" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 110TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

110–280 

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT 

OF 2007 

CONFERENCE REPORT 

TO ACCOMPANY

H.R. 1495 

JULY 31, 2007.—Ordered to be printed 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

36–965 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 110TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2007

110–280 

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT 

OF 2007 

CONFERENCE REPORT 

TO ACCOMPANY

H.R. 1495 

JULY 31, 2007.—Ordered to be printed 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 110–280 

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007 

JULY 31, 2007.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. OBERSTAR, from the committee of conference, 

submitted the following 

CONFERENCE REPORT 

[To accompany H.R. 1495] 

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 

two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 

1495), 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 met, after full 

and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend 

to their respective Houses as follows: 

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as 

follows: 

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate 

amendment, insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Water Resources Development Act of 2007’’. 

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.— 

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. 

Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary. 

TITLE I—WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS 

Sec. 1001. Project authorizations. 

Sec. 1002. Small projects for flood damage reduction. 

Sec. 1003. Small projects for emergency streambank protection. 

Sec. 1004. Small projects for navigation. 

Sec. 1005. Small projects for improvement of the quality of the environment. 

Sec. 1006. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration. 

Sec. 1007. Small projects for shoreline protection. 

Sec. 1008. Small projects for snagging and sediment removal. 

Sec. 1009. Small projects to prevent or mitigate damage caused by navigation 

projects. 

Sec. 1010. Small projects for aquatic plant control. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
2 

TITLE II—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Sec. 2001. Non-Federal contributions. 

Sec. 2002. Funding to process permits. 

Sec. 2003. Written agreement for water resources projects. 

Sec. 2004. Compilation of laws. 

Sec. 2005. Dredged material disposal. 

Sec. 2006. Remote and subsistence harbors. 

Sec. 2007. Use of other Federal funds. 

Sec. 2008. Revision of project partnership agreement; cost sharing. 

Sec. 2009. Expedited actions for emergency flood damage reduction. 

Sec. 2010. Watershed and river basin assessments. 

Sec. 2011. Tribal partnership program. 

Sec. 2012. Wildfire firefighting. 

Sec. 2013. Technical assistance. 

Sec. 2014. Lakes program. 

Sec. 2015. Cooperative agreements. 

Sec. 2016. Training funds. 

Sec. 2017. Access to water resource data. 

Sec. 2018. Shore protection projects. 

Sec. 2019. Ability to pay. 

Sec. 2020. Aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration. 

Sec. 2021. Small flood damage reduction projects. 

Sec. 2022. Small river and harbor improvement projects. 

Sec. 2023. Protection of highways, bridge approaches, public works, and nonprofit 

public services. 

Sec. 2024. Modification of projects for improvement of the quality of the environment. 

Sec. 2025. Remediation of abandoned mine sites. 

Sec. 2026. Leasing authority. 

Sec. 2027. Fiscal transparency report. 

Sec. 2028. Support of Army civil works program. 

Sec. 2029. Sense of Congress on criteria for operation and maintenance of harbor 

dredging projects. 

Sec. 2030. Interagency and international support authority. 

Sec. 2031. Water resources principles and guidelines. 

Sec. 2032. Water resource priorities report. 

Sec. 2033. Planning. 

Sec. 2034. Independent peer review. 

Sec. 2035. Safety assurance review. 

Sec. 2036. Mitigation for fish and wildlife and wetlands losses. 

Sec. 2037. Regional sediment management. 

Sec. 2038. National shoreline erosion control development program. 

Sec. 2039. Monitoring ecosystem restoration. 

Sec. 2040. Electronic submission of permit applications. 

Sec. 2041. Project administration. 

Sec. 2042. Program administration. 

Sec. 2043. Studies and reports for water resources projects. 

Sec. 2044. Coordination and scheduling of Federal, State, and local actions. 

Sec. 2045. Project streamlining. 

Sec. 2046. Project deauthorization. 

Sec. 2047. Federal hopper dredges. 

TITLE III—PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS 

Sec. 3001. Black Warrior-Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama. 

Sec. 3002. Cook Inlet, Alaska. 

Sec. 3003. King Cove Harbor, Alaska. 

Sec. 3004. Seward Harbor, Alaska. 

Sec. 3005. Sitka, Alaska. 

Sec. 3006. Tatitlek, Alaska. 

Sec. 3007. Rio De Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona. 

Sec. 3008. Nogales Wash and tributaries flood control project, Arizona. 

Sec. 3009. Tucson drainage area, Arizona. 

Sec. 3010. Osceola Harbor, Arkansas. 

Sec. 3011. St. Francis River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri. 

Sec. 3012. Pine Mountain Dam, Arkansas. 

Sec. 3013. Red-Ouachita River Basin Levees, Arkansas and Louisiana. 

Sec. 3014. Cache Creek Basin, California. 

Sec. 3015. CALFED stability program, California. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
3 

Sec. 3016. Compton Creek, California. 

Sec. 3017. Grayson Creek/Murderer’s Creek, California. 

Sec. 3018. Hamilton Airfield, California. 

Sec. 3019. John F. Baldwin Ship Channel and Stockton Ship Channel, California. 

Sec. 3020. Kaweah River, California. 

Sec. 3021. Larkspur Ferry Channel, Larkspur, California. 

Sec. 3022. Llagas Creek, California. 

Sec. 3023. Magpie Creek, California. 

Sec. 3024. Pacific Flyway Center, Sacramento, California. 

Sec. 3025. Petaluma River, Petaluma, California. 

Sec. 3026. Pinole Creek, California. 

Sec. 3027. Prado Dam, California. 

Sec. 3028. Redwood City Navigation Channel, California. 

Sec. 3029. Sacramento and American Rivers flood control, California. 

Sec. 3030. Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California. 

Sec. 3031. Sacramento River bank protection, California. 

Sec. 3032. Salton Sea restoration, California. 

Sec. 3033. Santa Ana River Mainstem, California. 

Sec. 3034. Santa Barbara Streams, Lower Mission Creek, California. 

Sec. 3035. Santa Cruz Harbor, California. 

Sec. 3036. Seven Oaks Dam, California. 

Sec. 3037. Upper Guadalupe River, California. 

Sec. 3038. Walnut Creek Channel, California. 

Sec. 3039. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase I, California. 

Sec. 3040. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase II, California. 

Sec. 3041. Yuba River Basin project, California. 

Sec. 3042. South Platte River basin, Colorado. 

Sec. 3043. Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, Delaware 

and Maryland. 

Sec. 3044. St. George’s Bridge, Delaware. 

Sec. 3045. Brevard County, Florida. 

Sec. 3046. Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet, Florida. 

Sec. 3047. Canaveral Harbor, Florida. 

Sec. 3048. Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida. 

Sec. 3049. Lido Key Beach, Sarasota, Florida. 

Sec. 3050. Peanut Island, Florida. 

Sec. 3051. Port Sutton, Florida. 

Sec. 3052. Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida. 

Sec. 3053. Tampa Harbor Cut B, Florida. 

Sec. 3054. Allatoona Lake, Georgia. 

Sec. 3055. Latham River, Glynn County, Georgia. 

Sec. 3056. Dworshak Reservoir improvements, Idaho. 

Sec. 3057. Little Wood River, Gooding, Idaho. 

Sec. 3058. Beardstown Community Boat Harbor, Beardstown, Illinois. 

Sec. 3059. Cache River Levee, Illinois. 

Sec. 3060. Chicago River, Illinois. 

Sec. 3061. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal dispersal barriers project, Illinois. 

Sec. 3062. Emiquon, Illinois. 

Sec. 3063. Lasalle, Illinois. 

Sec. 3064. Spunky Bottoms, Illinois. 

Sec. 3065. Cedar Lake, Indiana. 

Sec. 3066. Koontz Lake, Indiana. 

Sec. 3067. White River, Indiana. 

Sec. 3068. Des Moines River and Greenbelt, Iowa. 

Sec. 3069. Perry Creek, Iowa. 

Sec. 3070. Rathbun Lake, Iowa. 

Sec. 3071. Hickman Bluff stabilization, Kentucky. 

Sec. 3072. Mcalpine Lock and Dam, Kentucky and Indiana. 

Sec. 3073. Prestonsburg, Kentucky. 

Sec. 3074. Amite River and tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge Parish Watershed. 

Sec. 3075. Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana. 

Sec. 3076. Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, regional visitor center, Louisiana. 

Sec. 3077. Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black, Louisiana. 

Sec. 3078. Bayou Plaquemine, Louisiana. 

Sec. 3079. Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana. 

Sec. 3080. Red River (J. Bennett Johnston) Waterway, Louisiana. 

Sec. 3081. Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana. 

Sec. 3082. Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet relocation assistance, Louisiana. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
4 

Sec. 3083. Violet, Louisiana. 

Sec. 3084. West bank of the Mississippi River (East of Harvey Canal), Louisiana. 

Sec. 3085. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine. 

Sec. 3086. Cumberland, Maryland. 

Sec. 3087. Poplar Island, Maryland. 

Sec. 3088. Detroit River shoreline, Detroit, Michigan. 

Sec. 3089. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan. 

Sec. 3090. St. Joseph Harbor, Michigan. 

Sec. 3091. Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan. 

Sec. 3092. Ada, Minnesota. 

Sec. 3093. Duluth Harbor, McQuade Road, Minnesota. 

Sec. 3094. Grand Marais, Minnesota. 

Sec. 3095. Grand Portage Harbor, Minnesota. 

Sec. 3096. Granite Falls, Minnesota. 

Sec. 3097. Knife River Harbor, Minnesota. 

Sec. 3098. Red Lake River, Minnesota. 

Sec. 3099. Silver Bay, Minnesota. 

Sec. 3100. Taconite Harbor, Minnesota. 

Sec. 3101. Two Harbors, Minnesota. 

Sec. 3102. Deer Island, Harrison County, Mississippi. 

Sec. 3103. Jackson County, Mississippi. 

Sec. 3104. Pearl River Basin, Mississippi. 

Sec. 3105. Festus and Crystal City, Missouri. 

Sec. 3106. L–15 levee, Missouri. 

Sec. 3107. Monarch-Chesterfield, Missouri. 

Sec. 3108. River Des Peres, Missouri. 

Sec. 3109. Lower Yellowstone project, Montana. 

Sec. 3110. Yellowstone River and tributaries, Montana and North Dakota. 

Sec. 3111. Antelope Creek, Lincoln, Nebraska. 

Sec. 3112. Sand Creek watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska. 

Sec. 3113. Western Sarpy and Clear Creek, Nebraska. 

Sec. 3114. Lower Truckee River, McCarran Ranch, Nevada. 

Sec. 3115. Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey. 

Sec. 3116. Passaic River basin flood management, New Jersey. 

Sec. 3117. Cooperative agreements, New Mexico. 

Sec. 3118. Middle Rio Grande restoration, New Mexico. 

Sec. 3119. Buffalo Harbor, New York. 

Sec. 3120. Long Island Sound oyster restoration, New York and Connecticut. 

Sec. 3121. Mamaroneck and Sheldrake Rivers watershed management, New York. 

Sec. 3122. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York. 

Sec. 3123. Port of New York and New Jersey, New York and New Jersey. 

Sec. 3124. New York State Canal System. 

Sec. 3125. Susquehanna River and Upper Delaware River watershed management, 

New York. 

Sec. 3126. Missouri River restoration, North Dakota. 

Sec. 3127. Wahpeton, North Dakota. 

Sec. 3128. Ohio. 

Sec. 3129. Lower Girard Lake Dam, Girard, Ohio. 

Sec. 3130. Mahoning River, Ohio. 

Sec. 3131. Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma. 

Sec. 3132. Arkansas River Corridor, Oklahoma. 

Sec. 3133. Lake Eufaula, Oklahoma. 

Sec. 3134. Oklahoma lakes demonstration program, Oklahoma. 

Sec. 3135. Ottawa County, Oklahoma. 

Sec. 3136. Red River chloride control, Oklahoma and Texas. 

Sec. 3137. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma. 

Sec. 3138. Upper Willamette River watershed ecosystem restoration, Oregon. 

Sec. 3139. Delaware River, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. 

Sec. 3140. Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania. 

Sec. 3141. Sheraden Park Stream and Chartiers Creek, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. 

Sec. 3142. Solomon’s Creek, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. 

Sec. 3143. South Central Pennsylvania. 

Sec. 3144. Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania. 

Sec. 3145. Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island. 

Sec. 3146. Missouri River Restoration, South Dakota. 

Sec. 3147. Cedar Bayou, Texas. 

Sec. 3148. Freeport Harbor, Texas. 

Sec. 3149. Lake Kemp, Texas. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
5 

Sec. 3150. Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas. 

Sec. 3151. North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay, Texas. 

Sec. 3152. Pat Mayse Lake, Texas. 

Sec. 3153. Proctor Lake, Texas. 

Sec. 3154. San Antonio Channel, San Antonio, Texas. 

Sec. 3155. Connecticut River restoration, Vermont. 

Sec. 3156. Dam remediation, Vermont. 

Sec. 3157. Lake Champlain Eurasian milfoil, water chestnut, and other nonnative 

plant control, Vermont. 

Sec. 3158. Upper Connecticut River Basin wetland restoration, Vermont and New 

Hampshire. 

Sec. 3159. Upper Connecticut River basin ecosystem restoration, Vermont and New 

Hampshire. 

Sec. 3160. Lake Champlain watershed, Vermont and New York. 

Sec. 3161. Sandbridge Beach, Virginia Beach, Virginia. 

Sec. 3162. Tangier Island Seawall, Virginia. 

Sec. 3163. Duwamish/Green, Washington. 

Sec. 3164. McNary Lock and Dam, McNary National Wildlife Refuge, Washington 

and Idaho. 

Sec. 3165. Snake River project, Washington and Idaho. 

Sec. 3166. Yakima River, Port of Sunnyside, Washington. 

Sec. 3167. Bluestone Lake, Ohio River Basin, West Virginia. 

Sec. 3168. Greenbrier River basin, West Virginia. 

Sec. 3169. Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp, West Virginia. 

Sec. 3170. Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia. 

Sec. 3171. Mcdowell County, West Virginia. 

Sec. 3172. Parkersburg, West Virginia. 

Sec. 3173. Green Bay Harbor, Green Bay, Wisconsin. 

Sec. 3174. Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin. 

Sec. 3175. Mississippi River headwaters reservoirs. 

Sec. 3176. Upper basin of Missouri River. 

Sec. 3177. Upper Mississippi River System environmental management program. 

Sec. 3178. Upper Ohio River and Tributaries navigation system new technology pilot 

program. 

Sec. 3179. Continuation of project authorizations. 

Sec. 3180. Project reauthorizations. 

Sec. 3181. Project deauthorizations. 

Sec. 3182. Land conveyances. 

Sec. 3183. Extinguishment of reversionary interests and use restrictions. 

TITLE IV—STUDIES 

Sec. 4001. John Glenn Great Lakes Basin Program. 

Sec. 4002. Lake Erie dredged material disposal sites. 

Sec. 4003. Southwestern United States drought study. 

Sec. 4004. Delaware River. 

Sec. 4005. Eurasian milfoil. 

Sec. 4006. Fire Island, Alaska. 

Sec. 4007. Knik Arm, Cook Inlet, Alaska. 

Sec. 4008. Kuskokwim River, Alaska. 

Sec. 4009. Nome Harbor, Alaska. 

Sec. 4010. St. George Harbor, Alaska. 

Sec. 4011. Susitna River, Alaska. 

Sec. 4012. Valdez, Alaska. 

Sec. 4013. Gila Bend, Maricopa, Arizona. 

Sec. 4014. Searcy County, Arkansas. 

Sec. 4015. Aliso Creek, California. 

Sec. 4016. Fresno, Kings, and Kern counties, California. 

Sec. 4017. Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge, Alameda, California. 

Sec. 4018. Los Angeles River revitalization study, California. 

Sec. 4019. Lytle Creek, Rialto, California. 

Sec. 4020. Mokelumne River, San Joaquin County, California. 

Sec. 4021. Orick, California. 

Sec. 4022. Shoreline study, Oceanside, California. 

Sec. 4023. Rialto, Fontana, and Colton, California. 

Sec. 4024. Sacramento River, California. 

Sec. 4025. San Diego County, California. 

Sec. 4026. San Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California. 

Sec. 4027. South San Francisco Bay Shoreline, California. 

Sec. 4028. Twentynine Palms, California. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
6 

Sec. 4029. Yucca Valley, California. 

Sec. 4030. Selenium studies, Colorado. 

Sec. 4031. Delaware and Christina Rivers and Shellpot Creek, Wilmington, Delaware. Sec. 4032. Delaware inland bays and tributaries and Atlantic coast, Delaware. 

Sec. 4033. Collier County Beaches, Florida. 

Sec. 4034. Lower St. Johns River, Florida. 

Sec. 4035. Herbert Hoover Dike supplemental major rehabilitation report, Florida. 

Sec. 4036. Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon, Florida. 

Sec. 4037. Meriwether County, Georgia. 

Sec. 4038. Boise River, Idaho. 

Sec. 4039. Ballard’s Island Side Channel, Illinois. 

Sec. 4040. Chicago, Illinois. 

Sec. 4041. Salem, Indiana. 

Sec. 4042. Buckhorn Lake, Kentucky. 

Sec. 4043. Dewey Lake, Kentucky. 

Sec. 4044. Louisville, Kentucky. 

Sec. 4045. Vidalia Port, Louisiana. 

Sec. 4046. Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. 

Sec. 4047. Clinton River, Michigan. 

Sec. 4048. Hamburg and Green Oak Townships, Michigan. 

Sec. 4049. Lake Erie at Luna Pier, Michigan. 

Sec. 4050. Duluth-Superior Harbor, Minnesota and Wisconsin. 

Sec. 4051. Northeast Mississippi. 

Sec. 4052. Dredged material disposal, New Jersey. 

Sec. 4053. Bayonne, New Jersey. 

Sec. 4054. Carteret, New Jersey. 

Sec. 4055. Gloucester County, New Jersey. 

Sec. 4056. Perth Amboy, New Jersey. 

Sec. 4057. Batavia, New York. 

Sec. 4058. Big Sister Creek, Evans, New York. 

Sec. 4059. Finger Lakes, New York. 

Sec. 4060. Lake Erie Shoreline, Buffalo, New York. 

Sec. 4061. Newtown Creek, New York. 

Sec. 4062. Niagara River, New York. 

Sec. 4063. Shore Parkway Greenway, Brooklyn, New York. 

Sec. 4064. Upper Delaware River watershed, New York. 

Sec. 4065. Lincoln County, North Carolina. 

Sec. 4066. Wilkes County, North Carolina. 

Sec. 4067. Yadkinville, North Carolina. 

Sec. 4068. Flood damage reduction, Ohio. 

Sec. 4069. Lake Erie, Ohio. 

Sec. 4070. Ohio River, Ohio. 

Sec. 4071. Toledo Harbor dredged material placement, Toledo, Ohio. 

Sec. 4072. Toledo Harbor, Maumee River, and Lake Channel project, Toledo, Ohio. 

Sec. 4073. Ecosystem restoration and fish passage improvements, Oregon. 

Sec. 4074. Walla Walla River basin, Oregon. 

Sec. 4075. Chartiers Creek watershed, Pennsylvania. 

Sec. 4076. Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir, Pennsylvania. 

Sec. 4077. Western Pennsylvania flood damage reduction. 

Sec. 4078. Williamsport, Pennsylvania. 

Sec. 4079. Yardley Borough, Pennsylvania. 

Sec. 4080. Rio Valenciano, Juncos, Puerto Rico. 

Sec. 4081. Woonsocket local protection project, Blackstone River basin, Rhode Island. 

Sec. 4082. Crooked Creek, Bennettsville, South Carolina. 

Sec. 4083. Broad River, York County, South Carolina. 

Sec. 4084. Savannah River, South Carolina and Georgia. 

Sec. 4085. Chattanooga, Tennessee. 

Sec. 4086. Cleveland, Tennessee. 

Sec. 4087. Cumberland River, Nashville, Tennessee. 

Sec. 4088. Lewis, Lawrence, and Wayne Counties, Tennessee. 

Sec. 4089. Wolf River and Nonconnah Creek, Memphis, Tennessee. 

Sec. 4090. Abilene, Texas. 

Sec. 4091. Coastal Texas ecosystem protection and restoration, Texas. 

Sec. 4092. Port of Galveston, Texas. 

Sec. 4093. Grand County and Moab, Utah. 

Sec. 4094. Southwestern Utah. 

Sec. 4095. Ecosystem and hydropower generation dams, Vermont. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
7 

Sec. 4096. Elliott Bay Seawall, Seattle, Washington. 

Sec. 4097. Monongahela River Basin, Northern West Virginia. 

Sec. 4098. Kenosha Harbor, Wisconsin. 

Sec. 4099. Johnsonville Dam, Johnsonville, Wisconsin. 

Sec. 4100. Wauwatosa, Wisconsin. 

Sec. 4101. Debris removal. 

TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUS 

Sec. 5001. Maintenance of navigation channels. 

Sec. 5002. Watershed management. 

Sec. 5003. Dam safety. 

Sec. 5004. Structural integrity evaluations. 

Sec. 5005. Flood mitigation priority areas. 

Sec. 5006. Additional assistance for authorized projects. 

Sec. 5007. Expedited completion of reports and construction for certain projects. 

Sec. 5008. Expedited completion of reports for certain projects. 

Sec. 5009. Southeastern water resources assessment. 

Sec. 5010. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers enhancement project. 

Sec. 5011. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration program. 

Sec. 5012. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation. 

Sec. 5013. Great Lakes tributary models. 

Sec. 5014. Great Lakes navigation and protection. 

Sec. 5015. Saint Lawrence Seaway. 

Sec. 5016. Upper Mississippi River dispersal barrier project. 

Sec. 5017. Estuary restoration. 

Sec. 5018. Missouri River and tributaries, mitigation, recovery, and restoration, 

Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. 

Sec. 5019. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River basins, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. 

Sec. 5020. Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and protection program. 

Sec. 5021. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration, Virginia and Maryland. 

Sec. 5022. Hypoxia assessment. 

Sec. 5023. Potomac River watershed assessment and tributary strategy evaluation 

and monitoring program. 

Sec. 5024. Lock and dam security. 

Sec. 5025. Research and development program for Columbia and Snake River salmon survival. 

Sec. 5026. Wage surveys. 

Sec. 5027. Rehabilitation. 

Sec. 5028. Auburn, Alabama. 

Sec. 5029. Pinhook Creek, Huntsville, Alabama. 

Sec. 5030. Alaska. 

Sec. 5031. Barrow, Alaska. 

Sec. 5032. Lowell Creek Tunnel, Seward, Alaska. 

Sec. 5033. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska. 

Sec. 5034. Tanana River, Alaska. 

Sec. 5035. Wrangell Harbor, Alaska. 

Sec. 5036. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas. 

Sec. 5037. Des Arc levee protection, Arkansas. 

Sec. 5038. Loomis Landing, Arkansas. 

Sec. 5039. California. 

Sec. 5040. Calaveras River and Littlejohn Creek and tributaries, Stockton, California. 

Sec. 5041. Cambria, California. 

Sec. 5042. Contra Costa Canal, Oakley and Knightsen, California; Mallard Slough, 

Pittsburg, California. 

Sec. 5043. Dana Point Harbor, California. 

Sec. 5044. East San Joaquin County, California. 

Sec. 5045. Eastern Santa Clara basin, California. 

Sec. 5046. LA–3 dredged material ocean disposal site designation, California. 

Sec. 5047. Lancaster, California. 

Sec. 5048. Los Osos, California. 

Sec. 5049. Pine Flat Dam fish and wildlife habitat, California. 

Sec. 5050. Raymond Basin, Six Basins, Chino Basin, and San Gabriel Basin, California. 

Sec. 5051. San Francisco, California. 

Sec. 5052. San Francisco, California, waterfront area. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
8 

Sec. 5053. San Pablo Bay, California, watershed and Suisun Marsh ecosystem restoration. 

Sec. 5054. St. Helena, California. 

Sec. 5055. Upper Calaveras River, Stockton, California. 

Sec. 5056. Rio Grande environmental management program, Colorado, New Mexico, 

and Texas. 

Sec. 5057. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, New Haven Harbor, Connecticut. 

Sec. 5058. Stamford, Connecticut. 

Sec. 5059. Delmarva conservation corridor, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. 

Sec. 5060. Anacostia River, District of Columbia and Maryland. 

Sec. 5061. East Central and Northeast Florida. 

Sec. 5062. Florida Keys water quality improvements. 

Sec. 5063. Lake Worth, Florida. 

Sec. 5064. Big Creek, Georgia, watershed management and restoration program. 

Sec. 5065. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District. 

Sec. 5066. Savannah, Georgia. 

Sec. 5067. Idaho, Montana, rural Nevada, New Mexico, rural Utah, and Wyoming. 

Sec. 5068. Riley Creek Recreation Area, Idaho. 

Sec. 5069. Floodplain mapping, Little Calumet River, Chicago, Illinois. 

Sec. 5070. Reconstruction of Illinois and Missouri flood protection projects. 

Sec. 5071. Illinois River basin restoration. 

Sec. 5072. Promontory Point third-party review, Chicago shoreline, Chicago, Illinois. 

Sec. 5073. Kaskaskia River basin, Illinois, restoration. 

Sec. 5074. Southwest Illinois. 

Sec. 5075. Calumet region, Indiana. 

Sec. 5076. Floodplain mapping, Missouri River, Iowa. 

Sec. 5077. Paducah, Kentucky. 

Sec. 5078. Southern and eastern Kentucky. 

Sec. 5079. Winchester, Kentucky. 

Sec. 5080. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 

Sec. 5081. Calcasieu Ship Channel, Louisiana. 

Sec. 5082. East Atchafalaya basin and Amite River basin region, Louisiana. 

Sec. 5083. Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock project, Louisiana. 

Sec. 5084. Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana. 

Sec. 5085. Southeast Louisiana region, Louisiana. 

Sec. 5086. West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. 

Sec. 5087. Charlestown, Maryland. 

Sec. 5088. St. Mary’s River, Maryland. 

Sec. 5089. Massachusetts dredged material disposal sites. 

Sec. 5090. Ontonagon Harbor, Michigan. 

Sec. 5091. Crookston, Minnesota. 

Sec. 5092. Garrison and Kathio Township, Minnesota. 

Sec. 5093. Itasca County, Minnesota. 

Sec. 5094. Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

Sec. 5095. Northeastern Minnesota. 

Sec. 5096. Wild Rice River, Minnesota. 

Sec. 5097. Mississippi. 

Sec. 5098. Harrison, Hancock, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi. 

Sec. 5099. Mississippi River, Missouri and Illinois. 

Sec. 5100. St. Louis, Missouri. 

Sec. 5101. St. Louis Regional Greenways, St. Louis, Missouri. 

Sec. 5102. Missoula, Montana. 

Sec. 5103. St. Mary project, Glacier County, Montana. 

Sec. 5104. Lower Platte River watershed restoration, Nebraska. 

Sec. 5105. Hackensack Meadowlands area, New Jersey. 

Sec. 5106. Atlantic Coast of New York. 

Sec. 5107. College Point, New York City, New York. 

Sec. 5108. Flushing Bay and Creek, New York City, New York. 

Sec. 5109. Hudson River, New York. 

Sec. 5110. Mount Morris Dam, New York. 

Sec. 5111. North Hempstead and Glen Cove North Shore watershed restoration, 

New York. 

Sec. 5112. Rochester, New York. 

Sec. 5113. North Carolina. 

Sec. 5114. Stanly County, North Carolina. 

Sec. 5115. John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina. 

Sec. 5116. Cincinnati, Ohio. 

Sec. 5117. Ohio River basin environmental management. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
9 

Sec. 5118. Toussaint River navigation project, Carroll Township, Ohio. 

Sec. 5119. Statewide comprehensive water planning, Oklahoma. 

Sec. 5120. Fern Ridge Dam, Oregon. 

Sec. 5121. Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. 

Sec. 5122. Clinton County, Pennsylvania. 

Sec. 5123. Kehly Run Dams, Pennsylvania. 

Sec. 5124. Lehigh River, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. 

Sec. 5125. Northeast Pennsylvania. 

Sec. 5126. Upper Susquehanna River basin, Pennsylvania and New York. 

Sec. 5127. Cano Martin Pena, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 

Sec. 5128. Lakes Marion and Moultrie, South Carolina. 

Sec. 5129. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and terrestrial 

wildlife habitat restoration, South Dakota. 

Sec. 5130. East Tennessee. 

Sec. 5131. Fritz Landing, Tennessee. 

Sec. 5132. J. Percy Priest Dam and Reservoir, Tennessee. 

Sec. 5133. Nashville, Tennessee. 

Sec. 5134. Nonconnah Weir, Memphis, Tennessee. 

Sec. 5135. Tennessee River partnership. 

Sec. 5136. Town Creek, Lenoir City, Tennessee. 

Sec. 5137. Upper Mississippi embayment, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Mississippi. 

Sec. 5138. Texas. 

Sec. 5139. Bosque River watershed, Texas. 

Sec. 5140. Dallas County region, Texas. 

Sec. 5141. Dallas Floodway, Dallas, Texas. 

Sec. 5142. Harris County, Texas. 

Sec. 5143. Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas. 

Sec. 5144. Onion Creek, Texas. 

Sec. 5145. Connecticut River dams, Vermont. 

Sec. 5146. Lake Champlain Canal, Vermont and New York. 

Sec. 5147. Dyke Marsh, Fairfax County, Virginia. 

Sec. 5148. Eastern Shore and Southwest Virginia. 

Sec. 5149. James River, Virginia. 

Sec. 5150. Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington. 

Sec. 5151. Hamilton Island campground, Washington. 

Sec. 5152. Erosion control, Puget Island, Wahkiakum County, Washington. 

Sec. 5153. Willapa Bay, Washington. 

Sec. 5154. West Virginia and Pennsylvania flood control. 

Sec. 5155. Central West Virginia. 

Sec. 5156. Southern West Virginia. 

Sec. 5157. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal interests. 

Sec. 5158. Additional assistance for critical projects. 

TITLE VI—FLORIDA EVERGLADES 

Sec. 6001. Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida. 

Sec. 6002. Pilot projects. 

Sec. 6003. Maximum costs. 

Sec. 6004. Credit. 

Sec. 6005. Outreach and assistance. 

Sec. 6006. Critical restoration projects. 

Sec. 6007. Regional engineering model for environmental restoration. 

TITLE VII—LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA 

Sec. 7001. Definitions. 

Sec. 7002. Comprehensive plan. 

Sec. 7003. Louisiana coastal area. 

Sec. 7004. Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task Force. 

Sec. 7005. Project modifications. 

Sec. 7006. Construction. 

Sec. 7007. Non-Federal cost share. 

Sec. 7008. Project justification. 

Sec. 7009. Independent review. 

Sec. 7010. Expedited reports. 

Sec. 7011. Reporting. 

Sec. 7012. New Orleans and vicinity. 

Sec. 7013. Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet. 

Sec. 7014. Hurricane and storm damage reduction. 

Sec. 7015. Larose to Golden Meadow. 

Sec. 7016. Lower Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
10 

TITLE VIII—UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATER-WAY 

SYSTEM 

Sec. 8001. Definitions. 

Sec. 8002. Navigation improvements and restoration. 

Sec. 8003. Authorization of construction of navigation improvements. 

Sec. 8004. Ecosystem restoration authorization. 

Sec. 8005. Comparable progress. 

TITLE IX—NATIONAL LEVEE SAFETY PROGRAM 

Sec. 9001. Short title. 

Sec. 9002. Definitions. 

Sec. 9003. Committee on Levee Safety. 

Sec. 9004. Inventory and inspection of levees. 

Sec. 9005. Limitations on statutory construction. 

Sec. 9006. Authorization of appropriations. 

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY. 

In this Act, the term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of the 

Army. 

TITLE I—WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS 

SEC. 1001. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS. 

Except as otherwise provided in this section, the following 

projects for water resources development and conservation and other 

purposes are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, 

described in the respective reports designated in this section: 

(1) HAINES, ALASKA.—The project for navigation, Haines, 

Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 20, 

2004, at a total cost of $14,040,000, with an estimated Federal 

cost of $11,232,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$2,808,000. 

(2) PORT LIONS, ALASKA.—The project for navigation, Port 

Lions, Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated June 14, 

2006, at a total cost of $9,530,000, with an estimated Federal 

cost of $7,624,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$1,906,000. 

(3) SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, ARIZONA.—

The project for environmental restoration, Santa Cruz River, 

Pima County, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 

March 28, 2006, at a total cost of $97,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $63,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $34,400,000. 

(4) TANQUE VERDE CREEK, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA.—The 

project for environmental restoration, Tanque Verde Creek, 

Pima County, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 

July 22, 2003, at a total cost of $5,906,000, with an estimated 

Federal cost of $3,836,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$2,070,000. 

(5) SALT RIVER (RIO SALADO OESTE), MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.—The project for environmental restoration, Salt River 

(Rio Salado Oeste), Maricopa County, Arizona: Report of the 

Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a total cost of 

$166,650,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $106,629,000 

and an estimated non-Federal cost of $60,021,000. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
11 

(6) SALT RIVER (VA SHLY’AY AKIMEL), MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for environmental restoration, Salt River (Va Shly’ay Akimel), Arizona: Report of 

the Chief of Engineers dated January 3, 2005, at a total 

cost of $162,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$105,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$56,900,000. 

(B) COORDINATION WITH FEDERAL RECLAMATION

PROJECTS.—The Secretary, to the maximum extent practicable, shall coordinate the design and construction of the 

project described in subparagraph (A) with the Bureau of 

Reclamation and any operating agent for any Federal reclamation project in the Salt River Basin to avoid impacts 

to existing Federal reclamation facilities and operations in 

the Salt River Basin. 

(7) MAY BRANCH, FORT SMITH, ARKANSAS.—The project for 

flood damage reduction, May Branch, Fort Smith, Arkansas: 

Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at 

a total cost of $30,850,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$15,010,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,840,000. 

(8) HAMILTON CITY, GLENN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—The 

project for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration, Hamilton City, Glenn County, California: Report of the 

Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a total cost of 

$52,400,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $34,100,000 and 

estimated non-Federal cost of $18,300,000. 

(9) SILVER STRAND SHORELINE, IMPERIAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA.—The project for storm damage reduction, Silver 

Strand Shoreline, Imperial Beach, California: Report of the 

Chief of Engineers dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost of 

$13,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $8,521,000 and 

an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,179,000, and at an estimated total cost of $42,500,000 for periodic beach nourishment 

over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal 

cost of $21,250,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$21,250,000. 

(10) MATILIJA DAM, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—The 

project for environmental restoration, Matilija Dam, Ventura 

County, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 20, 2004, at a total cost of $144,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $89,700,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $54,800,000. 

(11) MIDDLE CREEK, LAKE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—The 

project for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration, Middle Creek, Lake County, California: Report of the Chief 

of Engineers dated November 29, 2004, at a total cost of 

$45,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $29,500,000 and 

an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,700,000. 

(12) NAPA RIVER SALT MARSH RESTORATION, CALIFORNIA.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for environmental restoration, Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration, Napa, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 

2004, at a total cost of $134,500,000, with an estimated 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
12 

Federal cost of $87,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal 

cost of $47,000,000. 

(B) ADMINISTRATION.—In carrying out the project authorized by this paragraph, the Secretary shall— (i) construct a recycled water pipeline extending 

from the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District 

Waste Water Treatment Plant and the Napa Sanitation 

District Waste Water Treatment Plant to the project; 

and 

(ii) restore or enhance Salt Ponds 1, 1A, 2, and 3. 

(13) DENVER COUNTY REACH, SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, DENVER, COLORADO.—The project for environmental restoration, 

Denver County Reach, South Platte River, Denver, Colorado: 

Report of the Chief of Engineers dated May 16, 2003, at a total 

cost of $20,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$13,065,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,035,000. 

(14) CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, INDIAN RIVER LA- GOON, FLORIDA.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry out the 

project for ecosystem restoration, water supply, flood control, and protection of water quality, Central and Southern 

Florida, Indian River Lagoon, Florida, at a total cost of 

$1,365,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$682,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$682,500,000, in accordance with section 601 of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680) and 

the recommendations of the report of the Chief of Engineers 

dated August 6, 2004. 

(B) DEAUTHORIZATIONS.—The following projects are 

not authorized after the date of enactment of this Act: 

(i) The uncompleted portions of the project for the 

C–44 Basin Storage Reservoir of the Comprehensive 

Everglades Restoration Plan, authorized by section 

601(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 2000 (114 Stat. 2682), at a total cost of 

$147,800,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$73,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$73,900,000. 

(ii) The uncompleted portions of the Martin County, Florida, modifications to the project for Central and 

Southern Florida, authorized by section 203 of the 

Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740), at a total cost 

of $15,471,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$8,073,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$7,398,000. 

(iii) The uncompleted portions of the East Coast 

Backpumping, St. Lucie-Martin County, Spillway 

Structure S–311 modifications to the project for Central and Southern Florida, authorized by section 203 of 

the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740), at a total 

cost of $77,118,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$55,124,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$21,994,000. 

(15) COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, PICAYUNE STRAND RESTORATION


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
13 

PROJECT, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.—The project for ecosystem 

restoration, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida, Picayune Strand Restoration 

Project, Collier County, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September 15, 2005, at a total cost of $375,330,000 

with an estimated Federal cost of $187,665,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $187,665,000. 

(16) COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, CEN- TRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, SITE 1 IMPOUNDMENT PROJECT, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA.—The project for ecosystem restoration, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central 

and Southern Florida, Site 1 Impoundment Project, Palm 

Beach County, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 

December 19, 2006, at a total cost of $80,840,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $40,420,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $40,420,000. 

(17) MIAMI HARBOR, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation, Miami 

Harbor, Miami-Dade County, Florida: Report of the Chief 

of Engineers dated April 25, 2005, at a total cost of 

$125,270,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$75,140,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$50,130,000. 

(B) GENERAL REEVALUATION REPORT.—The non-Federal share of the cost of the general reevaluation report that 

resulted in the report of the Chief of Engineers referred to 

in subparagraph (A) shall be the same percentage as the 

non-Federal share of cost of construction of the project. 

(C) AGREEMENT.—The Secretary shall enter into a new 

partnership with the non-Federal interest to reflect the cost 

sharing required by subparagraph (B). 

(18) EAST ST. LOUIS AND VICINITY, ILLINOIS.—The project 

for environmental restoration and recreation, East St. Louis 

and Vicinity, Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 

December 22, 2004, at a total cost of $208,260,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $134,910,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $73,350,000. 

(19) PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, ILLINOIS.—The 

project for environmental restoration, Peoria Riverfront Development, Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 28, 

2003, at a total cost of $18,220,000, with an estimated Federal 

cost of $11,840,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$6,380,000. 

(20) WOOD RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM RECONSTRUCTION, MADISON COUNTY, ILLINOIS.—The project for flood damage reduction, 

Wood River Levee System Reconstruction, Madison County, Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 18, 2006, at 

a total cost of $17,220,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$11,193,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,027,000. 

(21) DES MOINES AND RACCOON RIVERS, DES MOINES, IOWA.—The project for flood damage reduction, Des Moines and 

Raccoon Rivers, Des Moines, Iowa: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated March 28, 2006, at a total cost of $10,780,000, with 

an estimated Federal cost of $6,967,000 and an estimated nonFederal cost of $3,813,000. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
14 

(22) LICKING RIVER BASIN, CYNTHIANA, KENTUCKY.—The 

project for flood damage reduction, Licking River Basin, 

Cynthiana, Kentucky: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 

October 24, 2006, at a total cost of $18,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $11,830,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,370,000. 

(23) BAYOU SORREL LOCK, LOUISIANA.—The project for navigation, Bayou Sorrel Lock, Louisiana: Report of the Chief of 

Engineers dated January 3, 2005, at a total cost of $9,600,000. 

The costs of construction of the project are to be paid 1⁄2 from 

amounts appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury 

and 1⁄2 from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways 

Trust Fund. 

(24) MORGANZA TO THE GULF OF MEXICO, LOUISIANA.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for hurricane and storm 

damage reduction, Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana: Reports of the Chief of Engineers dated August 23, 

2002, and July 22, 2003, at a total cost of $886,700,000, 

with an estimated Federal cost of $576,355,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $310,345,000. 

(B) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The operation, 

maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of the 

Houma Navigation Canal lock complex and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway floodgate features of the project described 

in subparagraph (A) that provide for inland waterway 

transportation shall be a Federal responsibility in accordance with section 102 of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2212). 

(25) PORT OF IBERIA, LOUISIANA.—The project for navigation, Port of Iberia, Louisiana: Report of the Chief of Engineers 

dated December 31, 2006, at a total cost of $131,250,000, with 

an estimated Federal cost of $105,315,000 and an estimated 

non-Federal cost of $25,935,000; except that the Secretary, in 

consultation with Vermillion and Iberia Parishes, Louisiana, 

and consistent with the mitigation plan in the report, shall use 

available dredged material and rock placement on the south 

bank of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and the west bank of 

the Freshwater Bayou Channel to provide incidental storm 

surge protection that does not adversely affect the mitigation 

plan. 

(26) SMITH ISLAND, SOMERSET COUNTY, MARYLAND.—The 

project for environmental restoration, Smith Island, Somerset 

County, Maryland: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 29, 2001, at a total cost of $15,580,000, with an estimated 

Federal cost of $10,127,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 

of $5,453,000. 

(27) ROSEAU RIVER, ROSEAU, MINNESOTA.—The project for 

flood damage reduction, Roseau River, Roseau, Minnesota: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a 

total cost of $25,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$13,820,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,280,000. 

(28) ARGENTINE, EAST BOTTOMS, FAIRFAX-JERSEY CREEK, AND NORTH KANSAS LEVEES UNITS, MISSOURI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES AT KANSAS CITIES, MISSOURI AND KANSAS.—The project 

for flood damage reduction, Argentine, East Bottoms, FairfaxVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:35 Aug 04, 2007 Jkt 036965 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR280.XXX HR280

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
15 

Jersey Creek, and North Kansas Levees units, Missouri River 

and tributaries at Kansas Cities, Missouri and Kansas: Report 

of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a total 

cost of $65,430,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$42,530,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $22,900,000. 

(29) SWOPE PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA, BLUE RIVER, KANSAS

CITY, MISSOURI.—The project for flood damage reduction, Swope 

Park Industrial Area, Blue River, Kansas City, Missouri: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 30, 2003, at a 

total cost of $16,980,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$11,037,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,943,000. 

(30) GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET TO TOWNSENDS INLET, NEW

JERSEY.—The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet, New Jersey: 

Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 24, 2006, at a 

total cost of $54,360,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$35,069,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $19,291,000, 

and at an estimated total cost of $202,500,000 for periodic 

nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal cost of $101,250,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $101,250,000. 

(31) HUDSON RARITAN ESTUARY, LIBERTY STATE PARK, NEW

JERSEY.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for environmental restoration, Hudson Raritan Estuary, Liberty State Park, New 

Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated August 25, 

2006, at a total cost of $34,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $22,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 

of $11,900,000. 

(B) RESTORATION TEAMS.—In carrying out the project, 

the Secretary shall establish and utilize watershed restoration teams composed of estuary restoration experts from the 

Corps of Engineers, the New Jersey department of environmental protection, and the Port Authority of New York and 

New Jersey and other experts designated by the Secretary 

for the purpose of developing habitat restoration and water 

quality enhancement. 

(32) NEW JERSEY SHORE PROTECTION STUDY, MANASQUAN

INLET TO BARNEGAT INLET, NEW JERSEY.—The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, New Jersey Shore Protection 

Study, Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey: Report 

of the Chief of Engineers dated December 30, 2003, at a total 

cost of $71,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$46,735,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $25,165,000, 

and at an estimated total cost of $119,680,000 for periodic 

beach nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an 

estimated Federal cost of $59,840,000 and an estimated nonFederal cost of $59,840,000. 

(33) RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, UNION BEACH, NEW

JERSEY.—The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Union Beach, New 

Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated January 4, 2006, 

at a total cost of $115,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost 

of $74,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$40,200,000, and at an estimated total cost of $6,500,000 for 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
16 

periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with 

an estimated Federal cost of $3,250,000 and an estimated nonFederal cost of $3,250,000. 

(34) SOUTH RIVER, RARITAN RIVER BASIN, NEW JERSEY.— The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction and environmental restoration, South River, Raritan River Basin, New 

Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 22, 2003, at 

a total cost of $122,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$79,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $42,800,000. 

(35) SOUTHWEST VALLEY, BERNALILLO COUNTY, NEW MEX- ICO.—The project for flood damage reduction, Southwest Valley, 

Bernalillo County, New Mexico: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated November 29, 2004, at a total cost of $24,840,000, 

with an estimated Federal cost of $16,150,000 and an estimated 

non-Federal cost of $8,690,000. 

(36) MONTAUK POINT, NEW YORK.—The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Montauk Point, New York: 

Report of the Chief of Engineers dated March 31, 2006, at a 

total cost of $14,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$7,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,300,000. 

(37) HOCKING RIVER BASIN, MONDAY CREEK, OHIO.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The project for ecosystem restoration, 

Hocking River Basin, Monday Creek, Ohio: Report of the 

Chief of Engineers dated August 24, 2006, at a total cost 

of $20,980,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$13,440,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$7,540,000. 

(B) WAYNE NATIONAL FOREST.— (i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in cooperation 

with the Secretary of Agriculture, may construct other 

project features on property that is located in the 

Wayne National Forest, Ohio, owned by the United 

States and managed by the Forest Service as described 

in the report of the Corps of Engineers entitled ‘‘Hocking River Basin, Ohio, Monday Creek Sub-Basin Ecosystem Restoration Project Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment’’. (ii) COST.—Each project feature carried out on 

Federal land shall be designed, constructed, operated, 

and maintained at Federal expense. 

(iii) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 

authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out this subparagraph $1,270,000. 

(38) TOWN OF BLOOMSBURG, COLUMBIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—The project for flood damage reduction, town of 

Bloomsburg, Columbia County, Pennsylvania: Report of the 

Chief of Engineers dated January 25, 2006, at a total cost of 

$44,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $28,925,000 and 

an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,575,000. 

(39) PAWLEYS ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA.—The project for 

hurricane and storm damage reduction, Pawleys Island, South 

Carolina: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 

2006, at a total cost of $8,980,000, with an estimated Federal 

cost of $5,840,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$3,140,000, and at an estimated total cost of $21,200,000 for 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
17 

periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with 

an estimated Federal cost of $10,600,000 and an estimated nonFederal cost of $10,600,000. 

(40) CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation and ecosystem restoration, Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Texas: 

Report of the Chief of Engineers dated June 2, 2003, at a 

total cost of $188,110,000, with an estimated Federal cost 

of $87,810,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$100,300,000. 

(B) NAVIGATIONAL SERVITUDE.—In carrying out the 

project under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall enforce 

the navigational servitude in the Corpus Christi Ship 

Channel (including the removal or relocation of any facility 

obstructing the project) consistent with the cost sharing requirements of section 101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211). 

(41) GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, BRAZOS RIVER TO

PORT O’CONNOR, MATAGORDA BAY RE-ROUTE, TEXAS.—The 

project for navigation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Brazos 

River to Port O’Connor, Matagorda Bay Re-Route, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 24, 2002, at a 

total cost of $17,280,000. The costs of construction of the project 

are to be paid 1⁄2 from amounts appropriated from the general 

fund of the Treasury and 1⁄2 from amounts appropriated from 

the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. 

(42) GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, HIGH ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER, TEXAS.—The project for navigation, Gulf Intracoastal 

Waterway, High Island to Brazos River, Texas: Report of the 

Chief of Engineers dated April 16, 2004, at a total cost of 

$14,450,000. The costs of construction of the project are to be 

paid 1⁄2 from amounts appropriated from the general fund of 

the Treasury and 1⁄2 from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. 

(43) LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN PHASE I, TEXAS.—The 

project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, 

Lower Colorado River Basin Phase I, Texas: Report of the Chief 

of Engineers dated December 31, 2006, at a total cost of 

$110,730,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $69,640,000 

and an estimated non-Federal cost of $41,090,000. 

(44) ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, DEEP CREEK, CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA.—The project for Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge Replacement, Deep Creek, 

Chesapeake, Virginia: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 

March 3, 2003, at a total cost of $37,200,000. 

(45) CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION, NORFOLK HAR- BOR AND CHANNELS, HAMPTON ROADS, VIRGINIA.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation, Craney 

Island Eastward Expansion, Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Hampton Roads, Virginia: Report of Chief of Engineers dated October 24, 2006, at a total cost of 

$712,103,000. 

(B) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—Notwithstanding sections 

101 and 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
18 

1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211 and 2213), the Federal share of the 

cost of the project shall be 50 percent. 

(46) CENTRALIA, CHEHALIS RIVER, LEWIS COUNTY, WASH- INGTON.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood damage reduction, Centralia, Chehalis River, Lewis County, Washington: 

Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September 27, 2004, 

at a total cost of $123,770,000, with an estimated Federal 

cost of $74,740,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$49,030,000. 

(B) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall— (i) credit, in accordance with section 221 of the 

Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project up 

to $6,500,000 for the cost of planning and design work 

carried out by the non-Federal interest in accordance 

with the project study plan dated November 28, 1999; 

and 

(ii) credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost 

of the project, the cost of design and construction work 

carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date 

of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 

project. 

SEC. 1002. SMALL PROJECTS FOR FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study for each 

of the following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a 

project is feasible, may carry out the project under section 205 of the 

Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s): 

(1) HALEYVILLE, ALABAMA.—Project for flood damage reduction, Haleyville, Alabama. 

(2) WEISS LAKE, ALABAMA.—Project for flood damage reduction, Weiss Lake, Alabama. 

(3) FORT YUKON, ALASKA.—Project for flood damage reduction, Fort Yukon, Alaska. 

(4) LITTLE COLORADO RIVER LEVEE, ARIZONA.—Project for 

flood damage reduction, Little Colorado River Levee, Arizona. 

(5) CACHE RIVER BASIN, GRUBBS, ARKANSAS.—Project for 

flood damage reduction, Cache River Basin, Grubbs, Arkansas. 

(6) BARREL SPRINGS WASH, PALMDALE, CALIFORNIA.—Project 

for flood damage reduction, Barrel Springs Wash, Palmdale, 

California. 

(7) BORREGO SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA.—Project for flood damage reduction, Borrego Springs, California. 

(8) COLTON, CALIFORNIA.—Project for flood damage reduction, Colton, California. 

(9) DUNLAP STREAM, YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA.—Project for 

flood damage reduction, Dunlap Stream, Yucaipa, California. 

(10) HUNTS CANYON WASH, PALMDALE, CALIFORNIA.—Project 

for flood damage reduction, Hunts Canyon Wash, Palmdale, 

California. 

(11) ONTARIO AND CHINO, CALIFORNIA.—Project for flood 

damage reduction, Ontario and Chino, California. 

(12) SANTA VENETIA, CALIFORNIA.—Project for flood damage 

reduction, Santa Venetia, California. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
19 

(13) WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA.—Project for flood damage reduction, Whittier, California. 

(14) WILDWOOD CREEK, YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA.—Project for 

flood damage reduction, Wildwood Creek, Yucaipa, California. 

(15) BIBB COUNTY AND CITY OF MACON LEVEE, GEORGIA.—

Project for flood damage reduction, Bibb County and City of 

Macon Levee, Georgia. 

(16) FORT WAYNE AND VICINITY, INDIANA.—Project for flood 

damage reduction, St. Mary’s and Maumee Rivers, Fort Wayne 

and vicinity, Indiana. 

(17) ST. FRANCISVILLE, LOUSIANA.—Project for flood damage reduction, St. Francisville, Louisiana. 

(18) SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS.—Project for flood damage reduction, Salem, Massachusetts. 

(19) CASS RIVER, MICHIGAN.—Project for flood damage reduction, Cass River, Vassar and vicinity, Michigan. 

(20) CROW RIVER, ROCKFORD, MINNESOTA.—Project for flood 

damage reduction, Crow River, Rockford, Minnesota. 

(21) MARSH CREEK, MINNESOTA.—Project for flood damage 

reduction, Marsh Creek, Minnesota. 

(22) SOUTH BRANCH OF THE WILD RICE RIVER, BORUP, MINNESOTA.—Project for flood damage reduction, South Branch of 

the Wild Rice River, Borup, Minnesota. 

(23) BLACKSNAKE CREEK, ST. JOSEPH, MISSOURI.—Project 

for flood damage reduction, Blacksnake Creek, St. Joseph, Missouri. 

(24) ACID BROOK, POMPTON LAKES, NEW JERSEY.—Project 

for flood damage reduction, Acid Brook, Pompton Lakes, New 

Jersey. 

(25) CANISTEO RIVER, ADDISON, NEW YORK.—Project for 

flood damage reduction, Canisteo River, Addison, New York. 

(26) COHOCTON RIVER, CAMPBELL, NEW YORK.—Project for 

flood damage reduction, Cohocton River, Campbell, New York. 

(27) DRY AND OTTER CREEKS, CORTLAND, NEW YORK.—

Project for flood damage reduction, Dry and Otter Creeks, 

Cortland, New York. 

(28) EAST RIVER, SILVER BEACH, NEW YORK CITY, NEW

YORK.—Project for flood damage reduction, East River, Silver 

Beach, New York City, New York. 

(29) EAST VALLEY CREEK, ANDOVER, NEW YORK.—Project for 

flood damage reduction, East Valley Creek, Andover, New York. 

(30) SUNNYSIDE BROOK, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW

YORK.—Project for flood damage reduction, Sunnyside Brook, 

Westchester County, New York. 

(31) LITTLE YANKEE AND MUD RUN, TRUMBULL COUNTY, 

OHIO.—Project for flood damage reduction, Little Yankee and 

Mud Run, Trumbull County, Ohio. 

(32) LITTLE NESHAMINY CREEK, WARRINGTON, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for flood damage reduction, Little Neshaminy 

Creek, Warrington, Pennsylvania. 

(33) SOUTHAMPTON CREEK WATERSHED, SOUTHAMPTON, 

PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for flood damage reduction, Southampton Creek watershed, Southampton, Pennsylvania. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
20 

(34) SPRING CREEK, LOWER MACUNGIE TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for flood damage reduction, Spring Creek, 

Lower Macungie Township, Pennsylvania. 

(35) YARDLEY AQUEDUCT, SILVER AND BROCK CREEKS, 

YARDLEY, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for flood damage reduction, 

Yardley Aqueduct, Silver and Brock Creeks, Yardley, Pennsylvania. 

(36) SURFSIDE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA.—Project for flood 

damage reduction, Surfside Beach and vicinity, South Carolina. 

(37) SANDY CREEK, JACKSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE.—A 

project for flood damage reduction, Sandy Creek, Jackson 

County, Tennessee. 

(38) CONGELOSI DITCH, MISSOURI CITY, TEXAS.—Project for 

flood damage reduction, Congelosi Ditch, Missouri City, Texas. 

(39) DILLEY, TEXAS.—Project for flood damage reduction, 

Dilley, Texas. 

(40) CHEYENNE, WYOMING.—Project for flood damage reduction, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

(b) SPECIAL RULES.—

(1) CACHE RIVER BASIN, GRUBBS, ARKANSAS.—The Secretary 

may proceed with the project for the Cache River Basin, 

Grubbs, Arkansas, referred to in subsection (a)(5), notwithstanding that the project is located within the boundaries of the 

flood control project, Cache River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 

1950, (64 Stat. 172) and modified by section 99 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 41). 

(2) ONTARIO AND CHINO, CALIFORNIA.—The Secretary shall 

carry out the project for flood damage reduction, Ontario and 

Chino, California, referred to in subsection (a)(11) if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible. 

(3) SANTA VENETIA, CALIFORNIA.—The Secretary shall carry 

out the project for flood damage reduction, Santa Venetia, California, referred to in subsection (a)(12) if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible and shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate in the financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) to the extent that the Secretary’s evaluation indicates that applying such section is necessary to implement the project. 

(4) WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA.—The Secretary shall carry out 

the project for flood damage reduction, Whittier, California, referred to in subsection (a)(13) if the Secretary determines that 

the project is feasible. 

(5) WILDWOOD CREEK, YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA.—The Secretary 

shall review the locally prepared plan for the project for flood 

damage, Wildwood Creek, California, referred to in subsection 

(a)(14) and, if the Secretary determines that the plan meets the 

evaluation and design standards of the Corps of Engineers and 

that the plan is feasible, the Secretary may use the plan to carry 

out the project and shall provide credit toward the non-Federal 

share of the cost of the project for the cost of work carried out 

by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
21 

agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the 

work is integral to the project. 

(6) FORT WAYNE AND VICINITY, INDIANA.—In carrying out 

the project for flood damage reduction, St. Mary’s and Maumee 

Rivers, Fort Wayne and vicinity, Indiana, referred to in subsection (a)(16) the Secretary shall—

(A) provide a 100-year level of flood protection at the 

Berry Thieme, Park-Thompson, Woodhurst, and Tillman 

sites along the St. Mary’s River; and 

(B) allow the non-Federal interest to participate in the 

financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 

4184) to the extent that the Secretary’s evaluation indicates 

that applying such section is necessary to implement the 

project. 

(7) SOUTH BRANCH OF THE WILD RICE RIVER, BORUP, MINNESOTA.—In carrying out the project for flood damage reduction, South Branch of the Wild Rice River, Borup, Minnesota, 

referred to in subsection (a)(22) the Secretary may consider national ecosystem restoration benefits in determining the Federal 

interest in the project and shall allow the non-Federal interest 

to participate in the financing of the project in accordance with 

section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 

(100 Stat. 4184) to the extent that the Secretary’s evaluation indicates that applying such section is necessary to implement the 

project. 

(8) ACID BROOK, POMPTON LAKES, NEW JERSEY.—The Secretary shall carry out the project for flood damage reduction, 

Acid Brook, Pompton Lakes, New Jersey, referred to in subsection (a)(24) if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible. 

(9) SANDY CREEK, TENNESSEE.—Consistent with the report 

of the Chief of Engineers dated March 24, 1948, on the West 

Tennessee Tributaries project, in carrying out the project for 

flood damage reduction, Sandy Creek, Tennessee, referred to in 

section (a)(37)—

(A) Sandy Creek shall not be considered to be an authorized channel of the West Tennessee Tributaries project; 

and 

(B) the project shall not be considered to be part of the 

West Tennessee Tributaries project. 

(10) DILLEY, TEXAS.—The Secretary shall carry out the 

project for flood damage reduction, Dilley, Texas, referred to in 

subsection (a)(39) if the Secretary determines that the project is 

feasible. 

SEC. 1003. SMALL PROJECTS FOR EMERGENCY STREAMBANK PROTECTION. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following 

projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible, 

may carry out the project under section 14 of the Flood Control Act 

of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r): 

(1) ALISO CREEK, CALIFORNIA.—Projects for emergency 

streambank protection, Aliso Creek, California. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
22 

(2) ST. JOHNS BLUFF TRAINING WALL, DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA.—Project for emergency streambank protection, St. Johns 

Bluff Training Wall, Duval County, Florida. 

(3) GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, IBERVILLE PARISH, LOUISIANA.—Projects for emergency streambank protection, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Iberville Parish, Louisiana. 

(4) OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, ARKANSAS AND LOUISIANA.—Projects for emergency streambank protection, 

Ouachita and Black Rivers, Arkansas and Louisiana. 

(5) PINEY POINT LIGHTHOUSE, ST. MARY’S COUNTY, MARYLAND.—Project for emergency streambank protection, Piney 

Point Lighthouse, St. Mary’s County, Maryland. 

(6) PUG HOLE LAKE, MINNESOTA.—Project for emergency 

streambank protection, Pug Hole Lake, Minnesota. 

(7) MIDDLE FORK GRAND RIVER, GENTRY COUNTY, MISSOURI.—Project for emergency streambank protection, Middle 

Fork Grand River, Gentry County, Missouri. 

(8) PLATTE RIVER, PLATTE CITY, MISSOURI.—Project for 

emergency streambank protection, Platte River, Platte City, Missouri. 

(9) RUSH CREEK, PARKVILLE, MISSOURI.—Project for emergency streambank protection, Rush Creek, Parkville, Missouri, 

including measures to address degradation of the creek bed. 

(10) DRY AND OTTER CREEKS, CORTLAND COUNTY, NEW

YORK.—Project for emergency streambank protection, Dry and 

Otter Creeks, Cortland County, New York. 

(11) KEUKA LAKE, HAMMONDSPORT, NEW YORK.—Project for 

emergency streambank protection, Keuka Lake, Hammondsport, 

New York. 

(12) KOWAWESE UNIQUE AREA AND HUDSON RIVER, NEW

WINDSOR, NEW YORK.—Project for emergency streambank protection, Kowawese Unique Area and Hudson River, New Windsor, 

New York. 

(13) OWEGO CREEK, TIOGA COUNTY, NEW YORK.—Project for 

emergency streambank protection, Owego Creek, Tioga County, 

New York. 

(14) HOWARD ROAD OUTFALL, SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE.—Project for emergency streambank protection, Howard 

Road outfall, Shelby County, Tennessee. 

(15) MITCH FARM DITCH AND LATERAL D, SHELBY COUNTY, 

TENNESSEE.—Project for emergency streambank protection, 

Mitch Farm Ditch and Lateral D, Shelby County, Tennessee. 

(16) WOLF RIVER TRIBUTARIES, SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE.—Project for emergency streambank protection, Wolf 

River tributaries, Shelby County, Tennessee. 

(17) JOHNSON CREEK, ARLINGTON, TEXAS.—Project for emergency streambank protection, Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas. 

(18) WELLS RIVER, NEWBURY, VERMONT.—Project for emergency streambank protection, Wells River, Newbury, Vermont. 

SEC. 1004. SMALL PROJECTS FOR NAVIGATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study for each 

of the following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a 

project is feasible, may carry out the project under section 107 of the 

River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577): 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
23 

(1) BARROW HARBOR, ALASKA.—Project for navigation, Barrow Harbor, Alaska. 

(2) COFFMAN COVE, ALASKA.—Project for navigation, 

Coffman Cove, Alaska. 

(3) KOTZEBUE HARBOR, ALASKA.—Project for navigation, 

Kotzebue Harbor, Alaska. 

(4) NOME HARBOR, ALASKA.—Project for navigation, Nome 

Harbor, Alaska. 

(5) OLD HARBOR, ALASKA.—Project for navigation, Old Harbor, Alaska. 

(6) LITTLE ROCK PORT, ARKANSAS.—Project for navigation, 

Little Rock Port, Arkansas River, Arkansas. 

(7) MISSISSIPPI RIVER SHIP CHANNEL, LOUISIANA.—Project 

for navigation, Mississippi River Ship Channel, Louisiana. 

(8) EAST BASIN, CAPE COD CANAL, SANDWICH, MASSACHUSETTS.—Project for navigation, East Basin, Cape Cod Canal, 

Sandwich, Massachusetts. 

(9) LYNN HARBOR, LYNN, MASSACHUSETTS.—Project for 

navigation, Lynn Harbor, Lynn, Massachusetts. 

(10) MERRIMACK RIVER, HAVERHILL, MASSACHUSETTS.—

Project for navigation, Merrimack River, Haverhill, Massachusetts. 

(11) OAK BLUFFS HARBOR, OAK BLUFFS, MASSACHUSETTS.— Project for navigation, Oak Bluffs Harbor, Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts. 

(12) WOODS HOLE GREAT HARBOR, FALMOUTH, MASSACHU- SETTS.—Project for navigation, Woods Hole Great Harbor, Falmouth, Massachusetts. 

(13) AU SABLE RIVER, MICHIGAN.—Project for navigation, 

Au Sable River in the vicinity of Oscoda, Michigan. 

(14) CLINTON RIVER, MICHIGAN.—Project for navigation, 

Clinton River, Michigan. 

(15) ONTONAGON RIVER, MICHIGAN.—Project for navigation, 

Ontonagon River, Ontonagon, Michigan. 

(16) OUTER CHANNEL AND INNER HARBOR, MENOMINEE HAR- BOR, MICHIGAN AND WISCONSIN.—Project for navigation, Outer 

Channel and Inner Harbor, Menominee Harbor, Michigan and 

Wisconsin. 

(17) SEBEWAING RIVER, MICHIGAN.—Project for navigation, 

Sebewaing River, Michigan. 

(18) TRAVERSE CITY HARBOR, TRAVERSE CITY, MICHIGAN.—

Project for navigation, Traverse City Harbor, Traverse City, 

Michigan. 

(19) TOWER HARBOR, TOWER, MINNESOTA.—Project for navigation, Tower Harbor, Tower, Minnesota. 

(20) OLCOTT HARBOR, OLCOTT, NEW YORK.—Project for navigation, Olcott Harbor, Olcott, New York. 

(21) MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WISCONSIN.—Project for navigation, Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 

(b) SPECIAL RULES.— (1) TRAVERSE CITY HARBOR, TRAVERSE CITY, MICHIGAN.— The Secretary shall review the locally prepared plan for the 

project for navigation, Traverse City Harbor, Michigan, referred 

to in subsection (a)(18), and, if the Secretary determines that 

the plan meets the evaluation and design standards of the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
24 

Corps of Engineers and that the plan is feasible, the Secretary 

may use the plan to carry out the project and shall provide 

credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for 

the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest before 

the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project. 

(2) TOWER HARBOR, TOWER MINNESOTA.—The Secretary 

shall carry out the project for navigation, Tower Harbor, Tower, 

Minnesota, referred to in subsection (a)(19) if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible. 

SEC. 1005. SMALL PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY OF 

THE ENVIRONMENT. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following 

projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is appropriate, may carry out the project under section 1135 of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a): 

(1) BALLONA CREEK, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—

Project for improvement of the quality of the environment, 

Ballona Creek, Los Angeles County, California. 

(2) BALLONA LAGOON TIDE GATES, MARINA DEL REY, CALIFORNIA.—Project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Ballona Lagoon Tide Gates, Marina Del Rey, California. 

(3) FT. GEORGE INLET, DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA.—Project 

for improvement of the quality of the environment, Ft. George 

Inlet, Duval County, Florida. 

(4) RATHBUN LAKE, IOWA.—Project for improvement of the 

quality of the environment, Rathbun Lake, Iowa. 

(5) SMITHVILLE LAKE, MISSOURI.—Project for improvement 

of the quality of the environment, Smithville Lake, Missouri. 

(6) DELAWARE BAY, NEW JERSEY AND DELAWARE.—Project 

for improvement of the quality of the environment, Delaware 

Bay, New Jersey and Delaware, for the purpose of oyster restoration. 

(7) TIOGA-HAMMOND LAKES, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Tioga-Hammond 

Lakes, Pennsylvania. 

SEC. 1006. SMALL PROJECTS FOR AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study for each 

of the following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a 

project is appropriate, may carry out the project under section 206 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330): 

(1) CYPRESS CREEK, MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA.—Project for 

aquatic ecosystem restoration, Cypress Creek, Montgomery, Alabama. 

(2) BLACK LAKE, ALASKA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Black Lake, Alaska, at the head of the Chignik watershed. 

(3) BEN LOMOND DAM, SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA.—Project 

for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Ben Lomond Dam, Santa 

Cruz, California. 

(4) DOCKWEILER BLUFFS, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Dockweiler 

Bluffs, Los Angeles County, California. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
25 

(5) SALT RIVER, CALIFORNIA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem 

restoration, Salt River, California. 

(6) SAN DIEGO RIVER, CALIFORNIA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, San Diego River, California, including efforts to address aquatic nuisance species. 

(7) SANTA ROSA CREEK, SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA.—Project 

for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Santa Rosa Creek in the vicinity of the Prince Memorial Greenway, Santa Rosa, California. 

(8) STOCKTON DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL AND LOWER SAN

JOAQUIN RIVER, CALIFORNIA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel and lower San 

Joaquin River, California. 

(9) SUISUN MARSH, SAN PABLO BAY, CALIFORNIA.—Project 

for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Suisun Marsh, San Pablo 

Bay, California. 

(10) SWEETWATER RESERVOIR, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Sweetwater 

Reservoir, San Diego County, California, including efforts to 

address aquatic nuisance species. 

(11) BISCAYNE BAY, FLORIDA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem 

restoration, Biscayne Bay, Key Biscayne, Florida. 

(12) CLAM BAYOU AND DINKINS BAYOU, SANIBEL ISLAND, 

FLORIDA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Clam 

Bayou and Dinkins Bayou, Sanibel Island, Florida. 

(13) MOUNTAIN PARK, GEORGIA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Mountain Park, Georgia. 

(14) CHATTAHOOCHEE FALL LINE, GEORGIA AND ALABAMA.—

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Chattahoochee Fall 

Line, Georgia and Alabama. 

(15) LONGWOOD COVE, GAINESVILLE, GEORGIA.—Project for 

aquatic ecosystem restoration, Longwood Cove, Gainesville, 

Georgia. 

(16) CITY PARK, UNIVERSITY LAKES, LOUISIANA.—Project for 

aquatic ecosystem restoration, City Park, University Lakes, Louisiana. 

(17) LAWRENCE GATEWAY, MASSACHUSETTS.—Project for 

aquatic ecosystem restoration at the Lawrence Gateway quadrant project along the Merrimack and Spicket Rivers in Lawrence, Massachusetts, in accordance with the general conditions 

established by the project approval of the Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, including filling abandoned drainage facilities and making improvements to the drainage system on the 

Lawrence Gateway to prevent continued migration of contaminated sediments into the river systems. 

(18) MILFORD POND, MILFORD, MASSACHUSETTS.—Project 

for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Milford Pond, Milford, Massachusetts. 

(19) MILL POND, LITTLETON, MASSACHUSETTS.—Project for 

aquatic ecosystem restoration, Mill Pond, Littleton, Massachusetts. 

(20) PINE TREE BROOK, MILTON, MASSACHUSETTS.—Project 

for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Pine Tree Brook, Milton, 

Massachusetts. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
26 

(21) CLINTON RIVER, MICHIGAN.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Clinton River, Michigan. 

(22) KALAMAZOO RIVER WATERSHED, BATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Kalamazoo 

River watershed, Battle Creek, Michigan. 

(23) RUSH LAKE, MINNESOTA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem 

restoration, Rush Lake, Minnesota. 

(24) SOUTH FORK OF THE CROW RIVER, HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, South Fork 

of the Crow River, Hutchinson, Minnesota. 

(25) ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.—Project for aquatic ecosystem 

restoration, St. Louis, Missouri. 

(26) MOBLEY DAM, TONGUE RIVER, MONTANA.—Project for 

aquatic ecosystem restoration, Mobley Dam, Tongue River, 

Montana. 

(27) S AND H DAM, TONGUE RIVER, MONTANA.—Project for 

aquatic ecosystem restoration, S and H Dam, Tongue River, 

Montana. 

(28) VANDALIA DAM, MILK RIVER, MONTANA.—Project for 

aquatic ecosystem restoration, Vandalia Dam, Milk River, Montana. 

(29) TRUCKEE RIVER, RENO, NEVADA.—Project for aquatic 

ecosystem restoration, Truckee River, Reno, Nevada, including 

features for fish passage in Washoe County. 

(30) GROVER’S MILL POND, NEW JERSEY.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Grover’s Mill Pond, New Jersey. 

(31) CALDWELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.—Project for 

aquatic ecosystem restoration, Caldwell County, North Carolina. 

(32) MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.—Project for 

aquatic ecosystem restoration, Mecklenburg County, North 

Carolina. 

(33) DUGWAY CREEK, BRATENAHL, OHIO.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Dugway Creek, Bratenahl, Ohio. 

(34) JOHNSON CREEK, GRESHAM, OREGON.—Project for 

aquatic ecosystem restoration, Johnson Creek, Gresham, Oregon. 

