed, California
    This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a watershed 
study for the San Jacinto watershed, California.
Sec. 408. Choctawhatchee River, Florida
    This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the Federal interest in dredging the mouth of the 
Choctawhatchee River, Florida, to remove the sand plug.
Sec. 409. Egmont Key, Florida
    This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of stabilizing the historic 
fortifications and beach areas of Egmont Key, Florida, that are 
threatened by erosion.
Sec. 410. Upper Ocklawaha River And Apopka/Palatlakaha River Basins, 
        Florida
    This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a re-study 
of flooding and water quality issues in the upper Ocklawaha 
River basin, south of the Silver River; and the Apopka River 
and Palatlakaha River basins. In carrying out study, the 
Secretary shall review the report of the Chief of Engineers on 
the Four River Basins, Florida, project, published as House 
Document No. 585, 87th Congress, and other pertinent reports to 
determine the feasibility of measures relating to comprehensive 
watershed planning for water conservation, flood control, 
environmental restoration and protection, and other issues 
relating to water resources in the river basins.
Sec. 411. Boise River, Idaho
    This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out multi-objective flood 
control activities along the Boise River, Idaho.
Sec. 412. Wood River, Idaho
    This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out multi-objective flood 
control and flood mitigation planning projects along the Wood 
River in Blaine County, Idaho.
Sec. 413. Chicago, Illinois.
    This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for water-
related urban improvements, including infrastructure 
development and improvements, in Chicago, Illinois. The 
Secretary shall study the USX/Southworks site; Calumet Lake and 
River; the Canal Origins Heritage Corridor; and Ping Tom Park. 
In carrying out this study, the Secretary shall use available 
information from, and consult with, appropriate Federal, State, 
and local agencies.
Sec. 414. Boeuf And Black, Louisiana
    This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of deepening the navigation channel 
of the Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf and Black, 
Louisiana, from 20 feet to 35 feet.
Sec. 415. Port of Iberia, Louisiana
    This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of constructing navigation 
improvements for ingress and egress between the Port of Iberia, 
Louisiana, and the Gulf of Mexico, including channel widening 
and deepening.
Sec. 416. South Louisiana.
    This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of constructing projects for 
hurricane protection in the coastal area of the State of 
Louisiana between Morgan City and the Pearl River.
Sec. 417. St. John The Baptist Parish, Louisiana.
    This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of constructing urban flood control 
measures on the east bank of the Mississippi River in St. John 
the Baptist Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 418. Narraguagus River, Milbridge, Maine.
    This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of redesignating as anchorage a 
portion of the foot channel of the project for navigation, 
Narraguagus River, Milbridge, Maine, authorized by section 101 
of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1173). The 
Secretary also shall conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of reauthorizing for the purpose of maintenance as 
anchorage a portion of the project for navigation, Narraguagus 
River, Milbridge, Maine, authorized by section 2 of the Act of 
June 14, 1880 (21 Stat. 195, chapter 211), lying adjacent to 
and outside the limits of the 11-foot channel and the 9-foot 
channel. 5
Sec. 419. Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River, Maine and New 
        Hampshire
    This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of modifying the project for 
navigation, Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River, Maine and 
New Hampshire, authorized by section 101 of the River and 
Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1173) and modified by section 
202(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 
Stat. 4095), to increase the authorized width of turning basins 
in the Piscataqua River to 1000 feet.
Sec. 420. Merrimack River Basin, Massachusetts and New Hampshire
    This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a 
comprehensive study of the water resources needs of the 
Merrimack River basin, Massachusetts and New Hampshire, in the 
manner described in section 729 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4164). In carrying out this 
section, the Secretary may take into consideration any studies 
conducted by the University of New Hampshire on environmental 
restoration of the Merrimack River System.
Sec. 421. Port of Gulfport, Mississippi.
    This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of modifying the project for 
navigation, Gulfport Harbor, Mississippi, authorized by section 
202(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 
Stat. 4094) and modified by section 4(n) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4017) to: widen the channel 
from 300 feet to 450 feet and to deepen the South Harbor 
channel from 36 feet to 42 feet and the North Harbor channel 
from 32 feet to 36 feet.
Sec. 422. Upland Disposal Sites in New Hampshire
    This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study, in 
conjunction with the State of New Hampshire, to identify and 
evaluate potential upland disposal sites for dredged material 
originating from harbor areas located within the State.
Sec. 423. Missouri River Basin, North Dakota, South Dakota, And 
        Nebraska
    This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of the conveyance to the Secretary of 
the Interior of the land, described as follows, to be held in 
trust for the benefit of the Three Affiliated Tribes of the 
Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota; the Standing Rock 
Sioux Tribe of North Dakota and South Dakota; the Crow Creek 
Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; the 
Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; and the Santee Sioux Tribe 
of Nebraska. The land authorized to be studied for conveyance 
is the land that was acquired by the Secretary to carry out the 
Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Program, authorized by section 
9 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 891, chapter 665); 
and is located within the external boundaries of the 
reservations of the above named tribes. The study shall be 
conducted in cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior, 
the State of South Dakota, the State of North Dakota, the State 
of Nebraska, county officials, ranchers, sportsmen, other 
affected parties, and the above named tribes.
Sec. 424. Cuyahoga River, Ohio
    This provision amends Section 438 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3746) to direct the 
Secretary to conduct a study to evaluate the structural 
integrity of the bulkhead system located on the Federal 
navigation channel along the Cuyahoga River near Cleveland, 
Ohio and provide to the non-Federal interest design analysis, 
plans and specifications, and cost estimates for repair or 
replacement of the bulkhead system. The non-Federal share of 
the cost of the study shall be 35 percent. There is authorized 
to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000.
Sec. 425. Fremont, Ohio.
    This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study, in 
consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and local 
agencies, to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects 
for water supply and environmental restoration at the Ballville 
Dam, on the Sandusky River at Fremont, Ohio.
Sec. 426. Grand Lake, Oklahoma
    This provision directs the Secretary to evaluate the 
backwater effects specifically due to flood control operations 
on land around Grand Lake, Oklahoma. Not later than 180 days 
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
submit to Congress a report on whether Federal actions have 
been a significant cause of the backwater effects. The 
Secretary shall also conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of addressing the backwater effects of the 
operation of the Pensacola Dam, Grand/Neosho River basin; and 
purchasing easements for any land that has been adversely 
affected by backwater flooding in the Grand/Neosho River basin. 
If the Secretary determines, in accordance with the evaluation 
of the backwater effects, that Federal actions have been a 
significant cause of the backwater effects, the Federal share 
of the cost of the feasibility study shall be 100 percent.
Sec. 427. Dredged Material Disposal Site, Rhode Island
    This provision directs the Secretary to, in consultation 
with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, 
conduct a study to determine the feasibility of designating a 
permanent site in the State of Rhode Island for the disposal of 
dredged material.
Sec. 428. Chickamauga Lock And Dam, Tennessee
    This provision directs the Secretary to use $200,000, from 
funds transferred from the Tennessee Valley Authority, to 
prepare a report of the Chief of Engineers for a replacement 
lock at Chickamauga Lock and Dam, Tennessee. As soon as 
practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Tennessee Valley Authority shall transfer the funds for the 
report of the Chief of Engineers to the Secretary.
Sec. 429. Germantown, Tennessee
    This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
control and related purposes along Miller Farms Ditch, Howard 
Road Drainage, and Wolf River Lateral D, Germantown, Tennessee. 
The Secretary shall include environmental and water quality 
benefits in the justification analysis for the project. The 
Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the 
costs of the feasibility study the value of the in-kind 
services provided by the non-Federal interests relating to the 
planning, engineering, and design of the project, whether 
carried out before or after execution of the feasibility study 
cost-sharing agreement; and the Secretary shall consider the 
feasibility study to be conducted as part of the Memphis Metro 
Tennessee and Mississippi study authorized by resolution of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, dated March 7, 
1996.
Sec. 430. Horn Lake Creek and Tributaries, Tennessee And Mississippi
    This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of modifying the project for flood 
control, Horn Lake Creek and Tributaries, Tennessee and 
Mississippi, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124), to provide 
a high level of urban flood protection to development along 
Horn Lake Creek. The study shall include a limited reevaluation 
of the project to determine the appropriate design, as desired 
by the non-Federal interests.
Sec. 431. Cedar Bayou, Texas
    This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of constructing a 12-foot-deep and 
125-foot-wide channel from the Houston Ship Channel to Cedar 
Bayou, mile marker 11, Texas.
Sec. 432. Houston Ship Channel, Texas
    This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of constructing barge lanes adjacent 
to both sides of the Houston Ship Channel from Bolivar Roads to 
Morgan Point, Texas, to a depth of 12 feet.
Sec. 433. San Antonio Channel, Texas
    This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of modifying the project for San 
Antonio Channel improvement, Texas, authorized by section 203 
of the Flood Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1259), and modified 
by section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 
(90 Stat. 2921), to add environmental restoration and 
recreation as project purposes.
Sec. 434. White River Watershed Below Mud Mountain Dam, Washington
    This provision directs the Secretary to review the report 
of the Chief of Engineers on the Upper Puyallup River, 
Washington, dated 1936, authorized by section 5 of the Act of 
June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1591, chapter 688), the Puget Sound and 
adjacent waters report authorized by section 209 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1197), and other pertinent 
reports, to determine whether modifications to the 
recommendations contained in the reports are advisable to 
provide improvements to the water resources and watershed of 
the White River watershed downstream of Mud Mountain Dam, 
Washington. In conducting the review, the Secretary shall 
review, with respect to the Lake Tapps community and other 
parts of the watershed constructed and natural environs; 
capital improvements; water resource infrastructure; ecosystem 
restoration; flood control; fish passage; collaboration by, and 
the interests of, regional stakeholders; recreational and 
socioeconomic interests; and other issues determined by the 
Secretary.
Sec. 435. Willapa Bay, Washington
    This provision directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of providing coastal erosion 
protection for the Tribal Reservation of the Shoalwater Bay 
Indian Tribe on Willapa Bay, Washington. Notwithstanding any 
other provision of law (including any requirement for economic 
justification), the Secretary may construct and maintain a 
project to provide coastal erosion protection for the Tribal 
Reservation of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe on Willapa Bay, 
Washington, at full Federal expense, if the Secretary 
determines that the project is a cost-effective means of 
providing erosion protection; is environmentally acceptable and 
technically feasible; and will improve the economic and social 
conditions of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe. As a condition 
of the project, the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe shall provide 
land, easements, rights-of-way, and dredged material disposal 
areas necessary for the implementation of the project.
Sec. 436. Upper Mississippi River Basin Sediment and Nutrient Study
    This provision directs the Secretary to, in conjunction 
with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the 
Interior, shall carry out a study to identify and evaluate 
significant sources of sediment and nutrients in the upper 
Mississippi River basin; quantify the processes affecting 
mobilization, transport, and fate of those sediments and 
nutrients on land and in water; and quantify the transport of 
those sediments and nutrients to the upper Mississippi River 
and the tributaries of the upper Mississippi River. In carrying 
out the study under this section, the Secretary shall develop 
computer models of the upper Mississippi River basin, at the 
subwatershed and basin scales, to identify and quantify sources 
of sediment and nutrients; and examine the effectiveness of 
alternative management measures. The Secretary shall conduct 
research to improve the understanding of fate processes and 
processes affecting sediment and nutrient transport, with 
emphasis on nitrogen and phosphorus cycling and dynamics; the 
influences on sediment and nutrient losses of soil type, slope, 
climate, vegetation cover, and modifications to the stream 
drainage network; and river hydrodynamics, in relation to 
sediment and nutrient transformations, retention, and 
transport. On request of a relevant Federal agency, the 
Secretary may provide information for use in applying sediment 
and nutrient reduction programs associated with land-use 
improvements and land management practices. Not later than 2 
years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
shall submit to Congress a preliminary report that outlines 
work being conducted on the study components. Not later than 5 
years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
shall submit to Congress a report describing the results of the 
study under this section, including any findings and 
recommendations of the study. There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for each of 
fiscal years 2001 through 2005. The Federal share of the cost 
of carrying out this section shall be 50 percent.

                   Title V--Miscellaneous Provisions

Sec. 501. Visitors Centers
    This provision authorizes modifications to two visitors 
centers authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 
1992 (P.L. 102-580). The first, the John Paul Hammerschmidt 
Visitors Center, Arkansas, provides for the authorized center 
to be constructed on the property of the City of Fort Smith, 
Arkansas. The second, the Lower Mississippi River Museum and 
River Front Interpretive Site, Mississippi, provides for the 
interpretive site to be constructed at a location between the 
Mississippi River Bridge and the waterfront in downtown 
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Sec. 502. CALFED Bay-Delta Program Assistance, California
    This provision enhances Army Corps participation, 
consistent with Title XI of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands 
Management Act (P.L.104-333), in planning and management 
activities associated with the CALFED Bay-Delta Program 
referred to in the California Bay-Delta Environmental 
Enhancement and Water Securities Act (division E, P.L.104-208; 
100 Stat. 3009-748). The Army Corps typically relies on 
project-specific authorizations that may not provide the 
flexibility necessary to participate fully in interagency, bay-
wide planning and management activities such as CALFED. This 
provision will provide the authority for the Secretary to 
request funds for the Army Corps to participate fully in the 
CALFED Bay-Delta Program, and to use funds provided by other to 
carry out ecosystem restoration projects and activities 
associated with the Program. The provision directs the 
Secretary to integrate Army Corps activities in the San Joaquin 
and Sacramento River basins with the CALFED Policy Group or its 
successor.
Sec. 503. Conveyance of Lighthouse, Ontonagon, Michigan
    This provision conveys the Ontonagon Lighthouse and 
property from Army Corps ownership to the ownership of the 
Ontonagon Historical Society. The lighthouse, which is on the 
National Registry of Historic Places, is located at the 
Ontonagon Harbor Federal Navigation project in Ontonagon, 
Michigan and is under the administrative jurisdiction of the 
Department of the Army. The Army Corps is no longer interested 
in retaining the lighthouse property and has initiated an 
excessing action.
Sec. 504. Land Conveyance, Candy Lake, Oklahoma
    This provision modifies the conveyance of Army Corps land, 
authorized under Section 563(c) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999 (P.L.106-53), associated with the Candy 
Lake project, Osage County, Oklahoma. The provision alters the 
definition of ``previous owner of land'' to include a decedent 
of a living or deceased person who conveyed land for use in the 
project. The provision also directs the Federal Government to 
assume the costs of any Federal activities, under the 
authorized Candy Lake land conveyance, carried out for the 
purpose of Section 102 of the Nation Environmental Policy Act 
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Finally, the provision authorizes the 
appropriations of such sums as necessary to carry out the 
authorized Candy Lake land conveyance.

          Title VI--Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan

                              introduction

Background
    In its natural state, the South Florida ecosystem was once 
connected by the flow of water south from Lake Okeechobee 
through vast freshwater marshes--known as the Everglades--to 
Florida Bay and on to the coral reefs of the Florida Keys. The 
Everglades covered approximately 18,000 square miles and were 
the heart of a unique and biologically productive region, 
supporting vast colonies of wading birds, a mixture of 
temperate and tropical plant and animal species, and teeming 
coastal fisheries. These superlative natural resources were 
nationally recognized with the establishment of Everglades 
National Park in 1947. Since that time, the Federal investment 
in preserving the Everglades has increased. Other significant 
federally designated conservation areas established since 1947 
include Big Cypress National Preserve, Biscayne National Park, 
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, and 16 National 
Wildlife Refuges, including A.R.M. Loxahatchee National 
Wildlife Refuge. The State of Florida has actively participated 
in this effort and set aside additional lands for conservation 
purposes.
    In 1948, in response to a series of devastating floods that 
occurred in the region, Congress authorized the Central and 
Southern Florida (C&SF) Project. The C&SF Project authorized 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) to provide: flood 
control; regional water supply for agricultural and urban 
areas; prevention of salt water intrusion; water supply to 
Everglades National Park; preservation of fish and wildlife; 
recreation; and navigation.
    Unfortunately, the project has had unintended consequences 
on the unique natural environment which constitutes the 
Everglades and Florida Bay ecosystems. Water that flowed 
unimpeded through the southern half of the State, nearly 1.7 
billion gallons of water a day, has been redirected to the 
Atlantic Ocean or the Gulf of Mexico, disrupting the natural 
sheet flow through the South Florida ecosystem. As a result of 
the high volume of discharges of water, coastal estuaries are 
in peril, while water needed for the ecosystem and regional 
water supplies is wasted. In addition, runoff from cities and 
farms has resulted in high levels of phosphorus and other 
contaminants polluting the water. The C&SF Project also has 
resulted in a 90-95 percent drop in the wading bird population, 
and more than 1.5 million acres of land are infested with 
invasive exotic plants. The South Florida ecosystem also is 
home to 68 threatened or endangered plant and animal species. 
The size of the historic Everglades has been reduced by half.
    For several decades, this committee and the Congress have 
taken steps to address many of the C&SF Project's unintended 
harms to the natural system. The Water Resources Development 
Act (WRDA) of 1992 authorized a Comprehensive Review Study 
(Restudy) of the C&SF Project. The purpose of the Restudy was 
to recommend modifications to the C&SF Project to restore the 
Everglades and Florida Bay ecosystems while providing for the 
other water-related needs of the region.
    WRDA `96 provided further direction to the Restudy. It 
established the 50/50 cost share between the Federal Government 
and the State of Florida for construction of critical 
restoration projects; gave credit for lands acquired by the 
South Florida Water Management District (the local sponsor); 
and established the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task 
Force under the chairmanship of the Secretary of the Interior. 
The Task Force also includes the Secretaries of Commerce, the 
Army, Agriculture, and Transportation; the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Attorney General, a 
representative of the Miccosukee and the Seminole tribes, two 
representatives of the State of Florida, and a representative 
of the South Florida Water Management District. The Task Force 
is charged with coordinating the development of policies, 
strategies, plans, and activities that address the restoration, 
preservation, and protection of the South Florida ecosystem.
    Also, WRDA `96 spelled out the restoration activities that 
should be included in the Restudy, mainly: the restoration, 
preservation and protection of the South Florida ecosystem; the 
protection of water quality; and the reduction of the loss of 
fresh water from the Everglades, while providing the flood 
control and enhancement of water supply objectives served by 
the C&SF Project. Furthermore, WRDA `96 mandated that the Army 
Corps present this Plan to Congress on July 1, 1999.
    A major provision of WRDA `96 provided for ``Critical 
Restoration Projects,'' ecosystem projects designated by the 
Secretary of the Army, the Task Force, and the local sponsor as 
having immediate and substantial restoration, preservation, and 
protection benefits. Federal expenditures for the projects were 
capped at $25 million per project, with a total of $75 million 
authorized for the period between fiscal years 1997 through 
1999. WRDA 1999 extended this authorization period through 
2003.

             The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan

    As required by WRDA `96, the Restudy or ``Comprehensive 
Everglades Restoration Plan'' (CERP or Plan) was submitted to 
Congress on July 1, 1999. The Plan defines the major project 
for ecosystem restoration, water supply, and other water-
related purposes, as well as defining a process for 
implementation. The keys to restoration include increasing the 
amount of water available by providing increased storage 
ability and capacity; improving the timing and distribution of 
water flows and levels; ensuring the quality of the water that 
is directed to the natural system; and restoring the 
connectivity of the system that was so severely 
compartmentalized by the original project.
    The Plan has 68 project components to be implemented over a 
35-year period. These components are expected to deliver the 
following benefits: improve the functioning of over 2.4 million 
acres of the South Florida ecosystem; stabilize Lake Okeechobee 
water levels for littoral zone health; improve urban and 
agricultural water supply; improve deliveries to Florida Bay, 
Biscayne Bay, and other coastal estuaries; and improve regional 
water quality conditions, while maintaining the existing levels 
of flood protection. In addition, the Plan will eliminate the 
damaging freshwater releases to the Caloosahatchee and St. 
Lucie estuaries.
    A key element of the Plan is adaptive assessment, an 
approach to monitoring the progress of the Plan, providing 
built-in flexibility, and giving the implementors of the Plan 
the opportunity to respond to unforeseen circumstances by 
making modifications, as necessary.
    Although the Plan contains a number of key components 
designed to benefit federally designated areas by improving the 
quantity, quality, timing and distribution of water, the Plan 
is interconnected, with each project component related to the 
other. Further, the Plan is to be implemented using the 
principles of adaptive assessment, recognizing that 
modifications will be made in the future based upon new 
information. Overall, the 68 individual project components of 
the Plan, to be implemented over a 35 year period, will improve 
the ecologic health and economic sustainability of over 2.4 
million acres of the South Florida ecosystem

          The Restoring the Everglades, an American Legacy Act

    The ``Restoring the Everglades, an American Legacy Act'' 
(REAL Act) was introduced on June 27, 2000, by Senators Smith, 
Voinovich, Baucus, Graham, and Mack. This bill approves the 
CERP as a framework and authorizes the first set of projects 
and implementation procedures. As such, the REAL Act represents 
the first stage of the restoration process.
    A project of this size is not without uncertainties. The 
REAL Act authorizes four pilot projects to address the 
effectiveness of some of the technologies being proposed. In 
addition, this bill authorizes an initial ten construction 
projects. These projects were carefully selected by the Army 
Corps and the South Florida Water Management District and 
included in the Plan as the projects that would, once 
constructed, have immediate benefits to the natural system. 
Almost right away, the Plan begins to restore the natural sheet 
flow that years of human interference has interrupted.
    S. 2797 authorizes so-called ``programmatic authority'' so 
that the Army Corps and the non-Federal sponsor can move 
forward with critical projects that will have immediate, 
independent, and substantial benefits to the natural system. 
Together, these components represent the first phase. The 
remaining projects will be submitted to Congress for 
authorization biennially, as part of future WRDAs.
    One of the key components of the CERP is the inherent 
flexibility provided by adaptive assessment. Under the adaptive 
assessment approach, the Plan can be modified, based on any new 
and improved information or modeling. With a project of this 
size and duration, it is inevitable that new technologies will 
emerge, modeling systems will be perfected, and monitoring of 
the ecosystem will continue to provide up-to-the-minute data on 
the effectiveness of project components. It is important that 
these factors be incorporated into the Plan, when the new and 
improved information will enhance the restoration effort.
    The REAL Act also contains a carefully balanced assurances 
provision that provides the mechanism to ensure that project 
benefits for the natural system are attained. The United States 
and the State of Florida will enter into an up-front, binding 
agreement that will ensure that water generated by the Plan 
will be available for the natural system. Furthermore, the 
Secretary of the Army, in concurrence with the Governor of the 
State of Florida and the Secretary of the Interior will 
promulgate programmatic regulations which will establish a 
process to ensure that the goals and purposes of the Plan are 
achieved.
    The total estimated cost of construction, including real 
estate costs, for the Plan is $7.8 billion dollars over the 35-
year implementation period, shared 50/50 between the Federal 
government and the State of Florida. The State of Florida 
recently passed legislation that will enable them to pay for 
and carry out their share of the responsibilities over the next 
10 years. The average Federal cost is $200 million a year over 
the next 20 years. Annual operation and maintenance costs, 
which are also split 50/50, are estimated to be $172 million 
once all project components are complete.
    Restoration benefits not only Floridians, but the millions 
of people who visit Florida each year to behold this unique 
ecosystem. The committee views this effort to restore the 
Everglades ecosystem as our legacy to future generations.

                       Section-by-Section Summary

Section. 1. Short Title
    This section designates the title of the bill as the 
``Restoring the Everglades, an American Legacy Act.''
Sec. 2. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
            (a). Definitions

                                Summary

    Subsections (a)(1) through (7) provide definitions for 
terms specific to the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 
Plan.
    Subsection (a)(1) defines the ``Central and Southern 
Florida Project'' as the Central and Southern Florida project 
authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 and 
any subsequent amendments made to that section.
    Subsection (a)(2) defines the term ``Governor'' as the 
Governor of the State of Florida.
    Subsection (a)(3) defines the term ``natural system'' as 
including all the lands and water managed by the Federal 
Government or the State within the boundary of the South 
Florida Water Management District including, but not limited 
to, the water conservation areas, sovereign submerged lands, 
Everglades National Parks, Biscayne National Park, Big Cypress 
National Preserve, coral reefs, State and Federal lands that 
are designated for conservation purposes, and any tribal lands 
that the tribes designate for conservation purposes.
    Subsection (a)(4), defines the term ``Plan'' as the 
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan contained in the 
``Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic 
Environmental Impact Statement,'' dated April 1, 1999, as 
modified by this bill. This definition does not include the 
final report of the Chief of Engineers on the C&SF Project 
Comprehensive Review Study dated June 22, 1999.
    Subsection (a)(5) defines the Secretary as the Secretary of 
the Army.
    Subsection (a)(6) defines the term ``South Florida 
ecosystem'' as the land and water within the boundary of the 
South Florida Water Management District in effect on July 1, 
1999. Included within the boundary is the Everglades, the 
Florida Keys and the contiguous near-shore coastal water of 
South Florida. The committee does not intend for the contents 
of section (a)(6)(B) to exclude other areas that meet the 
criteria of subsection (a)(6)(A) from the definition of the 
South Florida ecosystem.
    Subsection (a)(7) defines the term ``State'' as the State 
of Florida.
            (b). Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan

                                Summary

    Subsection (b)(1)(A) approves the Plan, except as modified 
by this bill, as a framework for modifications and operational 
changes to the C&SF Project that are needed to restore, 
preserve, and protect the South Florida ecosystem; provide for 
the protection of water quality in, and the reduction of the 
loss of fresh water from, the Everglades; provide for the 
water-related needs of the region, including flood control, the 
enhancement of water supplies, and other objectives served by 
the C&SF Project.
    Subsection (b)(1)(B) directs the Secretary to integrate the 
activities described in subparagraph (A) with ongoing Federal 
and State projects and activities in accordance with section 
528(c) of WRDA `96 (110 Stat. 3769).
    Subsection (b)(2)(A) requires the Secretary of the Army to 
take into consideration State water quality standards, and 
include whatever features the Secretary believes are necessary 
to ensure that the ten projects and the four pilot projects 
authorized in this bill meet all relevant water quality 
standards.
    Subsection (b)(2)(B) authorizes the Secretary of the Army 
to construct four pilot projects at a total cost of 
$69,000,000, with a Federal cost of $34,500,000. In addition, 
the Secretary of the Army is required to provide an opportunity 
for the public to review and comment on each project in 
accordance with Federal law.
    Subsection (b)(2)(B)(i) authorizes the Caloosahatchee River 
(C-43) Basin Aquifer Storage and Recovery pilot project, at a 
total cost of $6,000,000, with a Federal cost of $3,000,000.
    Subsection (b)(2)(B)(ii) authorizes the Lake Belt In-Ground 
Reservoir Technology pilot project, at a total cost of 
$23,000,000, with a Federal cost of $11,500,000.
    Subsection (b)(2)(B)(iii) authorizes the L-31 Seepage 
Management pilot project, at a total cost of $10,000,000, with 
a Federal cost of $5,000,000.
    Subsection (b)(2)(B)(iv) authorizes the Wastewater Reuse 
Technology pilot project, at a total cost of $30,000,000, with 
a Federal cost of $15,000,000.
    Subsection (b)(2)(C) authorizes the Secretary of the Army 
to construct ten initial projects, subject to a favorable Chief 
of Engineers report and approval by resolution of the Committee 
on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
Representatives, at a total cost of $1,100,918,000, with a 
Federal cost of $550,459,000.
    Subsection (b)(2)(C)(i) authorizes construction of the C-44 
Basin Storage Reservoir, at a total cost of $112,562,000, with 
a Federal cost $56,281,000.
    Subsection (b)(2)(C)(ii) authorizes construction of the 
Everglades Agricultural Area Storage Reservoirs, at a total 
cost of $233,408,000, with a Federal cost of $116,704,000.
    Subsection (b)(2)(C)(iii) authorizes the construction of 
the Site 1 Impoundment, at a total cost of $38,535,000, with a 
Federal cost $19,267,500.
    Subsection (b)(2)(C)(iv) authorizes the construction of 
Water Conservation Areas 3A/3B Levee Seepage Management, at a 
total cost of $100,335,000, with a Federal cost of $50,167,500.
    Subsection (b)(2)(C)(v) authorizes the construction of the 
C-11 Impoundment and Stormwater Treatment Area, at a total cost 
of $124,837,000, with a Federal cost of $62,418,500.
    Subsection (b)(2)(C)(vi) authorizes the construction of the 
C-9 Impoundment and Stormwater Treatment Area, at a total cost 
of $89,146,000, with a Federal cost of $44,573,000.
    Subsection (b)(2)(C)(vii) authorizes the construction of 
the Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough Storage and Treatment Area, at a 
total cost of $104,027,000, with a Federal cost $52,013,500.
    Subsection (b)(2)(C)(viii) authorizes construction to raise 
and bridge the east portion of the Tamiami Trail and fill the 
Miami Canal within Water Conservation Area 3, at a total cost 
of $26,946,000, with a Federal cost of $13,473,000.
    Subsection (b)(2)(C)(ix) authorizes the construction of the 
North New River Improvements, at a total cost of $77,087,000, 
with a Federal cost of $38,543,500.
    Subsection (b)(2)(C)(x) authorizes the construction of the 
C-111 Spreader Canal, at a total cost of $94,035,000, with a 
Federal cost of $47,017,500.
    Subsection (b)(2)(C)(xi) authorizes a ten-year Adaptive 
Assessment and Monitoring program, at a total cost of 
$100,000,000, with a Federal cost $50,000,000.
    Subsection (b)(2)(D)(i) requires that before implementation 
of a project described in clauses (i) through (x) of 
subparagraph (C), the Secretary shall review and approve for 
the project a project implementation report prepared in 
accordance with subsections (f) and (h).
    Subsection (b)(2)(D)(ii) requires the Secretary to submit 
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works of the Senate the project implementation report 
required by subsections (f) and (h) for each project under this 
paragraph (including all relevant data and information on all 
costs).
    Subsection (b)(2)(D)(iii) directs that no appropriation 
shall be made to construct any project under this paragraph if 
the project implementation report for the project has not been 
approved by resolutions adopted by the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works of the Senate.
    Subsection (b)(2)(D)(iv) directs that no appropriation 
shall be made to construct the Water Conservation Area 3 
Decompartmentalization and Sheetflow Enhancement Project or the 
Central Lakebelt Storage Project until the completion of the 
project to improve water deliveries to Everglades National Park 
authorized by section 104 of the Everglades National Park 
Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 (16 U.S.C. 410r-8).
    Subsection (b)(2)(E) restates that Section 902 of WRDA `86 
(33 U.S.C. 2280) shall apply to each project feature authorized 
under this subsection.