(35) BEAVER CREEK, BEAVER AND SALEM, PENNSYLVANIA.—

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Beaver Creek, Beaver 

and Salem, Pennsylvania. 

(36) CEMENTON DAM, LEHIGH RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA.—

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Cementon Dam, Lehigh River, Pennsylvania. 

(37) INGHAM SPRING DAM, SOLEBURY TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Ingham 

Spring Dam, Solebury Township, Pennsylvania. 

(38) SAUCON CREEK, NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Saucon 

Creek, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. 

(39) STILLWATER LAKE DAM, MONROE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Stillwater 

Lake Dam, Monroe County, Pennsylvania. 

(40) BLACKSTONE RIVER, RHODE ISLAND.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Blackstone River, Rhode Island. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
27 

(41) WILSON BRANCH, CHERAW, SOUTH CAROLINA.—Project 

for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Wilson Branch, Cheraw, 

South Carolina. 

(42) WHITE RIVER, BETHEL, VERMONT.—Project for aquatic 

ecosystem restoration, White River, Bethel, Vermont. 

(43) COLLEGE LAKE, LYNCHBURG, VIRGINIA.—Project for 

aquatic ecosystem restoration, College Lake, Lynchburg, Virginia. 

(b) SPECIAL RULES.—

(1) BLACK LAKE, ALASKA.—The Secretary shall carry out the 

project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Black Lake, Alaska referred to in subsection (a)(2) if the Secretary determines that the 

project is appropriate. 

(2) TRUCKEE RIVER, RENO, NEVADA.—The maximum 

amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the project 

for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Truckee River, Reno, Nevada, 

referred to in subsection (a)(29) shall be $6,000,000, and the 

Secretary shall carry out the project if the Secretary determines 

that the project is appropriate. 

(3) BLACKSTONE RIVER, RHODE ISLAND.—The Secretary 

shall carry out the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, 

Blackstone River, Rhode Island, referred to in subsection (a)(40) 

if the Secretary determines that the project is appropriate. 

(4) COLLEGE LAKE, LYNCHBURG, VIRGINIA.—The Secretary 

shall carry out the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, 

College Lake, Lynchburg, Virginia, referred to in subsection 

(a)(43) if the Secretary determines that the project is appropriate. 

SEC. 1007. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SHORELINE PROTECTION. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following 

projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible, 

may carry out the project under section 3 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act 

authorizing Federal participation in the cost of protecting the shores 

of publicly owned property,’’ approved August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 

426g): 

(1) NELSON LAGOON, ALASKA.—Project for shoreline protection, Nelson Lagoon, Alaska. 

(2) NICHOLAS CANYON, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA.—Project 

for shoreline protection, Nicholas Canyon, Los Angeles, California. 

(3) SANIBEL ISLAND, FLORIDA.—Project for shoreline protection, Sanibel Island, Florida. 

(4) APRA HARBOR, GUAM.—Project for shoreline protection, 

Apra Harbor, Guam. 

(5) PITI, CABRAS ISLAND, GUAM.—Project for shoreline protection, Piti, Cabras Island, Guam. 

(6) NARROWS AND GRAVESEND BAY, UPPER NEW YORK BAY, 

BROOKLYN, NEW YORK.—Project for shoreline protection in the 

vicinity of the confluence of the Narrows and Gravesend Bay, 

Upper New York Bay, Shore Parkway Greenway, Brooklyn, 

New York. 

(7) DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA NAVAL SHIPYARD, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for shoreline protection, Delaware River in 

the vicinity of the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Pennsylvania. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
28 

(8) PORT ARANSAS, TEXAS.—Project for shoreline protection, 

Port Aransas, Texas. 

SEC. 1008. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SNAGGING AND SEDIMENT REMOVAL. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study for the following project 

and, if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, the Secretary may carry out the project under section 2 of the Flood Control 

Act of August 28, 1937 (33 U.S.C. 701g): Project for removal of 

snags and clearing and straightening of channels for flood control, 

Kowawese Unique Area and Hudson River, New Windsor, New 

York. 

SEC. 1009. SMALL PROJECTS TO PREVENT OR MITIGATE DAMAGE 

CAUSED BY NAVIGATION PROJECTS. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following 

projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible, 

may carry out the project under section 111 of the River and Harbor 

Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i): 

(1) Tybee Island, Georgia. 

(2) Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana. 

SEC. 1010. SMALL PROJECTS FOR AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to carry out a 

project for aquatic nuisance plant control in the Republican River 

Basin, Nebraska, under section 104 of the River and Harbor Act of 

1958 (33 U.S.C. 610). 

(b) SPECIAL RULE.—In carrying out the project under subsection 

(a), the Secretary may control and eradicate riverine nuisance 

plants. 

TITLE II—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

SEC. 2001. NON-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS. 

Section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 

U.S.C. 2213) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(n) NON-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS.—

‘‘(1) PROHIBITION ON SOLICITATION OF EXCESS CONTRIBUTIONS.—The Secretary may not—

‘‘(A) solicit contributions from non-Federal interests for 

costs of constructing authorized water resources projects or 

measures in excess of the non-Federal share assigned to the 

appropriate project purposes listed in subsections (a), (b), 

and (c); or 

‘‘(B) condition Federal participation in such projects or 

measures on the receipt of such contributions. 

‘‘(2) LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing 

in this subsection shall be construed to affect the Secretary’s authority under section 903(c).’’. 

SEC. 2002. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS. 

Section 214(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 

(33 U.S.C. 2201 note; 114 Stat. 2594; 119 Stat. 2169; 120 Stat. 318; 

120 Stat. 3197) is amended by striking ‘‘2008’’ and inserting ‘‘2009’’. 

SEC. 2003. WRITTEN AGREEMENT FOR WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 

(42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b) is amended—


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
29 

(1) by striking ‘‘SEC. 221.’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘SEC. 221. WRITTEN AGREEMENT REQUIREMENT FOR WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS.’’; 

(2) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(a) COOPERATION OF NON-FEDERAL INTEREST.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—After December 31, 1970, the construction of any water resources project, or an acceptable separable 

element thereof, by the Secretary of the Army, acting through 

the Chief of Engineers, or by a non-Federal interest where such 

interest will be reimbursed for such construction under any provision of law, shall not be commenced until each non-Federal 

interest has entered into a written partnership agreement with 

the Secretary (or, where appropriate, the district engineer for 

the district in which the project will be carried out) under 

which each party agrees to carry out its responsibilities and requirements for implementation or construction of the project or 

the appropriate element of the project, as the case may be; except that no such agreement shall be required if the Secretary 

determines that the administrative costs associated with negotiating, executing, or administering the agreement would exceed 

the amount of the contribution required from the non-Federal 

interest and are less than $25,000. 

‘‘(2) LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.—A partnership agreement described in paragraph (1) may include a provision for liquidated 

damages in the event of a failure of one or more parties to perform. 

‘‘(3) OBLIGATION OF FUTURE APPROPRIATIONS.—In any partnership agreement described in paragraph (1) and entered into 

by a State, or a body politic of the State which derives its powers from the State constitution, or a governmental entity created 

by the State legislature, the agreement may reflect that it does 

not obligate future appropriations for such performance and 

payment when obligating future appropriations would be inconsistent with constitutional or statutory limitations of the State 

or a political subdivision of the State. 

‘‘(4) CREDIT FOR IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—A partnership agreement described 

in paragraph (1) may provide with respect to a project that 

the Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of 

the cost of the project, including a project implemented 

without specific authorization in law, the value of in-kind 

contributions made by the non-Federal interest, including—

‘‘(i) the costs of planning (including data collection), design, management, mitigation, construction, 

and construction services that are provided by the nonFederal interest for implementation of the project; 

‘‘(ii) the value of materials or services provided before execution of the partnership agreement, including 

efforts on constructed elements incorporated into the 

project; and 

‘‘(iii) the value of materials and services provided 

after execution of the partnership agreement. 

‘‘(B) CONDITION.—The Secretary may credit an in-kind 

contribution under subparagraph (A) only if the Secretary 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
30 

determines that the material or service provided as an inkind contribution is integral to the project. ‘‘(C) WORK PERFORMED BEFORE PARTNERSHIP AGREE- MENT.—In any case in which the non-Federal interest is to 

receive credit under subparagraph (A)(ii) for the cost of 

work carried out by the non-Federal interest and such work 

has not been carried out as of the date of enactment of this 

subparagraph, the Secretary and the non-Federal interest 

shall enter into an agreement under which the non-Federal 

interest shall carry out such work, and only work carried 

out following the execution of the agreement shall be eligible for credit. ‘‘(D) LIMITATIONS.—Credit authorized under this paragraph for a project—

‘‘(i) shall not exceed the non-Federal share of the 

cost of the project; 

‘‘(ii) shall not alter any other requirement that a 

non-Federal interest provide lands, easements, relocations, rights-of-way, or areas for disposal of dredged 

material for the project; 

‘‘(iii) shall not alter any requirement that a nonFederal interest pay a portion of the costs of construction of the project under sections 101 and 103 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 

2211; 33 U.S.C. 2213); and 

‘‘(iv) shall not exceed the actual and reasonable 

costs of the materials, services, or other things provided 

by the non-Federal interest, as determined by the Secretary. 

‘‘(E) APPLICABILITY.—

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—This paragraph shall apply to 

water resources projects authorized after November 16, 

1986, including projects initiated after November 16, 

1986, without specific authorization in law. 

‘‘(ii) LIMITATION.—In any case in which a specific 

provision of law provides for a non-Federal interest to 

receive credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost 

of a study for, or construction or operation and maintenance of, a water resources project, the specific provision of law shall apply instead of this paragraph.’’. (b) NON-FEDERAL INTEREST.—Section 221(b) of such Act is 

amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(b) DEFINITION OF NON-FEDERAL INTEREST.—The term ‘nonFederal interest’ means—

‘‘(1) a legally constituted public body (including a federally 

recognized Indian tribe); or 

‘‘(2) a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local 

government, 

that has full authority and capability to perform the terms of its 

agreement and to pay damages, if necessary, in the event of failure 

to perform.’’. (c) PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION.—Section 221 of such Act is further amended— (1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (h); and 

(2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
31 

‘‘(e) DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY.—Not later than June 30, 2008, 

the Secretary shall issue policies and guidelines for partnership 

agreements that delegate to the district engineers, at a minimum— ‘‘(1) the authority to approve any policy in a partnership 

agreement that has appeared in an agreement previously approved by the Secretary; ‘‘(2) the authority to approve any policy in a partnership 

agreement the specific terms of which are dictated by law or by 

a final feasibility study, final environmental impact statement, 

or other final decision document for a water resources project; ‘‘(3) the authority to approve any partnership agreement 

that complies with the policies and guidelines issued by the Secretary; and ‘‘(4) the authority to sign any partnership agreement for 

any water resources project unless, within 30 days of the date 

of authorization of the project, the Secretary notifies the district 

engineer in which the project will be carried out that the Secretary wishes to retain the prerogative to sign the partnership 

agreement for that project. 

‘‘(f) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 2 years after the 

date of enactment of this subsection, and every year thereafter, the 

Secretary shall submit to Congress a report detailing the following: 

‘‘(1) The number of partnership agreements signed by district engineers and the number of partnership agreements 

signed by the Secretary. 

‘‘(2) For any partnership agreement signed by the Secretary, 

an explanation of why delegation to the district engineer was 

not appropriate. 

‘‘(g) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY.—Not later than 120 days after the 

date of enactment of this subsection, the Chief of Engineers shall—

‘‘(1) ensure that each district engineer has made available 

to the public, including on the Internet, all partnership agreements entered into under this section within the preceding 10 

years and all partnership agreements for water resources 

projects currently being carried out in that district; and ‘‘(2) make each partnership agreement entered into after 

such date of enactment available to the public, including on the 

Internet, not later than 7 days after the date on which such 

agreement is entered into.’’. (d) LOCAL COOPERATION.—Section 912(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (101 Stat. 4190) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (2)—

(A) by striking ‘‘shall’’ the first place it appears and inserting ‘‘may’’; and 

(B) by striking the last sentence; and 

(2) in paragraph (4)—

(A) by inserting after ‘‘injunction, for’’ the following: 

‘‘payment of damages or, for’’; 

(B) by striking ‘‘to collect a civil penalty imposed under 

this section,’’; and 

(C) by striking ‘‘any civil penalty imposed under this 

section,’’ and inserting ‘‘any damages,’’. (e) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by subsections (a), 

(b), and (d) only apply to partnership agreements entered into after 

the date of enactment of this Act; except that, at the request of a 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
32 

non-Federal interest for a project, the district engineer for the district in which the project is located may amend a project partnership agreement entered into on or before such date and under which 

construction on the project has not been initiated as of such date of 

enactment for the purpose of incorporating such amendments. 

(f) AGREEMENTS AND REFERENCES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—A goal of agreements entered into under 

section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–

5b) shall be to further partnership and cooperation, and the 

agreements shall be referred to as ‘‘partnership agreements’’. 

(2) REFERENCES TO COOPERATION AGREEMENTS.—Any reference in a law, regulation, document, or other paper of the 

United States to a ‘‘cooperation agreement’’ or ‘‘project cooperation agreement’’ shall be deemed to be a reference to a ‘‘partnership agreement’’ or a ‘‘project partnership agreement’’, respectively. 

(3) REFERENCES TO PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.—Any reference to a ‘‘partnership agreement’’ or ‘‘project partnership 

agreement’’ in this Act (other than this section) shall be deemed 

to be a reference to a ‘‘cooperation agreement’’ or a ‘‘project cooperation agreement’’, respectively. 

SEC. 2004. COMPILATION OF LAWS. 

(a) COMPILATION OF LAWS ENACTED AFTER NOVEMBER 8, 

1966.—The Secretary and the Chief of Engineers shall prepare a 

compilation of the laws of the United States relating to the improvement of rivers and harbors, flood damage reduction, beach and 

shoreline erosion, hurricane and storm damage reduction, ecosystem 

and environmental restoration, and other water resources development enacted after November 8, 1966, and before January 1, 2008, 

and have such compilation printed for the use of the Department of 

the Army, Congress, and the general public. 

(b) REPRINT OF LAWS ENACTED BEFORE NOVEMBER 8, 1966.—

The Secretary shall have the volumes containing the laws referred 

to in subsection (a) enacted before November 8, 1966, reprinted. 

(c) INDEX.—The Secretary shall include an index in each volume compiled, and each volume reprinted, pursuant to this section. 

(d) CONGRESSIONAL COPIES.—Not later than April 1, 2008, the 

Secretary shall transmit at least 25 copies of each volume compiled, 

and of each volume reprinted, pursuant to this section to each of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 

Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works of the Senate. 

(e) AVAILABILITY.—The Secretary shall ensure that each volume 

compiled, and each volume reprinted, pursuant to this section are 

available through electronic means, including on the Internet. 

SEC. 2005. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL. 

Section 217 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 

U.S.C. 2326a) is amended— (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); 

(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following: ‘‘(c) DREDGED MATERIAL FACILITY.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may enter into a partnership agreement under section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 

1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b) with one or more non-Federal interVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:35 Aug 04, 2007 Jkt 036965 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR280.XXX HR280

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
33 

ests with respect to a water resources project, or group of water 

resources projects within a geographic region, if appropriate, for 

the acquisition, design, construction, management, or operation 

of a dredged material processing, treatment, contaminant reduction, or disposal facility (including any facility used to demonstrate potential beneficial uses of dredged material, which 

may include effective sediment contaminant reduction technologies) using funds provided in whole or in part by the Federal Government. ‘‘(2) PERFORMANCE.—One or more of the parties to a partnership agreement under this subsection may perform the acquisition, design, construction, management, or operation of a 

dredged material processing, treatment, contaminant reduction, 

or disposal facility. ‘‘(3) MULTIPLE PROJECTS.—If appropriate, the Secretary 

may combine portions of separate water resources projects with 

appropriate combined cost-sharing among the various water resources projects in a partnership agreement for a facility under 

this subsection if the facility serves to manage dredged material 

from multiple water resources projects located in the geographic 

region of the facility. 

‘‘(4) SPECIFIED FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES AND COST SHAR- ING.— ‘‘(A) SPECIFIED FEDERAL FUNDING.—A partnership 

agreement with respect to a facility under this subsection 

shall specify— ‘‘(i) the Federal funding sources and combined 

cost-sharing when applicable to multiple water resources projects; and ‘‘(ii) the responsibilities and risks of each of the 

parties relating to present and future dredged material 

managed by the facility. 

‘‘(B) MANAGEMENT OF SEDIMENTS.— ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—A partnership agreement under 

this subsection may include the management of sediments from the maintenance dredging of Federal water 

resources projects that do not have partnership agreements. 

‘‘(ii) PAYMENTS.—A partnership agreement under 

this subsection may allow the non-Federal interest to 

receive reimbursable payments from the Federal Government for commitments made by the non-Federal interest for disposal or placement capacity at dredged 

material processing, treatment, contaminant reduction, 

or disposal facilities. 

‘‘(C) CREDIT.—A partnership agreement under this subsection may allow costs incurred by the non-Federal interest before execution of the partnership agreement to be credited in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act 

of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b). ‘‘(5) CREDIT.— ‘‘(A) EFFECT ON EXISTING AGREEMENTS.—Nothing in 

this subsection supersedes or modifies an agreement in effect on the date of enactment of this paragraph between the 

Federal Government and any non-Federal interest for the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
34 

cost-sharing, construction, and operation and maintenance 

of a water resources project. ‘‘(B) CREDIT FOR FUNDS.—Subject to the approval of 

the Secretary and in accordance with law (including regulations and policies) in effect on the date of enactment of 

this paragraph, a non-Federal interest for a water resources 

project may receive credit for funds provided for the acquisition, design, construction, management, or operation of a 

dredged material processing, treatment, contaminant reduction, or disposal facility to the extent the facility is used 

to manage dredged material from the project. ‘‘(C) NON-FEDERAL INTEREST RESPONSIBILITIES.—A 

non-Federal interest entering into a partnership agreement 

under this subsection for a facility shall— ‘‘(i) be responsible for providing all necessary 

lands, easements, relocations, and rights-of-way associated with the facility; and ‘‘(ii) receive credit toward the non-Federal share of 

the cost of the project with respect to which the agreement is being entered into for those items.’’; and 

(3) in paragraphs (1) and (2)(A) of subsection (d) (as redesignated by paragraph (1))— (A) by inserting ‘‘and maintenance’’ after ‘‘operation’’ each place it appears; and 

(B) by inserting ‘‘processing, treatment, contaminant 

reduction, or’’ after ‘‘dredged material’’ the first place it appears in each of those paragraphs. 

SEC. 2006. REMOTE AND SUBSISTENCE HARBORS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—In conducting a study of harbor and navigation improvements, the Secretary may recommend a project without 

the need to demonstrate that the project is justified solely by national economic development benefits if the Secretary determines 

that— (1)(A) the community to be served by the project is at least 

70 miles from the nearest surface accessible commercial port 

and has no direct rail or highway link to another community 

served by a surface accessible port or harbor; or 

(B) the project would be located in the State of Hawaii, the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of 

the Northern Mariana Islands, the United States Virgin Islands, or American Samoa; 

(2) the harbor is economically critical such that over 80 

percent of the goods transported through the harbor would be 

consumed within the community served by the harbor and navigation improvement; and 

(3) the long-term viability of the community would be 

threatened without the harbor and navigation improvement. 

(b) JUSTIFICATION.—In considering whether to recommend a 

project under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider the benefits 

of the project to—

(1) public health and safety of the local community, including access to facilities designed to protect public health and 

safety; 

(2) access to natural resources for subsistence purposes; 

(3) local and regional economic opportunities; 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
35 

(4) welfare of the local population; and 

(5) social and cultural value to the community. 

SEC. 2007. USE OF OTHER FEDERAL FUNDS. 

The non-Federal interest for a water resources study or project 

may use, and the Secretary shall accept, funds provided by a Federal agency under any other Federal program, to satisfy, in whole 

or in part, the non-Federal share of the cost of the study or project 

if the Federal agency that provides the funds determines that the 

funds are authorized to be used to carry out the study or project. 

SEC. 2008. REVISION OF PROJECT PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT; COST 

SHARING. 

(a) FEDERAL ALLOCATION.—Upon authorization by law of an increase in the maximum amount of Federal funds that may be allocated for a water resources project or an increase in the total cost 

of a water resources project authorized to be carried out by the Secretary, the Secretary shall enter into a revised partnership agreement for the project to take into account the change in Federal participation in the project. 

(b) COST SHARING.—An increase in the maximum amount of 

Federal funds that may be allocated for a water resources project, 

or an increase in the total cost of a water resources project, authorized to be carried out by the Secretary shall not affect any cost-sharing requirement applicable to the project. 

(c) COST ESTIMATES.—The estimated Federal and non-Federal 

costs of water resources projects authorized to be carried out by the 

Secretary before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act are 

for informational purposes only and shall not be interpreted as affecting the cost-sharing responsibilities established by law. 

SEC. 2009. EXPEDITED ACTIONS FOR EMERGENCY FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION. 

The Secretary shall expedite any authorized planning, design, 

and construction of any project for flood damage reduction for an 

area that, within the preceding 5 years, has been subject to flooding 

that resulted in the loss of life and caused damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a declaration of a major disaster 

by the President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 

Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.). 

SEC. 2010. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS. 

Section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 

U.S.C. 2267a; 114 Stat. 2587–2588; 100 Stat. 4164) is amended—

(1) in subsection (d)—

(A) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (4); 

(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5) 

and inserting a semicolon; and 

(C) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(6) Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio; 

‘‘(7) Sauk River Basin, Snohomish and Skagit Counties, 

Washington; 

‘‘(8) Niagara River Basin, New York; 

‘‘(9) Genesee River Basin, New York; and 

‘‘(10) White River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.’’; 

(2) by striking paragraph (1) of subsection (f) and inserting 

the following: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
36 

‘‘(1) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal share of the 

costs of an assessment carried out under this section on or after 

December 11, 2000, shall be 25 percent.’’; and 

(3) by striking subsection (g). 

SEC. 2011. TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM. 

(a) PROGRAM.—Section 203(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2269(b); 114 Stat. 2589) is amended— (1) in paragraph (1) by inserting ‘‘carry out water-related 

planning activities and’’ after ‘‘the Secretary may’’; 

(2) in paragraph (1)(B) by inserting after ‘‘Code’’ the following: ‘‘, and including lands that are within the jurisdictional area of an Oklahoma Indian tribe, as determined by the 

Secretary of the Interior, and are recognized by the Secretary of 

the Interior as eligible for trust land status under part 151 of 

title 25, Code of Federal Regulations’’; and 

(3) in paragraph (2)— (A) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph (A); 

(B) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C); and 

(C) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following: 

‘‘(B) watershed assessments and planning activities; 

and’’. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 203(e) of such 

Act is amended by striking ‘‘2006’’ and inserting ‘‘2012’’. 

SEC. 2012. WILDFIRE FIREFIGHTING. 

Section 309 of Public Law 102–154 (42 U.S.C. 1856a–1; 105 

Stat. 1034) is amended by inserting ‘‘the Secretary of the Army,’’

after ‘‘the Secretary of Energy,’’. 

SEC. 2013. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. 

Section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 

U.S.C. 1962d–16) is amended— (1) in subsection (a) by striking ‘‘The Secretary’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(a) FEDERAL STATE COOPERATION.—

‘‘(1) COMPREHENSIVE PLANS.—The Secretary’’; 

(2) by inserting after the last sentence in subsection (a) the 

following: 

‘‘(2) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—At the request of a governmental 

agency or non-Federal interest, the Secretary may provide, 

at Federal expense, technical assistance to such agency or 

non-Federal interest in managing water resources. 

‘‘(B) TYPES OF ASSISTANCE.—Technical assistance 

under this paragraph may include provision and integration of hydrologic, economic, and environmental data and 

analyses.’’; 

(3) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ‘‘this section’’ each place 

it appears and inserting ‘‘subsection (a)(1)’’; 

(4) in subsection (b)(2) by striking ‘‘Up to 1⁄2 of the’’ and inserting ‘‘The’’; 

(5) in subsection (c) by striking ‘‘(c) There is’’ and inserting 

the following: 

‘‘(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

‘‘(1) FEDERAL AND STATE COOPERATION.—There is’’; 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
37 

(6) in subsection (c)(1) (as designated by paragraph (5))—

(A) by striking ‘‘the provisions of this section’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (a)(1),’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘$500,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$2,000,000’’; 

(7) by inserting at the end of subsection (c) the following: 

‘‘(2) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 annually to carry out subsection (a)(2), of 

which not more than $2,000,000 annually may be used by the 

Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements with nonprofit 

organizations to provide assistance to rural and small communities.’’; 

(8) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and 

(9) by inserting after subsection (c) the following: 

‘‘(d) ANNUAL SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED ACTIVITIES.—Concurrent with the President’s submission to Congress of the President’s 

request for appropriations for the Civil Works Program for a fiscal 

year, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report describing the individual activities proposed for funding under subsection (a)(1) for that fiscal year.’’. 

SEC. 2014. LAKES PROGRAM. 

Section 602(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 

(100 Stat. 4148; 110 Stat. 3758; 113 Stat. 295) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at end of paragraph (18); 

(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (19) and 

inserting a semicolon; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(20) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois, removal of 

silt and aquatic growth and measures to address excessive sedimentation; 

‘‘(21) McCarter Pond, Borough of Fairhaven, New Jersey, 

removal of silt and measures to address water quality; 

‘‘(22) Rogers Pond, Franklin Township, New Jersey, removal of silt and restoration of structural integrity; 

‘‘(23) Greenwood Lake, New York and New Jersey, removal 

of silt and aquatic growth; 

‘‘(24) Lake Rodgers, Creedmoor, North Carolina, removal of 

silt and excessive nutrients and restoration of structural integrity; 

‘‘(25) Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota, removal of silt and 

aquatic growth and measures to address excessive sedimentation; 

‘‘(26) Lake Luxembourg, Pennsylvania; 

‘‘(27) Lake Fairlee, Vermont, removal of silt and aquatic 

growth and measures to address excessive sedimentation; and 

‘‘(28) Lake Morley, Vermont, removal of silt and aquatic 

growth and measures to address excessive sedimentation.’’. 

SEC. 2015. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—For the purpose of expediting the cost-effective 

design and construction of wetlands restoration that is part of an 

authorized water resources project, the Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements under section 6305 of title 31, United States 

Code, with nonprofit organizations with expertise in wetlands resVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:35 Aug 04, 2007 Jkt 036965 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR280.XXX HR280

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
38 

toration to carry out such design and construction on behalf of the 

Secretary. 

(b) LIMITATIONS.—

(1) PER PROJECT LIMIT.—A cooperative agreement under 

this section may not obligate the Secretary to pay the nonprofit 

organization more than $1,000,000 for any single wetlands restoration project. 

(2) ANNUAL LIMIT.—The total value of work carried out 

under cooperative agreements under this section may not exceed 

$5,000,000 in any fiscal year. 

SEC. 2016. TRAINING FUNDS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may include individuals not 

employed by the Department of the Army in training classes and 

courses offered by the Corps of Engineers in any case in which the 

Secretary determines that it is in the best interest of the Federal 

Government to include those individuals as participants. 

(b) EXPENSES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—An individual not employed by the Department of the Army attending a training class or course described in subsection (a) shall pay the full cost of the training 

provided to the individual. 

(2) PAYMENTS.—Payments made by an individual for training received under paragraph (1), up to the actual cost of the 

training—

(A) may be retained by the Secretary; 

(B) shall be credited to an appropriations account used 

for paying training costs; and 

(C) shall be available for use by the Secretary, without 

further appropriation, for training purposes. 

(3) EXCESS AMOUNTS.—Any payments received under paragraph (2) that are in excess of the actual cost of training provided shall be credited as miscellaneous receipts to the Treasury 

of the United States. 

SEC. 2017. ACCESS TO WATER RESOURCE DATA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry out a program to 

provide public access to water resources and related water quality 

data in the custody of the Corps of Engineers. 

(b) DATA.—Public access under subsection (a) shall—

(1) include, at a minimum, access to data generated in 

water resources project development and regulation under section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 

1344); and 

(2) appropriately employ geographic information system 

technology and linkages to water resource models and analytical techniques. 

(c) PARTNERSHIPS.—To the maximum extent practicable, in carrying out activities under this section, the Secretary shall develop 

partnerships, including cooperative agreements, with State, tribal, 

and local governments and other Federal agencies. 

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $3,000,000 for each fiscal year. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
39 

SEC. 2018. SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—In accordance with the Act of July 3, 1930 

(33 U.S.C. 426), and notwithstanding administrative actions, it is 

the policy of the United States to promote beach nourishment for the 

purposes of flood damage reduction and hurricane and storm damage reduction and related research that encourage the protection, 

restoration, and enhancement of sandy beaches, including beach 

restoration and periodic beach renourishment for a period of 50 

years, on a comprehensive and coordinated basis by the Federal 

Government, States, localities, and private enterprises. 

(b) PREFERENCE.—In carrying out the policy under subsection 

(a), preference shall be given to—

(1) areas in which there has been a Federal investment of 

funds for the purposes described in subsection (a); and 

(2) areas with respect to which the need for prevention or 

mitigation of damage to shores and beaches is attributable to 

Federal navigation projects or other Federal activities. 

(c) APPLICABILITY.—The Secretary shall apply the policy under 

subsection (a) to each shore protection and beach renourishment 

project (including shore protection and beach renourishment 

projects constructed before the date of enactment of this Act). 

SEC. 2019. ABILITY TO PAY. 

(a) CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES.—Section 103(m)(2) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)(2)) is 

amended by striking ‘‘180 days after such date of enactment’’ and 

inserting ‘‘December 31, 2007’’. 

(b) PROJECTS.—The Secretary shall apply the criteria and procedures referred to in section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) to the following projects: 

(1) ST. JOHNS BAYOU AND NEW MADRID FLOODWAY, MISSOURI.—The project for flood control, St. Johns Bayou and New 

Madrid Floodway, Missouri, authorized by section 401(a) of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4118). 

(2) LOWER RIO GRANDE BASIN, TEXAS.—The project for flood 

control, Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas, authorized by section 

401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 

Stat. 4125). 

(3) WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA PROJECTS.—The 

projects for flood control authorized by section 581 of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3790–3791). 

SEC. 2020. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM AND ESTUARY RESTORATION. 

Section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 

U.S.C. 2330; 110 Stat. 3679) is amended—

(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(a) GENERAL AUTHORITY.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry out a project to 

restore and protect an aquatic ecosystem or estuary if the Secretary determines that the project—

‘‘(A)(i) will improve the quality of the environment and 

is in the public interest; or 

‘‘(ii) will improve the elements and features of an estuary (as defined in section 103 of the Estuaries and Clean 

Waters Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2902)); and 

‘‘(B) is cost-effective. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
40 

‘‘(2) DAM REMOVAL.—A project under this section may include removal of a dam.’’; and 

(2) in subsection (e) by striking ‘‘$25,000,000’’ and inserting 

‘‘$50,000,000’’. 

SEC. 2021. SMALL FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECTS. 

Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) 

is amended by striking ‘‘$50,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$55,000,000’’. 

SEC. 2022. SMALL RIVER AND HARBOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. 

Section 107(b) of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 

577(b)) is amended by striking ‘‘$4,000,000’’ and inserting 

‘‘$7,000,000’’. 

SEC. 2023. PROTECTION OF HIGHWAYS, BRIDGE APPROACHES, PUBLIC 

WORKS, AND NONPROFIT PUBLIC SERVICES. 

Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r) is 

amended by striking ‘‘$1,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$1,500,000’’. 

SEC. 2024. MODIFICATION OF PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE 

QUALITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT. 

Section 1135(h) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 

(33 U.S.C. 2309a(h)) is amended by striking ‘‘$25,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$40,000,000’’. 

SEC. 2025. REMEDIATION OF ABANDONED MINE SITES. 

Section 560(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 

(33 U.S.C. 2336(f)) is amended by striking ‘‘$7,500,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$20,000,000’’. 

SEC. 2026. LEASING AUTHORITY. 

Section 4 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, 

and other purposes’’, approved December 22, 1944 (16 U.S.C. 460d), 

is amended—

(1) by inserting ‘‘federally recognized Indian tribes and’’ before ‘‘Federal’’ the first place it appears; 

(2) by inserting ‘‘Indian tribes or’’ after ‘‘considerations, to 

such’’; and 

(3) by inserting ‘‘federally recognized Indian tribe’’ after 

‘‘That in any such lease or license to a’’. 

SEC. 2027. FISCAL TRANSPARENCY REPORT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—On the third Tuesday of January of each year 

beginning January 2008, the Chief of Engineers shall submit to the 

Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 

Representatives a report on—

(1) the expenditures by the Corps for the preceding fiscal 

year and estimated expenditures by the Corps for the current 

fiscal year; and 

(2) for projects and activities that are not scheduled for 

completion in the current fiscal year, the estimated expenditures 

by the Corps necessary in the following fiscal year for each 

project or activity to maintain the same level of effort being 

achieved in the current fiscal year. 

(b) CONTENTS.—In addition to the information described in 

subsection (a), the report shall contain a detailed accounting of the 

following information: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
41 

(1) With respect to activities carried out with funding provided under the Construction appropriations account for the 

Secretary, information on—

(A) projects currently under construction, including—

(i) allocations to date; 

(ii) the number of years remaining to complete construction; 

(iii) the estimated annual Federal cost to maintain 

that construction schedule; and 

(iv) a list of projects the Corps of Engineers expects 

to complete during the current fiscal year; and 

(B) projects for which there is a signed partnership 

agreement and completed planning, engineering, and design, including—

(i) the number of years the project is expected to require for completion; and 

(ii) estimated annual Federal cost to maintain that 

construction schedule. 

(2) With respect to operation and maintenance of the inland 

and intracoastal waterways identified by section 206 of the Inland Waterways Revenue Act of 1978 (33 U.S.C. 1804)—

(A) the estimated annual cost to maintain each waterway for the authorized reach and at the authorized depth; 

(B) the estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance of locks and dams to ensure navigation without 

interruption; and 

(C) the actual expenditures to maintain each waterway. 

(3) With respect to activities carried out with funding provided under the Investigations appropriations account for the 

Secretary—

(A) the number of active studies; 

(B) the number of completed studies not yet authorized 

for construction; 

(C) the number of initiated studies; and 

(D) the number of studies expected to be completed during the fiscal year. 

(4) Funding received and estimates of funds to be received 

for interagency and international support activities under section 234 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 

U.S.C. 2323a). 

(5) Recreation fees and lease payments. 

(6) Hydropower and water storage receipts. 

(7) Deposits into the Inland Waterways Trust Fund and the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 

(8) Other revenues and fees collected by the Corps of Engineers. 

(9) With respect to permit applications and notifications, a 

list of individual permit applications and nationwide permit 

notifications, including—

(A) the date on which each permit application is filed; 

(B) the date on which each permit application is determined to be complete; 

(C) the date on which any permit application is withdrawn; and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
42 

(D) the date on which the Corps of Engineers grants or 

denies each permit. 

(10) With respect to projects that are authorized but for 

which construction is not complete, a list of such projects for 

which no funds have been allocated for the 5 preceding fiscal 

years, including, for each project—

(A) the authorization date; 

(B) the last allocation date; 

(C) the percentage of construction completed; 

(D) the estimated cost remaining until completion of 

the project; and 

(E) a brief explanation of the reasons for the delay. 

SEC. 2028. SUPPORT OF ARMY CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 2361 of title 10, 

United States Code, the Secretary may provide assistance through 

contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants to—

(1) the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, for establishment and operation of the Southeastern Water Resources 

Institute to study sustainable development and utilization of 

water resources in the southeastern United States; 

(2) Lewis and Clark Community College, Illinois, for the 

Great Rivers National Research and Education Center (including facilities that have been or will be constructed at one or 

more locations in the vicinity of the confluence of the Illinois 

River, the Missouri River, and the Mississippi River), a collaborative effort of Lewis and Clark Community College, the University of Illinois, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources 

and Environmental Sciences, and other entities, for the study of 

river ecology, developing watershed and river management 

strategies, and educating students and the public on river 

issues; and 

(3) the University of Texas at Dallas for support and operation of the International Center for Decision and Risk Analysis 

to study risk analysis and control methods for transboundary 

water resources management in the southwestern United States 

and other international water resources management problems. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized 

to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out subsection (a)(1) 

$2,000,000, to carry out subsection (a)(2) $2,000,000, and to carry 

out subsection (a)(3) $5,000,000. 

SEC. 2029. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON CRITERIA FOR OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE OF HARBOR DREDGING PROJECTS. 

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 

(1) Insufficient maintenance dredging results in inefficient 

water transportation and harmful economic consequences. 

(2) The estimated dredging backlog at commercial harbors 

in the Great Lakes alone is 16,000,000 cubic yards. 

(3) Approximately two-thirds of all shipping in the United 

States either starts or finishes at small harbors. 

(4) Small harbors often have a greater proportional impact 

on local economies than do larger harbors. 

(5) Performance metrics can be valuable tools in the budget 

process for water resources projects. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
43 

(6) The use of a single performance metric for water resources projects can result in a budget biased against small and 

rural communities. 

(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that the 

operations and maintenance budget of the Corps of Engineers 

should reflect the use of all available economic data, rather than a 

single performance metric. 

SEC. 2030. INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT AUTHORITY. 

Section 234 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 

U.S.C. 2323a) is amended—

(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may engage in activities (including contracting) in support of other Federal agencies, international organizations, or foreign governments to address problems 

of national significance to the United States.’’; 

(2) in subsection (b) by striking ‘‘Secretary of State’’ and inserting ‘‘Department of State’’; and 

(3) in subsection (d)—

(A) by striking ‘‘$250,000 for fiscal year 2001’’ and inserting ‘‘$1,000,000 for fiscal year 2008’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘or international organizations’’ and inserting ‘‘, international organizations, or foreign governments’’. 

SEC. 2031. WATER RESOURCES PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES. 

(a) NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES PLANNING POLICY.—It is the 

policy of the United States that all water resources projects should 

reflect national priorities, encourage economic development, and 

protect the environment by—

(1) seeking to maximize sustainable economic development; 

(2) seeking to avoid the unwise use of floodplains and floodprone areas and minimizing adverse impacts and 

vulnerabilities in any case in which a floodplain or flood-prone 

area must be used; and 

(3) protecting and restoring the functions of natural systems and mitigating any unavoidable damage to natural systems. 

(b) PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES.—

(1) PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES DEFINED.—In this subsection, the term ‘‘principles and guidelines’’ means the principles and guidelines contained in the document prepared by 

the Water Resources Council pursuant to section 103 of the 

Water Resources Planning Act (42 U.S.C. 1962a–2), entitled 

‘‘Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for 

Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies’’, 

and dated March 10, 1983. 

(2) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the date of 

enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue revisions, consistent with paragraph (3), to the principles and guidelines for 

use by the Secretary in the formulation, evaluation, and implementation of water resources projects. 

(3) CONSIDERATIONS.—In developing revisions to the principles and guidelines under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall 

evaluate the consistency of the principles and guidelines with, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
44 

and ensure that the principles and guidelines address, the following: 

(A) The use of best available economic principles and 

analytical techniques, including techniques in risk and uncertainty analysis. 

(B) The assessment and incorporation of public safety 

in the formulation of alternatives and recommended plans. 

(C) Assessment methods that reflect the value of 

projects for low-income communities and projects that use 

nonstructural approaches to water resources development 

and management. 

(D) The assessment and evaluation of the interaction of 

a project with other water resources projects and programs 

within a region or watershed. 

(E) The use of contemporary water resources paradigms, including integrated water resources management 

and adaptive management. 

(F) Evaluation methods that ensure that water resources projects are justified by public benefits. 

(4) CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.—In carrying 

out paragraph (2), the Secretary shall—

(A) consult with the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary of 

Transportation, the Administrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of 

Homeland Security, the National Academy of Sciences, and 

the Council on Environmental Quality; and 

(B) solicit and consider public and expert comments. 

(5) PUBLICATION.—The Secretary shall—

(A) submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives 

copies of—

(i) the revisions to the principles and guidelines for 

use by the Secretary; and 

(ii) an explanation of the intent of each revision, 

how each revision is consistent with this section, and 

the probable impact of each revision on water resources 

projects carried out by the Secretary; and 

(B) make the revisions to the principles and guidelines 

for use by the Secretary available to the public, including 

on the Internet. 

(6) EFFECT.—Subject to the requirements of this subsection, 

the principles and guidelines as revised under this subsection 

shall apply to water resources projects carried out by the Secretary instead of the principles and guidelines for such projects 

in effect on the day before date of enactment of this Act. 

(7) APPLICABILITY.—After the date of issuance of the revisions to the principles and guidelines, the revisions shall 

apply— (A) to all water resources projects carried out by the 

Secretary, other than projects for which the Secretary has 

commenced a feasibility study before the date of such 

issuance; 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
45 

(B) at the request of a non-Federal interest, to a water 

resources project for which the Secretary has commenced a 

feasibility study before the date of such issuance; and 

(C) to the reevaluation or modification of a water resources project, other than a reevaluation or modification 

that has been commenced by the Secretary before the date 

of such issuance. 

(8) EXISTING STUDIES.—Revisions to the principles and 

guidelines issued under paragraph (2) shall not affect the validity of any completed study of a water resources project. 

(9) RECOMMENDATION.—Upon completion of the revisions to 

the principles and guidelines for use by the Secretary, the Secretary shall make a recommendation to Congress as to the advisability of repealing subsections (a) and (b) of section 80 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–

17). 

SEC. 2032. WATER RESOURCE PRIORITIES REPORT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to Congress a report describing the vulnerability of the United States to damage from 

flooding, including—

(1) the risk to human life; 

(2) the risk to property; and 

(3) the comparative risks faced by different regions of the 

United States. 

(b) INCLUSIONS.—The report under subsection (a) shall include—

(1) an assessment of the extent to which programs in the 

United States relating to flooding address flood risk reduction 

priorities; 

(2) the extent to which those programs may be encouraging 

development and economic activity in flood-prone areas; 

(3) recommendations for improving those programs with respect to reducing and responding to flood risks; and 

(4) proposals for implementing the recommendations. 

SEC. 2033. PLANNING. 

(a) MATTERS TO BE ADDRESSED IN PLANNING.—Section 904 of 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2281) is 

amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘Enhancing’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Enhancing’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(b) ASSESSMENTS.—For all feasibility reports for water resources projects completed after December 31, 2007, the Secretary 

shall assess whether—

‘‘(1) the water resources project and each separable element 

is cost-effective; and 

‘‘(2) the water resources project complies with Federal, 

State, and local laws (including regulations) and public policies.’’. 

(b) PLANNING PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS.—The Chief of Engineers— (1) shall adopt a risk analysis approach to project cost estimates for water resources projects; and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
46 

(2) not later than one year after the date of enactment of 

this Act, shall—

(A) issue procedures for risk analysis for cost estimation for water resources projects; and 

(B) submit to Congress a report that includes any recommended amendments to section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280). 

(c) BENCHMARKS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 12 months after the date 

of enactment of this Act, the Chief of Engineers shall establish 

benchmarks for determining the length of time it should take to 

conduct a feasibility study for a water resources project and its 

associated review process under the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The Chief of Engineers shall use such benchmarks as a management tool to make 

the feasibility study process more efficient in all districts of the 

Corps of Engineers. 

(2) BENCHMARK GOALS.—The Chief of Engineers shall establish, to the extent practicable, under paragraph (1) benchmark goals for completion of feasibility studies for water resources projects generally within 2 years. In the case of feasibility studies that the Chief of Engineers determines may require additional time based on the project type, size, cost, or 

complexity, the benchmark goal for completion shall be generally within 4 years. 

(d) CALCULATION OF BENEFITS AND COSTS FOR FLOOD DAMAGE

REDUCTION PROJECTS.—A feasibility study for a project for flood 

damage reduction shall include, as part of the calculation of benefits and costs—

(1) a calculation of the residual risk of flooding following 

completion of the proposed project; 

(2) a calculation of the residual risk of loss of human life 

and residual risk to human safety following completion of the 

proposed project; 

(3) a calculation of any upstream or downstream impacts 

of the proposed project; and 

(4) calculations to ensure that the benefits and costs associated with structural and nonstructural alternatives are evaluated in an equitable manner. 

(e) CENTERS OF SPECIALIZED PLANNING EXPERTISE.—

(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary may establish centers 

of expertise to provide specialized planning expertise for water 

resources projects to be carried out by the Secretary in order to 

enhance and supplement the capabilities of the districts of the 

Corps of Engineers. 

(2) DUTIES.—A center of expertise established under this 

subsection shall—

(A) provide technical and managerial assistance to district commanders of the Corps of Engineers for project 

planning, development, and implementation; 

(B) provide agency peer reviews of new major scientific, 

engineering, or economic methods, models, or analyses that 

will be used to support decisions of the Secretary with respect to feasibility studies for water resources projects; 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
47 

(C) provide support for independent peer review panels 

under section 2034; and 

(D) carry out such other duties as are prescribed by the 

Secretary. 

(f) COMPLETION OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS REPORTS.— (1) ALTERNATIVES.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Feasibility and other studies and assessments for a water resources project shall include recommendations for alternatives— (i) that, as determined in coordination with the 

non-Federal interest for the project, promote integrated 

water resources management; and 

(ii) for which the non-Federal interest is willing to 

provide the non-Federal share for the studies or assessments. 

(B) CONSTRAINTS.—The alternatives contained in studies and assessments described in subparagraph (A) shall 

not be constrained by budgetary or other policy. 

(C) REPORTS OF CHIEF OF ENGINEERS.—The reports of 

the Chief of Engineers shall identify any recommendation 

that is not the best technical solution to water resource 

needs and problems and the reason for the deviation. 

(2) REPORT COMPLETION.—The completion of a report of the 

Chief of Engineers for a water resources project— (A) shall not be delayed while consideration is being 

given to potential changes in policy or priority for project 

consideration; and 

(B) shall be submitted, on completion, to— (i) the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works of the Senate; and 

(ii) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives. 

(g) COMPLETION REVIEW.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), not 

later than 120 days after the date of completion of a report of 

the Chief of Engineers that recommends to Congress a water resources project, the Secretary shall— (A) review the report; and 

(B) provide any recommendations of the Secretary regarding the water resources project to Congress. 

(2) PRIOR REPORTS.—Not later than 180 days after the date 

of enactment of this Act, with respect to any report of the Chief 

of Engineers recommending a water resources project that is 

complete prior to the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 

shall complete review of, and provide recommendations to Congress for, the report in accordance with paragraph (1). 

SEC. 2034. INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW. 

(a) PROJECT STUDIES SUBJECT TO INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Project studies shall be subject to a peer 

review by an independent panel of experts as determined under 

this section. 

(2) SCOPE.—The peer review may include a review of the 

economic and environmental assumptions and projections, 

project evaluation data, economic analyses, environmental analVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:35 Aug 04, 2007 Jkt 036965 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR280.XXX HR280

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
48 

yses, engineering analyses, formulation of alternative plans, 

methods for integrating risk and uncertainty, models used in 

evaluation of economic or environmental impacts of proposed 

projects, and any biological opinions of the project study. 

(3) PROJECT STUDIES SUBJECT TO PEER REVIEW.—

(A) MANDATORY.—A project study shall be subject to 

peer review under paragraph (1) if—

(i) the project has an estimated total cost of more 

than $45,000,000, including mitigation costs, and is 

not determined by the Chief of Engineers to be exempt 

from peer review under paragraph (6); 

(ii) the Governor of an affected State requests a 

peer review by an independent panel of experts; or 

(iii) the Chief of Engineers determines that the 

project study is controversial considering the factors set 

forth in paragraph (4). 

(B) DISCRETIONARY.—

(i) AGENCY REQUEST.—A project study shall be 

considered by the Chief of Engineers for peer review 

under this section if the head of a Federal or State 

agency charged with reviewing the project study determines that the project is likely to have a significant adverse impact on environmental, cultural, or other resources under the jurisdiction of the agency after implementation of proposed mitigation plans and requests a peer review by an independent panel of experts. 

(ii) DEADLINE FOR DECISION.—A decision of the 

Chief of Engineers under this subparagraph whether to 

conduct a peer review shall be made within 21 days of 

the date of receipt of the request by the head of the Federal or State agency under clause (i). 

(iii) REASONS FOR NOT CONDUCTING PEER REVIEW.—If the Chief of Engineers decides not to conduct 

a peer review following a request under clause (i), the 

Chief shall make publicly available, including on the 

Internet, the reasons for not conducting the peer review. 

(iv) APPEAL TO CHAIRMAN OF COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.—A decision by the Chief of Engineers not to conduct a peer review following a request 

under clause (i) shall be subject to appeal by a person 

referred to in clause (i) to the Chairman of the Council 

on Environmental Quality if such appeal is made within the 30-day period following the date of the decision 

being made available under clause (iii). A decision of 

the Chairman on an appeal under this clause shall be 

made within 30 days of the date of the appeal. 

(4) FACTORS TO CONSIDER.—In determining whether a 

project study is controversial under paragraph (3)(A)(iii), the 

Chief of Engineers shall consider if—

(A) there is a significant public dispute as to the size, 

nature, or effects of the project; or 

(B) there is a significant public dispute as to the economic or environmental costs or benefits of the project. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
49 

(5) PROJECT STUDIES EXCLUDED FROM PEER REVIEW.—The 

Chief of Engineers may exclude a project study from peer review 

under paragraph (1)—

(A) if the project study does not include an environmental impact statement and is a project study subject to 

peer review under paragraph (3)(A)(i) that the Chief of Engineers determines—

(i) is not controversial; 

(ii) has no more than negligible adverse impacts on 

scarce or unique cultural, historic, or tribal resources; 

(iii) has no substantial adverse impacts on fish 

and wildlife species and their habitat prior to the implementation of mitigation measures; and 

(iv) has, before implementation of mitigation measures, no more than a negligible adverse impact on a 

species listed as endangered or threatened species 

under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) or the critical habitat of such species designated under such Act; 

(B) if the project study—

(i) involves only the rehabilitation or replacement 

of existing hydropower turbines, lock structures, or 

flood control gates within the same footprint and for 

the same purpose as an existing water resources 

project; 

(ii) is for an activity for which there is ample experience within the Corps of Engineers and industry to 

treat the activity as being routine; and 

(iii) has minimal life safety risk; or 

(C) if the project study does not include an environmental impact statement and is a project study pursued 

under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 

U.S.C. 701s), section 2 of the Flood Control Act of August 

28, 1937 (33 U.S.C. 701g), section 14 of the Flood Control 

Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r), section 107(a) of the River 

and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577(a)), section 3 of the 

Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing Federal participation in 

the cost of protecting the shores of publicly owned property’’, approved August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g), section 

111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i), 

section 3 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works 

on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes’’, approved 

March 2, 1945 (33 U.S.C. 603a), section 1135 of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), or 

section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 

(33 U.S.C. 2330). 

(6) DETERMINATION OF TOTAL COST.—For purposes of determining the estimated total cost of a project under paragraph 

(3)(A), the total cost shall be based upon the reasonable estimates of the Chief of Engineers at the completion of the reconnaissance study for the project. If the reasonable estimate of 

total costs is subsequently determined to be in excess of the 

amount in paragraph (3)(A), the Chief of Engineers shall make 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
50 

a determination whether a project study is required to be reviewed under this section. 

(b) TIMING OF PEER REVIEW.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Chief of Engineers shall determine 

the timing of a peer review of a project study under subsection 

(a). In all cases, the peer review shall occur during the period 

beginning on the date of the signing of the feasibility cost-sharing agreement for the study and ending on the date established 

under subsection (e)(1)(A) for the peer review and shall be accomplished concurrent with the conducting of the project study. 

(2) FACTORS TO CONSIDER.—In any case in which the Chief 

of Engineers has not initiated a peer review of a project study, 

the Chief of Engineers shall consider, at a minimum, whether 

to initiate a peer review at the time that— (A) the without-project conditions are identified; 

(B) the array of alternatives to be considered are identified; and 

(C) the preferred alternative is identified. 

(3) LIMITATION ON MULTIPLE PEER REVIEW.—Nothing in 

this subsection shall be construed to require the Chief of Engineers to conduct multiple peer reviews for a project study. 

(c) ESTABLISHMENT OF PANELS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—For each project study subject to peer review under subsection (a), as soon as practicable after the Chief 

of Engineers determines that a project study will be subject to 

peer review, the Chief of Engineers shall contract with the National Academy of Sciences or a similar independent scientific 

and technical advisory organization or an eligible organization 

to establish a panel of experts to conduct a peer review for the 

project study. 

(2) MEMBERSHIP.—A panel of experts established for a 

project study under this section shall be composed of independent experts who represent a balance of areas of expertise 

suitable for the review being conducted. 

(3) LIMITATION ON APPOINTMENTS.—The National Academy 

of Sciences or any other organization the Chief of Engineers 

contracts with under paragraph (1) to establish a panel of experts shall apply the National Academy of Science’s policy for 

selecting committee members to ensure that members selected 

for the panel of experts have no conflict with the project being 

reviewed. 

(4) CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION.—Upon identification of 

a project study for peer review under this section, but prior to 

initiation of the review, the Chief of Engineers shall notify the 

Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and 

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 

House of Representatives of the review. 

(d) DUTIES OF PANELS.—A panel of experts established for a 

peer review for a project study under this section shall—

(1) conduct the peer review for the project study; 

(2) assess the adequacy and acceptability of the economic, 

engineering, and environmental methods, models, and analyses 

used by the Chief of Engineers; 

(3) receive from the Chief of Engineers the public written 

and oral comments provided to the Chief of Engineers; 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
51 

(4) provide timely written and oral comments to the Chief 

of Engineers throughout the development of the project study, as 

requested; and 

(5) submit to the Chief of Engineers a final report containing the panel’s economic, engineering, and environmental 

analysis of the project study, including the panel’s assessment 

of the adequacy and acceptability of the economic, engineering, 

and environmental methods, models, and analyses used by the 

Chief of Engineers, to accompany the publication of the report 

of the Chief of Engineers for the project. 

(e) DURATION OF PROJECT STUDY PEER REVIEWS.—

(1) DEADLINE.—A panel of experts established under this 

section shall—

(A) complete its peer review under this section for a 

project study and submit a report to the Chief of Engineers 

under subsection (d)(5) not more than 60 days after the last 

day of the public comment period for the draft project 

study, or, if the Chief of Engineers determines that a longer 

period of time is necessary, such period of time determined 

necessary by the Chief of Engineers; and 

(B) terminate on the date of initiation of the State and 

agency review required by the first section of the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887). 

(2) FAILURE TO MEET DEADLINE.—If a panel of experts does 

not complete its peer review of a project study under this section 

and submit a report to the Chief of Engineers under subsection 

(d)(5) on or before the deadline established by paragraph (1) for 

the peer review, the Chief of Engineers shall complete the 

project study without delay. 

(f) RECOMMENDATIONS OF PANEL.—

(1) CONSIDERATION BY THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS.—After receiving a report on a project study from a panel of experts 

under this section and before entering a final record of decision 

for the project, the Chief of Engineers shall consider any recommendations contained in the report and prepare a written response for any recommendations adopted or not adopted. 

(2) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY AND TRANSMITTAL TO CONGRESS.—

After receiving a report on a project study from a panel of experts under this section, the Chief of Engineers shall—

(A) make a copy of the report and any written response 

of the Chief of Engineers on recommendations contained in 

the report available to the public by electronic means, including the Internet; and 

(B) transmit to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a copy of the report, together with any such written response, on the date of a final report of the Chief of Engineers or other final decision document for the project study. 

(g) COSTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The costs of a panel of experts established 

for a peer review under this section—

(A) shall be a Federal expense; and 

(B) shall not exceed $500,000. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
52 

(2) WAIVER.—The Chief of Engineers may waive the $500,000 limitation contained in paragraph (1)(B) in cases that 

the Chief of Engineers determines appropriate. 

(h) APPLICABILITY.—This section shall apply to— (1) project studies initiated during the 2-year period preceding the date of enactment of this Act and for which the array 

of alternatives to be considered has not been identified; and 

(2) project studies initiated during the period beginning on 

such date of enactment and ending 7 years after such date of 

enactment. 

(i) REPORTS.— (1) INITIAL REPORT.—Not later than 3 years after the date 

of enactment of this section, the Chief of Engineers shall submit 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 

the House of Representatives a report on the implementation of 

this section. 

(2) ADDITIONAL REPORT.—Not later than 6 years after the 

date of enactment of this section, the Chief of Engineers shall 

update the report under paragraph (1) taking into account any 

further information on implementation of this section and submit such updated report to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives. 

(j) NONAPPLICABILITY OF FACA.—The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to a peer review panel established under this section. 

(k) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any authority of the Chief of Engineers to cause or 

conduct a peer review of a water resources project existing on the 

date of enactment of this section. 

(l) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following definitions 

apply: 

(1) PROJECT STUDY.—The term ‘‘project study’’ means—

(A) a feasibility study or reevaluation study for a water 

resources project, including the environmental impact statement prepared for the study; and 

(B) any other study associated with a modification of 

a water resources project that includes an environmental 

impact statement, including the environmental impact 

statement prepared for the study. 

(2) AFFECTED STATE.—The term ‘‘affected State’’, as used 

with respect to a water resources project, means a State all or 

a portion of which is within the drainage basin in which the 

project is or would be located and would be economically or environmentally affected as a consequence of the project. 

(3) ELIGIBLE ORGANIZATION.—The term ‘‘eligible organization’’ means an organization that—

(A) is described in section 501(c)(3), and exempt from 

Federal tax under section 501(a), of the Internal Revenue 

Code of 1986; 

(B) is independent; 

(C) is free from conflicts of interest; 

(D) does not carry out or advocate for or against Federal water resources projects; and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
53 

(E) has experience in establishing and administering 

peer review panels. 

(4) TOTAL COST.—The term ‘‘total cost’’, as used with respect to a water resources project, means the cost of construction 

(including planning and designing) of the project. In the case 

of a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction or flood 

damage reduction that includes periodic nourishment over the 

life of the project, the term includes the total cost of the nourishment. 

SEC. 2035. SAFETY ASSURANCE REVIEW. 

(a) PROJECTS SUBJECT TO SAFETY ASSURANCE REVIEW.—The 

Chief of Engineers shall ensure that the design and construction activities for hurricane and storm damage reduction and flood damage reduction projects are reviewed by independent experts under 

this section if the Chief of Engineers determines that a review by 

independent experts is necessary to assure public health, safety, and 

welfare. 

(b) FACTORS.—In determining whether a review of design and 

construction of a project is necessary under this section, the Chief 

of Engineers shall consider whether—

(1) the failure of the project would pose a significant threat 

to human life; 

(2) the project involves the use of innovative materials or 

techniques; 

(3) the project design lacks redundancy; or 

(4) the project has a unique construction sequencing or a reduced or overlapping design construction schedule. 

(c) SAFETY ASSURANCE REVIEW.—

(1) INITIATION OF REVIEW.—At the appropriate point in the 

development of detailed engineering and design specifications 

for each water resources project subject to review under this section, the Chief of Engineers shall initiate a safety assurance review by independent experts on the design and construction activities for the project. 

(2) SELECTION OF REVIEWERS.—A safety assurance review 

under this section shall include participation by experts selected 

by the Chief of Engineers from among individuals who are distinguished experts in engineering, hydrology, or other appropriate disciplines. The Chief of Engineers shall apply the National Academy of Science’s policy for selecting reviewers to ensure that reviewers have no conflict of interest with the project 

being reviewed. 

(3) COMPENSATION.—An individual serving as an independent reviewer under this section shall be compensated at a 

rate of pay to be determined by the Secretary and shall be allowed travel expenses. 

(d) SCOPE OF SAFETY ASSURANCE REVIEWS.—A safety assurance review under this section shall include a review of the design 

and construction activities prior to the initiation of physical construction and periodically thereafter until construction activities are 

completed on a regular schedule sufficient to inform the Chief of Engineers on the adequacy, appropriateness, and acceptability of the 

design and construction activities for the purpose of assuring public 

health, safety, and welfare. The Chief of Engineers shall ensure that 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
54 

reviews under this section do not create any unnecessary delays in 

design and construction activities. 

(e) SAFETY ASSURANCE REVIEW RECORD.—The written recommendations of a reviewer or panel of reviewers under this section 

and the responses of the Chief of Engineers shall be available to the 

public, including through electronic means on the Internet. 

(f) APPLICABILITY.—This section shall apply to any project in 

design or under construction on the date of enactment of this Act 

and to any project with respect to which design or construction is 

initiated during the period beginning on the date of enactment of 

this Act and ending 7 years after such date of enactment. 

SEC. 2036. MITIGATION FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE AND WETLANDS 

LOSSES. 

(a) MITIGATION FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE LOSSES.—Section 

906(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 

2283(d)) is amended— (1) in the first sentence of paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘to the 

Congress’’ and inserting ‘‘to Congress in any report, and shall 

not select a project alternative in any report,’’; 

(2) in the second sentence of paragraph (1) by inserting ‘‘, and other habitat types are mitigated to not less than in-kind 

conditions’’ after ‘‘mitigated in-kind’’; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(3) MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—To mitigate losses to flood damage 

reduction capabilities and fish and wildlife resulting from 

a water resources project, the Secretary shall ensure that 

the mitigation plan for each water resources project complies with the mitigation standards and policies established 

pursuant to the regulatory programs administered by the 

Secretary. ‘‘(B) INCLUSIONS.—A specific mitigation plan for a 

water resources project under paragraph (1) shall include, 

at a minimum—

‘‘(i) a plan for monitoring the implementation and 

ecological success of each mitigation measure, including the cost and duration of any monitoring, and, to 

the extent practicable, a designation of the entities that 

will be responsible for the monitoring; 

‘‘(ii) the criteria for ecological success by which the 

mitigation will be evaluated and determined to be successful based on replacement of lost functions and values of the habitat, including hydrologic and vegetative 

characteristics; 

‘‘(iii) a description of the land and interests in 

land to be acquired for the mitigation plan and the 

basis for a determination that the land and interests 

are available for acquisition; 

‘‘(iv) a description of—

‘‘(I) the types and amount of restoration activities to be conducted; 

‘‘(II) the physical action to be undertaken to 

achieve the mitigation objectives within the watershed in which such losses occur and, in any case 

in which the mitigation will occur outside the waVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:35 Aug 04, 2007 Jkt 036965 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR280.XXX HR280

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
55 

tershed, a detailed explanation for undertaking the 

mitigation outside the watershed; and ‘‘(III) the functions and values that will result 

from the mitigation plan; and 

‘‘(v) a contingency plan for taking corrective actions in cases in which monitoring demonstrates that 

mitigation measures are not achieving ecological success in accordance with criteria under clause (ii). 

‘‘(C) RESPONSIBILITY FOR MONITORING.—In any case in 

which it is not practicable to identify in a mitigation plan 

for a water resources project the entity responsible for monitoring at the time of a final report of the Chief of Engineers 

or other final decision document for the project, such entity 

shall be identified in the partnership agreement entered 

into with the non-Federal interest under section 221 of 

Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b). ‘‘(4) DETERMINATION OF SUCCESS.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—A mitigation plan under this subsection shall be considered to be successful at the time at 

which the criteria under paragraph (3)(B)(ii) are achieved 

under the plan, as determined by monitoring under paragraph (3)(B)(i). ‘‘(B) CONSULTATION.—In determining whether a mitigation plan is successful under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall consult annually with appropriate Federal 

agencies and each State in which the applicable project is 

located on at least the following: ‘‘(i) The ecological success of the mitigation as of 

the date on which the report is submitted. ‘‘(ii) The likelihood that the mitigation will achieve 

ecological success, as defined in the mitigation plan. ‘‘(iii) The projected timeline for achieving that success. ‘‘(iv) Any recommendations for improving the likelihood of success. 

‘‘(5) MONITORING.—Mitigation monitoring shall continue 

until it has been demonstrated that the mitigation has met the 

ecological success criteria.’’. (b) STATUS REPORT.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Concurrent with the President’s submission to Congress of the President’s request for appropriations for 

the Civil Works Program for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall 

submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the status of 

construction of projects that require mitigation under section 

906 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 

2283), the status of such mitigation, and the results of the consultation under subsection (d)(4)(B) of such section. 

(2) PROJECTS INCLUDED.—The status report shall include 

the status of— (A) all projects that are under construction as of the 

date of the report; 

(B) all projects for which the President requests funding for the next fiscal year; and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
56 

(C) all projects that have undergone or completed construction, but have not completed the mitigation required 

under section 906 of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1986. 

(3) AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION.—The Secretary shall 

make information contained in the status report available to the 

public, including on the Internet. 

(c) WETLANDS MITIGATION.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out a water resources project 

that involves wetlands mitigation and that has impacts that 

occur within the service area of a mitigation bank, the Secretary, where appropriate, shall first consider the use of the 

mitigation bank if the bank contains sufficient available credits 

to offset the impact and the bank is approved in accordance 

with the Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks (60 Fed. Reg. 58605) or other applicable Federal law (including regulations). 

(2) SERVICE AREA.—To the maximum extent practicable, the 

service area of the mitigation bank under paragraph (1) shall 

be in the same watershed as the affected habitat. 

(3) RESPONSIBILITY FOR MONITORING.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Purchase of credits from a mitigation bank for a water resources project relieves the Secretary and the non-Federal interest from responsibility for 

monitoring or demonstrating mitigation success. 

(B) APPLICABILITY.—The relief of responsibility under 

subparagraph (A) applies only in any case in which the 

Secretary determines that monitoring of mitigation success 

is being conducted by the Secretary or by the owner or operator of the mitigation bank. 

SEC. 2037. REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘SEC. 204. REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT. 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—

‘‘(1) SEDIMENT USE.—For sediment obtained through the 

construction, operation, or maintenance of an authorized Federal water resources project, the Secretary shall develop, at Federal expense, regional sediment management plans and carry 

out projects at locations identified in plans developed under this 

section, or identified jointly by the non-Federal interest and the 

Secretary, for use in the construction, repair, modification, or 

rehabilitation of projects associated with Federal water resources projects for purposes listed in paragraph (3). 

‘‘(2) COOPERATION.—The Secretary shall develop plans 

under this subsection in cooperation with the appropriate Federal, State, regional, and local agencies. 

‘‘(3) PURPOSES FOR SEDIMENT USE IN PROJECTS.—The purposes of using sediment for the construction, repair, modification, or rehabilitation of Federal water resources projects are—

‘‘(A) to reduce storm damage to property; 

‘‘(B) to protect, restore, and create aquatic and ecologically related habitats, including wetlands; and 

‘‘(C) to transport and place suitable sediment. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
57 

‘‘(b) SECRETARIAL FINDINGS.—Subject to subsection (c), projects 

carried out under subsection (a) may be carried out in any case in 

which the Secretary finds that—

‘‘(1) the environmental, economic, and social benefits of the 

project, both monetary and nonmonetary, justify the cost of the 

project; and 

‘‘(2) the project will not result in environmental degradation. 

‘‘(c) DETERMINATION OF PROJECT COSTS.—

‘‘(1) COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Costs associated with construction 

of a project under this section or identified in a regional 

sediment management plan shall be limited solely to construction costs that are in excess of the costs necessary to 

carry out the dredging for construction, operation, or maintenance of an authorized Federal water resources project in 

the most cost-effective way, consistent with economic, engineering, and environmental criteria. 

‘‘(B) COST SHARING.—

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in clause (ii), 

the non-Federal share of the construction cost of a 

project under this section shall be determined as provided in subsections (a) through (d) of section 103 of 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 

U.S.C. 2213). 

‘‘(ii) SPECIAL RULE.—Construction of a project 

under this section for one or more of the purposes of 

protection, restoration, or creation of aquatic and ecologically related habitat, the cost of which does not exceed $750,000 and which is located in a disadvantaged 

community as determined by the Secretary, may be carried out at Federal expense. 

‘‘(C) TOTAL COST.—The total Federal costs associated 

with construction of a project under this section may not exceed $5,000,000. 

‘‘(2) OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, REPLACEMENT, AND REHABILITATION COSTS.—Operation, maintenance, replacement, and 

rehabilitation costs associated with a project under this section 

are the responsibility of the non-Federal interest. 

‘‘(d) SELECTION OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL METHOD FOR

ENVIRONMENTAL PURPOSES.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In developing and carrying out a Federal water resources project involving the disposal of dredged 

material, the Secretary may select, with the consent of the nonFederal interest, a disposal method that is not the least cost option if the Secretary determines that the incremental costs of the 

disposal method are reasonable in relation to the environmental 

benefits, including the benefits to the aquatic environment to be 

derived from the creation of wetlands and control of shoreline 

erosion. 

‘‘(2) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of such incremental costs shall be determined in accordance with subsection 

(c). 

‘‘(e) STATE AND REGIONAL PLANS.—The Secretary may—


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
58 

‘‘(1) cooperate with any State in the preparation of a comprehensive State or regional sediment management plan within 

the boundaries of the State; 

‘‘(2) encourage State participation in the implementation of 

the plan; and 

‘‘(3) submit to Congress reports and recommendations with 

respect to appropriate Federal participation in carrying out the 

plan. 

‘‘(f) PRIORITY AREAS.—In carrying out this section, the Secretary 

shall give priority to a regional sediment management project in the 

vicinity of each of the following: 

‘‘(1) Little Rock Slackwater Harbor, Arkansas. 

‘‘(2) Fletcher Cove, California. 

‘‘(3) Egmont Key, Florida. 

‘‘(4) Calcasieu Ship Channel, Louisiana. 

‘‘(5) Delaware River Estuary, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. 

‘‘(6) Fire Island Inlet, Suffolk County, New York. 

‘‘(7) Smith Point Park Pavilion and the TWA Flight 800 

Memorial, Brookhaven, New York. 

‘‘(8) Morehead City, North Carolina. 

‘‘(9) Toledo Harbor, Lucas County, Ohio. 

‘‘(10) Galveston Bay, Texas. 

‘‘(11) Benson Beach, Washington. 

‘‘(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000 per fiscal 

year, of which not more than $5,000,000 per fiscal year may be used 

for the development of regional sediment management plans authorized by subsection (e) and of which not more than $3,000,000 per 

fiscal year may be used for construction of projects to which subsection (c)(1)(B)(ii) applies. Such funds shall remain available until 

expended.’’. 

(b) CONFORMING REPEAL.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 145 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j) is repealed. 

(2) EXISTING PROJECTS.—The Secretary may complete any 

project being carried out under section 145 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 on the day before the date of 

enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 2038. NATIONAL SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT 

PROGRAM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing Federal participation in the cost of protecting the shores of 

publicly owned property’’, approved August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 

426g), is amended to read as follows: 

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

‘‘(a) CONSTRUCTION OF SMALL SHORE AND BEACH RESTORATION

AND PROTECTION PROJECTS.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry out a program 

for the construction of small shore and beach restoration and 

protection projects not specifically authorized by Congress that 

otherwise comply with the first section of this Act if the Secretary determines that such construction is advisable. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
59 

‘‘(2) LOCAL COOPERATION.—The local cooperation requirement of the first section of this Act shall apply to a project 

under this section. ‘‘(3) COMPLETENESS.—A project under this subsection— ‘‘(A) shall be complete; and 

‘‘(B) shall not commit the United States to any additional improvement to ensure the successful operation of the 

project; except for participation in periodic beach nourishment in accordance with— ‘‘(i) the first section of this Act; and 

‘‘(ii) the procedure for projects authorized after submission of a survey report. ‘‘(b) NATIONAL SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT

AND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct under the 

program authorized by subsection (a) a national shoreline erosion control development and demonstration program (referred 

to in this section as the ‘demonstration program’). 

‘‘(2) REQUIREMENTS.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The demonstration program shall 

include provisions for—

‘‘(i) projects consisting of planning, design, construction, and monitoring of prototype engineered and 

native and naturalized vegetative shoreline erosion 

control devices and methods; 

‘‘(ii) monitoring of the applicable prototypes; 

‘‘(iii) detailed engineering and environmental reports on the results of each project carried out under 

the demonstraton program; and 

‘‘(iv) technology transfers, as appropriate, to private property owners, State and local entities, nonprofit 

educational institutions, and nongovernmental organizations. 

‘‘(B) DETERMINATION OF FEASIBILITY.—A project under 

the demonstration program shall not be carried out until 

the Secretary determines that the project is feasible. 

‘‘(C) EMPHASIS.—A project under the demonstration 

program shall emphasize, to the maximum extent practicable—

‘‘(i) the development and demonstration of innovative technologies; ‘‘(ii) efficient designs to prevent erosion at a shoreline site, taking into account the lifecycle cost of the design, including cleanup, maintenance, and amortization; ‘‘(iii) new and enhanced shore protection project 

design and project formulation tools the purposes of 

which are to improve the physical performance, and 

lower the lifecycle costs, of the projects; ‘‘(iv) natural designs, including the use of native 

and naturalized vegetation or temporary structures 

that minimize permanent structural alterations to the 

shoreline; 

‘‘(v) the avoidance of negative impacts to adjacent 

shorefront communities; 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
60 

‘‘(vi) in areas with substantial residential or commercial interests located adjacent to the shoreline, designs that do not impair the aesthetic appeal of the interests; ‘‘(vii) the potential for long-term protection afforded by the technology; and ‘‘(viii) recommendations developed from evaluations of the program established under the Shoreline 

Erosion Control Demonstration Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 

1962–5 note), including— ‘‘(I) adequate consideration of the subgrade; 

‘‘(II) proper filtration; 

‘‘(III) durable components; 

‘‘(IV) adequate connection between units; and 

‘‘(V) consideration of additional relevant information. ‘‘(D) SITES.—

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Each project under the demonstration program may be carried out at— ‘‘(I) a privately owned site with substantial 

public access; or ‘‘(II) a publicly owned site on open coast or in 

tidal waters. 

‘‘(ii) SELECTION.—The Secretary shall develop criteria for the selection of sites for projects under the 

demonstration program, including criteria based on— ‘‘(I) a variety of geographic and climatic conditions; ‘‘(II) the size of the population that is dependent on the beaches for recreation or the protection 

of private property or public infrastructure; ‘‘(III) the rate of erosion; 

‘‘(IV) significant natural resources or habitats 

and environmentally sensitive areas; and 

‘‘(V) significant threatened historic structures 

or landmarks. 

‘‘(3) CONSULTATION.—The Secretary shall carry out the 

demonstration program in consultation with— ‘‘(A) the Secretary of Agriculture, particularly with respect to native and naturalized vegetative means of preventing and controlling shoreline erosion; ‘‘(B) Federal, State, and local agencies; 

‘‘(C) private organizations; 

‘‘(D) the Coastal Engineering Research Center established by the first section of Public Law 88–172 (33 U.S.C. 

426–1); and 

‘‘(E) applicable university research facilities. ‘‘(4) COMPLETION OF DEMONSTRATION.—After carrying out 

the initial construction and evaluation of the performance and 

cost of a project under the demonstration program, the Secretary may—

‘‘(A) amend, at the request of a non-Federal interest of 

the project, the partnership agreement for a federally authorized shore protection project in existence on the date on 

which initial construction of the project under the demVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:35 Aug 04, 2007 Jkt 036965 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR280.XXX HR280

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
61 

onstration program is complete to incorporate the project 

constructed under the demonstration program as a feature 

of the shore protection project, with the future cost sharing 

of the project constructed under the demonstration program 

to be determined by the project purposes of the shore protection project; or ‘‘(B) transfer all interest in and responsibility for the 

completed project constructed under the demonstration program to a non-Federal interest or another Federal agency. 

‘‘(5) AGREEMENTS.—The Secretary may enter into a partnership agreement with the non-Federal interest or a cooperative agreement with the head of another Federal agency under 

the demonstration program— ‘‘(A) to share the costs of construction, operation, maintenance, and monitoring of a project under the demonstration program; ‘‘(B) to share the costs of removing the project, or element of the project if the Secretary determines that the 

project or element of the project is detrimental to public or 

private property, public infrastructure, or public safety; or ‘‘(C) to specify ownership of the completed project if the 

Secretary determines that the completed project will not be 

part of a Corps of Engineers project. 

‘‘(6) REPORT.—Not later than December 31, 2008, and every 

3 years thereafter, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the 

Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and 

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 

House of Representatives a report describing— ‘‘(A) the activities carried out and accomplishments 

made under the demonstration program since the previous 

report under this paragraph; and ‘‘(B) any recommendations of the Secretary relating to 

the program. ‘‘(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary 

may expend, from any appropriations made available to the 

Secretary for the purpose of carrying out civil works, not more 

than $30,000,000 during any fiscal year to pay the Federal 

share of the costs of construction of small shore and beach restoration and protection projects or small projects under this section. 

‘‘(2) LIMITATION.—The total amount expended for a project 

under this section shall—

‘‘(A) be sufficient to pay the cost of Federal participation in the project (including periodic nourishment as provided for under the first section of this Act), as determined 

by the Secretary; and 

‘‘(B) be not more than $5,000,000.’’. 

(b) REPEAL.—Section 5 the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing 

Federal participation in the cost of protecting the shores of publicly 

owned property’’, approved August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426h), is repealed. 

SEC. 2039. MONITORING ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—In conducting a feasibility study for a project 

(or a component of a project) for ecosystem restoration, the Secretary 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
62 

shall ensure that the recommended project includes, as an integral 

part of the project, a plan for monitoring the success of the ecosystem restoration. 

(b) MONITORING PLAN.—The monitoring plan shall—

(1) include a description of the monitoring activities to be 

carried out, the criteria for ecosystem restoration success, and 

the estimated cost and duration of the monitoring; and 

(2) specify that the monitoring shall continue until such 

time as the Secretary determines that the criteria for ecosystem 

restoration success will be met. 

(c) COST SHARE.—For a period of 10 years from completion of 

construction of a project (or a component of a project) for ecosystem 

restoration, the Secretary shall consider the cost of carrying out the 

monitoring as a project cost. If the monitoring plan under subsection (b) requires monitoring beyond the 10-year period, the cost 

of monitoring shall be a non-Federal responsibility. 

SEC. 2040. ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF PERMIT APPLICATIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall implement a program to allow 

electronic submission of permit applications for permits under the 

jurisdiction of the Secretary. 

(b) LIMITATIONS.—This section does not preclude the submission of a physical copy. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out this section $3,000,000. 

SEC. 2041. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION. 

(a) PROJECT TRACKING.—The Secretary shall assign a unique 

tracking number to each water resources project under the jurisdiction of the Secretary to be used by each Federal agency throughout 

the life of the project. 

(b) REPORT REPOSITORY.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall provide to the Library of Congress a copy of each final feasibility study, final environmental impact statement, final reevaluation report, record 

of decision, and report to Congress prepared by the Corps of Engineers. 

(2) AVAILABILITY TO PUBLIC.—Each document described in 

paragraph (1) shall be made available to the public, and an 

electronic copy of each document shall be made permanently 

available to the public through the Internet. 

SEC. 2042. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION. 

Sections 101, 106, and 108 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109–103; 119 Stat. 

2252–2254), are repealed. 

SEC. 2043. STUDIES AND REPORTS FOR WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS. 

(a) STUDIES.—

(1) COST-SHARING REQUIREMENTS.—Section 105(a) of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2215(a)) 

is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(3) DETAILED PROJECT REPORTS.—The requirements of this 

subsection that apply to a feasibility study also shall apply to 

a study that results in a detailed project report, except that—


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
63 

‘‘(A) the first $100,000 of the costs of a study that results in a detailed project report shall be a Federal expense; 

and 

‘‘(B) paragraph (1)(C)(ii) shall not apply to such a 

study.’’. 

(2) PLANNING AND ENGINEERING.—Section 105(b) of such 

Act (33 U.S.C. 2215(b)) is amended by striking ‘‘authorized by 

this Act’’. 

(3) DEFINITIONS.—Section 105 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2215) 

is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following definitions 

apply: 

‘‘(1) DETAILED PROJECT REPORT.—The term ‘detailed project 

report’ means a report for a project not specifically authorized 

by Congress in law or otherwise that determines the feasibility 

of the project with a level of detail appropriate to the scope and 

complexity of the recommended solution and sufficient to proceed directly to the preparation of contract plans and specifications. The term includes any associated environmental impact 

statement and mitigation plan. For a project for which the Federal cost does not exceed $1,000,000, the term includes a planning and design analysis document. 

‘‘(2) FEASIBILITY STUDY.—The term ‘feasibility study’ means 

a study that results in a feasibility report under section 905, 

and any associated environmental impact statement and mitigation plan, prepared by the Corps of Engineers for a water resources project. The term includes a study that results in a 

project implementation report prepared under title VI of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680–

2694), a general reevaluation report, and a limited reevaluation 

report.’’. 

(b) REPORTS.—

(1) PREPARATION.—Section 905(a) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282(a)) is amended—

(A) by striking ‘‘(a) In the case of any’’ and inserting 

the following: 

‘‘(a) PREPARATION OF REPORTS.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any’’; 

(B) by striking ‘‘the Secretary, the Secretary shall’’ and 

inserting ‘‘the Secretary that results in recommendations 

concerning a project or the operation of a project and that 

requires specific authorization by Congress in law or otherwise, the Secretary shall perform a reconnaissance study 

and’’; 

(C) by striking ‘‘Such feasibility report’’ and inserting 

the following: 

‘‘(2) CONTENTS OF FEASIBILITY REPORTS.—A feasibility report’’; 

(D) by striking ‘‘The feasibility report’’ and inserting ‘‘A 

feasibility report’’; and 

(E) by striking the last sentence and inserting the following: 

‘‘(3) APPLICABILITY.—This subsection shall not apply to—


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
64 

‘‘(A) any study with respect to which a report has been 

submitted to Congress before the date of enactment of this 

Act; ‘‘(B) any study for a project, which project is authorized 

for construction by this Act and is not subject to section 

903(b); ‘‘(C) any study for a project which does not require specific authorization by Congress in law or otherwise; and ‘‘(D) general studies not intended to lead to recommendation of a specific water resources project. 

‘‘(4) FEASIBILITY REPORT DEFINED.—In this subsection, the 

term ‘feasibility report’ means each feasibility report, and any 

associated environmental impact statement and mitigation 

plan, prepared by the Corps of Engineers for a water resources 

project. The term includes a project implementation report prepared under title VI of the Water Resources Development Act of 

2000 (114 Stat. 2680–2694), a general reevaluation report, and 

a limited reevaluation report.’’. (2) PROJECTS NOT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY CON- GRESS.—Section 905 of such Act is further amended— (A) in subsection (b) by inserting ‘‘RECONNAISSANCE

STUDIES.—’’ before ‘‘Before initiating’’; 

(B) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), and (e) as subsections (d), (e), and (f), respectively; 

(C) by inserting after subsection (b) the following: 

‘‘(c) PROJECTS NOT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS.—

In the case of any water resources project-related study authorized 

to be undertaken by the Secretary without specific authorization by 

Congress in law or otherwise, the Secretary shall prepare a detailed 

project report.’’; 

(D) in subsection (d) (as so redesignated) by inserting 

‘‘INDIAN TRIBES.—’’ before ‘‘For purposes of ’’; and 

(E) in subsection (e) (as so redesignated) by inserting ‘‘STANDARD AND UNIFORM PROCEDURES AND PRACTICES.—’’

before ‘‘The Secretary shall’’. 

SEC. 2044. COORDINATION AND SCHEDULING OF FEDERAL, STATE, 

AND LOCAL ACTIONS. 

(a) NOTICE OF INTENT.—Upon request of the non-Federal interest in the form of a written notice of intent to construct or modify 

a non-Federal water supply, wastewater infrastructure, flood damage reduction, storm damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, or 

navigation project that requires the approval of the Secretary, the 

Secretary shall initiate, subject to subsection (c), procedures to establish a schedule for consolidating Federal, State, and local agency 

and Indian tribe environmental assessments, project reviews, and 

issuance of all permits for the construction or modification of the 

project. All States and Indian tribes having jurisdiction over the 

proposed project shall be invited by the Secretary, but shall not be 

required, to participate in carrying out this section with respect to 

the project. 

(b) COORDINATION.—The Secretary shall seek, to the extent 

practicable, to consolidate hearing and comment periods, procedures 

for data collection and report preparation, and the environmental 

review and permitting processes associated with the project and related activities. The Secretary shall notify, to the extent possible, the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
65 

non-Federal interest of its responsibilities for data development and 

information that may be necessary to process each permit required 

for the project, including a schedule when the information and data 

should be provided to the appropriate Federal, State, or local agency 

or Indian tribe. 

(c) COSTS OF COORDINATION.—The costs incurred by the Secretary to establish and carry out a schedule to consolidate Federal, 

State, and local agency and Indian tribe environmental assessments, project reviews, and permit issuance for a project under this 

section shall be paid by the non-Federal interest. 

(d) REPORT ON TIMESAVINGS METHODS.—Not later than 3 years 

after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall prepare and transmit to Congress a report estimating the time required 

for the issuance of all Federal, State, local, and tribal permits for 

the construction of non-Federal projects for water supply, wastewater infrastructure, flood damage reduction, storm damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, and navigation. 

SEC. 2045. PROJECT STREAMLINING. 

(a) POLICY.—The benefits of water resources projects are important to the Nation’s economy and environment, and recommendations to Congress regarding such projects should not be delayed due 

to uncoordinated or inefficient reviews or the failure to timely resolve disputes during the development of water resources projects. 

(b) SCOPE.—This section shall apply to each study initiated 

after the date of enactment of this Act to develop a feasibility report 

under section 905 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 

(33 U.S.C. 2282), or a reevaluation report, for a water resources 

project if the Secretary determines that such study requires an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 

(c) WATER RESOURCES PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS.—The Secretary shall develop and implement a coordinated review process for 

the development of water resources projects. 

(d) COORDINATED REVIEWS.—The coordinated review process 

under this section may provide that all reviews, analyses, opinions, 

permits, licenses, and approvals that must be issued or made by a 

Federal, State, or local government agency or Indian tribe for the 

development of a water resources project described in subsection (b) 

will be conducted, to the maximum extent practicable, concurrently 

and completed within a time period established by the Secretary in 

cooperation with the agencies identified under subsection (e) with 

respect to the project. 

(e) IDENTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL AGENCIES.—With respect to the development of each water resources project, the Secretary shall identify, as soon as practicable, all Federal, State, and 

local government agencies and Indian tribes that may—

(1) have jurisdiction over the project; 

(2) be required by law to conduct or issue a review, analysis, or opinion for the project; or 

(3) be required to make a determination on issuing a permit, license, or approval for the project. 

(f) STATE AUTHORITY.—If the coordinated review process is 

being implemented under this section by the Secretary with respect 

to the development of a water resources project described in subsection (b) within the boundaries of a State, the State, consistent 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
66 

with State law, may choose to participate in the process and to 

make subject to the process all State agencies that— (1) have jurisdiction over the project; 

(2) are required to conduct or issue a review, analysis, or 

opinion for the project; or 

(3) are required to make a determination on issuing a permit, license, or approval for the project. 

(g) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.—The coordinated review process developed under this section may be incorporated into 

a memorandum of understanding for a water resources project between the Secretary, the heads of Federal, State, and local government agencies, Indian tribes identified under subsection (e), and the 

non-Federal interest for the project. 

(h) EFFECT OF FAILURE TO MEET DEADLINE.— (1) NOTIFICATION.—If the Secretary determines that a Federal, State, or local government agency, Indian tribe, or nonFederal interest that is participating in the coordinated review 

process under this section with respect to the development of a 

water resources project has not met a deadline established 

under subsection (d) for the project, the Secretary shall notify, 

within 30 days of the date of such determination, the agency, 

Indian tribe, or non-Federal interest about the failure to meet 

the deadline. 

(2) AGENCY REPORT.—Not later than 30 days after the date 

of receipt of a notice under paragraph (1), the Federal, State, 

or local government agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal interest involved may submit a report to the Secretary, explaining 

why the agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal interest did not 

meet the deadline and what actions it intends to take to complete or issue the required review, analysis, or opinion or determination on issuing a permit, license, or approval. 

(3) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 30 days after the 

date of receipt of a report under paragraph (2), the Secretary 

shall compile and submit a report to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, 

the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, 

and the Council on Environmental Quality, describing any 

deadlines identified in paragraph (1), and any information provided to the Secretary by the Federal, State, or local government 

agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal interest involved under 

paragraph (2). 

(i) LIMITATIONS.—Nothing in this section shall preempt or 

interfere with—

(1) any statutory requirement for seeking public comment; 

(2) any power, jurisdiction, or authority that a Federal, 

State, or local government agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal 

interest has with respect to carrying out a water resources 

project; or 

(3) any obligation to comply with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the regulations 

issued by the Council on Environmental Quality to carry out 

such Act. 

SEC. 2046. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATION. 

Section 1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)) is amended—


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
67 

(1) in the first sentence—

(A) by striking ‘‘two years’’ and inserting ‘‘year’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘7’’ and inserting ‘‘5’’; 

(2) in the last sentence by striking ‘‘30 months after the 

date’’ and inserting ‘‘the last date of the fiscal year following the 

fiscal year in which’’; and 

(3) in the last sentence by striking ‘‘such 30 month period’’

and inserting ‘‘such period’’. 

SEC. 2047. FEDERAL HOPPER DREDGES. 

(a) HOPPER DREDGE MCFARLAND.—Section 563 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3784) is amended to 

read as follows: 

‘‘SEC. 563. HOPPER DREDGE MCFARLAND. 

‘‘(a) PLACEMENT IN READY RESERVE STATUS.—Not before October 1, 2009, and not after December 31, 2009, the Secretary shall—

‘‘(1) place the Federal hopper dredge McFarland (referred to 

in this section as the ‘vessel’) in a ready reserve status; and 

‘‘(2) use the vessel solely for urgent and emergency purposes 

in accordance with existing emergency response protocols. 

‘‘(b) ROUTINE TESTS AND MAINTENANCE.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall periodically perform 

routine underway dredging tests of the equipment (not to exceed 

70 days per year) of the vessel in a ready reserve status to ensure the ability of the vessel to perform urgent and emergency 

work. 

‘‘(2) MAINTENANCE.—The Secretary—

‘‘(A) shall not assign any scheduled hopper dredging 

work to the vessel other than dredging tests in the Delaware River and Bay; but 

‘‘(B) shall perform any repairs, including any asbestos 

abatement, necessary to maintain the vessel in a ready reserve fully operational condition. 

‘‘(c) ACTIVE STATUS FOR DREDGING.—The Secretary, in consultation with affected stakeholders, shall place the vessel in active 

status in order to perform dredging work if the Secretary determines 

that private industry has failed—

‘‘(1) to submit a responsive and responsible bid for work advertised by the Secretary; or 

‘‘(2) to carry out a project as required pursuant to a contract between the industry and the Secretary.’’. 

(b) HOPPER DREDGES ESSAYONS AND YAQUINA.—Section 

3(c)(7)(B) of the Act of August 11, 1888 (33 U.S.C. 622; 25 Stat. 

423), is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘This subparagraph shall not apply to the Federal hopper dredges Essayons and 

Yaquina of the Corps of Engineers.’’. 

TITLE III—PROJECT-RELATED 

PROVISIONS 

SEC. 3001. BLACK WARRIOR-TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, ALABAMA. 

Section 111 of title I of division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (118 Stat. 2944) is amended to read as follows: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
68 

‘‘SEC. 111. BLACK WARRIOR-TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, ALABAMA. 

‘‘(a) CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FACILITIES.—

‘‘(1) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection, the following definitions apply: 

‘‘(A) EXISTING FACILITY.—The term ‘existing facility’

means the administrative and maintenance facility for the 

project for Black Warrior-Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama, authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Appropriations Act of July 5, 1884 (24 Stat. 141), in existence on 

the date of enactment of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 2007. 

‘‘(B) PARCEL.—The term ‘Parcel’ means the land owned 

by the Corps of Engineers serving as the operations and 

maintenance facility of the Corps of Engineers in the city 

of Tuscaloosa, Alabama, in existence on the date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. 

‘‘(2) AUTHORIZATION.—In carrying out the project for Black 

Warrior-Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama, the Secretary is authorized, at Federal expense—

‘‘(A) to purchase land on which the Secretary may construct a new maintenance facility for the project, to be located—

‘‘(i) at a different location from the existing facility; 

and 

‘‘(ii) in the vicinity of the city of Tuscaloosa, Alabama; 

‘‘(B) at any time during or after the completion of (and 

relocation to) the new maintenance facility, to demolish the 

existing facility; and 

‘‘(C) to construct on the Parcel a new administrative facility for the project. 

‘‘(b) ACQUISITION AND DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY.—The Secretary—

‘‘(1) may acquire any real property necessary for the construction of the new maintenance facility under subsection 

(a)(2)(A); and 

‘‘(2) shall convey to the city of Tuscaloosa fee simple title in 

and to any portion of the Parcel not required for construction 

of the new administrative facility under subsection (a)(2)(C) 

through—

‘‘(A) sale at fair market value; 

‘‘(B) exchange for city of Tuscaloosa owned land on an 

acre-for-acre basis; or 

‘‘(C) any combination of a sale under subparagraph (A) 

and an exchange under subparagraph (B). 

‘‘(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $32,000,000.’’. 

SEC. 3002. COOK INLET, ALASKA. 

Section 118(a)(3) of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005 (title I of division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005; 118 Stat. 2945) is amended by inserting ‘‘as 

part of the operation and maintenance of such project modification’’

after ‘‘by the Secretary’’. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
69 

SEC. 3003. KING COVE HARBOR, ALASKA. 

The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended 

for the project for navigation, King Cove Harbor, Alaska, being carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 

U.S.C. 577), shall be $8,000,000. 

SEC. 3004. SEWARD HARBOR, ALASKA. 

The project for navigation, Seward Harbor, Alaska, authorized 

by section 101(a)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 

(113 Stat. 274), is modified to authorize the Secretary to extend the 

existing breakwater by approximately 215 feet, at a total cost of 

$3,333,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $2,666,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $667,000. 

SEC. 3005. SITKA, ALASKA. 

The Sitka, Alaska, element of the project for navigation, Southeast Alaska Harbors of Refuge, Alaska, authorized by section 101(1) 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4801), 

is modified to direct the Secretary to take such action as is necessary to correct design deficiencies in the Sitka Harbor Breakwater 

at Federal expense. The estimated cost is $6,300,000. 

SEC. 3006. TATITLEK, ALASKA. 

The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended 

for the project for navigation, Tatitlek, Alaska, being carried out 

under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 

577), shall be $10,000,000. 

SEC. 3007. RIO DE FLAG, FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA. 

The project for flood damage reduction, Rio De Flag, Flagstaff, 

Arizona, authorized by section 101(b)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2576), is modified to authorize the 

Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $54,100,000, with 

an estimated Federal cost of $35,000,000 and a non-Federal cost of 

$19,100,000. 

SEC. 3008. NOGALES WASH AND TRIBUTARIES FLOOD CONTROL 

PROJECT, ARIZONA. 

The project for flood control, Nogales Wash and tributaries, Arizona, authorized by section 101(a)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4606) and modified by section 303 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3711) 

and section 302 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 

(114 Stat. 2600), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct 

the project at a total cost of $25,410,000, with an estimated Federal 

cost of $22,930,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$2,480,000. 

SEC. 3009. TUCSON DRAINAGE AREA, ARIZONA. 

The project for flood damage reduction, environmental restoration, and recreation, Tucson drainage area, Arizona, authorized by 

section 101(a)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 

(113 Stat. 274), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct 

the project at a total cost of $66,700,000, with an estimated Federal 

cost of $43,350,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$23,350,000. 

SEC. 3010. OSCEOLA HARBOR, ARKANSAS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation, Osceola Harbor, 

Arkansas, constructed under section 107 of the River and Harbor 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
70 

Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified to allow non-Federal interests to construct a mooring facility within the existing authorized 

harbor channel, subject to all necessary permits, certifications, and 

other requirements. 

(b) LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in 

this section shall be construed as affecting the responsibility of the 

Secretary to maintain the general navigation features of the project 

at a bottom width of 250 feet. 

SEC. 3011. ST. FRANCIS RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS AND MISSOURI. 

The project for flood control, St. Francis River Basin, Arkansas 

and Missouri, authorized by the Act of June 15, 1936 (49 Stat. 

1508), is modified to authorize the Secretary to undertake channel 

stabilization and sediment removal measures on the St. Francis 

River and tributaries as a nonseparable element of the original 

project. 

SEC. 3012. PINE MOUNTAIN DAM, ARKANSAS. 

The Pine Mountain Dam feature of the project for flood protection, Lee Creek, Arkansas and Oklahoma, authorized by section 204 

of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1078), is modified— (1) to add environmental restoration as a project purpose; 

and 

(2) to direct the Secretary to finance the non-Federal share 

of the cost of the project, including treatment and distributions 

components, over a 30-year period in accordance with section 

103(k) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 

U.S.C. 2213(k)). 

SEC. 3013. RED-OUACHITA RIVER BASIN LEVEES, ARKANSAS AND LOUISIANA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 

(64 Stat. 173) is amended in the matter under the heading ‘‘RED- OUACHITA RIVER BASIN’’ by striking ‘‘improvements at Calion, Arkansas’’ and inserting ‘‘improvements at Calion, Arkansas (including authorization for the comprehensive flood-control project for 

Ouachita River and tributaries, incorporating in the project all 

flood control, drainage, and power improvements in the basin above 

the lower end of the left bank Ouachita River levee)’’. (b) MODIFICATION.—Section 3 of the Flood Control Act of August 18, 1941 (55 Stat. 642), is amended in the second sentence of 

subsection (a) in the matter under the heading ‘‘LOWER MISSISSIPPI

RIVER’’ by inserting before the period at the end the following: ‘‘; except that the Ouachita River Levees, Louisiana, authorized by the 

first section of the Mississippi River Flood Control Act of May 15, 

1928 (45 Stat. 534), shall remain as a component of the Mississippi 

River and Tributaries Project and afforded operation and maintenance responsibilities as provided under section 3 of that Act (45 

Stat. 535)’’. 

SEC. 3014. CACHE CREEK BASIN, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood control, Cache Creek 

Basin, California, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4112), is modified to direct the Secretary to mitigate the impacts of the new south levee of 

the Cache Creek settling basin on the storm drainage system of the 

city of Woodland, including all appurtenant features, erosion control measures, and environmental protection features. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
71 

(b) OBJECTIVES.—Mitigation under subsection (a) shall restore 

the preproject capacity of the city of Woodland to release 1,360 cubic 

feet per second of water to the Yolo Bypass and shall include—

(1) channel improvements; 

(2) an outlet work through the west levee of the Yolo Bypass; and 

(3) a new low flow cross channel to handle city and county 

storm drainage and settling basin flows (1,760 cubic feet per 

second) when the Yolo Bypass is in a low flow condition. 

SEC. 3015. CALFED STABILITY PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) AMENDMENTS.—Section 103(f)(3) of the Water Supply, Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act (118 Stat. 1695–1696) 

is amended—

(1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ‘‘within the Delta (as 

defined in Cal. Water Code §12220)’’; 

(2) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(C) JUSTIFICATION.—

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 209 of 

the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962–2), in 

carrying out levee stability programs and projects pursuant to this paragraph, the Secretary of the Army may 

determine that the programs and projects are justified 

by the benefits of the project purposes described in subparagraph (A), and the programs and projects shall require no additional economic justification if the Secretary of the Army further determines that the programs and projects are cost effective. 

‘‘(ii) APPLICABILITY.—Clause (i) shall not apply to 

any separable element intended to produce benefits that 

are predominantly unrelated to the project purposes described in subparagraph (A).’’; and 

(3) in subparagraph (D)(i) by inserting ‘‘as described in the 

Record of Decision’’ after ‘‘Public Law 84–99 standard)’’. 

(b) ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—In addition to funds made available pursuant to the Water Supply, Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act (Public Law 108–361) 

to carry out section 103(f)(3)(D) of that Act (118 Stat. 1696), there 

is authorized to be appropriated to carry out projects described in 

that section $106,000,000, to remain available until expended. 

SEC. 3016. COMPTON CREEK, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for flood control, Los Angeles Drainage Area, California, authorized by section 101(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4611), is modified to add environmental 

restoration and recreation as project purposes. 

SEC. 3017. GRAYSON CREEK/MURDERER’S CREEK, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Grayson 

Creek/Murderer’s Creek, California, being carried out under section 

206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 

2330), is modified—

(1) to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), 

toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
72 

of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project 

before the date of the partnership agreement for the project; and 

(2) to authorize the Secretary to consider national ecosystem 

restoration benefits in determining the Federal interest in the 

project. 

SEC. 3018. HAMILTON AIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for environmental restoration, Hamilton Airfield, 

California, authorized by section 101(b)(3) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 279), is modified to direct the 

Secretary to construct the project substantially in accordance with 

the report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 19, 2004, at a total 

cost of $228,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$171,100,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $57,000,000. 

SEC. 3019. JOHN F. BALDWIN SHIP CHANNEL AND STOCKTON SHIP 

CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for navigation, San Francisco to Stockton, California, authorized by section 301 of the River and Harbor Act of 

1965 (79 Stat. 1091) is modified—

(1) to provide that the non-Federal share of the cost of the 

John F. Baldwin Ship Channel and Stockton Ship Channel element of the project may be provided in the form of in-kind services and materials; and 

(2) to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), 

toward the non-Federal share of the cost of such element the 

cost of planning and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest for such element before the date of an agreement 

for such planning and design. 

SEC. 3020. KAWEAH RIVER, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for flood control, Terminus Dam, Kaweah River, 

California, authorized by section 101(b)(5) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3658), is modified to direct the 

Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share 

of the cost of the project, or provide reimbursement not to exceed 

$800,000, for the costs of any work carried out by the non-Federal 

interest for the project before the date of the project partnership 

agreement. 

SEC. 3021. LARKSPUR FERRY CHANNEL, LARKSPUR, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for navigation, Larkspur Ferry Channel, Larkspur, 

California, authorized by section 601(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148), is modified to direct the 

Secretary to determine whether maintenance of the project is feasible, and if the Secretary determines that maintenance of the 

project is feasible, to carry out such maintenance. 

SEC. 3022. LLAGAS CREEK, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood damage reduction, 

Llagas Creek, California, authorized by section 501(a) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 333), is modified to 

direct the Secretary to carry out the project at a total cost of 

$105,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $65,000,000 and an 

estimated non-Federal cost of $40,000,000. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
73 

(b) SPECIAL RULE.—In evaluating and implementing the 

project, the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate in the financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) if 

the detailed project report evaluation indicates that applying such 

section is necessary to implement the project. 

SEC. 3023. MAGPIE CREEK, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for Magpie Creek, California, authorized under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 

U.S.C. 701s), is modified to direct the Secretary to apply the costsharing requirements of section 103(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4085) for the portion of the project 

consisting of land acquisition to preserve and enhance existing 

floodwater storage. 

(b) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of 

planning and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest 

for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the 

project. 

(c) COST.—The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be 

expended for the project referred to in subsection (a) shall be 

$10,000,000. 

SEC. 3024. PACIFIC FLYWAY CENTER, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Pacific Flyway 

Center, Sacramento, California, being carried out under section 206 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), 

is modified to authorize the Secretary to expend $2,000,000 to enhance public access to the project. 

SEC. 3025. PETALUMA RIVER, PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for flood damage reduction, Petaluma River, 

Petaluma, California, authorized by section 112 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2587), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of 

$41,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $26,975,000 and an 

estimated non-Federal cost of $14,525,000. 

SEC. 3026. PINOLE CREEK, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for improvement of the quality of the environment, 

Pinole Creek Phase I, California, being carried out under section 

1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 

2309a), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance 

with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–

5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost 

of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before 

the date of the partnership agreement for the project. 

SEC. 3027. PRADO DAM, CALIFORNIA. 

Upon completion of the modifications to the Prado Dam element 

of the project for flood control, Santa Ana River Mainstem, California, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4113), the Memorandum of Agreement 

for the Operation for Prado Dam for Seasonal Additional Water 

Conservation between the Department of the Army and the Orange 

County Water District (including all the conditions and stipulations 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
74 

in the memorandum) shall remain in effect for volumes of water 

made available prior to such modifications. 

SEC. 3028. REDWOOD CITY NAVIGATION CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA. 

The Secretary may dredge the Redwood City Navigation Channel, California, on an annual basis, to maintain the authorized 

depth of –30 feet mean lower low water. 

SEC. 3029. SACRAMENTO AND AMERICAN RIVERS FLOOD CONTROL, 

CALIFORNIA. 

(a) NATOMAS LEVEE FEATURES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood control and recreation, Sacramento and American Rivers, California (Natomas 

Levee features), authorized by section 9159 of the Department of 

Defense Appropriations Act, 1993 (106 Stat. 1944), is modified 

to direct the Secretary to credit $20,503,000 to the Sacramento 

Area Flood Control Agency for the nonreimbursed Federal share 

of costs incurred by the Agency in connection with the project. 

(2) ALLOCATION OF CREDIT.—The Secretary shall allocate 

the amount to be credited pursuant to paragraph (1) toward the 

non-Federal share of such projects as are requested by the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency. 

(b) JOINT FEDERAL PROJECT AT FOLSOM DAM.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood control, American 

and Sacramento Rivers, California, authorized by section 

101(a)(6)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 

(113 Stat. 274) and modified by section 128 of the Energy and 

Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (119 Stat. 2259), 

is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the auxiliary 

spillway generally in accordance with the Post Authorization 

Change Report, American River Watershed Project (Folsom 

Dam Modification and Folsom Dam Raise Projects), dated 

March 2007, at a total cost of $683,000,000, with an estimated 

Federal cost of $444,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 

of $239,000,000. 

(2) DAM SAFETY.—Nothing in this subsection limits the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to carry out dam safety 

activities in connection with the auxiliary spillway in accordance with the Bureau of Reclamation safety of dams program. 

(3) TRANSFER OF FUNDS.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary and the Secretary of 

the Interior are authorized to transfer between the Department of the Army and the Department of the Interior appropriated amounts and other available funds (including 

funds contributed by non-Federal interests) for the purpose 

of planning, design, and construction of the auxiliary spillway. 

(B) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—Any transfer made pursuant to this subsection shall be subject to such terms and 

conditions as may be agreed on by the Secretary and the 

Secretary of the Interior. 

SEC. 3030. SACRAMENTO DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for navigation, Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California, authorized by section 202(a) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4092), is modified to direct the 

Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood ConVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:35 Aug 04, 2007 Jkt 036965 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR280.XXX HR280

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
75 

trol Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share 

of the cost of the project the cost of planning and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date 

of the partnership agreement for the project. 

SEC. 3031. SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION, CALIFORNIA. 

Section 202 of the River Basin Monetary Authorization Act of 

1974 (88 Stat. 49) is amended by striking ‘‘and the monetary authorization’’ and all that follows through the period at the end and 

inserting ‘‘; except that the lineal feet in the second phase shall be 

increased from 405,000 lineal feet to 485,000 lineal feet.’’. 

SEC. 3032. SALTON SEA RESTORATION, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following definitions 

apply: 

(1) SALTON SEA AUTHORITY.—The term ‘‘Salton Sea Authority’’ means the joint powers authority established under the 

laws of the State by a joint power agreement signed on June 2, 

1993. 

(2) SALTON SEA SCIENCE OFFICE.—The term ‘‘Salton Sea 

Science Office’’ means the office established by the United States 

Geological Survey and located on the date of enactment of this 

Act in La Quinta, California. 

(3) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means the State of California. 

(b) PILOT PROJECTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—

(A) REVIEW.—The Secretary shall review the plan approved by the State, entitled the ‘‘Salton Sea Ecosystem 

Restoration Program Preferred Alternative Report and 

Funding Plan’’, and dated May 2007 to determine whether 

the pilot projects described in the plan are feasible. 

(B) IMPLEMENTATION.—

(i) IN GENERAL.—Subject to clause (ii), if the Secretary determines that the pilot projects referred to in 

subparagraph (A) meet the requirements described in 

that subparagraph, the Secretary may—

(I) enter into an agreement with the State; and 

(II) in consultation with the Salton Sea Authority and the Salton Sea Science Office, carry 

out pilot projects for improvement of the environment in the area of the Salton Sea. 

(ii) REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary shall be a party 

to each contract for construction entered into under 

this subparagraph. 

(2) LOCAL PARTICIPATION.—In prioritizing pilot projects 

under this section, the Secretary shall—

(A) consult with the State, the Salton Sea Authority, 

and the Salton Sea Science Office; and 

(B) take into consideration the priorities of the State 

and the Salton Sea Authority. 

(3) COST SHARING.—Before carrying out a pilot project 

under this section, the Secretary shall enter into a written 

agreement with the State that requires the non-Federal interest 

for the pilot project to pay 35 percent of the total costs of the 

pilot project. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
76 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out subsection (b) $30,000,000, of which 

not more than $5,000,000 shall be used for any one pilot project 

under this section. 

SEC. 3033. SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for flood control, Santa Ana River Mainstem (including Santiago Creek, California), authorized by section 401(a) of 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4113) and 

modified by section 104 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act, 1988 (101 Stat. 1329–111) and section 309 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3713), is further modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out the project at 

a total cost of $1,800,000,000 and to clarify that the Santa Ana 

River Interceptor Line is an element of the project. 

SEC. 3034. SANTA BARBARA STREAMS, LOWER MISSION CREEK, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for flood damage reduction, Santa Barbara streams, 

Lower Mission Creek, California, authorized by section 101(b)(8) of 

the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2577), is 

modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total 

cost of $30,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $15,000,000 

and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,000,000. 

SEC. 3035. SANTA CRUZ HARBOR, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for navigation, Santa Cruz Harbor, California, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 

Stat. 300) and modified by section 809 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4168) and section 526 of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 346), is modified to 

direct the Secretary—

(1) to renegotiate the memorandum of agreement with the 

non-Federal interest to increase the annual payment to reflect 

the updated cost of operation and maintenance that is the Federal and non-Federal share as provided by law based on the 

project purpose; and 

(2) to revise the memorandum of agreement to include 

terms that revise such payments for inflation. 

SEC. 3036. SEVEN OAKS DAM, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for flood control, Santa Ana Mainstem, authorized 

by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 

(100 Stat. 4113) and modified by section 104 of the Energy and 

Water Development Appropriations Act, 1988 (101 Stat. 1329–11), 

section 102(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 

Stat. 4611), and section 311 of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3713), is modified to direct the Secretary—

(1) to include ecosystem restoration benefits in the calculation of benefits for the Seven Oaks Dam, California, portion of 

the project; and 

(2) to conduct a study of water conservation and water 

quality at the Seven Oaks Dam. 

SEC. 3037. UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for flood damage reduction and recreation, Upper 

Guadalupe River, California, authorized by section 101(a)(9) of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 275), is modiVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:35 Aug 04, 2007 Jkt 036965 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR280.XXX HR280

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
77 

fied to authorize the Secretary to construct the project generally in 

accordance with the Upper Guadalupe River Flood Damage Reduction, San Jose, California, Limited Reevaluation Report, dated 

March 2004, at a total cost of $256,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $136,700,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$119,300,000. 

SEC. 3038. WALNUT CREEK CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Walnut Creek 

Channel, California, being carried out under section 206 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified—

(1) to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), 

toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost 

of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project 

before the date of the partnership agreement for the project; and 

(2) to authorize the Secretary to consider national ecosystem 

restoration benefits in determining the Federal interest in the 

project. 

SEC. 3039. WILDCAT/SAN PABLO CREEK PHASE I, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for improvement of the quality of the environment, 

Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase I, California, being carried out 

under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 

(33 U.S.C. 2309a), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit, in 

accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 

U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 

project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for 

the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the 

project. 

SEC. 3040. WILDCAT/SAN PABLO CREEK PHASE II, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Wildcat/San 

Pablo Creek Phase II, California, being carried out under section 

206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 

2330), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance 

with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–

5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost 

of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before 

the date of the partnership agreement for the project and to authorize the Secretary to consider national ecosystem restoration benefits 

in determining the Federal interest in the project. 

SEC. 3041. YUBA RIVER BASIN PROJECT, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for flood damage reduction, Yuba River Basin, California, authorized by section 101(a)(10) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 275), is modified—

(1) to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a 

total cost of $107,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$70,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $37,700,000; 

and 

(2) to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), 

toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost 

of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project 

before the date of the partnership agreement for the project. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
78 

SEC. 3042. SOUTH PLATTE RIVER BASIN, COLORADO. 

Section 808 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 

(100 Stat. 4168) is amended by striking ‘‘agriculture,’’ and inserting 

‘‘agriculture, environmental restoration,’’. 

SEC. 3043. INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE RIVER TO CHESAPEAKE BAY, DELAWARE AND MARYLAND. 

The project for navigation, Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware 

River to Chesapeake Bay, Delaware and Maryland, authorized by 

the first section of the Rivers and Harbors Act of August 30, 1935 

(49 Stat. 1030), and section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 

1954 (68 Stat. 1249), is modified to add recreation as a project purpose. 

SEC. 3044. ST. GEORGE’S BRIDGE, DELAWARE. 

Section 102(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 

(104 Stat. 4612) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘The Secretary shall assume ownership responsibility for the replacement bridge not later than the date on which the construction 

of the bridge is completed and the contractors are released of their 

responsibility by the State. In addition, the Secretary may not carry 

out any action to close or remove the St. George’s Bridge, Delaware, 

without specific congressional authorization.’’. 

SEC. 3045. BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. 

(a) SHORELINE.—The project for shoreline protection, Brevard 

County, Florida, authorized by section 101(b)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3667), is modified to authorize the Secretary to include the mid-reach as an element of the 

project from the Florida department of environmental protection 

monuments 75.4 to 118.3, a distance of approximately 7.6 miles. 

The restoration work shall only be undertaken upon a determination by the Secretary, following completion of the general reevaluation report authorized by section 418 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2637), that the shoreline protection 

is feasible. 

(b) CREDIT.—Section 310 of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 301) is amended by adding at the end the 

following: 

‘‘(d) CREDIT.—After completion of the study, the Secretary may 

credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 

1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost 

of the project for shore protection the cost of nourishment and renourishment associated with the project for shore protection incurred by the non-Federal interest to respond to damages to Brevard 

County beaches that are the result of a Federal navigation project, 

as determined in the final report for the study.’’. 

SEC. 3046. BROWARD COUNTY AND HILLSBORO INLET, FLORIDA. 

The project for shore protection, Broward County and Hillsboro 

Inlet, Florida, authorized by section 301 of the River and Harbor 

Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1090), and modified by section 311 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 301), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 

of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the 

non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of mitigation 

construction and derelict erosion control structure removal carried 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
79 

out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the 

partnership agreement for the project. 

SEC. 3047. CANAVERAL HARBOR, FLORIDA. 

In carrying out the project for navigation, Canaveral Harbor, 

Florida, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 

1962 (76 Stat. 1174), the Secretary shall construct a sediment trap 

if the Secretary determines construction of the sediment trap is feasible. 

SEC. 3048. GASPARILLA AND ESTERO ISLANDS, FLORIDA. 

The project for shore protection, Gasparilla and Estero Island 

segments, Lee County, Florida, authorized by section 201 of the 

Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1073), by Senate Resolution 

dated December 17, 1970, and by House Resolution dated December 

15, 1970, and modified by section 309 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2602), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control 

Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of 

the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal 

interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement 

for the project. 

SEC. 3049. LIDO KEY BEACH, SARASOTA, FLORIDA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for shore protection, Lido Key 

Beach, Sarasota, Florida, authorized by section 101 of the River 

and Harbor Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1819), deauthorized under section 

1001(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 

579a(b)), and reauthorized by section 364(2)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 313), is modified to direct the Secretary to construct the project substantially in accordance with the report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 

2004, at a total cost of $15,190,000, with an estimated Federal cost 

of $9,320,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,870,000, and 

at an estimated total cost of $65,000,000 for periodic nourishment 

over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal cost 

of $30,550,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $34,450,000. 

(b) CONSTRUCTION OF SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECTS BY

NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS.—The Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement with the non-Federal interest in accordance with 

section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 

U.S.C. 426i–1) for the modified project. 

SEC. 3050. PEANUT ISLAND, FLORIDA. 

The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended 

for the project for improvement of the quality of the environment, 

Peanut Island, Palm Beach County, Florida, being carried out 

under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 

(33 U.S.C. 2309a) shall be $9,750,000. 

SEC. 3051. PORT SUTTON, FLORIDA. 

The project for navigation, Port Sutton, Florida, authorized by 

section 101(b)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 

(114 Stat. 2577), is modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out 

the project at a total cost of $12,900,000. 

SEC. 3052. TAMPA HARBOR-BIG BEND CHANNEL, FLORIDA. 

The project for navigation, Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, 

Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(18) of the Water Resources DeVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:35 Aug 04, 2007 Jkt 036965 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR280.XXX HR280

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
80 

velopment Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276) is modified to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control 

Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of 

the cost of the project the cost of planning, design, and construction 

work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before 

the date of the partnership agreement for the project. 

SEC. 3053. TAMPA HARBOR CUT B, FLORIDA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation, Tampa Harbor, 

Florida, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 

1970 (84 Stat. 1818), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct passing lanes in an area approximately 3.5 miles long and 

centered on Tampa Harbor Cut B if the Secretary determines that 

such improvements are necessary for navigation safety. 

(b) GENERAL REEVALUATION REPORT.—The non-Federal share 

of the cost of the general reevaluation report for Tampa Harbor, 

Florida, being conducted on June 1, 2005, shall be the same percentage as the non-Federal share of the cost of construction of the 

project. 

(c) AGREEMENT.—The Secretary shall enter into a new partnership agreement with the non-Federal interest to reflect the cost sharing required by subsection (b). 

SEC. 3054. ALLATOONA LAKE, GEORGIA. 

(a) LAND EXCHANGE.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may exchange land above 

863 feet in elevation at Allatoona Lake, Georgia, identified in 

the Real Estate Design Memorandum prepared by the Mobile 

district engineer, April 5, 1996, and approved October 8, 1996, 

for land on the north side of Allatoona Lake that is required 

for wildlife management and protection of the water quality 

and overall environment of Allatoona Lake. 

(2) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The basis for all land exchanges under this subsection shall be a fair market appraisal 

to ensure that land exchanged is of equal value. 

(b) DISPOSAL AND ACQUISITION OF LAND, ALLATOONA LAKE, 

GEORGIA.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may—

(A) sell land above 863 feet in elevation at Allatoona 

Lake, Georgia, identified in the memorandum referred to in 

subsection (a)(1); and 

(B) use the proceeds of the sale, without further appropriation, to pay costs associated with the purchase of land 

required for wildlife management and protection of the 

water quality and overall environment of Allatoona Lake. 

(2) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—

(A) WILLING SELLERS.—Land acquired under this subsection shall be by negotiated purchase from willing sellers 

only. 

(B) BASIS.—The basis for all transactions under this 

subsection shall be a fair market value appraisal acceptable to the Secretary. 

(C) SHARING OF COSTS.—Each purchaser of land under 

this subsection shall share in the associated costs of the 

purchase, including surveys and associated fees in accordance with the memorandum referred to in subsection (a)(1). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
81 

(D) OTHER CONDITIONS.—The Secretary may impose on 

the sale and purchase of land under this subsection such 

other conditions as the Secretary determines to be appropriate. 

(c) REPEAL.—Section 325 of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4849) is repealed. 

SEC. 3055. LATHAM RIVER, GLYNN COUNTY, GEORGIA. 

The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended 

for the project for improvement of the quality of the environment, 

Latham River, Glynn County, Georgia, being carried out under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 

U.S.C. 2309a) shall be $6,175,000. 

SEC. 3056. DWORSHAK RESERVOIR IMPROVEMENTS, IDAHO. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry out additional general construction measures to allow for operation at lower pool levels to satisfy the recreation mission at Dworshak Dam, Idaho. 

(b) IMPROVEMENTS.—In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary shall provide for appropriate improvements to—

(1) facilities that are operated by the Corps of Engineers; 

and 

(2) facilities that, as of the date of enactment of this Act, 

are leased, permitted, or licensed for use by others. 

(c) COST SHARING.—The Secretary shall carry out this section 

through a cost-sharing program with Idaho State parks and recreation department at a total estimated project cost of $5,300,000. 

Notwithstanding section 103 of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2313), the Federal share of such cost shall 

be 75 percent. 

SEC. 3057. LITTLE WOOD RIVER, GOODING, IDAHO. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood control, Gooding, Idaho, 

constructed under the emergency conservation work program established under the Act of March 31, 1933 (16 U.S.C. 585 et seq.), is 

modified—

(1) to direct the Secretary to rehabilitate the Gooding Channel project for the purposes of flood control and ecosystem restoration if the Secretary determines that such rehabilitation is 

not required as a result of improper operation and maintenance 

of the project by the non-Federal interest and that the rehabilitation and ecosystem restoration is feasible; and 

(2) to direct the Secretary to plan, design, and construct the 

project at a total cost of $9,000,000. 

(b) COST SHARING.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Costs for reconstruction of a project under 

this section shall be shared by the Secretary and the non-Federal interest in the same percentages as the costs of construction 

of the original project were shared. 

(2) OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR COSTS.—The 

costs of operation, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of a 

project carried out under this section shall be a non-Federal responsibility. 

(c) ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION.—Reconstruction efforts and activities carried out under this section shall not require economic justification. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
82 

SEC. 3058. BEARDSTOWN COMMUNITY BOAT HARBOR, BEARDSTOWN, 

ILLINOIS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation, Muscooten Bay, Illinois River, Beardstown Community Boat Harbor, Beardstown, Illinois, constructed under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 

1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified—

(1) to include the channel between the harbor and the Illinois River; and 

(2) to direct the Secretary to enter into a partnership agreement with the city of Beardstown to replace the local cooperation agreement dated August 18, 1983, with the Beardstown 

Community Park District. 

(b) TERMS OF PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT.—The partnership 

agreement referred to in subsection (a) shall include the same rights 

and responsibilities as the local cooperation agreement dated August 18, 1983, changing only the identity of the non-Federal sponsor. 

(c) MAINTENANCE.—Following execution of the partnership 

agreement referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary may carry out 

maintenance of the project referred to in subsection (a) on an annual basis. 

SEC. 3059. CACHE RIVER LEVEE, ILLINOIS. 

The Cache River Levee constructed for flood control at the 

Cache River, Illinois, and authorized by the Act of June 28, 1938 

(52 Stat. 1217), is modified to add environmental restoration as a 

project purpose. 

SEC. 3060. CHICAGO RIVER, ILLINOIS. 

The Federal navigation channel for the North Branch Channel 

portion of the Chicago River authorized by section 22 of the Act of 

March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1156), extending from 100 feet downstream 

of the Halsted Street Bridge to 100 feet upstream of the Division 

Street Bridge, Chicago, Illinois, shall be no wider than 66 feet. 

SEC. 3061. CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIERS 

PROJECT, ILLINOIS. 

(a) TREATMENT AS SINGLE PROJECT.—The Chicago Sanitary 

and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier Project (in this section referred 

to as ‘‘Barrier I’’), as in existence on the date of enactment of this 

Act and constructed as a demonstration project under section 

1202(i)(3) of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and 

Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4722(i)(3)), and the project relating 

to the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier, authorized by section 345 of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 

2005 (Public Law 108–335; 118 Stat. 1352) (in this section referred 

to as ‘‘Barrier II’’) shall be considered to constitute a single project. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, at Federal expense, shall—

(A) upgrade and make permanent Barrier I; 

(B) construct Barrier II, notwithstanding the project cooperation agreement with the State of Illinois dated June 

14, 2005; 

(C) operate and maintain Barrier I and Barrier II as 

a system to optimize effectiveness; 

(D) conduct, in consultation with appropriate Federal, 

State, local, and nongovernmental entities, a study of a 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
83 

range of options and technologies for reducing impacts of 

hazards that may reduce the efficacy of the Barriers; and 

(E) provide to each State a credit in an amount equal 

to the amount of funds contributed by the State toward 

Barrier II. 

(2) USE OF CREDIT.—A State may apply a credit provided 

to the State under paragraph (1)(E) to any cost sharing responsibility for an existing or future Federal project carried out by 

the Secretary in the State. 

(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 345 of the District of 

Columbia Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108–335; 118 Stat. 

1352) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘SEC. 345. CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIER, 

ILLINOIS. 

‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 

necessary to carry out the Barrier II element of the project for the 

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier, Illinois, initiated pursuant to section 1135 of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2294 note; 100 Stat. 4251).’’. (d) FEASIBILITY STUDY.—The Secretary, in consultation with 

appropriate Federal, State, local, and nongovernmental entities, 

shall conduct, at Federal expense, a feasibility study of the range of 

options and technologies available to prevent the spread of aquatic 

nuisance species between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basins through the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and other 

aquatic pathways. 

SEC. 3062. EMIQUON, ILLINOIS. 

(a) MAXIMUM AMOUNT.—The maximum amount of Federal 

funds that may be expended for the project for aquatic ecosystem 

restoration, Emiquon, Illinois, being carried out under section 206 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), 

shall be $7,500,000. 

(b) LIMITATION.—Nothing in this section shall affect the eligibility of the project for emergency repair assistance under section 5 

of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing the construction of certain 

public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other 

purposes’’, approved August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n). 

SEC. 3063. LASALLE, ILLINOIS. 

In carrying out section 312 of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4639–4640), the Secretary shall give priority 

to work in the vicinity of LaSalle, Illinois, on the Illinois and Michigan Canal. 

SEC. 3064. SPUNKY BOTTOMS, ILLINOIS. 

(a) PROJECT PURPOSE.—The project for flood control, Spunky 

Bottoms, Illinois, authorized by section 5 of the Flood Control Act 

of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1583), is modified to add environmental 

restoration as a project purpose. 

(b) MAXIMUM AMOUNT.—The maximum amount of Federal 

funds that may be expended for the project for improvement of the 

quality of the environment, Spunky Bottoms, Illinois, being carried 

out under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), shall be $7,500,000. 

(c) LIMITATION.—Nothing in this section shall affect the eligibility of the project for emergency repair assistance under section 5 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
84 

of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing the construction of certain 

public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other 

purposes’’, approved August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n). 

(d) POST CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT.—Of 

the Federal funds expended under subsection (b), not less than 

$500,000 shall remain available for a period of 5 years after the 

date of completion of construction of the modifications for use in 

carrying out post construction monitoring and adaptive management. 

SEC. 3065. CEDAR LAKE, INDIANA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to plan, design, 

and construct an aquatic ecosystem restoration project at Cedar 

Lake, Indiana. 

(b) COMPLETE FEASIBILITY REPORT.—In planning the project 

authorized by subsection (a), the Secretary shall expedite completion 

of the feasibility report for the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection, Cedar Lake, Indiana, initiated pursuant to section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act 1996 (33 U.S.C. 

2330). 

(c) AUTHORIZATION.— (1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appropriated 

$11,050,000 to carry out the activities authorized by this section. 

(2) OTHER.—The Secretary is authorized to use funds previously appropriated for the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection, Cedar Lake, Indiana, under section 206 

of the Water Resources Development Act 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330) 

to carry out the activities authorized by this section. 

SEC. 3066. KOONTZ LAKE, INDIANA. 

The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Koontz Lake, Indiana, being carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330) and modified by section 

520 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 

2655), is modified to direct the Secretary to seek to reduce the cost 

of the project by using innovative technologies and cost reduction 

measures determined from a review of non-Federal lake dredging 

projects in the vicinity of Koontz Lake. 

SEC. 3067. WHITE RIVER, INDIANA. 

The project for flood control, Indianapolis on West Fork of 

White River, Indiana, authorized by section 5 of the Act entitled ‘‘An 

Act authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers 

and harbors for flood control, and for other purposes’’, approved 

June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1586), and modified by section 323 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3716) and section 322 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 

303), is modified—

(1) to authorize the Secretary to carry out the ecosystem restoration, recreation, and flood damage reduction components 

described in the Central Indianapolis Waterfront Concept Plan, 

dated February 1994, and revised by the Master Plan Revision 

Central Indianapolis Waterfront, dated April 2004, at a total 

cost of $28,545,000; and 

(2) to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
85 

toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost 

of planning, design, and construction work carried out by the 

non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project. 

SEC. 3068. DES MOINES RIVER AND GREENBELT, IOWA. 

The project for the Des Moines Recreational River and Greenbelt, Iowa, authorized by Public Law 99–88 and modified by section 

604 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 

4153), is modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out ecosystem 

restoration, recreation, and flood damage reduction components of 

the project, at a Federal cost of $10,000,000. 

SEC. 3069. PERRY CREEK, IOWA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—On making a determination described in subsection (b), the Secretary shall increase the Federal contribution by 

up to $4,000,000 for the project for flood control, Perry Creek, Iowa, 

authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4116) and modified by section 151 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2004 (117 Stat. 

1844). 

(b) DETERMINATION.—A determination referred to in subsection 

(a) is a determination that a modification to the project described 

in subsection (a) is necessary for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to certify that the project provides flood damage reduction benefits to at least a 100-year level of flood protection. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out this section $4,000,000. 

SEC. 3070. RATHBUN LAKE, IOWA. 

(a) RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL.—The Secretary shall provide, in 

accordance with the recommendations in the Rathbun Lake Reallocation Report approved by the Chief of Engineers on July 22, 

1985, the Rathbun Regional Water Association with the right of 

first refusal to contract for or purchase any increment of the remaining allocation of 8,320 acre-feet of water supply storage in Rathbun 

Lake, Iowa. 

(b) PAYMENT OF COST.—The Rathbun Regional Water Association shall pay the cost of any water supply storage allocation provided under subsection (a). 

SEC. 3071. HICKMAN BLUFF STABILIZATION, KENTUCKY. 

The project for Hickman Bluff, Kentucky, authorized by chapter 

II of title II of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions for the Department of Defense to Preserve and Enhance 

Military Readiness Act of 1995 (109 Stat. 85), is modified to authorize the Secretary to repair and restore the project, at Federal expense, with no further economic studies or analyses, at a total cost 

of not more than $250,000. 

SEC. 3072. MCALPINE LOCK AND DAM, KENTUCKY AND INDIANA. 

Section 101(a)(10) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1990 (104 Stat. 4606) is amended by striking ‘‘$219,600,000’’ each 

place it appears and inserting ‘‘$430,000,000’’. 

SEC. 3073. PRESTONSBURG, KENTUCKY. 

The Prestonsburg, Kentucky, element of the project for flood 

control, Levisa and Tug Fork of the Big Sandy and Cumberland 

Rivers, West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky, authorized by section 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
86 

202(a) of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 

1981 (94 Stat. 1339), is modified to direct the Secretary to take 

measures to provide a 100-year level of flood protection for the city 

of Prestonsburg. 

SEC. 3074. AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, LOUISIANA, EAST BATON 

ROUGE PARISH WATERSHED. 

The project for flood damage reduction and recreation, Amite 

River and Tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge Parish Watershed, authorized by section 101(a)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 277) and modified by section 116 of 

division D of Public Law 108–7 (117 Stat. 140), is further modified—

(1) to direct the Secretary to carry out the project with the 

cost sharing for the project determined in accordance with section 103(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 

U.S.C. 2213(a)), as in effect on October 11, 1996; 

(2) to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a 

total cost of $187,000,000; and 

(3) to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), 

toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost 

of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project 

before the date of the partnership agreement for the project. 

SEC. 3075. ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LOUISIANA. 

(a) ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL LAND.—The public access feature of the project for flood control, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway 

System, Louisiana, authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142), is modified to authorize the Secretary to acquire from willing sellers the fee interest 

(exclusive of oil, gas, and minerals) of an additional 20,000 acres 

of land in the Lower Atchafalaya Basin Floodway for such feature. 

(b) MODIFICATION.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), effective November 17, 1986, the $32,000,000 limitation on the maximum Federal expenditure for the first costs of the public access feature 

referred to in subsection (a) shall not apply. 

(2) COST.—The modification under paragraph (1) shall not 

increase the total authorized cost of the project referred to in 

subsection (a). 

(c) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—Section 315(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2603) is amended by inserting before the period at the end the following: ‘‘and shall consider Eagle Point Park, Jeanerette, Louisiana, and the town of Melville, Louisiana, as site alternatives for such recreation features’’. 

SEC. 3076. ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM, REGIONAL VISITOR CENTER, LOUISIANA. 

(a) PROJECT FOR FLOOD CONTROL.—Notwithstanding paragraph (3) of the report of the Chief of Engineers dated February 28, 

1983 (relating to recreational development in the Lower Atchafalaya 

Basin Floodway), the Secretary shall carry out the project for flood 

control, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana, authorized 

by chapter IV of title I of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 

1985 (99 Stat. 313) and section 601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
87 

(b) VISITORS CENTER.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consultation with the 

State of Louisiana, shall study, design, and construct a type A 

regional visitors center in the vicinity of Morgan City, Louisiana. 

(2) COST SHARING.—

(A) COST OF TYPE B VISITORS CENTER.—The cost of construction of the visitors center up to the cost of construction 

of a type B visitors center shall be shared in accordance 

with the recreation cost-sharing requirement of section 

103(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 

U.S.C. 2213(c)). 

(B) COST OF UPGRADING.—The non-Federal share of 

the cost of upgrading the visitors center from a type B to 

type A regional visitors center shall be 100 percent. 

(C) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The cost of operation and maintenance of the visitors center shall be a Federal responsibility. 

(3) DONATIONS.—In carrying out the project under this subsection, the Mississippi River Commission may accept the donation of cash or other funds, land, materials, and services from 

any non-Federal government entity or nonprofit corporation, as 

the Commission determines to be appropriate. 

SEC. 3077. ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF, AND 

BLACK, LOUISIANA. 

The project for navigation, Atchafalaya River and Bayous 

Chene, Boeuf, and Black, Louisiana, authorized by section 101 of 

the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731), is modified to authorize the Secretary to deepen up to a 1000-foot section of the area 

on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway west of the Bayou Boeuf Lock 

and east of the intersection of the Atchafalaya River, at a cost not 

to exceed $200,000, to provide for ingress and egress to the port of 

Morgan City at a depth not to exceed 20 feet. 

SEC. 3078. BAYOU PLAQUEMINE, LOUISIANA. 

The project for the improvement of the quality of the environment, Bayou Plaquemine, Louisiana, being carried out under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 

U.S.C. 2309a), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 

U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 

project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for 

the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the 

project. 

SEC. 3079. CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LOUISIANA. 

The project for the Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 

Stat. 481), is modified to authorize the Secretary to provide 

$3,000,000 for each fiscal year, in a total amount of $15,000,000, 

for such rock bank protection of the Calcasieu River from mile 5 to 

mile 16 as the Secretary determines to be advisable to reduce maintenance dredging needs and facilitate protection of disposal areas 

for the Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana, if the Secretary determines that the rock bank protection is feasible. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
88 

SEC. 3080. RED RIVER (J. BENNETT JOHNSTON) WATERWAY, LOUISIANA. 

The project for mitigation of fish and wildlife losses, Red River 

Waterway, Louisiana, authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142) and modified by 

section 4(h) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 

Stat. 4016), section 102(p) of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1990 (104 Stat. 4613), section 301(b)(7) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3710), and section 316 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2604), is modified—

(1) to authorize the Secretary to carry out the project at a 

total cost of $33,912,000; 

(2) to authorize the purchase and reforestation of lands that 

have been cleared or converted to agricultural uses (in addition 

to the purchase of bottomland hardwood); and 

(3) to incorporate wildlife and forestry management practices to improve species diversity on mitigation land that meets 

habitat goals and objectives of the United States and the State 

of Louisiana. 

SEC. 3081. MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LOUISIANA. 

The Mississippi Delta Region project, Louisiana, authorized as 

part of the project for hurricane-flood protection on Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 

1965 (79 Stat. 1077) and modified by section 365 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3739), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 of the 

Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the nonFederal share of the cost of the project the costs of relocating oyster 

beds in the Davis Pond project area. 

SEC. 3082. MISSISSIPPI RIVER-GULF OUTLET RELOCATION ASSISTANCE, LOUISIANA. 

(a) PORT FACILITIES RELOCATION.—

(1) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Assistant Secretary for Economic 

Development (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Assistant Secretary’’) $75,000,000, to remain available until expended, to 

support the relocation of Port of New Orleans deep draft facilities from the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (referred to in this 

section as the ‘‘Outlet’’), the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, and 

the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal to the Mississippi River. 

(2) ADMINISTRATION.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Amounts appropriated pursuant to 

paragraph (1) shall be administered by the Assistant Secretary pursuant to sections 209(c)(2) and 703 of the Public 

Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 

3149(c)(2), 3233). 

(B) REQUIREMENT.—The Assistant Secretary shall 

make amounts appropriated pursuant to paragraph (1) 

available to the Port of New Orleans to relocate to the Mississippi River within the State of Louisiana the port-owned 

facilities that are occupied by businesses in the vicinity that 

may be impacted due to the treatment of the Outlet under 

title VII of this Act. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
89 

(b) REVOLVING LOAN FUND GRANTS.—There is authorized to be 

appropriated to the Assistant Secretary $85,000,000, to remain 

available until expended, to provide assistance pursuant to sections 

209(c)(2) and 703 of the Public Works and Economic Development 

Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3149(c)(2), 3233) to one or more eligible recipients under such Act to establish revolving loan funds to make 

loans for terms up to 20 years at or below market interest rates (including interest-free loans) to private businesses within the Port of 

New Orleans that may need to relocate to the Mississippi River 

within the State of Louisiana due to the treatment of the Outlet 

under title VII of this Act. 

(c) REQUIREMENTS.—In selecting one or more recipients under 

subsection (b), the Assistant Secretary shall ensure that each recipient has established procedures to target lending to businesses that 

will be directly and substantially impacted by the treatment of the 

Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet under title VII of this Act. 

(d) COORDINATION WITH SECRETARY.—The Assistant Secretary 

shall ensure that the programs described in subsections (a) and (b) 

are coordinated with the Secretary to ensure that facilities are relocated in a manner that is consistent with the analysis and design 

of comprehensive hurricane protection authorized by title I of the 

Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (119 Stat. 

2247). 

(e) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—The Assistant Secretary may 

use up to 2 percent of the amounts made available under subsections (a) and (b) for administrative expenses. 

SEC. 3083. VIOLET, LOUISIANA. 

(a) VIOLET DIVERSION PROJECT.—The Secretary shall design 

and implement a project for a diversion of freshwater at or near 

Violet, Louisiana, for the purposes of reducing salinity in the western Mississippi Sound, enhancing oyster production, and promoting 

the sustainability of coastal wetlands. 

(b) SALINITY LEVELS.—The project shall be designed to meet, or 

maximize the ability to meet, the salinity levels identified in the feasibility study of the Corps of Engineers entitled ‘‘Mississippi and 

Louisiana Estuarine Areas: Freshwater Diversion to Lake Pontchartrain Basin and Mississippi Sound’’ and dated 1984. 

(c) ADDITIONAL MEASURES.— (1) RECOMMENDATIONS.—If the Secretary determines that 

the diversion of freshwater at or near Violet, Louisiana, will not 

restore salinity levels to meet the requirements of subsection (b), 

the Secretary shall recommend additional measures for freshwater diversions sufficient to meet those levels. 

(2) IMPLEMENTATION.—The Secretary shall implement 

measures included in the recommendations developed under 

paragraph (1) beginning 60 days after the date on which a report containing the recommendations is provided to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 

of Representatives. 

(d) NON-FEDERAL FINANCING REQUIREMENTS.—

(1) ESTIMATES.—Before October 1 of each fiscal year, the 

Secretary shall notify the States of Louisiana and Mississippi 

of each State’s respective estimated costs for that fiscal year for 

the activities authorized under this section. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
90 

(2) ESCROW.—The States of Louisiana and Mississippi 

shall provide the funds described in paragraph (1) by making 

a deposit into an escrow account, or such other account, of the 

Treasury as the Secretary determines to be acceptable within 30 

days after the date of receipt of the notification from the Secretary under paragraph (1). 

(3) DEPOSITS BY LOUISIANA.— (A) USE OF CERTAIN FUNDS.—The State of Louisiana 

may use funds available to the State under the coastal impact assistance program authorized under section 31 of the 

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1356a) in 

meeting its cost-sharing responsibilities under this section. 

(B) FAILURE TO PROVIDE FUNDS.— (i) IN GENERAL.—If the State of Louisiana does not 

provide the funds under paragraph (2), the Secretary of 

the Interior, using funds to be disbursed to the State 

under the program referred to in subparagraph (A) or 

under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 

(title I of Division C of Public Law 109–432; (43 U.S.C. 

1331 note; 120 Stat. 3000)), shall deposit such funds as 

are necessary to meet the requirements for the State 

under paragraph (2). 

(ii) DEADLINE FOR DEPOSIT.—Any deposit required 

under clause (i) shall be made prior to any other disbursements made to the State of Louisiana under the 

programs referred to in clause (i). 

(C) EXCEPTION.—The State of Louisiana shall not be 

required to make a deposit of its share in any fiscal year 

in which the State of Mississippi does not make its deposit 

following a notification under paragraph (1) or the State of 

Mississippi notifies the Secretary that it does not intend to 

make a deposit in that fiscal year. 

(4) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with 

section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d– 5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for 

the costs of design work carried out by the non-Federal interest 

for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for 

the project. 

(5) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost of the 

project authorized by subsection (a) shall be 75 percent. 

(e) SCHEDULE.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary shall complete the design of the project not 

later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act and 

shall complete the construction of the project by not later than 

September 30, 2012. 

(2) MISSED DEADLINE.—If the Secretary does not complete 

the design or construction of the project in accordance with 

paragraph (1), the Secretary shall complete the design or construction as expeditiously as possible. 

SEC. 3084. WEST BANK OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER (EAST OF HARVEY 

CANAL), LOUISIANA. 

Section 328 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 

(113 Stat. 304–305) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)—


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
91 

(A) by striking ‘‘operation and maintenance’’ and inserting ‘‘operation, maintenance, rehabilitation, repair, and 

replacement’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘Algiers Channel’’ and inserting ‘‘Algiers Canal Levees’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(c) COST SHARING.—The non-Federal share of the cost of the 

project shall be 35 percent.’’. 

SEC. 3085. CAMP ELLIS, SACO, MAINE. 

The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended 

for the project being carried out under section 111 of the River and 

Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i) for the mitigation of shore 

damages attributable to the project for navigation, Camp Ellis, 

Saco, Maine, shall be $26,900,000. 

SEC. 3086. CUMBERLAND, MARYLAND. 

Section 580(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 

(113 Stat. 375) is amended— (1) by striking ‘‘$15,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$25,750,000’’; 

(2) by striking ‘‘$9,750,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$16,738,000’’; 

and 

(3) by striking ‘‘$5,250,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$9,012,000’’. 

SEC. 3087. POPLAR ISLAND, MARYLAND. 

The project for navigation and environmental restoration 

through the beneficial use of dredged material, Poplar Island, 

Maryland, authorized by section 537 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3776) and modified by section 318 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2604), 

is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the expansion of 

the project in accordance with the report of the Chief of Engineers 

dated March 31, 2006, at an additional total cost of $260,000,000, 

with an estimated Federal cost of $195,000,000 and an estimated 

non-Federal cost of $65,000,000. 