                               Discussion

    This subsection approves the Comprehensive Everglades 
Restoration Plan, as modified by this bill, as a framework to 
make changes to the C&SF Project. Changes to the project are 
intended to restore the South Florida ecosystem, and in 
particular the Everglades, by improving water quality and 
reducing the amount of fresh water lost from within the system. 
In addition, the project modifications are intended to provide 
for the water related needs of the region. The water related 
needs of the region are defined to include providing flood 
control and enhancing water supplies. In undertaking these 
activities, the Secretary must integrate them with ongoing 
Federal and State projects and activities in accordance with 
section 528(c) of WRDA `96 (110 Stat. 3769).
    The Plan contains a general outline of the quantities of 
water to be produced by each project. According to the Army 
Corps, 80 percent of the water generated by the Plan is needed 
for the natural system in order to attain restoration goals, 
and 20 percent of the water generated for use in the human 
environment. The committee recognizes the levels of uncertainty 
involved in the Plan and fully intends for the adaptive 
assessment and monitoring process to account for such as the 
Plan is executed. Subject to future authorizations by Congress, 
the committee fully expects that the water necessary for 
restoration, currently estimated at 80 percent of the water 
generated by the Plan, will be reserved or allocated for the 
benefit of the natural system.
    Endorsement of the Plan as a restoration framework is not 
intended as an artificial constraint on innovation in its 
implementation. The committee does not expect rigid adherence 
to the Plan as it was submitted to Congress. This result would 
be inconsistent with the adaptive assessment principles in the 
Plan. Restoration of the Everglades is the goal, not adherence 
to the modeling on which the April, 1999 Plan was based. 
Instead, the committee expects that the agencies responsible 
for project implementation report formulation and Plan 
implementation will seek continuous improvement of the Plan 
based upon new information, improved modeling, new technology 
and changed circumstances. Further, the committee expects that 
the implementing agencies will make every effort to accelerate 
the delivery of Plan benefits to the natural system to the 
extent practicable. It is estimated that 3 to 5 acres of land 
in the South Florida ecosystem are lost per day under current 
conditions. Time is of the essence in this restoration effort.
    In implementing the Plan, the Secretary of the Army is 
required to take into consideration State water quality 
standards, and include such features the Secretary determines 
are necessary to ensure that all ground water and surface water 
discharges from any project feature authorized in this bill 
meet all applicable water quality standards and applicable 
permitting requirements.
    The pilot projects. There are six pilot projects described 
in the Plan, two of which were authorized in WRDA `99 and four 
which are authorized in this bill. The pilot projects are 
necessary to address uncertainties associated with some of the 
physical features that are proposed in the Plan. These pilot 
projects include aquifer storage and recovery in the 
Caloosahatchee River Basin; in-ground reservoir technology in 
the Lake Belt region of Miami-Dade County; levee seepage 
management technology adjacent to Everglades National Park; and 
advanced wastewater reuse technology to determine the 
feasibility of reusing wastewater for ecological restoration. 
The authorized funding level for the design, construction, and 
monitoring of the pilot projects is $69,000,000, to be equally 
cost shared between the Federal Government and the State of 
Florida. The Plan's concept of adaptive assessment allows for 
future changes to be made in the Plan. This includes 
consideration of the results of the pilot projects. The 
committee directs the Army Corps to ensure that the overall 
benefits described in the Plan are maintained and any necessary 
changes incorporated in the event any pilot project 
demonstrates technical infeasibility.
    Three aquifer storage and recovery pilot projects were 
proposed in the Plan, and one of those aquifer storage and 
recovery pilots, the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) Basin Aquifer 
Storage and Recovery, is included in this bill. This pilot 
project and the two aquifer storage and recovery projects 
authorized in WRDA `99 are necessary to identify the most 
suitable sites for the aquifer storage and recovery wells, and 
determine the water quality necessary for injections into the 
well and the water quality of the receiving aquifer. In 
addition, the pilot projects will provide information on the 
hydrogeological and geotechnical characteristics of the upper 
Floridian Aquifer System within the regions, and the ability of 
the upper Floridian Aquifer System to store injected water for 
future recovery. The Army Corps expects to design the 
Caloosahatchee project between November 2000 and October 2001, 
construct the project between October 2001 through October 
2002, and monitor the results between October 2002 through 
October 2005.
    The second pilot project authorized by this bill is the 
Lake Belt In-Ground Reservoir Technology project. This project 
utilizes areas to store water where lime rock mining has 
occurred. The pilot project is necessary in order to assure 
that the mine retains water and also includes subterranean 
seepage barriers around the perimeter in order to enable 
drawdown during dry periods, prevent seepage losses, and 
protect water quality. The Army Corps expects to complete 
design in June 2001, will construct the project between June 
2001 through December 2005, and will monitor the results 
between December 2005 through December 2011.
    The third pilot project authorized by this bill is the L-31 
Seepage Management project. The purpose of this project is to 
investigate seepage management technologies to control seepage 
from Everglades National Park. Hydrologic modeling performed by 
the Army Corps have shown that controlling seepage from the 
Everglades results in desirable hydrologic conditions. However, 
the proposed technologies could have unintended results 
elsewhere. The pilot project will provide the necessary 
information to determine the appropriate amount of wet season 
groundwater flow to return to Everglades National Park while 
minimizing potential impacts to Miami-Dade County's West 
Wellfield and freshwater flows to Biscayne Bay. The Army Corps 
of Engineers expects to design the project between November 
2000 and October 2001, construct the project between October 
2001 through October 2002, and monitor the results between 
October 2000 through October 2003.
    The fourth pilot project authorized by this bill is the 
Wastewater Reuse Technology project. This pilot project will 
address water quality issues associated with discharging 
reclaimed water into natural areas such as West Palm Beach's 
Catchment Area, Biscayne National Park, and the Bird Drive 
Basin, as well as determining the level of superior treatment 
and the appropriate methodologies for that treatment. After 
treatment to remove nitrogen and phosphorus, the water will be 
used to restore 1,500 acres of wetlands and to recharge 
wetlands surrounding the City of West Palm Beach's wellfield. A 
portion of the treated water will be used to recharge a 
residential lake system surrounding the City's wellfield and a 
Palm Beach County wellfield. In addition, this project will 
reduce the City's dependence on surface water from Lake 
Okeechobee during dry or drought events, and create or restore 
approximately 2,000 acres of wetlands. The Army Corps expects 
to complete design in September 2003, will construct the 
project between September 2003 through September 2005, and will 
monitor the result between September 2003 through December 
2007.
    The ten initial construction projects. This subsection also 
authorizes the Secretary of the Army to construct ten initial 
projects. These projects were carefully chosen by the Army 
Corps and the South Florida Water Management District because 
they were viewed as the projects that would provide the most 
immediate system-wide improvements in water quantity, quality 
and flow distribution. Prior to beginning construction on the 
ten initial projects, the Secretary of the Army must approve 
the project implementation report in accordance with the 
requirements of this bill, and submit the reports to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works in the Senate and the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in the House of 
Representatives. Funding cannot be appropriated for 
construction of the ten initial projects until the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
Representatives approve the project implementation report for a 
project by resolution. In order to ensure against cost 
overruns, if the cost of constructing the projects exceeds 20 
percent of the authorized amount, after allowance for inflation 
as measured by appropriate cost indexes, the Army Corps must 
seek from Congress an authorization for the additional amount 
required.
    The C-44 Basin Storage Reservoir project is a 40,000 acre-
feet water storage reservoir. This component will provide 
significant regional water quality benefits though the 
reduction of nutrients entering the St. Lucie River and the 
Indian River Lagoon by reducing damaging water releases from 
Lake Okeechobee. In addition, this project will moderate 
damaging releases to the St. Lucie estuary from Lake Okeechobee 
and the surrounding basin.
    The Everglades Agricultural Area Storage Reservoir project 
will result in approximately 300,000 acre-feet of water storage 
and will improve the timing of the environmental water releases 
to the Water Conservation Areas, reduce damaging freshwater 
releases to the estuaries, and meet supplemental water supply 
for agricultural demands in the Everglades Agricultural Area 
(EAA). Phase I of the project included in the initial 
authorization will further enhance the performance of 
Stormwater Treatment Areas 3 and 4, thereby improving the 
overall water quality of EAA water releases into the 
Everglades. Lands for the construction of this component have 
been acquired by the South Florida Water Management District 
through the purchase and exchange of the Talisman Sugar 
Corporation properties through funds provided by the Department 
of the Interior.
    The Army Corps should maximize use of the lands acquired 
through the Talisman purchase and exchange, as well as other 
EAA lands held by the non-Federal sponsor, in the design and 
construction of Phase 1 of this project feature. Further, the 
Corps should seek to take full advantage of the Talisman lands 
by maximizing the depth of water stored in the Talisman Water 
Storage Reservoir. The lands are presently leased for 
agricultural production, which is a sound land management 
practice that should last only until the lands are needed for 
restoration. As such, the Army Corps and the non-Federal 
sponsor are expected to provide the necessary notification to 
the lessors so the acquired lands can be used for Everglades 
restoration purposes as promptly as possible, consistent with 
the anticipated expiration dates in 2005 and 2007 of the 
current leases. It is expected that the lands will be needed in 
2005 as required by the Plan. As a result, the Corps of 
Engineers will be required to notify the lessees by October 1, 
2002, if the lands are to be used for restoration beginning in 
2005.
    The Site 1 Impoundment project consists of a 15,000 acre-
feet water storage reservoir. This reservoir will be located 
adjacent to Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge and will 
capture water, currently sent to tide, to supplement water 
deliveries to the Hillsboro Canal during dry periods, thereby 
reducing water demands on Lake Okeechobee and Loxahatchee 
National Wildlife Refuge. Much of the land that is required for 
this feature has already been acquired by the South Florida 
Water Management District.
    The Water Conservation Areas 3A/3B levee Seepage Management 
project will control seepage from Water Conservation Areas 3A 
and 3B by improving groundwater elevations, and will provide 
flood protection for the C-11 Basin.
    The C-11 Impoundment and Stormwater Treatment Area project 
consists of a 6,400 acre-feet impoundment and stormwater 
treatment area, located in western Broward County. This project 
will divert and treat runoff from the western C-11 Basin that 
is currently discharged into Water Conservation Areas 3A and 
3B. After treatment, the water will then supply either Water 
Conservation Area 3A, the C-9 Stormwater Treatment Area, or the 
North Lake Belt Storage Area. This project is necessary because 
the original C&SF Project design provides that the Western C-11 
Basin drainage be pumped into Water Conservation Area 3. Once 
completed, this project will provide the necessary facilities 
to maintain flood protection within the Basin, while reducing 
flows through the S-9 pump station to Water Conservation Area 
3.
    The C-9 Impoundment and Stormwater Treatment Area project 
consists of a 10,000 acre-feet impoundment and stormwater 
treatment area to enhance groundwater recharge in the western 
C-9 Basin in Broward County, provide seepage control for Water 
Conservation Area 3 and buffer areas to the west, provide flood 
protection, and provide treatment of runoff in the North Lake 
Belt Storage Area.
    The Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough Storage and Treatment Area 
project consists of a 50,000 acre-feet water storage reservoir 
and 20,000 acre-feet stormwater treatment area that will allow 
flows to Lake Okeechobee to be attenuated when lake levels are 
high or rising, and improve water quality treatment flows from 
Taylor Creek and Nubbin Slough basin, which currently 
contribute to the highest phosphorus inflow concentrations to 
Lake Okeechobee.
    The project to raise and bridge the east portion of the of 
the Tamiami Trail and fill the Miami Canal within Water 
Conservation Area 3 consists of modifying or removing water 
control structures in Water Conservation Areas 3A and 3B to 
enhance sheetflow within the remaining natural system areas 
within the Everglades, thereby reestablishing the ecological 
and hydrological connections between Water Conservation Areas 
3A and 3B, Everglades National Park and Big Cypress National 
Preserve. The first phase of enhancing sheetflow necessitates 
elevating eastern portions of Tamiami Trail and backfilling 
portions of the Miami Canal within Water Conservation Area 3.
    The project to construct the North New River Improvements 
will improve the North New River Canal and southern conveyance 
system in order to handle increased water flows resulting from 
the backfilling of the Miami Canal within Water Conservation 
Area 3 to allow for continued water supply deliveries to Miami-
Dade County.
    The C-111 Spreader Canal project will improve water 
deliveries and enhance the connectivity and sheetflow in the 
Model Lands and Southern Glades areas, reduce wet season flows 
in C-111 and decrease potential flood risk in the lower south 
Miami-Dade County area. Existing C-111 Project design features 
are enhanced through the construction of a stormwater treatment 
area, enlarging the S-332E pump station, and extending the 
canal under U.S. Highway 1 and Card Sound Road into the Model 
Lands. This feature also results in filling the Southern 
portion of the C-111 Canal and removal of S-18C and S-197 
structures.
    Adaptive Assessment and Monitoring. The Adaptive Assessment 
and Monitoring program provides an organized process for 
adapting the Plan as new information becomes available, 
ensuring that long-term implementation of the Plan delivers the 
benefits intended. In addition to the inevitable uncertainties, 
natural and human systems will at times respond in ways that 
are not anticipated or predicted by any existing hypothesis. 
Adaptive assessment should moderate these responses by 
providing an in-place process for early detection and 
interpretation of the unexpected.
    Conditions. Prior to implementation of any of the ten 
initial construction projects authorized in this bill, the 
Secretary shall review and approve for the project a project 
implementation report, prepared in accordance with subsections 
(f) and (h). This project implementation report is to be 
submitted to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works of the Senate for approval by 
committee resolution. No appropriation shall be made to 
construct any of the ten initial projects authorized in this 
bill until the project implementation report for the project is 
approved.
    Modified Water Deliveries Project. The Modified Water 
Deliveries to Everglades National Park Project, authorized by 
section 104 of the Everglades National Park Protection and 
Expansion Act of 1989, is an important element in Everglades 
restoration since it provides for increased and more natural 
water deliveries to Everglades National Park through the Shark 
River Slough. Completion of the project will enhance the 
recovery of the endangered Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow and 
environmental restoration north of Everglades National Park. 
The completion of the Modified Water Deliveries project has 
been delayed because of controversy over flood mitigation to 
the adjacent 8.5 square mile area. The committee is encouraged 
by recent progress in reaching a resolution of the issues on 
the project, and urges the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary 
of Army, South Florida Water Management District and the 
Governor of Florida to continue to cooperate in implementing 
this critical project as soon as possible. To emphasize the 
committee's concern, the bill includes a provision to preclude 
construction appropriations for projects in the Plan that are 
dependent on the completion of the Modified Water Deliveries 
Project, specifically the Water Conservation Area 3 
Decompartmentalization and Sheetflow Enhancement Project and 
the Central Lakebelt Storage Project, until completion of the 
Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park Project.
            (c) Additional Program Authority

                                Summary

    Subsection (c)(1) authorizes the Secretary to expedite the 
implementation of modifications to the C&SF Project that are 
described in and consistent with the Plan and that will produce 
independent and substantial benefits to the restoration, 
preservation and protection of the South Florida ecosystem.
    Subsection (c)(2) requires that before implementation of 
any project feature authorized by this subsection, the 
Secretary shall review and approve for the project feature a 
project implementation report, prepared in accordance with 
subsections (f) and (h).
    Subsection (c)(3) caps the total Federal cost of each 
project carried out under this subsection at $12,500,000, with 
the overall project cost not to exceed $25,000,000. The total 
Federal cost of all projects carried out under this subsection 
shall not exceed $206,000,000.