SEC. 3088. DETROIT RIVER SHORELINE, DETROIT, MICHIGAN. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for emergency streambank and 

shoreline protection, Detroit River Shoreline, Detroit, Michigan, 

being carried out under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 

(33 U.S.C. 701r), is modified to include measures to enhance public 

access. 

(b) MAXIMUM FEDERAL EXPENDITURE.—The maximum amount 

of Federal funds that may be expended for the project shall be 

$3,000,000. 

SEC. 3089. ST. CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST. CLAIR, MICHIGAN. 

Section 426 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 

(113 Stat. 326) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘SEC. 426. ST. CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST. CLAIR, MICHIGAN. 

‘‘(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following definitions 

apply: 

‘‘(1) MANAGEMENT PLAN.—The term ‘management plan’

means the management plan for the St. Clair River and Lake 

St. Clair, Michigan, that is in effect as of the date of enactment 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. 

‘‘(2) PARTNERSHIP.—The term ‘Partnership’ means the partnership established by the Secretary under subsection (b)(1). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
92 

‘‘(b) PARTNERSHIP.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish and lead a 

partnership of appropriate Federal agencies (including the Environmental Protection Agency) and the State of Michigan (including political subdivisions of the State)— ‘‘(A) to promote cooperation among the Federal Government, State and local governments, and other involved parties in the management of the St. Clair River and Lake St. 

Clair watersheds; and ‘‘(B) to develop and implement projects consistent with 

the management plan. 

‘‘(2) COORDINATION WITH ACTIONS UNDER OTHER LAW.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Actions taken under this section by 

the Partnership shall be coordinated with actions to restore 

and conserve the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair and 

watersheds taken under other provisions of Federal and 

State law. ‘‘(B) NO EFFECT ON OTHER LAW.—Nothing in this section alters, modifies, or affects any other provision of Federal or State law. ‘‘(c) IMPLEMENTATION OF ST. CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST. CLAIR

MANAGEMENT PLAN.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall— ‘‘(A) develop a St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair strategic implementation plan in accordance with the management plan; ‘‘(B) provide technical, planning, and engineering assistance to non-Federal interests for developing and implementing activities consistent with the management plan; ‘‘(C) plan, design, and implement projects consistent 

with the management plan; and ‘‘(D) provide, in coordination with the Administrator of 

the Environmental Protection Agency, financial and technical assistance, including grants, to the State of Michigan 

(including political subdivisions of the State) and interested nonprofit entities for the Federal share of the cost of 

planning, design, and implementation of projects to restore, 

conserve, manage, and sustain the St. Clair River, Lake St. 

Clair, and associated watersheds. 

‘‘(2) SPECIFIC MEASURES.—Financial and technical assistance provided under subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph 

(1) may be used in support of non-Federal activities consistent 

with the management plan. 

‘‘(d) SUPPLEMENTS TO MANAGEMENT PLAN AND STRATEGIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.—In consultation with the Partnership and 

after providing an opportunity for public review and comment, the 

Secretary shall develop information to supplement—

‘‘(1) the management plan; and 

‘‘(2) the strategic implementation plan developed under subsection (c)(1)(A). 

‘‘(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000.’’. 

SEC. 3090. ST. JOSEPH HARBOR, MICHIGAN. 

The Secretary shall expedite development of the dredged material management plan for the project for navigation, St. Joseph 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
93 

Harbor, Michigan, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 299). 

SEC. 3091. SAULT SAINTE MARIE, MICHIGAN. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The text of section 1149 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4254) is amended to 

read as follows: 

‘‘The Secretary shall construct, at Federal expense, a second 

lock, of a width not less than 110 feet and a length not less than 

1,200 feet, adjacent to the existing lock at Sault Sainte Marie, 

Michigan, generally in accordance with the report of the Board of 

Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, dated May 19, 1986, and the 

limited reevaluation report dated February 2004 at a total cost of 

$341,714,000.’’. 

(b) CONFORMING REPEALS.—The following provisions are repealed: 

(1) Section 107(a)(8) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4620). 

(2) Section 330 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1996 (110 Stat. 3717). 

(3) Section 330 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1999 (113 Stat. 305). 

SEC. 3092. ADA, MINNESOTA. 

In carrying out the project for flood damage reduction, Wild 

Rice River, Ada, Minnesota, under section 205 of the Flood Control 

Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate in the financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1986 (100 Stat. 4184) if the detailed project report evaluation indicates that applying such section is necessary to implement the 

project. 

SEC. 3093. DULUTH HARBOR, MCQUADE ROAD, MINNESOTA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation, Duluth Harbor, 

McQuade Road, Minnesota, being carried out under section 107 of 

the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) and modified by 

section 321 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 

Stat. 2605), is modified to direct the Secretary to provide public access and recreational facilities as generally described in the Detailed 

Project Report and Environmental Assessment, McQuade Road Harbor of Refuge, Duluth, Minnesota, dated August 1999. 

(b) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for the costs 

of design work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project 

before the date of the partnership agreement for the project. 

(c) MAXIMUM FEDERAL EXPENDITURE.—The maximum amount 

of Federal funds that may be expended for the project shall be 

$9,000,000. 

SEC. 3094. GRAND MARAIS, MINNESOTA. 

The project for navigation, Grand Marais, Minnesota, carried 

out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 

U.S.C. 577) is modified to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 

1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
94 

the cost of design work carried out for the project before the date of 

the partnership agreement for the project. 

SEC. 3095. GRAND PORTAGE HARBOR, MINNESOTA. 

The Secretary shall provide credit in accordance with section 

221 of the Flood Control Act (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b) toward the nonFederal share of the cost of the navigation project for Grand Portage 

Harbor, Minnesota, carried out under section 107 of the River and 

Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), for the costs of design work carried out for the project before the date of the partnership agreement 

for the project. 

SEC. 3096. GRANITE FALLS, MINNESOTA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is directed to implement the locally preferred plan for flood damage reduction, Granite Falls, Minnesota, at a total cost of $12,000,000, with an estimated Federal 

cost of $8,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,000,000. 

In carrying out the project, the Secretary shall utilize, to the extent 

practicable, the existing detailed project report dated 2002 for the 

project prepared under the authority of section 205 of the Flood 

Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s). 

(b) PROJECT FINANCING.—In evaluating and implementing the 

project under this section, the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal 

interests to participate in the financing of the project in accordance 

with section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 

(100 Stat. 4184) if the detailed project report evaluation indicates 

that applying such section is necessary to implement the project. 

(c) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the project the cost of design and 

construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the 

project before the date of execution of a partnership agreement for 

the project. 

(d) MAXIMUM FUNDING.—The maximum amount of Federal 

funds that may be expended for the flood damage reduction shall 

be $8,000,000. 

SEC. 3097. KNIFE RIVER HARBOR, MINNESOTA. 

The project for navigation, Harbor at Knife River, Minnesota, 

authorized by section 2 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of March 2, 

1945 (59 Stat. 19), is modified to direct the Secretary to develop a 

final design and prepare plans and specifications to correct the harbor entrance and mooring conditions at the project. 

SEC. 3098. RED LAKE RIVER, MINNESOTA. 

The project for flood control, Red Lake River, Crookston, Minnesota, authorized by section 101(a)(23) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 278), is modified to include flood 

protection for the adjacent and interconnected areas generally 

known as the Sampson and Chase/Loring neighborhoods, in accordance with the feasibility report supplement for local flood protection, Crookston, Minnesota, at a total cost of $25,000,000, with 

an estimated Federal cost of $16,250,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $8,750,000. 

SEC. 3099. SILVER BAY, MINNESOTA. 

The project for navigation, Silver Bay, Minnesota, authorized 

by section 2 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of March 2, 1945 (59 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
95 

Stat. 19), is modified to include operation and maintenance of the 

general navigation facilities as a Federal responsibility. 

SEC. 3100. TACONITE HARBOR, MINNESOTA. 

The project for navigation, Taconite Harbor, Minnesota, carried 

out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 

U.S.C. 577), is modified to include operation and maintenance of 

the general navigation facilities as a Federal responsibility. 

SEC. 3101. TWO HARBORS, MINNESOTA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the requirements of section 

107(a) of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577(a)), the 

project for navigation, Two Harbors, Minnesota, being carried out 

under such authority, is justified on the basis of navigation safety. 

(b) MAXIMUM FEDERAL EXPENDITURES.—The maximum amount 

of Federal funds that may be expended for the project shall be 

$7,000,000. 

SEC. 3102. DEER ISLAND, HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. 

The project for ecosystem restoration, Deer Island, Harrison 

County, Mississippi, being carried out under section 204 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326), is modified to authorize the non-Federal interest to provide, in accordance 

with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–

5b), any portion of the non-Federal share of the cost of the project 

in the form of in-kind services and materials. 

SEC. 3103. JACKSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. 

(a) MODIFICATION.—Section 331 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 305) is amended by striking 

‘‘$5,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$9,000,000’’. 

(b) APPLICABILITY OF CREDIT.—The credit provided by section 

331 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 305) 

(as amended by subsection (a) of this section) shall apply to costs 

incurred by the Jackson County Board of Supervisors during the period beginning on February 8, 1994, and ending on the date of enactment of this Act for projects authorized by section 219(c)(5) of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 110 Stat. 

3757; 113 Stat. 1494). 

SEC. 3104. PEARL RIVER BASIN, MISSISSIPPI. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood damage reduction, Pearl 

River Basin, including Shoccoe, Mississippi, authorized by section 

401(e)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 

4132), is modified to authorize the Secretary, subject to subsection 

(c), to construct the project generally in accordance with the plan described in the ‘‘Pearl River Watershed, Mississippi, Feasibility 

Study Main Report, Preliminary Draft’’, dated February 2007, at a total cost of $205,800,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$133,770,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $72,030,000. 

(b) COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES.—Before initiating construction of the project, the Secretary shall compare the level of flood 

damage reduction provided by the plan that maximizes national 

economic development benefits of the project and the locally preferred plan, referred to as the LeFleur Lakes plan, to that portion 

of Jackson, Mississippi and vicinity, located below the Ross Barnett 

Reservoir Dam. 

(c) IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN.—


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
96 

(1) IN GENERAL.—If the Secretary determines under subsection (b) that the locally preferred plan provides a level of 

flood damage reduction that is equal to or greater than the level 

of flood damage reduction provided by the national economic 

development plan and that the locally preferred plan is environmentally acceptable and technically feasible, the Secretary may 

construct the project identified as the national economic development plan, or the locally preferred plan, or some combination 

thereof. 

(2) CONSTRUCTION BY NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS.—The nonFederal interest may carry out the project under section 211 of 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 701b–

13). 

(d) PROJECT FINANCING.—In evaluating and implementing the 

project under this section, the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal 

interests to participate in the financing of the project in accordance 

with section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 

(100 Stat. 4184) if the detailed project report evaluation indicates 

that applying such section is necessary to implement the project. 

(e) NON-FEDERAL COST SHARE.—If the locally preferred plan is 

selected for construction of the project, the Federal share of the cost 

of the project shall be limited to the share as provided by law for 

the elements of the national economic development plan. 

SEC. 3105. FESTUS AND CRYSTAL CITY, MISSOURI. 

Section 102(b)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1999 (113 Stat. 282) is amended by striking ‘‘$10,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$13,000,000’’. 

SEC. 3106. L–15 LEVEE, MISSOURI. 

The portion of the L–15 levee system that is under the jurisdiction of the Consolidated North County Levee District and situated 

along the right descending bank of the Mississippi River from the 

confluence of that river with the Missouri River and running upstream approximately 14 miles shall be considered to be a Federal 

levee for purposes of cost sharing under section 5 of the Act of August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n). 

SEC. 3107. MONARCH-CHESTERFIELD, MISSOURI. 

The project for flood damage reduction, Monarch-Chesterfield, 

Missouri, authorized by section 101(b)(18) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2578), is modified to direct the 

Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share 

of the cost of the project the cost of the planning, design, and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project 

before the date of the partnership agreement for the project. 

SEC. 3108. RIVER DES PERES, MISSOURI. 

The projects for flood control, River Des Peres, Missouri, authorized by section 101(a)(17) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4607) and section 102(13) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3668), are each modified 

to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 of 

the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the 

non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
97 

out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the 

partnership agreement for the project. 

SEC. 3109. LOWER YELLOWSTONE PROJECT, MONTANA. 

The Secretary may use funds appropriated to carry out the Missouri River recovery and mitigation program to assist the Bureau 

of Reclamation in the design and construction of the Lower Yellowstone project of the Bureau, Intake, Montana, for the purpose of ecosystem restoration. 

SEC. 3110. YELLOWSTONE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MONTANA AND 

NORTH DAKOTA. 

(a) DEFINITION OF RESTORATION PROJECT.—In this section, the 

term ‘‘restoration project’’ means a project that will produce, in accordance with other Federal programs, projects, and activities, substantial ecosystem restoration and related benefits, as determined by 

the Secretary. 

(b) PROJECTS.—The Secretary shall carry out, in accordance 

with other Federal programs, projects, and activities, restoration 

projects in the watershed of the Yellowstone River and tributaries 

in Montana, and in North Dakota, to produce immediate and substantial ecosystem restoration and recreation benefits. 

(c) LOCAL PARTICIPATION.—In carrying out subsection (b), the 

Secretary shall—

(1) consult with, and consider the activities being carried 

out by—

(A) other Federal agencies; 

(B) Indian tribes; 

(C) conservation districts; and 

(D) the Yellowstone River Conservation District Council; and 

(2) seek the participation of the State of Montana. 

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000. 

SEC. 3111. ANTELOPE CREEK, LINCOLN, NEBRASKA. 

The project for flood damage reduction, Antelope Creek, Lincoln, Nebraska, authorized by section 101(b)(19) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2578), is modified—

(1) to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), 

toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost 

of design and construction work carried out by the non-Federal 

interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project; and 

(2) to allow the non-Federal interest for the project to use, 

and to direct the Secretary to accept, funds provided under any 

other Federal program to satisfy, in whole or in part, the nonFederal share of the project if the Federal agency that provides 

such funds determines that the funds are authorized to be used 

to carry out the project. 

SEC. 3112. SAND CREEK WATERSHED, WAHOO, NEBRASKA. 

The project for ecosystem restoration and flood damage reduction, Sand Creek watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska, authorized by section 101(b)(20) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 

Stat. 2578), is modified—


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
98 

(1) to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), 

toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project or reimbursement for the costs of any work performed by the non-Federal interest for the project before the approval of the project 

partnership agreement, including work performed by the nonFederal interest in connection with the design and construction 

of 7 upstream detention storage structures; 

(2) to require that in-kind work to be credited under paragraph (1) be subject to audit; and 

(3) to direct the Secretary to accept advance funds from the 

non-Federal interest as needed to maintain the project schedule. 

SEC. 3113. WESTERN SARPY AND CLEAR CREEK, NEBRASKA. 

The project for ecosystem restoration and flood damage reduction, Western Sarpy and Clear Creek, Nebraska, authorized by section 101(b)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 

Stat. 2578), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the 

project at a total cost of $21,664,000, with an estimated Federal cost 

of $14,082,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,582,000. 

SEC. 3114. LOWER TRUCKEE RIVER, MCCARRAN RANCH, NEVADA. 

The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended 

for the project being carried out, as of the date of enactment of this 

Act, under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) for environmental restoration of McCarran 

Ranch, Nevada, shall be $5,775,000. 

SEC. 3115. LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY POINT, NEW JERSEY. 

The project for navigation mitigation, ecosystem restoration, 

shore protection, and hurricane and storm damage reduction, Lower 

Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey, authorized by 

section 101(a)(25) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 

(113 Stat. 278), is modified to incorporate the project for shoreline 

erosion control, Cape May Point, New Jersey, carried out under section 5 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing Federal participation 

in the cost of protecting the shores of publicly owned property’’, approved August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426h), if the Secretary determines that such incorporation is feasible. 

SEC. 3116. PASSAIC RIVER BASIN FLOOD MANAGEMENT, NEW JERSEY. 

The project for flood control, Passaic River, New Jersey and 

New York, authorized by section 101(a)(18) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4607) and modified by section 

327 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 

2607), is modified to direct the Secretary to include the benefits and 

costs of preserving natural flood storage in any future economic 

analysis of the project. 

SEC. 3117. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS, NEW MEXICO. 

The Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements with any 

Indian tribe any land of which is located in the State of New Mexico 

and occupied by a flood control project that is owned and operated 

by the Corps of Engineers to assist in carrying out any operation or 

maintenance activity associated with the flood control project. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
99 

SEC. 3118. MIDDLE RIO GRANDE RESTORATION, NEW MEXICO. 

(a) RESTORATION PROJECTS DEFINED.—In this section, the term 

‘‘restoration project’’ means a project that will produce, consistent 

with other Federal programs, projects, and activities, immediate 

and substantial ecosystem restoration and recreation benefits. 

(b) PROJECT SELECTION.—The Secretary shall select and shall 

carry out restoration projects in the Middle Rio Grande from 

Cochiti Dam to the headwaters of Elephant Butte Reservoir in the 

State of New Mexico. 

(c) LOCAL PARTICIPATION.—In carrying out subsection (b), the 

Secretary shall consult with, and consider the activities being carried out by—

(1) the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Act Collaborative Program; and 

(2) the Bosque Improvement Group of the Middle Rio 

Grande Bosque Initiative. 

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated $25,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 3119. BUFFALO HARBOR, NEW YORK. 

The project for navigation, Buffalo Harbor, New York, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 

1176), is modified to include measures to enhance public access, at 

Federal cost of $500,000. 

SEC. 3120. LONG ISLAND SOUND OYSTER RESTORATION, NEW YORK 

AND CONNECTICUT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall plan, design, and construct projects to increase aquatic habitats within Long Island 

Sound and adjacent waters, including the construction and restoration of oyster beds and related shellfish habitat. 

(b) COST SHARING.—The non-Federal share of the cost of activities carried out under this section shall be 25 percent and may be 

provided through in-kind services and materials. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated $25,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 3121. MAMARONECK AND SHELDRAKE RIVERS WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, NEW YORK. 

(a) WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consultation with the 

State of New York and local entities, shall develop watershed 

management plans for the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake River 

watershed for the purposes of evaluating existing and new flood 

damage reduction and ecosystem restoration. 

(2) EXISTING PLANS.—In developing the watershed management plans, the Secretary shall use existing studies and plans, 

as appropriate. 

(b) CRITICAL RESTORATION PROJECTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may participate in any eligible critical restoration project in the Mamaroneck and 

Sheldrake Rivers watershed in accordance with the watershed 

management plans developed under subsection (a). 

(2) ELIGIBLE PROJECTS.—A critical restoration project shall 

be eligible for assistance under this section if the project—

(A) meets the purposes described in the watershed 

management plans developed under subsection (a); and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
100 

(B) with respect to the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake 

Rivers watershed in New York, consists of flood damage reduction or ecosystem restoration through— (i) bank stabilization of the mainstem, tributaries, 

and streams; 

(ii) wetland restoration; 

(iii) soil and water conservation; 

(iv) restoration of natural flows; 

(v) restoration of stream stability; 

(vi) structural and nonstructural flood damage reduction measures; or 

(vii) any other project or activity the Secretary determines to be appropriate. 

(c) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—In carrying out this section, 

the Secretary may enter into one or more cooperative agreements to 

provide financial assistance to appropriate Federal, State, or local 

governments or nonprofit agencies, including assistance for the implementation of projects to be carried out under subsection (b). 

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000, to remain 

available until expended. 

SEC. 3122. ORCHARD BEACH, BRONX, NEW YORK. 

Section 554 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 

(110 Stat. 3781) is amended by striking ‘‘maximum Federal cost of 

$5,200,000’’ and inserting ‘‘total cost of $20,000,000’’. 

SEC. 3123. PORT OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK AND NEW 

JERSEY. 

The navigation project, Port of New York and New Jersey, New 

York and New Jersey, authorized by section 101(a)(2) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2576), is modified—

(1) to authorize the Secretary to allow the non-Federal interest to construct a temporary dredged material storage facility 

to receive dredged material from the project if—

(A) the non-Federal interest submits, in writing, a list 

of potential sites for the temporary storage facility to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee on Environment 

and Public Works of the Senate, and the Secretary at least 

180 days before the selection of the final site; and 

(B) at least 70 percent of the dredged material generated in connection with the project suitable for beneficial 

reuse will be used at sites in the State of New Jersey to the 

extent that there are sufficient sites available; and 

(2) to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), 

toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost 

of construction of the temporary storage facility for the project. 

SEC. 3124. NEW YORK STATE CANAL SYSTEM. 

Section 553(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 

(110 Stat. 3781) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(c) NEW YORK STATE CANAL SYSTEM DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘New York State Canal System’ means the 524 miles 

of navigable canal that comprise the New York State Canal System, 

including the Erie, Cayuga-Seneca, Oswego, and Champlain Canals 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
101 

and the historic alignments of these canals, including the cities of 

Albany, Rochester, and Buffalo.’’. 

SEC. 3125. SUSQUEHANNA RIVER AND UPPER DELAWARE RIVER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, NEW YORK. 

(a) WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consultation with the 

State of New York, the Delaware or Susquehanna River Basin 

Commission, as appropriate, and local entities, shall develop 

watershed management plans for the Susquehanna River watershed in New York State and the Upper Delaware River watershed for the purposes of evaluating existing and new flood 

damage reduction and ecosystem restoration. 

(2) EXISTING PLANS.—In developing the watershed management plans, the Secretary shall use existing studies and plans, 

as appropriate. 

(b) CRITICAL RESTORATION PROJECTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may participate in any eligible critical restoration project in the Susquehanna River or 

Upper Delaware Rivers in accordance with the watershed management plans developed under subsection (a). 

(2) ELIGIBLE PROJECTS.—A critical restoration project shall 

be eligible for assistance under this section if the project—

(A) meets the purposes described in the watershed 

management plans developed under subsection (a); and 

(B) with respect to the Susquehanna River or Upper 

Delaware River watershed in New York, consists of flood 

damage reduction or ecosystem restoration through—

(i) bank stabilization of the mainstem, tributaries, 

and streams; 

(ii) wetland restoration; 

(iii) soil and water conservation; 

(iv) restoration of natural flows; 

(v) restoration of stream stability; 

(vi) structural and nonstructural flood damage reduction measures; or 

(vii) any other project or activity the Secretary determines to be appropriate. 

(c) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—In carrying out this section, 

the Secretary may enter into 1 or more cooperative agreements to 

provide financial assistance to appropriate Federal, State, or local 

governments or nonprofit agencies, including assistance for the implementation of projects to be carried out under subsection (b). 

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000, to remain 

available until expended. 

SEC. 3126. MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, NORTH DAKOTA. 

Section 707(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 

(114 Stat. 2699) is amended in the first sentence by striking 

‘‘$5,000,000’’ and all that follows through ‘‘2005’’ and inserting 

‘‘$25,000,000’’. 

SEC. 3127. WAHPETON, NORTH DAKOTA. 

The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be allotted 

for the project for flood damage reduction, Wahpeton, North Dakota, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
102 

being carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 

(33 U.S.C. 701s), shall be $12,000,000. 

SEC. 3128. OHIO. 

Section 594 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 

(113 Stat. 381) is amended—

(1) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections 

(g) and (h), respectively; and 

(2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following: 

‘‘(f) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—In accordance with section 221 of 

the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), a non-Federal 

interest for any project carried out under this section may include 

a nonprofit entity, with the consent of the affected local government.’’. 

SEC. 3129. LOWER GIRARD LAKE DAM, GIRARD, OHIO. 

Section 507 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 

(110 Stat. 3758) is amended—

(1) by inserting ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—’’ before ‘‘The Secretary’’; 

(2) in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) (as designated by 

paragraph (1) of this subsection)—

(A) by striking ‘‘Repair and rehabilitation’’ and all that 

follows through ‘‘Ohio’’ and inserting ‘‘Correction of structural deficiencies of the Lower Girard Lake Dam, Girard, 

Ohio, and the appurtenant features to meet the dam safety 

standards of the State of Ohio’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘$2,500,000’’ and inserting 

‘‘$16,000,000’’; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(b) SPECIAL RULES.—The project for Lower Girard Lake Dam, 

Girard, Ohio, authorized by subsection (a)(1) is justified on the 

basis of public safety.’’. 

SEC. 3130. MAHONING RIVER, OHIO. 

In carrying out the project for environmental dredging, authorized by section 312(f)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1990 (33 U.S.C. 1272(f)(4)), the Secretary is directed to credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 

U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 

project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for 

the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the 

project. 

SEC. 3131. ARCADIA LAKE, OKLAHOMA. 

Payments made by the city of Edmond, Oklahoma, to the Secretary in October 1999 of all costs associated with present and future water storage costs at Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma, under Arcadia 

Lake Water Storage Contract Number DACW56–79–C–0072 shall 

satisfy the obligations of the city under that contract. 

SEC. 3132. ARKANSAS RIVER CORRIDOR, OKLAHOMA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to participate in 

the ecosystem restoration, recreation, and flood damage reduction 

components of the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan dated October 2005. The Secretary shall coordinate with appropriate representatives in the vicinity of Tulsa, Oklahoma, including representatives 

of Tulsa County and surrounding communities and the Indian Nations Council of Governments. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
103 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated $50,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 3133. LAKE EUFAULA, OKLAHOMA. 

(a) PROJECT GOAL.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The goal for operation of Lake Eufaula, 

Oklahoma, shall be to maximize the use of available storage in 

a balanced approach that incorporates advice from representatives from all the project purposes to ensure that the full value 

of the reservoir is realized by the United States. 

(2) RECOGNITION OF PURPOSE.—To achieve the goal described in paragraph (1), recreation is recognized as a project 

purpose at Lake Eufaula, pursuant to section 4 of the Flood 

Control Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 889). 

(b) LAKE EUFAULA ADVISORY COMMITTEE.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In accordance with the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), the Secretary shall establish an 

advisory committee for the Lake Eufaula, Canadian River, 

Oklahoma project authorized by the first section of the River 

and Harbor Act of July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 635). 

(2) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the committee shall be advisory only. 

(3) DUTIES.—The committee shall provide information and 

recommendations to the Corps of Engineers regarding the operations of Lake Eufaula for the project purposes for Lake 

Eufaula. 

(4) COMPOSITION.—The Committee shall be composed of 

members that equally represent the project purposes for Lake 

Eufaula. 

(c) REALLOCATION STUDY.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the appropriation of funds, the 

Secretary shall perform a reallocation study, at Federal expense, to develop and present recommendations concerning the 

best value, while minimizing ecological damages, for current 

and future use of the Lake Eufaula storage capacity for the authorized project purposes of flood control, water supply, hydroelectric power, navigation, fish and wildlife, and recreation. 

(2) FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION.—The reallocation study 

shall take into consideration the recommendations of the Lake 

Eufaula Advisory Committee. 

(d) POOL MANAGEMENT PLAN.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than one year after the date of 

enactment of this Act, to the extent feasible within available 

project funds and subject to the completion and approval of the 

reallocation study under subsection (c), the Tulsa district engineer, taking into consideration recommendations of the Lake 

Eufaula Advisory Committee, shall develop an interim management plan that accommodates all project purposes for Lake 

Eufaula. 

(2) MODIFICATIONS.—A modification of the plan under 

paragraph (1) shall not cause significant adverse impacts on 

any existing permit, lease, license, contract, public law, or 

project purpose, including flood control operation, relating to 

Lake Eufaula. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
104 

SEC. 3134. OKLAHOMA LAKES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM, OKLAHOMA. 

(a) IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAM.—Not later than one year 

after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall implement an innovative program at the lakes located primarily in the 

State of Oklahoma that are a part of an authorized civil works 

project under the administrative jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers for the purpose of demonstrating the benefits of enhanced 

recreation facilities and activities at those lakes. 

(b) REQUIREMENTS.—In implementing the program under subsection (a), the Secretary, consistent with authorized project purposes, shall—

(1) pursue strategies that will enhance, to the maximum extent practicable, recreation experiences at the lakes included in 

the program; 

(2) use creative management strategies that optimize recreational activities; and 

(3) ensure continued public access to recreation areas located on or associated with the civil works project. 

(c) GUIDELINES.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue guidelines for the implementation of this section, to be developed in coordination with 

the State of Oklahoma. 

(d) REPORT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the date of 

enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 

of Representatives a report describing the results of the program 

under subsection (a). 

(2) INCLUSIONS.—The report under paragraph (1) shall include a description of the projects undertaken under the program, including—

(A) an estimate of the change in any related recreational opportunities; 

(B) a description of any leases entered into, including 

the parties involved; and 

(C) the financial conditions that the Corps of Engineers 

used to justify those leases. 

(3) AVAILABILITY TO PUBLIC.—The Secretary shall make the 

report available to the public in electronic and written formats. 

(e) TERMINATION.—The authority provided by this section shall 

terminate on the date that is 10 years after the date of enactment 

of this Act. 

SEC. 3135. OTTAWA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appropriated 

$30,000,000 for the purposes set forth in subsection (b). 

(b) PURPOSES.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 

funds appropriated under subsection (a) may be used for the purpose of—

(1) the buyout of properties and permanently relocating 

residents and businesses in or near Picher, Cardin, and 

Hockerville, Oklahoma, from areas determined by the State of 

Oklahoma to be at risk of damage caused by land subsidence 

and remaining properties; and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
105 

(2) providing funding to the State of Oklahoma to buyout 

properties and permanently relocate residents and businesses of 

Picher, Cardin, and Hockerville, Oklahoma, from areas determined by the State of Oklahoma to be at risk of damage caused 

by land subsidence and remaining properties. 

(c) LIMITATION.—The use of funds in accordance with subsection (b) shall not be considered to be part of a federally assisted 

program or project for purposes of Public Law 91–646 (42 U.S.C. 

4601 et seq.), consistent with section 2301 of Public Law 109–234 

(120 Stat. 455). 

(d) CONSISTENCY WITH STATE PROGRAM.—Any actions taken 

under subsection (b) shall be consistent with the relocation program 

in the State of Oklahoma under 27A O.S. Supp. 2006, sections 2201 

et seq. 

(e) CONSIDERATION OF REMEDIAL ACTION.—The Administrator 

of the Environmental Protection Agency shall consider, without 

delay, a remedial action under the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 

et seq.) for the Tar Creek, Oklahoma, National Priorities List site 

that includes permanent relocation of residents consistent with the 

program currently being administered by the State of Oklahoma. 

Such relocation shall not be subject to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 

U.S.C. 4601 et seq.). 

(f) ESTIMATING COSTS.—In estimating and comparing the cost 

of a remedial alternative for the Tar Creek Oklahoma, National Priorities List site that includes the permanent relocation of residents, 

the Administrator shall not include the cost of compliance with the 

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.). 

(g) EFFECT OF CERTAIN REMEDIES.—Inclusion of subsidence 

remedies, such as permanent relocation within any remedial action, 

shall not preempt, alter, or delay the right of any sovereign entity, 

including any State or tribal government, to seek remedies, including abatement, for land subsidence and subsidence risks under 

State law. 

(h) AMENDMENT.—Section 111 of Public Law 108–137 (117 

Stat. 1835) is amended— (1) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following: ‘‘Such activities also may include the provision of financial assistance to facilitate the buy out of properties located in areas 

identified by the State as areas that are or will be at risk of 

damage caused by land subsidence and associated properties 

otherwise identified by the State. Any buyout of such properties 

shall not be considered to be part of a federally assisted program or project for purposes of Public Law 91–646 (42 U.S.C. 

4601 et seq.), consistent with section 2301 of Public Law 109–

234 (120 Stat. 455–456).’’; and 

(2) by striking the first sentence of subsection (d) and inserting the following: ‘‘Non-Federal interests shall be responsible for operating and maintaining any restoration alternatives 

constructed or carried out pursuant to this section.’’. 

SEC. 3136. RED RIVER CHLORIDE CONTROL, OKLAHOMA AND TEXAS. 

The project for water quality control in the Arkansas and Red 

River Basin, Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, authorized by section 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
106 

203 of the Flood Control Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 1420) and modified 

by section 1107(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 

(100 Stat. 4229) is further modified to direct the Secretary to provide operation and maintenance for the Red River Chloride Control 

project, Oklahoma and Texas, at Federal expense. 

SEC. 3137. WAURIKA LAKE, OKLAHOMA. 

The remaining obligation of the Waurika Project Master Conservancy District payable to the United States Government in the 

amounts, rates of interest, and payment schedules— (1) is set at the amounts, rates of interest, and payment 

schedules that existed on June 3, 1986, with respect to the 

project for Waurika Lake, Oklahoma; and 

(2) may not be adjusted, altered, or changed without a specific, separate, and written agreement between the District and 

the United States. 

SEC. 3138. UPPER WILLAMETTE RIVER WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OREGON. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct studies and ecosystem restoration projects for the upper Willamette River watershed 

from Albany, Oregon, to the headwaters of the Willamette River and 

tributaries. 

(b) CONSULTATION.—The Secretary shall carry out ecosystem 

restoration projects under this section for the Upper Willamette 

River watershed in consultation with the Governor of the State of 

Oregon, the heads of appropriate Indian tribes, the Environmental 

Protection Agency, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, and local entities. 

(c) AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.—In carrying out ecosystem restoration projects under this section, the Secretary shall undertake activities necessary to protect, monitor, and restore fish and wildlife habitat. 

(d) PRIORITY.—In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall 

give priority to a project to restore the millrace in Eugene, Oregon, 

and shall include noneconomic benefits associated with the historical significance of the millrace and associated with preservation 

and enhancement of resources in evaluating the benefits of the 

project. 

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000. 

SEC. 3139. DELAWARE RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA, NEW JERSEY, AND 

DELAWARE. 

The Secretary may remove debris from the project for navigation, Delaware River, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, 

Philadelphia to the Sea. 

SEC. 3140. RAYSTOWN LAKE, PENNSYLVANIA. 

The Secretary may take such action as may be necessary, including construction of a breakwater, to prevent shoreline erosion 

between .07 and 2.7 miles south of Pennsylvania State Route 994 

on the east shore of Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania. 

SEC. 3141. SHERADEN PARK STREAM AND CHARTIERS CREEK, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. 

The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Sheraden Park 

Stream and Chartiers Creek, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, being 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
107 

carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified to direct the Secretary to 

credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 

1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), up to $400,000 toward the non-Federal 

share of the cost of the project for planning and design work carried 

out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the 

partnership agreement for the project. 

SEC. 3142. SOLOMON’S CREEK, WILKES-BARRE, PENNSYLVANIA. 

The project for flood control, Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania, 

authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124), is modified to include as a project element the project for flood control for Solomon’s Creek, Wilkes-Barre, 

Pennsylvania. 

SEC. 3143. SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA. 

Section 313 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 

(106 Stat. 4845; 109 Stat. 407; 110 Stat. 3723; 113 Stat. 310; 117 

Stat. 142) is amended—

(1) in subsection (g)(1) by striking ‘‘$180,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$200,000,000’’; and 

(2) in subsection (h)(2) by striking ‘‘Allegheny, Armstrong, 

Beford, Blair, Cambria, Clearfield, Fayette, Franklin, Fulton, 

Greene, Huntingdon, Indiana, Juniata, Mifflin, Somerset, Snyder, Washington, and Westmoreland Counties’’ and inserting 

‘‘Allegheny, Armstrong, Bedford, Blair, Cambria, Fayette, 

Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Huntingdon, Indiana, Juniata, Somerset, Washington, and Westmoreland Counties’’. 

SEC. 3144. WYOMING VALLEY, PENNSYLVANIA. 

In carrying out the project for flood control, Wyoming Valley, 

Pennsylvania, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124), the Secretary shall coordinate with non-Federal interests to review opportunities for increased public access. 

SEC. 3145. NARRAGANSETT BAY, RHODE ISLAND. 

The Secretary may use amounts in the Environmental Restoration Account, Formerly Used Defense Sites, under section 2703(a)(5) 

of title 10, United States Code, for the removal of abandoned marine camels at any formerly used defense site under the jurisdiction 

of the Department of Defense that is undergoing (or is scheduled to 

undergo) environmental remediation under chapter 160 of title 10, 

United States Code (and other provisions of law), in Narragansett 

Bay, Rhode Island, in accordance with the Corps of Engineers 

prioritization process under the Formerly Used Defense Sites program. 

SEC. 3146. MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, SOUTH DAKOTA. 

(a) MEMBERSHIP.—Section 904(b)(1)(B) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2708) is amended—

(1) in clause (vii) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

(2) by redesignating clause (viii) as clause (ix); and 

(3) by inserting after clause (vii) the following: 

‘‘(viii) rural water systems; and’’. 

(b) REAUTHORIZATION.—Section 907(a) of such Act (114 Stat. 

2712) is amended in the first sentence by striking ‘‘2005’’ and inserting ‘‘2010’’. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
108 

SEC. 3147. CEDAR BAYOU, TEXAS. 

(a) CREDIT FOR PLANNING AND DESIGN.—The project for navigation, Cedar Bayou, Texas, reauthorized by section 349(a)(2) of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2632), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 

of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the 

non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of planning and 

design work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project 

before the date of the partnership agreement for the project. 

(b) COST SHARING.—Cost sharing for construction and operation and maintenance of the project shall be determined in accordance with section 101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211). 

(c) PROJECT FOR NAVIGATION.—Section 349(a)(2) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2632) is amended by 

striking ‘‘12 feet deep by 125 feet wide’’ and inserting ‘‘that is 10 feet 

deep by 100 feet wide’’. 

SEC. 3148. FREEPORT HARBOR, TEXAS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation, Freeport Harbor, 

Texas, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 

1970 (84 Stat. 1818), is modified to provide that—

(1) all project costs incurred as a result of the discovery of 

the sunken vessel COMSTOCK of the Corps of Engineers are a 

Federal responsibility; and 

(2) the Secretary shall not seek further obligation or responsibility for removal of the vessel COMSTOCK, or costs associated with a delay due to the discovery of the sunken vessel 

COMSTOCK, from the Port of Freeport. 

(b) COST SHARING.—This section does not affect the authorized 

cost sharing for the balance of the project described in subsection 

(a). 

SEC. 3149. LAKE KEMP, TEXAS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may not take any legal or administrative action seeking to remove a Lake Kemp improvement before the earlier of January 1, 2020, or the date of any transfer of 

ownership of the improvement occurring after the date of enactment 

of this Act. 

(b) LIMITATION ON LIABILITY.—The United States, or any of its 

officers, agents, or assignees, shall not be liable for any injury, loss, 

or damage accruing to the owners of a Lake Kemp improvement, 

their lessees, or occupants as a result of any flooding or inundation 

of such improvements by the waters of the Lake Kemp reservoir, or 

for such injury, loss, or damage as may occur through the operation 

and maintenance of the Lake Kemp dam and reservoir in any manner. 

(c) LAKE KEMP IMPROVEMENT DEFINED.—In this section, the 

term ‘‘Lake Kemp improvement’’ means an improvement (including 

dwellings) located within the flowage easement of Lake Kemp, 

Texas, below elevation 1159 feet mean sea level. 

SEC. 3150. LOWER RIO GRANDE BASIN, TEXAS. 

The project for flood control, Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas, 

authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4125), is modified—


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
109 

(1) to include as part of the project flood protection works 

to reroute drainage to Raymondville Drain constructed by the 

non-Federal interests in Hidalgo County in the vicinity of Edinburg, Texas, if the Secretary determines that such work is feasible; 

(2) to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), 

toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost 

of planning, design, and construction work carried out by the 

non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project; and 

(3) to direct the Secretary in calculating the non-Federal 

share of the cost of the project, to make a determination, within 

180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, under section 

103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 

U.S.C. 2213(m)) on the non-Federal interest’s ability to pay. 

SEC. 3151. NORTH PADRE ISLAND, CORPUS CHRISTI BAY, TEXAS. 

The project for ecosystem restoration and storm damage reduction, North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay, Texas, authorized by 

section 556 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 

Stat. 353), is modified to include recreation as a project purpose. 

SEC. 3152. PAT MAYSE LAKE, TEXAS. 

The Secretary is directed to accept from the city of Paris, Texas, 

$3,461,432 as payment in full of monies owed to the United States 

for water supply storage space in Pat Mayse Lake, Texas, under contract number DA–34–066–CIVENG–65–1272, including accrued interest. 

SEC. 3153. PROCTOR LAKE, TEXAS. 

The Secretary is authorized to purchase fee simple title to all 

properties located within the boundaries, and necessary for the operation, of the Proctor Lake project, Texas, authorized by section 203 

of the Flood Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1259). 

SEC. 3154. SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS. 

The project for flood control, San Antonio Channel, Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 

1259) as part of the comprehensive plan for flood protection on the 

Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers in Texas and modified by section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 

2921) and section 335 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

2000 (114 Stat. 2611), is modified to authorize the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 

(42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of 

the project and the cost of design and construction work carried out 

by the non-Federal interest for the project. 

SEC. 3155. CONNECTICUT RIVER RESTORATION, VERMONT. 

Notwithstanding section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 

(42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), as in effect on August 5, 2005, with respect 

to the study entitled ‘‘Connecticut River Restoration Authority’’, 

dated May 23, 2001, a nonprofit entity may act as the non-Federal 

interest for purposes of carrying out the activities described in the 

agreement executed between The Nature Conservancy and the Department of the Army on August 5, 2005. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
110 

SEC. 3156. DAM REMEDIATION, VERMONT. 

Section 543 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 

(114 Stat. 2673) is amended— (1) in subsection (a)(2) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

(2) in subsection (a)(3) by striking the period at the end and 

inserting ‘‘; and’’; 

(3) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following: 

‘‘(4) may carry out measures to restore, protect, and preserve an ecosystem affected by a dam described in subsection 

(b).’’; and 

(4) by adding at the end of subsection (b) the following: 

‘‘(11) Camp Wapanacki, Hardwick. 

‘‘(12) Star Lake Dam, Mt. Holly. 

‘‘(13) Curtis Pond, Calais. 

‘‘(14) Weathersfield Reservoir, Springfield. 

‘‘(15) Burr Pond, Sudbury. 

‘‘(16) Maidstone Lake, Guildhall. 

‘‘(17) Upper and Lower Hurricane Dam. 

‘‘(18) Lake Fairlee. 

‘‘(19) West Charleston Dam. 

‘‘(20) White River, Sharon.’’. 

SEC. 3157. LAKE CHAMPLAIN EURASIAN MILFOIL, WATER CHESTNUT, 

AND OTHER NONNATIVE PLANT CONTROL, VERMONT. 

Under authority of section 104 of the River and Harbor Act of 

1958 (33 U.S.C. 610), the Secretary may revise the existing General 

Design Memorandum to permit the use of chemical means of control, when appropriate, of Eurasian milfoil, water chestnuts, and 

other nonnative plants in the Lake Champlain basin, Vermont. 

SEC. 3158. UPPER CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN WETLAND RESTORATION, VERMONT AND NEW HAMPSHIRE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in cooperation with the States 

of Vermont and New Hampshire, shall carry out a study and develop a strategy for the use of wetland restoration, soil and water 

conservation practices, and nonstructural measures to reduce flood 

damage, improve water quality, and create wildlife habitat in the 

Upper Connecticut River watershed. 

(b) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—In conducting the study and 

developing the strategy under this section, the Secretary may enter 

into one or more cooperative agreements to provide technical assistance to appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies and nonprofit 

organizations with wetland restoration experience. Such assistance 

may include assistance for the implementation of wetland restoration projects and soil and water conservation measures. 

(c) IMPLEMENTATION.—The Secretary shall carry out development and implementation of the strategy under this section in cooperation with local landowners and local government officials. 

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000, to remain 

available until expended. 

SEC. 3159. UPPER CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, VERMONT AND NEW HAMPSHIRE. 

(a) GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in cooperation with the 

Secretary of Agriculture and in consultation with the States of 

Vermont and New Hampshire and the Connecticut River Joint 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
111 

Commission, shall conduct a study and develop a general management plan for ecosystem restoration of the Upper Connecticut River ecosystem for the purposes of— (A) habitat protection and restoration; 

(B) streambank stabilization; 

(C) restoration of stream stability; 

(D) water quality improvement; 

(E) aquatic nuisance species control; 

(F) wetland restoration; 

(G) fish passage; and 

(H) natural flow restoration. 

(2) EXISTING PLANS.—In developing the general management plan, the Secretary shall depend heavily on existing plans 

for the restoration of the Upper Connecticut River. 

(b) CRITICAL RESTORATION PROJECTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may participate in any 

critical restoration project in the Upper Connecticut River basin 

in accordance with the general management plan developed 

under subsection (a). 

(2) ELIGIBLE PROJECTS.—A critical restoration project shall 

be eligible for assistance under this section if the project— (A) meets the purposes described in the general management plan developed under subsection (a); and 

(B) with respect to the Upper Connecticut River and 

Upper Connecticut River watershed, consists of— (i) bank stabilization of the main stem, tributaries, 

and streams; 

(ii) wetland restoration and migratory bird habitat 

restoration; 

(iii) soil and water conservation; 

(iv) restoration of natural flows; 

(v) restoration of stream stability; 

(vi) implementation of an intergovernmental agreement for coordinating ecosystem restoration, fish passage installation, streambank stabilization, wetland 

restoration, habitat protection and restoration, or natural flow restoration; 

(vii) water quality improvement; 

(viii) aquatic nuisance species control; 

(ix) improvements in fish migration; and 

(x) conduct of any other project or activity determined to be appropriate by the Secretary. 

(c) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—In carrying out this section, 

the Secretary may enter into one or more cooperative agreements to 

provide financial assistance to appropriate Federal, State, or local 

governments or nonprofit agencies. Such assistance may include assistance for the implementation of projects to be carried out under 

subsection (b). 

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000. Such sums 

shall remain available until expended. 

SEC. 3160. LAKE CHAMPLAIN WATERSHED, VERMONT AND NEW YORK. 

Section 542 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 

(114 Stat. 2671) is amended—

(1) in subsection (b)(2)—


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
112 

(A) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph (D); 

(B) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (G); and 

(C) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following: 

‘‘(E) river corridor assessment, protection, management, 

and restoration for the purposes of ecosystem restoration; ‘‘(F) geographic mapping conducted by the Secretary 

using existing technical capacity to produce a high-resolution, multispectral satellite imagery-based land use and 

cover data set; or’’; 

(2) in subsection (e)(2)(A)— (A) by striking ‘‘The non-Federal’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The non-Federal’’; and 

(B) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(ii) APPROVAL OF DISTRICT ENGINEER.—Approval of credit for design work of less than $100,000 shall be 

determined by the appropriate district engineer.’’; 

(3) in subsection (e)(2)(C) by striking ‘‘up to 50 percent of’’; 

and 

(4) in subsection (g) by striking ‘‘$20,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$32,000,000’’. 

SEC. 3161. SANDBRIDGE BEACH, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA. 

The project for beach erosion control and hurricane protection, 

Sandbridge Beach, Virginia Beach, Virginia, authorized by section 

101(22) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 

4804) and modified by section 338 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2612), is modified to authorize the Secretary to review the project to determine whether any additional 

Federal interest exists with respect to the project, taking into consideration conditions and development levels relating to the project in 

existence on the date of enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 3162. TANGIER ISLAND SEAWALL, VIRGINIA. 

Section 577(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 

(110 Stat. 3789) is amended by striking ‘‘at a total cost of $1,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $300,000.’’ and inserting ‘‘at a total cost 

of $3,600,000.’’. 

SEC. 3163. DUWAMISH/GREEN, WASHINGTON. 

The project for ecosystem restoration, Duwamish/Green, Washington, authorized by section 101(b)(26) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2579), is modified— (1) to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), 

toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost 

of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project 

before the date of the partnership agreement for the project; and 

(2) to authorize the non-Federal interest to provide any portion of the non-Federal share of the cost of the project in the 

form of in-kind services and materials. 

SEC. 3164. MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, MCNARY NATIONAL WILDLIFE 

REFUGE, WASHINGTON AND IDAHO. 

(a) TRANSFER OF ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION.—Administrative jurisdiction over the land acquired for the McNary Lock and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
113 

Dam project and managed by the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service under cooperative agreement number DACW68–4–00–13 

with the Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, is transferred 

from the Secretary to the Secretary of the Interior. 

(b) EASEMENTS.—The transfer of administrative jurisdiction 

under paragraph (1) shall be subject to easements in existence as of 

the date of enactment of this Act on land subject to the transfer. 

(c) RIGHTS OF SECRETARY.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph (C), 

the Secretary shall retain rights described in subparagraph (B) 

with respect to the land for which administrative jurisdiction is 

transferred under paragraph (1). 

(2) RIGHTS.—The rights of the Secretary referred to in 

paragraph (1) are the rights—

(A) to flood land described in subsection (a) to the 

standard project flood elevation; 

(B) to manipulate the level of the McNary project pool; 

(C) to access land described in subsection (a) as may 

be required to install, maintain, and inspect sediment 

ranges and carry out similar activities; 

(D) to construct and develop wetland, riparian habitat, 

or other environmental restoration features authorized by 

section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) and section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330); 

(E) to dredge and deposit fill materials; and 

(F) to carry out management actions for the purpose of 

reducing the take of juvenile salmonids by avian colonies 

that inhabit, before, on, or after the date of enactment of 

this Act, any island included in the land described in subsection (a). 

(3) COORDINATION.—Before exercising a right described in 

any of subparagraphs (C) through (F) of paragraph (2), the Secretary shall coordinate the exercise with the Director of the 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 

(d) MANAGEMENT.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The land described in subsection (a) shall 

be managed by the Secretary of the Interior as part of the 

McNary National Wildlife Refuge. 

(2) CUMMINS PROPERTY.—

(A) RETENTION OF CREDITS.—Habitat unit credits described in the memorandum entitled ‘‘Design Memorandum 

No. 6, LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE 

COMPENSATION PLAN, Wildlife Compensation and 

Fishing Access Site Selection, Letter Supplement No. 15, 

SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE WALLULA 

HMU’’ provided for the Lower Snake River Fish and Wildlife Compensation Plan through development of the parcel 

of land formerly known as the ‘‘Cummins property’’ shall be 

retained by the Secretary despite any changes in management of the parcel on or after the date of enactment of this 

Act. 

(B) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.—The Director shall obtain prior approval of the Washington State department of 

fish and wildlife for any change to the previously approved 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
114 

site development plan for the parcel of land formerly known 

as the ‘‘Cummins property’’. (3) MADAME DORIAN RECREATION AREA.—The Director shall 

continue operation of the Madame Dorian Recreation Area for 

public use and boater access. 

(e) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—The Director shall be responsible 

for all survey, environmental compliance, and other administrative 

costs required to implement the transfer of administrative jurisdiction under subsection (a). 

SEC. 3165. SNAKE RIVER PROJECT, WASHINGTON AND IDAHO. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The fish and wildlife compensation plan for 

the Lower Snake River, Washington and Idaho, as authorized by 

section 102 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 

Stat. 2921), is amended to authorize the Secretary to conduct studies and implement aquatic and riparian ecosystem restorations and 

improvements specifically for fisheries and wildlife. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 3166. YAKIMA RIVER, PORT OF SUNNYSIDE, WASHINGTON. 

The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Yakima River, 

Port of Sunnyside, Washington, being carried out under section 206 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), 

is modified to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work 

carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date 

of the partnership agreement for the project. 

SEC. 3167. BLUESTONE LAKE, OHIO RIVER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA. 

Section 102(ff) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 

(106 Stat. 4810, 110 Stat. 3726, 113 Stat. 312) is amended to read 

as follows: ‘‘(ff) BLUESTONE LAKE, OHIO RIVER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood control, Bluestone 

Lake, Ohio River Basin, West Virginia, authorized by section 4 

of the Flood Control Act of 1938 (52 Stat. 1217) is modified to 

direct the Secretary to implement Plan C/G, as defined in the 

Evaluation Report of the District Engineer dated December 

1996, to prohibit the release of drift and debris into waters 

downstream of the project (other than organic matter necessary 

to maintain and enhance the biological resources of such waters 

and such nonobtrusive items of debris as may not be economically feasible to prevent being released through such project), 

including measures to prevent the accumulation of drift and debris at the project, the collection and removal of drift and debris on the segment of the New River upstream of the project, 

and the removal (through use of temporary or permanent systems) and disposal of accumulated drift and debris at 

Bluestone Dam. 

‘‘(2) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT.—In carrying out the downstream cleanup under the plan referred to in paragraph (1), the 

Secretary may enter into a cooperative agreement with the West 

Virginia department of environmental protection for the department to carry out the cleanup, including contracting and procurement services, contract administration and management, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
115 

transportation and disposal of collected materials, and disposal 

fees. 

‘‘(3) INITIAL CLEANUP.—The Secretary may provide the West 

Virginia department of environmental protection up to $150,000 

from funds previously appropriated for this purpose for the Federal share of the costs of the initial cleanup under the plan.’’. 

SEC. 3168. GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA. 

Section 579(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 

(110 Stat. 3790; 113 Stat. 312) is amended by striking 

‘‘$47,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$99,000,000’’. 

SEC. 3169. LESAGE/GREENBOTTOM SWAMP, WEST VIRGINIA. 

Section 30(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 

(102 Stat. 4030; 114 Stat. 2678) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(d) HISTORIC STRUCTURE.—The Secretary shall ensure the 

preservation and restoration of the structure known as the ‘Jenkins 

House’ and the reconstruction of associated buildings and landscape 

features of such structure located within the Lesage/Greenbottom 

Swamp in accordance with the standards of the Department of the 

Interior for the treatment of historic properties. Amounts made 

available for expenditure for the project authorized by section 301(a) 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4110) 

shall be available for the purposes of this subsection.’’. 

SEC. 3170. LOWER MUD RIVER, MILTON, WEST VIRGINIA. 

The project for flood control at Milton, West Virginia, authorized by section 580 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 

(110 Stat. 3790) and modified by section 340 of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2612), is modified to authorize 

the Secretary to construct the project substantially in accordance 

with the draft report of the Corps of Engineers dated May 2004, at 

an estimated total cost of $57,100,000, with an estimated Federal 

cost of $42,825,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$14,275,000. 

SEC. 3171. MCDOWELL COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA. 

The McDowell County nonstructural component of the project 

for flood control, Levisa and Tug Fork of the Big Sandy and Cumberland Rivers, West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky, authorized 

by section 202(a) of the Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act, 1981 (94 Stat. 1339), is modified to direct the Secretary to 

take measures to provide protection, throughout McDowell County, 

West Virginia, from the reoccurrence of the greater of—

(1) the April 1977 flood; 

(2) the July 2001 flood; 

(3) the May 2002 flood; or 

(4) the 100-year frequency event. 

SEC. 3172. PARKERSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA. 

The Secretary is authorized to carry out the ecosystem restoration, recreation, and flood control components of the report of the 

Corps of Engineers, entitled ‘‘Parkersburg/Vienna Riverfront Park 

Feasibility Study’’, dated June 1998, as amended by the limited reevaluation report of the Corps of Engineers, dated March 2004, at 

a total cost of $12,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$6,000,000, and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,000,000. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
116 

SEC. 3173. GREEN BAY HARBOR, GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN. 

The portion of the inner harbor of the Federal navigation channel of the Green Bay Harbor project, authorized by the first section 

of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and 

harbors, and for other purposes’’, approved July 5, 1884 (23 Stat. 

136), from Station 190+00 to Station 378+00 is authorized to a 

width of 75 feet and a depth of 6 feet. 

SEC. 3174. MANITOWOC HARBOR, WISCONSIN. 

The project for navigation, Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin, authorized by the River and Harbor Act of August 30, 1852 (10 Stat. 

58), is modified to direct the Secretary to deepen the upstream reach 

of the navigation channel from 12 feet to 18 feet, at a total cost of 

$405,000. 

SEC. 3175. MISSISSIPPI RIVER HEADWATERS RESERVOIRS. 

Section 21 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 

Stat. 4027) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)—

(A) by striking ‘‘1276.42’’ and inserting ‘‘1278.42’’; 

(B) by striking ‘‘1218.31’’ and inserting ‘‘1221.31’’; and 

(C) by striking ‘‘1234.82’’ and inserting ‘‘1235.30’’; and 

(2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(b) EXCEPTION.—The Secretary may operate the headwaters 

reservoirs below the minimum or above the maximum water levels 

established in subsection (a) in accordance with water control regulation manuals (or revisions thereto) developed by the Secretary, 

after consultation with the Governor of Minnesota and affected tribal governments, landowners, and commercial and recreational 

users. The water control regulation manuals (and any revisions 

thereto) shall be effective when the Secretary transmits them to Congress. The Secretary shall report to Congress at least 14 days before 

operating any such headwaters reservoir below the minimum or 

above the maximum water level limits specified in subsection (a); except that notification is not required for operations necessary to prevent the loss of life or to ensure the safety of the dam or if the drawdown of lake levels is in anticipation of flood control operations.’’. 

SEC. 3176. UPPER BASIN OF MISSOURI RIVER. 

(a) USE OF FUNDS.—Notwithstanding the Energy and Water 

Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109–103), funds 

made available for recovery or mitigation activities in the lower 

basin of the Missouri River may be used for recovery or mitigation 

activities in the upper basin of the Missouri River, including the 

States of Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. 

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The matter under the heading 

‘‘MISSOURI RIVER MITIGATION, MISSOURI, KANSAS, IOWA, AND NEBRASKA’’ of section 601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1986 (100 Stat. 4143), as modified by section 334 of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 306), is amended by 

adding at the end the following: ‘‘The Secretary may carry out any 

recovery or mitigation activities in the upper basin of the Missouri 

River, including the States of Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, 

and South Dakota, using funds made available under this paragraph in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and consistent with the project purposes of the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
117 

Missouri River Mainstem System as authorized by section 10 of the 

Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 897).’’. 

SEC. 3177. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. 

Section 1103(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 652(e)(1)(A)(ii)) is amended by inserting before 

the period at the end the following: ‘‘, including research on water 

quality issues affecting the Mississippi River (including elevated nutrient levels) and the development of remediation strategies’’. 

SEC. 3178. UPPER OHIO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES NAVIGATION SYSTEM NEW TECHNOLOGY PILOT PROGRAM. 

(a) UPPER OHIO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES NAVIGATION SYSTEM

DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘Upper Ohio River and Tributaries navigation system’’ means the Allegheny, Kanawha, 

Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers. 

(b) ESTABLISHMENT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish a pilot program to evaluate new technologies applicable to the Upper Ohio 

River and Tributaries navigation system. 

(2) INCLUSIONS.—The program may include the design, 

construction, or implementation of innovative technologies and 

solutions for the Upper Ohio River and Tributaries navigation 

system, including projects for—

(A) improved navigation; 

(B) environmental stewardship; 

(C) increased navigation reliability; and 

(D) reduced navigation costs. 

(3) PURPOSES.—The purposes of the program shall be—

(A) to increase the reliability and availability of federally owned and federally operated navigation facilities; 

(B) to decrease system operational risks; and 

(C) to improve—

(i) vessel traffic management; 

(ii) access; and 

(iii) Federal asset management. 

(c) FEDERAL OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may 

provide assistance for a project under this section only if the project 

is federally owned. 

(d) LOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall enter into local cooperation agreements with non-Federal interests to provide for 

the design, construction, installation, and operation of the 

projects to be carried out under the program. 

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each local cooperation agreement entered into under this subsection shall include the following: 

(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a navigation improvement project, including appropriate engineering plans and specifications. 

(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES.—Establishment of such legal and institutional structures as are 

necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the 

project. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
118 

(3) COST SHARING.—Total project costs under each local cooperation agreement shall be cost-shared in accordance with the 

formula relating to the applicable original construction project. 

(4) EXPENDITURES.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Expenditures under the program 

may include, for establishment at federally owned property, 

such as locks, dams, and bridges—

(i) transmitters; 

(ii) responders; 

(iii) hardware; 

(iv) software; and 

(v) wireless networks. 

(B) EXCLUSIONS.—Transmitters, responders, hardware, 

software, and wireless networks and other equipment installed on privately owned vessels or equipment shall not be 

eligible under the program. 

(e) REPORT.—Not later than December 31, 2008, the Secretary 

shall submit to Congress a report on the results of the pilot program 

carried out under this section, together with recommendations concerning whether the program or any component of the program 

should be implemented on a national basis. 

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out this section $3,100,000. Such sums 

shall remain available until expended. 

SEC. 3179. CONTINUATION OF PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 1001(b)(2) of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)), 

the following projects shall remain authorized to be carried out by 

the Secretary: 

(1) The project for navigation, Sacramento Deep Water 

Ship Channel, California, authorized by section 202(a) of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4092). 

(2) The project for flood control, Agana River, Guam, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4127). 

(3) The project for navigation, Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland and Virginia, authorized by section 101 of the 

River and Harbor Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1818). 

(4) The project for navigation, Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act 

of 1968 (82 Stat. 731); except that the authorized depth of that 

portion of the project extending riverward of the Charles M. 

Braga, Jr. Memorial Bridge, Fall River and Somerset, Massachusetts, shall not exceed 35 feet. 

(5) The project for flood control, Ecorse Creek, Wayne County, Michigan, authorized by section 101(a)(14) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4607). 

(b) LIMITATION.—A project described in subsection (a) shall not 

be authorized for construction after the last day of the 5-year period 

beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, unless, during such 

period, funds have been obligated for the construction (including 

planning and design) of the project. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
119 

SEC. 3180. PROJECT REAUTHORIZATIONS. 

Each of the following projects may be carried out by the Secretary and no construction on any such project may be initiated 

until the Secretary determines that the project is feasible: 

(1) MENOMINEE HARBOR AND RIVER, MICHIGAN AND WIS- CONSIN.—The project for navigation, Menominee Harbor and 

River, Michigan and Wisconsin, authorized by section 101 of 

the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 482) and deauthorized on April 15, 2002, in accordance with section 1001(b)(2) of 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 

579a(b)(2)). 

(2) HEARDING ISLAND INLET, DULUTH HARBOR, MIN- NESOTA.—The project for dredging, Hearding Island Inlet, Duluth Harbor, Minnesota, authorized by section 22 of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4027). 

(3) MANITOWOC HARBOR, WISCONSIN.—That portion of the 

project for navigation, Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin, authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Act of August 

30, 1852 (10 Stat. 58), consisting of the channel in the south 

part of the outer harbor, deauthorized by section 101 of the 

River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1176). 

SEC. 3181. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The following projects are not authorized 

after the date of enactment of this Act: 

(1) BRIDGEPORT HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.—The portion of the 

project for navigation, Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Act of July 3, 

1930 (46 Stat. 919), consisting of an 18-foot channel in Yellow 

Mill River and described as follows: Beginning at a point along 

the eastern limit of the existing project, N123,649.75, 

E481,920.54, thence running northwesterly about 52.64 feet to 

a point N123,683.03, E481,879.75, thence running northeasterly 

about 1,442.21 feet to a point N125,030.08, E482,394.96, thence 

running northeasterly about 139.52 feet to a point along the 

eastern limit of the existing channel, N125,133.87, E482,488.19, 

thence running southwesterly about 1,588.98 feet to the point of 

origin. 

(2) MYSTIC RIVER, CONNECTICUT.—The portion of the 

project for navigation, Mystic River, Connecticut, authorized by 

the first section of the River and Harbor Appropriations Act of 

September 19, 1890 (26 Stat. 436) consisting of a 12-foot-deep 

channel, approximately 7,554 square feet in area, starting at a 

point N193,086.51, E815,092.78, thence running north 59 degrees 21 minutes 46.63 seconds west about 138.05 feet to a point 

N193,156.86, E814,974.00, thence running north 51 degrees 04 

minutes 39.00 seconds west about 166.57 feet to a point 

N193,261.51, E814,844.41, thence running north 43 degrees 01 

minutes 34.90 seconds west about 86.23 feet to a point 

N193,324.55, E814,785.57, thence running north 06 degrees 42 

minutes 03.86 seconds west about 156.57 feet to a point 

N193,480.05, E814,767.30, thence running south 21 degrees 21 

minutes 17.94 seconds east about 231.42 feet to a point 

N193,264.52, E814,851.57, thence running south 53 degrees 34 

minutes 23.28 seconds east about 299.78 feet to the point of origin. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
120 

(3) NORWALK HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The portions of a 10-foot channel of 

the project for navigation, Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut, 

authorized by the first section of the Act of March 2, 1919 

(40 Stat. 1276) and described in subparagraph (B). 

(B) DESCRIPTION OF PORTIONS.—The portions of the 

channel referred to in subparagraph (A) are as follows: 

(i) RECTANGULAR PORTION.—An approximately rectangular-shaped section along the northwesterly terminus of the channel. The section is 35-feet wide and 

about 460-feet long and is further described as commencing at a point N104,165.85, E417,662.71, thence 

running south 24 degrees 06 minutes 55 seconds east 

395.00 feet to a point N103,805.32, E417,824.10, thence 

running south 00 degrees 38 minutes 06 seconds east 

87.84 feet to a point N103,717.49, E417,825.07, thence 

running north 24 degrees 06 minutes 55 seconds west 

480.00 feet, to a point N104,155.59, E417,628.96, 

thence running north 73 degrees 05 minutes 25 seconds 

east 35.28 feet to the point of origin. 

(ii) PARALLELOGRAM-SHAPED PORTION.—An area 

having the approximate shape of a parallelogram 

along the northeasterly portion of the channel, southeast of the area described in clause (i), approximately 

20 feet wide and 260 feet long, and further described 

as commencing at a point N103,855.48, E417,849.99, 

thence running south 33 degrees 07 minutes 30 seconds 

east 133.40 feet to a point N103,743.76, E417,922.89, 

thence running south 24 degrees 07 minutes 04 seconds 

east 127.75 feet to a point N103,627.16, E417,975.09, 

thence running north 33 degrees 07 minutes 30 seconds 

west 190.00 feet to a point N103,786.28, E417,871.26, 

thence running north 17 degrees 05 minutes 15 seconds 

west 72.39 feet to the point of origin. 

(C) EXCLUSION.—Notwithstanding any other provision 

of this paragraph, the Secretary shall realign the 10-foot 

channel potion of the project referred to in subparagraph 

(A) to include, immediately north of the area described in 

subparagraph (B)(ii), a triangular section described as 

commencing at a point N103,968.35, E417,815.29, thence 

running south 17 degrees 05 minutes 15 seconds east 

118.09 feet to a point N103,855.48, E417,849.99, thence 

running north 33 degrees 07 minutes 30 seconds west 36.76 

feet to a point N103,886.27, E417,829.90, thence running 

north 10 degrees 05 minutes 26 seconds west 83.37 feet to 

the point of origin. 

(4) ROCKLAND HARBOR, MAINE.—The portion of the project 

for navigation, Rockland Harbor, Maine, authorized by the Act 

of June 3, 1896 (29 Stat. 202), consisting of a 14-foot channel 

located in Lermond Cove and beginning at a point with coordinates N99,977.37, E340,290.02, thence running easterly about 

200.00 feet to a point with coordinates N99,978.49, 

E340,490.02, thence running northerly about 138.00 feet to a 

point with coordinates N100,116.49, E340,289.25, thence running westerly about 200.00 feet to a point with coordinates 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
121 

N100,115.37, E340,289.25, thence running southerly about 

138.00 feet to the point of origin. 

(5) ROCKPORT HARBOR, MAINE.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The portion of the project for navigation, Rockport Harbor, Maine, authorized by the first section of the Act of August 11, 1888 (25 Stat. 400), located 

within the 12-foot anchorage described in subparagraph 

(B). 

(B) DESCRIPTION OF ANCHORAGE.—The anchorage referred to in subparagraph (A) is more particularly described as—

(i) beginning at the westernmost point of the anchorage at N128800.00, E349311.00; 

(ii) thence running north 12 degrees, 52 minutes, 

37.2 seconds east 127.08 feet to a point N128923.88, 

E349339.32; 

(iii) thence running north 17 degrees, 40 minutes, 

13.0 seconds east 338.61 feet to a point N129246.51, 

E349442.10; 

(iv) thence running south 89 degrees, 21 minutes, 

21.0 seconds east 45.36 feet to a point N129246.00, 

E349487.46; 

(v) thence running south 44 degrees, 13 minutes, 

32.6 seconds east 18.85 feet to a point N129232.49, 

E349500.61; 

(vi) thence running south 17 degrees, 40 minutes 

13.0 seconds west 340.50 feet to a point N128908.06, 

E349397.25; 

(vii) thence running south 12 degrees, 52 minutes, 

37.2 seconds west 235.41 feet to a point at N128678.57, 

E349344.79; and 

(viii) thence running north 15 degrees, 32 minutes, 

59.3 seconds west 126.04 feet to the point of origin. 

(6) FALMOUTH HARBOR, MASSACHUSETTS.—The portion of 

the project for navigation, Falmouth Harbor, Massachusetts, 

authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1948 

(62 Stat. 1172), beginning at a point along the eastern side of 

the inner harbor N200,415.05, E845,307.98, thence running 

north 25 degrees 48 minutes 54.3 seconds east 160.24 feet to a 

point N200,559.20, E845,377.76, thence running north 22 degrees 7 minutes 52.4 seconds east 596.82 feet to a point 

N201,112.15, E845,602.60, thence running north 60 degrees 1 

minute 0.3 seconds east 83.18 feet to a point N201,153.72, 

E845,674.65, thence running south 24 degrees 56 minutes 43.4 

seconds west 665.01 feet to a point N200,550.75, E845,394.18, 

thence running south 32 degrees 25 minutes 29.0 seconds west 

160.76 feet to the point of origin. 

(7) ISLAND END RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS.—The portion of the 

project for navigation, Island End River, Massachusetts, carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 

(33 U.S.C. 577), described as follows: Beginning at a point 

along the eastern limit of the existing project, N507,348.98, 

E721,180.01, thence running northeast about 35 feet to a point 

N507,384.17, E721,183.36, thence running northeast about 324 

feet to a point N507,590.51, E721,433.17, thence running northVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:35 Aug 04, 2007 Jkt 036965 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR280.XXX HR280

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
122 

east about 345 feet to a point along the northern limit of the 

existing project, N507,927.29, E721,510.29, thence running 

southeast about 25 feet to a point N507,921.71, E721,534.66, 

thence running southwest about 354 feet to a point 

N507,576.65, E721,455.64, thence running southwest about 357 

feet to the point of origin. 

(8) CITY WATERWAY, TACOMA, WASHINGTON.—The portion of 

the project for navigation, City Waterway, Tacoma, Washington, 

authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Appropriations Act of June 13, 1902 (32 Stat. 347), consisting of the 

last 1,000 linear feet of the inner portion of the waterway beginning at station 70+00 and ending at station 80+00. 

(9) AUNT LYDIA’S COVE, MASSACHUSETTS.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The portion of the project for navigation, Aunt Lydia’s Cove, Massachusetts, constructed under 

section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 

577), consisting of the 8-foot deep anchorage in the cove described in subparagraph (B). 

(B) DESCRIPTION OF PORTION.—The portion of the 

project described in subparagraph (A) is more particularly 

described as the portion beginning at a point along the 

southern limit of the existing project, N254,332.00, 

E1,023,103.96, thence running northwesterly about 761.60 

feet to a point along the western limit of the existing project 

N255,076.84, E1,022,945.07, thence running southwesterly 

about 38.11 feet to a point N255,038.99, E1,022,940.60, 

thence running southeasterly about 267.07 feet to a point 

N254,772.00, E1,022,947.00, thence running southeasterly 

about 462.41 feet to a point N254,320.06, E1,023,044.84, 

thence running northeasterly about 60.31 feet to the point 

of origin. 

(10) WHATCOM CREEK WATERWAY, BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON.—The portion of the project for navigation, Whatcom 

Creek Waterway, Bellingham, Washington, authorized by the 

River and Harbor Act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 664), and section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 299), 

consisting of the last 2,900 linear feet of the inner portion of the 

waterway and beginning at station 29+00 to station 0+00. 

(11) OCONTO HARBOR, WISCONSIN.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The portion of the project for navigation, Oconto Harbor, Wisconsin, authorized by the Act of 

August 2, 1882 (22 Stat. 196), and the Act of June 25, 1910 

(36 Stat. 664) (commonly known as the ‘‘River and Harbor 

Act of 1910’’), consisting of a 15-foot-deep turning basin in 

the Oconto River, as described in subparagraph (B). 

(B) PROJECT DESCRIPTION.—The project referred to in 

subparagraph (B) is more particularly described as—

(i) beginning at a point along the western limit of 

the existing project, N394,086.71, E2,530,202.71; 

(ii) thence northeasterly about 619.93 feet to a 

point N394,459.10, E2,530,698.33; 

(iii) thence southeasterly about 186.06 feet to a 

point N394,299.20, E2,530,793.47; 

(iv) thence southwesterly about 355.07 feet to a 

point N393,967.13, E2,530,667.76; 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
123 

(v) thence southwesterly about 304.10 feet to a 

point N393,826.90, E2,530,397.92; and 

(vi) thence northwesterly about 324.97 feet to the 

point of origin. 

(b) ANCHORAGE AREA, NEW LONDON HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.— The portion of the project for navigation, New London Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the River and Harbor Appropriations Act of 

June 13, 1902 (32 Stat. 333), that consists of a 23-foot waterfront 

channel and that is further described as beginning at a point along 

the western limit of the existing project, N188, 802.75, E779, 462.81, 

thence running northeasterly about 1,373.88 feet to a point N189, 

554.87, E780, 612.53, thence running southeasterly about 439.54 

feet to a point N189, 319.88, E780, 983.98, thence running southwesterly about 831.58 feet to a point N188, 864.63, E780, 288.08, 

thence running southeasterly about 567.39 feet to a point N188, 

301.88, E780, 360.49, thence running northwesterly about 1,027.96 

feet to the point of origin, is redesignated as an anchorage area. 

(c) SOUTHPORT HARBOR, FAIRFIELD, CONNECTICUT.—The 

project for navigation, Southport Harbor, Fairfield, Connecticut, authorized by section 2 of the River and Harbor Act of March 2, 1829, 

and by the first section of the River and Harbor Act of August 30, 

1935 (49 Stat. 1029), and section 364 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3733–3734), is modified to redesignate a portion of the 9-foot-deep channel to an anchorage area, approximately 900 feet in length and 90,000 square feet in area, and 

lying generally north of a line with points at coordinates 

N108,043.45, E452,252.04 and N107,938.74, E452,265.74. 

(d) SACO RIVER, MAINE.—The portion of the project for navigation, Saco River, Maine, constructed under section 107 of the River 

and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) and described as a 6-foot 

deep, 10-acre maneuvering basin located at the head of navigation, 

is redesignated as an anchorage area. 

(e) UNION RIVER, MAINE.—The project for navigation, Union 

River, Maine, authorized by the first section of the Act of June 3, 

1896 (29 Stat. 215), is modified by redesignating as an anchorage 

area that portion of the project consisting of a 6-foot turning basin 

and lying northerly of a line commencing at a point N315,975.13, 

E1,004,424.86, thence running north 61 degrees 27 minutes 20.71 

seconds west about 132.34 feet to a point N316,038.37, 

E1,004,308.61. 

(f) MYSTIC RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS.—The portion of the project 

for navigation, Mystic River, Massachusetts, authorized by the first 

section of the River and Harbor Appropriations Act of July 13, 1892 

(27 Stat. 96), between a line starting at a point N515,683.77, 

E707,035.45 and ending at a point N515,721.28, E707,069.85 and 

a line starting at a point N514,595.15, E707,746.15 and ending at 

a point N514,732.94, E707,658.38 shall be relocated and reduced 

from a 100-foot wide channel to a 50-foot wide channel after the 

date of enactment of this Act described as follows: Beginning at a 

point N515,721.28, E707,069.85, thence running southeasterly about 

840.50 feet to a point N515,070.16, E707,601.27, thence running 

southeasterly about 177.54 feet to a point N514,904.84, 

E707,665.98, thence running southeasterly about 319.90 feet to a 

point with coordinates N514,595.15, E707,746.15, thence running 

northwesterly about 163.37 feet to a point N514,732.94, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
124 

E707,658.38, thence running northwesterly about 161.58 feet to a 

point N514.889.47, E707,618.30, thence running northwesterly 

about 166.61 feet to a point N515.044.62, E707,557.58, thence running northwesterly about 825.31 feet to a point N515,683.77, 

E707,035.45, thence running northeasterly about 50.90 feet returning to a point N515,721.28, E707,069.85. 

(g) RIVERCENTER, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA.—Section 38(c) 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (33 U.S.C. 59j–1; 

102 Stat. 4038) is amended by striking ‘‘subsection (a) of this section’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (a) (except 30 years from such date 

of enactment, in the case of the area or any part thereof described 

in subsection (a)(5))’’. (h) ADDITIONAL DEAUTHORIZATIONS.—The following projects 

are not authorized after the date of enactment of this Act, except 

with respect to any portion of such a project which portion has been 

completed before such date or is under construction on such date: 

(1) The project for flood protection on Atascadero Creek and 

its tributaries of Goleta, California, authorized by section 201 

of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1826). 

(2) The project for the construction of bridge fenders for the 

Summit and St. Georges Bridge for the Inland Waterway of the 

Delaware River to the C & D Canal of the Chesapeake Bay, 

Delaware and Maryland, authorized by the River and Harbor 

Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1249). 

(3) The project for flood control, central and southern Florida, Shingle Creek basin, Florida, authorized by section 203 of 

the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1182). 

(4) The project for flood control, Brevoort, Indiana, authorized by section 5 of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936 (49 

Stat. 1587). 

(5) The project for flood control, Middle Wabash, Greenfield 

Bayou, Indiana, authorized by section 10 of the Flood Control 

Act of July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 649). 

(6) The project for flood damage reduction, Lake George, 

Hobart, Indiana, authorized by section 602(a)(2) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148). 

(7) The project for navigation at the Muscatine Harbor on 

the Mississippi River at Muscatine, Iowa, authorized by section 

101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 166). 

(8) The project for flood control and water supply, Eagle 

Creek Lake, Kentucky, authorized by section 203 of the Flood 

Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1188). 

(9) The project for flood control, Hazard, Kentucky, authorized by section 3(a)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1988 (100 Stat. 4014) and section 108 of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4621). 

(10) The project for flood control, western Kentucky tributaries, Kentucky, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control 

Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1076) and modified by section 210 of the 

Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1829). 

(11) The project for flood damage reduction, TensasCocodrie area, Louisiana, authorized by section 3 of the Flood 

Control Act of August 18, 1941 (55 Stat. 643). 

(12) The uncompleted portions of the project for navigation 

improvement for Bayou LaFourche and LaFourche Jump, LouVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:35 Aug 04, 2007 Jkt 036965 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR280.XXX HR280

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
125 

isiana, authorized by the Act of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 

1033), and the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 481). 

(13) The project for flood control, Eastern Rapides and 

South-Central Avoyelles Parishes, Louisiana, authorized by section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1825). 

(14) The project for erosion protection and recreation, Fort 

Livingston, Grande Terre Island, Louisiana, authorized by the 

Act of August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426e et seq). 

(15) The project for navigation, Northeast Harbor, Maine, 

authorized by section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 

12). 

(16) The project for navigation, Tenants Harbor, Maine, authorized by the first section of the Act of March 2, 1919 (40 

Stat. 1275). 

(17) The project for navigation, New York Harbor and adjacent channels, Claremont Terminal, Jersey City, New Jersey, 

authorized by section 202(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4098). 

(18) The project for navigation, Olcott Harbor, Lake Ontario, New York, authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4143). 

(19) The project for navigation, Outer Harbor, Buffalo, New 

York, authorized by section 110 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4817). 

(20) The project for the Columbia River, Seafarers Memorial, Hammond, Oregon, authorized by title I of the Energy and 

Water Development Appropriations Act, 1991 (104 Stat. 2078). 

(21) The project for navigation, Narragansett Town Beach, 

Narragansett, Rhode Island, authorized by section 361 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4861). 

(22) The project for bulkhead repairs, Quonset PointDavisville, Rhode Island, authorized by section 571 of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3788). 

(23) The structural portion of the project for flood control, 

Cypress Creek, Texas, authorized by section 3(a)(13) of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014). 

(24) The project for flood protection, East Fork Channel Improvement, Increment 2, East Fork of the Trinity River, Texas, 

authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 

Stat. 1185). 

(25) The project for flood control, Falfurrias, Texas, authorized by section 3(a)(14) of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014). 

(26) The project for flood control, Pecan Bayou Lake, Texas, 

authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 

Stat. 742). 

(27) The project for navigation improvements affecting Lake 

of the Pines, Texas, for the portion of the Red River below Fulton, Arkansas, authorized by the Act of July 13, 1892 (27 Stat. 

103) and modified by the Act of July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 635), 

the Act of May 17, 1950 (64 Stat. 163), and the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731). 

(28) The project for navigation, Tennessee Colony Lake, 

Trinity River, Texas, authorized by section 204 of the River and 

Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1091). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
126 

(29) The project for streambank erosion, Kanawha River, 

Charleston, West Virginia, authorized by section 603(f)(13) of 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4153). 

SEC. 3182. LAND CONVEYANCES. 

(a) ST. FRANCIS BASIN, ARKANSAS AND MISSOURI.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall convey to the State of 

Arkansas, without monetary consideration and subject to paragraph (2), all right, title, and interest in and to real property 

within the State acquired by the Federal Government as mitigation land for the project for flood control, St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri Project, authorized by the Flood Control 

Act of May 15, 1928 (33 U.S.C. 702a et seq.). 

(2) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The conveyance by the United States 

under this subsection shall be subject to— (i) the condition that the State of Arkansas agree 

to operate, maintain, and manage the real property for 

fish and wildlife, recreation, and environmental purposes at no cost or expense to the United States; and 

(ii) such other terms and conditions as the Secretary determines to be in the interest of the United 

States. 

(B) REVERSION.—If the Secretary determines that the 

real property conveyed under paragraph (1) ceases to be 

held in public ownership or the State ceases to operate, 

maintain, and manage the real property in accordance with 

this subsection, all right, title, and interest in and to the 

property shall revert to the United States, at the option of 

the Secretary. 

(3) MITIGATION.—Nothing in this subsection extinguishes 

the responsibility of the Federal Government or the non-Federal 

interest for the project referred to in paragraph (1) from the obligation to implement mitigation for such project that existed on 

the day prior to the transfer authorized by this subsection. 

(b) OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL, CALIFORNIA.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may convey, by separate 

quitclaim deeds, as soon as the conveyance of each individual 

portion is practicable, the title of the United States in and to 

all or portions of the approximately 86 acres of upland, tideland, and submerged land, commonly referred to as the ‘‘Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal’’, California (referred to in this 

section as the ‘‘Canal Property’’), as follows: 

(A) To the city of Oakland, without consideration, the 

title of the United States in and to all or portions of that 

part of the Canal Property that are located within the 

boundaries of the City of Oakland. 

(B) To the city of Alameda, or to a public entity created 

by or designated by the city of Alameda that is eligible to 

hold title to real property, without consideration, the title 

of the United States in and to all or portions of that part 

of the Canal Property that are located within the boundaries of the city of Alameda. 

(C) To the owners of lands adjacent to the Canal Property, or to a public entity created by or designated by one 

or more of the adjacent land owners that are eligible to 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
127 

hold title to real property, at fair market value, the title of 

the United States in and to all or portions of that part of 

the Canal Property that are located within the boundaries 

of the city in which the adjacent land is located. 

(2) REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may reserve and retain 

from any conveyance under this subsection a right-of-way or 

other rights as the Secretary determines to be necessary for the 

operation and maintenance of the authorized Federal channel 

in the Canal Property. 

(3) ANNUAL REPORTS.—Until the date on which each conveyance described in paragraph (1) is complete, the Secretary 

shall submit, by not later than November 30 of each year, to the 

Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 

of Representatives an annual report that describes the efforts of 

the Secretary to complete that conveyance during the preceding 

fiscal year. 

(4) FORM.—A conveyance made under this subsection may 

be, in whole or in part, in the form of an easement. 

(5) RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL.—For any property on which 

an easement is granted under this subsection, should the Secretary seek to dispose of the property, the holder of the easement 

shall have the right of first refusal to the property without cost 

or consideration. 

(6) REPEAL.—Section 205 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4633; 110 Stat. 3748) is repealed. 

(c) MILFORD, KANSAS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall convey by quitclaim 

deed without consideration to the Geary County Fire Department, Milford, Kansas, all right, title, and interest of the 

United States in and to real property consisting of approximately 7.4 acres located in Geary County, Kansas, for construction, operation, and maintenance of a fire station. 

(2) REVERSION.—If the Secretary determines that the real 

property conveyed under paragraph (1) ceases to be held in public ownership or ceases to be operated and maintained as a fire 

station, all right, title, and interest in and to the property shall 

revert to the United States, at the option of the United States. 

(d) STRAWN CEMETERY, JOHN REDMOND LAKE, KANSAS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—As soon as practicable after the date of 

enactment of this Act, the Secretary, acting through the Tulsa 

District of the Corps of Engineers, shall transfer to Pleasant 

Township, Coffey County, Kansas, for use as the New Strawn 

Cemetery, all right, title, and interest of the United States in 

and to the land described in paragraph (3). 

(2) REVERSION.—If the land transferred under this subsection ceases at any time to be used as a nonprofit cemetery or 

for another public purpose, the land shall revert to the United 

States. 

(3) DESCRIPTION.—The land to be conveyed under this subsection is a tract of land near John Redmond Lake, Kansas, 

containing approximately 3 acres and lying adjacent to the west 

line of the Strawn Cemetery located in the SE corner of the 

NE 1⁄4 of section 32, township 20 south, range 14 east, Coffey 

County, Kansas. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
128 

(e) PIKE COUNTY, MISSOURI.— (1) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection, the following definitions apply: 

(A) FEDERAL LAND.—The term ‘‘Federal land’’ means 

the 2 parcels of Corps of Engineers land totaling approximately 42 acres, located on Buffalo Island in Pike County, 

Missouri, and consisting of Government Tract Numbers 

MIS–7 and a portion of FM–46. 

(B) NON-FEDERAL LAND.—The term ‘‘non-Federal land’’ means the approximately 42 acres of land, subject to any 

existing flowage easements situated in Pike County, Missouri, upstream and northwest, about 200 feet from Drake 

Island (also known as Grimes Island). 

(2) LAND EXCHANGE.—Subject to paragraph (3), on conveyance by S.S.S., Inc., to the United States of all right, title, and 

interest in and to the non-Federal land, the Secretary shall convey to S.S.S., Inc., all right, title, and interest of the United 

States in and to the Federal land. 

(3) CONDITIONS.—

(A) DEEDS.—

(i) NON-FEDERAL LAND.—The conveyance of the 

non-Federal land to the Secretary shall be by a warranty deed acceptable to the Secretary. 

(ii) FEDERAL LAND.—The conveyance of the Federal 

land to S.S.S., Inc., shall be— (I) by quitclaim deed; and 

(II) subject to any reservations, terms, and 

conditions that the Secretary determines to be necessary to allow the United States to operate and 

maintain the Mississippi River 9-Foot Navigation 

Project. 

(iii) LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS.—The Secretary shall 

provide a legal description of the Federal land, and 

S.S.S., Inc., shall provide a legal description of the 

non-Federal land, for inclusion in the deeds referred to 

in clauses (i) and (ii). 

(B) REMOVAL OF IMPROVEMENTS.— (i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may require the removal of, or S.S.S., Inc., may voluntarily remove, any 

improvements to the non-Federal land before the completion of the exchange or as a condition of the exchange. 

(ii) NO LIABILITY.—If S.S.S., Inc., removes any improvements to the non-Federal land under clause (i)—

(I) S.S.S., Inc., shall have no claim against the 

United States relating to the removal; and 

(II) the United States shall not incur or be liable for any cost associated with the removal or relocation of the improvements. 

(C) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—The Secretary shall require S.S.S., Inc. to pay reasonable administrative costs associated with the exchange. 

(D) CASH EQUALIZATION PAYMENT.—If the appraised 

fair market value, as determined by the Secretary, of the 

Federal land exceeds the appraised fair market value, as 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
129 

determined by the Secretary, of the non-Federal land, 

S.S.S., Inc., shall make a cash equalization payment to the 

United States. 

(E) DEADLINE.—The land exchange under subparagraph (B) shall be completed not later than 2 years after 

the date of enactment of this Act. 

(f) UNION LAKE, MISSOURI.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall offer to convey to the 

State of Missouri, before June 30, 2007, all right, title, and interest in and to approximately 205.50 acres of land described 

in paragraph (2) purchased for the Union Lake Project that was 

deauthorized as of January 1, 1990 (55 Fed. Reg. 40906), in accordance with section 1001(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(a)). 

(2) LAND DESCRIPTION.—The land referred to in paragraph 

(1) is described as follows: 

(A) TRACT 500.—A tract of land situated in Franklin 

County, Missouri, being part of the SW1⁄4 of section 7, and 

the NW1⁄4 of the SW1⁄4 of section 8, township 42 north, 

range 2 west of the fifth principal meridian, consisting of 

approximately 112.50 acres. 

(B) TRACT 605.—A tract of land situated in Franklin 

County, Missouri, being part of the N1⁄2 of the NE, and 

part of the SE of the NE of section 18, township 42 north, 

range 2 west of the fifth principal meridian, consisting of 

approximately 93.00 acres. 

(3) CONVEYANCE.—On acceptance by the State of Missouri 

of the offer by the Secretary under paragraph (1), the land described in paragraph (2) shall immediately be conveyed, in its 

current condition, by Secretary to the State of Missouri. 

(g) BOARDMAN, OREGON.—Section 501(g)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3751) is amended— (1) by striking ‘‘city of Boardman,’’ and inserting ‘‘the 

Boardman Park and Recreation District, Boardman,’’; and 

(2) by striking ‘‘such city’’ and inserting ‘‘the city of 

Boardman’’. 

(h) LOOKOUT POINT PROJECT, LOWELL, OREGON.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may convey without consideration to Lowell School District, by quitclaim deed, all 

right, title, and interest of the United States in and to land and 

buildings thereon, known as Tract A–82, located in Lowell, Oregon, and described in paragraph (2). 

(2) DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY.—The parcel of land authorized to be conveyed under paragraph (1) is as follows: Commencing at the point of intersection of the west line of Pioneer 

Street with the westerly extension of the north line of Summit 

Street, in Meadows Addition to Lowell, as platted and recorded 

at page 56 of Volume 4, Lane County Oregon Plat Records; 

thence north on the west line of Pioneer Street a distance of 

176.0 feet to the true point of beginning of this description; 

thence north on the west line of Pioneer Street a distance of 

170.0 feet; thence west at right angles to the west line of Pioneer 

Street a distance of 250.0 feet; thence south and parallel to the 

west line of Pioneer Street a distance of 170.0 feet; thence east 

250.0 feet to the true point of beginning of this description in 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
130 

Section 14, Township 19 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette 

Meridian, Lane County, Oregon. 

(3) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—Before conveying the parcel to 

the school district, the Secretary shall ensure that the conditions of buildings and facilities meet the requirements of applicable Federal law. 

(4) REVERSION.—If the Secretary determines that the property conveyed under paragraph (1) ceases to be held in public 

ownership, all right, title, and interest in and to the property 

shall revert to the United States, at the option of the United 

States. 

(i) RICHARD B. RUSSELL LAKE, SOUTH CAROLINA.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall convey, at fair market value, to the State of South Carolina, by quitclaim deed, all 

right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the parcels of land described in paragraph (2)(A) that are managed, as 

of the date of enactment of this Act, by the South Carolina department of commerce for public recreation purposes for the 

Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake, South Carolina, project authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1966 (80 

Stat. 1420). 

(2) LAND DESCRIPTION.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraphs (B) and 

(C), the parcels of land referred to in paragraph (1) are the 

parcels contained in the portion of land described in Army 

Lease Number DACW21–1–92–0500. 

(B) RETENTION OF INTERESTS.—The United States 

shall retain— (i) ownership of all land included in the lease referred to in subparagraph (A) that would have been acquired for operational purposes in accordance with the 

1971 implementation of the 1962 Army/Interior Joint 

Acquisition Policy; and 

(ii) such other land as is determined by the Secretary to be required for authorized project purposes, 

including easement rights-of-way to remaining Federal 

land. 

(C) SURVEY.—The cost of the survey shall be paid by 

the State. 

(3) COSTS OF CONVEYANCE.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The State shall be responsible for all 

costs, including real estate transaction and environmental 

costs, associated with the conveyance under this subsection. 

(B) FORM OF CONTRIBUTION.—As determined appropriate by the Secretary, in lieu of payment of compensation 

to the United States under subparagraph (A), the State 

may perform certain environmental or real estate actions 

associated with the conveyance under this subsection if 

those actions are performed in close coordination with, to 

the satisfaction of, and in compliance with the laws of the 

United States. 

(4) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.— (A) NO EFFECT ON SHORE MANAGEMENT POLICY.—The 

Shoreline Management Policy (ER–1130–2–406) of the 

Corps of Engineers may not be changed or altered for any 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
131 

proposed development of land conveyed under this subsection. 

(B) COST SHARING.—In carrying out the conveyance 

under this subsection, the Secretary and the State shall 

comply with all obligations of any cost sharing agreement 

between the Secretary and the State in effect as of the date 

of the conveyance. 

(C) LAND NOT CONVEYED.—The State shall continue to 

manage the land that is subject to Army Lease Number 

DACW21–1–92–0500 and that is not conveyed under this 

subsection in accordance with the terms and conditions of 

Army Lease Number DACW21–1–92–0500. 

(j) DENISON, TEXAS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of 

enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall offer to convey at fair 

market value to the city of Denison, Texas, all right, title, and 

interest of the United States in and to the approximately 900 

acres of land located in Grayson County, Texas, which is currently subject to an application for lease for public park and 

recreational purposes made by the city of Denison, dated August 

17, 2005. 

(2) SURVEY TO OBTAIN LEGAL DESCRIPTION.—The exact 

acreage and description of the real property referred to in paragraph (1) shall be determined by a survey paid for by the city 

of Denison, Texas, that is satisfactory to the Secretary. 

(3) CONVEYANCE.—Not later than 90 days after the date of 

acceptance by the city of Denison, Texas, of an offer under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall convey the land surveyed under 

paragraph (2) by quitclaim deed to the city of Denison, Texas. 

(k) GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS.—

(1) SURVEY TO OBTAIN LEGAL DESCRIPTION.—The exact 

acreage and the legal description of any real property to be conveyed under this section shall be determined by a survey that 

is satisfactory to the Secretary. 

(2) APPLICABILITY OF PROPERTY SCREENING PROVISIONS.—

Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply to 

any conveyance under this section. 

(3) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The Secretary 

may require that any conveyance under this section be subject 

to such additional terms and conditions as the Secretary considers appropriate and necessary to protect the interests of the 

United States. 

(4) COSTS OF CONVEYANCE.—An entity to which a conveyance is made under this section shall be responsible for all reasonable and necessary costs, including real estate transaction 

and environmental documentation costs, associated with the 

conveyance. 

(5) LIABILITY.—An entity to which a conveyance is made 

under this section shall hold the United States harmless from 

any liability with respect to activities carried out, on or after the 

date of the conveyance, on the real property conveyed. The 

United States shall remain responsible for any liability with respect to activities carried out, before such date, on the real property conveyed. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
132 

SEC. 3183. EXTINGUISHMENT OF REVERSIONARY INTERESTS AND USE 

RESTRICTIONS. 

(a) IDAHO.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—With respect to the property covered by 

each deed in paragraph (2)—

(A) the reversionary interests and use restrictions relating to port and industrial use purposes are extinguished; 

(B) the restriction that no activity shall be permitted 

that will compete with services and facilities offered by 

public marinas is extinguished; and 

(C) the human habitation or other building structure 

use restriction is extinguished if the elevation of the property is above the standard project flood elevation. 

(2) AFFECTED DEEDS.—The deeds with the following county 

auditor’s file numbers are referred to in paragraph (1): 

(A) Auditor’s Instrument No. 399218 of Nez Perce 

County, Idaho—2.07 acres. 

(B) Auditor’s Instrument No. 487437 of Nez Perce 

County, Idaho—7.32 acres. 

(b) LAKE TEXOMA, OKLAHOMA.—

(1) RELEASE.—Any reversionary interest relating to public 

parks and recreation on the land conveyed by the Secretary to 

the State of Oklahoma at Lake Texoma pursuant to the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to authorize the sale of certain lands to the State 

of Oklahoma’’ (67 Stat. 63), shall terminate on the date of enactment of this Act. 

(2) INSTRUMENT OF RELEASE.—As soon as practicable after 

the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall execute 

and file in the appropriate office a deed of release, an amended 

deed, or any other appropriate instrument to release each reversionary interest to which paragraph (1) applies. 

(3) PRESERVATION OF RESERVED RIGHTS.—A release of a reversionary interest under this subsection shall not affect any 

other right of the United States in any deed of conveyance pursuant to the Act referred to in paragraph (1). 

(c) LOWELL, OREGON.—

(1) RELEASE AND EXTINGUISHMENT OF DEED RESERVATIONS.—

(A) RELEASE AND EXTINGUISHMENT OF DEED RESERVATIONS.—The Secretary may release and extinguish the deed 

reservations for access and communication cables contained 

in the quitclaim deed, dated January 26, 1965, and recorded February 15, 1965, in the records of Lane County, 

Oregon; except that such reservations may only be released 

and extinguished for the lands owned by the city of Lowell 

as described in the quitclaim deed, dated April 11, 1991, 

in such records. 

(B) ADDITIONAL RELEASE AND EXTINGUISHMENT OF

DEED RESERVATIONS.—The Secretary may also release and 

extinguish the same deed reservations referred to in subparagraph (A) over land owned by Lane County, Oregon, 

within the city limits of Lowell, Oregon, to accommodate 

the development proposals of the city of Lowell/St. Vincent 

de Paul, Lane County, affordable housing project; except 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
133 

that the Secretary may require, at no cost to the United 

States—

(i) the alteration or relocation of any existing facilities, utilities, roads, or similar improvements on such 

lands; and 

(ii) the right-of-way for such facilities, utilities, 

roads, or improvements as a precondition of any release or extinguishment of the deed reservations. 

(2) CONVEYANCE.—The Secretary may convey to the city of 

Lowell, Oregon, the parcel of land situated in the city of Lowell, 

Oregon, at fair market value consisting of the strip of federally 

owned lands located northeast of West Boundary Road between 

Hyland Lane and the city of Lowell’s eastward city limits. 

(3) ADMINISTRATIVE COST.—Notwithstanding paragraphs 

(1) and (2), the city of Lowell, Oregon, shall pay the administrative costs incurred by the United States to execute the release 

and extinguishment of the deed reservations under paragraph 

(1) and the conveyance under paragraph (2). 

(d) OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, CUMBERLAND RIVER, TENNESSEE.—

(1) RELEASE OF RETAINED RIGHTS, INTERESTS, RESERVATIONS.—With respect to land conveyed by the Secretary to the 

Tennessee Society of Crippled Children and Adults, Incorporated (commonly known as ‘‘Easter Seals Tennessee’’) at Old 

Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee, under 

section 211 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1087), the 

reversionary interests and the use restrictions relating to recreation and camping purposes are extinguished. 

(2) INSTRUMENT OF RELEASE.—As soon as practicable after 

the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall execute 

and file in the appropriate office a deed of release, amended 

deed, or other appropriate instrument effectuating the release of 

interests required by paragraph (1). 

(e) LOWER GRANITE POOL, WASHINGTON.—

(1) EXTINGUISHMENT OF REVERSIONARY INTERESTS AND USE

RESTRICTIONS.—With respect to property covered by each deed 

described in paragraph (2)—

(A) the reversionary interests and use restrictions relating to port or industrial purposes are extinguished; and 

(B) the human habitation or other building structure 

use restriction is extinguished in each area in which the 

elevation is above the standard project flood elevation. 

(2) DEEDS.—The deeds referred to in paragraph (1) are as 

follows: 

(A) Auditor’s File Numbers 432576, 443411, 499988, 

and 579771 of Whitman County, Washington. 

(B) Auditor’s File Numbers 125806, 138801, 147888, 

154511, 156928, and 176360 of Asotin County, Washington. 

(f) PORT OF PASCO, WASHINGTON.—

(1) EXTINGUISHMENT OF USE RESTRICTIONS AND FLOWAGE

EASEMENT.—With respect to the property covered by the deed in 

paragraph (3)(A)—

(A) the flowage easement and human habitation or 

other building structure use restriction is extinguished if 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
134 

the elevation of the property is above the standard project 

flood elevation; and 

(B) the use of fill material to raise areas of the property 

above the standard project flood elevation is authorized, except in any area for which a permit under section 404 of 

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) 

is required. 

(2) EXTINGUISHMENT OF FLOWAGE EASEMENT.—With respect 

to the property covered by each deed in paragraph (3)(B), the 

flowage easement is extinguished if the elevation of the property 

is above the standard project flood elevation. 

(3) AFFECTED DEEDS.—The deeds referred to in paragraphs 

(1) and (2) are as follows: 

(A) Auditor’s File Number 262980 of Franklin County, 

Washington. 

(B) Auditor’s File Numbers 263334 and 404398 of 

Franklin County, Washington. 

(g) NO EFFECT ON OTHER RIGHTS.—Nothing in this section affects the remaining rights and interests of the Corps of Engineers 

for authorized project purposes. 

TITLE IV—STUDIES 

SEC. 4001. JOHN GLENN GREAT LAKES BASIN PROGRAM. 

Section 455 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (42 

U.S.C. 1962d–21) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(g) IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS FOR STUDY.—The non-Federal interest may provide up to 100 percent of the non-Federal share required under subsection (f) in the form of in-kind services and materials.’’. 

SEC. 4002. LAKE ERIE DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the nature 

and frequency of avian botulism problems in the vicinity of Lake 

Erie associated with dredged material disposal sites and shall make 

recommendations to eliminate the conditions that result in such 

problems. 

SEC. 4003. SOUTHWESTERN UNITED STATES DROUGHT STUDY. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in coordination with the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of 

Commerce, and other appropriate agencies, shall conduct, at Federal expense, a comprehensive study of drought conditions in the 

southwestern United States, with particular emphasis on the Colorado River basin, the Rio Grande River basin, and the Great Basin. 

(b) INVENTORY OF ACTIONS.—In conducting the study, the Secretary shall assemble an inventory of actions taken or planned to be 

taken to address drought-related situations in the southwestern 

United States. 

(c) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the study shall be to develop recommendations to more effectively address current and future 

drought conditions in the southwestern United States. 

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized 

to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section 

$7,000,000. Such funds shall remain available until expended. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
135 

SEC. 4004. DELAWARE RIVER. 

The Secretary shall review, in consultation with the Delaware 

River Basin Commission and the States of Delaware, Pennsylvania, 

New Jersey, and New York, the report of the Chief of Engineers on 

the Delaware River, published as House Document Numbered 522, 

87th Congress, Second Session, as it relates to the Mid-Delaware 

River Basin from Wilmington to Port Jervis, and any other pertinent reports (including the strategy for resolution of interstate flow 

management issues in the Delaware River Basin dated August 2004 

and the National Park Service Lower Delaware River Management 

Plan (1997–1999)), with a view to determining whether any modifications of recommendations contained in the first report referred 

to are advisable at the present time, in the interest of flood damage 

reduction, ecosystem restoration, and other related problems. 

SEC. 4005. EURASIAN MILFOIL. 

Under the authority of section 104 of the River and Harbor Act 

of 1958 (33 U.S.C. 610), the Secretary shall conduct a study, at Federal expense, to develop national protocols for the use of the 

Euhrychiopsis lecontei weevil for biological control of Eurasian 

milfoil in the lakes of Vermont and other northeastern States. 

SEC. 4006. FIRE ISLAND, ALASKA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for navigational improvements, including 

a barge landing facility, Fire Island, Alaska. 

SEC. 4007. KNIK ARM, COOK INLET, ALASKA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the potential 

impacts on navigation of construction of a bridge across Knik Arm, 

Cook Inlet, Alaska. 

SEC. 4008. KUSKOKWIM RIVER, ALASKA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for navigation, Kuskokwim River, Alaska, 

in the vicinity of the village of Crooked Creek. 

SEC. 4009. NOME HARBOR, ALASKA. 

The Secretary shall review the project for navigation, Nome 

Harbor improvements, Alaska, authorized by section 101(a)(1) of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 273), to determine whether the project cost increases, including the cost of rebuilding the entrance channel damaged in a September 2005 storm, 

resulted from a design deficiency. 

SEC. 4010. ST. GEORGE HARBOR, ALASKA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of providing navigation improvements at St. George Harbor, Alaska. 

SEC. 4011. SUSITNA RIVER, ALASKA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for hydropower, recreation, and related 

purposes on the Susitna River, Alaska. 

SEC. 4012. VALDEZ, ALASKA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for navigation, Valdez, Alaska, and if the 

Secretary determines that the project is feasible, shall carry out the 

project at a total cost of $20,000,000. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
136 

SEC. 4013. GILA BEND, MARICOPA, ARIZONA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Gila Bend, Maricopa, Arizona. 

(b) REVIEW OF PLANS.—In conducting the study, the Secretary 

shall review plans and designs developed by non-Federal interests 

and shall incorporate such plans and designs into the Federal study 

if the Secretary determines that such plans and designs are consistent with Federal standards. 

SEC. 4014. SEARCY COUNTY, ARKANSAS. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of using Greers Ferry Lake as a water supply source for Searcy 

County, Arkansas. 

SEC. 4015. ALISO CREEK, CALIFORNIA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for streambank protection and environmental restoration along Aliso Creek, California. 

SEC. 4016. FRESNO, KINGS, AND KERN COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for water supply for Fresno, Kings, and 

Kern Counties, California. 

SEC. 4017. FRUITVALE AVENUE RAILROAD BRIDGE, ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall prepare a comprehensive 

report that examines the condition of the existing Fruitvale Avenue 

Railroad Bridge, Alameda County, California (referred to in this 

section as the ‘‘Railroad Bridge’’), and determines the most economic 

means to maintain that rail link by either repairing or replacing the 

Railroad Bridge. 

(b) REQUIREMENTS.—The report under this section shall include— (1) a determination of whether the Railroad Bridge is in 

immediate danger of failing or collapsing; 

(2) the annual costs to maintain the Railroad Bridge; 

(3) the costs to place the Railroad Bridge in a safe, ‘‘no-collapse’’ condition, such that the Railroad Bridge will not endanger maritime traffic; 

(4) the costs to retrofit the Railroad Bridge such that the 

Railroad Bridge may continue to serve as a rail link between 

the Island of Alameda and the mainland; and 

(5) the costs to construct a replacement for the Railroad 

Bridge capable of serving the current and future rail, light rail, 

and homeland security needs of the region. 

(c) SUBMISSION OF REPORT.—The Secretary shall—

(1) complete the Railroad Bridge report under subsection 

(a) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 

Act; and 

(2) submit the report to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works of the Senate and Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives. 

(d) LIMITATIONS.—The Secretary shall not—

(1) demolish the Railroad Bridge or otherwise render the 

Railroad Bridge unavailable or unusable for rail traffic; or 

(2) reduce maintenance of the Railroad Bridge. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
137 

(e) EASEMENT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall provide to the city of 

Alameda, California, a nonexclusive access easement over the 

Oakland Estuary that comprises the subsurface land and surface approaches for the Railroad Bridge that—

(A) is consistent with the Bay Trail Proposal of the city 

of Oakland; and 

(B) is otherwise suitable for the improvement, operation, and maintenance of the Railroad Bridge or construction, operation, and maintenance of a suitable replacement 

bridge. 

(2) COST.—The easement under paragraph (1) shall be provided to the city of Alameda without consideration and at no 

cost to the United States. 

SEC. 4018. LOS ANGELES RIVER REVITALIZATION STUDY, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in coordination with the city 

of Los Angeles, shall—

(1) prepare a feasibility study for environmental ecosystem 

restoration, flood control, recreation, and other aspects of Los 

Angeles River revitalization that is consistent with the goals of 

the Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan published by 

the city of Los Angeles; and 

(2) consider any locally-preferred project alternatives developed through a full and open evaluation process for inclusion 

in the study. 

(b) USE OF EXISTING INFORMATION AND MEASURES.—In preparing the study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall use, to the 

maximum extent practicable—

(1) information obtained from the Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan; and 

(2) the development process of that plan. 

(c) DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to construct 

demonstration projects in order to provide information to develop the study under subsection (a)(1). 

(2) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost of any 

project under this subsection shall be not more than 65 percent. 

(3) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $25,000,000. 

SEC. 4019. LYTLE CREEK, RIALTO, CALIFORNIA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and groundwater recharge, Lytle Creek, Rialto, California. 

SEC. 4020. MOKELUMNE RIVER, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply along 

the Mokelumne River, San Joaquin County, California. 

(b) LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in 

this section shall be construed to invalidate, preempt, or create any 

exception to State water law, State water rights, or Federal or State 

permitted activities or agreements. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
138 

SEC. 4021. ORICK, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, Orick, California. 

(b) FEASIBILITY OF RESTORING OR REHABILITATING REDWOOK

CREEK LEVEES.—In conducting the study, the Secretary shall determine the feasibility of restoring or rehabilitating the Redwood Creek 

Levees, Humboldt County, California. 

SEC. 4022. SHORELINE STUDY, OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA. 

Section 414 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 

(114 Stat. 2636) is amended by striking ‘‘32 months’’ and inserting 

‘‘44 months’’. 

SEC. 4023. RIALTO, FONTANA, AND COLTON, CALIFORNIA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for water supply for Rialto, Fontana, and 

Colton, California. 

SEC. 4024. SACRAMENTO RIVER, CALIFORNIA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study to determine 

the feasibility of, and alternatives for, measures to protect water diversion facilities and fish protective screen facilities in the vicinity 

of river mile 178 on the Sacramento River, California. 

SEC. 4025. SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for water supply, San Diego County, California, including a review of the feasibility of connecting 4 existing 

reservoirs to increase usable storage capacity. 

SEC. 4026. SAN FRANCISCO BAY, SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, 

CALIFORNIA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of the beneficial use of dredged material from 

the San Francisco Bay in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, including the benefits and impacts of salinity in the Delta 

and the benefits to navigation, flood damage reduction, ecosystem 

restoration, water quality, salinity control, water supply reliability, 

and recreation. 

(b) COOPERATION.—In conducting the study, the Secretary shall 

cooperate with the California department of water resources and appropriate Federal and State entities in developing options for the 

beneficial use of dredged material from San Francisco Bay for the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta area. 

(c) REVIEW.—The study shall include a review of the feasibility 

of using Sherman Island as a rehandling site for levee maintenance 

material, as well as for ecosystem restoration. The review may include carrying out and monitoring a pilot project using up to 

150,000 cubic yards of dredged material and being carried out at 

the Sherman Island site, examining larger scale use of dredged materials from the San Francisco Bay and Suisun Bay Channel, and 

analyzing the feasibility of the potential use of saline materials from 

the San Francisco Bay for both rehandling and ecosystem restoration purposes. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
139 

SEC. 4027. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SHORELINE, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in cooperation with non-Federal interests, shall conduct a study of the feasibility of carrying out 

a project for— (1) flood damage reduction along the South San Francisco 

Bay shoreline, California; 

(2) restoration of the South San Francisco Bay salt ponds 

(including on land owned by other Federal agencies); and 

(3) other related purposes, as the Secretary determines to be 

appropriate. 

(b) REPORT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 3 years after the date of 

enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a 

report describing the results of the study under subsection (a). 

(2) INCLUSIONS.—The report under paragraph (1) shall include recommendations of the Secretary with respect to the 

project described in subsection (a) based on planning, design, 

and land acquisition documents prepared by—

(A) the California State Coastal Conservancy; 

(B) the Santa Clara Valley Water District; and 

(C) other local interests. 

(c) CREDIT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In accordance with section 221 of the 

Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), and subject to 

paragraph (2), the Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of any project authorized by law as a result of the South San Francisco Bay shoreline study—

(A) the cost of work performed by the non-Federal interest in preparation of the feasibility study that is conducted before the date of the feasibility cost sharing agreement; and 

(B) the funds expended by the non-Federal interest for 

acquisition costs of land that constitutes a part of such a 

project and that is owned by the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

(2) CONDITIONS.—The Secretary may provide credit under 

paragraph (1) if— (A) the value of all or any portion of land referred to 

in paragraph (1)(B) that would be subject to the credit has 

not previously been credited to the non-Federal interest for 

a project; and 

(B) the land was not acquired to meet any mitigation 

requirement of the non-Federal interest. 

SEC. 4028. TWENTYNINE PALMS, CALIFORNIA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction in the vicinity 

of Twentynine Palms, California. 

SEC. 4029. YUCCA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Burnt Mountain basin, in the vicinity of Yucca Valley, California. 

SEC. 4030. SELENIUM STUDIES, COLORADO. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the United States Geological 

Survey, in consultation with State water quality and resource and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
140 

conservation agencies, shall conduct regional and watershed-wide 

studies to address selenium concentrations in the State of Colorado, 

including studies—

(1) to measure selenium on specific sites; and 

(2) to determine whether specific selenium measures studied 

should be recommended for use in demonstration projects. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000. 

SEC. 4031. DELAWARE AND CHRISTINA RIVERS AND SHELLPOT CREEK, 

WILMINGTON, DELAWARE. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and related 

purposes along the Delaware and Christina Rivers and Shellpot 

Creek, Wilmington, Delaware. 

SEC. 4032. DELAWARE INLAND BAYS AND TRIBUTARIES AND ATLANTIC 

COAST, DELAWARE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of modifying the project for navigation, Indian 

River Inlet and Bay, Delaware. 

(b) FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION AND PRIORITY.—In carrying 

out the study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall—

(1) take into consideration all necessary activities to stabilize the scour holes threatening the Inlet and Bay shorelines; 

and 

(2) give priority to stabilizing and restoring the Inlet channel and scour holes adjacent to the United States Coast Guard 

pier and helipad and the adjacent State-owned properties. 

SEC. 4033. COLLIER COUNTY BEACHES, FLORIDA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction 

and flood damage reduction in the vicinity of Vanderbilt, Park 

Shore, and Naples beaches, Collier County, Florida. 

SEC. 4034. LOWER ST. JOHNS RIVER, FLORIDA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for environmental restoration, including 

improved water quality, and related purposes, Lower St. Johns 

River, Florida. 

SEC. 4035. HERBERT HOOVER DIKE SUPPLEMENTAL MAJOR REHABILITATION REPORT, FLORIDA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall publish a supplemental report to the major rehabilitation report for the Herbert Hoover Dike 

system approved by the Chief of Engineers in November 2000. 

(b) INCLUSIONS.—The supplemental report under subsection (a) 

shall include—

(1) an evaluation of existing conditions at the Herbert Hoover Dike system; 

(2) an identification of additional risks associated with 

flood events at the system that are equal to or greater than the 

standard projected flood risks; 

(3) an evaluation of the potential to integrate projects of the 

Corps of Engineers into an enhanced flood protection system for 

Lake Okeechobee, including—


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
141 

(A) the potential for additional water storage north of 

Lake Okeechobee; and 

(B) an analysis of other project features included in the 

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan; and 

(4) a review of the report prepared for the South Florida 

Water Management District dated April 2006. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out this section $1,500,000. 

SEC. 4036. VANDERBILT BEACH LAGOON, FLORIDA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for environmental restoration, water supply, and improvement of water quality at Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon, 

Florida. 

SEC. 4037. MERIWETHER COUNTY, GEORGIA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for water supply, Meriwether County, Georgia. 

SEC. 4038. BOISE RIVER, IDAHO. 

The study for flood control, Boise River, Idaho, authorized by 

section 414 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 

Stat. 324), is modified—

(1) to add ecosystem restoration and water supply as 

project purposes to be studied; and 

(2) to require the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal 

share of the cost of the study the cost, not to exceed $500,000, 

of work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date 

of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project. 

SEC. 4039. BALLARD’S ISLAND SIDE CHANNEL, ILLINOIS. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for ecosystem restoration, Ballard’s Island 

side channel, Illinois. 

SEC. 4040. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS. 

Section 425(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 

(114 Stat. 2638) is amended by inserting ‘‘Lake Michigan and’’ before ‘‘the Chicago River’’. 

SEC. 4041. SALEM, INDIANA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project to provide an additional water supply 

source for Salem, Indiana. 

SEC. 4042. BUCKHORN LAKE, KENTUCKY. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of modifying the project for flood damage reduction, Buckhorn Lake, Kentucky, authorized by section 2 of the Flood 

Control Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1217), to add ecosystem restoration and recreation as project purposes. 

(b) IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS.—The non-Federal interest may 

provide the non-Federal share of the cost of the study in the form 

of in-kind services and materials. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
142 

SEC. 4043. DEWEY LAKE, KENTUCKY. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of modifying the project for Dewey Lake, Kentucky, to add water 

supply as a project purpose. 

SEC. 4044. LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study of the project for flood control, Louisville, Kentucky, authorized by section 4 of the Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1217), to investigate measures 

to address the rehabilitation of the project. 

SEC. 4045. VIDALIA PORT, LOUISIANA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for navigation improvement at Vidalia, 

Louisiana. 

SEC. 4046. FALL RIVER HARBOR, MASSACHUSETTS AND RHODE ISLAND. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of deepening that portion of the navigation channel of the navigation project for Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, 

authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 

Stat. 731), seaward of the Charles M. Braga, Jr. Memorial Bridge, 

Fall River and Somerset, Massachusetts. 

SEC. 4047. CLINTON RIVER, MICHIGAN. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for environmental restoration, Clinton 

River, Michigan. 

SEC. 4048. HAMBURG AND GREEN OAK TOWNSHIPS, MICHIGAN. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction on Ore Lake 

and the Huron River for Hamburg and Green Oak Townships, 

Michigan. 

SEC. 4049. LAKE ERIE AT LUNA PIER, MICHIGAN. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for storm damage reduction and other related purposes along Lake Erie at Luna Pier, Michigan. 

SEC. 4050. DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR, MINNESOTA AND WISCONSIN. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study and prepare a report to evaluate the integrity of the bulkhead system located on and in the vicinity of Duluth-Superior Harbor, Duluth, 

Minnesota, and Superior, Wisconsin. 

(b) CONTENTS.—The report shall include—

(1) a determination of causes of corrosion of the bulkhead 

system; 

(2) recommendations to reduce corrosion of the bulkhead 

system; 

(3) a description of the necessary repairs to the bulkhead 

system; and 

(4) an estimate of the cost of addressing the causes of the 

corrosion and carrying out necessary repairs. 

SEC. 4051. NORTHEAST MISSISSIPPI. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of modifying the project for navigation, Tennessee-Tombigbee WaterVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:35 Aug 04, 2007 Jkt 036965 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR280.XXX HR280

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
143 

way, Alabama and Mississippi, to provide water supply for northeast Mississippi. 

SEC. 4052. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL, NEW JERSEY. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project in the vicinity of the Atlantic Intracoastal 

Waterway, New Jersey, for the construction of a dredged material 

disposal transfer facility to make dredged material available for 

beneficial reuse. 

SEC. 4053. BAYONNE, NEW JERSEY. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for environmental restoration, including 

improved water quality, enhanced public access, and recreation, on 

the Kill Van Kull, Bayonne, New Jersey. 

SEC. 4054. CARTERET, NEW JERSEY. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for environmental restoration, including 

improved water quality, enhanced public access, and recreation, on 

the Raritan River, Carteret, New Jersey. 

SEC. 4055. GLOUCESTER COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Gloucester 

County, New Jersey, including the feasibility of restoring the flood 

protection dikes in Gibbstown, New Jersey, and the associated 

tidegates in Gloucester County, New Jersey. 

SEC. 4056. PERTH AMBOY, NEW JERSEY. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for environmental restoration and recreation on the Arthur Kill, Perth Amboy, New Jersey. 

SEC. 4057. BATAVIA, NEW YORK. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for hydropower and related purposes in the 

vicinity of Batavia, New York. 

SEC. 4058. BIG SISTER CREEK, EVANS, NEW YORK. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Big Sister Creek, Evans, New York. 

(b) EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS.—In conducting the 

study, the Secretary shall evaluate potential solutions to flooding 

from all sources, including flooding that results from ice jams. 

SEC. 4059. FINGER LAKES, NEW YORK. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection, Finger Lakes, New York, to address water quality and 

aquatic nuisance species. 

SEC. 4060. LAKE ERIE SHORELINE, BUFFALO, NEW YORK. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for storm damage reduction and shoreline 

protection in the vicinity of Gallagher Beach, Lake Erie Shoreline, 

Buffalo, New York. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
144 

SEC. 4061. NEWTOWN CREEK, NEW YORK. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out ecosystem restoration improvements on Newtown 

Creek, Brooklyn and Queens, New York. 

SEC. 4062. NIAGARA RIVER, NEW YORK. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for a low-head hydroelectric generating facility in the Niagara River, New York. 

SEC. 4063. SHORE PARKWAY GREENWAY, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study of the feasibility of carrying 

out a project for shoreline protection in the vicinity of the confluence 

of the Narrows and Gravesend Bay, Upper New York Bay, Shore 

Parkway Greenway, Brooklyn, New York. 

SEC. 4064. UPPER DELAWARE RIVER WATERSHED, NEW YORK. 

In accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 

(42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), a nonprofit organization may serve, with the 

consent of the affected local government, as the non-Federal interest 

for a study for the Upper Delaware River watershed, New York, 

being carried out under Committee Resolution 2495 of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, adopted May 9, 1996. 

SEC. 4065. LINCOLN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study of existing water and water 

quality-related infrastructure in Lincoln County, North Carolina, to 

assist local interests in determining the most efficient and effective 

way to connect county infrastructure. 

SEC. 4066. WILKES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for water supply, Wilkes County, North 

Carolina. 

SEC. 4067. YADKINVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for water supply, Yadkinville, North Carolina. 

SEC. 4068. FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION, OHIO. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction in Cuyahoga, 

Lake, Ashtabula, Geauga, Erie, Lucas, Sandusky, Huron, and Stark 

Counties, Ohio. 

SEC. 4069. LAKE ERIE, OHIO. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out projects for power generation at confined disposal facilities along Lake Erie, Ohio. 

SEC. 4070. OHIO RIVER, OHIO. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction on the Ohio 

River in Mahoning, Columbiana, Jefferson, Belmont, Noble, Monroe, Washington, Athens, Meigs, Gallia, Lawrence, and Scioto Counties, Ohio. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
145 

SEC. 4071. TOLEDO HARBOR DREDGED MATERIAL PLACEMENT, TOLEDO, OHIO. 

The Secretary shall study the feasibility of removing previously 

dredged and placed materials from the Toledo Harbor confined disposal facility, transporting the materials, and disposing of the materials in or at abandoned mine sites in southeastern Ohio. 

SEC. 4072. TOLEDO HARBOR, MAUMEE RIVER, AND LAKE CHANNEL 

PROJECT, TOLEDO, OHIO. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of constructing a project for navigation, Toledo, 

Ohio. 

(b) FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION.—In conducting the study 

under subsection (a), the Secretary shall take into consideration— (1) realigning the existing Toledo Harbor channel widening 

occurring where the River Channel meets the Lake Channel 

from the northwest to the southeast side of the River Channel; 

(2) realigning the entire 200-foot wide channel located at 

the upper river terminus of the River Channel southern river 

embankment towards the northern river embankment; and 

(3) adjusting the existing turning basin to accommodate 

those changes. 

SEC. 4073. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND FISH PASSAGE IMPROVEMENTS, OREGON. 

(a) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine 

the feasibility of undertaking ecosystem restoration and fish passage 

improvements on rivers throughout the State of Oregon. 

(b) REQUIREMENTS.—In carrying out the study, the Secretary 

shall— (1) work in coordination with the State of Oregon, local 

governments, and other Federal agencies; and 

(2) place emphasis on— (A) fish passage and conservation and restoration 

strategies to benefit species that are listed or proposed for 

listing as threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and 

(B) other watershed restoration objectives. 

(c) PILOT PROGRAM.— (1) IN GENERAL.—In conjunction with conducting the study 

under subsection (a), the Secretary may carry out pilot projects 

to demonstrate the effectiveness of ecosystem restoration and 

fish passages. 

(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this subsection. 

SEC. 4074. WALLA WALLA RIVER BASIN, OREGON. 

In conducting the study to determine the feasibility of carrying 

out a project for ecosystem restoration, Walla Walla River basin, Oregon, the Secretary shall— (1) credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 

study the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest 

before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if 

the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project; 

and 

(2) allow the non-Federal interest to provide the non-Federal share of the cost of the study in the form of in-kind services 

and materials. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
146 

SEC. 4075. CHARTIERS CREEK WATERSHED, PENNSYLVANIA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Chartiers 

Creek watershed, Pennsylvania. 

SEC. 4076. KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PENNSYLVANIA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study of the project for flood control, Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir, Warren, Pennsylvania, 

authorized by section 5 of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936 

(49 Stat. 1570), and modified by section 2 of the Flood Control Act 

of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1215), section 2 of the Flood Control Act 

of August 18, 1941 (55 Stat. 646), and section 4 of the Flood Control 

Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887), to review operations of and 

identify modifications to the project to expand recreational opportunities. 

SEC. 4077. WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study of structural and nonstructural flood damage reduction, stream bank protection, storm water management, channel clearing and modification, and watershed coordination measures in the Mahoning River 

basin, Pennsylvania, the Allegheny River basin, Pennsylvania, and 

the Upper Ohio River basin, Pennsylvania, to provide a level of 

flood protection sufficient to prevent future losses to communities located in such basins from flooding such as occurred in September 

2004, but not less than a 100-year level of flood protection. 

(b) PRIORITY COMMUNITIES.—In carrying out this section, the 

Secretary shall give priority to the following Pennsylvania communities: Marshall Township, Ross Township, Shaler Township, Jackson Township, Harmony, Zelienople, Darlington Township, Houston 

Borough, Chartiers Township, Washington, Canton Township, 

Tarentum Borough, and East Deer Township. 

SEC. 4078. WILLIAMSPORT, PENNSYLVANIA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study of the project for flood control, Williamsport, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 5 of the 

Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1570), to investigate 

measures to rehabilitate the project. 

SEC. 4079. YARDLEY BOROUGH, PENNSYLVANIA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, at Yardley Borough, Pennsylvania, including the alternative of raising River Road. 

SEC. 4080. RIO VALENCIANO, JUNCOS, PUERTO RICO. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to reevaluate the project for flood damage reduction and water supply, 

Rio Valenciano, Juncos, Puerto Rico, authorized by section 209 of 

the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1197) and section 204 of the 

Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1828), to determine the feasibility of carrying out the project. 

(b) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal 

share of the cost of the study the cost of work carried out by the nonFederal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 

project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 

project. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
147 

SEC. 4081. WOONSOCKET LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, BLACKSTONE 

RIVER BASIN, RHODE ISLAND. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study, and, not later than June 

30, 2008, submit to Congress a report that describes the results of 

the study, on the flood damage reduction project, Woonsocket, 

Blackstone River basin, Rhode Island, authorized by section 10 of 

the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 892), to determine the measures necessary to restore the level of protection of the 

project as originally designed and constructed. 

SEC. 4082. CROOKED CREEK, BENNETTSVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for water supply, Crooked Creek, 

Bennettsville, South Carolina. 

SEC. 4083. BROAD RIVER, YORK COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for water supply, Broad River, York County, South Carolina. 

SEC. 4084. SAVANNAH RIVER, SOUTH CAROLINA AND GEORGIA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall determine the feasibility 

of carrying out projects—

(1) to improve the Savannah River for navigation and related purposes that may be necessary to support the location of 

container cargo and other port facilities to be located in Jasper 

County, South Carolina, in the vicinity of Mile 6 of the Savannah Harbor entrance channel; and 

(2) to remove from the proposed Jasper County port site the 

easements used by the Corps of Engineers for placement of 

dredged fill materials for the Savannah Harbor Federal navigation project. 

(b) FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION.—In making a determination 

under subsection (a), the Secretary shall take into consideration—

(1) landside infrastructure; 

(2) the provision of any additional dredged material disposal area as a consequence of removing from the proposed Jasper County port site the easements used by the Corps of Engineers for placement of dredged fill materials for the Savannah 

Harbor Federal navigation project; and 

(3) the results of the proposed bistate compact between the 

State of Georgia and the State of South Carolina to own, develop, and operate port facilities at the proposed Jasper County 

port site, as described in the term sheet executed by the Governor of the State of Georgia and the Governor of the State of 

South Carolina on March 12, 2007. 

SEC. 4085. CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Chattanooga 

Creek, Dobbs Branch, Chattanooga, Tennessee. 

SEC. 4086. CLEVELAND, TENNESSEE. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Cleveland, 

Tennessee. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
148 

SEC. 4087. CUMBERLAND RIVER, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for recreation on, riverbank protection for, 

and environmental protection of, the Cumberland River and riparian habitats in the city of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee. 

SEC. 4088. LEWIS, LAWRENCE, AND WAYNE COUNTIES, TENNESSEE. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for water supply for Lewis, Lawrence, and 

Wayne Counties, Tennessee. 

SEC. 4089. WOLF RIVER AND NONCONNAH CREEK, MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction along Wolf 

River and Nonconnah Creek, in the vicinity of Memphis, Tennessee, 

to include the repair, replacement, rehabilitation, and restoration of 

the following pumping stations: Cypress Creek, Nonconnah Creek, 

Ensley, Marble Bayou, and Bayou Gayoso. 

SEC. 4090. ABILENE, TEXAS. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for water supply, Abilene, Texas. 

SEC. 4091. COASTAL TEXAS ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION AND RESTORATION, TEXAS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall develop a comprehensive 

plan to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood 

damage reduction, hurricane and storm damage reduction, and ecosystem restoration in the coastal areas of the State of Texas. 

(b) SCOPE.—The comprehensive plan shall provide for the protection, conservation, and restoration of wetlands, barrier islands, 

shorelines, and related lands and features that protect critical resources, habitat, and infrastructure from the impacts of coastal 

storms, hurricanes, erosion, and subsidence. 

(c) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘coastal 

areas in the State of Texas’’ means the coastal areas of the State of 

Texas from the Sabine River on the east to the Rio Grande River 

on the west and includes tidal waters, barrier islands, marshes, 

coastal wetlands, rivers and streams, and adjacent areas. 

SEC. 4092. PORT OF GALVESTON, TEXAS. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study of the feasibility of carrying 

out a project for dredged material disposal in the vicinity 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). 

SEC. 4093. GRAND COUNTY AND MOAB, UTAH. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for water supply for Grand County and the 

city of Moab, Utah, including a review of the impact of current and 

future demands on the Spanish Valley Aquifer. 

SEC. 4094. SOUTHWESTERN UTAH. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Santa Clara 

River, Washington, Iron, and Kane Counties, Utah. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
149 

SEC. 4095. ECOSYSTEM AND HYDROPOWER GENERATION DAMS, 

VERMONT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study of the 

potential to carry out ecosystem restoration and hydropower generation at dams in the State of Vermont, including a review of the report of the Secretary on the land and water resources of the New 

England–New York region submitted to the President on April 27, 

1956 (published as Senate Document Number 14, 85th Congress), 

and other relevant reports. 

(b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the study under subsection (a) 

shall be to determine the feasibility of providing water resource improvements and small-scale hydropower generation in the State of 

Vermont, including, as appropriate, options for dam restoration, hydropower, dam removal, and fish passage enhancement. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

carry out this section $500,000. Such sums shall remain available 

until expended. 

SEC. 4096. ELLIOTT BAY SEAWALL, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The study for rehabilitation of the Elliott Bay 

Seawall, Seattle, Washington, being carried out under Committee 

Resolution 2704 of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives adopted September 25, 2002, is 

modified to include a determination of the feasibility of reducing future damage to the seawall from seismic activity. 

(b) ACCEPTANCE OF CONTRIBUTIONS.—In carrying out the study, 

the Secretary may accept contributions in excess of the non-Federal 

share of the cost of the study from the non-Federal interest to the 

extent that the Secretary determines that the contributions will facilitate completion of the study. 

(c) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal 

share of the cost of any project authorized by law as a result of the 

study the value of contributions accepted by the Secretary under 

subsection (b). 

SEC. 4097. MONONGAHELA RIVER BASIN, NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection projects 

in the watersheds of the Monongahela River Basin lying within the 

counties of Hancock, Ohio, Marshall, Wetzel, Tyler, Pleasants, 

Wood, Doddridge, Monongalia, Marion, Harrison, Taylor, Barbour, 

Preston, Tucker, Mineral, Grant, Gilmer, Brooke, and Rithchie, 

West Virginia. 

SEC. 4098. KENOSHA HARBOR, WISCONSIN. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for navigation, Kenosha Harbor, Wisconsin, 

including the extension of existing piers. 

SEC. 4099. JOHNSONVILLE DAM, JOHNSONVILLE, WISCONSIN. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study of the Johnsonville Dam, 

Johnsonville, Wisconsin, to determine if the structure prevents ice 

jams on the Sheboygan River. 

SEC. 4100. WAUWATOSA, WISCONSIN. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration, Menomonee River and Underwood Creek, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
150 

Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, and greater Milwaukee watersheds, Wisconsin. 

SEC. 4101. DEBRIS REMOVAL. 

(a) EVALUATION.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of 

enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 

States, in coordination with the Secretary and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and in consultation with affected communities, shall conduct a complete evaluation of Federal and non-Federal demolition, debris removal, 

segregation, transportation, and disposal practices relating to 

disaster areas designated in response to Hurricanes Katrina 

and Rita (including regulated and nonregulated materials and 

debris). 

(2) INCLUSIONS.—The evaluation under paragraph (1) shall 

include a review of— (A) compliance with all applicable environmental laws; 

(B) permits issued or required to be issued with respect 

to debris handling, transportation, storage, or disposal; 

and 

(C) administrative actions relating to debris removal 

and disposal in the disaster areas described in paragraph 

(1). 

(b) REPORT.—Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General, in consultation with the 

Secretary and the Administrator, shall submit to the Committee on 

the Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report that— (1) describes the findings of the Comptroller General with 

respect to the evaluation under subsection (a); 

(2)(A) certifies compliance with all applicable environmental laws; and 

(B) identifies any area in which a violation of such a law 

has occurred or is occurring; 

(3) includes recommendations to ensure— (A) the protection of the environment; 

(B) sustainable practices; and 

(C) the integrity of hurricane and flood protection infrastructure relating to debris disposal practices; 

(4) contains an enforcement plan that is designed to prevent 

illegal dumping of hurricane debris in a disaster area; and 

(5) contains plans of the Secretary and the Administrator 

to involve the public and non-Federal interests, including 

through the formation of a Federal advisory committee, as necessary, to seek public comment relating to the removal, disposal, 

and planning for the handling of post-hurricane debris. 

(c) RESTRICTION.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—No Federal funds may be used to pay for 

or reimburse any State or local entity in Louisiana for the disposal of construction and demolition debris generated as a result of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 in a landfill designated for 

construction and demolition debris as described in section 257.2 

of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, unless that waste meets 

the definition of construction and demolition debris, as specified 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
151 

under Federal law and described in that section on the date of 

enactment of this Act. 

(2) APPLICABILITY.—The restriction in paragraph (1) shall 

apply only to any disposal that occurs after the date of enactment of this Act. 

TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUS 

SEC. 5001. MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION CHANNELS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Upon request of a non-Federal interest, the 

Secretary shall be responsible for maintenance of the following navigation channels and breakwaters constructed or improved by the 

non-Federal interest if the Secretary determines that such maintenance is economically justified and environmentally acceptable and 

that the channel or breakwater was constructed in accordance with 

applicable permits and appropriate engineering and design standards: 

(1) Manatee Harbor basin, Florida. 

(2) Tampa Harbor, Sparkman Channel and Davis Island, 

Florida. 

(3) West turning basin, Canaveral Harbor, Florida. 

(4) Bayou LaFourche Channel, Port Fourchon, Louisiana. 

(5) Calcasieu River at Devil’s Elbow, Louisiana. 

(6) Pidgeon Industrial Harbor, Pidgeon Industrial Park, 

Memphis Harbor, Tennessee. 

(7) Houston Ship Channel, Bayport Cruise Channel and 

Bayport Cruise turning basin, as part of the existing Bayport 

Channel, Texas. 

(8) Pix Bayou Navigation Channel, Chambers County, 

Texas. 

(9) Jacintoport Channel at Houston Ship Channel, Texas. 

(10) Racine Harbor, Wisconsin. 

(b) COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT.—Not later than 6 months 

after the date of receipt of a request from a non-Federal interest for 

Federal assumption of maintenance of a channel listed in subsection 

(a), the Secretary shall make a determination as provided in subsection (a) and advise the non-Federal interest of the Secretary’s determination. 

SEC. 5002. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may provide technical, planning, and design assistance to non-Federal interests for carrying out 

watershed management, restoration, and development projects at 

the locations described in subsection (d). 

(b) SPECIFIC MEASURES.—Assistance provided under subsection 

(a) may be in support of non-Federal projects for the following purposes: 

(1) Management and restoration of water quality. 

(2) Control and remediation of toxic sediments. 

(3) Restoration of degraded streams, rivers, wetlands, and 

other water bodies to their natural condition as a means to control flooding, excessive erosion, and sedimentation. 

(4) Protection and restoration of watersheds, including 

urban watersheds. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
152 

(5) Demonstration of technologies for nonstructural measures to reduce destructive impacts of flooding. 

(c) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal share of the cost of 

assistance provided under subsection (a) shall be 25 percent. 

(d) PROJECT LOCATIONS.—The locations referred to in subsection (a) are the following: 

(1) Charlotte Harbor watershed, Florida. 

(2) Those portions of the watersheds of the Chattahoochee, 

Etowah, Flint, Ocmulgee, and Oconee Rivers lying within the 

counties of Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, 

Douglas, Fayette, Fulton, Forsyth, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, 

Paulding, Rockdale, and Walton, Georgia. 

(3) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois. 

(4) Amite River basin, Louisiana. 

(5) East Atchafalaya River basin, Iberville Parish and 

Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana. 

(6) Red River watershed, Louisiana. 

(7) Taunton River basin, Massachusetts. 

(8) Marlboro Township, New Jersey. 

(9) Esopus, Plattekill, and Rondout Creeks, Greene, Sullivan, and Ulster Counties, New York. 

(10) Greenwood Lake watershed, New York and New Jersey. 

(11) Long Island Sound watershed, New York. 

(12) Ramapo River watershed, New York. 

(13) Tuscarawas River basin, Ohio. 

(14) Western Lake Erie basin, Ohio. 

(15) Those portions of the watersheds of the Beaver, Upper 

Ohio, Connoquenessing, Lower Allegheny, Kiskiminetas, Lower 

Monongahela, Youghiogheny, Shenango, and Mahoning Rivers 

lying within the counties of Beaver, Butler, Lawrence, and Mercer, Pennsylvania. 

(16) Otter Creek watershed, Pennsylvania. 

(17) Unami Creek watershed, Milford Township, Pennsylvania. 

(18) Sauk River basin, Washington. 

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000. 

SEC. 5003. DAM SAFETY. 

(a) ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary may provide assistance to enhance dam safety at the following locations: 

(1) Fish Creek Dam, Blaine County, Idaho. 

(2) Keith Creek, Rockford, Illinois. 

(3) Mount Zion Mill Pond Dam, Fulton County, Indiana. 

(4) Hamilton Dam, Flint River, Flint, Michigan. 

(5) Congers Lake Dam, Rockland County, New York. 

(6) Lake Lucille Dam, New City, New York. 

(7) Peconic River Dams, town of Riverhead, Suffolk, Long 

Island, New York. 

(8) Pine Grove Lakes Dam, Sloatsburg, New York. 

(9) State Dam, Auburn, New York. 

(10) Whaley Lake Dam, Pawling, New York. 

(11) Brightwood Dam, Concord Township, Ohio. 

(12) Ingham Spring Dam, Solebury Township, Pennsylvania. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
153 

(13) Leaser Lake Dam, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. 

(14) Stillwater Dam, Monroe County, Pennsylvania. 

(15) Wissahickon Creek Dam, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. 

(b) SPECIAL RULE.—The assistance provided under subsection 

(a) for State Dam, Auburn, New York, shall be for a project for rehabilitation in accordance with the report on State Dam Rehabilitation, Owasco Lake Outlet, New York, dated March 1999, if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out subsection (a) $12,000,000. 

SEC. 5004. STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY EVALUATIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Upon request of a non-Federal interest, the 

Secretary shall evaluate the structural integrity and effectiveness of 

a project for flood damage reduction and, if the Secretary determines that the project does not meet such minimum standards as 

the Secretary may establish and absent action by the Secretary the 

project will fail, the Secretary may take such action as may be necessary to restore the integrity and effectiveness of the project. 

(b) PRIORITY.—The Secretary shall carry out an evaluation and 

take such actions as may be necessary under subsection (a) for the 

project for flood damage reduction, Arkansas River Levees, Arkansas. 

SEC. 5005. FLOOD MITIGATION PRIORITY AREAS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 212(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (33 U.S.C. 2332(e); 114 Stat. 2599) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraphs (23) and 

(27); 

(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (28) and 

inserting a semicolon; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(29) Ascension Parish, Louisiana; 

‘‘(30) East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana; 

‘‘(31) Iberville Parish, Louisiana; 

‘‘(32) Livingston Parish, Louisiana; and 

‘‘(33) Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana.’’. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 212(i)(1) of 

such Act (33 U.S.C. 2332(i)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘section—’’

and all that follows before the period at the end and inserting ‘‘section $20,000,000’’. 

SEC. 5006. ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR AUTHORIZED PROJECTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 219(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 110 Stat. 3757; 113 Stat. 334) 

is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (7); 

(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and 

inserting a semicolon; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(9) $35,000,000 for the project described in subsection 

(c)(18); 

‘‘(10) $27,000,000 for the project described in subsection 

(c)(19); 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
154 

‘‘(11) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection 

(c)(20); ‘‘(12) $35,000,000 for the project described in subsection 

(c)(23); ‘‘(13) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection 

(c)(25); ‘‘(14) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection 

(c)(26); ‘‘(15) $35,000,000 for the project described in subsection 

(c)(27); ‘‘(16) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection 

(c)(28); and ‘‘(17) $30,000,000 for the project described in subsection 

(c)(40).’’. (b) EAST ARKANSAS ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY, ARKANSAS.—Federal assistance made available under the rural enterprise zone program of the Department of Agriculture may be used toward payment of the non-Federal share of the costs of the project described 

in section 219(c)(20) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1992 (114 Stat. 2763A–219) if such assistance is authorized to be 

used for such purposes. 

SEC. 5007. EXPEDITED COMPLETION OF REPORTS AND CONSTRUCTION FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS. 

The Secretary shall expedite completion of the reports and, if 

the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, shall expedite 

completion of construction for the following projects: 

(1) Project for navigation, Whittier, Alaska. 

(2) Laguna Creek watershed flood damage reduction 

project, California. 

(3) Daytona Beach shore protection project, Florida. 

(4) Flagler Beach shore protection project, Florida. 

(5) St. Johns County shore protection project, Florida. 

(6) Chenier Plain environmental restoration project, Louisiana. 

(7) False River, Louisiana, being carried out under section 

206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 

2330). 

(8) North River, Peabody, Massachusetts, being carried out 

under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 

701s). 

(9) Fulmer Creek, Village of Mohawk, New York, being carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 

U.S.C. 701s). 

(10) Moyer Creek, Village of Frankfort, New York, being 

carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 

(33 U.S.C. 701s). 

(11) Steele Creek, Village of Ilion, New York, being carried 

out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 

U.S.C. 701s). 