                               Discussion

    WRDA `96 authorized Everglades Ecosystem Restoration 
Projects, or ``critical projects,'' as they are more commonly 
known. These projects are defined as those which would produce 
independent and substantial benefits to the restoration, 
preservation and protection of the South Florida ecosystem. A 
programmatic authority is included in subsection (c), which 
provides an authority similar to the ``critical projects'' 
authorized in section 528(b)(3) of WRDA `96. Prior to 
implementation, the Secretary must review and approve a project 
implementation report for each project, which must be 
consistent with subsections (f) and (h). The total Federal cost 
for each project shall not exceed $12,500,000 and the aggregate 
Federal costs of all projects authorized under this authority 
shall not exceed $206,000,000. There are 21 such projects in 
the Plan that meet the criteria set forth in this bill.
            (d). Authorization of Future Projects

                                Summary

    Subsection (d)(1) directs that each project except those 
projects authorized by subsections (b) and (c) require a 
specific authorization of Congress.
    Subsection (d)(2) requires that before seeking 
Congressional authorization for a project under paragraph (1), 
the Secretary shall submit to Congress a description of the 
project and a project implementation report prepared in 
accordance with subsections (f) and (h).

                               Discussion

    This subsection provides the mechanism by which future 
projects are authorized. The recommended components of the Plan 
that are not authorized by this bill or eligible under the 
program authority subsection require a specific authorization 
by Congress. These future projects are expected to be 
authorized for construction in subsequent WRDAs.
    Prior to the authorization of any project not authorized in 
subsections (b) or (c) of this bill, the Secretary must 
transmit a project implementation report to Congress. This 
allows the Secretary to complete the additional studies 
necessary to propose future authorizations to the Congress for 
the elements of the Plan not authorized in subsections (b) and 
(c), as well as studies related to the improvement of the 
performance of the features of the Plan. Such future 
authorizations shall be consistent with subsections (f) and (h) 
of this bill.
            (e). Cost Sharing

                                Summary

    Subsection (e)(1) directs the Federal share of the cost of 
implementing the projects authorized in subsections (b), (c), 
and (d) to be 50 percent.
    Subsection (e)(2) directs the non-Federal sponsor to be 
responsible for the acquisition of all lands, easements and 
rights-of-way, and relocations, and provides credit for such 
acquisitions toward the non-Federal share regardless of the 
date of acquisition.
    Subsection (e)(3)(A) provides that the non-Federal sponsor 
may accept Federal funding for the purchase of any necessary 
land, easement, right-of-way, or relocation, provided that the 
funds are credited toward the Federal share of the cost of the 
project.
    Subsection (e)(3)(B) provides that funds appropriated to 
the non-Federal sponsor under U.S. Department of Agriculture 
programs may be credited toward the non-Federal share of the 
cost of the Plan, if the Secretary of Agriculture certifies 
that the funds provided may be used for that purpose.
    Subsection (e)(4) directs that, notwithstanding section 
528(e)(3) of WRDA `96 (110 Stat. 3770), the cost share for 
operations and maintenance will be split 50/50 between the 
Federal and non-Federal sponsor.
    Subsection (e)(5)(A) authorizes the Army Corps to provide 
credit to the non-Federal sponsor, regardless of the date of 
acquisition, for the value of lands or interests in lands and 
incidental costs for land acquired by the non-Federal sponsor 
in accordance with a project implementation report.
    Subsection (e)(5)(B) authorizes the Army Corps to provide 
credit to the non-Federal sponsor for work performed on 
implementation of the Plan, if the credit is provided for work 
completed during the applicable period of the project, as 
defined in the respective agreement between the Secretary and 
the non-Federal sponsor for that stage of the project. The 
Secretary must also make a determination that the work is 
integral to the project.
    Subsection (e)(5)(C) authorizes credit to be carried over 
between authorized projects.
    Subsection (e)(5)(D) directs periodic monitoring at both 
the preconstruction engineering and design phase and the 
construction phase to ensure that the non-Federal sponsor's 
contributions comprise the appropriate percentage share for the 
cost of projects in the Plan.

                               Discussion

    Responsibilities for implementing the Plan will be shared 
50/50 by the Army Corps and the South Florida Water Management 
District. As is standard with Army Corps projects, the non-
Federal sponsor is responsible for all land, easements, rights-
of-way, and relocations necessary to implement the Plan. The 
non-Federal sponsor will be afforded credit for providing these 
lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations. The non-
Federal sponsor may use Federal funds for the purchase of such 
lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations necessary to 
carry out the project, so long as those funds are credited 
toward the Federal share of the cost of the project. The 
exception is that funds provided to the non-Federal sponsor by 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture shall be credited toward the 
non-Federal share of the cost of the Plan, if the Secretary of 
Agriculture certifies that the funds provided may be used for 
that purpose.
    The majority of the Plan's projects accomplish restoration 
of the South Florida ecosystem and directly benefit Everglades 
National Park, Biscayne National Park, Big Cypress National 
Preserve, and Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. Therefore, 
notwithstanding Section 528 (e)(3) of WRDA `96, the cost of 
operating and maintaining the projects in the Plan will also be 
shared equally between the Federal and non-Federal sponsors. 
While the committee supports the traditional non-Federal 
operation and maintenance responsibility, the unique nature of 
this project and the Federal benefits from the restoration Plan 
warrants the sharing of operation and maintenance costs. 
Approximately half the lands that comprise the natural system 
in the South Florida ecosystem are Federally-managed lands, and 
these Federal lands will realize substantial benefits through 
the implementation of the CERP.
    Notwithstanding section 528(e)(4) of WRDA `96 (110 Stat. 
3770) and regardless of the date of acquisition, the value of 
lands or interest in lands and incidental costs for land 
acquired by the non-Federal sponsor in accordance with a 
project implementation report for any project included in the 
Plan and authorized by Congress shall be included in the total 
cost of the project and credited toward the non-Federal share 
of the cost of the project.
    The Secretary may also provide credit, including in-kind 
credit, toward the non-Federal share for the reasonable cost of 
any work performed in connection with a study, preconstruction 
engineering and design, or construction that is necessary for 
the implementation of the Plan. The credit is conditioned upon: 
the work being completed during the period of design, as 
defined in a design agreement between the Secretary and the 
non-Federal sponsor; the credit being provided for work 
completed during the period of construction, as defined in a 
project cooperation agreement between the Secretary and the 
non-Federal sponsor; the design agreement or project 
cooperation agreement prescribing the terms and condition of 
the credit; and the Secretary determining that the work 
performed by the non-Federal sponsor is integral to the 
project.
    Any credit provided may be carried over to another 
authorized project, in accordance with the periodic monitoring 
performed by the Secretary. The periodic monitoring, which 
shall be assessed for each project on a 5-year basis, will 
ensure that the contributions of the non-Federal sponsor equal 
a 50 percent proportionate share for projects in the Plan. The 
Secretary will monitor the preconstruction engineering and 
design phase and the construction phase separately. Credit or 
work provided shall be subject to audit by the Secretary.
            (f). Evaluation of Projects

                                Summary

    Subsection (f)(1) requires that prior to implementing any 
project authorized in subsections (c) and (d) or any of the 
clauses (i) through (x) of subsection (b)(2)(C), the Secretary, 
in cooperation with the non-Federal sponsor and after notice 
and opportunity for public comment, shall complete a project 
implementation report for each project to address its cost-
effectiveness, engineering feasibility, and potential 
environmental impacts. This section requires that the project 
implementation report for each project be consistent with 
subsection (h).
    Subsection (f)(2)(A) states that in carrying out any 
activity authorized under this section or any other provision 
of law to restore, preserve or protect the South Florida 
ecosystem, the Secretary may determine that the activity is 
justified by the environmental benefits derived by the South 
Florida ecosystem and no further economic justification for the 
activity is required, if the Secretary determines the activity 
is cost effective.
    Subsection (f)(2)(B) provides that (f)(2)(A) shall not 
apply to any separable element intended to produce benefits 
that are predominantly unrelated to the restoration, 
preservation, and protection of the natural system.

                               Discussion

    Subsection (f) describes the mechanism for the evaluation 
of projects. Prior to implementation of any projects authorized 
by this bill, the Secretary, in cooperation with the non-
Federal sponsor, and after notice and opportunity for public 
comment, shall complete a project implementation report for the 
project.
    The project implementation report is a new type of 
reporting document, similar to a General Reevaluation Report in 
that it will contain additional project formulation and 
evaluation. The project implementation report also will contain 
General Design Memorandum level of detail, or higher, for 
engineering and design. Some of the tasks associated with the 
preparation of the project implementation report will include: 
surveys and mapping; geotechnical analyses; flood damage 
assessment; real estate analyses; and preparation of 
supplemental National Environmental Policy Act documents. The 
project implementation reports will bridge the gap between the 
programmatic-level design contained in the Plan and the 
detailed design necessary to proceed to construction. 
Furthermore, each project implementation report will be 
accompanied by a project Management Plan, which will detail 
schedules, funding requirements, and resource needs for final 
design and construction of the project.
            (g). Exclusions and Limitations

                                Summary

    Subsection (g) directs that some components of the Plan are 
not approved for implementation subject to certain exclusions 
and limitations.
    Subsection(g)(1) directs that any project designed to 
implement the capture and use of the approximately 245,000 
acre-feet of water described in section 7.7.2 of the Plan shall 
not be implemented until the project-specific feasibility study 
on the need for and physical delivery of the approximately 
245,000 acre-feet of water, conducted by the Secretary, in 
cooperation with the non-Federal sponsor, is completed; the 
project is favorably recommended in a final report of the Chief 
of Engineers; and the project is authorized by an Act of 
Congress. The project-specific feasibility study shall include 
a comprehensive analysis of the structural facilities proposed 
to deliver the approximately 245,000 acre-feet of water to the 
natural system; an assessment of the requirements to divert and 
treat the water; an assessment of delivery alternatives; an 
assessment of the feasibility of delivering the water 
downstream while not substantially reducing authorized levels 
of service for flood protection to affected properties; and any 
other assessments that are determined by the Secretary to be 
necessary to complete the study.
    Subsection (g)(2) directs that upon completion and 
evaluation of the wastewater reuse pilot project, the Secretary 
in an appropriately timed 5-year report, shall describe the 
results of the evaluation of advanced wastewater reuse in 
meeting, in a cost effective manner, the requirements of the 
natural system. This report shall be submitted to the Congress 
before Congressional authorization is sought for advanced 
wastewater reuse projects.
    Subsection (g)(3) directs that the Federal share for land 
acquisition to enhance existing wetland systems along the 
Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, including the Stazzulla 
tract, should be funded through the budget of the Department of 
the Interior, and that the Southern Corkscrew regional 
ecosystem watershed addition should be accomplished outside the 
scope of the Plan.

                               Discussion

    Certain components of the Plan are excluded from the 
overall approval of the Plan or are included with conditions or 
limitations as follows:
      245,000 acre-feet of water. Section 7.7.2 of the 
Plan describes the potential capture and use of approximately 
245,000 acre-feet of additional water. The Plan concluded that 
this additional water would substantially improve the 
performance of the Plan in meeting restoration goals for 
Everglades and Biscayne National Parks but had the potential to 
have adverse impacts elsewhere in the system and, therefore, 
required additional study before being incorporated into the 
Plan. The bill provides that any project that is designed to 
implement the capture and use of the approximately 245,000 
acre-feet of water shall not proceed until a project-specific 
feasibility study on the need for and physical delivery of the 
additional water is completed, favorably recommended to the 
Congress in a final report of the Chief of Engineers, and 
authorized by an Act of Congress.
      Wastewater Reuse. The Plan includes a wastewater 
treatment plant expansion at the existing South District 
Wastewater Treatment plant in Miami-Dade County and at a future 
West Miami Dade Wastewater Treatment Plant to produce superior, 
advanced treatment of wastewater for reuse in Everglades 
National Park and Biscayne Bay restoration. The plant upgrades 
will potentially produce a combined 230 million gallons of 
water per day. The combined cost of the upgrades is about $800 
million in construction costs and $85 million in operation and 
maintenance costs. There is concern about the high cost of 
treating this water, and whether the treatment system will be 
capable of treating the wastewater to appropriate levels for 
reuse in the natural system. The results of the wastewater 
reuse pilot project will be carefully reviewed in considering 
the ability of the treatment system to meet water quality 
requirements.
    Additional water is needed to meet the requirements of 
restoration of the natural system including Biscayne Bay. 
Therefore, subsection (g) directs that the Secretary, in 
consultation with the Department of the Interior, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the State of Florida and local 
governments to investigate in conjunction with the 
implementation of the Wastewater Reuse Technology Pilot 
project, potential sources of water other than reuse for 
providing freshwater flows to Biscayne Bay focusing on lower 
cost alternatives; defining target freshwater flows for 
Biscayne Bay based on the quality, timing, and distribution of 
flows needed to provide and maintain the estuarine functions of 
Biscayne Bay, Biscayne National Park and associated coastal 
wetlands; and performing further evaluations to determine 
whether restoration targets can be better achieved. These 
evaluations are to be included in an appropriate 5-year report 
to the Congress before any authorization is sought for advanced 
treatment and reuse of wastewater.
      Land Acquisition projects. Two of the projects 
included in the Plan are primarily land acquisition. While 
these projects have merit, they are not appropriate for 
implementation under the program of the Army Corps. 
Accordingly, the bill provides that the Federal share for land 
acquisition in the project to enhance existing wetlands systems 
along the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, including the 
Stazzulla tract, should be funded through the budget of the 
Department of Interior and that the Southern Corkscrew regional 
eco-system watershed addition should be accomplished outside 
the scope of the Plan.
            (h). Assurance of Project Benefits