(12) Oriskany Wildlife Management Area, Rome, New York, 

being carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330). 

(13) Whitney Point Lake, Otselic River, Whitney Point, New 

York, being carried out under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
155 

(14) Chenango Lake, Chenango County, New York, being 

carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330). 

SEC. 5008. EXPEDITED COMPLETION OF REPORTS FOR CERTAIN 

PROJECTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall expedite completion of the 

reports for the following projects and, if the Secretary determines 

that a project is justified in the completed report, proceed directly 

to project preconstruction, engineering, and design: 

(1) Project for water supply, Little Red River, Arkansas. 

(2) Watershed study, Fountain Creek, north of Pueblo, Colorado. 

(3) Project for shoreline stabilization at Egmont Key, Florida. 

(4) Project for navigation, Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas 

and Louisiana. 

(5) Project for ecosystem restoration, University Lake, Baton 

Rouge, Louisiana. 

(b) SPECIAL RULE FOR EGMONT KEY, FLORIDA.—In carrying out 

the project for shoreline stabilization at Egmont Key, Florida, referred to in subsection (a)(3), the Secretary shall waive any cost 

share to be provided by non-Federal interests for any portion of the 

project that benefits federally owned property. 

SEC. 5009. SOUTHEASTERN WATER RESOURCES ASSESSMENT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct, at Federal expense, an assessment of the water resources needs of the river basins 

and watersheds of the southeastern United States. 

(b) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—In carrying out the assessment, the Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements with 

State and local agencies, non-Federal and nonprofit entities, and regional researchers. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated $7,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 5010. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT. 

Section 514 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 

(113 Stat. 343; 117 Stat. 142) is amended—

(1) in subsection (b)(2)(A) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘The Secretary shall ensure that such activities are carried out throughout the geographic area that is subject to the 

plan.’’; 

(2) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections 

(g) and (h), respectively; 

(3) by inserting after subsection (e) the following: 

‘‘(f) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—In accordance with section 221(b) of 

the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), for any 

project or activity carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected 

local government.’’; 

(4) in subsection (g) (as redesignated by paragraph (2) of 

this section) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(4) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The non-Federal share of the costs 

of activities carried out under the plan may be provided—


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
156 

‘‘(i) in cash; 

‘‘(ii) by the provision of land, easements, rights-ofway, relocations, or disposal areas; 

‘‘(iii) by in-kind services to implement the project; 

or 

‘‘(iv) by any combination thereof. 

‘‘(B) PRIVATE OWNERSHIP.—Land needed for activities 

carried out under the plan and credited toward the nonFederal share of the cost of an activity may remain in private ownership subject to easements that are—

‘‘(i) satisfactory to the Secretary; and 

‘‘(ii) necessary to ensure achievement of the project 

purposes.’’; and 

(5) in subsection (h) (as redesignated by paragraph (2) of 

this section) by striking ‘‘for the period of fiscal years 2003 and 

2004.’’ and inserting ‘‘per fiscal year through fiscal year 2015.’’. 

SEC. 5011. GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION 

PROGRAM. 

(a) GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.—

Section 506(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (42 

U.S.C. 1962d–22(c)) is amended—

(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs 

(3) and (4), respectively; 

(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following: 

‘‘(2) RECONNAISSANCE STUDIES.—Before planning, designing, or constructing a project under paragraph (3), the Secretary shall carry out a reconnaissance study—

‘‘(A) to identify methods of restoring the fishery, ecosystem, and beneficial uses of the Great Lakes; and 

‘‘(B) to determine whether planning of a project under 

paragraph (3) should proceed.’’; and 

(3) in paragraph (4)(A) (as redesignated by paragraph (1) 

of this subsection) by striking ‘‘paragraph (2)’’ and inserting 

‘‘paragraph (3)’’. 

(b) COST SHARING.—Section 506(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–22(f)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (2)—

(A) by striking ‘‘The Federal share’’ and inserting ‘‘Except for reconnaissance studies, the Federal share’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘(2) or (3)’’ and inserting ‘‘(3) or (4)’’; 

(2) in paragraph (3)—

(A) in subparagraph (A) by striking ‘‘subsection (c)(2)’’

and inserting ‘‘subsection (c)(3)’’; and 

(B) in subparagraph (B) by striking ‘‘50 percent’’ and 

inserting ‘‘100 percent’’; and 

(3) in paragraph (5) by striking ‘‘Notwithstanding’’ and inserting ‘‘In accordance with’’. 

SEC. 5012. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS AND SEDIMENT 

REMEDIATION. 

Section 401(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 

(33 U.S.C. 1268 note; 104 Stat. 4644; 114 Stat. 2613) is amended 

by striking ‘‘through 2006’’ and inserting ‘‘through 2012’’. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
157 

SEC. 5013. GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODELS. 

Section 516(g)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1996 (33 U.S.C. 2326b(g)(2)) is amended by striking ‘‘through 2006’’

and inserting ‘‘through 2012’’. 

SEC. 5014. GREAT LAKES NAVIGATION AND PROTECTION. 

(a) GREAT LAKES NAVIGATION.—Using available funds, the Secretary shall expedite the operation and maintenance, including 

dredging, of the navigation features of the Great Lakes and Connecting Channels for the purpose of supporting commercial navigation to authorized project depths. 

(b) GREAT LAKES PILOT PROJECT.—Using available funds, the 

Director of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, in coordination with the Secretary, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, 

and the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 

shall carry out a pilot project, on an emergency basis, to control and 

prevent further spreading of viral hemorrhagic septicemia in the 

Great Lakes and Connecting Channels. 

(c) GREAT LAKES AND CONNECTING CHANNELS DEFINED.—In 

this section, the term ‘‘Great Lakes and Connecting Channels’’ includes Lakes Superior, Huron, Michigan, Erie, and Ontario, all connecting waters between and among such lakes used for commercial 

navigation, any navigation features in such lakes or waters that are 

a Federal operation or maintenance responsibility, and areas of the 

Saint Lawrence River that are operated or maintained by the Federal Government for commercial navigation. 

SEC. 5015. SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized, using amounts 

contributed by the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation under subsection (b), to carry out projects for operations, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation, including associated maintenance dredging, of the Eisenhower and Snell lock facilities and related navigational infrastructure for the Saint Lawrence Seaway, at 

a total cost of $134,650,000. 

(b) SOURCE OF FUNDS.—The Secretary is authorized to accept 

funds from the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation to 

carry out projects under this section. Such funds may include 

amounts made available to the Corporation from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and the general fund of the Treasury of the 

United States pursuant to section 210 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2238). 

(c) LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this 

section authorizes the construction of any project to increase the 

depth or width of the navigation channel to a level greater than that 

previously authorized and existing on the date of enactment of this 

Act or to increase the dimensions of the Eisenhower and Snell lock 

facilities. 

SEC. 5016. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER DISPERSAL BARRIER PROJECT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State agencies, shall study, design, and carry 

out a project to delay, deter, impede, or restrict the dispersal of 

aquatic nuisance species into the northern reaches of the Upper Mississippi River system. The Secretary shall complete the study, deVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:35 Aug 04, 2007 Jkt 036965 PO 00000 Frm 00161 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR280.XXX HR280

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
158 

sign, and construction of the project not later than 6 months after 

the date of enactment of this Act. 

(b) DISPERSAL BARRIER.—In carrying out subsection (a), the 

Secretary, at Federal expense, shall— (1) investigate and identify environmentally sound methods 

for preventing and reducing the dispersal of aquatic nuisance 

species through the northern reaches of the Upper Mississippi 

River system; 

(2) use available technologies and measures; 

(3) monitor and evaluate, in cooperation with the Director 

of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the effectiveness 

of the project in preventing and reducing the dispersal of aquatic nuisance species through the northern reaches of the Upper 

Mississippi River system; 

(4) submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 

Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the results of the evaluation conducted under paragraph (3); and 

(5) operate and maintain the project. 

(c) REQUIREMENT.—In conducting the study under subsection 

(a), the Secretary shall take into consideration the feasibility of locating the dispersal barrier at the lock portion of the project at Lock 

and Dam 11 in the Upper Mississippi River basin. 

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated $4,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 5017. ESTUARY RESTORATION. 

(a) PURPOSES.—Section 102 of the Estuary Restoration Act of 

2000 (33 U.S.C. 2901) is amended— (1) in paragraph (1) by inserting before the semicolon at the 

end the following: ‘‘by implementing a coordinated Federal approach to estuary habitat restoration activities, including the 

use of common monitoring standards and a common system for 

tracking restoration acreage’’; 

(2) in paragraph (2) by inserting ‘‘and implement’’ after ‘‘to 

develop’’; and 

(3) in paragraph (3) by inserting ‘‘through cooperative 

agreements’’ after ‘‘restoration projects’’. (b) DEFINITION OF ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION PLAN.—Section 103(6)(A) of the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 

2902(6)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘Federal or State’’ and inserting ‘‘Federal, State, or regional’’. 

(c) ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION PROGRAM.—Section 104 of 

the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2903) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a) by inserting ‘‘through the award of contracts and cooperative agreements’’ after ‘‘assistance’’; 

(2) in subsection (c)—

(A) in paragraph (3)(A) by inserting ‘‘or State’’ after 

‘‘Federal’’; and 

(B) in paragraph (4)(B) by inserting ‘‘or approach’’

after ‘‘technology’’; 

(3) in subsection (d)—

(A) in paragraph (1)—

(i) by striking ‘‘Except’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except’’; and 

(ii) by adding at the end the following: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
159 

‘‘(B) MONITORING.— ‘‘(i) COSTS.—The costs of monitoring an estuary 

habitat restoration project funded under this title may 

be included in the total cost of the estuary habitat restoration project. ‘‘(ii) GOALS.—The goals of the monitoring shall 

be— ‘‘(I) to measure the effectiveness of the restoration project; and ‘‘(II) to allow adaptive management to ensure 

project success.’’; 

(B) in paragraph (2) by inserting ‘‘or approach’’ after ‘‘technology’’; and 

(C) in paragraph (3) by inserting ‘‘(including monitoring)’’ after ‘‘services’’; 

(4) in subsection (f)(1)(B) by inserting ‘‘long-term’’ before ‘‘maintenance’’; and 

(5) in subsection (g)— (A) by striking ‘‘In carrying’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying’’; and 

(B) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(2) SMALL PROJECTS.— ‘‘(A) SMALL PROJECT DEFINED.—In this paragraph, the 

term ‘small project’ means a project carried out under this title with an estimated Federal cost of less than $1,000,000. ‘‘(B) DELEGATION OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION.—In 

carrying out this section, the Secretary, on recommendation 

of the Council, may delegate implementation of a small 

project to—

‘‘(i) the Secretary of the Interior (acting through the 

Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service); ‘‘(ii) the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere of the Department of Commerce; 

‘‘(iii) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; or 

‘‘(iv) the Secretary of Agriculture. 

‘‘(C) FUNDING.—A small project delegated to the head 

of a Federal department or agency under this paragraph 

may be carried out using funds appropriated to the department or agency under section 109(a)(1) or other funds 

available to the department or agency. ‘‘(D) AGREEMENTS.—The head of a Federal department 

or agency to which a small project is delegated under this 

paragraph shall enter into an agreement with the non-Federal interest for the project generally in conformance with 

the criteria in subsections (d) and (e). Cooperative agreements may be used for any delegated project to allow the 

non-Federal interest to carry out the project on behalf of the 

Federal agency.’’. (d) ESTABLISHMENT OF ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION COUN- CIL.—Section 105(b) of the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (33 

U.S.C. 2904(b)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (4) by striking ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon; 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
160 

(2) in paragraph (5) by striking the period at the end and 

inserting a semicolon; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(6) cooperating in the implementation of the strategy developed under section 106; 

‘‘(7) recommending standards for monitoring for restoration 

projects and contribution of project information to the database 

developed under section 107; and 

‘‘(8) otherwise using the respective authorities of the Council 

members to carry out this title.’’. 

(e) MONITORING OF ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION

PROJECTS.—Section 107(d) of the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 

(33 U.S.C. 2906(d)) is amended by striking ‘‘compile’’ and inserting 

‘‘have general data compilation, coordination, and analysis responsibilities to carry out this title and in support of the strategy developed under this section, including compilation of’’. 

(f) REPORTING.—Section 108(a) of the Estuary Restoration Act 

of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2907(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘At the end of 

the third and fifth fiscal years following the date of enactment of 

this Act’’ and inserting ‘‘Not later than September 30, 2008, and 

every 2 years thereafter’’. 

(g) FUNDING.—Section 109(a) of the Estuary Restoration Act of 

2000 (33 U.S.C. 2908(a)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1)—

(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by striking ‘‘to the Secretary’’; and 

(B) by striking subparagraphs (A) through (D) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(A) to the Secretary, $25,000,000 for each of fiscal 

years 2008 through 2012; 

‘‘(B) to the Secretary of the Interior (acting through the 

Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service), 

$2,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012; 

‘‘(C) to the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere 

of the Department of Commerce, $2,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012; 

‘‘(D) to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, $2,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 

through 2012; and 

‘‘(E) to the Secretary of Agriculture, $2,500,000 for each 

of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.’’; and 

(2) in the first sentence of paragraph (2)—

(A) by inserting ‘‘and other information compiled under 

section 107’’ after ‘‘this title’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘2005’’ and inserting ‘‘2012’’. 

(h) GENERAL PROVISIONS.—Section 110 of the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2909) is amended—

(1) in subsection (b)(1)—

(A) by inserting ‘‘or contracts’’ after ‘‘agreements’’; and 

(B) by inserting ‘‘, nongovernmental organizations,’’

after ‘‘agencies’’; and 

(2) by striking subsections (d) and (e). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
161 

SEC. 5018. MISSOURI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MITIGATION, RECOVERY, AND RESTORATION, IOWA, KANSAS, MISSOURI, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA, AND 

WYOMING. 

(a) STUDY.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consultation with the 

Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee to be established under subsection (b)(1), shall conduct a study of the Missouri River and its tributaries to determine actions required— (A) to mitigate losses of aquatic and terrestrial habitat; 

(B) to recover federally listed species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and 

(C) to restore the ecosystem to prevent further declines 

among other native species. 

(2) FUNDING.—The study to be conducted under paragraph 

(1) shall be funded using amounts made available to carry out 

the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan authorized by 

section 601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 

(100 Stat. 4143). 

(b) MISSOURI RIVER RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE.— (1) ESTABLISHMENT.—Not later than 6 months after the 

date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a 

committee to be known as the Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Committee’’). 

(2) MEMBERSHIP.—The Committee shall include representatives from—

(A) Federal agencies; 

(B) States located near the Missouri River basin; and 

(C) other appropriate entities, as determined by the 

Secretary, including— (i) water management and fish and wildlife agencies; 

(ii) Indian tribes located near the Missouri River 

basin; and 

(iii) nongovernmental stakeholders, which may include—

(I) navigation interests; 

(II) irrigation interests; 

(III) flood control interests; 

(IV) fish, wildlife, and conservation organizations; 

(V) recreation interests; and 

(VI) power supply interests. 

(3) DUTIES.—The Committee shall—

(A) with respect to the study to be conducted under 

subsection (a)(1), provide guidance to the Secretary and any 

affected Federal agency, State agency, or Indian tribe; and 

(B) provide guidance to the Secretary with respect to 

the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan in existence on the date of enactment of this Act, including recommendations relating to—

(i) changes to the implementation strategy from the 

use of adaptive management; 

(ii) coordination of the development of consistent 

policies, strategies, plans, programs, projects, activities, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
162 

and priorities for the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan; 

(iii) exchange of information regarding programs, 

projects, and activities of the agencies and entities represented on the Committee to promote the goals of the 

Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan; 

(iv) establishment of such working groups as the 

Committee determines to be necessary to assist in carrying out the duties of the Committee, including duties 

relating to public policy and scientific issues; 

(v) facilitating the resolution of interagency and 

intergovernmental conflicts between entities represented 

on the Committee associated with the Missouri River 

recovery and mitigation plan; 

(vi) coordination of scientific and other research 

associated with the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan; and 

(vii) annual preparation of a work plan and associated budget requests. 

(4) RECOMMENDATIONS AND GUIDANCE.—In providing recommendations and guidance from the Committee, the members 

of the Committee may include dissenting opinions. 

(5) COMPENSATION; TRAVEL EXPENSES.—

(A) COMPENSATION.—Members of the Committee shall 

not receive compensation from the Secretary in carrying out 

the duties of the Committee under this section. 

(B) TRAVEL EXPENSES.—Travel expenses incurred by a 

member of the Committee in carrying out the duties of the 

Committee under this section shall not be eligible for Federal reimbursement. 

(c) NONAPPLICABILITY OF FACA.—The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Committee. 

SEC. 5019. SUSQUEHANNA, DELAWARE, AND POTOMAC RIVER BASINS, 

DELAWARE, MARYLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VIRGINIA. 

(a) EX OFFICIO MEMBER.—Notwithstanding section 3001(a) of 

the 1997 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery 

From Natural Disasters, and for Overseas Peacekeeping Efforts, Including Those in Bosnia (Public Law 105–18; 111 Stat. 176), section 

2.2 of the Susquehanna River Basin Compact to which consent was 

given by Public Law 91–575 (84 Stat. 1512), and section 2.2 of the 

Delaware River Basin Compact to which consent was given by Public Law 87–328 (75 Stat. 691), beginning in fiscal year 2002, and 

each fiscal year thereafter, the Division Engineer, North Atlantic Division, Corps of Engineers—

(1) shall be—

(A) the ex officio United States member of the Susquehanna River Basin Compact and the Delaware River Basin 

Compact; and 

(B) one of the 3 members appointed by the President 

under the Potomac River Basin Compact to which consent 

was given by Public Law 91–407 (84 Stat. 856); 

(2) shall serve without additional compensation; and 

(3) may designate an alternate member in accordance with 

the terms of those compacts. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
163 

(b) AUTHORIZATION TO ALLOCATE.—The Secretary shall allocate 

funds to the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Delaware River 

Basin Commission, and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac 

River Basin to fulfill the equitable funding requirements of the respective interstate compacts. 

(c) WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION STORAGE, DELAWARE

RIVER BASIN.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall enter into an agreement with the Delaware River Basin Commission to provide 

temporary water supply and conservation storage at the Francis 

E. Walter Dam, Pennsylvania, for any period during which the 

Commission has determined that a drought warning or drought 

emergency exists. 

(2) LIMITATION.—The agreement shall provide that the cost 

for water supply and conservation storage under paragraph (1) 

shall not exceed the incremental operating costs associated with 

providing the storage. 

(d) WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION STORAGE, SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall enter into an agreement with the Susquehanna River Basin Commission to provide temporary water supply and conservation storage at Federal facilities operated by the Corps of Engineers in the Susquehanna River basin for any period for which the Commission 

has determined that a drought warning or drought emergency 

exists. 

(2) LIMITATION.—The agreement shall provide that the cost 

for water supply and conservation storage under paragraph (1) 

shall not exceed the incremental operating costs associated with 

providing the storage. 

(e) WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION STORAGE, POTOMAC

RIVER BASIN.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall enter into an agreement with the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River 

Basin to provide temporary water supply and conservation storage at Federal facilities operated by the Corps of Engineers in 

the Potomac River basin for any period for which the Commission has determined that a drought warning or drought emergency exists. 

(2) LIMITATION.—The agreement shall provide that the cost 

for water supply and conservation storage under paragraph (1) 

shall not exceed the incremental operating costs associated with 

providing the storage. 

SEC. 5020. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND 

PROTECTION PROGRAM. 

(a) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Section 510(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3759) is amended by 

striking ‘‘, and beneficial uses of dredged material’’ and inserting ‘‘, 

beneficial uses of dredged material, and restoration of submerged 

aquatic vegetation’’. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 510(i) of such 

Act (110 Stat. 3761) is amended by striking ‘‘$10,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$40,000,000’’. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
164 

SEC. 5021. CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RESTORATION, VIRGINIA AND 

MARYLAND. 

Section 704(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 

(33 U.S.C. 2263(b)) is amended—

(1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (4); 

(2) in paragraph (1)—

(A) in the second sentence by striking ‘‘$30,000,000’’

and inserting ‘‘$50,000,000’’; and 

(B) in the third sentence by striking ‘‘Such projects’’

and inserting the following: 

‘‘(2) INCLUSIONS.—Such projects’’; 

(3) by striking paragraph (2)(D) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)(B) of this subsection) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(D) the restoration and rehabilitation of habitat for 

fish, including native oysters, in the Chesapeake Bay and 

its tributaries in Virginia and Maryland, including—

‘‘(i) the construction of oyster bars and reefs; 

‘‘(ii) the rehabilitation of existing marginal habitat; 

‘‘(iii) the use of appropriate alternative substrate 

material in oyster bar and reef construction; 

‘‘(iv) the construction and upgrading of oyster 

hatcheries; and 

‘‘(v) activities relating to increasing the output of 

native oyster broodstock for seeding and monitoring of 

restored sites to ensure ecological success. 

‘‘(3) RESTORATION AND REHABILITATION ACTIVITIES.—The 

restoration and rehabilitation activities described in paragraph 

(2)(D) shall be—

‘‘(A) for the purpose of establishing permanent sanctuaries and harvest management areas; and 

‘‘(B) consistent with plans and strategies for guiding 

the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay oyster resource and 

fishery.’’; and 

(4) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(5) DEFINITION OF ECOLOGICAL SUCCESS.—In this subsection, the term ‘ecological success’ means—

‘‘(A) achieving a tenfold increase in native oyster biomass by the year 2010, from a 1994 baseline; and 

‘‘(B) the establishment of a sustainable fishery as determined by a broad scientific and economic consensus.’’. 

SEC. 5022. HYPOXIA ASSESSMENT. 

The Secretary may participate with Federal, State, and local 

agencies, non-Federal and nonprofit entities, regional researchers, 

and other interested parties to assess hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. 

SEC. 5023. POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT AND TRIBUTARY STRATEGY EVALUATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM. 

The Secretary may participate in the Potomac River watershed 

assessment and tributary strategy evaluation and monitoring program to identify a series of resource management indicators to accurately monitor the effectiveness of the implementation of the agreed 

upon tributary strategies and other public policies that pertain to 

natural resource protection of the Potomac River watershed. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
165 

SEC. 5024. LOCK AND DAM SECURITY. 

(a) STANDARDS.—The Secretary, in consultation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Coast Guard, shall develop standards for the security 

of locks and dams, including the testing and certification of vessel 

exclusion barriers. 

(b) SITE SURVEYS.—At the request of a lock or dam owner, the 

Secretary shall provide technical assistance, on a reimbursable 

basis, to improve lock or dam security. 

(c) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT.—The Secretary may enter into a 

cooperative agreement with a nonprofit alliance of public and private organizations that has the mission of promoting safe waterways and seaports to carry out testing and certification activities, 

and to perform site surveys, under this section. 

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated $3,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 5025. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR COLUMBIA 

AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON SURVIVAL. 

Section 511 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (16 

U.S.C. 3301 note; 110 Stat. 3761; 113 Stat. 375) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)(6) by striking ‘‘$10,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$25,000,000’’; and 

(2) in subsection (c)(2) by striking ‘‘$1,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$10,000,000’’. 

SEC. 5026. WAGE SURVEYS. 

Employees of the Corps of Engineers who are paid wages determined under the last undesignated paragraph under the heading 

‘‘Administrative Provisions’’ of chapter V of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1982 (5 U.S.C. 5343 note; 96 Stat. 832) shall be 

allowed, through appropriate employee organization representatives, 

to participate in wage surveys under such paragraph to the same 

extent as are prevailing rate employees under subsection (c)(2) of 

section 5343 of title 5, United States Code. Nothing in such section 

5343 shall be construed to affect which agencies are to be surveyed 

under such paragraph. 

SEC. 5027. REHABILITATION. 

The Secretary, at Federal expense and in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000, shall rehabilitate and improve the water-related 

infrastructure and the transportation infrastructure for the historic 

property in the Anacostia River watershed located in the District of 

Columbia, including measures to address wet weather conditions. 

To carry out this section, the Secretary shall accept funds provided 

for such project under any other Federal program. 

SEC. 5028. AUBURN, ALABAMA. 

The Secretary may provide technical assistance relating to 

water supply to Auburn, Alabama. There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 5029. PINHOOK CREEK, HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA. 

(a) PROJECT AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary shall design and 

construct the locally preferred plan for flood protection at Pinhook 

Creek, Huntsville, Alabama. In carrying out the project, the Secretary shall utilize, to the extent practicable, the existing detailed 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
166 

project report for the project prepared under the authority of section 

205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s). 

(b) PARTICIPATION BY NON-FEDERAL INTEREST.—The Secretary 

shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate in the financing 

of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) if the detailed 

project report evaluation indicates that applying such section is necessary to implement the project. 

(c) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work 

carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project. 

SEC. 5030. ALASKA. 

Section 570 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 

(113 Stat. 369) is amended—

(1) in subsection (c) by inserting ‘‘environmental restoration,’’ after ‘‘water supply and related facilities,’’; 

(2) in subsection (e)(3)(B) by striking the last sentence; 

(3) in subsection (h) by striking ‘‘$25,000,000’’ and inserting 

‘‘$45,000,000’’; and 

(4) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(i) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—In accordance with section 221(b) of 

the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), for any 

project carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local government. 

‘‘(j) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Not more than 10 percent of the amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be 

used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects 

under this section at Federal expense.’’. 

SEC. 5031. BARROW, ALASKA. 

The Secretary shall carry out, under section 117 of the Energy 

and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005 (118 Stat. 2944), 

a nonstructural project for coastal erosion and storm damage prevention and reduction at Barrow, Alaska, including relocation of infrastructure. 

SEC. 5032. LOWELL CREEK TUNNEL, SEWARD, ALASKA. 

(a) LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR.—

(1) MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR.—The Secretary shall assume responsibility for the long-term maintenance and repair of 

the Lowell Creek tunnel, Seward, Alaska. 

(2) DURATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES.—The responsibility of 

the Secretary for long-term maintenance and repair of the tunnel shall continue until an alternative method of flood diversion 

is constructed and operational under this section, or 15 years 

after the date of enactment of this Act, whichever is earlier. 

(b) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine 

whether an alternative method of flood diversion in Lowell Canyon 

is feasible. 

(c) CONSTRUCTION.—

(1) ALTERNATIVE METHODS.—If the Secretary determines 

under the study conducted under subsection (b) that an alterVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:35 Aug 04, 2007 Jkt 036965 PO 00000 Frm 00170 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR280.XXX HR280

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
167 

native method of flood diversion in Lowell Canyon is feasible, 

the Secretary shall carry out the alternative method. 

(2) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost of carrying out an alternative method under paragraph (1) shall be 

the same as the Federal share of the cost of the construction of 

the Lowell Creek tunnel. 

SEC. 5033. ST. HERMAN AND ST. PAUL HARBORS, KODIAK, ALASKA. 

The Secretary shall carry out, on an emergency basis, necessary 

removal of rubble, sediment, and rock impeding the entrance to the 

St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska, at a Federal 

cost of $2,000,000. 

SEC. 5034. TANANA RIVER, ALASKA. 

The Secretary shall carry out, on an emergency basis, the removal of the hazard to navigation on the Tanana River, Alaska, 

near the mouth of the Chena River, as described in the January 3, 

2005, memorandum from the Commander, Seventeenth Coast 

Guard District, to the Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, Anchorage, Alaska. 

SEC. 5035. WRANGELL HARBOR, ALASKA. 

(a) GENERAL NAVIGATION FEATURES.—In carrying out the 

project for navigation, Wrangell Harbor, Alaska, authorized by section 101(b)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 

Stat. 279), the Secretary shall consider the dredging of the mooring 

basin and construction of the inner harbor facilities to be general 

navigation features for purposes of estimating the non-Federal share 

of project costs. 

(b) REVISION OF PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT.—The Secretary 

shall revise the partnership agreement for the project to reflect the 

change required by subsection (a). 

SEC. 5036. AUGUSTA AND CLARENDON, ARKANSAS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry out rehabilitation of 

authorized and completed levees on the White River between Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas, at a total estimated cost of 

$8,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $5,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,800,000. 

(b) REIMBURSEMENT.—After performing the rehabilitation 

under subsection (a), the Secretary shall seek reimbursement from 

the Secretary of the Interior of an amount equal to the costs allocated to benefits to a Federal wildlife refuge of such rehabilitation. 

SEC. 5037. DES ARC LEVEE PROTECTION, ARKANSAS. 

The Secretary shall review the project for flood control, Des Arc, 

Arkansas, to determine whether bank and channel scour along the 

White River threaten the existing project and whether the scour is 

a result of a design deficiency. If the Secretary determines that such 

conditions exist as a result of a deficiency, the Secretary shall carry 

out measures to eliminate the deficiency. 

SEC. 5038. LOOMIS LANDING, ARKANSAS. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study of shore damage in the vicinity of Loomis Landing, Arkansas, to determine if the damage is 

the result of a Federal navigation project, and, if the Secretary determines that the damage is the result of a Federal navigation 

project, the Secretary shall carry out a project to mitigate the damVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:35 Aug 04, 2007 Jkt 036965 PO 00000 Frm 00171 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR280.XXX HR280

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
168 

age under section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 

U.S.C. 426i). 

SEC. 5039. CALIFORNIA. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary may establish 

a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal interests in California. 

(b) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance provided under this section may be in the form of design and construction assistance for 

water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection 

and development projects in California, including projects for wastewater treatment and related facilities, water supply and related facilities, environmental restoration, and surface water resource protection and development. 

(c) OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may provide assistance for a project under this section only if the project is publicly 

owned. 

(d) PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Before providing assistance under this 

section, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement 

with a non-Federal interest to provide for design and construction of the project to be carried out with the assistance. 

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each partnership agreement for a 

project entered into under this subsection shall provide for the 

following: 

(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or resource protection and development plan, including appropriate engineering plans and specifications. 

(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES.—Establishment of such legal and institutional structures as are 

necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the 

project by the non-Federal interest. 

(3) COST SHARING.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of the cost of a 

project under this section— (i) shall be 75 percent; and 

(ii) may be provided in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs. 

(B) CREDIT FOR WORK.—The Secretary shall credit, in 

accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 

1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share 

of the cost of the project the cost of design work carried out 

by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of 

the partnership agreement for the project. 

(C) CREDIT FOR INTEREST.—In case of a delay in the 

funding of the non-Federal share of the costs of a project 

that is the subject of an agreement under this section, the 

non-Federal interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest incurred in providing the non-Federal share. 

(D) CREDIT FOR LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OFWAY.—The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for 

land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward the 

non-Federal share of project costs (including all reasonable 

costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of the project on 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
169 

publicly owned or controlled land), but the credit may not 

exceed 25 percent of total project costs. 

(E) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal 

share of operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under this section shall 

be 100 percent. 

(e) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to waive, limit, or otherwise 

affect the applicability of any provision of Federal or State law that 

would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out with assistance 

provided under this section. 

(f) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—In accordance with section 221(b) of 

the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), for any 

project carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity. 

(g) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Not more than 10 percent 

of amounts made available to carry out this section may be used by 

the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects under 

this section at Federal expense. 

(h) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000. 

SEC. 5040. CALAVERAS RIVER AND LITTLEJOHN CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Unless the Secretary determines, by not later 

than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, that the relocation of the portion of the project described in subsection (b)(2) would 

be injurious to the public interest, a non-Federal interest may reconstruct and relocate that portion of the project approximately 300 feet 

in a westerly direction. 

(b) PROJECT DESCRIPTION.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The project referred to in subsection (a) 

is the project for flood control, Calaveras River and Littlejohn 

Creek and tributaries, California, authorized by section 10 of 

the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 902). 

(2) SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION.—The portion of the project to be 

reconstructed and relocated is that portion consisting of approximately 5.34 acres of dry land levee beginning at a point 

N. 2203542.3167, E. 6310930.1385, thence running west about 

59.99 feet to a point N. 2203544.6562, E. 6310870.1468, thence 

running south about 3,874.99 feet to a point N. 2199669.8760, 

E. 6310861.7956, thence running east about 60.00 feet to a 

point N. 2199668.8026, E. 6310921.7900, thence running north 

about 3,873.73 feet to the point of origin. 

(c) COST SHARING.—The non-Federal share of the cost of reconstructing and relocating the portion of the project described in subsection (b)(2) shall be 100 percent. 

SEC. 5041. CAMBRIA, CALIFORNIA. 

Section 219(f)(48) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1992 (114 Stat. 2763A–220) is amended— (1) by striking ‘‘$10,300,000’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—$10,300,000’’; 

(2) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(B) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance 

with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
170 

U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost 

of the project not to exceed $3,000,000 for the cost of planning and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project.’’; and 

(3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph 

(A) (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section). 

SEC. 5042. CONTRA COSTA CANAL, OAKLEY AND KNIGHTSEN, CALIFORNIA; MALLARD SLOUGH, PITTSBURG, CALIFORNIA. 

Sections 512 and 514 of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 2000 (114 Stat. 2650) are each amended by adding at the end 

the following: ‘‘All planning, study, design, and construction on the 

project shall be carried out by the office of the district engineer, San 

Francisco, California.’’. 

SEC. 5043. DANA POINT HARBOR, CALIFORNIA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study of the causes of water quality degradation within Dana Point Harbor, California, to determine 

if the degradation is the result of a Federal navigation project, and, 

if the Secretary determines that the degradation is the result of a 

Federal navigation project, the Secretary shall carry out a project to 

mitigate the degradation at Federal expense. 

SEC. 5044. EAST SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. 

Section 219(f)(22) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1992 (113 Stat. 336) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘$25,000,000’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—$25,000,000’’; 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(B) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance 

with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 

U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost 

of the project the cost of design and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before 

the date of the partnership agreement for the project. 

‘‘(C) IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS.—The non-Federal interest may provide any portion of the non-Federal share of the 

cost of the project in the form of in-kind services and materials.’’; and 

(3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph 

(A) (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section). 

SEC. 5045. EASTERN SANTA CLARA BASIN, CALIFORNIA. 

Section 111(c) of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2001 (as 

enacted into law by Public Law 106–554; 114 Stat. 2763A–224) is 

amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘$25,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$28,000,000’’; 

and 

(2) by striking ‘‘$7,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$10,000,000’’. 

SEC. 5046. LA–3 DREDGED MATERIAL OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE DESIGNATION, CALIFORNIA. 

The third sentence of section 102(c)(4) of the Marine Protection, 

Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1412(c)(4)) is 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
171 

amended by striking ‘‘January 1, 2003’’ and inserting ‘‘January 1, 

2011’’. 

SEC. 5047. LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA. 

Section 219(f)(50) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1992 (114 Stat. 2763A–220) is amended— (1) by inserting after ‘‘water’’ the following: ‘‘and wastewater’’; and 

(2) by striking ‘‘$14,500,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$24,500,000’’. 

SEC. 5048. LOS OSOS, CALIFORNIA. 

Section 219(c)(27) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1992 (114 Stat. 2763A–219) is amended to read as follows: ‘‘(27) LOS OSOS, CALIFORNIA.—Wastewater infrastructure, 

Los Osos, California.’’. 

SEC. 5049. PINE FLAT DAM FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) COOPERATIVE PROGRAM.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall participate with appropriate State and local agencies in the implementation of a 

cooperative program to improve and manage fisheries and 

aquatic habitat conditions in Pine Flat Reservoir and in the 14- 

mile reach of the Kings River immediately below Pine Flat 

Dam, California, in a manner that— (A) provides for long-term aquatic resource enhancement; and 

(B) avoids adverse effects on water storage and water 

rights holders. 

(2) GOALS AND PRINCIPLES.—The cooperative program described in paragraph (1) shall be carried out— (A) substantially in accordance with the goals and 

principles of the document entitled ‘‘Kings River Fisheries 

Management Program Framework Agreement’’ and dated 

May 29, 1999, between the California Department of Fish 

and Game and the Kings River Water Association and the 

Kings River Conservation District; and 

(B) in cooperation with the parties to that agreement. 

(b) PARTICIPATION BY SECRETARY.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In furtherance of the goals of the agreement described in subsection (a)(2), the Secretary shall participate in the planning, design, and construction of projects and 

pilot projects on the Kings River and its tributaries to enhance 

aquatic habitat and water availability for fisheries purposes 

(including maintenance of a trout fishery) in accordance with 

flood control operations, water rights, and beneficial uses in existence as of the date of enactment of this Act. 

(2) PROJECTS.—Projects referred to in paragraph (1) may 

include—

(A) projects to construct or improve pumping, conveyance, and storage facilities to enhance water transfers; and 

(B) projects to carry out water exchanges and create opportunities to use floodwater within and downstream of 

Pine Flat Reservoir. 

(c) NO AUTHORIZATION OF CERTAIN DAM-RELATED PROJECTS.—

Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize any project 

for the raising of Pine Flat Dam or the construction of a multilevel 

intake structure at Pine Flat Dam. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
172 

(d) USE OF EXISTING STUDIES.—In carrying out this section, the 

Secretary shall use, to the maximum extent practicable, studies in 

existence on the date of enactment of this Act, including data and 

environmental documentation in the document entitled ‘‘Final Feasibility Report and Report of the Chief of Engineers for Pine Flat 

Dam Fish and Wildlife Habitat Restoration’’ and dated July 19, 

2002. 

(e) CREDIT FOR LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY.—The 

Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of 

construction of any project under subsection (b) the value, regardless 

of the date of acquisition, of any land, easements, rights-of-way, 

dredged material disposal areas, or relocations provided by the nonFederal interest for use in carrying out the project. 

(f) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of projects carried out 

under this section shall be a non-Federal responsibility. 

(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000. Such sums 

shall remain available until expended. 

SEC. 5050. RAYMOND BASIN, SIX BASINS, CHINO BASIN, AND SAN GABRIEL BASIN, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.—The Secretary, in consultation and 

coordination with appropriate Federal, State, and local entities, 

shall develop a comprehensive plan for the management of water resources in the Raymond Basin, Six Basins, Chino Basin, and San 

Gabriel Basin, California. The Secretary may carry out activities 

identified in the comprehensive plan to demonstrate practicable alternatives for water resources management. 

(b) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal share of 

the cost of operation and maintenance of any measures constructed 

under this section shall be 100 percent. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000. 

SEC. 5051. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in cooperation with the Port of 

San Francisco, California, may carry out the project for repair and 

removal, as appropriate, of Piers 30–32, 35, 36, 70 (including 

Wharves 7 and 8), and 80 in San Francisco, California, substantially in accordance with the Port’s redevelopment plan. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated $25,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 5052. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, WATERFRONT AREA. 

(a) AREA TO BE DECLARED NONNAVIGABLE; PUBLIC INTEREST.—Unless the Secretary finds, after consultation with local and 

regional public officials (including local and regional public planning organizations), that the proposed projects to be undertaken 

within the boundaries of the portion of the San Francisco, California, waterfront area described in subsection (b) are not in the 

public interest, such portion is declared to be nonnavigable waters 

of the United States. 

(b) NORTHERN EMBARCADERO SOUTH OF BRYANT STREET.—The 

portion of the San Francisco, California, waterfront area referred to 

in subsection (a) is as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the 

northeasterly prolongation of that portion of the northwesterly line 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
173 

of Bryant Street lying between Beale Street and Main Street with 

the southwesterly line of Spear Street, which intersection lies on the 

line of jurisdiction of the San Francisco Port Commission; following 

thence southerly along said line of jurisdiction as described in the 

State of California Harbor and Navigation Code Section 1770, as 

amended in 1961, to its intersection with the southeasterly line of 

Townsend Street; thence northeasterly along said southeasterly line 

of Townsend Street, to its intersection with a line that is parallel 

and distant 10 feet southerly from the existing southern boundary 

of Pier 40 produced; thence easterly along said parallel line, to its 

point of intersection with the United States Government Pierhead 

line; thence northerly along said Pierhead line to its intersection 

with a line parallel with, and distant 10 feet easterly from, the existing easterly boundary line of Pier 30–32; thence northerly along 

said parallel line and its northerly prolongation, to a point of intersection with a line parallel with, and distant 10 feet northerly from, 

the existing northerly boundary of Pier 30–32; thence westerly along 

last said parallel line to its intersection with the United States Government Pierhead line; thence northerly along said Pierhead line, to 

its intersection aforementioned northwesterly line of Bryant Street 

produced northeasterly; thence southwesterly along said northwesterly line of Bryant Street produced to the point of beginning. 

(c) REQUIREMENT THAT AREA BE IMPROVED.—The declaration 

of nonnavigability under subsection (a) applies only to those parts 

of the area described in subsection (b) that are or will be bulkheaded, filled, or otherwise occupied by permanent structures and 

does not affect the applicability of any Federal statute or regulation 

applicable to such parts the day before the date of enactment of this 

Act, including sections 9 and 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 

U.S.C. 401 and 403; 30 Stat. 1151), commonly known as the Rivers 

and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, section 404 of the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 

(d) EXPIRATION DATE.—If, 20 years from the date of enactment 

of this Act, any area or part thereof described in subsection (b) is 

not bulkheaded or filled or occupied by permanent structures, including marina facilities, in accordance with the requirements set 

out in subsection (c), or if work in connection with any activity permitted in subsection (c) is not commenced within 5 years after 

issuance of such permits, then the declaration of nonnavigability for 

such area or part thereof shall expire. 

SEC. 5053. SAN PABLO BAY, CALIFORNIA, WATERSHED AND SUISUN 

MARSH ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION. 

(a) SAN PABLO BAY WATERSHED, CALIFORNIA.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall complete work, as expeditiously as possible, on the ongoing San Pablo Bay watershed, California, study to determine the feasibility of opportunities for restoring, preserving, and protecting the San Pablo Bay 

watershed. 

(2) REPORT.—Not later than March 31, 2008, the Secretary 

shall submit to Congress a report on the results of the study. 

(b) SUISUN MARSH, CALIFORNIA.—The Secretary shall conduct 

a comprehensive study to determine the feasibility of opportunities 

for restoring, preserving, and protecting the Suisun Marsh, California. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
174 

(c) SAN PABLO AND SUISUN BAY MARSH WATERSHED CRITICAL

RESTORATION PROJECTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may participate in critical 

restoration projects that will produce, consistent with Federal 

programs, projects, and activities, immediate and substantial 

ecosystem restoration, preservation, and protection benefits in 

the following sub-watersheds of the San Pablo and Suisun Bay 

Marsh watersheds: 

(A) The tidal areas of the Petaluma River, NapaSonoma Marsh. 

(B) The shoreline of West Contra Costa County. 

(C) Novato Creek. 

(D) Suisun Marsh. 

(E) Gallinas-Miller Creek. 

(2) TYPES OF ASSISTANCE.—Participation in critical restoration projects under this subsection may include assistance for 

planning, design, or construction. 

(d) CREDIT.—In accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), the Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of construction of a project 

under this section—

(1) the value of any lands, easements, rights-of-way, 

dredged material disposal areas, or relocations provided by the 

non-Federal interest for carrying out the project, regardless of 

the date of acquisition; 

(2) funds received from the CALFED Bay-Delta program; 

and 

(3) the cost of the studies, design, and construction work 

carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the 

partnership agreement for the project. 

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000. 

SEC. 5054. ST. HELENA, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may construct a project for 

flood control and environmental restoration, St. Helena, California, 

substantially in accordance with the plan for the St. Helena comprehensive flood protection project dated 2006 and described in the 

addendum dated June 27, 2006, to the report prepared by the city 

of St. Helena entitled ‘‘City of St. Helena Comprehensive Flood Protection Project, Final Environmental Impact Report’’, and dated 

January 2004, if the Secretary determines that the plans and designs for the project are feasible. 

(b) COST.—The total cost of the project to be constructed pursu- ant to subsection (a) shall be $30,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $19,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$10,500,000. 

(c) REIMBURSEMENT.—The non-Federal interest shall be reimbursed for any work performed by the non-Federal interest for the 

project described in subsection (a) that is in excess of the required 

non-Federal contribution toward the total cost of the project, if the 

Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project. 

SEC. 5055. UPPER CALAVERAS RIVER, STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) REEVALUATION.—The Secretary shall reevaluate the feasibility of the Lower Mosher Slough element and the levee extensions 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
175 

on the Upper Calaveras River element of the project for flood control, Stockton Metropolitan Area, California, carried out under section 211(f)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 

Stat. 3683), to determine the eligibility of such elements for reimbursement under section 211 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 701b–13). 

(b) SPECIAL RULES FOR REEVALUATION.—In conducting the reevaluation under subsection (a), the Secretary shall not reject a feasibility determination based on one or more of the policies of the 

Corps of Engineers concerning the frequency of flooding, the drainage area, and the amount of runoff. 

(c) REIMBURSEMENT.—If the Secretary determines that the elements referred to subsection (a) are feasible, the Secretary shall reimburse, subject to appropriations, the non-Federal interest under 

section 211 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 for the 

Federal share of the cost of such elements. 

SEC. 5056. RIO GRANDE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, 

COLORADO, NEW MEXICO, AND TEXAS. 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following definitions 

apply: 

(1) RIO GRANDE COMPACT.—The term ‘‘Rio Grande Compact’’ means the compact approved by Congress under the Act 

of May 31, 1939 (53 Stat. 785), and ratified by the States. 

(2) RIO GRANDE BASIN.—The term ‘‘Rio Grande Basin’’ means the Rio Grande (including all tributaries and their 

headwaters) located— (A) in the State of Colorado, from the Rio Grande Reservoir, near Creede, Colorado, to the New Mexico State border; 

(B) in the State of New Mexico, from the Colorado 

State border downstream to the Texas State border; and 

(C) in the State of Texas, from the New Mexico State 

border to the southern terminus of the Rio Grande at the 

Gulf of Mexico. 

(3) STATES.—The term ‘‘States’’ means the States of Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. 

(b) PROGRAM AUTHORITY.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry out, in the Rio 

Grande Basin—

(A) a program for the planning, construction, and evaluation of measures for fish and wildlife habitat rehabilitation and enhancement; and 

(B) implementation of a long-term monitoring, computerized data inventory and analysis, applied research, and 

adaptive management program. 

(2) REPORTS.—Not later than December 31, 2008, and not 

later than December 31 of every sixth year thereafter, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior and the 

States, shall submit to Congress a report that—

(A) contains an evaluation of the programs described 

in paragraph (1); 

(B) describes the accomplishments of each program; 

(C) provides updates of a systemic habitat needs assessment; and 

(D) identifies any needed adjustments in the authorization of the programs. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
176 

(c) STATE AND LOCAL CONSULTATION AND COOPERATIVE EFFORT.—For the purpose of ensuring the coordinated planning and 

implementation of the programs described in subsection (b), the Secretary shall—

(1) consult with the States, and other appropriate entities 

in the States, the rights and interests of which might be affected 

by specific program activities; and 

(2) enter into an interagency agreement with the Secretary 

of the Interior to provide for the direct participation of, and 

transfer of funds to, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

and any other agency or bureau of the Department of the Interior for the planning, design, implementation, and evaluation of 

those programs. 

(d) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The costs of operation and 

maintenance of a project located on Federal land, or land owned or 

operated by a State or local government, shall be borne by the Federal, State, or local agency that has jurisdiction over fish and wildlife activities on the land. 

(e) EFFECT ON OTHER LAW.—

(1) WATER LAW.—Nothing in this section shall be construed 

to preempt any State water law. 

(2) COMPACTS AND DECREES.—In carrying out this section, 

the Secretary shall comply with the Rio Grande Compact, and 

any applicable court decrees or Federal and State laws, affecting water or water rights in the Rio Grande Basin. 

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section 

$15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2011. 

SEC. 5057. CHARLES HERVEY TOWNSHEND BREAKWATER, NEW HAVEN 

HARBOR, CONNECTICUT. 

The western breakwater for the project for navigation, New 

Haven Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the first section of the Act 

of September 19, 1890 (26 Stat. 428), shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater’’. 

SEC. 5058. STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may participate in the ecosystem restoration, navigation, flood damage reduction, and recreation components of the Mill River and Long Island Sound revitalization project, Stamford, Connecticut. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 5059. DELMARVA CONSERVATION CORRIDOR, DELAWARE, MARYLAND, AND VIRGINIA. 

(a) ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary may provide technical assistance to the Secretary of Agriculture for use in carrying out the Conservation Corridor Demonstration Program established under subtitle G of title II of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 

2002 (16 U.S.C. 3801 note; 116 Stat. 275). 

(b) COORDINATION AND INTEGRATION.—In carrying out water 

resources projects in the States on the Delmarva Peninsula, the Secretary shall coordinate and integrate those projects, to the maximum extent practicable, with any activities carried out to implement a conservation corridor plan approved by the Secretary of AgVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:35 Aug 04, 2007 Jkt 036965 PO 00000 Frm 00180 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR280.XXX HR280

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
177 

riculture under section 2602 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (16 U.S.C. 3801 note; 116 Stat. 275). 

SEC. 5060. ANACOSTIA RIVER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND. 

(a) COMPREHENSIVE ACTION PLAN.—Not later than one year 

after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in coordination with the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Governor of 

Maryland, the county executives of Montgomery County and Prince 

George’s County, Maryland, and other interested entities, shall develop and make available to the public a 10-year comprehensive action plan to provide for the restoration and protection of the ecological integrity of the Anacostia River and its tributaries. 

(b) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY.—On completion of the comprehensive 

action plan under subsection (a), the Secretary shall make the plan 

available to the public, including on the Internet. 

SEC. 5061. EAST CENTRAL AND NORTHEAST FLORIDA. 

(a) EAST CENTRAL AND NORTHEAST FLORIDA REGION DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘East Central and Northeast Florida Region’’ means Flagler County, St. Johns County, Putman 

County (east of the St. Johns River), Seminole County, Volusia 

County, the towns of Winter Park, Maitland, and Palatka, Florida. 

(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary may establish 

a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal interests in the East Central and Northeast Florida Region. 

(c) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance provided under this section may be in the form of design and construction assistance for 

water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection 

and development projects in the East Central and Northeast Florida 

Region, including projects for wastewater treatment and related facilities, water supply and related facilities, environmental restoration, and surface water resource protection and development. 

(d) OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may provide assistance for a project under this section only if the project is publicly 

owned. 

(e) PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Before providing assistance under this 

section, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement 

with a non-Federal interest to provide for design and construction of the project to be carried out with the assistance. 

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each partnership agreement for a 

project entered into under this subsection shall provide for the 

following: 

(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or resource protection and development plan, including appropriate engineering plans and specifications. 

(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES.—Establishment of such legal and institutional structures as are 

necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the 

project by the non-Federal interest. 

(3) COST SHARING.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of the cost of a 

project under this section—

(i) shall be 75 percent; and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
178 

(ii) may be provided in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs. 

(B) CREDIT FOR WORK.—The Secretary shall credit, in 

accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 

1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share 

of the cost of the project the cost of design work carried out 

by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of 

the partnership agreement for the project. 

(C) CREDIT FOR INTEREST.—In case of a delay in the 

funding of the non-Federal share of the costs of a project 

that is the subject of an agreement under this section, the 

non-Federal interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest incurred in providing the non-Federal share. 

(D) CREDIT FOR LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OFWAY.—The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for 

land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward the 

non-Federal share of project costs (including all reasonable 

costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of the project on 

publicly owned or controlled land), but the credit may not 

exceed 25 percent of total project costs. 

(E) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal 

share of operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under this section shall 

be 100 percent. 

(f) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to waive, limit, or otherwise 

affect the applicability of any provision of Federal or State law that 

would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out with assistance 

provided under this section. 

(g) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—In accordance with section 221(b) of 

the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), for any 

project carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local government. 

(h) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Not more than 10 percent of the amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be 

used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects 

under this section at Federal expense. 

(i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000. 

SEC. 5062. FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS. 

Section 109 of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2001 (enacted into law by Public Law 106–554) (114 Stat. 2763A–222) is 

amended—

(1) by adding at the end of subsection (e)(2) the following: 

‘‘(C) CREDIT FOR WORK PRIOR TO EXECUTION OF THE

PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT.—The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project—

‘‘(i) in accordance with section 221 of the Flood 

Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), the cost of 

construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership 

agreement for the project; and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
179 

‘‘(ii) the cost of land acquisition carried out by the 

non-Federal interest for projects to be carried out under 

this section.’’; and 

(2) in subsection (f) by striking ‘‘$100,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$100,000,000, of which not more than $15,000,000 may be 

used to provide planning, design, and construction assistance to 

the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority for a water treatment 

plant, Florida City, Florida’’. 

SEC. 5063. LAKE WORTH, FLORIDA. 

The Secretary may carry out necessary repairs for the Lake 

Worth bulkhead replacement project, West Palm Beach, Florida, at 

an estimated total cost of $9,000,000. 

SEC. 5064. BIG CREEK, GEORGIA, WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AND RESTORATION PROGRAM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may cooperate with, by providing technical, planning, and construction assistance to, the city 

of Roswell, Georgia, as the non-Federal interest and coordinator 

with other local governments in the Big Creek watershed, Georgia, 

to assess the quality and quantity of water resources, conduct comprehensive watershed management planning, develop and implement water efficiency technologies and programs, and plan, design, 

and construct water resource facilities to restore the watershed. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to the Secretary $5,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 5065. METROPOLITAN NORTH GEORGIA WATER PLANNING DISTRICT. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary shall establish a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal 

interests in the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District. 

(b) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance provided under this section may be in the form of design and construction assistance for 

water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection 

and development projects in north Georgia, including projects for 

wastewater treatment and related facilities, elimination or control of 

combined sewer overflows, water supply and related facilities, environmental restoration, and surface water resource protection and 

development. 

(c) OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may provide assistance for a project under this section only if the project is publicly 

owned. 

(d) PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Before providing assistance under this 

section, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement 

with a non-Federal interest to provide for design and construction of the project to be carried out with the assistance. 

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each partnership agreement for a 

project entered into under this subsection shall provide for the 

following: 

(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or resource protection and development plan, including appropriate engineering plans and specifications. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
180 

(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES.—Establishment of such legal and institutional structures as are 

necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the 

project by the non-Federal interest. 

(3) COST SHARING.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of the cost of a 

project under this section—

(i) shall be 75 percent; and 

(ii) may be provided in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs. 

(B) CREDIT FOR WORK.—The Secretary shall credit, in 

accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 

1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share 

of the cost of a project under this section, in an amount not 

to exceed 6 percent of the total construction costs of the 

project, the cost of design work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project. 

(C) CREDIT FOR INTEREST.—In case of a delay in the 

funding of the non-Federal share of the costs of a project 

that is the subject of an agreement under this section, the 

non-Federal interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest incurred in providing the non-Federal share. 

(D) CREDIT FOR LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OFWAY.—The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for 

land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward the 

non-Federal share of project costs (including all reasonable 

costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of the project on 

publicly owned or controlled land), but the credit may not 

exceed 25 percent of total project costs. 

(E) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal 

share of operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under this section shall 

be 100 percent. 

(e) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to waive, limit, or otherwise 

affect the applicability of any provision of Federal or State law that 

would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out with assistance 

provided under this section. 

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000. 

SEC. 5066. SAVANNAH, GEORGIA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—After completion of a Savannah Riverfront 

plan, the Secretary may participate in the ecosystem restoration, 

recreation, navigation, and flood damage reduction components of 

the plan. 

(b) COORDINATION.—In carrying out this section, the Secretary 

shall coordinate with appropriate representatives in the vicinity of 

Savannah, Georgia, including the Georgia Ports Authority, the city 

of Savannah, and Camden County. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out this section. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
181 

SEC. 5067. IDAHO, MONTANA, RURAL NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, RURAL 

UTAH, AND WYOMING. 

Section 595 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 

(113 Stat. 383; 117 Stat. 139; 117 Stat. 142; 117 Stat. 1836; 118 

Stat. 440) is amended— (1) in the section heading by striking ‘‘AND RURAL 

UTAH’’ and inserting ‘‘RURAL UTAH, AND WYOMING’’; 

(2) in subsections (b) and (c) by striking ‘‘and rural Utah’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘rural Utah, and Wyoming’’; and 

(3) by striking subsection (h) and inserting the following: ‘‘(h) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section for the period beginning 

with fiscal year 2001 $150,000,000 for rural Nevada, $25,000,000 

for each of Montana and New Mexico, $55,000,000 for Idaho, 

$50,000,000 for rural Utah, and $30,000,000 for Wyoming. Such 

sums shall remain available until expended.’’. 

SEC. 5068. RILEY CREEK RECREATION AREA, IDAHO. 

The Secretary is authorized to carry out the Riley Creek Recreation Area Operation Plan of the Albeni Falls Management Plan, 

dated October 2001, for the Riley Creek Recreation Area, Albeni 

Falls Dam, Bonner County, Idaho. 

SEC. 5069. FLOODPLAIN MAPPING, LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, CHICAGO, 

ILLINOIS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall provide assistance for a 

project to develop maps identifying 100- and 500-year flood inundation areas along the Little Calumet River, Chicago, Illinois. 

(b) REQUIREMENTS.—Maps developed under the project shall include hydrologic and hydraulic information and shall accurately 

show the flood inundation of each property by flood risk in the 

floodplain. The maps shall be produced in a high resolution format 

and shall be made available to all flood prone areas along the Little 

Calumet River, Chicago, Illinois, in an electronic format. 

(c) PARTICIPATION OF FEMA.—The Secretary and the non-Federal interests for the project shall work with the Administrator of 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency to ensure the validity 

of the maps developed under the project for flood insurance purposes. 

(d) FORMS OF ASSISTANCE.—In carrying out the project, the 

Secretary may enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with 

the non-Federal interests or provide reimbursements of project costs. 

(e) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost of the 

project shall be 50 percent. 

(f) LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this 

section shall be construed to modify the prioritization of map updates or the substantive requirements of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency flood map modernization program authorized 

by section 1360 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 

U.S.C. 4101). 

(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $2,000,000. 

SEC. 5070. RECONSTRUCTION OF ILLINOIS AND MISSOURI FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may participate in the reconstruction of an eligible flood control project if the Secretary deterVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:35 Aug 04, 2007 Jkt 036965 PO 00000 Frm 00185 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR280.XXX HR280

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
182 

mines that such reconstruction is not required as a result of improper operation and maintenance of the project by the non-Federal 

interest. 

(b) COST SHARING.—The non-Federal share of the costs for the 

reconstruction of a flood control project authorized by this section 

shall be the same non-Federal share that was applicable to construction of the project. The non-Federal interest shall be responsible for operation and maintenance and repair of a project for 

which reconstruction is undertaken under this section. 

(c) RECONSTRUCTION DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘reconstruction’’, as used with respect to a project, means addressing 

major project deficiencies caused by long-term degradation of the 

foundation, construction materials, or engineering systems or components of the project, the results of which render the project at risk 

of not performing in compliance with its authorized project purposes. In addressing such deficiencies, the Secretary may incorporate current design standards and efficiency improvements, including the replacement of obsolete mechanical and electrical components at pumping stations, if such incorporation does not significantly change the scope, function, and purpose of the project as authorized. 

(d) ELIGIBLE PROJECTS.—The following flood control projects 

are eligible for reconstruction under this section: 

(1) Clear Creek Drainage and Levee District, Illinois. 

(2) Fort Chartres and Ivy Landing Drainage District, Illinois. 

(3) Prairie Du Pont Levee and Sanitary District, including 

Fish Lake Drainage and Levee District, Illinois. 

(4) Cairo, Illinois Mainline Levee, Cairo, Illinois. 

(5) Goose Pond Pump Station, Cairo, Illinois. 

(6) Cottonwood Slough Pump Station, Alexander County, 

Illinois. 

(7) 10th and 28th Street Pump Stations, Cairo, Illinois. 

(8) Flood control levee projects in Brookport, Shawneetown, 

Old Shawneetown, Golconda, Rosiclare, Harrisburg, and 

Reevesville, Illinois. 

(9) City of St. Louis, Missouri. 

(10) Missouri River Levee Drainage District, Missouri. 

(e) JUSTIFICATION.—The reconstruction of a project authorized 

by this section shall not be considered a separable element of the 

project. 

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated $50,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 5071. ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION. 

(a) EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION.—Section 519(c)(2) of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2654) is 

amended by striking ‘‘2004’’ and inserting ‘‘2010’’. 

(b) MAXIMUM FEDERAL SHARE.—Section 519(c)(3) of such Act 

(114 Stat. 2654) is amended by striking ‘‘$5,000,000’’ and inserting 

‘‘$20,000,000’’. 

(c) IN-KIND SERVICES.—Section 519(g)(3) of such Act (114 Stat. 

2655) is amended by inserting before the period at the end of the 

first sentence ‘‘if such services are provided not more than 5 years 

before the date of initiation of the project or activity’’. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
183 

(d) MONITORING.—Section 519 of such Act (114 Stat. 2654) is 

amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(h) MONITORING.—The Secretary shall develop an Illinois 

River basin monitoring program to support the plan developed 

under subsection (b). Data collected under the monitoring program 

shall incorporate data provided by the State of Illinois and shall be 

publicly accessible through electronic means, including on the Internet.’’. 

SEC. 5072. PROMONTORY POINT THIRD-PARTY REVIEW, CHICAGO 

SHORELINE, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS. 

(a) REVIEW.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a third-party 

review of the Promontory Point feature of the project for storm 

damage reduction and shoreline erosion protection, Lake Michigan, Illinois, from Wilmette, Illinois, to the Illinois-Indiana 

State line, authorized by section 101(a)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3664), at a cost not 

to exceed $450,000. 

(2) JOINT REVIEW.—The Buffalo and Seattle Districts of the 

Corps of Engineers shall jointly conduct the review under paragraph (1). 

(3) STANDARDS.—The review under paragraph (1) shall be 

based on the standards under part 68 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation). 

(b) CONTRIBUTIONS.—The Secretary may accept funds from a 

State or political subdivision of a State to conduct the review under 

paragraph (1). 

(c) TREATMENT.—The review under paragraph (1) shall not be 

considered to be an element of the project referred to in paragraph 

(1). 

(d) EFFECT OF SECTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the authorization for the project referred to in paragraph (1). 

SEC. 5073. KASKASKIA RIVER BASIN, ILLINOIS, RESTORATION. 

(a) KASKASKIA RIVER BASIN DEFINED.—In this section, the term 

‘‘Kaskaskia River Basin’’ means the Kaskaskia River, Illinois, its 

backwaters, its side channels, and all tributaries, including their 

watersheds, draining into the Kaskaskia River. 

(b) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.—

(1) DEVELOPMENT.—The Secretary shall develop, as expeditiously as practicable, a comprehensive plan for the purpose of 

restoring, preserving, and protecting the Kaskaskia River Basin. 

(2) TECHNOLOGIES AND INNOVATIVE APPROACHES.—The 

comprehensive plan shall provide for the development of new 

technologies and innovative approaches—

(A) to enhance the Kaskaskia River as a transportation 

corridor; 

(B) to improve water quality within the entire 

Kaskaskia River Basin; 

(C) to restore, enhance, and preserve habitat for plants 

and wildlife; 

(D) to ensure aquatic integrity of side channels and 

backwaters and their connectivity with the mainstem river; 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
184 

(E) to increase economic opportunity for agriculture 

and business communities; and 

(F) to reduce the impacts of flooding to communities 

and landowners. 

(3) SPECIFIC COMPONENTS.—The comprehensive plan shall 

include such features as are necessary to provide for— (A) the development and implementation of a program 

for sediment removal technology, sediment characterization, 

sediment transport, and beneficial uses of sediment; 

(B) the development and implementation of a program 

for the planning, conservation, evaluation, and construction 

of measures for fish and wildlife habitat conservation and 

rehabilitation, and stabilization and enhancement of land 

and water resources in the Kaskaskia River Basin; 

(C) the development and implementation of a long-term 

resource monitoring program for the Basin; 

(D) a conveyance study of the Kaskaskia River floodplain from Vandalia, Illinois, to Carlyle Lake to determine 

the impacts of existing and future waterfowl improvements 

on flood stages, including detailed surveys and mapping information to ensure proper hydraulic and hydrological 

analysis; 

(E) the development and implementation of a computerized inventory and analysis system for the Basin; 

(F) the development and implementation of a systemic 

plan for the Basin to reduce flood impacts by means of ecosystem restoration projects; and 

(G) the study and design of necessary measures to reduce ongoing headcutting and restore the aquatic environment of the Basin that has been degraded by the 

headcutting that has occurred above the existing grade control structure. 

(4) CONSULTATION.—The comprehensive plan shall be developed by the Secretary in consultation with appropriate Federal agencies, the State of Illinois, and the Kaskaskia River Watershed Association. 

(5) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 2 years after the 

date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 

of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works of the Senate a report containing the comprehensive plan. 

(6) ADDITIONAL STUDIES AND ANALYSES.—After submission 

of a report under paragraph (5), the Secretary shall conduct 

studies and analyses of projects related to the comprehensive 

plan that are appropriate and consistent with this subsection. 

(c) GENERAL PROVISIONS.—

(1) WATER QUALITY.—In carrying out activities under this 

section, the Secretary’s recommendations shall be consistent 

with applicable State water quality standards. 

(2) PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.—In developing the comprehensive plan under subsection (b), the Secretary shall implement 

procedures to facilitate public participation, including providing advance notice of meetings, providing adequate opportunity for public input and comment, maintaining appropriate 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
185 

records, and making a record of the proceedings of meetings 

available for public inspection. 

(d) CRITICAL PROJECTS AND INITIATIVES.—If the Secretary, in 

cooperation with appropriate Federal agencies and the State of Illinois, determines that a project or initiative for the Kaskaskia River 

Basin will produce independent, immediate, and substantial benefits, the Secretary may proceed with the implementation of the 

project. 

(e) COORDINATION.—The Secretary shall integrate activities carried out under this section with ongoing Federal and State programs, projects, and activities, including the following: 

(1) Farm programs of the Department of Agriculture. 

(2) Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (State of 

Illinois) and Conservation 2000 Ecosystem Program of the Illinois department of natural resources. 

(3) Conservation 2000 Conservation Practices Program and 

the Livestock Management Facilities Act administered by the Illinois department of agriculture. 

(4) National Buffer Initiative of the Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

(5) Nonpoint source grant program administered by the Illinois environmental protection agency. 

(6) Other programs that may be developed by the State of 

Illinois or the Federal Government, or that are carried out by 

nonprofit organizations, to carry out the objectives of the 

Kaskaskia River Basin Comprehensive Plan. 

(f) IN-KIND SERVICES.—The Secretary may credit the cost of inkind services provided by the non-Federal interest for an activity 

carried out under this section toward not more than 80 percent of 

the non-Federal share of the cost of the activity. In-kind services 

shall include all State funds expended on programs that accomplish 

the goals of this section, as determined by the Secretary. The programs may include the Kaskaskia River Conservation Reserve Program, the Illinois Conservation 2000 Program, the Open Lands 

Trust Fund, and other appropriate programs carried out in the 

Kaskaskia River Basin. 

(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated $20,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 5074. SOUTHWEST ILLINOIS. 

(a) SOUTHWEST ILLINOIS DEFINED.—In this section, the term 

‘‘Southwest Illinois’’ means the counties of Madison, St. Clair, Monroe, Randolph, Perry, Franklin, Jackson, Union, Alexander, Pulaski, and Williamson, Illinois. 

(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary may establish 

a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal interests in Southwest Illinois. 

(c) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance provided under this section may be in the form of design and construction assistance for 

water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection 

and development projects in Southwest Illinois, including projects 

for wastewater treatment and related facilities, water supply and related facilities, and surface water resource protection and development. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
186 

(d) OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may provide assistance for a project under this section only if the project is publicly 

owned. 

(e) PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Before providing assistance under this 

section, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement 

with a non-Federal interest to provide for design and construction of the project to be carried out with the assistance. 

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each partnership agreement for a 

project entered into under this subsection shall provide for the 

following: 

(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or resource protection and development plan, including appropriate engineering plans and specifications. 

(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES.—Establishment of such legal and institutional structures as are 

necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the 

project by the non-Federal interest. 

(3) COST SHARING.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of the cost of a 

project under this section— (i) shall be 75 percent; and 

(ii) may be provided in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs. 

(B) CREDIT FOR WORK.—The Secretary shall credit, in 

accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 

1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share 

of the cost of the project the cost of design work carried out 

by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of 

the partnership agreement for the project. 

(C) CREDIT FOR INTEREST.—In case of a delay in the 

funding of the non-Federal share of a project that is the 

subject of an agreement under this section, the non-Federal 

interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest incurred 

in providing the non-Federal share. 

(D) CREDIT FOR LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF- WAY.—The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for 

land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward the 

non-Federal share of project costs (including all reasonable 

costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of the project on 

publicly owned or controlled land), but the credit may not 

exceed 25 percent of total project costs. 

(E) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal 

share of operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under this section shall 

be 100 percent. 

(f) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to waive, limit, or otherwise 

affect the applicability of any provision of Federal or State law that 

would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out with assistance 

provided under this section. 

(g) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—In accordance with section 221(b) of 

the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), for any 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
187 

project carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local government. 

(h) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Not more than 10 percent of the amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be 

used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects 

under this section at Federal expense. 

(i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000. 

SEC. 5075. CALUMET REGION, INDIANA. 

Section 219(f)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1992 (113 Stat. 335; 117 Stat. 1843) is amended— (1) by striking ‘‘$30,000,000’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—$100,000,000’’; 

(2) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(B) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance 

with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 

U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost 

of the project the cost of planning and design work carried 

out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the 

date of the partnership agreement for the project.’’; and 

(3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph 

(A) (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section). 

SEC. 5076. FLOODPLAIN MAPPING, MISSOURI RIVER, IOWA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall provide assistance for a 

project to develop maps identifying 100- and 500-year flood inundation areas in the State of Iowa, along the Missouri River. 

(b) REQUIREMENTS.—Maps developed under the project shall include hydrologic and hydraulic information and shall accurately 

portray the flood hazard areas in the floodplain. The maps shall be 

produced in a high resolution format and shall be made available 

to the State of Iowa in an electronic format. 

(c) PARTICIPATION OF FEMA.—The Secretary and the non-Federal interests for the project shall work with the Administrator of 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency to ensure the validity 

of the maps developed under the project for flood insurance purposes. 

(d) FORMS OF ASSISTANCE.—In carrying out the project, the 

Secretary may enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with 

the non-Federal interests or provide reimbursements of project costs. 

(e) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost of the 

project shall be 50 percent. 

(f) LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this 

section shall be construed to modify the prioritization of map updates or the substantive requirements of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency flood map modernization program authorized 

by section 1360 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 

U.S.C. 4101). 

(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $3,000,000. 

SEC. 5077. PADUCAH, KENTUCKY. 

The Secretary shall complete a feasibility report for rehabilitation of the project for flood damage reduction, Paducah, Kentucky, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
188 

authorized by section 4 of the Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938 

(52 Stat. 1217), and, if the Secretary determines that the project is 

feasible, the Secretary may carry out the project at a total cost of 

$3,000,000. 

SEC. 5078. SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY. 

Section 531 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 

(110 Stat. 3773; 113 Stat. 348; 117 Stat. 142) is amended by adding 

at the end the following: 

‘‘(i) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Not more than 10 percent of the amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be 

used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects 

under this section at Federal expense.’’. 

SEC. 5079. WINCHESTER, KENTUCKY. 

Section 219(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 

(106 Stat. 4835; 114 Stat. 2763A–219) is amended by adding at the 

end the following: 

‘‘(41) WINCHESTER, KENTUCKY.—Wastewater infrastructure, 

Winchester, Kentucky.’’. 

SEC. 5080. BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA. 

Section 219(f)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1992 (113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A–220) is amended by striking 

‘‘$20,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$35,000,000’’. 