                                Summary

    Subsection (h)(1) is a general statement of Congressional 
purpose and intent to guide the implementation of authorized 
Plan activities, including the agreement between the President 
and Governor required by subsection (h)(2), programmatic 
regulations required by subsection (h)(3), and the project-
specific assurances required by subsection (h)(4).
    With the exception of the pilot projects, subsection 
(h)(2)(A) provides that no appropriation shall be made for 
construction of a project contained in the Plan until the 
President and the Governor enter into a binding agreement under 
which the State will ensure, by regulation or other appropriate 
means, that water made available under the Plan for the 
restoration of the natural system is available as specified in 
the Plan. The committee expects this agreement to be executed 
early in the Plan implementation process. Subsection 
(h)(2)(B)(i) establishes a Federal cause of action to enforce a 
failure by Federal or State officials to comply with any 
provision of the agreement. This section provides for 
injunctive relief directing an official, found to be in 
noncompliance with the agreement, to comply. Subsection 
(h)(2)(B)(ii) requires sixty-day notification to the Secretary 
prior to commencement of an action under clause (i), and bars a 
civil action under clause (i) if the United States has 
commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action for the 
failure to comply in either Federal or State court.
    Subsection (h)(3)(A) requires the Secretary of the Army to 
issue programmatic regulations within 2 years of the date of 
enactment. The purpose of the programmatic regulations is to 
ensure, over the life of the Central and South Florida Project, 
that the goals and purposes of the Plan are achieved. The 
Governor and the Secretary of Interior must concur on the 
regulations prior to issuance; additionally, consultation with 
the Seminole Tribe of Florida, the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians 
of Florida, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department 
of Commerce, and other Federal, State and local agencies is 
required.
    The content of the programmatic regulations is specified in 
subsection (h)(3)(B). Programmatic regulations will be the 
basis for determining the content and sufficiency of project-
specific assurance documents required by subsection (h)(4). The 
regulations shall establish a process to: provide guidance for 
the development of project implementation reports, project 
cooperation agreements, and operating manuals to ensure that 
the goals and objectives of the Plan are achieved; ensure that 
new information resulting from changed or unforeseen 
circumstances, new scientific or technical information or 
information that is developed through the principles of 
adaptive assessment contained in the Plan, or future authorized 
changes to the Plan are integrated into the implementation of 
the Plan; and ensure the protection of the natural system 
consistent with the goals and purposes of the Plan.
    It is possible that projects authorized for construction in 
this bill may be ready to proceed to construction prior to 
issuance of the programmatic regulations. Subsection 
(h)(3)(C)(i) provides a transition rule, and requires that all 
project implementation reports approved before the date of 
promulgation of the programmatic regulations shall be 
consistent with the Plan. Subsection (h)(3)(C)(ii) further 
provides that, once issued, the preamble of the programmatic 
regulations shall include a statement concerning the 
consistency with the programmatic regulations of any project 
implementation reports that were approved before the date of 
promulgation of the regulations.
    Subsection (h)(3)(D) establishes an ongoing duty for the 
Secretary to ensure that the programmatic regulations will 
result in attainment of Plan goals and purposes. Review of the 
regulations not less often than every 5 years is the minimum 
requirement, however this duty may require review and revision 
more frequently than the minimum five-year interval. Under 
subsection (h)(3)(B)(ii), the initial programmatic regulations 
themselves must include a process to account for new 
information, changed or unforeseen circumstances, or 
Congressionally-authorized changes to Plan elements (such as a 
decision not to proceed with certain projects or unproven 
technologies).
    Subsection (h)(4) establishes requirements for the three 
project-specific documents that ultimately deliver Plan 
benefits--project implementation reports (``PIRs''); project 
cooperation agreements (``PCAs''); and operating manuals. 
Subsection (h)(4)(A) states the procedures and requirements 
governing PIRs. Development of a PIR is a joint responsibility 
of the Secretary and non-Federal project sponsor. The PIR is 
developed in accordance with section 10.3.1 of the Plan, as 
modified by the additional requirements in this bill 
((h)(4)(A)(i)). The Secretary and non-Federal sponsor must 
coordinate with appropriate Federal, State, tribal and local 
officials when developing a PIR ((h)(4)(A)(ii)).
    Subsection (h)(4)(B) references and incorporates the 
existing process under which PCAs are executed on Army Corps 
construction projects. PCAs are a final check on assuring 
project benefits. PCAs are essentially a contract for each 
specific project. This subsection requires execution of a PCA 
for each authorized project. Further, the Secretary may not 
sign a PCA until water for the natural system identified in the 
project implementation report is actually reserved or allocated 
under State law.
    Subsection (h)(4)(C) governs development of project 
operating manuals. The Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor 
shall develop and issue, for each project or group of projects, 
an operating manual that is consistent with the water 
reservation or allocation for the natural system described in 
the PIR and the PCA for the project or group of projects 
((h)(4)(C)(i)). Any significant modification by the Secretary 
and the non-Federal sponsor to an operating manual after the 
operating manual is issued shall only be carried out subject to 
notice and opportunity for public comment ((h)(4)(C)(ii)).
    Subsection (h)(5) is a savings clause that is designed to 
preserve the existing legal rights of persons and entities 
served by the Central and South Florida project and potentially 
affected by implementation of the Plan. Subsection (h)(5)(A) 
addresses the rights of existing legal water users. The 
subsection states that the Secretary shall ensure that the 
implementation of the Plan, including physical or operational 
modifications to the C&SF Project, does not cause significant 
adverse impact on existing legal water users.
    Subsection (h)(5)(B) establishes a condition upon project 
implementation that prohibits elimination of existing legal 
sources of water due to Plan implementation until a new source 
of water supply of comparable quantity and quality is available 
to replace the water to be lost.
    Subsection (h)(5)(C) states the rule for maintenance of 
flood projection. The provision is intended to ensure that 
persons legally entitled to flood protection are not harmed by 
implementation of the Plan. The provision provides that in 
implementing the Plan, the Secretary shall maintain authorized 
levels of flood protection in existence on the date of 
enactment of this bill, in accordance with applicable law.
    Subsection (h)(5)(D) states that nothing in this bill 
prevents the State from allocating or reserving water, as 
provided under State law, to the extent consistent with this 
bill.
    Subsection (h)(5)(E) is a savings clause designed to 
specifically protect a compact between the State, the South 
Florida Water Management District and the Seminole Tribe of 
Florida defining the scope and use of water rights of the 
Seminole Tribe of Florida, as codified by section 7 of the 
Seminole Indian Land Claims Settlement Act of 1987 (25 U.S.C. 
1772e).

                               Discussion

    Assurances Generally. The predominant Federal interest in 
this bill is the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem. 
Subsection (h) provides the assurance that the considerable 
Federal investment made in this bill, and additional 
investments expected in subsequent Acts of Congress 
implementing the Plan, will result in the restoration of the 
Everglades.
    Subsection (h) does more than provide the necessary 
assurances. It also defines the relation among the various 
Federal, State and local governmental entities charged with 
Plan implementation responsibilities. The subsection places 
procedural and substantive requirements on both the Federal 
Government and the State of Florida. Most importantly, 
subsection (h) strikes a careful balance between the Federal 
interest in ensuring that predicted Plan benefits, including 
benefits to Federal lands, are attained, and the State's 
interest in: ensuring that State-owned or managed lands also 
receive predicted Plan benefits; and preserving its traditional 
sovereignty over the reservation and allocation of water within 
the State's boundaries.
    Subsection (h)(1) of the bill restates and codifies the 
purpose of the Plan, as stated on page ii of the Plan summary. 
In conjunction with section 2(b), which approves the Plan as a 
framework for modifications to the existing C&SF Project, this 
subsection provides overall guidance in reconciling the changes 
made to the C&SF Project by WRDA `96 with implementation of the 
Plan. Sections 2(b) and 2(h) clearly specify that the purpose 
of Federal involvement in this project is to restore, preserve, 
and protect the Southern Florida ecosystem, which was damaged 
by past authorized Federal actions carried out to implement the 
original, more limited purposes of the C&SF Project. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ While section 2(b)(1) of the bill expressly approves the Plan 
as the framework for restoration, many parties have testified that 
additional assurances were needed, especially assurances that the 
natural system would receive the intended benefits when the Plan is 
implemented. The bill also contains additional requirements that are 
not included in the Plan. The bill therefore does modify the Plan, and 
any inconsistency between the bill and the Plan must be resolved in 
favor of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There are three key elements in how the bill provides the 
needed assurances while creating a partnership between the 
Federal and State governments. The first element is a 
requirement that the President and Governor execute a binding, 
enforceable agreement that the water generated by the Plan will 
in fact be available for restoration when needed. This 
agreement is intended to answer concerns that the water needed 
for the restoration of the natural system will be available for 
that purpose as individual projects are completed. The second 
element is the programmatic regulations. These regulations, 
issued by the Secretary of the Army, require the concurrence of 
both the Governor and the Secretary of Interior. This 
relationship between the principal State and Federal trustees 
for the resources that will benefit from implementation of the 
Plan is unique in Federal environmental law, and is intended to 
create a true Federal-State partnership. The third elements are 
the project-specific documents which provide enforceable 
project-specific quantification of the appropriate amount, 
timing and distribution of water for the natural system and for 
other Plan purposes.
    Assurances Agreement. In testimony before the committee and 
during the negotiations on subsection (h), concerns were 
expressed that the State's permitting process could result in 
the over allocation of new water to be derived from the 
implementation of the Plan. The State of Florida raised 
concerns that this bill not federalize State water law, and 
that Plan implementation instead rely upon State law and 
processes in reserving or allocating water. Subsection (h)(2) 
balances both of these important concerns.
    Subsection (h)(2) does not specify in detail the contents 
of the agreement. The committee intends that the agreement 
between the Governor and the President result in a binding 
requirement for the State to manage its consumptive use 
permitting process in such a manner that does not infringe upon 
the ability of the State to deliver the water made available 
under the Plan for the restoration of the natural system as 
projects come on-line in later years. The agreement is not 
intended to create a mechanism for the Federal Government to 
become involved, on a permit-by-permit basis, in the State's 
consumptive use permitting decisions. Rather, the agreement 
will attest that the State will not pre-allocate any water 
generated by the Plan. Actual allocation and reservation of 
water generated by implementation of Plan projects is governed 
by subsection (h)(4). Under subsection (h)(4), any allocation 
and reservation of Plan water is identified under a cooperative 
Federal-State partnership and executed under State water law. 
The President and Governor should execute the agreement 
required by subsection (h)(2) as soon as is practicable.
    Subsection (h)(2)(B) makes the agreement enforceable by 
establishing a cause of action in Federal courts for injunctive 
relief in case the Federal or State officials fail to comply 
with the agreement. This provision, which allows any person or 
entity aggrieved by a failure to comply to bring a cause of 
action, is narrowly tailored to remain consistent with United 
States Supreme Court jurisprudence on State sovereign immunity 
under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Although the Eleventh Amendment prohibits Congress from making 
the State of Florida capable of being sued in Federal court, an 
exception is provided by the doctrine of Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 
(1908). Ex Parte Young provides that Congress may authorize suits 
against State officers to enforce Federal law. The cause of action here 
fully comports with Ex Parte Young.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Programmatic Regulations. Subsection (h)(3) requires the 
issuance of programmatic regulations. The purpose of the 
programmatic regulations are to ensure, over the life of the 
C&SF Project, that the goals and purposes of the Plan are 
achieved. Further, the programmatic regulations guide the 
implementation of the project implementation reports, and they 
must be periodically reviewed not less often than every 5 years 
to ensure that new information is integrated into 
implementation of the Plan. The programmatic regulations are 
therefore a central component in the adaptive assessment and 
management process on which success of the Plan, and this bill, 
depends.
    The process for developing the programmatic regulations 
recognizes the stewardship responsibilities of governmental 
entities with trustee relationships for the resources that will 
benefit from Plan implementation. As the Secretary of the 
Interior and the State of Florida share, in approximately equal 
proportions, responsibility for most of the remaining natural 
system areas to benefit from the Plan, and further recognizing 
that the State will share equally in the cost of Plan 
implementation with the Federal Government, subsection (h)(3) 
requires that the Secretary issue the programmatic regulations 
only with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Interior and 
the Governor of Florida. This unique Federal-State partnership 
will allow for improved up-front planning during the 
implementation of the Plan and should improve coordination 
among the affected agencies, each with varying missions and 
responsibilities. In developing the programmatic regulations, 
the Federal and State partners should establish interim goals--
expressed in terms of restoration standards--to provide a means 
by which the restoration success of the Plan may be evaluated 
throughout the implementation process. The restoration 
standards should be quantitative and measurable at specific 
points in the Plan implementation. The Secretary and the 
Secretary of the Interior are required to report on the 
progress toward these goals as part of the required reporting 
process.
    Project-Specific Assurances. Project-specific assurances 
are included requiring the project-specific implementation 
reports to be consistent with the Plan and the programmatic 
regulations. The PIRs are the documents that will identify and 
quantify the water that is necessary to attain the restoration 
of the natural system. The State, using its own State water 
law, will execute the reservations or allocations for the 
natural system that are specified in the PIR before the 
Secretary can execute the PCA, which is the contract between 
the Secretary and non-Federal sponsor that is the prerequisite 
for construction of Plan projects. Finally, subsection 
(h)(4)(C) requires consistency between the operating manuals 
and the water reservations or allocations for the natural 
system.
    Savings Clause. Subsection (h)(5) requires the Secretary to 
ensure that implementation of the Plan does not cause 
substantial adverse impacts on existing legal uses of water, 
including water allocated to the Seminole Tribe of Florida as 
codified under Federal and State law, the Miccosukee Tribe of 
Indians of Florida, water for Everglades National Park, water 
for the preservation of fish and wildlife in the natural 
system, agricultural water supply and other legal uses as of 
the date of enactment of this bill. Elimination of existing 
sources of water supply is barred until new sources of 
comparable quantity and quality of water are available; 
existing authorized levels of flood protection are maintained; 
and the water compact among the Seminole Tribe of Florida, the 
State, and the South Florida Water Management District is 
specifically preserved.
    With respect to flood control, the committee intends that 
implementation of the Plan will not result in significant 
adverse impact to any person with an existing, legally 
recognized right to a level of protection against flooding. The 
committee does not intend that, consistent with benefits 
included in the Plan, this bill create any new rights to a 
level of protection against flooding that is not currently 
recognized under applicable Federal or State law.
            (i). Dispute Resolution

                                Summary

    Subsection (i)(1) directs the Governor and the Secretary, 
within 180 days of enactment of this bill, to develop an 
agreement for resolving disputes between the Army Corps and the 
South Florida Water Management District. Subsections (i)(1)(A), 
(i)(1)(B), and (i)(1)(C) describe what must be included in the 
mechanism for the timely and efficient resolution of disputes.
    Subsection (i)(2) directs that the Secretary shall not 
approve a project implementation report under this bill until 
the agreement established under this subsection has been 
executed.
    Subsection (i)(3) states that nothing in the agreement 
established under this subsection shall alter or amend any 
existing Federal or State law.

                               Discussion

    This bill provides a mechanism by which disputes between 
the Secretary and the Governor are resolved. Within 180 days 
from the date of enactment, the Secretary and the Governor 
shall develop an agreement on how to resolve disputes between 
the Army Corps and the State, related to the implementation of 
the Plan. This agreement will establish a mechanism for the 
resolution of disputes, including: a preference for the 
resolution of disputes between the Jacksonville District of the 
Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management 
District; a mechanism for the Jacksonville District of the 
Corps of Engineers or the South Florida Water Management 
District to initiate the dispute resolution process for 
unresolved issues; the establishment of appropriate time-frames 
and intermediate steps for the elevation of disputes to the 
Governor and the Secretary; and a mechanism for the final 
resolution of disputes, within 180 days from the date that the 
dispute resolution process is initiated.
            (j) Independent Scientific Review

                                Summary

    Subsection (j)(1) directs the Secretary of the Army, the 
Secretary of the Interior, and the State of Florida, in 
consultation with the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task 
Force, to establish an independent scientific review panel, 
convened by a body such as the National Academy of Sciences, to 
review the Plan's progress toward achieving the natural 
system's restoration goals of the Plan.
    Subsection (j)(2) directs the panel described in paragraph 
(1) to produce a biennial report to Congress, the Secretary of 
the Army, the Secretary of Interior, and the State of Florida 
that includes an assessment of ecological indicators and other 
measures of progress in restoring the ecology of the natural 
system, based on the Plan.