SEC. 5081. CALCASIEU SHIP CHANNEL, LOUISIANA. 

The Secretary shall expedite completion of a dredged material 

management plan for the Calcasieu Ship Channel, Louisiana, and 

may take interim measures to increase the capacity of existing disposal areas, or to construct new confined or beneficial use disposal 

areas, for the channel. 

SEC. 5082. EAST ATCHAFALAYA BASIN AND AMITE RIVER BASIN REGION, LOUISIANA. 

(a) EAST ATCHAFALAYA BASIN AND AMITE RIVER BASIN REGION

DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘East Atchafalaya Basin and 

Amite River Basin Region’’ means the following parishes and municipalities in the State of Louisiana: Ascension, East Baton Rouge, 

East Feliciana, Iberville, Livingston, Pointe Coupee, St. Helena, 

West Baton Rouge, and West Feliciana. 

(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary may establish 

a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal interests in the East Atchafalaya Basin and Amite River Basin Region. 

(c) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance provided under this section may be in the form of design and construction assistance for 

water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection 

and development projects in the East Atchafalaya Basin and Amite 

River Basin Region, including projects for wastewater treatment 

and related facilities, water supply and related facilities, environmental restoration, and surface water resource protection and development. 

(d) OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may provide assistance for a project under this section only if the project is publicly 

owned. 

(e) PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Before providing assistance under this 

section, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
189 

with a non-Federal interest to provide for design and construction of the project to be carried out with the assistance. 

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each partnership agreement of a 

project entered into under this subsection shall provide for the 

following: 

(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or resource protection and development plan, including appropriate engineering plans and specifications. 

(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES.—Establishment of such legal and institutional structures as are 

necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the 

project by the non-Federal interest. 

(3) COST SHARING.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of the cost of a 

project under this section—

(i) shall be 75 percent; and 

(ii) may be provided in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs. 

(B) CREDIT FOR WORK.—The Secretary shall credit, in 

accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 

1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share 

of the cost of the project the cost of design work carried out 

by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of 

the partnership agreement for the project. 

(C) CREDIT FOR INTEREST.—In case of a delay in the 

funding of the non-Federal share of a project that is the 

subject of an agreement under this section, the non-Federal 

interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest incurred 

in providing the non-Federal share. 

(D) CREDIT FOR LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OFWAY.—The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for 

land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward the 

non-Federal share of project costs (including all reasonable 

costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of the project on 

publicly owned or controlled land), but the credit may not 

exceed 25 percent of total project costs. 

(E) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal 

share of operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under this section shall 

be 100 percent. 

(f) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to waive, limit, or otherwise 

affect the applicability of any provision of Federal or State law that 

would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out with assistance 

provided under this section. 

(g) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—In accordance with section 221(b) of 

the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), for any 

project carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local government. 

(h) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Not more than 10 percent of the amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
190 

used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects 

under this section at Federal expense. 

(i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000. 

SEC. 5083. INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL LOCK PROJECT, LOUISIANA. 

Not later than July 1, 2008, the Secretary shall—

(1) issue a final environmental impact statement relating to 

the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock project, Louisiana; 

and 

(2) develop and maintain a transportation mitigation program relating to that project in coordination with—

(A) St. Bernard Parish; 

(B) Orleans Parish; 

(C) the Old Arabi Neighborhood Association; and 

(D) other interested parties. 

SEC. 5084. LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, LOUISIANA. 

For purposes of carrying out section 121 of the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1273), the Lake Pontchartrain, 

Louisiana, basin stakeholders conference convened by the Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and United States Geological Survey on February 25, 

2002, shall be treated as being a management conference convened 

under section 320 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1330). 

SEC. 5085. SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA REGION, LOUISIANA. 

(a) DEFINITION OF SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA REGION.—In this section, the term ‘‘Southeast Louisiana Region’’ means any of the following parishes and municipalities in the State of Louisiana: 

(1) Orleans. 

(2) Jefferson. 

(3) St. Tammany. 

(4) Tangipahoa. 

(5) St. Bernard. 

(6) St. Charles. 

(7) St. John. 

(8) Plaquemines. 

(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary may establish 

a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal interests in the Southeast Louisiana Region. 

(c) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance provided under this section may be in the form of design and construction assistance for 

water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection 

and development projects in the Southeast Louisiana Region, including projects for wastewater treatment and related facilities, 

water supply and related facilities, environmental restoration, and 

surface water resource protection and development (including 

projects to improve water quality in the Lake Pontchartrain basin). 

(d) OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may provide assistance for a project under this section only if the project is publicly 

owned. 

(e) PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Before providing assistance under this 

section, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
191 

with a non-Federal interest to provide for design and construction of the project to be carried out with the assistance. 

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each partnership agreement for a 

project entered into under this subsection shall provide for the 

following: 

(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or resource protection and development plan, including appropriate engineering plans and specifications. 

(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES.—Establishment of such legal and institutional structures as are 

necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the 

project by the non-Federal interest. 

(3) COST SHARING.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of the cost of a 

project under this section—

(i) shall be 75 percent; and 

(ii) may be provided in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs. 

(B) CREDIT FOR WORK.—The Secretary shall credit, in 

accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 

1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share 

of the cost of the project the cost of design work carried out 

by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of 

the partnership agreement for the project. 

(C) CREDIT FOR INTEREST.—In case of a delay in the 

funding of the non-Federal share of the costs of a project 

that is the subject of an agreement under this section, the 

non-Federal interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest incurred in providing the non-Federal share. 

(D) CREDIT FOR LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OFWAY.—The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for 

land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward the 

non-Federal share of project costs (including all reasonable 

costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of the project on 

publicly owned or controlled land), but the credit may not 

exceed 25 percent of total project costs. 

(E) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal 

share of operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under this section shall 

be 100 percent. 

(f) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to waive, limit, or otherwise 

affect the applicability of any provision of Federal or State law that 

would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out with assistance 

provided under this section. 

(g) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—In accordance with section 221(b) of 

the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), for any 

project carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local government. 

(h) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Not more than 10 percent of amounts made available to carry out this section may be 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
192 

used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects 

under this section at Federal expense. 

(i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out this section $17,000,000. 

SEC. 5086. WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LOUISIANA. 

(a) MODIFICATION OF STUDY.—The study for the project for waterfront and riverine preservation, restoration, and enhancement, 

Mississippi River, West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, being carried out under Committee Resolution 2570 of the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives 

adopted July 23, 1998, is modified to add West Feliciana Parish 

and East Baton Rouge Parish to the geographic scope of the study. 

(b) CONSTRUCTION.—The Secretary may, upon completion of the 

study, participate in the ecosystem restoration, navigation, flood 

damage reduction, and recreation components of the project. 

(c) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of design work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project. 

(d) EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION.—Section 517(5) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 345) is amended to 

read as follows: 

‘‘(5) Mississippi River, West Baton Rouge, West Feliciana, 

and East Baton Rouge Parishes, Louisiana, project for waterfront and riverine preservation, restoration, and enhancement 

modifications.’’. 

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000. 

SEC. 5087. CHARLESTOWN, MARYLAND. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry out a project for 

nonstructural flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration at 

Charlestown, Maryland. 

(b) LAND ACQUISITION.—The flood damage reduction component 

of the project may include the acquisition of private property from 

willing sellers. 

(c) JUSTIFICATION.—Any nonstructural flood damage reduction 

project to be carried out under this section that will result in the 

conversion of property to use for ecosystem restoration and wildlife 

habitat shall be justified based on national ecosystem restoration 

benefits. 

(d) USE OF ACQUIRED PROPERTY.—Property acquired under this 

section shall be maintained in public ownership for ecosystem restoration and wildlife habitat. 

(e) ABILITY TO PAY.—In determining the appropriate non-Federal cost share for the project, the Secretary shall determine the 

ability of Cecil County, Maryland, to participate as a cost-sharing 

non-Federal interest in accordance with section 103(m) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)). 

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated $2,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 5088. ST. MARY’S RIVER, MARYLAND. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry out the project for 

shoreline protection, St. Mary’s River, Maryland, under section 3 of 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
193 

the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing Federal participation in the 

cost of protecting the shores of publicly owned property’’, approved 

August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g). 

(b) USE OF FUNDS.—In carrying out the project under subsection (a), the Secretary shall use funds made available for such 

project under Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 

2006 (Public Law 109–103). 

SEC. 5089. MASSACHUSETTS DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES. 

The Secretary may cooperate with Massachusetts in the management and long-term monitoring of aquatic dredged material disposal sites within the State and is authorized to accept funds from 

the State to carry out such activities. 

SEC. 5090. ONTONAGON HARBOR, MICHIGAN. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study of shore damage in the vicinity of the project for navigation, Ontonagon Harbor, Ontonagon 

County, Michigan, authorized by section 101 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1176) and reauthorized by section 363 of 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3730), to 

determine if the damage is the result of a Federal navigation 

project, and, if the Secretary determines that the damage is the result of a Federal navigation project, the Secretary shall carry out a 

project to mitigate the damage under section 111 of the River and 

Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i). 

SEC. 5091. CROOKSTON, MINNESOTA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study for a project for emergency 

streambank protection along the Red Lake River in Crookston, Minnesota, and, if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, 

the Secretary may carry out the project under section 14 of the Flood 

Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r); except that the maximum 

amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the project shall 

be $6,500,000. 

SEC. 5092. GARRISON AND KATHIO TOWNSHIP, MINNESOTA. 

(a) PROJECT DESCRIPTION.—Section 219(f)(61) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A–221) is amended—

(1) in the paragraph heading by striking ‘‘AND KATHIO

TOWNSHIP’’ and inserting ‘‘, CROW WING COUNTY, MILLE LACS

COUNTY, MILLE LACS INDIAN RESERVATION, AND KATHIO TOWNSHIP’’; 

(2) by striking ‘‘$11,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$17,000,000’’; 

(3) by inserting ‘‘, Crow Wing County, Mille Lacs County, 

Mille Lacs Indian Reservation established by the treaty of February 22, 1855 (10 Stat. 1165),’’ after ‘‘Garrison’’; and 

(4) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘Such assistance 

shall be provided directly to the Garrison-Kathio-West Mille 

Lacs Lake Sanitary District, Minnesota, except for assistance 

provided directly to the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe at the discretion of the Secretary.’’. 

(b) PROCEDURES.—In carrying out the project authorized by 

such section 219(f)(61), the Secretary may use the cost sharing and 

contracting procedures available to the Secretary under section 569 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 368). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
194 

SEC. 5093. ITASCA COUNTY, MINNESOTA. 

The Secretary shall carry out a project for flood damage reduction, Trout Lake and Canisteo Pit, Itasca County, Minnesota, without regard to normal policy considerations. 

SEC. 5094. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA. 

(a) CONVEYANCE.—The Secretary shall convey to the city of 

Minneapolis by quitclaim deed and without consideration all right, 

title, and interest of the United States to the property known as the 

War Department (Fort Snelling Interceptor) Tunnel in Minneapolis, 

Minnesota. 

(b) APPLICABILITY OF PROPERTY SCREENING PROVISIONS.—Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply to the conveyance under this section. 

SEC. 5095. NORTHEASTERN MINNESOTA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 569 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 368) is amended— (1) in subsection (a) by striking ‘‘Benton, Sherburne,’’ and 

inserting ‘‘Beltrami, Hubbard, Wadena,’’; 

(2) by striking the last sentence of subsection (e)(3)(B); 

(3) by striking subsection (g) and inserting the following: ‘‘(g) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—In accordance with section 221(b) of 

the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), for any 

project carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local government.’’; 

(4) in subsection (h) by striking ‘‘$40,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$54,000,000’’; and 

(5) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(i) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Not more than 10 percent of the amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be 

used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects 

under this section at Federal expense.’’. (b) BIWABIK, MINNESOTA.—The Secretary shall reimburse the 

non-Federal interest for the project for environmental infrastructure, 

Biwabik, Minnesota, carried out under section 569 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 368), for planning, design, and construction costs that were incurred by the non-Federal 

interest with respect to the project before the date of the partnership 

agreement for the project and that were in excess of the non-Federal 

share of the cost of the project if the Secretary determines that the 

costs are appropriate. 

SEC. 5096. WILD RICE RIVER, MINNESOTA. 

The Secretary shall expedite the completion of the general reevaluation report, authorized by section 438 of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2640), for the project for flood 

protection, Wild Rice River, Minnesota, authorized by section 201 of 

the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1825), to develop alternatives to the Twin Valley Lake feature, and upon the completion 

of such report, shall construct the project at a total cost of 

$20,000,000. 

SEC. 5097. MISSISSIPPI. 

Section 592(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 

(113 Stat. 380; 117 Stat. 1837) is amended by striking 

‘‘$100,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$110,000,000’’. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
195 

SEC. 5098. HARRISON, HANCOCK, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. 

In carrying out projects for the protection, restoration, and creation of aquatic and ecologically related habitats located in Harrison, Hancock, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi, under section 

204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 

2326), the Secretary shall accept any portion of the non-Federal 

share of the cost of the projects in the form of in-kind services and 

materials. 

SEC. 5099. MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MISSOURI AND ILLINOIS. 

As a part of the operation and maintenance of the project for 

the Mississippi River (Regulating Works), between the Ohio and 

Missouri Rivers, Missouri and Illinois, authorized by the first section of an Act entitled ‘‘Making appropriations for the construction, 

repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes’’, approved June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 

630), the Secretary may carry out activities necessary to restore and 

protect fish and wildlife habitat in the middle Mississippi River system. Such activities may include modification of navigation training 

structures, modification and creation of side channels, modification 

and creation of islands, and studies and analysis necessary to apply 

adaptive management principles in design of future work. 

SEC. 5100. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. 

Section 219(f)(32) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1992 (113 Stat. 337) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘a project’’ and inserting ‘‘projects’’; 

(2) by striking ‘‘$15,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$35,000,000’’; 

and 

(3) by inserting ‘‘and St. Louis County’’ before ‘‘, Missouri’’. 

SEC. 5101. ST. LOUIS REGIONAL GREENWAYS, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may participate in the ecosystem restoration, recreation, and flood damage reduction components of the St. Louis Regional Greenways Proposal of the Metropolitan Park and Recreation District, St. Louis, Missouri, dated 

March 31, 2004. 

(b) COORDINATION.—In carrying out this section, the Secretary 

shall coordinate with appropriate representatives in the vicinity of 

St. Louis, Missouri, including the Metropolitan Park and Recreation District, the city of St. Louis, St. Louis County, and St. 

Charles County. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 5102. MISSOULA, MONTANA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may participate in the ecosystem restoration, flood damage reduction, and recreation components of the Clark Fork River Revitalization Project, Missoula, Montana. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 5103. ST. MARY PROJECT, GLACIER COUNTY, MONTANA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consultation with the Bureau of Reclamation, shall conduct all necessary studies, develop an 

emergency response plan, provide technical and planning and deVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:35 Aug 04, 2007 Jkt 036965 PO 00000 Frm 00199 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR280.XXX HR280

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
196 

sign assistance, and rehabilitate and construct the St. Mary Diversion and Conveyance Works project located within the exterior 

boundaries of the Blackfeet Reservation in the State of Montana, at 

a total cost of $153,000,000. 

(b) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the total cost of the 

project under this section shall be 75 percent. 

(c) PARTICIPATION BY BLACKFEET TRIBE AND FORT BELKNAP INDIAN COMMUNITY.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), no 

construction shall be carried out under this section until the 

earlier of—

(A) the date on which Congress approves the reserved 

water rights settlements of the Blackfeet Tribe and the Fort 

Belknap Indian Community; and 

(B) January 1, 2011. 

(2) EXCEPTION.—Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect 

to construction relating to—

(A) standard operation and maintenance; or 

(B) emergency repairs to ensure water transportation or 

the protection of life and property. 

(3) REQUIREMENT.—The Blackfeet Tribe shall be a participant in all phases of the project authorized by this section. 

SEC. 5104. LOWER PLATTE RIVER WATERSHED RESTORATION, NEBRASKA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may cooperate with and provide assistance to the Lower Platte River natural resources districts 

in the State of Nebraska to serve as non-Federal interests with respect to—

(1) conducting comprehensive watershed planning in the 

natural resource districts; 

(2) assessing water resources in the natural resource districts; and 

(3) providing project feasibility planning, design, and construction assistance for water resource and watershed management in the natural resource districts, including projects for environmental restoration and flood damage reduction. 

(b) FUNDING.—

(1) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost of carrying out an activity described in subsection (a)(1) shall be 75 

percent. 

(2) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal share of the 

cost of carrying out an activity described in subsection (a) may 

be provided in cash or in kind. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section 

$12,000,000. 

SEC. 5105. HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS AREA, NEW JERSEY. 

Section 324 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 

(106 Stat. 4849; 110 Stat. 3779) is amended— (1) in subsection (a)— (A) by striking ‘‘design’’ and inserting ‘‘planning, design,’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘Hackensack Meadowlands Development’’ and all that follows through ‘‘Plan for’’ and inserting 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
197 

‘‘New Jersey Meadowlands Commission for the development 

of an environmental improvement program for’’; 

(2) in subsection (b)— (A) in the subsection heading by striking ‘‘REQUIRED’’; 

(B) by striking ‘‘shall’’ and inserting ‘‘may’’; 

(C) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(1) Restoration and acquisitions of significant wetlands 

and aquatic habitat that contribute to the Meadowlands ecosystem.’’; 

(D) in paragraph (2) by inserting ‘‘and aquatic habitat’’ before the period at the end; and 

(E) by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(7) Research, development, and implementation for a 

water quality improvement program, including restoration of 

hydrology and tidal flows and remediation of hot spots and 

other sources of contaminants that degrade existing or planned 

sites.’’; 

(3) in subsection (c)— (A) by striking ‘‘non-Federal sponsor’’ and inserting ‘‘non-Federal interest’’; and 

(B) by inserting before the last sentence the following: ‘‘The non-Federal interest may also provide in-kind services 

not to exceed the non-Federal share of the total project 

cost.’’; 

(4) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); 

(5) by inserting after subsection (c) the following: ‘‘(d) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with 

section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), 

toward the non-Federal share of the cost of a project to be carried 

out under the program developed under subsection (a) the cost of design work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project.’’; and 

(6) in subsection (e) (as redesignated by paragraph (4) of 

this subsection) by striking ‘‘$5,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$20,000,000’’. 

SEC. 5106. ATLANTIC COAST OF NEW YORK. 

(a) DEVELOPMENT OF PROGRAM.—Section 404(a) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4863) is amended— (1) by striking ‘‘processes’’ and inserting ‘‘and related environmental processes’’; 

(2) by inserting after ‘‘Atlantic Coast’’ the following: ‘‘(and 

associated back bays)’’; 

(3) by inserting after ‘‘actions’’ the following: ‘‘, environmental restoration or conservation measures for coastal and 

back bays,’’; and 

(4) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘The plan for collecting data and monitoring information included in such annual report shall be coordinated with and agreed to by appropriate agencies of the State of New York.’’. 

(b) ANNUAL REPORTS.—Section 404(b) of such Act is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘INITIAL PLAN.—Not later than 12 months 

after the date of the enactment of this Act, the’’ and inserting 

‘‘ANNUAL REPORTS.—The’’; 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
198 

(2) by striking ‘‘initial plan for data collection and monitoring’’ and inserting ‘‘annual report of data collection and 

monitoring activities’’; and 

(3) by striking the last sentence. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 404(c) of such 

Act (113 Stat. 341) is amended by striking ‘‘and an additional total 

of $2,500,000 for fiscal years thereafter’’ and inserting ‘‘$2,500,000 

for fiscal years 2000 through 2004, and $7,500,000 for fiscal years 

beginning after September 30, 2004,’’. (d) TSUNAMI WARNING SYSTEM.—Section 404 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4863) is amended by 

adding at the end the following: ‘‘(d) TSUNAMI WARNING SYSTEM.—There is authorized to be ap- propriated $800,000 for the Secretary to carry out a project for a 

tsunami warning system, Atlantic Coast of New York.’’. 

SEC. 5107. COLLEGE POINT, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK. 

In carrying out section 312 of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4639), the Secretary shall give priority to 

work in College Point, New York City, New York. 

SEC. 5108. FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK. 

The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with section 221 of the 

Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the nonFederal share of the cost of the project for ecosystem restoration, 

Flushing Bay and Creek, New York City, New York, the cost of design and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest 

before the date of the partnership agreement for the project. 

SEC. 5109. HUDSON RIVER, NEW YORK. 

The Secretary may participate with the State of New York, New 

York City, and the Hudson River Park Trust in carrying out activities to restore critical marine habitat, improve safety, and protect 

and rehabilitate critical infrastructure with respect to the Hudson 

River. There is authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry 

out this section. 

SEC. 5110. MOUNT MORRIS DAM, NEW YORK. 

As part of the operation and maintenance of the Mount Morris 

Dam, New York, the Secretary may make improvements to the access road for the dam to provide safe access to a Federal visitor’s 

center. 

SEC. 5111. NORTH HEMPSTEAD AND GLEN COVE NORTH SHORE WATERSHED RESTORATION, NEW YORK. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may participate in the ecosystem restoration, navigation, flood damage reduction, and recreation components of the North Hempstead and Glen Cove North 

Shore watershed restoration, New York. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 5112. ROCHESTER, NEW YORK. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may participate in the ecosystem restoration, navigation, flood damage reduction, and recreation components of the Port of Rochester waterfront revitalization 

project, Rochester, New York. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out this section. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
199 

SEC. 5113. NORTH CAROLINA. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary shall establish a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal 

interests in the State of North Carolina. 

(b) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance provided under this section may be in the form of design and construction assistance for 

environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development projects in North Carolina, including projects for—

(1) wastewater treatment and related facilities; 

(2) combined sewer overflow, water supply, storage, treatment, and related facilities; 

(3) drinking water infrastructure including treatment and 

related facilities; 

(4) environmental restoration; 

(5) stormwater infrastructure; and 

(6) surface water resource protection and development. 

(c) OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may provide assistance for a project under this section only if the project is publicly 

owned. 

(d) PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Before providing assistance under this 

section, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement 

with a non-Federal interest to provide for design and construction of the project to be carried out with the assistance. 

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each partnership agreement for a 

project entered into under this subsection shall provide for the 

following: 

(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities development plan or resource protection plan, including appropriate plans and specifications. 

(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES.—Establishment of such legal and institutional structures as are 

necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the 

project by the non-Federal interest. 

(3) COST SHARING.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of the cost of a 

project under this section—

(i) shall be 75 percent; and 

(ii) may be provided in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs. 

(B) CREDIT FOR WORK.—The Secretary shall credit, in 

accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 

1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share 

of the cost of the project, in an amount not to exceed 6 percent of the total construction costs of the project, the cost of 

design work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the 

project before the date of the partnership agreement for the 

project. 

(C) CREDIT FOR INTEREST.—In case of a delay in the 

funding of the non-Federal share of the costs of a project 

that is the subject of an agreement under this section, the 

non-Federal interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest incurred in providing the non-Federal share. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
200 

(D) CREDIT FOR LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OFWAY.—The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for 

land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward the 

non-Federal share of project costs (including all reasonable 

costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of the project on 

publicly owned or controlled land). 

(E) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal 

share of operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under this section shall 

be 100 percent. 

(e) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to waive, limit, or otherwise 

affect the applicability of any provision of Federal or State law that 

would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out with assistance 

provided under this section. 

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out this section $13,000,000. 

SEC. 5114. STANLY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. 

Section 219(f)(64) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1992 (114 Stat. 2763A–221) is amended by inserting ‘‘water and’’

before ‘‘wastewater’’. 

SEC. 5115. JOHN H. KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, NORTH CAROLINA. 

The Secretary shall expedite the completion of the calculations 

necessary to negotiate and execute a revised, permanent contract for 

water supply storage at John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir, North 

Carolina, among the Secretary and the Kerr Lake Regional Water 

System and the city of Henderson, North Carolina. 

SEC. 5116. CINCINNATI, OHIO. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may undertake the ecosystem 

restoration and recreation components of the Central Riverfront 

Park Master Plan, dated December 1999, at a total cost of 

$30,000,000. 

(b) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of 

planning, design, and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project. 

SEC. 5117. OHIO RIVER BASIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT. 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following definitions 

apply: 

(1) OHIO RIVER BASIN.—The term ‘‘Ohio River Basin’’

means the Ohio River, its backwaters, its side channels, and all 

tributaries (including their watersheds) that drain into the 

Ohio River and encompassing areas of any of the States of Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Illinois, New 

York, and Virginia. 

(2) COMPACT.—The term ‘‘Compact’’ means the Ohio River 

Watershed Sanitation Commission flood and pollution control 

compact between the States of Indiana, West Virginia, Ohio, 

Kentucky, Pennsylvania, New York, Illinois, and Virginia, to 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
201 

which consent was given by Congress pursuant to the Act of 

July 11, 1940 (54 Stat. 752) and that was chartered in 1948. 

(b) ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary may provide planning, design, 

and construction assistance to the Compact for the improvement of 

the quality of the environment in and along the Ohio River Basin. 

(c) PRIORITIES.—In providing assistance under this section, the 

Secretary shall give priority to reducing or eliminating the presence 

of organic pollutants in the Ohio River Basin through the renovation and technological improvement of the organic detection system 

monitoring stations along the Ohio River in the States of Indiana, 

Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania. 

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $2,500,000. 

SEC. 5118. TOUSSAINT RIVER NAVIGATION PROJECT, CARROLL TOWNSHIP, OHIO. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The costs of operation and maintenance activities for the Toussaint River Federal navigation project, Carroll 

Township, Ohio, that are carried out in accordance with section 107 

of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) and relate directly to the presence of unexploded ordnance, shall be carried out 

at Federal expense. 

(b) CALCULATION OF TOTAL COSTS.—The Secretary shall not 

consider the additional costs of dredging due to the presence of 

unexploded ordnance when calculating the costs of the project referred to in subsection (a) for the purposes of section 107(b) of such 

Act (33 U.S.C. 577(b)). 

SEC. 5119. STATEWIDE COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLANNING, OKLAHOMA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall provide technical assistance for the development of updates of the Oklahoma comprehensive 

water plan. 

(b) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—Technical assistance provided 

under subsection (a) may include— (1) acquisition of hydrologic data, groundwater characterization, database development, and data distribution; 

(2) expansion of surface water and groundwater monitoring 

networks; 

(3) assessment of existing water resources, surface water 

storage, and groundwater storage potential; 

(4) numerical analysis and modeling necessary to provide 

an integrated understanding of water resources and water management options; 

(5) participation in State planning forums and planning 

groups; 

(6) coordination of Federal water management planning efforts; and 

(7) technical review of data, models, planning scenarios, 

and water plans developed by the State. 

(c) ALLOCATION.—The Secretary shall allocate, subject to the availability of appropriations, $6,500,000 to provide technical assistance and for the development of updates of the Oklahoma comprehensive water plan. 

(d) COST SHARING REQUIREMENT.—The non-Federal share of 

the total cost of any activity carried out under this section—

(1) shall be 25 percent; and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
202 

(2) may be in the form of cash or any in-kind services that 

the Secretary determines would contribute substantially toward 

the conduct and completion of the activity assisted. 

SEC. 5120. FERN RIDGE DAM, OREGON. 

The Secretary may treat all work carried out for emergency corrective actions to repair the embankment dam at the Fern Ridge 

Lake project, Oregon, as a dam safety project. The cost of work carried out may be recovered in accordance with section 1203 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 467n; 100 

Stat. 4263). 

SEC. 5121. ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. 

Section 219(f)(66) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1992 (114 Stat. 2763A–221) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘$20,000,000’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—$20,000,000’’; 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(B) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance 

with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 

U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost 

of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project.’’; and 

(3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph 

(A) (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section). 

SEC. 5122. CLINTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. 

Section 219(f)(13) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1992 (113 Stat. 335) is amended by striking ‘‘$1,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$2,000,000’’. 

SEC. 5123. KEHLY RUN DAMS, PENNSYLVANIA. 

Section 504(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1999 (113 Stat. 338; 117 Stat. 1842) is amended by striking ‘‘Dams’’

and inserting ‘‘Dams No. 1–5’’. 

SEC. 5124. LEHIGH RIVER, LEHIGH COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. 

The Secretary shall use existing water quality data to model the 

effects of the Francis E. Walter Dam, at different water levels, to determine its impact on water and related resources in and along the 

Lehigh River in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. There is authorized 

to be appropriated $500,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 5125. NORTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA. 

Section 219(f)(11) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1992 (113 Stat. 335) is amended by striking ‘‘and Monroe’’ and inserting ‘‘Northumberland, Union, Snyder, Luzerne, and Monroe’’. 

SEC. 5126. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND 

NEW YORK. 

(a) STUDY AND STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT.—Section 567(a) of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3787; 114 Stat. 

2662) is amended— (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by inserting ‘‘and 

carry out’’ after ‘‘develop’’; and 

(2) in paragraph (2) by striking ‘‘$10,000,000.’’ and inserting ‘‘$20,000,000, of which the Secretary may utilize not more 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
203 

than $5,000,000 to design and construct feasible pilot projects 

during the development of the strategy to demonstrate alternative approaches for the strategy. The total cost for any single 

pilot project may not exceed $500,000. The Secretary shall 

evaluate the results of the pilot projects and consider the results 

in the development of the strategy.’’. 

(b) PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.—Section 567(c) of such Act (114 

Stat. 2662) is amended—

(1) in the subsection heading by striking ‘‘COOPERATION’’

and inserting ‘‘PARTNERSHIP’’; and 

(2) in the first sentence—

(A) by inserting ‘‘and carrying out’’ after ‘‘developing’’; 

and 

(B) by striking ‘‘cooperation’’ and inserting ‘‘cost-sharing and partnership’’. 

(c) IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGY.—Section 567(d) of such Act 

(114 Stat. 2663) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘The Secretary’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary’’; 

(2) in the second sentence of paragraph (1) (as so designated)—

(A) by striking ‘‘implement’’ and inserting ‘‘carry out’’; 

and 

(B) by striking ‘‘implementing’’ and inserting ‘‘carrying 

out’’; 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(2) PRIORITY PROJECT.—In carrying out projects to implement the strategy, the Secretary shall give priority to the project 

for ecosystem restoration, Cooperstown, New York, described in 

the Upper Susquehanna River Basin—Cooperstown Area Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study, dated December 2004, 

prepared by the Corps of Engineers and the New York State department of environmental conservation.’’; and 

(4) by aligning the remainder of the text of paragraph (1) 

(as designated by paragraph (1) of this subsection) with paragraph (2) (as added by paragraph (3) of this subsection). 

(d) CREDIT.—Section 567 of such Act (110 Stat. 3787; 114 Stat. 

2662) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(e) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal 

share of the cost of a project under this section—

‘‘(1) in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act 

of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), the cost of design and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project 

before the date of the partnership agreement for the project; and 

‘‘(2) the cost of in-kind services and materials provided for 

the project by the non-Federal interest.’’. 

SEC. 5127. CANO MARTIN PENA, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO. 

The Secretary shall review a report prepared by the non-Federal 

interest concerning flood protection and environmental restoration 

for Cano Martin Pena, San Juan, Puerto Rico, and, if the Secretary 

determines that the report meets the evaluation and design standards of the Corps of Engineers and that the project is feasible, the 

Secretary may carry out the project at a total cost of $150,000,000. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
204 

SEC. 5128. LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE, SOUTH CAROLINA. 

Section 219(f)(25) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1992 (113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A–220; 117 Stat. 1838) is 

amended by striking ‘‘$35,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$60,000,000’’. 

SEC. 5129. CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX 

TRIBE, AND TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION, SOUTH DAKOTA. 

(a) DISBURSEMENT PROVISIONS OF STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

AND CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE AND LOWER BRULE SIOUX

TRIBE TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION TRUST

FUNDS.—Section 602(a)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1999 (113 Stat. 386) is amended— (1) in subparagraph (A)— (A) in clause (i) by inserting ‘‘and the Secretary of the 

Treasury’’ after ‘‘Secretary’’; and 

(B) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following: ‘‘(ii) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—On notification in 

accordance with clause (i), the Secretary of the Treasury shall make available to the State of South Dakota 

funds from the State of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund established under 

section 603 to be used to carry out the plan for terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration submitted by the State 

of South Dakota after the State certifies to the Secretary of the Treasury that the funds to be disbursed 

will be used in accordance with section 603(d)(3) and 

only after the Trust Fund is fully capitalized.’’; and 

(2) in subparagraph (B) by striking clause (ii) and inserting 

the following: ‘‘(ii) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—On notification in 

accordance with clause (i), the Secretary of the Treasury shall make available to the Cheyenne River Sioux 

Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe funds from the 

Cheyenne River Sioux Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund and the Lower Brule Sioux Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund, respectively, established under section 604, to be used to 

carry out the plans for terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration submitted by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 

and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, respectively, to after 

the respective tribe certifies to the Secretary of the 

Treasury that the funds to be disbursed will be used in 

accordance with section 604(d)(3) and only after the 

Trust Fund is fully capitalized.’’. 

(b) INVESTMENT PROVISIONS OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE RESTORATION TRUST FUND.—Section 603 of 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 388; 114 

Stat. 2664) is amended—

(1) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(c) INVESTMENTS.—

‘‘(1) ELIGIBLE OBLIGATIONS.—Notwithstanding any other 

provision of law, the Secretary of the Treasury shall invest the 

amounts deposited under subsection (b) and the interest earned 

on those amounts only in interest-bearing obligations of the 

United States issued directly to the Fund. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
205 

‘‘(2) INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall 

invest the amounts in the Fund in accordance with the requirements of this paragraph. ‘‘(B) SEPARATE INVESTMENTS OF PRINCIPAL AND INTER- EST.— ‘‘(i) PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT.—The amounts deposited 

in the Fund under subsection (b) shall be credited to 

an account within the Fund (referred to in this paragraph as the ‘principal account’) and invested as provided in subparagraph (C). ‘‘(ii) INTEREST ACCOUNT.—The interest earned from 

investing amounts in the principal account of the Fund 

shall be transferred to a separate account within the 

Fund (referred to in this paragraph as the ‘interest account’) and invested as provided in subparagraph (D). 

‘‘(iii) CREDITING.—The interest earned from investing amounts in the interest account of the Fund shall 

be credited to the interest account. 

‘‘(C) INVESTMENT OF PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT.—

‘‘(i) INITIAL INVESTMENT.—Each amount deposited 

in the principal account of the Fund shall be invested 

initially in eligible obligations having the shortest maturity then available until the date on which the 

amount is divided into 3 substantially equal portions 

and those portions are invested in eligible obligations 

that are identical (except for transferability) to the 

next-issued publicly issued Treasury obligations having 

a 2-year maturity, a 5-year maturity, and a 10-year 

maturity, respectively. ‘‘(ii) SUBSEQUENT INVESTMENT.—As each 2-year, 5- 

year, and 10-year eligible obligation matures, the principal of the maturing eligible obligation shall also be 

invested initially in the shortest-maturity eligible obligation then available until the principal is reinvested 

substantially equally in the eligible obligations that are 

identical (except for transferability) to the next-issued 

publicly issued Treasury obligations having 2-year, 5- 

year, and 10-year maturities. 

‘‘(iii) DISCONTINUANCE OF ISSUANCE OF OBLIGATIONS.—If the Department of the Treasury discontinues 

issuing to the public obligations having 2-year, 5-year, 

or 10-year maturities, the principal of any maturing eligible obligation shall be reinvested substantially 

equally in eligible obligations that are identical (except 

for transferability) to the next-issued publicly issued 

Treasury obligations of the maturities longer than 1 

year then available. 

‘‘(D) INVESTMENT OF INTEREST ACCOUNT.— ‘‘(i) BEFORE FULL CAPITALIZATION.—Until the date 

on which the Fund is fully capitalized, amounts in the 

interest account of the Fund shall be invested in eligible obligations that are identical (except for transferability) to publicly issued Treasury obligations that 

have maturities that coincide, to the maximum extent 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
206 

practicable, with the date on which the Fund is expected to be fully capitalized. ‘‘(ii) AFTER FULL CAPITALIZATION.—On and after 

the date on which the Fund is fully capitalized, 

amounts in the interest account of the Fund shall be 

invested and reinvested in eligible obligations having 

the shortest maturity then available until the amounts 

are withdrawn and transferred to fund the activities 

authorized under subsection (d)(3). 

‘‘(E) PAR PURCHASE PRICE.—The price to be paid for eligible obligations purchased as investments of the principal 

account shall not exceed the par value of the obligations so 

that the amount of the principal account shall be preserved 

in perpetuity. ‘‘(F) HIGHEST YIELD.—Among eligible obligations having the same maturity and purchase price, the obligation to 

be purchased shall be the obligation having the highest 

yield. 

‘‘(G) HOLDING TO MATURITY.—Eligible obligations purchased shall generally be held to their maturities. 

‘‘(3) ANNUAL REVIEW OF INVESTMENT ACTIVITIES.—Not less 

frequently than once each calendar year, the Secretary of the 

Treasury shall review with the State of South Dakota the results of the investment activities and financial status of the 

Fund during the preceding 12-month period. ‘‘(4) AUDITS.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The activities of the State of South 

Dakota (referred to in this subsection as the ‘State’) in carrying out the plan of the State for terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration under section 602(a) shall be audited as part 

of the annual audit that the State is required to prepare 

under the Office of Management and Budget Circular A– 133 (or a successor circulation). ‘‘(B) DETERMINATION BY AUDITORS.—An auditor that 

conducts an audit under subparagraph (A) shall—

‘‘(i) determine whether funds received by the State 

under this section during the period covered by the 

audit were used to carry out the plan of the State in 

accordance with this section; and 

‘‘(ii) include the determination under clause (i) in 

the written findings of the audit. 

‘‘(5) MODIFICATION OF INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—If the Secretary of the Treasury determines that meeting the requirements under paragraph 

(2) with respect to the investment of a Fund is not practicable, or would result in adverse consequences for the 

Fund, the Secretary shall modify the requirements, as the 

Secretary determines to be necessary. 

‘‘(B) CONSULTATION.—Before modifying a requirement 

under subparagraph (A), the Secretary of the Treasury 

shall consult with the State regarding the proposed modification.’’; 

(2) in subsection (d)(2) by inserting ‘‘of the Treasury’’ after ‘‘Secretary’’; and 

(3) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
207 

‘‘(f) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the Treasury to pay expenses associated with investing the Fund and auditing the uses of amounts 

withdrawn from the Fund— ‘‘(1) $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007; and 

‘‘(2) such sums as are necessary for each subsequent fiscal 

year.’’. (c) INVESTMENT PROVISIONS FOR CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE

AND LOWER BRULE SIOUX TRIBE TRUST FUNDS.—Section 604 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 389; 114 Stat. 

2665) is amended— (1) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following: ‘‘(c) INVESTMENTS.—

‘‘(1) ELIGIBLE OBLIGATIONS.—Notwithstanding any other 

provision of law, the Secretary of the Treasury shall invest the 

amounts deposited under subsection (b) and the interest earned 

on those amounts only in interest-bearing obligations of the 

United States issued directly to the Funds. 

‘‘(2) INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall 

invest the amounts in each of the Funds in accordance with 

the requirements of this paragraph. 

‘‘(B) SEPARATE INVESTMENTS OF PRINCIPAL AND INTER- EST.— ‘‘(i) PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT.—The amounts deposited 

in each Fund under subsection (b) shall be credited to 

an account within the Fund (referred to in this paragraph as the ‘principal account’) and invested as provided in subparagraph (C). ‘‘(ii) INTEREST ACCOUNT.—The interest earned from 

investing amounts in the principal account of each 

Fund shall be transferred to a separate account within 

the Fund (referred to in this paragraph as the ‘interest 

account’) and invested as provided in subparagraph 

(D). ‘‘(iii) CREDITING.—The interest earned from investing amounts in the interest account of each Fund shall 

be credited to the interest account. 

‘‘(C) INVESTMENT OF PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT.— ‘‘(i) INITIAL INVESTMENT.—Each amount deposited 

in the principal account of each Fund shall be invested 

initially in eligible obligations having the shortest maturity then available until the date on which the 

amount is divided into 3 substantially equal portions 

and those portions are invested in eligible obligations 

that are identical (except for transferability) to the 

next-issued publicly issued Treasury obligations having 

a 2-year maturity, a 5-year maturity, and a 10-year 

maturity, respectively. ‘‘(ii) SUBSEQUENT INVESTMENT.—As each 2-year, 5- 

year, and 10-year eligible obligation matures, the principal of the maturing eligible obligation shall also be 

invested initially in the shortest-maturity eligible obligation then available until the principal is reinvested 

substantially equally in the eligible obligations that are 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
208 

identical (except for transferability) to the next-issued 

publicly issued Treasury obligations having 2-year, 5- 

year, and 10-year maturities. 

‘‘(iii) DISCONTINUATION OF ISSUANCE OF OBLIGATIONS.—If the Department of the Treasury discontinues 

issuing to the public obligations having 2-year, 5-year, 

or 10-year maturities, the principal of any maturing eligible obligation shall be reinvested substantially 

equally in eligible obligations that are identical (except 

for transferability) to the next-issued publicly issued 

Treasury obligations of the maturities longer than 1 

year then available. 

‘‘(D) INVESTMENT OF INTEREST ACCOUNT.—

‘‘(i) BEFORE FULL CAPITALIZATION.—Until the date 

on which each Fund is fully capitalized, amounts in 

the interest account of the Fund shall be invested in eligible obligations that are identical (except for transferability) to publicly issued Treasury obligations that 

have maturities that coincide, to the maximum extent 

practicable, with the date on which the Fund is expected to be fully capitalized. 

‘‘(ii) AFTER FULL CAPITALIZATION.—On and after 

the date on which each Fund is fully capitalized, 

amounts in the interest account of the Fund shall be 

invested and reinvested in eligible obligations having 

the shortest maturity then available until the amounts 

are withdrawn and transferred to fund the activities 

authorized under subsection (d)(3). 

‘‘(E) PAR PURCHASE PRICE.—The price to be paid for eligible obligations purchased as investments of the principal 

account shall not exceed the par value of the obligations so 

that the amount of the principal account shall be preserved 

in perpetuity. 

‘‘(F) HIGHEST YIELD.—Among eligible obligations having the same maturity and purchase price, the obligation to 

be purchased shall be the obligation having the highest 

yield. 

‘‘(G) HOLDING TO MATURITY.—Eligible obligations purchased shall generally be held to their maturities. 

‘‘(3) ANNUAL REVIEW OF INVESTMENT ACTIVITIES.—Not less 

frequently than once each calendar year, the Secretary of the 

Treasury shall review with the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and 

the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe (referred to in this subsection as 

the ‘Tribes’) the results of the investment activities and financial status of the Funds during the preceding 12-month period. 

‘‘(4) AUDITS.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The activities of the Tribes in carrying out the plans of the Tribes for terrestrial wildlife 

habitat restoration under section 602(a) shall be audited as 

part of the annual audit that the Tribes are required to prepare under the Office of Management and Budget Circular 

A-133 (or a successor circulation). 

‘‘(B) DETERMINATION BY AUDITORS.—An auditor that 

conducts an audit under subparagraph (A) shall—


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
209 

‘‘(i) determine whether funds received by the Tribes 

under this section during the period covered by the 

audit were used to carry out the plan of the appropriate Tribe in accordance with this section; and 

‘‘(ii) include the determination under clause (i) in 

the written findings of the audit. 

‘‘(5) MODIFICATION OF INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—If the Secretary of the Treasury determines that meeting the requirements under paragraph 

(2) with respect to the investment of a Fund is not practicable, or would result in adverse consequences for the 

Fund, the Secretary shall modify the requirements, as the 

Secretary determines to be necessary. 

‘‘(B) CONSULTATION.—Before modifying a requirement 

under subparagraph (A), the Secretary of the Treasury 

shall consult with the Tribes regarding the proposed modification.’’; and 

(2) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(f) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the Treasury to pay expenses associated with investing the Funds and auditing the uses of amounts 

withdrawn from the Funds—

‘‘(1) $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007; and 

‘‘(2) such sums as are necessary for each subsequent fiscal 

year.’’. 

SEC. 5130. EAST TENNESSEE. 

(a) EAST TENNESSEE DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘East 

Tennessee’’ means the counties of Blount, Knox, Loudon, McMinn, 

Monroe, and Sevier, Tennessee. 

(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary may establish 

a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal interests in East Tennessee. 

(c) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance provided under this section may be in the form of design and construction assistance for 

water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection 

and development projects in East Tennessee, including projects for 

wastewater treatment and related facilities, water supply and related facilities, environmental restoration, and surface water resource protection and development. 

(d) OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may provide assistance for a project under this section only if the project is publicly 

owned. 

(e) PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Before providing assistance under this 

section, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement 

with a non-Federal interest to provide for design and construction of the project to be carried out with the assistance. 

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each partnership agreement for a 

project entered into under this subsection shall provide for the 

following: 

(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or resource protection and development plan, including appropriate engineering plans and specifications. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
210 

(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES.—Establishment of such legal and institutional structures as are 

necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the 

project by the non-Federal interest. 

(3) COST SHARING.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of the cost of a 

project under this section— (i) shall be 75 percent; and 

(ii) may be provided in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs. 

(B) CREDIT FOR WORK.—The Secretary shall credit, in 

accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 

1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share 

of the cost of the project the cost of design work carried out 

by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of 

the partnership agreement for the project. 

(C) CREDIT FOR INTEREST.—In case of a delay in the 

funding of the non-Federal share of a project that is the 

subject of an agreement under this section, the non-Federal 

interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest incurred 

in providing the non-Federal share of the project cost. 

(D) CREDIT FOR LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF- WAY.—The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for 

land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward the 

non-Federal share of project cost (including all reasonable 

costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of the project on 

publicly owned or controlled land), but the credit may not 

exceed 25 percent of total project costs. 

(E) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal 

share of operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under this section shall 

be 100 percent. 

(f) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to waive, limit, or otherwise 

affect the applicability of any provision of Federal or State law that 

would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out with assistance 

provided under this section. 

(g) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—In accordance with section 221(b) of 

the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), for any 

project carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local government. 

(h) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Not more than 10 percent of the amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be 

used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects 

under this section at Federal expense. 

(i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000. 

SEC. 5131. FRITZ LANDING, TENNESSEE. 

The Secretary shall— (1) conduct a study of the Fritz Landing Agricultural Spur 

Levee, Tennessee, to determine the extent of levee modifications 

that would be required to make the levee and associated drainage structures consistent with Federal standards; 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
211 

(2) design and construct such modifications; and 

(3) after completion of such modifications, incorporate the 

levee into the project for flood control, Mississippi River and 

Tributaries, authorized by the Act entitled ‘‘An Act for the control of floods on the Mississippi River and its tributaries, and 

for other purposes’’, approved May 15, 1928 (45 Stat. 534–539). 

SEC. 5132. J. PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TENNESSEE. 

The Secretary shall plan, design, and construct a trail system 

at the J. Percy Priest Dam and Reservoir, Tennessee, authorized by 

section 4 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing the construction of 

certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for 

other purposes’’, approved June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1217), and adjacent public property, including design and construction of support 

facilities. In carrying out such improvements, the Secretary is authorized to use funds made available by the State of Tennessee from 

any Federal or State source, or both. 

SEC. 5133. NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may participate in the ecosystem restoration, recreation, navigation, and flood damage reduction components of the Nashville Riverfront Concept Plan, dated 

February 2007. 

(b) COORDINATION.—In carrying out this section, the Secretary 

shall coordinate with appropriate representatives in the vicinity of 

Nashville, Tennessee, including the Nashville Parks and Recreation 

Department, the city of Nashville, and Davidson County. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 5134. NONCONNAH WEIR, MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE. 

The project for flood control, Nonconnah Creek, Tennessee and 

Mississippi, authorized by section 401 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124) and modified by section 334 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2611), 

is modified to authorize the Secretary—

(1) to reconstruct, at Federal expense, the weir originally 

constructed in the vicinity of the mouth of Nonconnah Creek; 

and 

(2) to make repairs and maintain the weir in the future so 

that the weir functions properly. 

SEC. 5135. TENNESSEE RIVER PARTNERSHIP. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—As part of the operation and maintenance of 

the project for navigation, Tennessee River, Tennessee, Alabama, 

Mississippi, and Kentucky, authorized by the first section of the 

River and Harbor Act of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 927), the Secretary 

may enter into a partnership with a nonprofit entity to remove debris from the Tennessee River in the vicinity of Knoxville, Tennessee, 

by providing a vessel to such entity, at Federal expense, for such debris removal purposes. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000. 

SEC. 5136. TOWN CREEK, LENOIR CITY, TENNESSEE. 

The Secretary shall design and construct the project for flood 

damage reduction designated as Alternative 4 in the Town Creek, 

Lenoir City, Loudon County, Tennessee, feasibility report of the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
212 

Nashville district engineer, dated November 2000, under the authority of section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), 

notwithstanding section 1 of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936 

(33 U.S.C. 701a; 49 Stat. 1570). The non-Federal share of the cost 

of the project shall be subject to section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)). 

SEC. 5137. UPPER MISSISSIPPI EMBAYMENT, TENNESSEE, ARKANSAS, 

AND MISSISSIPPI. 

The Secretary may participate with non-Federal and nonprofit 

entities to address issues concerning managing groundwater as a 

sustainable resource through the Upper Mississippi Embayment, 

Tennessee, Arkansas, and Mississippi, and to coordinate the protection of groundwater supply and groundwater quality of the 

Embayment with local surface water protection programs. There is 

authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 5138. TEXAS. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary shall establish a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal 

interests in the State of Texas. 

(b) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance provided under this section may be in the form of planning, design, and construction assistance for water-related environmental infrastructure and resource 

protection and development projects in Texas, including projects for 

water supply, storage, treatment, and related facilities, water quality protection, wastewater treatment, and related facilities, environmental restoration, and surface water resource protection, and development, as identified by the Texas Water Development Board. 

(c) OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may provide assistance for a project under this section only if the project is publicly 

owned. 

(d) PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.—Before providing assistance 

under this section, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership 

agreement with a non-Federal interest. 

(e) COST SHARING.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of the cost of the 

project under this section—

(A) shall be 75 percent; and 

(B) may be provided in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs. 

(2) IN-KIND SERVICES.—The non-Federal share may be provided in the form of materials and in-kind services, including 

planning, design, construction, and management services, as 

the Secretary determines to be compatible with, and necessary 

for, the project. 

(3) CREDIT FOR WORK.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 

U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of 

the project the cost of design work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership 

agreement for the project. 

(4) CREDIT FOR LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY.—

The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward the non-Federal 

share of project costs. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
213 

(5) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal share 

of operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with 

assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent. 

(f) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to waive, limit, or otherwise 

affect the applicability of any provision of Federal or State law that 

would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out with assistance 

provided under this section. 

(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000. 

SEC. 5139. BOSQUE RIVER WATERSHED, TEXAS. 

(a) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.—The Secretary, in consultation with 

appropriate Federal, State, and local entities, shall develop, as expeditiously as practicable, a comprehensive plan for development of 

new technologies and innovative approaches for restoring, preserving, and protecting the Bosque River watershed within Bosque, 

Hamilton, McLennan, and Erath Counties, Texas. The Secretary, in 

cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture, may carry out activities identified in the comprehensive plan to demonstrate practicable 

alternatives for stabilization and enhancement of land and water 

resources in the basin. 

(b) SERVICES OF NONPROFIT INSTITUTIONS AND OTHER ENTITIES.—In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary may utilize, 

through contracts or other means, the services of nonprofit institutions and such other entities as the Secretary considers appropriate. 

(c) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—

(1) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with 

section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–

5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the 

cost of planning, design, and construction work carried out by 

the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the 

partnership agreement for the project. 

(2) DEVELOPMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.—The non-Federal share of the cost of development of the plan under subsection (a) shall be 25 percent. 

(3) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal share 

of the cost of operation and maintenance for measures constructed with assistance provided under this section shall be 

100 percent. 

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000. 

SEC. 5140. DALLAS COUNTY REGION, TEXAS. 

(a) DALLAS COUNTY REGION DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘Dallas County region’’ means the city of Dallas, and the municipalities of DeSoto, Duncanville, Lancaster, Wilmer, Hutchins, Balch 

Springs, Cedar Hill, Glenn Heights, and Ferris, Texas. 

(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary may establish 

a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal interests in the Dallas County region. 

(c) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance provided under this section may be in the form of design and construction assistance for 

water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection 

and development projects in the Dallas County region, including 

projects for wastewater treatment and related facilities, water supVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:35 Aug 04, 2007 Jkt 036965 PO 00000 Frm 00217 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR280.XXX HR280

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
214 

ply and related facilities, environmental restoration, and surface 

water resource protection and development. 

(d) OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may provide assistance for a project under this section only if the project is publicly 

owned. 

(e) PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Before providing assistance under this 

section, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement 

with a non-Federal interest to provide for design and construction of the project to be carried out with the assistance. 

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each partnership agreement for a 

project entered into under this subsection shall provide for the 

following: 

(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or resource protection and development plan, including appropriate engineering plans and specifications. 

(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES.—Establishment of such legal and institutional structures as are 

necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the 

project by the non-Federal interest. 

(3) COST SHARING.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of the cost of a 

project under this section— (i) shall be 75 percent; and 

(ii) may be provided in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs. 

(B) CREDIT FOR WORK.—The Secretary shall credit, in 

accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 

1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share 

of the cost of the project the cost design work carried out 

by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of 

the partnership agreement for the project. 

(C) CREDIT FOR INTEREST.—In case of a delay in the 

funding of the non-Federal share of a project that is the 

subject of an agreement under this section, the non-Federal 

interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest incurred 

in providing the non-Federal share. 

(D) CREDIT FOR LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF- WAY.—The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for 

land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward the 

non-Federal share of project costs (including all reasonable 

costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of the project on 

publicly owned or controlled land), but the credit may not 

exceed 25 percent of total project costs. 

(E) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal 

share of operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under this section shall 

be 100 percent. 

(f) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to waive, limit, or otherwise 

affect the applicability of any provision of Federal or State law that 

would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out with assistance 

provided under this section. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
215 

(g) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—In accordance with section 221(b) of 

the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), for any 

project carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local government. 

(h) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Not more than 10 percent of the amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be 

used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects 

under this section at Federal expense. 

(i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000. 

SEC. 5141. DALLAS FLOODWAY, DALLAS, TEXAS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood control, Trinity River 

and tributaries, Texas, authorized by section 2 of the Act entitled, 

‘‘An Act authorizing the construction, repair, and preservation of 

certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes’’, 

approved March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 18), is modified to—

(1) direct the Secretary to review the Balanced Vision Plan 

for the Trinity River Corridor, Dallas, Texas, dated December 

2003 and amended in March 2004, prepared by the non-Federal 

interest for the project; 

(2) direct the Secretary to review the Interior Levee Drainage Study Phase-I report, Dallas, Texas, dated September 2006, 

prepared by the non-Federal interest; and 

(3) if the Secretary determines that the project is technically 

sound and environmentally acceptable, authorize the Secretary 

to construct the project at a total cost of $459,000,000, with an 

estimated Federal cost of $298,000,000 and an estimated nonFederal cost of $161,000,000. 

(b) CREDIT.—

(1) IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS.—The Secretary shall credit, in 

accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 

(42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost 

of the project the cost of planning, design, and construction 

work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project. 

(2) CASH CONTRIBUTIONS.—The Secretary shall accept 

funds provided by the non-Federal interest for use in carrying 

out planning, engineering, and design for the project. The Federal share of such planning, engineering, and design carried 

out with non-Federal contributions shall be credited against the 

non-Federal share of the cost of the project. 

SEC. 5142. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. 

Section 575(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 

(110 Stat. 3789; 113 Stat. 311) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (3) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

(2) in paragraph (4) by striking the period at the end and 

inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

(3) by adding the following: 

‘‘(5) the project for flood control, Upper White Oak Bayou, 

Texas, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4125).’’. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
216 

SEC. 5143. JOHNSON CREEK, ARLINGTON, TEXAS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood damage reduction, environmental restoration, and recreation, Johnson Creek, Arlington, 

Texas, authorized by section 101(b)(14) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat 280), is modified to authorize the 

Secretary to construct the project substantially in accordance with 

the report entitled ‘‘Johnson Creek: A Vision of Conservation’’, dated 

March 30, 2006, at a total cost of $80,000,000, with an estimated 

Federal cost of $52,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$28,000,000, if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible. 

(b) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The non-Federal share of the cost of the 

project may be provided in cash or in the form of in-kind services or materials. 

(2) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with 

section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–

5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the 

cost of planning, design, and construction work carried out by 

the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the 

partnership agreement for the project. 

(c) SPECIAL RULE.—In evaluating and implementing the project, 

the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate in 

the financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184). 

(d) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 134 of the Energy and 

Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (119 Stat. 2263) is repealed. 

SEC. 5144. ONION CREEK, TEXAS. 

(a) INCLUSION OF COSTS AND BENEFITS OF RELOCATION OF

FLOOD-PRONE RESIDENCES.—In carrying out the study for the 

project for flood damage reduction, recreation, and ecosystem restoration, Onion Creek, Texas, the Secretary shall include the costs 

and benefits associated with the relocation of flood-prone residences 

in the study area for the project in the period beginning 2 years before the date of initiation of the study and ending on the date of execution of the partnership agreement for construction of the project 

to the extent the Secretary determines such relocations are compatible with the project. 

(b) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project referred to in 

subsection (a) the cost of relocation of those flood-prone residences 

described in subsection (a) that are incurred by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project. 

SEC. 5145. CONNECTICUT RIVER DAMS, VERMONT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall evaluate, design, and 

carry out structural modifications at Federal cost to the Union Village Dam (Ompompanoosuc River), North Hartland Dam 

(Ottauquechee River), North Springfield Dam (Black River), Ball 

Mountain Dam (West River), and Townshend Dam (West River), 

Vermont, to regulate flow and temperature to mitigate downstream 

impacts on aquatic habitat and fisheries. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
217 

(b) INCLUSION.—During the evaluation and design portion of 

the modifications authorized by this section, the Secretary shall ensure that a sustainable flow analysis is conducted for each dam. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000. 

SEC. 5146. LAKE CHAMPLAIN CANAL, VERMONT AND NEW YORK. 

(a) DISPERSAL BARRIER PROJECT.—The Secretary shall determine, at Federal expense, the feasibility of a dispersal barrier 

project at the Lake Champlain Canal, Vermont and New York, to 

prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species. 

(b) CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND OPERATION.—If the Secretary determines that the project described in subsection (a) is feasible, the Secretary shall construct, maintain, and operate a dispersal barrier at the Lake Champlain Canal at Federal expense. 

SEC. 5147. DYKE MARSH, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA. 

The Secretary shall accept funds from the National Park Service to restore Dyke Marsh, Fairfax County, Virginia. 

SEC. 5148. EASTERN SHORE AND SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA. 

Section 219(f)(10) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘$20,000,000 for water supply and wastewater infrastructure’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—$20,000,000 for water supply, 

wastewater infrastructure, and environmental restoration’’; 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(B) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance 

with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 

U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost 

of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project.’’; and 

(3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph 

(A) (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section). 

SEC. 5149. JAMES RIVER, VIRGINIA. 

The Secretary shall accept funds from the National Park Service to provide technical and project management assistance for the 

James River, Virginia, with a particular emphasis on locations 

along the shoreline adversely impacted by Hurricane Isabel. 

SEC. 5150. BAKER BAY AND ILWACO HARBOR, WASHINGTON. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study of increased siltation in 

Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington, to determine if the siltation is the result of a Federal navigation project (including diverted flows from the Columbia River) and, if the Secretary determines that the siltation is the result of a Federal navigation project, 

the Secretary shall carry out a project to mitigate the siltation as 

part of maintenance of the Federal navigation project. 

SEC. 5151. HAMILTON ISLAND CAMPGROUND, WASHINGTON. 

The Secretary is authorized to plan, design, and construct a 

campground for Bonneville Lock and Dam at Hamilton Island (also 

known as ‘‘Strawberry Island’’) in Skamania County, Washington. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
218 

SEC. 5152. EROSION CONTROL, PUGET ISLAND, WAHKIAKUM COUNTY, 

WASHINGTON. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Lower Columbia River levees and bank 

protection works authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act 

of 1950 (64 Stat. 178) is modified with regard to the Wahkiakum 

County diking districts No. 1 and 3, but without regard to any cost 

ceiling authorized before the date of enactment of this Act, to direct 

the Secretary to provide a one-time placement of dredged material 

along portions of the Columbia River shoreline of Puget Island, 

Washington, between river miles 38 to 47, and the shoreline of Westport Beach, Clatsop County, Oregon, between river miles 43 to 45, 

to protect economic and environmental resources in the area from 

further erosion. 

(b) COORDINATION AND COST-SHARING REQUIREMENTS.—The 

Secretary shall carry out subsection (a)—

(1) in coordination with appropriate resource agencies; and 

(2) at Federal expense. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000. 

SEC. 5153. WILLAPA BAY, WASHINGTON. 

Section 545 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 

(114 Stat. 2675) is amended—

(1) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ‘‘may construct’’ and inserting ‘‘shall construct’’; and 

(2) by inserting ‘‘and ecosystem restoration’’ after ‘‘erosion 

protection’’ each place it appears. 

SEC. 5154. WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD CONTROL. 

(a) CHEAT AND TYGART RIVER BASINS, WEST VIRGINIA.—Section 

581(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 

3790; 113 Stat. 313) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘flood control measures’’ and inserting 

‘‘structural and nonstructural flood control, streambank protection, stormwater management, and channel clearing and modification measures’’; and 

(2) by inserting ‘‘with respect to measures that incorporate 

levees or floodwalls’’ before the semicolon. 

(b) PRIORITY COMMUNITIES.—Section 581(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3791) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (5); 

(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and 

inserting a semicolon; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(7) Etna, Pennsylvania, in the Pine Creek watershed; and 

‘‘(8) Millvale, Pennsylvania, in the Girty’s Run River 

basin.’’. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 581(c) of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3791) is 

amended by striking ‘‘$12,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$90,000,000’’. 

SEC. 5155. CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA. 

Section 571 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 

(113 Stat. 371) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)—

(A) by striking ‘‘Nicholas,’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘Gilmer,’’; 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
219 

(2) in subsection (h) by striking ‘‘$10,000,000’’ and inserting 

‘‘$20,000,000’’; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(i) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—In accordance with section 221(b) of 

the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), for any 

project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest may 

include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local government. 

‘‘(j) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Not more than 10 percent of the amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be 

used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects 

under this section at Federal expense.’’. 

SEC. 5156. SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA. 

(a) CORPS OF ENGINEERS.—Section 340 of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856; 113 Stat. 320) is amended 

by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(h) CORPS OF ENGINEERS.—Not more than 10 percent of the 

amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the 

Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects under this 

section at Federal expense.’’. 

(b) SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA DEFINED.—Section 340(f) of such 

Act is amended by inserting ‘‘Nicholas,’’ after ‘‘Greenbrier,’’. 

(c) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—Section 340 of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856) is further amended by 

adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(i) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—In accordance with section 221(b) of 

the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), for any 

project carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local government.’’. 

SEC. 5157. CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS BY NONFEDERAL INTERESTS. 

Section 211(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 

(33 U.S.C. 701b–13) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(12) PERRIS, CALIFORNIA.—The project for flood control, 

Perris, California. 

‘‘(13) THORNTON RESERVOIR, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS.—An 

element of the project for flood control, Chicagoland Underflow 

Plan, Illinois. 

‘‘(14) LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LOUISIANA.—The project 

for flood control, Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana. 

‘‘(15) BUFFALO BAYOU, TEXAS.—A project for flood control, 

Buffalo Bayou, Texas, to provide an alternative to the project 

authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Act of 

June 20, 1938 (52 Stat. 804) and modified by section 3a of the 

Flood Control Act of August 11, 1939 (53 Stat. 1414). 

‘‘(16) HALLS BAYOU, TEXAS.—A project for flood control, 

Halls Bayou, Texas, to provide an alternative to the project for 

flood control, Buffalo Bayou and tributaries, Texas, authorized 

by section 101(a)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1990 (104 Stat. 4610). ‘‘(17) MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED, WISCONSIN.—The 

project for the Menomonee River Watershed, Wisconsin, including—


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
220 

‘‘(A) the Underwood Creek diversion facility project 

(Milwaukee County Grounds); and ‘‘(B) the Greater Milwaukee Rivers watershed project.’’. 

SEC. 5158. ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR CRITICAL PROJECTS. 

Section 219 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 

(106 Stat. 4835; 110 Stat. 3757; 113 Stat. 334; 113 Stat. 1494; 114 

Stat. 2763A–219; 119 Stat. 2255) is amended— (1) in subsection (c)(5) by striking ‘‘a project for the elimination or control of combined sewer overflows’’ and inserting ‘‘projects for the design, installation, enhancement, or repair of 

sewer systems’’; 

(2) in subsection (e)(1) by striking ‘‘$20,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$32,500,000’’; and 

(3) in subsection (f)— (A) by striking the undesignated paragraph relating to 

Charleston, South Carolina, and inserting the following: 

‘‘(72) CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$10,000,000 for 

wastewater infrastructure, including wastewater collection systems, and stormwater system improvements, Charleston, South 

Carolina.’’; 

(B) by redesignating the paragraph (71) relating to 

Placer and El Dorado Counties, California, as paragraph 

(73); 

(C) by redesignating the paragraph (72) relating to 

Lassen, Plumas, Butte, Sierra, and Nevada Counties, California, as paragraph (74); 

(D) by striking the paragraph (71) relating to Indianapolis, Indiana, and inserting the following: 

‘‘(75) INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA.—$6,430,000 for environmental infrastructure for Indianapolis, Indiana.’’; 

(E) by redesignating the paragraph (73) relating to St. 

Croix Falls, Wisconsin, as paragraph (76); 

(F) by redesignating paragraph (72), relating to Alpine, 

California, as paragraph (77); and 

(G) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(78) ST. CLAIR COUNTY, ALABAMA.—$5,000,000 for water 

related infrastructure, St. Clair County, Alabama. ‘‘(79) CRAWFORD COUNTY, ARKANSAS.—$35,000,000 for 

water supply infrastructure, Crawford County, Arkansas. ‘‘(80) ALAMEDA AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTIES, CALI- FORNIA.—$25,000,000 for recycled water treatment facilities 

within the East Bay Municipal Utility District service area, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California. 

‘‘(81) ALISO CREEK, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—

$5,000,000 for water related infrastructure, Aliso Creek, Orange 

County, California. 

‘‘(82) AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$3,000,000 for wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure, Amador County, 

California. 

‘‘(83) ARCADIA, SIERRA MADRE, AND UPLAND, CALIFORNIA.—

$33,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, Arcadia, 

Sierra Madre, and Upland, California, including $13,000,000 

for stormwater infrastructure for Upland, California. 

‘‘(84) BIG BEAR AREA REGIONAL WASTEWATER AGENCY, CALIFORNIA.—$15,000,000 for water reclamation and distribution 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
221 

infrastructure, Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency, 

California. ‘‘(85) BRAWLEY COLONIA, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.— $1,400,000 for water infrastructure to improve water quality in 

the Brawley Colonia Water District, Imperial County, California. ‘‘(86) CALAVERAS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$3,000,000 for 

water supply and wastewater infrastructure improvement 

projects in Calaveras County, California, including wastewater 

reclamation, recycling, and conjunctive use projects. ‘‘(87) CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA.— $23,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure for the 

Contra Costa Water District, California. ‘‘(88) EAST BAY, SAN FRANCISCO, AND SANTA CLARA AREAS, 

CALIFORNIA.—$4,000,000 for a desalination project to serve the 

East Bay, San Francisco, and Santa Clara areas, California. 

‘‘(89) EAST PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA.—$4,000,000 for a new 

pump station and stormwater management and drainage system, East Palo Alto, California. 

‘‘(90) IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$10,000,000 for 

wastewater infrastructure, including a wastewater disinfection 

facility and polishing system, to improve water quality in the 

vicinity of Calexico, California, on the southern New River, Imperial County, California. 

‘‘(91) LA HABRA, CALIFORNIA.—$5,000,000 for wastewater 

and water related infrastructure, city of La Habra, California. ‘‘(92) LA MIRADA, CALIFORNIA.—$4,000,000 for the planning, design, and construction of a stormwater program in La 

Mirada, California. ‘‘(93) LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$3,000,000 for 

wastewater and water related infrastructure, Diamond Bar, La 

Habra Heights, and Rowland Heights, Los Angeles County, 

California. ‘‘(94) LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$20,000,000 for 

the planning, design, and construction of water related infrastructure for Santa Monica Bay and the coastal zone of Los Angeles County, California. 

‘‘(95) MALIBU, CALIFORNIA.—$3,000,000 for municipal 

wastewater and recycled water infrastructure, Malibu Creek 

Watershed Protection Project, Malibu, California. ‘‘(96) MONTEBELLO, CALIFORNIA.—$4,000,000 for water infrastructure improvements in south Montebello, California. 

‘‘(97) NEW RIVER, CALIFORNIA.—$10,000,000 for wastewater 

infrastructure to improve water quality in the New River, California. 

‘‘(98) ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$10,000,000 for 

wastewater and water related infrastructure, Anaheim, Brea, 

Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, and Yorba Linda, Orange County, California. ‘‘(99) PORT OF STOCKTON, STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA.— $3,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure projects for 

Rough and Ready Island and vicinity, Stockton, California. ‘‘(100) PERRIS, CALIFORNIA.—$3,000,000 for recycled water 

transmission infrastructure, Eastern Municipal Water District, 

Perris, California. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
222 

‘‘(101) SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$9,000,000 

for wastewater and water related infrastructure, Chino and 

Chino Hills, San Bernardino County, California. 

‘‘(102) SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$5,500,000 for 

an advanced recycling water treatment plant in Santa Clara 

County, California. 

‘‘(103) SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA.—$3,000,000 for improving water system reliability, Santa Monica, California. 

‘‘(104) SOUTHERN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—

$15,000,000 for environmental infrastructure for the groundwater basin optimization pipeline, Southern Los Angeles County, California. 

‘‘(105) STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA.—$33,000,000 for water 

treatment and distribution infrastructure, Stockton, California. 

‘‘(106) SWEETWATER RESERVOIR, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$375,000 to improve water quality and remove nonnative aquatic nuisance species from the Sweetwater Reservoir, 

San Diego County, California. 

‘‘(107) WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA.—$8,000,000 for water, 

wastewater, and water related infrastructure, Whittier, California. 

‘‘(108) ARKANSAS VALLEY CONDUIT, COLORADO.—

$10,000,000 for the Arkansas Valley Conduit, Colorado. 

‘‘(109) BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO.—$10,000,000 for 

water supply infrastructure, Boulder County, Colorado. 

‘‘(110) MONTEZUMA AND LA PLATA COUNTIES, COLORADO.—

$1,000,000 for water and wastewater related infrastructure for 

the Ute Mountain project, Montezuma and La Plata Counties, 

Colorado. 

‘‘(111) OTERO, BENT, CROWLEY, KIOWA, AND PROWERS COUNTIES, COLORADO.—$35,000,000 for water transmission infrastructure, Otero, Bent, Crowley, Kiowa, and Prowers Counties, 

Colorado. 

‘‘(112) PUEBLO AND OTERO COUNTIES, COLORADO.—

$34,000,000 for water transmission infrastructure, Pueblo and 

Otero Counties, Colorado. 

‘‘(113) ENFIELD, CONNECTICUT.—$1,000,000 for infiltration 

and inflow correction, Enfield, Connecticut. 

‘‘(114) LEDYARD AND MONTVILLE, CONNECTICUT.—

$7,113,000 for water infrastructure, Ledyard and Montville, 

Connecticut. 