                               Discussion

    Subsection (j) directs the Secretary, the Secretary of the 
Interior, and the State, in consultation with the South Florida 
Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, to establish an independent 
scientific panel to conduct on-going review of the progress 
achieved by the Plan's execution in attaining the restoration 
goals of the Plan. The panel is to be convened by a body, such 
as the National Academy of Sciences, with expertise in 
assembling panels for the purpose of conducting independent 
scientific reviews.
    The committee expects the body convening the review panel 
to use established practices for assuring the independence of 
members employed in this instance. This includes assuring that 
neither panel members, nor the institutions they represent, 
have a vested interest in the outcome of the scientific review 
or the execution of the Plan. The committee also expects the 
review panel to contain individuals reflecting a balance of the 
knowledge, training, and experience suitable to comprehensively 
review and assess the Plan's progress toward achieving 
restoration goals. The committee believes that members of the 
review panel should have expertise in applicable scientific 
disciplines and include individuals possessing specific 
scientific experience with, and knowledge of, the South Florida 
ecosystem. This subsection is not intended to necessarily 
preclude the National Research Council's Committee on 
Restoration of the Greater Everglades Ecosystem, either in part 
or in full, from assuming the specified duties of the 
independent scientific review panel.
    The panel is directed to produce a biennial report and 
submit its findings to Congress, the Secretary, the Secretary 
of the Interior, and the State of Florida. The committee 
intends for these reports to address the Plan's progress toward 
achieving the restoration goals of the Plan on a biennial 
basis. The panel is directed to include in each report an 
assessment of ecological indicators and other measures of 
progress in restoring the ecology of the natural system, based 
on the Plan.
            (k). Outreach and Assistance

                                Summary

    Subsection (k)(1) directs the Secretary, in executing the 
Plan, to ensure that small business concerns owned and 
controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged 
individuals are provided opportunities to participate under 
section 15(g) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(g)).
    Subsection (k)(2) requires the Secretary to ensure that 
impacts on socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, 
including individuals with limited English proficiency, and 
communities are considered during implementation of the Plan, 
and that such individuals have opportunity to review and 
comment on the Plan's implementation. The Secretary shall also 
ensure that public outreach and educational opportunities are 
provided to the individuals of South Florida, including 
individuals with limited English proficiency, and in particular 
for socially and economically disadvantaged communities.

                               Discussion

    This subsection directs the Secretary to ensure that small 
businesses owned and controlled by socially and economically 
disadvantaged individuals have an opportunity to participate in 
the Plan. Under section 15(g) of the Small Business Act, 
Federal agencies are required to establish goals for awarding 
contracts to small businesses, including socially and 
economically disadvantaged businesses. This provision 
reiterates that requirement for purposes of carrying out the 
Plan.
    The Secretary is also directed to consider the impacts of 
implementing the Plan on socially and economically 
disadvantaged individuals, including those with limited English 
proficiency. Recognizing that a large percentage of the 
population of the South Florida ecosystem is made up of 
minority groups (e.g., 20.5 percent Hispanic), this provision 
ensures that the individuals have opportunities to review and 
comment on the implementation of the Plan. In addition, the 
Secretary shall ensure that public outreach and educational 
opportunities are provided to these same individuals.
    The Plan must be adequately explained to the people of 
South Florida, in particular to those in socially and 
economically disadvantaged communities. The Secretary should 
work closely with the non-Federal sponsor to identify local 
partners for these efforts, such as existing non-profit 
institutions with experience in researching and exhibiting 
South Florida ecosystems for the general public and conducting 
outreach programs for socially and economically disadvantaged 
communities and individuals with limited English proficiency. 
Because of the large number of individuals in the area with 
limited English proficiency, the Secretary should ensure that 
the outreach and education programs are communicated so that 
these individuals can understand the Plan and implementation 
process.
            (l). Report to Congress.
    Subsection (l) requires the Secretary and the Secretary of 
the Interior, in consultation with the Environmental Protection 
Agency, the Department of Commerce and the State of Florida to 
submit a report to Congress on the implementation of the Plan. 
The report shall be submitted on October 1, 2005, and not less 
than every 5 years thereafter. The report shall include: a 
description of planning, design, and construction work 
completed; the amount of funds expended during the period 
covered by the report, including an analysis of funds expended 
for adaptive assessment; the work anticipated over the next 5-
year period; a determination by each Secretary and the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency concerning 
the benefits to the natural system and the human environment 
achieved by the date of the report and whether the completed 
projects are being operated consistent with the assurances 
provisions in subsection (h); and a review of the activities 
required under the outreach and assistance provisions of 
subsection (k). The role of the Environmental Protection Agency 
in this determination helps to ensure that water quality 
benefits, an essential component of the restoration effort, 
will be achieved, and that an ecosystem-wide perspective will 
be maintained.

                                Hearings

    On January 7, 2000, the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works held a field hearing in Naples, Florida, to receive 
testimony on the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. 
Witnesses who testified were: the Honorable Carol Browner, 
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; the 
Honorable Joseph Westphal, Assistant Secretary of the Army 
(Civil Works); Mary Doyle, Counselor to the Secretary and the 
Chair of the South Florida Ecosystem Task Force, U.S. 
Department of the Interior; the Honorable David Struhs, 
Secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental 
Protection; Captain Mike Collins, Chairman of the South Florida 
Water Management District; Jim Shore, Counsel to the Seminole 
Tribe of Florida; Dexter Lehtinen, representing the Miccosukee 
Tribe of Indians; the Honorable Nora Williams, Commissioner of 
Monroe County, Florida; Malcolm S. ``Bubba'' Wade, Senior Vice 
President of U.S. Sugar Corporation; and the Honorable 
Nathaniel Reed, former Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
    On May 11, 2000, the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works met to consider the Administration's legislative proposal 
for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, included in 
S. 2437. The committee received testimony from the Honorable 
Jeb Bush, Governor of the State of Florida; Patricia Power, 
representing the Seminole Tribe of Florida; Dexter Lehtinen, 
representing the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians; Captain Mike 
Collins, Chairman of the South Florida Water Management 
District; the Honorable Joseph Westphal, Assistant Secretary of 
the Army (Civil Works); Gary Guzy, General Counsel, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency; Mary Doyle, Acting Assistant 
Secretary for Water and Science, and the Chair of the South 
Florida Ecosystem Task Force, U.S. Department of the Interior; 
Mr. Ken Keck, Director of Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, 
Florida Citrus Mutual; and Dr. David Guggenheim, President, The 
Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Co-Chair, the Everglades 
Coalition.
    On May 23, 2000, the Subcommittee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure met to consider the Administration's legislative 
proposal for the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (S. 
2437). The committee received testimony from the Honorable 
Joseph Westphal, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works); 
Major General Hans A. Van Winkle, Deputy Commanding General for 
Civil Works, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Doug Sutherland, 
County Executive, Pierce County, Washington; Lillian Borrone, 
Director of Port Commerce, Port Authority of New York and New 
Jersey; Barry Pamer, Executive Director, Dinamo; the Honorable 
Dannel P. Malloy, City of Stamford, Connecticut; and Howard 
Marlowe, President of American Coastal Coalition.

                          Legislative History

    On April 13, 2000, Senators Smith and Baucus introduced by 
request the Administration's proposal for the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2000 (S. 2437). On June 27, 2000, Senator 
Voinovich, Smith and Baucus introduced the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2000 (S. 2796). On that same day, Senators 
mith, Voinovich, Baucus, Graham, and Mack introduced the 
Restoring the Everglades, an American Legacy Act (S. 2797).
    S. 2796, as amended, was reported by the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works on June 28, 2000. In addition, S. 
2796 was amended to include S. 2797, as reported by the 
committee, as Title VI of the bill.

                             Rollcall Votes

    On June 28, 2000 the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works met to consider S. 2796, the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2000. An substitute amendment was agreed to by unanimous 
consent. An amendment offered by Senator Thomas, relative to 
performance by the Army Corps of specialized or technical 
services, was agreed to by a vote of 9 ayes to 8 nays. Voting 
in favor were Senators Bennett, Bond, Chafee, Crapo, Hutchison, 
Inhofe, Thomas, Smith of New Hampshire, and Voinovich. Voting 
against were Senators Baucus, Boxer, Graham, Lautenberg, 
Lieberman, Moynihan, Reid, and Wyden. Senator Warner was not 
recorded on the Thomas amendment. A motion to include the text 
of S. 2797, ``Restoring the Everglades, An American Legacy 
Act,'' into S. 2796 was agreed to by voice vote. The motion to 
report S. 2796, as amended, was agreed to by voice vote.

                          Mandates Assessment

    In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(P.L. 104-4), the committee finds that this bill would impose 
no Federal intergovernmental unfunded mandates on State, local, 
or tribal governments. All of its governmental directives are 
imposed on Federal agencies. The bill does not directly impose 
any private sector mandates.

                    Evaluation of Regulatory Impact

    Section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate requires publication in the report the committee's 
estimate of the regulatory impact made by the bill as reported. 
No regulatory impact is expected by the passage of S. 2796. The 
bill will not affect the personal privacy of individuals.

                          Cost of Legislation

    Section 403 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act 
requires each report to contain a statement of the cost of a 
reported bill prepared by the Congressional Budget Office. 
Senate Rule XXVI paragraph 11(a)(3) allows the report to 
include a statement of the reasons why compliance by the 
committee is impracticable. The committee is unable to include 
a statement of the cost at this time because the Congressional 
Budget Office has not finished an analysis of the bill.

                        Changes in Existing Law

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

     UNITED STATES CODE--TITLE 33-- NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Subchapter I--In General

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 401. Construction of bridges, causeways, dams or dikes generally; 
        exemptions
    (a) In General.--It shall not be lawful to construct or 
commence the construction of any bridge, causeway, dam, or dike 
over or in any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, navigable 
river, or other navigable water of the United States until the 
consent of Congress to the building of such structures shall 
have been obtained and until the plans for (1) the bridge or 
causeway shall have been submitted to and approved by the 
Secretary of Transportation, or
    (2) the dam or dike shall have been submitted to and 
approved by the Chief of Engineers and Secretary of the Army. 
[However, such structures]
    (b) Waterways Within a Single State.--Notwithstanding 
subsection (a), structures described in subsection (a) may be 
built under authority of the legislature of a State across 
rivers and other waterways the navigable portions of which lie 
wholly within the limits of a single State, provided the 
location and plans thereof are submitted to and approved by the 
Secretary of Transportation or by the Chief of Engineers and 
Secretary of the Army before construction is commenced. [When 
plans]
    (c) Modification of Plans.--When plans for any bridge or 
other structure have been approved by the Secretary of 
Transportation or by the Chief of Engineers and Secretary of 
the Army, it shall not be lawful to deviate from such plans 
either before or after completion of the structure unless 
modification of said plans has previously been submitted to and 
received the approval of the Secretary of Transportation or the 
Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of the Army. [The 
approval]
    (d) Applicability.--
            (1) Bridges and causeways.--The approval required 
        by this section of the location and plans or any 
        modification of plans of any bridge or causeway does 
        not apply to any bridge or causeway over waters that 
        are not subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and 
        that are not used and are not susceptible to use in 
        their natural condition or by reasonable improvement as 
        a means to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
            (2) Dams and dikes.--
                    (A) In general.--The approval required by 
                this section of the location and plans, or any 
                modification of plans, of any dam or dike, 
                applies only to a dam or dike that, if 
                constructed, would completely span a waterway 
                used to transport interstate or foreign 
                commerce, in such a manner that actual, 
                existing interstate or foreign commerce could 
                be adversely affected.
                    (B) Other dams and dikes.--Any dam or dike 
                (other than a dam or dike described in 
                subparagraph (A)) that is proposed to be built 
                in any other navigable water of the United 
                States--
                            (i) shall be subject to section 10; 
                        and
                            (ii) shall not be subject to the 
                        approval requirements of this section.
                              ----------                              

      UNITED STATES CODE--TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                 CHAPTER 19B--WATER RESOURCES PLANNING

Subchapter IV--Miscellaneous Provisions

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 1962d-5b. Water resources projects; written agreement requirement
    (a) Cooperation of non-Federal interest After December 31, 
1970, the construction of any water resources project, or an 
acceptable separable element thereof, by the Secretary of the 
Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, or by a non-
Federal interest where such interest will be reimbursed for 
such construction under the provisions of section 1962d-5a of 
this title or under any other provision of law, shall not be 
commenced until each non-Federal interest has entered into a 
written agreement with the Secretary of the Army to furnish its 
required cooperation for the project or the appropriate element 
of the project, as the case may be; except that no such 
agreement shall be required if the Secretary determines that 
the administrative costs associated with negotiating, 
executing, or administering the agreement would exceed the 
amount of the contribution required from the non-Federal 
interest and are less than $25,000. In any such agreement 
entered into by a State, or a body politic of the State which 
derives its powers from the State constitution, or a 
governmental entity created by the State legislature, the 
agreement may reflect that it does not obligate future [State 
legislative] appropriations for such performance and payment 
when obligating future appropriations would be inconsistent 
with State constitutional or statutory limitations of the State 
or a body politic of the State.
                              ----------                              

                           Public Law 99-662

                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1986

            [As Amended Through P.L. 106-170, Dec. 17, 1999]

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                         TITLE I--COST SHARING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 103. FLOOD CONTROL AND OTHER PURPOSES.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (m) Ability to pay.--
            [(1) In general.--Any cost-sharing agreement under 
        this section for flood control or agricultural water 
        supply shall be subject to the ability of a non-Federal 
        interest to pay.
            [(2) Criteria and procedures.--The ability of a 
        non-Federal interest to pay shall be determined by the 
        Secretary in accordance with criteria and procedures in 
        effect on the day before the date of the enactment of 
        the Water Resources Development Act of 1996; except 
        that such criteria and procedures shall be revised 
        within 1 year after such date of enactment to reflect 
        the requirements of paragraph (3).]
            (1) In general.--Any cost-sharing agreement under 
        this section for a feasibility study, or for 
        construction of an environmental protection and 
        restoration project, a flood control project, a project 
        for navigation, storm damage protection, shoreline 
        erosion, hurricane protection, or recreation, or an 
        agricultural water supply project, shall be subject to 
        the ability of the non-Federal interest to pay.
            (2) Criteria and procedures.--
                    (A) In general.--The ability of a non-
                Federal interest to pay shall be determined by 
                the Secretary in accordance with--
                            (i) during the period ending on the 
                        date on which revised criteria and 
                        procedures are promulgated under 
                        subparagraph (B), criteria and 
                        procedures in effect on the day before 
                        the date of enactment of this 
                        subparagraph; and
                            (ii) after the date on which 
                        revised criteria and procedures are 
                        promulgated under subparagraph (B), the 
                        revised criteria and procedures 
                        promulgated under subparagraph (B).
                    (B) Revised criteria and procedures.--Not 
                later than 18 months after the date of 
                enactment of this subparagraph, in accordance 
                with paragraph (3), the Secretary shall 
                promulgate revised criteria and procedures 
                governing the ability of a non-Federal interest 
                to pay.
            (3) Revision of criteria and procedures.--In 
        revising criteria and procedures pursuant to paragraph 
        (2), the Secretary--
                    (A) shall consider--
                            (i) per capita income data for the 
                        county or counties in which the project 
                        is to be located; and
                            (ii) the per capita non-Federal 
                        cost of construction of the project for 
                        the county or counties in which the 
                        project is to be located; and
                    [(B) shall not consider criteria (other 
                than criteria described in subparagraph (A)) in 
                effect on the day before the date of the 
                enactment of the Water Resources Development 
                Act of 1996; and
                    [(C) may consider additional criteria 
                relating to the non-Federal interest's 
                financial ability to carry out its cost-sharing 
                responsibilities, to the extent that the 
                application of such criteria does not eliminate 
                areas from eligibility for a reduction in the 
                non-Federal share as determined under 
                subparagraph (A).]
                    (B) may consider additional criteria 
                relating to--
                            (i) the financial ability of the 
                        non-Federal interest to carry out its 
                        cost-sharing responsibilities; or
                            (ii) additional assistance that may 
                        be available from other Federal or 
                        State sources.
            (4) Non-federal share.--Notwithstanding subsection 
        (a), the Secretary may reduce the requirement that a 
        non-Federal interest make a cash contribution for any 
        project that is determined to be eligible for a 
        reduction in the non-Federal share under criteria and 
        procedures in effect under paragraphs (1), (2), and 
        (3).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 402. COMPLIANCE WITH FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT AND INSURANCE PROGRAMS.

    (a) Compliance with floodplain management and insurance 
programs.--Before construction of any project for local flood 
protection, or any project for hurricane or storm damage 
reduction, that involves Federal assistance from the Secretary, 
the non-Federal interest shall agree to participate in and 
comply with applicable Federal floodplain management and flood 
insurance programs.
    (b) [Flood plain] Floodplain management plans.--Within 1 
year after the date of signing a project cooperation agreement 
for construction of a project to which subsection (a) of this 
section applies, the non-Federal interest shall prepare a 
[flood plain] floodplain management plan designed to reduce the 
impacts of future flood events in the project area. Such plan 
shall be implemented by the non-Federal interest not later than 
1 year after completion of construction of the project.
    (c) Guidelines.--
            (1) In general.--[Within 6 months after the 
        enactment of this subsection, the] The Secretary shall 
        develop guidelines for preparation of floodplain 
        management plans by non-Federal interests under 
        subsection (b) of this section. [Such guidelines shall 
        address]
            (2) Required elements.--The guidelines developed 
        under paragraph (1) shall--
                    (A) address potential measures, practices, 
                and policies that non-Federal interests shall 
                adopt and enforce to reduce loss of life, 
                injuries, damages to property and facilities, 
                public expenditures, and other adverse impacts 
                associated with flooding and to preserve and 
                enhance natural floodplain values[.]; and
                    (B) require non-Federal interests to take 
                measures to preserve the level of flood 
                protection provided by a project to which 
                subsection (a) applies.
            [(2)] (3) Limitation on statutory construction.--
        Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to confer 
        any regulatory authority upon the Secretary or the 
        Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    (d) Technical support.--The Secretary may provide technical 
support to a non-Federal interest for a project to which 
subsection (a) of this section applies for the development and 
implementation of plans prepared under subsection (b) of this 
section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 704. STUDY OF CORPS CAPABILITY TO CONSERVE FISH AND WILDLIFE

    (a) The Secretary shall investigate and study the 
feasibility of utilizing the capabilities of the United States 
Army Corps of Engineers to conserve fish and wildlife 
(including their habitats) where such fish and wildlife are 
indigenous to the United States, its possessions, or its 
territories. The scope of such study shall include the use of 
engineering or construction capabilities to create alternative 
habitats, or to improve, enlarge, develop, or otherwise 
beneficially modify existing habitats of such fish and 
wildlife. The study shall be conducted in consultation with the 
Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of 
the Interior, the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries of the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and shall 
be transmitted within the 30-month period beginning on November 
17, 1986, by the Secretary to Congress, together with the 
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Chief of 
Engineers. The Secretary, in consultation with the Federal 
officers referred to in the preceding sentence, shall undertake 
a continuing review of the matters covered in the study and 
shall transmit to Congress, on a biennial basis, any revisions 
to the study that may be required as a result of the review, 
together with the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of 
the Chief of Engineers.
    (b) The Secretary is further authorized to conduct projects 
of alternative or beneficially modified habitats for fish and 
wildlife, including but not limited to man-made reefs for fish. 
There is authorized to be appropriated not to exceed 
[$7,000,000] $20,000,000 to carry out such projects. Such 
projects shall be developed, and their effectiveness evaluated, 
in consultation with the Director of the Fish and Wildlife 
Service and the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries of the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Such projects 
shall include--
            (1) the construction of a reef for fish habitat in 
        Lake Erie in the vicinity of Buffalo, New York;
            (2) the construction of a reef for fish habitat in 
        the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of Fort Lauderdale, 
        Florida;
            (3) the construction of a reef for fish habitat in 
        Lake Ontario in the vicinity of the town of Newfane, 
        New York; and
            [(4) the construction of a reef for fish habitat in 
        the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland and Virginia.]
            (4) the construction of reefs and related clean 
        shell substrate for fish habitat, including manmade 3-
        dimensional oyster reefs, in the Chesapeake Bay and its 
        tributaries in Maryland and Virginia--
                    (A) which reefs shall be preserved as 
                permanent sanctuaries by the non-Federal 
                interests, consistent with the recommendations 
                of the scientific consensus document on 
                Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration dated June 
                1999; and
                    (B) for assistance in the construction of 
                which reefs the Chief of Engineers shall 
                solicit participation by and the services of 
                commercial watermen.
        The non-Federal share of the cost of any project under 
        this section shall be 25 percent.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[SEC. 729. STUDY OF WATER RESOURCES NEEDS OF RIVER BASINS AND REGIONS.

    [(a) The Secretary, in coordination with the Secretary of 
the Interior and in consultation with appropriate Federal, 
State, and local agencies, is authorized to study the water 
resources needs of river basins and regions of the United 
States. The Secretaries shall report the results of such study 
to Congress not later than October 1, 1988.
    [(b) In carrying out the studies authorized under 
subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries shall consult 
with State, interstate, and local governmental entities.
    [(c) There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for 
fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1986, to carry out 
this section.]

SEC. 729. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[SEC. 1001. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.

    [(a) Any project authorized for construction by this Act 
shall not be authorized after the last day of the 5-year period 
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act unless during 
such period funds have been obligated for construction, 
including planning and designing, of such project.
    [(b)(1) Not later than one year after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a list of 
unconstructed projects, or unconstructed separable elements of 
projects, which have been authorized, but have received no 
obligations during the 10 full fiscal years preceding the 
transmittal of such list. A project or separable element 
included in such list is not authorized after December 31, 
1989, if funds have not been obligated for construction of such 
project or element after the date of enactment of this Act and 
before December 31, 1989.
    [(2) Every two years after the transmittal of the list 
under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a 
list of projects or separable elements of projects which have 
been authorized, but have received no obligations during the 10 
full fiscal years preceding the transmittal of such list. A 
project or separable element included in such list is not 
authorized after the date which is 30 months after the date the 
list is so transmitted if funds have not been obligated for 
construction of such project or element during such 30-month 
period.
    [(c) The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register a 
list of any projects or separable elements that are 
deauthorized under this section.]

SEC. 1001. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.

    (a) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Construction.--The term ``construction'', with 
        respect to a project or separable element, means--
                    (A) in the case of--
                            (i) a nonstructural flood control 
                        project, the acquisition of land, an 
                        easement, or a right-of-way primarily 
                        to relocate a structure; and
                            (ii) in the case of any other 
                        nonstructural measure, the performance 
                        of physical work under a construction 
                        contract;
                    (B) in the case of an environmental 
                protection and restoration project--
                            (i) the acquisition of land, an 
                        easement, or a right-of-way primarily 
                        to facilitate the restoration of 
                        wetland or a similar habitat; or
                            (ii) the performance of physical 
                        work under a construction contract to 
                        modify an existing project facility or 
                        to construct a new environmental 
                        protection and restoration measure; and
                    (C) in the case of any other water 
                resources project, the performance of physical 
                work under a construction contract.
            (2) Physical work under a construction contract.--
        The term ``physical work under a construction 
        contract'' does not include any activity related to 
        project planning, engineering and design, relocation, 
        or the acquisition of land, an easement, or a right-of-
        way.
    (b) Projects Never Under Construction.--
            (1) List of projects.--The Secretary shall annually 
        submit to Congress a list of projects and separable 
        elements of projects that--
                    (A) are authorized for construction; and
                    (B) for which no Federal funds were 
                obligated for construction during the 4 full 
                fiscal years preceding the date of submission 
                of the list.
            (2) Deauthorization.--Any water resources project, 
        or separable element of a water resources project, 
        authorized for construction shall be deauthorized 
        effective at the end of the 7-year period beginning on 
        the date of the most recent authorization or 
        reauthorization of the project or separable element 
        unless Federal funds have been obligated for 
        construction of the project or separable element by the 
        end of that period.
    (c) Projects for Which Construction Has Been Suspended.--
            (1) List of projects.--The Secretary shall annually 
        submit to Congress a list of projects and separable 
        elements of projects--
                    (A) that are authorized for construction;
                    (B) for which Federal funds have been 
                obligated for construction of the project or 
                separable element; and
                    (C) for which no Federal funds have been 
                obligated for construction of the project or 
                separable element during the 2 full fiscal 
                years preceding the date of submission of the 
                list.
            (2) Deauthorization.--Any water resources project, 
        or separable element of a water resources project, for 
        which Federal funds have been obligated for 
        construction shall be deauthorized effective at the end 
        of any 5-fiscal year period during which Federal funds 
        specifically identified for construction of the project 
        or separable element (in an Act of Congress or in the 
        accompanying legislative report language) have not been 
        obligated for construction.
    (d) Congressional Notifications.--Upon submission of the 
lists under subsections (b)(1) and (c)(1), the Secretary shall 
notify each Senator in whose State, and each Member of the 
House of Representatives in whose district, the affected 
project or separable element is or would be located.
    (e) Final Deauthorization List.--The Secretary shall 
publish annually in the Federal Register a list of all projects 
and separable elements deauthorized under subsection (b)(2) or 
(c)(2).
    (f) Effective Date.--Subsections (b)(2) and (c)(2) take 
effect 3 years after the date of enactment of this subsection.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 1148. PASSAIC RIVER BASIN.

    (a) Acquisition of lands.--The Secretary may acquire from 
willing sellers lands on which residential structures are 
located and that are subject to frequent and recurring flood 
damage, as identified in the supplemental floodway report of 
the Corps of Engineers, Passaic River Buyout Study, September 
1995, at an estimated total cost of $194,000,000.
    (b) Retention of lands for flood protection.--Lands 
acquired by the Secretary under this section shall be retained 
by the Secretary for future use in conjunction with flood 
protection and flood management in the Passaic River Basin.
    (c) Cost sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
carrying out this section shall be 25 percent plus any amount 
that might result from application of subsection (d).
    (d) Applicability of benefit-cost ratio waiver authority.--
In evaluating and implementing the project under this section, 
the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest to 
participate in the financing of the project in accordance with 
section 903(c), to the extent that the Secretary's evaluation 
indicates that applying such section is necessary to implement 
the project.
    (e) Consistency With New Jersey Blue Acres Program.--The 
Secretary shall carry out this section in a manner that is 
consistent with the Blue Acres Program of the State of New 
Jersey.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

                           Public Law 101-640

                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1990

           [As Amended Through P.L. 106-53, August 17, 1999]

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

  (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water 
Resources Development Act of 1990''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (18) Passaic river [main stem] flood management 
        project, new jersey and new york.--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 312. ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING.

    (a) Operation and Maintenance of Navigation Projects.-- *  
*  *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (g) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of the 
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), for any project 
carried out under this section, a non-Federal sponsor may 
include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of the affected 
local government.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 314. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF HYDROELECTRIC FACILITIES.

    Activities currently performed by personnel under the 
direction of the Secretary in connection with the operation and 
maintenance of hydroelectric power generating facilities at 
Corps of Engineers water resources projects are to be 
considered as inherently governmental functions and not 
commercial activities in cases in which the activities require 
specialized training relating to hydroelectric power 
generation. This section does not prohibit contracting out 
major maintenance or other functions which are currently 
contracted out or studying services not directly connected with 
project maintenance and operations.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 401. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS AND SEDIMENT REMEDIATION.

    (a) Great lakes remedial action plans--
    (1) In general.--The Secretary may provide technical, 
planning, and engineering assistance to State and local 
governments and nongovernmental entities designated by a State 
or local government in the development and implementation of 
remedial action plans for Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes 
identified under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 
1978.
    (2) Non-federal interests.--
            (A) In general.--Non-Federal interests shall 
        contribute, in cash or by providing in-kind 
        contributions, [50 percent] 35 percent of costs of 
        activities for which assistance is provided under 
        paragraph (1).
            (B) Contributions by entities.--Nonprofit public or 
        private entities may contribute all or a portion of the 
        non-Federal share.
    (b) Sediment remediation projects--
    (1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (acting 
through the Great Lakes National Program Office), may conduct 
pilot- and full-scale projects of promising technologies to 
remediate contaminated sediments in freshwater coastal regions 
in the Great Lakes basin. The Secretary shall conduct not fewer 
than 3 full-scale projects under this subsection.
    (2) Site selection for projects.--In selecting the sites 
for the technology projects, the Secretary shall give priority 
consideration to Saginaw Bay, Michigan, Sheboygan Harbor, 
Wisconsin, Grand Calumet River, Indiana, Ashtabula River, Ohio, 
Buffalo River, New York, and Duluth-Superior Harbor, Minnesota 
and Wisconsin.
    [(3) Deadline for identifications.--The Secretary shall---
    [(A) not later than 18 months after the date of the 
enactment of this paragraph, identify the sites and 
technologies for projects under this subsection; and
    [(B) not later than 3 years after that date, complete each 
such full-scale project.]
    [(4)] (3) Non-federal share.--Non-Federal interests shall 
contribute 50 percent of costs of projects under this 
subsection. Such costs may be paid in cash or by providing in-
kind contributions.
    (c) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section 
[$5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2000] 
$10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2010.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

                           Public Law 102-580

                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1992

           [As Amended Through P.L. 106-53, August 17, 1999]

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

    (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water 
Resources Development Act of 1992''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 103. VISITOR CENTERS.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (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 property currently held by the Resolution 
        Trust Corporation [in the vicinity of the Mississippi 
        River Bridge in Vicksburg, Mississippi] between the 
        Mississippi River Bridge and the waterfront in downtown 
        Vicksburg, Mississippi. Title to the property shall be 
        transferred to the Secretary at no cost.
            (3) Interpretive site.--The interpretive site shall 
        be located on riverfront property between the 
        Mississippi River Bridge and the Mississippi Riverpark 
        in Vicksburg, Mississippi. The Secretary is authorized 
        to acquire surface use easements for such site on a 
        willing seller basis.
            (4) Limitation on acquisition authority.--The 
        Secretary may not use condemnation of property in 
        carrying out this subsection.
            (5) Purposes of the museum and interpretive site.--
        The purposes of the Lower Mississippi River Museum and 
        Riverfront Interpretive Site are to---
                    (A) promote an understanding of the Lower 
                Mississippi River and the United States Army 
                Corps of Engineers' role in developing and 
                managing this nationally significant resource;
                    (B) interpret the United States Army Corps 
                of Engineers historic presence in the Lower 
                Mississippi River Valley and its administration 
                of the Mississippi River and Tributaries 
                project;
                    (C) provide an understanding of the many 
                Corps of Engineers branches and facilities in 
                the Vicksburg area and their relationship to 
                flood control, navigation, and environmental 
                conservation in the Mississippi River;
                    (D) highlight the Mississippi River's 
                influence on the Vicksburg area and the river 
                valley's natural, historic, and cultural 
                resource contributions;
                    (E) highlight local Corps of Engineers 
                projects and management strategies;
                    (F) provide an understanding of the 
                surrounding natural riparian environment 
                adjacent to the Mississippi River through 
                public access and interpretive displays; and
                    (G) promote the worldwide application of 
                water resource technologies learned from using 
                the Mississippi River as a working model.
            (6) Related agencies and programs--
                    (A) Smithsonian institution.--The Secretary 
                shall consult with the Secretary of the 
                Smithsonian Institution in the planning and 
                design of the museum and riverfront 
                interpretive site under this subsection.
                    (B) Department of the interior.--The 
                Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of 
                the Interior and the Director of the National 
                Park Service in the planning, design, and 
                implementation of interpretive programs for the 
                museum and riverfront interpretive site to be 
                established under this subsection.
                    (C) Visitor services.--The Secretary is 
                directed to provide increased and enhanced 
                visitor services at the United States Army 
                Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment 
                Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi.
                    (7) Authorization of appropriations.--There 
                is authorized to be appropriated $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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (e) John paul hammerschmidt lake, arkansas.--
            (1) Construction.--The Secretary shall construct a 
        visitors center for the Army Corps of Engineers at the 
        John Paul Hammerschmidt Lake, [Arkansas River, 
        Arkansas] at Fort Smith, Arkansas, on land provided by 
        the city of Fort Smith.
            (2) Designation.--The visitor center to be 
        constructed under this subsection shall be known and 
        designated as the ``John Paul Hammerschmidt Visitor 
        Center''.
            (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is 
        authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
        subsection $2,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after 
        September 30, 1992. Such sums shall remain available 
        until expended.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 332. TRANSFER OF LOCKS AND APPURTENANT FEATURES, FOX RIVER SYSTEM, 
                    WISCONSIN.

    (a) Transfer.--[The Secretary]
            (1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to 
        transfer to the State of Wisconsin the locks and 
        appurtenant features of the navigation portion of the 
        Fox River System, Wisconsin, extending from Green Bay, 
        Wisconsin, to Lake Winnebago, Wisconsin, subject to the 
        execution of an agreement by the Secretary and the 
        State of Wisconsin which specifies the terms and 
        conditions for such transfer.
            (2) Payments to state.--The terms and conditions 
        may include 1 or more payments to the State of 
        Wisconsin to assist the State in paying the costs of 
        repair and rehabilitation of the transferred locks and 
        appurtenant features.
    (b) Treatment of locks and appurtenant features.--The locks 
and appurtenant features to be transferred under subsection (a) 
shall not be treated as part of any Federal project after the 
effective date of the transfer.
    (c) Operation and maintenance.--Operation and maintenance 
of all features of the Fox River System, Wisconsin, other than 
the locks and appurtenant features to be transferred under 
subsection (a), shall continue to be a Federal responsibility 
after the effective date of the transfer under subsection (a).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

                           Public Law 104-303

                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996

          [As Amended Through P.L. 105-153, December 17, 1997]

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

    (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 234. INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT AUTHORITY.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary may engage in activities in 
support of other Federal agencies or international 
organizations to address problems of national significance to 
the United States.
    (b) Consultation.--The Secretary may engage in activities 
in support of international organizations only after consulting 
with the Secretary of State.
    (c) Use of Corps' Expertise.--The Secretary may use the 
technical and managerial expertise of the Corps of Engineers to 
address domestic and international problems related to water 
resources, infrastructure development, and environmental 
protection.
    (d) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
[$1,000,000] $2,000,000 to carry out this section. The 
Secretary may accept and expend additional funds from other 
Federal agencies or international organizations to carry out 
this section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[SEC. 438. CUYAHOGA RIVER, OHIO.

    [The Secretary shall conduct a study to evaluate the 
integrity of the bulkhead system located on the Federal channel 
along the Cuyahoga River in the vicinity of Cleveland, Ohio, 
and shall provide to the non-Federal interest an analysis of 
costs and repairs of the bulkhead system.]

SEC. 438. CUYAHOGA RIVER, OHIO.

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 516. SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary may enter into cooperation 
agreements with non-Federal interests with respect to 
navigation projects, or other appropriate non-Federal entities, 
for the development of long-term management strategies for 
controlling sediments at such projects.
    (b) Contents of Strategies.--Each strategy developed under 
subsection (a) shall--
            (1) include assessments of sediment rates and 
        composition, sediment reduction options, dredging 
        practices, long-term management of any dredged material 
        disposal facilities, remediation of such facilities, 
        and alternative disposal and reuse options;
            (2) include a timetable for implementation of the 
        strategy; and
            (3) incorporate relevant ongoing planning efforts, 
        including remedial action planning, dredged material 
        management planning, harbor and waterfront development 
        planning, and watershed management planning.
    (c) Consultation.--In developing strategies under 
subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with interested 
Federal agencies, States, and Indian tribes and provide an 
opportunity for public comment.
    (d) Dredged Material Disposal.--
            (1) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
        determine the feasibility of constructing and operating 
        an underwater confined dredged material disposal site 
        in the Port of New York-New Jersey that could 
        accommodate as much as 250,000 cubic yards of dredged 
        material for the purpose of demonstrating the 
        feasibility of an underwater confined disposal pit as 
        an environmentally suitable method of containing 
        certain sediments.
            (2) Report.--The Secretary shall transmit to 
        Congress a report on the results of the study conducted 
        under paragraph (1), together with any recommendations 
        of the Secretary that may be developed in a strategy 
        under subsection (a).
    (e) Great Lakes Tributary Model.--
            (1) In general.--In consultation and coordination 
        with the Great Lakes States, the Secretary shall 
        develop a tributary sediment transport model for each 
        major river system or set of major river systems 
        depositing sediment into a Great Lakes federally 
        authorized commercial harbor, channel maintenance 
        project site, or Area of Concern identified under the 
        Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978. Such model 
        may be developed as a part of a strategy developed 
        under subsection (a).
            (2) Requirements for models.--In developing a 
        tributary sediment transport model under this 
        subsection, the Secretary shall build on data and 
        monitoring information generated in earlier studies and 
        programs of the Great Lakes and their tributaries.
            (3) Cost sharing.--The non-Federal share of the 
        costs of developing a tributary sediment transport 
        model under this subsection shall be 50 percent.
    (f) Great Lakes States Defined.--In this section, the term 
``Great Lakes States'' means the States of Illinois, Indiana, 
Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and 
Wisconsin.
    (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--[There is authorized]
            (1) In general.--There is authorized to be 
        appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section 
        $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2001.
            (2) Great lakes tributary model.--In addition to 
        amounts made available under paragraph (1), there is 
        authorized to be appropriated to carry out subsection 
        (e) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 
        2008.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

                           Public Law 106-53

                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1999

          [As Amended Through P.L. 106-109, November 24, 1999]

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

    (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water 
Resources Development Act of 1999''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 212. FLOOD MITIGATION AND RIVERINE RESTORATION PROGRAM.

    (a) In General. *  *  *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (e) Priority Areas.--In carrying out this section, the 
Secretary shall examine appropriate locations, including--
            (1) Pima County, Arizona, at Paseo De Las Iglesias 
        and Rillito River;
            (2) Coachella Valley, Riverside County, California;
            (3) Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers, California;
            (4) Murrieta Creek, California;
            (5) Napa River Valley watershed, California, at 
        Yountville, St Helena, Calistoga, and American Canyon;
            (6) Santa Clara basin, California, at Upper 
        Guadalupe River and Tributaries, San Francisquito 
        Creek, and Upper Penitencia Creek;
            (7) Pond Creek, Kentucky;
            (8) Red River of the North, Minnesota, North 
        Dakota, and South Dakota;
            (9) Connecticut River, New Hampshire;
            (10) Pine Mount Creek, New Jersey;
            (11) Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico;
            (12) Upper Delaware River, New York;
            (13) Briar Creek, North Carolina;
            (14) Chagrin River, Ohio;
            (15) Mill Creek, Cincinnati, Ohio;
            (16) Tillamook County, Oregon,
            (17) Willamette River basin, Oregon;
            (18) Blair County, Pennsylvania, at Altoona and 
        Frankstown Township;
            (19) Delaware River, Pennsylvania;
            (20) Schuylkill River, Pennsylvania;
            (21) Providence County, Rhode Island;
            (22) Shenandoah River, Virginia; [and]
            (23) Lincoln Creek, Wisconsin[.] ; and
            (24) Perry Creek, Iowa.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 217. DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL ON BEACHES.

    (a) In General.-- *  *  *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (f) Fort Canby State Park, Benson Beach, Washington.--The 
Secretary may design and construct a shore protection project 
at Fort Canby State Park, Benson Beach, Washington, including 
beneficial use of dredged material from Federal navigation 
projects as provided under section 145 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 352. FOX POINT HURRICANE BARRIER, PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND.

    (a) In General.--The project for hurricane-flood 
protection, Fox Point, Providence, Rhode Island, authorized by 
section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 306), is 
modified to direct the Secretary to undertake the necessary 
repairs to the barrier, as identified in the Condition Survey 
and Technical Assessment dated April 1998, with Supplement 
dated August 1998, at a total cost of $3,000,000, with an 
estimated Federal cost of $1,950,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $1,050,000.
    (b) Credit Toward Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal 
interest shall receive credit toward the non-Federal share of 
project costs, or reimbursement, for the Federal share of the 
costs of repairs authorized under subsection (a) that are 
incurred by the non-Federal interest before the date of 
execution of the project cooperation agreement.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 374. WHITE RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS AND MISSOURI.

    (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the project for 
flood control, power generation, and other purposes at the 
White River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri, authorized by section 
4 of the Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1218, chapter 795), and 
modified by House Document 917, 76th Congress, 3d Session, and 
House Document 290, 77th Congress, 1st Session, approved August 
18, 1941, and House Document 499, 83d Congress, 2d Session, 
approved September 3, 1954, and by section 304 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3711) is further 
modified to authorize the Secretary to provide minimum flows 
necessary to sustain tail water trout fisheries by reallocating 
[the following amounts of project storage: Beaver Lake, 1.5 
feet; Table Rock, 2 feet; Bull Shoals Lake, 5 feet; Norfork 
Lake, 3.5 feet; and Greers Ferry Lake, 3 feet.] the amounts of 
project storage that are recommended by the report required 
under subsection (b).
    (b) Report.--
            (1) In general.--No funds may be obligated to carry 
        out work on the modification under subsection (a) until 
        completion of a final report by the Chief of Engineers 
        finding that the work is technically sound, 
        environmentally acceptable, and economically justified 
        and does not significantly impact other authorized 
        project purposes.
            (2) Timing.--The Secretary shall submit the report 
        to Congress not later than July 30, [2000] 2002.
            (3) Contents.--The report shall include 
        determinations concerning whether and to what extent--
                    (A) the modification under subsection (a) 
                adversely affects other authorized project 
                purposes; [and]
                    (B) Federal costs will be incurred in 
                connection with the modification[.]; and
                    (C) project storage should be reallocated 
                to sustain the tail water trout fisheries.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 563. LAND CONVEYANCES.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) Candy Lake Project, Osage County, Oklahoma.--
            (1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
                    (A) Fair market value.--The term ``fair 
                market value'' means the amount for which a 
                willing buyer would purchase and a willing 
                seller would sell a parcel of land, as 
                determined by a qualified, independent land 
                appraiser.
                    (B) Previous owner of land.--The term 
                ``previous owner of land'' means a person 
                (including a corporation) that conveyed, or a 
                descendant of [a deceased] an individual who 
                conveyed, land to the Corps of Engineers for 
                use in the Candy Lake project in Osage County, 
                Oklahoma.
            (2) Conveyances.--
                    (A) In general.--The Secretary shall convey 
                all right, title, and interest of the United 
                States in and to the land acquired by the 
                United States for the Candy Lake project in 
                Osage County, Oklahoma.
                    (B) Previous owners of land.--
                            (i) In general.--The Secretary 
                        shall give a previous owner of land the 
                        first option to purchase the land 
                        described in subparagraph (A).
                            (ii) Application.--
                                    (I) In general.--A previous 
                                owner of land that desires to 
                                purchase the land described in 
                                paragraph (1) that was owned by 
                                the previous owner of land, or 
                                by the individual from whom the 
                                previous owner of land is 
                                descended, shall file an 
                                application to purchase the 
                                land with the Secretary not 
                                later than 180 days after the 
                                official date of notice to the 
                                previous owner of land under 
                                paragraph (3).
                                    (II) First to file has 
                                first option.--If more than 1 
                                application is filed to 
                                purchase a parcel of land 
                                described in subparagraph (A), 
                                the first option to purchase 
                                the parcel of land shall be 
                                determined in the order in 
                                which applications for the 
                                parcel of land were filed.
                            (iii) Identification of previous 
                        owners of land.--As soon as practicable 
                        after the date of enactment of this 
                        Act, the Secretary shall, to the extent 
                        practicable, identify each previous 
                        owner of land.
                            (iv) Consideration.--Consideration 
                        for land conveyed under this subsection 
                        shall be the fair market value of the 
                        land.
                    (C) Disposal.--Any land described in 
                subparagraph (A) for which an application to 
                purchase the land has not been filed under 
                subparagraph (B)(ii) within the applicable time 
                period shall be disposed of in accordance with 
                law.
                    (D) Extinguishment of easements.--All 
                flowage easements acquired by the United States 
                for use in the Candy Lake project in Osage 
                County, Oklahoma, are extinguished.
            (3) Notice.--
                    (A) In general.--The Secretary shall 
                notify--
                            (i) each person identified as a 
                        previous owner of land under paragraph 
                        (2)(B)(iii), not later than 90 days 
                        after identification, by United States 
                        mail; and
                            (ii) the general public, not later 
                        than 90 days after the date of 
                        enactment of this Act, by publication 
                        in the Federal Register.
                    (B) Contents of notice.--Notice under this 
                paragraph shall include--
                            (i) a copy of this subsection;
                            (ii) information sufficient to 
                        separately identify each parcel of land 
                        subject to this subsection; and
                            (iii) specification of the fair 
                        market value of each parcel of land 
                        subject to this subsection.
                    (C) Official date of notice.--The official 
                date of notice under this subsection shall be 
                the later of--
                            (i) the date on which actual notice 
                        is mailed; or
                            (ii) the date of publication of the 
                        notice in the Federal Register.
            (4) Costs of nepa compliance.--The Federal 
        Government shall assume the costs of any Federal action 
        under this subsection that is carried out for the 
        purpose of section 102 of the National Environmental 
        Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332).
            (5) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
        authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
        necessary to carry out this subsection.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                  

```