‘‘(115) NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT.—$300,000 for 

stormwater system improvements, New Haven, Connecticut. 

‘‘(116) NORWALK, CONNECTICUT.—$3,000,000 for the Keeler 

Brook Storm Water Improvement Project, Norwalk, Connecticut. 

‘‘(117) PLAINVILLE, CONNECTICUT.—$6,280,000 for wastewater treatment, Plainville, Connecticut. 

‘‘(118) SOUTHINGTON, CONNECTICUT.—$9,420,000 for water 

supply infrastructure, Southington, Connecticut. 

‘‘(119) ANACOSTIA RIVER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND.—$20,000,000 for environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development to enhance water quality 

and living resources in the Anacostia River watershed, District 

of Columbia and Maryland. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
223 

‘‘(120) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.—$35,000,000 for implementation of a combined sewer overflow long-term control plan in 

the District of Columbia. ‘‘(121) CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA.—$3,000,000 for water 

supply infrastructure, Charlotte County, Florida. ‘‘(122) CHARLOTTE, LEE, AND COLLIER COUNTIES, FLORIDA.— $20,000,000 for water supply interconnectivity infrastructure, 

Charlotte, Lee, and Collier Counties, Florida. ‘‘(123) COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.—$5,000,000 for water infrastructure to improve water quality in the vicinity of the Gordon River, Collier County, Florida. ‘‘(124) HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA.—$6,250,000 for 

water infrastructure and supply enhancement, Hillsborough 

County, Florida. 

‘‘(125) JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA.—$25,000,000 for wastewater related infrastructure, including septic tank replacements, Jacksonville, Florida. 

‘‘(126) SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA.—$10,000,000 for water 

and wastewater infrastructure in Sarasota County, Florida. ‘‘(127) SOUTH SEMINOLE AND NORTH ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA.—$30,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure for the 

South Seminole and North Orange Wastewater Transmission 

Authority, Florida. ‘‘(128) MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.—$6,250,000 for 

water reuse supply and a water transmission pipeline, MiamiDade County, Florida. ‘‘(129) PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA.—$7,500,000 for 

water infrastructure, Palm Beach County, Florida. ‘‘(130) ALBANY, GEORGIA.—$4,000,000 for a storm drainage 

system, Albany, Georgia. 

‘‘(131) BANKS COUNTY, GEORGIA.—$5,000,000 for water infrastructure improvements, Banks County, Georgia. ‘‘(132) BERRIEN COUNTY, GEORGIA.—$5,000,000 for water 

infrastructure improvements, Berrien County, Georgia. ‘‘(133) CHATTOOGA COUNTY, GEORGIA.—$8,000,000 for 

wastewater and drinking water infrastructure improvement, 

Chattooga County, Georgia. ‘‘(134) CHATTOOGA, FLOYD, GORDON, WALKER, AND

WHITFIELD COUNTIES, GEORGIA.—$10,000,000 for water infrastructure improvements, Armuchee Valley, Chattooga, Floyd, 

Gordon, Walker, and Whitfield Counties, Georgia. ‘‘(135) DAHLONEGA, GEORGIA.—$5,000,000 for water infrastructure improvements, Dahlonega, Georgia. 

‘‘(136) EAST POINT, GEORGIA.—$5,000,000 for water infrastructure improvements, city of East Point, Georgia. 

‘‘(137) FAYETTEVILLE, GRANTVILLE, LAGRANGE, PINE MOUNTAIN (HARRIS COUNTY), DOUGLASVILLE, AND CARROLLTON, GEOR- GIA.—$24,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, 

Fayetteville, Grantville, LaGrange, Pine Mountain (Harris 

County), Douglasville, and Carrollton, Georgia. 

‘‘(138) MERIWETHER AND SPALDING COUNTIES, GEORGIA.— $7,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, Meriwether 

and Spalding Counties, Georgia. ‘‘(139) MOULTRIE, GEORGIA.—$5,000,000 for water supply 

infrastructure, Moultrie, Georgia. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
224 

‘‘(140) STEPHENS COUNTY/CITY OF TOCCOA, GEORGIA.—

$8,000,000 water infrastructure improvements, Stephens County/city of Toccoa, Georgia. 

‘‘(141) NORTH VERNON AND BUTLERVILLE, INDIANA.—

$1,700,000 for wastewater infrastructure, North Vernon and 

Butlerville, Indiana. 

‘‘(142) SALEM, WASHINGTON COUNTY, INDIANA.—$3,200,000 

for water supply infrastructure, Salem, Washington County, Indiana. 

‘‘(143) ATCHISON, KANSAS.—$20,000,000 to address combined sewer overflows, Atchison, Kansas. 

‘‘(144) CENTRAL KENTUCKY.—$10,000,000 for water related 

infrastructure and resource protection and development, Scott, 

Franklin, Woodford, Anderson, Fayette, Mercer, Jessamine, 

Boyle, Lincoln, Garrard, Madison, Estill, Powell, Clark, Montgomery, and Bourbon Counties, Kentucky. 

‘‘(145) LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA.—$1,200,000 for water and 

wastewater improvements, Lafayette, Louisiana. 

‘‘(146) LAFOURCHE PARISH, LOUISIANA.—$2,300,000 for 

measures to prevent the intrusion of saltwater into the freshwater system, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. 

‘‘(147) LAKE CHARLES, LOUISIANA.—$1,000,000 for water 

and wastewater improvements, Lake Charles, Louisiana. 

‘‘(148) NORTHWEST LOUISIANA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, 

LOUISIANA.—$2,000,000 for water and wastewater improvements, Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments, Louisiana. 

‘‘(149) OUACHITA PARISH, LOUISIANA.—$1,000,000 for water 

and wastewater improvements, Ouachita Parish, Louisiana. 

‘‘(150) PLAQUEMINE, LOUISIANA.—$7,000,000 for sanitary 

sewer and wastewater infrastructure, Plaquemine, Louisiana. 

‘‘(151) RAPIDES AREA PLANNING COMMISSION, LOUISIANA.—

$1,000,000 for water and wastewater improvements, Rapides, 

Louisiana. 

‘‘(152) SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA.—$20,000,000 for water 

supply infrastructure in Shreveport, Louisiana. 

‘‘(153) SOUTH CENTRAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, LOUISIANA.—$2,500,000 for water and wastewater improvements, South Central Planning and Development Commission, Louisiana. 

‘‘(154) UNION-LINCOLN REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, 

LOUISIANA.—$2,000,000 for the Union-Lincoln Regional Water 

Supply project, Louisiana. 

‘‘(155) CHESAPEAKE BAY IMPROVEMENTS, MARYLAND, VIRGINIA, AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.—$30,000,000 for environmental infrastructure projects to benefit the Chesapeake Bay, 

including the nutrient removal project at the Blue Plains 

Wastewater Treatment facility in the District of Columbia. 

‘‘(156) CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION, MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA.—$40,000,000 for water pollution control, Chesapeake 

Bay Region, Maryland and Virginia. 

‘‘(157) MICHIGAN COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS.—

$35,000,000 for correction of combined sewer overflows, Michigan. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
225 

‘‘(158) CENTRAL IRON RANGE SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT, 

MINNESOTA.—$12,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure for the 

Central Iron Range Sanitary Sewer District to serve the cities 

of Hibbing, Chisholm, Buhl, and Kinney, and Balkan and 

Great Scott Townships, Minnesota. 

‘‘(159) CENTRAL LAKE REGION SANITARY DISTRICT, MINNESOTA.—$2,000,000 for sanitary sewer and wastewater infrastructure for the Central Lake Region Sanitary District, Minnesota, to serve Le Grande and Moe Townships, Minnesota. 

‘‘(160) GOODVIEW, MINNESOTA.—$3,000,000 for water quality infrastructure, Goodview, Minnesota. 

‘‘(161) GRAND RAPIDS, MINNESOTA.—$5,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Grand Rapids, Minnesota. 

‘‘(162) WILLMAR, MINNESOTA.—$15,000,000 for wastewater 

infrastructure, Willmar, Minnesota. 

‘‘(163) BILOXI, MISSISSIPPI.—$5,000,000 for water and 

wastewater related infrastructure, city of Biloxi, Mississippi. 

‘‘(164) CORINTH, MISSISSIPPI.—$7,500,000 for a surface 

water program, city of Corinth, Mississippi. 

‘‘(165) GULFPORT, MISSISSIPPI.—$5,000,000 for water and 

wastewater related infrastructure, city of Gulfport, Mississippi. 

‘‘(166) HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.—$5,000,000 for 

water and wastewater related infrastructure, Harrison County, 

Mississippi. 

‘‘(167) JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI.—$25,000,000 for water and 

wastewater infrastructure, Jackson, Mississippi. 

‘‘(168) CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA.—$30,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Clark County, Nevada. 

‘‘(169) CLEAN WATER COALITION, NEVADA.—$50,000,000 for 

the Systems Conveyance and Operations Program, Clark County, Henderson, Las Vegas, and North Las Vegas, Nevada. 

‘‘(170) GLENDALE DAM DIVERSION STRUCTURE, NEVADA.—

$10,000,000 for water system improvements to the Glendale 

Dam Diversion Structure for the Truckee Meadows Water Authority, Nevada. 

‘‘(171) HENDERSON, NEVADA.—$13,000,000 for wastewater 

infrastructure, Henderson, Nevada. 

‘‘(172) INDIAN SPRINGS, NEVADA.—$12,000,000 for construction of wastewater system improvements for the Indian Springs 

community, Nevada. 

‘‘(173) RENO, NEVADA.—$13,000,000 for construction of a 

water conservation project for the Highland Canal, Mogul Bypass in Reno, Nevada. 

‘‘(174) WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA.—$14,000,000 for construction of water infrastructure improvements to the Huffaker 

Hills Reservoir Conservation Project, Washoe County, Nevada. 

‘‘(175) CRANFORD TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY.—$6,000,000 for 

storm sewer improvements, Cranford Township, New Jersey. 

‘‘(176) MIDDLETOWN TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY.—$1,100,000 

for storm sewer improvements, Middletown Township, New Jersey. 

‘‘(177) PATERSON, NEW JERSEY.—$35,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Paterson, New Jersey. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
226 

‘‘(178) RAHWAY VALLEY, NEW JERSEY.—$25,000,000 for sanitary sewer and storm sewer improvements in the service area 

of the Rahway Valley Sewerage Authority, New Jersey. 

‘‘(179) BABYLON, NEW YORK.—$5,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Town of Babylon, New York. 

‘‘(180) ELLICOTTVILLE, NEW YORK.—$2,000,000 for water 

supply, water, and wastewater infrastructure in Ellicottville, 

New York. 

‘‘(181) ELMIRA, NEW YORK.—$5,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Elmira, New York. 

‘‘(182) ESSEX HAMLET, NEW YORK.—$5,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Essex Hamlet, New York. 

‘‘(183) FLEMING, NEW YORK.—$5,000,000 for drinking water 

infrastructure, Fleming, New York. 

‘‘(184) KIRYAS JOEL, NEW YORK.—$5,000,000 for drinking 

water infrastructure, village of Kiryas Joel, New York. 

‘‘(185) NIAGARA FALLS, NEW YORK.—$5,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Niagara Falls Water Board, New York. 

‘‘(186) PATCHOGUE, NEW YORK.—$5,000,000 for wastewater 

infrastructure, village of Patchogue, New York. 

‘‘(187) SENNETT, NEW YORK.—$1,500,000 for water infrastructure, town of Sennett, New York. 

‘‘(188) SPRINGPORT AND FLEMING, NEW YORK.—$10,000,000 

for water related infrastructure, including water mains, pump 

stations, and water storage tanks, Springport and Fleming, 

New York. 

‘‘(189) WELLSVILLE, NEW YORK.—$2,000,000 for water supply, water, and wastewater infrastructure in Wellsville, New 

York. 

‘‘(190) YATES COUNTY, NEW YORK.—$5,000,000 for drinking 

water infrastructure, Yates County, New York. 

‘‘(191) CABARRUS COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.—$4,500,000 

for water related infrastructure, Cabarrus County, North Carolina. 

‘‘(192) CARY, WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.—$4,000,000 

for a water reclamation facility, Cary, Wake County, North 

Carolina. 

‘‘(193) CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA.—$14,000,000 for the 

Briar Creek Relief Sewer project, city of Charlotte, North Carolina. 

‘‘(194) FAYETTEVILLE, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.—$6,000,000 for water and sewer upgrades, city of Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina. 

‘‘(195) MOORESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA.—$4,000,000 for 

water and wastewater infrastructure improvements, town of 

Mooresville, North Carolina. 

‘‘(196) NEUSE REGIONAL WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY, 

NORTH CAROLINA.—$4,000,000 for the Neuse regional drinking 

water facility, Kinston, North Carolina. 

‘‘(197) RICHMOND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.—$13,500,000 

for water related infrastructure, Richmond County, North Carolina. 

‘‘(198) UNION COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.—$6,000,000 for 

water related infrastructure, Union County, North Carolina. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
227 

‘‘(199) WASHINGTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.—

$1,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, Washington County, North Carolina. 

‘‘(200) WINSTON-SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA.—$3,000,000 for 

stormwater upgrades, city of Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 

‘‘(201) NORTH DAKOTA.—$15,000,000 for water-related infrastructure, North Dakota. 

‘‘(202) DEVILS LAKE, NORTH DAKOTA.—$15,000,000 for 

water supply infrastructure, Devils Lake, North Dakota. 

‘‘(203) SAIPAN, NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS.—$20,000,000 

for water related infrastructure, Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands. 

‘‘(204) AKRON, OHIO.—$5,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Akron, Ohio 

‘‘(205) BURR OAK REGIONAL WATER DISTRICT, OHIO.—

$4,000,000 for construction of a water line to extend from a well 

field near Chauncey, Ohio, to a water treatment plant near 

Millfield, Ohio. 

‘‘(206) CINCINNATI, OHIO.—$1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

‘‘(207) CLEVELAND, OHIO.—$2,500,000 for Flats East Bank 

water and wastewater infrastructure, city of Cleveland, Ohio. 

‘‘(208) COLUMBUS, OHIO.—$4,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Columbus, Ohio. 

‘‘(209) DAYTON, OHIO.—$1,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, Dayton, Ohio. 

‘‘(210) DEFIANCE COUNTY, OHIO.—$1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Defiance County, Ohio. 

‘‘(211) FOSTORIA, OHIO.—$2,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Fostoria, Ohio. 

‘‘(212) FREMONT, OHIO.—$2,000,000 for construction of offstream water supply reservoir, Fremont, Ohio. 

‘‘(213) LAKE COUNTY, OHIO.—$1,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Lake County, Ohio. 

‘‘(214) LAWRENCE COUNTY, OHIO.—$5,000,000 for Union 

Rome wastewater infrastructure, Lawrence County, Ohio. 

‘‘(215) MEIGS COUNTY, OHIO.—$1,000,000 to extend the 

Tupper Plains Regional Water District water line to Meigs 

County, Ohio. 

‘‘(216) MENTOR-ON-LAKE, OHIO.—$625,000 for water and 

wastewater infrastructure, Mentor-on-Lake, Ohio. 

‘‘(217) VINTON COUNTY, OHIO.—$1,000,000 to construct 

water lines in Vinton and Brown Townships, Ohio. 

‘‘(218) WILLOWICK, OHIO.—$665,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, Willowick, Ohio. 

‘‘(219) ADA, OKLAHOMA.—$1,700,000 for sewer improvements and other water infrastructure, city of Ada, Oklahoma. 

‘‘(220) ALVA, OKLAHOMA.—$250,000 for wastewater infrastructure improvements, city of Alva, Oklahoma. 

‘‘(221) ARDMORE, OKLAHOMA.—$1,900,000 for water and 

sewer infrastructure improvements, city of Ardmore, Oklahoma. 

‘‘(222) BARTLESVILLE, OKLAHOMA.—$2,500,000 for water 

supply infrastructure, city of Bartlesville, Oklahoma. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
228 

‘‘(223) BETHANY, OKLAHOMA.—$1,500,000 for water improvements and water related infrastructure, city of Bethany, 

Oklahoma. ‘‘(224) CHICKASHA, OKLAHOMA.—$650,000 for industrial 

park sewer infrastructure, city of Chickasha, Oklahoma. ‘‘(225) DISNEY AND LANGLEY, OKLAHOMA.—$2,500,000 for 

water and sewer improvements and water related infrastructure, cities of Disney and Langley, Oklahoma. ‘‘(226) DURANT, OKLAHOMA.—$3,300,000 for bayou restoration and water related infrastructure, city of Durant, Oklahoma. ‘‘(227) EASTERN OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY, WILBERTON, 

OKLAHOMA.—$1,000,000 for sewer and utility upgrades and 

water related infrastructure, Eastern Oklahoma State University, Wilberton, Oklahoma. 

‘‘(228) GUYMON, OKLAHOMA.—$16,000,000 for water and 

wastewater related infrastructure, city of Guymon, Oklahoma. 

‘‘(229) KONAWA, OKLAHOMA.—$500,000 for water treatment 

infrastructure improvements, city of Konawa, Oklahoma. ‘‘(230) LUGERT-ALTUS IRRIGATION DISTRICT, ALTUS, OKLA- HOMA.—$5,000,000 for water related infrastructure improvements, Lugert-Altus Irrigation District, Altus, Oklahoma. ‘‘(231) MIDWEST CITY, OKLAHOMA.—$2,000,000 for improvements to water related infrastructure, the City of Midwest City, 

Oklahoma. ‘‘(232) MUSTANG, OKLAHOMA.—$3,325,000 for water improvements and water related infrastructure, city of Mustang, 

Oklahoma. ‘‘(233) NORMAN, OKLAHOMA.—$10,000,000 for water related 

infrastructure, Norman, Oklahoma. 

‘‘(234) OKLAHOMA PANHANDLE STATE UNIVERSITY, GUYMON, 

OKLAHOMA.—$275,000 for water testing facility and water related infrastructure development, Oklahoma Panhandle State 

University, Guymon, Oklahoma. ‘‘(235) WEATHERFORD, OKLAHOMA.—$500,000 for arsenic 

program and water related infrastructure, city of Weatherford, 

Oklahoma. ‘‘(236) WOODWARD, OKLAHOMA.—$1,500,000 for water improvements and water related infrastructure, Woodward, Oklahoma. ‘‘(237) ALBANY, OREGON.—$35,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure to improve habitat restoration, Albany, Oregon. 

‘‘(238) BEAVER CREEK RESERVOIR, PENNSYLVANIA.—

$3,000,000 for projects for water supply and related activities, 

Beaver Creek Reservoir, Clarion County, Beaver and Salem 

Townships, Pennsylvania. 

‘‘(239) HATFIELD BOROUGH, PENNSYLVANIA.—$310,000 for 

wastewater related infrastructure for Hatfield Borough, Pennsylvania. ‘‘(240) LEHIGH COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—$5,000,000 for 

stormwater control measures and storm sewer improvements, 

Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. ‘‘(241) NORTH WALES BOROUGH, PENNSYLVANIA.—

$1,516,584 for wastewater related infrastructure for North 

Wales Borough, Pennsylvania. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
229 

‘‘(242) PEN ARGYL, PENNSYLVANIA.—$5,250,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania. 

‘‘(243) PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA.—$1,600,000 for 

wastewater related infrastructure for Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

‘‘(244) STOCKERTON BOROUGH, TATAMY BOROUGH, AND

PALMER TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA.—$10,000,000 for 

stormwater control measures, particularly to address sinkholes, 

in the vicinity of Stockerton Borough, Tatamy Borough, and 

Palmer Township, Pennsylvania. 

‘‘(245) VERA CRUZ, PENNSYLVANIA.—$5,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Vera Cruz, Pennsylvania. 

‘‘(246) COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO.—$35,000,000 for 

water and wastewater infrastructure in the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico. 

‘‘(247) CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$4,000,000 for 

stormwater control measures and storm sewer improvements, 

Spring Street/Fishburne Street drainage project, Charleston, 

South Carolina. 

‘‘(248) CHARLESTON AND WEST ASHLEY, SOUTH CAROLINA.—

$6,000,000 for wastewater tunnel replacement, Charleston and 

West Ashley, South Carolina. 

‘‘(249) CROOKED CREEK, MARLBORO COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$25,000,000 for a project for water storage and water 

supply infrastructure on Crooked Creek, Marlboro County, 

South Carolina. 

‘‘(250) MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$18,000,000 for 

environmental infrastructure, including ocean outfalls, Myrtle 

Beach, South Carolina. 

‘‘(251) NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA.—

$11,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including ocean 

outfalls, North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. 

‘‘(252) SURFSIDE, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$11,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including stormwater system improvements and ocean outfalls, Surfside, South Carolina. 

‘‘(253) CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX RESERVATION (DEWEY AND

ZIEBACH COUNTIES) AND PERKINS AND MEADE COUNTIES, SOUTH

DAKOTA.—$65,000,000 for water related infrastructure, Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation (Dewey and Ziebach counties) 

and Perkins and Meade Counties, South Dakota. 

‘‘(254) ATHENS, TENNESSEE.—$16,000,000 for wastewater 

infrastructure, Athens, Tennessee. 

‘‘(255) BLAINE, TENNESSEE.—$500,000 for water supply and 

wastewater infrastructure, Blaine, Tennessee. 

‘‘(256) CLAIBORNE COUNTY, TENNESSEE.—$1,250,000 for 

water supply and wastewater infrastructure, Claiborne County, 

Tennessee. 

‘‘(257) GILES COUNTY, TENNESSEE.—$2,000,000 for water 

supply and wastewater infrastructure, county of Giles, Tennessee. 

‘‘(258) GRAINGER COUNTY, TENNESSEE.—$1,250,000 for 

water supply and wastewater infrastructure, Grainger County, 

Tennessee. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
230 

‘‘(259) HAMILTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE.—$500,000 for water 

supply and wastewater infrastructure, Hamilton County, Tennessee. 

‘‘(260) HARROGATE, TENNESSEE.—$2,000,000 for water supply and wastewater infrastructure, city of Harrogate, Tennessee. 

‘‘(261) JOHNSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE.—$600,000 for water 

supply and wastewater infrastructure, Johnson County, Tennessee. 

‘‘(262) KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE.—$5,000,000 for water supply and wastewater infrastructure, city of Knoxville, Tennessee. 

‘‘(263) NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE.—$5,000,000 for water supply and wastewater infrastructure, Nashville, Tennessee. 

‘‘(264) LEWIS, LAWRENCE, AND WAYNE COUNTIES, TENNESSEE.—$2,000,000 for water supply and wastewater infrastructure, counties of Lewis, Lawrence, and Wayne, Tennessee. 

‘‘(265) OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE.—$4,000,000 for water supply and wastewater infrastructure, city of Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 

‘‘(266) PLATEAU UTILITY DISTRICT, MORGAN COUNTY, TENNESSEE.—$1,000,000 for water supply and wastewater infrastructure, Morgan County, Tennessee. 

‘‘(267) SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE.—$4,000,000 for water 

related environmental infrastructure, county of Shelby, Tennessee. 

‘‘(268) CENTRAL TEXAS.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Bosque, Brazos, Burleson, Grimes, Hill, 

Hood, Johnson, Madison, McLennan, Limestone, Robertson, 

and Somervell Counties, Texas. 

‘‘(269) EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS.—$25,000,000 for water related infrastructure and resource protection, including 

stormwater management, and development, El Paso County, 

Texas. 

‘‘(270) FT. BEND COUNTY, TEXAS.—$20,000,000 for water 

and wastewater infrastructure, Ft. Bend County, Texas. 

‘‘(271) DUCHESNE, IRON, AND UINTAH COUNTIES, UTAH.—

$10,800,000 for water related infrastructure, Duchesne, Iron, 

and Uintah Counties, Utah. 

‘‘(272) NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.—$20,000,000 for water 

and wastewater infrastructure in Hancock, Ohio, Marshall, 

Wetzel, Tyler, Pleasants, Wood, Doddridge, Monongalia, Marion, Harrison, Taylor, Barbour, Preston, Tucker, Mineral, 

Grant, Gilmer, Brooke, and Ritchie Counties, West Virginia. 

‘‘(273) UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS.—$25,000,000 for 

wastewater infrastructure for the St. Croix Anguilla wastewater 

treatment plant and the St. Thomas Charlotte Amalie wastewater treatment plant, United States Virgin Islands.’’. 

TITLE VI—FLORIDA EVERGLADES 

SEC. 6001. HILLSBORO AND OKEECHOBEE AQUIFER, FLORIDA. 

(a) MODIFICATION.—The project for Hillsboro and Okeechobee 

Aquifer, Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(16) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276), is modified to auVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:35 Aug 04, 2007 Jkt 036965 PO 00000 Frm 00234 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR280.XXX HR280

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
231 

thorize the Secretary to carry out the project at a total cost of 

$42,500,000. 

(b) TREATMENT.—Section 601(b)(2)(A) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2681) is amended— (1) in clause (i) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘The 

project for aquifer storage and recovery, Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(16) of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276), shall 

be treated for purposes of this section as being in the Plan, except that operation and maintenance costs of the project shall 

remain a non-Federal responsibility.’’; and 

(2) in clause (iii) by inserting after ‘‘subparagraph (B)’’ the 

following: ‘‘and the project for aquifer storage and recovery, 

Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer’’. 

SEC. 6002. PILOT PROJECTS. 

Section 601(b)(2)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

2000 (114 Stat. 2681) is amended— (1) in the matter preceding clause (i)— (A) by striking ‘‘$69,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$71,200,000’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘$34,500,000’’ each place it appears and 

inserting ‘‘$35,600,000’’; and 

(2) in clause (i)—

(A) by striking ‘‘$6,000,000’’ and inserting 

‘‘$8,200,000’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘$3,000,000’’ each place it appears and 

inserting ‘‘$4,100,000’’. 

SEC. 6003. MAXIMUM COSTS. 

(a) MAXIMUM COST OF PROJECTS.—Section 601(b)(2)(E) of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2683) is 

amended by inserting ‘‘and section (d)’’ before the period at the end. 

(b) MAXIMUM COST OF PROGRAM AUTHORITY.—Section 601(c)(3) 

of such Act (114 Stat. 2684) is amended by adding at the end the 

following: 

‘‘(C) MAXIMUM COST OF PROGRAM AUTHORITY.—Section 

902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 

U.S.C. 2280) shall apply to the individual project funding 

limits in subparagraph (A) and the aggregate cost limits in 

subparagraph (B).’’. 

SEC. 6004. CREDIT. 

Section 601(e)(5)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

2000 (114 Stat. 2685) is amended—

(1) in clause (i)—

(A) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subclause (I); 

(B) by adding ‘‘or’’ at the end of subclause (II); and 

(C) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(III) the credit is provided for work carried out before the date of the partnership agreement between the 

Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor, as defined in 

an agreement between the Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor providing for such credit;’’; and 

(2) in clause (ii)—

(A) by striking ‘‘design agreement or the project cooperation’’; and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
232 

(B) by inserting before the semicolon the following: ‘‘, 

including in the case of credit provided under clause (i)(III) 

conditions relating to design and construction’’. 

SEC. 6005. OUTREACH AND ASSISTANCE. 

Section 601(k) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 

(114 Stat. 2691) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(3) MAXIMUM EXPENDITURES.—The Secretary may expend 

up to $3,000,000 per fiscal year for fiscal years beginning after 

September 30, 2004, to carry out this subsection.’’. 

SEC. 6006. CRITICAL RESTORATION PROJECTS. 

Section 528(b)(3)(C) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1996 (110 Stat. 3769) is amended—

(1) in clause (i) by striking ‘‘$75,000,000’’ and all that follows and inserting ‘‘$95,000,000’’; and 

(2) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(ii) FEDERAL SHARE.—

‘‘(I) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subclause (II), the Federal share of the cost of carrying 

out a project under subparagraph (A) shall not exceed $25,000,000. 

‘‘(II) SEMINOLE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN.—

The Federal share of the cost of carrying out the 

Seminole water conservation plan shall not exceed 

$30,000,000.’’. 

SEC. 6007. REGIONAL ENGINEERING MODEL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL 

RESTORATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall complete the development 

and testing of the regional engineering model for environmental restoration as expeditiously as practicable. 

(b) USAGE.—The Secretary shall consider using, as appropriate, 

the regional engineering model for environmental restoration in the 

development of future water resource projects, including projects developed pursuant to section 601 of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680). 

TITLE VII—LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA 

SEC. 7001. DEFINITIONS. 

In this title, the following definitions apply: 

(1) COASTAL LOUISIANA ECOSYSTEM.—The term ‘‘coastal 

Louisiana ecosystem’’ means the coastal area of Louisiana from 

the Sabine River on the west to the Pearl River on the east, including those parts of the Atchafalaya River Basin and the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain below the Old River Control Structure and the Chenier Plain included within the study area of 

the restoration plan. 

(2) GOVERNOR.—The term ‘‘Governor’’ means the Governor 

of the State of Louisiana. 

(3) RESTORATION PLAN.—The term ‘‘restoration plan’’

means the report of the Chief of Engineers for ecosystem restoration for the Louisiana Coastal Area dated January 31, 2005. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
233 

(4) TASK FORCE.—The term ‘‘Task Force’’ means the Coastal 

Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task Force established by section 7003. 

(5) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.—The term ‘‘comprehensive plan’’

means the plan developed under section 7002 and any revisions 

thereto. 

SEC. 7002. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in coordination with the Governor, shall develop a comprehensive plan for protecting, preserving, 

and restoring the coastal Louisiana ecosystem. 

(b) INTEGRATION OF PLAN INTO COMPREHENSIVE HURRICANE

PROTECTION STUDY.—In developing the comprehensive plan, the 

Secretary shall integrate the restoration plan into the analysis and 

design of the comprehensive hurricane protection study authorized 

by title I of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 

2006 (119 Stat. 2247). 

(c) CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE COASTAL PROTECTION

MASTER PLAN.—In developing the comprehensive plan, the Secretary shall ensure that the plan is not inconsistent with the goals, 

analysis, and design of the comprehensive coastal protection master 

plan authorized and defined pursuant to Act 8 of the First Extraordinary Session of the Louisiana State Legislature, 2005. 

(d) INCLUSIONS.—The comprehensive plan shall include a description of—

(1) the framework of a long-term program integrated with 

hurricane and storm damage reduction, flood damage reduction, and navigation activities that provide for the comprehensive protection, conservation, and restoration of the wetlands, 

estuaries, barrier islands, shorelines, and related land and features of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem, including protection of 

critical resources, habitat, and infrastructure from the effects of 

a coastal storm, a hurricane, erosion, or subsidence; 

(2) the means by which a new technology, or an improved 

technique, can be integrated into the program referred to in 

paragraph (1); 

(3) the role of other Federal and State agencies and programs in carrying out such program; 

(4) specific, measurable success criteria (including ecological criteria) by which success of the plan will be measured; 

(5) proposed projects in order of priority as determined by 

their respective potential to contribute to—

(A) creation of coastal wetlands; and 

(B) flood protection of communities ranked by population density and level of protection; and 

(6) efforts by Federal, State, and local interests to address 

sociological, economic, and related fields of law. 

(e) CONSIDERATIONS.—In developing the comprehensive plan, 

the Secretary shall consider the advisability of integrating into the 

program referred to in subsection (d)(1)—

(1) an investigation and study of the maximum effective use 

of the water and sediment of the Mississippi and Atchafalaya 

Rivers for coastal restoration purposes consistent with flood 

control and navigation; 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
234 

(2) a schedule for the design and implementation of largescale water and sediment reintroduction projects and an assessment of funding needs from any source; 

(3) an investigation and assessment of alterations in the operation of the Old River Control Structure, consistent with flood 

control and navigation purposes; 

(4) any related Federal or State project being carried out on 

the date on which the plan is developed; 

(5) any activity in the restoration plan; and 

(6) any other project or activity identified in one or more 

of—

(A) the Mississippi River and Tributaries program; 

(B) the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation Plan; 

(C) the Louisiana Coastal Zone Management Plan; 

(D) the plan of the State of Louisiana entitled ‘‘Integrated Ecosystem Restoration and Hurricane Protection—

Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable 

Coast’’; and 

(E) other relevant reports as determined by the Secretary. 

(f) REPORTS TO CONGRESS.—

(1) INITIAL REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of 

enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a 

report containing the comprehensive plan. 

(2) UPDATES.—Not later than 5 years after the date of submission of a report under paragraph (1), and at least once every 

5 years thereafter until implementation of the comprehensive 

plan is complete, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report containing an update of the plan and an assessment of the 

progress made in implementing the plan. 

SEC. 7003. LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry out a program for 

ecosystem restoration, Louisiana Coastal Area, Louisiana, substantially in accordance with the report of the Chief of Engineers, dated 

January 31, 2005. 

(b) PRIORITIES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the program under subsection (a), the Secretary shall give priority to—

(A) any portion of the program identified in the report 

described in subsection (a) as a critical restoration feature; 

(B) any Mississippi River diversion project that—

(i) will protect a major population area of the 

Pontchartrain, Pearl, Breton Sound, Barataria, or 

Terrebonne basins; and 

(ii) will produce an environmental benefit to the 

coastal Louisiana ecosystem; 

(C) any barrier island, or barrier shoreline, project 

that—

(i) will be carried out in conjunction with a Mississippi River diversion project; and 

(ii) will protect a major population area; 

(D) any project that will reduce storm surge and prevent or reduce the risk of loss of human life and the risk 

to public safety; and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
235 

(E) a project to physically modify the Mississippi RiverGulf Outlet and to restore the areas affected by the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet in accordance with the comprehensive plan to be developed under section 7002(a) and 

consistent with sections 7006(c)(1)(A) and 7013. 

SEC. 7004. COASTAL LOUISIANA ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION AND RESTORATION TASK FORCE. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established a task force to be 

known as the Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task Force (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Task Force’’). 

(b) MEMBERSHIP.—The Task Force shall consist of the following 

members (or, in the case of the head of a Federal agency, a designee 

of the head of the agency at the level of Assistant Secretary or an 

equivalent level): 

(1) The Secretary. 

(2) The Secretary of the Interior. 

(3) The Secretary of Commerce. 

(4) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

(5) The Secretary of Agriculture. 

(6) The Secretary of Transportation. 

(7) The Secretary of Energy. 

(8) The Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

(9) The Commandant of the Coast Guard. 

(10) The Chair of the Coastal Protection and Restoration 

Authority of Louisiana. 

(11) Two representatives of the State of Louisiana selected 

by the Governor. 

(c) DUTIES.—The Task Force shall make recommendations to 

the Secretary regarding—

(1) policies, strategies, plans, programs, projects, and activities for addressing conservation, protection, restoration, and 

maintenance of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem; 

(2) financial participation by each agency represented on 

the Task Force in conserving, protecting, restoring, and maintaining the coastal Louisiana ecosystem, including recommendations— (A) that identify funds from current agency missions 

and budgets; and 

(B) for coordinating individual agency budget requests; 

and 

(3) the comprehensive plan to be developed under section 

7002(a). 

(d) REPORT.— The Task Force shall submit to Congress a biennial report that summarizes the activities and recommendations of 

the Task Force. 

(e) WORKING GROUPS.—

(1) GENERAL AUTHORITY.—The Task Force may establish 

such working groups as the Task Force determines to be necessary to assist the Task Force in carrying out this section. 

(2) HURRICANES KATRINA AND RITA.— (A) INTEGRATION TEAM.—The Task Force shall establish a working group for the purpose of advising the Task 

Force of opportunities to integrate the planning, engineerVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:35 Aug 04, 2007 Jkt 036965 PO 00000 Frm 00239 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR280.XXX HR280

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
236 

ing, design, implementation, and performance of Corps of 

Engineers projects for hurricane and storm damage reduction, flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, and 

navigation in those areas in Louisiana for which a major 

disaster has been declared by the President as a result of 

Hurricane Katrina or Rita. 

(B) EXPERTISE; REPRESENTATION.—In establishing the 

working group under subparagraph (A), the Task Force 

shall ensure that the group—

(i) has expertise in coastal estuaries, diversions, 

coastal restoration and wetlands protection, ecosystem 

restoration, hurricane protection, storm damage reduction systems, navigation, and ports; and 

(ii) represents the State of Louisiana and local governments in southern Louisiana. 

(C) DUTIES.—In developing its recommendations under 

this subsection, the working group shall—

(i) review reports relating to the performance of, 

and recommendations relating to the future performance of, the hurricane, coastal, and flood protection 

systems in southern Louisiana, including the reports 

issued by the Interagency Performance Evaluation 

Team, the National Academy of Sciences, the National 

Science Foundation, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and Team Louisiana for the purpose of advising the Task Force and the Secretary on opportunities 

to improve the performance of the protection systems; 

(ii) assist in providing reviews under section 2035; 

and 

(iii) carry out such other duties as the Task Force 

or the Secretary determines to be appropriate. 

(f) COMPENSATION.—Members of the Task Force and members 

of a working group established by the Task Force may not receive 

compensation for their services as members of the Task Force or 

working group, as the case may be. 

(g) TRAVEL EXPENSES.—Travel expenses incurred by members 

of the Task Force and members of a working group established by 

the Task Force, in the performance of their service on the Task 

Force or working group, as the case may be, shall be paid by the 

agency or entity that the member represents. 

(h) NONAPPLICABILITY OF FACA.—The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Task Force or any 

working group established by the Task Force. 

SEC. 7005. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS. 

(a) REVIEW.—The Secretary, in cooperation with the non-Federal interest of the project involved, shall review each Federally-authorized water resources project in the coastal Louisiana ecosystem 

being carried out or completed as of the date of enactment of this 

Act to determine whether the project needs to be modified—

(1) to take into account the program authorized by section 

7003 and the projects authorized by sections 7006(e) and 7013; 

or 

(2) to contribute to ecosystem restoration under section 

7003, 7006(e), or 7013. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
237 

(b) MODIFICATIONS.—Subject to subsections (c) and (d), the Secretary may carry out the modifications described in subsection (a). 

(c) PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT.—Before completing the report required under subsection (d), the Secretary shall provide an 

opportunity for public notice and comment. 

(d) REPORT.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Before modifying an operation or feature 

of a project under subsection (b), the Secretary shall submit to 

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 

House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment 

and Public Works of the Senate a report describing the modification. 

(2) INCLUSION.—A report describing a modification under 

paragraph (1) shall include such information relating to the 

timeline for and cost of the modification, as the Secretary determines to be relevant. 

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000. 

SEC. 7006. CONSTRUCTION. 

(a) SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry out a coastal 

Louisiana ecosystem science and technology program substantially in accordance with the restoration plan at a total cost of 

$100,000,000. 

(2) PURPOSES.—The purposes of the program shall be— (A) to identify any uncertainty relating to the physical, 

chemical, geological, biological, and cultural baseline conditions in the coastal Louisiana ecosystem; 

(B) to improve knowledge of the physical, chemical, geological, biological, and cultural baseline conditions in the 

coastal Louisiana ecosystem; 

(C) to identify and develop technologies, models, and 

methods to carry out this subsection; and 

(D) to advance and expedite the implementation of the 

comprehensive plan. 

(3) WORKING GROUPS.—The Secretary may establish such 

working groups as the Secretary determines to be necessary to 

assist the Secretary in carrying out this subsection. 

(4) CONTRACTS AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary may enter into a contract or cooperative agreement with a consortium of academic 

institutions in Louisiana with scientific or engineering expertise 

in the restoration of aquatic and marine ecosystems for coastal 

restoration and enhancement through science and technology. 

(5) APPLICABILITY OF THE FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

ACT.—The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) 

shall not apply to a working group established under this subsection. 

(b) DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary 

may carry out demonstration projects substantially in accordance with the restoration plan and within the coastal Louisiana 

ecosystem for the purpose of resolving critical areas of scientific 

or technological uncertainty related to the implementation of 

the comprehensive plan. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
238 

(2) MAXIMUM COST.— (A) TOTAL COST.—The total cost for planning, design, 

and construction of all projects under this subsection shall 

not exceed $100,000,000. 

(B) INDIVIDUAL PROJECT.—The total cost of any single project under this subsection shall not exceed $25,000,000. 

(c) INITIAL PROJECTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to carry out 

the following projects substantially in accordance with the restoration plan: 

(A) Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet environmental res- toration at a total cost of $105,300,000, but not including 

those elements of the project that produce navigation benefits. 

(B) Small diversion at Hope Canal at a total cost of $68,600,000. 

(C) Barataria basin barrier shoreline restoration at a 

total cost of $242,600,000. 

(D) Small Bayou Lafourche reintroduction at a total cost of $133,500,000. 

(E) Medium diversion at Myrtle Grove with dedicated dredging at a total cost of $278,300,000. 

(2) MODIFICATIONS.— (A) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out each project under 

paragraph (1), the Secretary shall carry out such modifications as may be necessary to the ecosystem restoration features identified in the restoration plan— (i) to address the impacts of Hurricanes Katrina 

and Rita on the areas of the project; and 

(ii) to ensure consistency with the project authorized by section 7013 (including work in and around the 

vicinity of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet). 

(B) INTEGRATION.—The Secretary shall ensure that 

each modification under subparagraph (A) is taken into account in conducting the study of comprehensive hurricane 

protection authorized by title I of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (119 Stat. 2247). 

(C) MISSISSIPPI RIVER-GULF OUTLET.—In carrying out 

the project under paragraph (1)(A), the Secretary shall 

carry out such modifications as may be necessary to make 

the project consistent with and complementary to the closure and restoration of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet 

authorized by section 7013. 

(3) CONSTRUCTION REPORTS.—Before the Secretary may 

begin construction of any project under this subsection, the Secretary shall submit a report documenting any modifications to 

the project, including cost changes, to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives 

and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the 

Senate. 

(4) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER PROVISIONS.—Notwithstanding 

section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 

U.S.C. 2280), the cost of a project under this subsection, including any modifications to the project, shall not exceed 150 percent of the cost of such project set forth in paragraph (1). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
239 

(d) BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, substantially in accordance with the restoration plan, shall implement in the coastal 

Louisiana ecosystem a program for the beneficial use of material dredged from federally maintained waterways at a total 

cost of $100,000,000. 

(2) CONSIDERATION.—In carrying out the program under 

paragraph (1), the Secretary shall consider the beneficial use of 

sediment from the Illinois River System for wetlands restoration in wetlands-depleted watersheds of the coastal Louisiana 

ecosystem. 

(e) ADDITIONAL PROJECTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to carry out 

the following projects referred to in the restoration plan if the 

Secretary determines such projects are feasible: 

(A) Land Bridge between Caillou Lake and the Gulf of 

Mexico at a total cost of $56,300,000. 

(B) Gulf Shoreline at Point Au Fer Island at a total 

cost of $43,400,000. 

(C) Modification of Caernarvon Diversion at a total 

cost of $20,700,000. 

(D) Modification of Davis Pond Diversion at a total 

cost of $64,200,000. 

(2) REPORTS.—Not later than December 31, 2009, the Secretary shall submit feasibility reports on the projects described 

in paragraph (1) to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee 

on Environment and Public Works of the Senate. 

(3) PROJECTS SUBJECT TO REPORTS.—

(A) FEASIBILITY REPORTS.—Not later than December 

31, 2008, the Secretary shall submit to Congress feasibility 

reports on the following projects referred to in the restoration plan: 

(i) Multipurpose Operation of Houma Navigation Lock at a total cost of $18,100,000. 

(ii) Terrebonne Basin Barrier Shoreline Restoration at a total cost of $124,600,000. 

(iii) Small Diversion at Convent/Blind River at a 

total cost of $88,000,000. 

(iv) Amite River Diversion Canal Modification at a total cost of $5,600,000. 

(v) Medium Diversion at White’s Ditch at a total 

cost of $86,100,000. 

(vi) Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes at a total cost of $221,200,000. 

(B) CONSTRUCTION.—The Secretary may carry out the 

projects under subparagraph (A) substantially in accordance with the plans and subject to the conditions, recommended in a final report of the Chief of Engineers if a 

favorable report of the Chief is completed by not later than 

December 31, 2010. 

(4) CONSTRUCTION.—No appropriations shall be made to 

construct any project under this subsection if the report under 

paragraph (2) or paragraph (3), as the case may be, has not 

been approved by resolutions adopted by the Committee on 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
240 

Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of 

the Senate. 

SEC. 7007. NON-FEDERAL COST SHARE. 

(a) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of a study or project under 

this title the cost of work carried out in the coastal Louisiana ecosystem by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of 

the execution of the partnership agreement for the study or project. 

(b) SOURCES OF FUNDS.—The non-Federal interest may use, 

and the Secretary shall accept, funds provided by a Federal agency 

under any other Federal program, to satisfy, in whole or in part, the 

non-Federal share of the cost of the study or project if the Federal 

agency that provides the funds determines that the funds are authorized to be used to carry out the study or project. 

(c) NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS.—A nongovernmental 

organization shall be eligible to contribute all or a portion of the 

non-Federal share of the cost of a project under this title. 

(d) TREATMENT OF CREDIT BETWEEN PROJECTS.—Any credit 

provided under this section toward the non-Federal share of the cost 

of a study or project under this title may be applied toward the nonFederal share of the cost of any other study or project under this 

title. 

(e) PERIODIC MONITORING.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—To ensure that the contributions of the 

non-Federal interest equal the non-Federal share of the cost of 

a study or project under this title during each 5-year period beginning after the date of commencement of the first study or 

project under this title, the Secretary shall—

(A) monitor for each study or project under this title 

the non-Federal provision of cash, in-kind services and materials, and land, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and 

disposal areas; and 

(B) manage the requirement of the non-Federal interest 

to provide for each such study or project cash, in-kind services and materials, and land, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal areas. 

(2) OTHER MONITORING.—The Secretary shall conduct monitoring separately for the study phase, construction phase, 

preconstruction engineering and design phase, and planning 

phase for each project authorized on or after the date of enactment of this Act for all or any portion of the coastal Louisiana 

ecosystem. 

(f) AUDITS.—Credit for land, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal areas (including land value and incidental 

costs) provided under this section, and the cost of work provided 

under this section, shall be subject to audit by the Secretary. 

SEC. 7008. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 209 of the Flood 

Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962–2) or any other provision of 

law, in carrying out any project or activity under this title or any 

other provision of law to protect, conserve, and restore the coastal 

Louisiana ecosystem, the Secretary may determine that—


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
241 

(1) the project or activity is justified by the environmental 

benefits derived by the coastal Louisiana ecosystem; and 

(2) no further economic justification for the project or activity shall be required if the Secretary determines that the project 

or activity is cost effective. 

(b) LIMITATION ON APPLICABILITY.—Subsection (a) shall not 

apply to any separable element of a project intended to produce benefits that are predominantly unrelated to the protection, preservation, and restoration of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem. 

SEC. 7009. INDEPENDENT REVIEW. 

The Secretary shall establish a council, to be known as the 

‘‘Louisiana Water Resources Council’’, which shall serve as the exclusive peer review panel for activities conducted by the Corps of 

Engineers in the areas in the State of Louisiana declared as major 

disaster areas in accordance with section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170) 

in response to Hurricane Katrina or Rita of 2005, in accordance 

with the requirements of section 2034. 

SEC. 7010. EXPEDITED REPORTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall expedite completion of the 

reports for the following projects and, if the Secretary determines 

that a project is feasible, proceed directly to project preconstruction 

engineering and design: 

(1) The projects identified in the study of comprehensive 

hurricane protection authorized by title I of the Energy and 

Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (119 Stat. 2447). 

(2) The projects identified in the Southwest Coastal Louisiana hurricane and storm damage reduction study authorized 

by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 

House of Representatives on December 7, 2005. 

(b) SUBMISSION OF REPORTS.—Upon completion of the reports 

identified in subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit the reports 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate 

and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 

House of Representatives. 

SEC. 7011. REPORTING. 

Not later than 6 years after the date of enactment of this Act, 

the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 

Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report, including a 

description of—

(1) the projects authorized and undertaken under this title; 

(2) the construction status of the projects; 

(3) the cost to date and the expected final cost of each 

project undertaken under this title; and 

(4) the benefits and environmental impacts of the projects. 

SEC. 7012. NEW ORLEANS AND VICINITY. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to—

(1) raise levee heights where necessary and otherwise enhance the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity project and the West 

Bank and Vicinity project to provide the level of protection necessary to achieve the certification required for a 100-year level 

of flood protection in accordance with the national flood insurVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:35 Aug 04, 2007 Jkt 036965 PO 00000 Frm 00245 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR280.XXX HR280

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
242 

ance program under the base flood elevations current at the 

time of construction of the levee; 

(2) modify the 17th Street, Orleans Avenue, and London 

Avenue drainage canals in the city of New Orleans and install 

pumps and closure structures at or near the lakefront at Lake 

Pontchartrain; 

(3) armor critical elements of the New Orleans hurricane 

and storm damage reduction system; 

(4) modify the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal to increase 

the reliability of the flood protection system for the city of New 

Orleans; 

(5) replace or modify certain non-Federal levees in 

Plaquemines Parish to incorporate the levees into the New Orleans to Venice Hurricane Protection project; 

(6) reinforce or replace flood walls in the existing Lake 

Pontchartrain and Vicinity project and the existing West Bank 

and Vicinity project to improve performance of the flood and 

storm damage reduction systems; 

(7) perform one time stormproofing of interior pump stations to ensure the operability of the stations during hurricanes, 

storms, and high water events; 

(8) repair, replace, modify and improve non-Federal levees 

and associated protection measures in Terrebonne Parish; and 

(9) reduce the risk of storm damage to the greater New Orleans metropolitan area by restoring the surrounding wetlands 

through measures to begin to reverse wetland losses in areas affected by navigation, oil and gas, and other channels and 

through modification of the Caernarvon Freshwater Diversion 

structure or its operations. 

(b) COST SHARING.—Activities authorized by subsection (a) and 

section 7013 shall be carried out in a manner that is consistent with 

the cost-sharing requirements specified in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, 

and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 (Public Law 109-234). 

(c) CONDITIONS.—The Secretary shall notify the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives 

and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate 

if estimates for the expenditure of funds on any single project or activity identified in subsection (a) exceeds the amount specified for 

that project or activity in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006. No appropriation in excess of 25 percent above the 

amount specified for a project or activity in such Act may be made 

until an increase in the level of expenditure has 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. 

SEC. 7013. MISSISSIPPI RIVER-GULF OUTLET. 

(a) DEAUTHORIZATION.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Effective beginning on the date of submission of the plan required under paragraph (3), the navigation 

channel portion of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet element of 

the project for navigation, Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the 

Gulf of Mexico, authorized by the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to authorize construction of the Mississippi River-Gulf outlet’’, apVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:35 Aug 04, 2007 Jkt 036965 PO 00000 Frm 00246 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR280.XXX HR280

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
243 

proved March 29, 1956 (70 Stat. 65) and modified by section 

844 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 

4177) and section 326 of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1996 (110 Stat. 3717), which extends from the Gulf of Mexico 

to Mile 60 at the southern bank of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, is not authorized. 

(2) SCOPE.—Nothing in this paragraph modifies or 

deauthorizes the Inner Harbor navigation canal replacement 

project authorized by that Act of March 29, 1956. 

(3) CLOSURE AND RESTORATION PLAN.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 

date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to 

the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the 

Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a final report on 

the deauthorization of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, as 

described under the heading ‘‘INVESTIGATIONS’’ under chapter 3 of title II of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 (120 Stat. 453). 

(B) INCLUSIONS.—At a minimum, the report under subparagraph (A) shall include— (i) a plan to physically modify the Mississippi 

River-Gulf Outlet and restore the areas affected by the 

navigation channel; 

(ii) a plan to restore natural features of the ecosystem that will reduce or prevent damage from storm 

surge; 

(iii) a plan to prevent the intrusion of saltwater 

into the waterway; 

(iv) efforts to integrate the recommendations of the 

report with the program authorized under section 7003 

and the analysis and design authorized by title I of the 

Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 

2006 (119 Stat. 2247); and 

(v) consideration of— (I) use of native vegetation; and 

(II) diversions of fresh water to restore the 

Lake Borgne ecosystem. 

(4) CONSTRUCTION.—The Secretary shall carry out a plan 

to close the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet and restore and protect the ecosystem substantially in accordance with the plan required under paragraph (3), if the Secretary determines that the 

project is cost-effective, environmentally acceptable, and technically feasible. 

SEC. 7014. HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION. 

(a) REPORTS.—With respect to the projects identified in the 

analysis and design of comprehensive hurricane protection authorized by title I of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 

Act, 2006 (119 Stat. 2247), the Secretary shall submit, to the maximum extent practicable, specific project recommendations in a report developed under that title. 

(b) EMERGENCY PROCEDURES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—If the President determines that a project 

recommended in the analysis and design of comprehensive hurVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:35 Aug 04, 2007 Jkt 036965 PO 00000 Frm 00247 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR280.XXX HR280

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
244 

ricane protection under title I of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 could— (A) address an imminent threat to life and property; 

(B) prevent a dangerous storm surge from reaching a 

populated area; 

(C) prevent the loss of coastal areas that reduce the impact of storm surge; 

(D) benefit national energy security; 

(E) protect emergency hurricane evacuation routes or 

shelters; or 

(F) address inconsistencies in hurricane protection 

standards, 

the President may submit to the President pro tempore of the 

Senate for authorization a legislative proposal relating to the 

project, as the President determines to be appropriate. 

(2) PRIORITIZATION.—In submitting legislative proposals 

under paragraph (1), the President shall give priority to any 

project that, as determined by the President, would— (A) to the maximum extent practicable, reduce the 

risk— (i) of loss of human life; 

(ii) to public safety; and 

(iii) of damage to property; and 

(B) minimize costs and environmental impacts. 

(3) EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Beginning after December 31, 2008, 

any legislative proposal submitted by the President under 

paragraph (1) shall be eligible for expedited consideration 

in accordance with this paragraph. 

(B) INTRODUCTION.—As soon as practicable after the 

date of receipt of a legislative proposal under paragraph 

(1), the Chairman of the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works of the Senate shall introduce the proposal as 

a bill, by request, in the Senate. 

(C) REFERRAL.—A bill introduced under subparagraph 

(B) shall be referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works of the Senate. 

(D) COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION.— (i) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 45 legislative days 

after a bill under subparagraph (B) is referred to the 

committee in accordance with subparagraph (C), the 

committee shall act on the bill. 

(ii) FAILURE TO ACT.—If the committee fails to act 

on a bill by the date specified in clause (i), the bill 

shall be discharged from the committee and placed on 

the calendar of the Senate. 

(4) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The requirements of, and authorities 

under, this subsection shall expire on December 31, 2010. 

SEC. 7015. LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW. 

(a) REPORT.—Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives 

a report describing any modification required to the project for flood 

damage reduction, Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana, to provide 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
245 

the level of protection necessary to achieve the certification required 

for a 100-year level of flood protection in accordance with the national flood insurance program. 

(b) MODIFICATIONS.—The Secretary is authorized to carry out a 

modification described in subsection (a) if—

(1) the Secretary determines that the modification in the report under subsection (a) is feasible; and 

(2) the total cost of the modification does not exceed 

$90,000,000. 

(c) REQUIREMENT.—No appropriation shall be made to construct any modification under this section if the report under subsection (a) has not been approved by resolutions adopted by the 

Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 

Representatives. 

SEC. 7016. LOWER JEFFERSON PARISH, LOUISIANA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry out a project for 

flood damage reduction in Lower Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. 

(b) EXISTING STUDIES.—In carrying out the project, the Secretary shall use, to the maximum extent practicable, existing studies 

for projects for flood damage reduction in the vicinity of Lower Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, prepared under section 205 of the Flood 

Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s). 

(c) CONSTRUCTION.—The Secretary may proceed to construction 

or complete the construction of projects in Lower Jefferson Parish if 

the projects are being developed or carried out under section 205 of 

the Flood Control Act of 1948 as of the date of enactment of this 

Act. 

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated $100,000,000 to carry out this section. 

TITLE VIII—UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER 

AND ILLINOIS WATER-WAY SYSTEM 

SEC. 8001. DEFINITIONS. 

In this title, the following definitions apply: 

(1) PLAN.—The term ‘‘Plan’’ means the project for navigation and ecosystem improvements for the Upper Mississippi 

River and Illinois Waterway System: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated December 15, 2004. 

(2) UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATERWAY SYSTEM.—The term ‘‘Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System’’ means the projects for navigation and ecosystem 

restoration authorized by Congress for—

(A) the segment of the Mississippi River from the confluence with the Ohio River, River Mile 0.0, to Upper St. 

Anthony Falls Lock in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, 

River Mile 854.0; and 

(B) the Illinois Waterway from its confluence with the 

Mississippi River at Grafton, Illinois, River Mile 0.0, to 

T.J. O’Brien Lock in Chicago, Illinois, River Mile 327.0. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
246 

SEC. 8002. NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS AND RESTORATION. 

Except as modified by this title, the Secretary shall undertake 

navigation improvements and restoration of the ecosystem for the 

Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System substantially in accordance with the Plan and subject to the conditions described therein. 

SEC. 8003. AUTHORIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION OF NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS. 

(a) SMALL SCALE AND NONSTRUCTURAL MEASURES.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall— (A) construct mooring facilities at Locks 12, 14, 18, 20, 

22, 24, and LaGrange Lock or other alternative locations 

that are economically and environmentally feasible; 

(B) provide switchboats at Locks 20 through 25; and 

(C) conduct development and testing of an appointment 

scheduling system. 

(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—The total cost of projects authorized under this subsection shall be $256,000,000. 

Such costs are to be paid 1⁄2 from amounts appropriated from 

the general fund of the Treasury and 1⁄2 from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Such sums 

shall remain available until expended. 

(b) NEW LOCKS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall construct new 1,200- 

foot locks at Locks 20, 21, 22, 24, and 25 on the Upper Mississippi River and at LaGrange Lock and Peoria Lock on the 

Illinois Waterway. 

(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—The total cost of 

projects authorized under this subsection shall be 

$1,948,000,000. Such costs are to be paid 1⁄2 from amounts appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and 1⁄2 from 

amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. 

Such sums shall remain available until expended. 

(c) CONCURRENCE.—The mitigation required for the projects authorized under subsections (a) and (b), including any acquisition of 

lands or interests in lands, shall be undertaken or acquired concurrently with lands and interests in lands for the projects authorized 

under subsections (a) and (b), and physical construction required 

for the purposes of mitigation shall be undertaken concurrently with 

the physical construction of such projects. 

SEC. 8004. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AUTHORIZATION. 

(a) OPERATION.—To ensure the environmental sustainability of 

the existing Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System, 

the Secretary shall modify, consistent with requirements to avoid 

adverse effects on navigation, the operation of the Upper Mississippi 

River and Illinois Waterway System to address the cumulative environmental impacts of operation of the system and improve the ecological integrity of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River. 

(b) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry out, consistent 

with requirements to avoid adverse effects on navigation, ecosystem restoration projects to attain and maintain the sustainability of the ecosystem of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River in accordance with the general framework outlined 

in the Plan. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
247 

(2) PROJECTS INCLUDED.—Ecosystem restoration projects 

may include—

(A) island building; 

(B) construction of fish passages; 

(C) floodplain restoration; 

(D) water level management (including water drawdown); 

(E) backwater restoration; 

(F) side channel restoration; 

(G) wing dam and dike restoration and modification; 

(H) island and shoreline protection; 

(I) topographical diversity; 

(J) dam point control; 

(K) use of dredged material for environmental purposes; 

(L) tributary confluence restoration; 

(M) spillway, dam, and levee modification to benefit 

the environment; and 

(N) land and easement acquisition. 

(3) COST SHARING.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraphs 

(B) and (C), the Federal share of the cost of carrying out 

an ecosystem restoration project under this subsection shall 

be 65 percent. 

(B) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN RESTORATION PROJECTS.—

In the case of a project under this section for ecosystem restoration, the Federal share of the cost of carrying out the 

project shall be 100 percent if the project—

(i) is located below the ordinary high water mark 

or in a connected backwater; 

(ii) modifies the operation of structures for navigation; or 

(iii) is located on federally owned land. 

(C) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Nothing in this subsection affects the applicability of section 906(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(e)). 

(D) NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS.—In accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 

U.S.C. 1962d–5b), for any project carried out under this 

title, a non-Federal sponsor may include a nonprofit entity, 

with the consent of the affected local government. 

(4) LAND ACQUISITION.—The Secretary may acquire land or 

an interest in land for an ecosystem restoration project from a 

willing seller through conveyance of—

(A) fee title to the land; or 

(B) a flood plain conservation easement. 

(c) MONITORING.—The Secretary shall carry out a long term resource monitoring, computerized data inventory and analysis, and 

applied research program for the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River to determine trends in ecosystem health, to understand 

systemic changes, and to help identify restoration needs. The program shall consider and adopt the monitoring program established 

under section 1103(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 652(e)(1)(A)(ii)). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
248 

(d) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PRECONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING

AND DESIGN.—

(1) RESTORATION DESIGN.—Before initiating the construction of any individual ecosystem restoration project, the Secretary shall—

(A) establish ecosystem restoration goals and identify 

specific performance measures designed to demonstrate ecosystem restoration; 

(B) establish the without-project condition or baseline 

for each performance indicator; and 

(C) for each separable element of the ecosystem restoration, identify specific target goals for each performance indicator. 

(2) OUTCOMES.—Performance measures identified under 

paragraph (1)(A) shall include specific measurable environmental outcomes, such as changes in water quality, hydrology, 

or the well-being of indicator species the population and distribution of which are representative of the abundance and diversity of ecosystem-dependent aquatic and terrestrial species. 

(3) RESTORATION DESIGN.—Restoration design carried out 

as part of ecosystem restoration shall include a monitoring plan 

for the performance measures identified under paragraph 

(1)(A), including—

(A) a timeline to achieve the identified target goals; 

and 

(B) a timeline for the demonstration of project completion. 

(e) CONSULTATION AND FUNDING AGREEMENTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the environmental sustainability, ecosystem restoration, and monitoring activities authorized in this section, the Secretary shall consult with the 

Secretary of the Interior and the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin. 

(2) FUNDING AGREEMENTS.—The Secretary is authorized to 

enter into agreements with the Secretary of the Interior, the 

Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, and natural resource and conservation agencies of the States of Illinois, Iowa, 

Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin to provide for the direct 

participation of and transfer of funds to such entities for the 

planning, implementation, and evaluation of projects and programs established by this section. 

(f) SPECIFIC PROJECTS AUTHORIZATION.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appropriated to 

carry out this subsection $1,717,000,000, of which not more 

than $245,000,000 shall be available for projects described in 

subsection (b)(2)(B) and not more than $48,000,000 shall be 

available for projects described in subsection (b)(2)(J). Such 

sums shall remain available until expended. 

(2) LIMITATION ON AVAILABLE FUNDS.—Of the amounts 

made available under paragraph (1), not more than 

$35,000,000 in any fiscal year may be used for land acquisition 

under subsection (b)(4). 

(3) INDIVIDUAL PROJECT LIMIT.—Other than for projects described in subparagraphs (B) and (J) of subsection (b)(2), the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
249 

total cost of any single project carried out under this subsection 

shall not exceed $25,000,000. 

(4) MONITORING.—In addition to amounts authorized 

under paragraph (1), there are authorized $10,420,000 per fiscal year to carry out the monitoring program under subsection 

(c) if such sums are not appropriated pursuant to section 

1103(e)(4) the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 

U.S.C. 652(e)(4)). 

(g) IMPLEMENTATION REPORTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than June 30, 2009, and every 

4 years thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee 

on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 

Representatives an implementation report that—

(A) includes baselines, milestones, goals, and priorities 

for ecosystem restoration projects; and 

(B) measures the progress in meeting the goals. 

(2) ADVISORY PANEL.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall appoint and convene an advisory panel to provide independent guidance in 

the development of each implementation report under paragraph (1). 

(B) PANEL MEMBERS.—Panel members shall include—

(i) one representative of each of the State resource 

agencies (or a designee of the Governor of the State) 

from each of the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, 

Missouri, and Wisconsin; 

(ii) one representative of the Department of Agriculture; 

(iii) one representative of the Department of Transportation; 

(iv) one representative of the United States Geological Survey; 

(v) one representative of the United States Fish 

and Wildlife Service; 

(vi) one representative of the Environmental Protection Agency; 

(vii) one representative of affected landowners; 

(viii) two representatives of conservation and environmental advocacy groups; and 

(ix) two representatives of agriculture and industry 

advocacy groups. 

(C) CHAIRPERSON.—The Secretary shall serve as chairperson of the advisory panel. 

(D) APPLICATION OF FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

ACT.—The Advisory Panel and any working group established by the Advisory Panel shall not be considered an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act (5 U.S.C. App.). 

(h) RANKING SYSTEM.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consultation with the 

Advisory Panel, shall develop a system to rank proposed 

projects. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
250 

(2) PRIORITY.—The ranking system shall give greater 

weight to projects that restore natural river processes, including 

those projects listed in subsection (b)(2). 

SEC. 8005. COMPARABLE PROGRESS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—As the Secretary conducts pre-engineering, 

design, and construction for projects authorized under this title, the 

Secretary shall—

(1) select appropriate milestones; 

(2) determine, at the time of such selection, whether the 

projects are being carried out at comparable rates; and 

(3) make an annual report to Congress, beginning in fiscal 

year 2009, regarding whether the projects are being carried out 

at a comparable rate. 

(b) NO COMPARABLE RATE.—If the Secretary or Congress determines under subsection (a)(2) that projects authorized under this 

title are not moving toward completion at a comparable rate, annual funding requests for the projects shall be adjusted to ensure 

that the projects move toward completion at a comparable rate in 

the future. 

TITLE IX—NATIONAL LEVEE SAFETY 

PROGRAM 

SEC. 9001. SHORT TITLE. 

This title may be cited as the ‘‘National Levee Safety Act of 

2007’’. 

SEC. 9002. DEFINITIONS. 

In this title, the following definitions apply: 

(1) COMMITTEE.—The term ‘‘committee’’ means the Committee on Levee Safety established by section 9003(a). 

(2) INSPECTION.—The term ‘‘inspection’’ means an actual 

inspection of a levee—

(A) to establish the global information system location 

of the levee; 

(B) to determine the general condition of the levee; and 

(C) to estimate the number of structures and population at risk and protected by the levee that would be adversely impacted if the levee fails or water levels exceed the 

height of the levee. 

(3) LEVEE.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘levee’’ means an embankment, including floodwalls— (i) the primary purpose of which is to provide hurricane, storm, and flood protection relating to seasonal 

high water, storm surges, precipitation, and other 

weather events; and 

(ii) that normally is subject to water loading for 

only a few days or weeks during a year. 

(B) INCLUSION.—The term includes structures along canals that constrain water flows and are subject to more frequent water loadings but that do not constitute a barrier 

across a watercourse. 

(4) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means—


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
251 

(A) a State; 

(B) the District of Columbia; 

(C) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and 

(D) any other territory or possession of the United 

States. 

(5) STATE LEVEE SAFETY AGENCY.—The term ‘‘State levee 

safety agency’’ means the agency of a State that has regulatory 

authority over the safety of any non-Federal levee in the State. 

(6) UNITED STATES.—The term ‘‘United States’’, when used 

in a geographical sense, means all of the States. 

SEC. 9003. COMMITTEE ON LEVEE SAFETY. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established a committee to be 

known as the ‘‘Committee on Levee Safety’’. 

(b) MEMBERSHIP.—The committee shall be composed of 16 

members as follows: 

(1) The Secretary (or the Secretary’s designee), who shall 

serve as the chairperson of the Committee. 

(2) The Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (or the Administrator’s designee). 

(3) The following 14 members appointed by the Secretary: 

(A) 8 representatives of State levee safety agencies, one 

from each of the 8 civil works divisions of the Corps of Engineers. 

(B) 2 representatives of the private sector who have expertise in levee safety. 

(C) 2 representatives of local and regional governmental agencies who have expertise in levee safety. 

(D) 2 representatives of Indian tribes who have expertise in levee safety. 

(c) DUTIES.—

(1) DEVELOPMENT OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NATIONAL

LEVEE SAFETY PROGRAM.—The committee shall develop 

recomendations for a national levee safety program, including 

a strategic plan for implementation of the program. 

(2) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the committee shall submit to the Secretary, 

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 

House of Representatives, and the Committee on Environment 

and Public Works of the Senate a report containing the recommendations developed under paragraph (1). 

(d) PURPOSES.—In developing recommendations under subsection (c)(1), the committee shall ensure that the national levee 

safety program meets the following goals: 

(1) Ensuring the protection of human life and property by 

levees through the development of technologically, economically, 

socially, and environmentally feasible programs and procedures 

for hazard reduction and mitigation relating to levees. 

(2) Encouraging use of the best available engineering policies and procedures for levee site investigation, design, construction, operation and maintenance, and emergency preparedness. 

(3) Encouraging the establishment and implementation of 

an effective national levee safety program that may be delegated 

to qualified States for implementation, including identification 

of incentives and disincentives for State levee safety programs. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
252 

(4) Ensuring that levees are operated and maintained in 

accordance with appropriate and protective standards by conducting an inventory and inspection of levees. 

(5) Developing and supporting public education and awareness projects to increase public acceptance and support of State 

and national levee safety programs. 

(6) Building public awareness of the residual risks associated with living in levee protected areas. 

(7) Developing technical assistance materials for State and 

national levee safety programs. 

(8) Developing methods to provide technical assistance relating to levee safety to non-Federal entities. 

(9) Developing technical assistance materials, seminars, 

and guidelines relating to the physical integrity of levees in the 

United States. 

(e) COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS.—A member of the committee 

shall serve without compensation. 

(f) TRAVEL EXPENSES.—To the extent amounts are made available in advance in appropriations Acts, the Secretary shall reimburse a member of the committee for travel expenses, including per 

diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for an employee of 

a Federal agency under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United 

States Code, while away from the home or regular place of business 

of the member in performance of services for the committee. 

(g) APPLICABILITY OF FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT.— The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply 

to the committee. 

SEC. 9004. INVENTORY AND INSPECTION OF LEVEES. 

(a) LEVEE DATABASE.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than one year after the date of 

enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish and maintain a database with an inventory of the Nation’s levees. 

(2) CONTENTS.—The database shall include— (A) location information of all Federal levees in the Nation (including global information system information) 

and, for non-Federal levees, such information on levee location as is provided to the Secretary by State and local governmental agencies; 

(B) utilizing such information as is available, the general condition of each levee; and 

(C) an estimate of the number of structures and population at risk and protected by each levee that would be adversely impacted if the levee fails or water levels exceed the 

height of the levee. 

(3) AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION.—

(A) AVAILABILITY TO FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES.—The Secretary shall make all of the 

information in the database available to appropriate Federal, State, and local governmental agencies. 

(B) AVAILABILITY TO THE PUBLIC.—The Secretary shall 

make the information in the database described in paragraph (2)(A), and such other information in the database 

as the Secretary determines appropriate, available to the 

public. 

(b) INVENTORY AND INSPECTION OF LEVEES.—


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
253 

(1) FEDERAL LEVEES.—The Secretary, at Federal expense, 

shall establish an inventory and conduct an inspection of all 

federally owned and operated levees. 

(2) FEDERALLY CONSTRUCTED, NONFEDERALLY OPERATED

AND MAINTAINED LEVEES.—The Secretary shall establish an inventory and conduct an inspection of all federally constructed, 

non-federally operated and maintained levees, at the original 

cost share for the project. 

(3) PARTICIPATING LEVEES.—For non-Federal levees the 

owners of which are participating in the emergency response to 

natural disasters program established under section 5 of the 

Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other 

purposes’’, approved August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n), the Secretary shall establish an inventory and conduct an inspection of 

each such levee if the owner of the levee requests such inspection. The Federal share of the cost of an inspection under this 

paragraph shall be 65 percent. 

SEC. 9005. LIMITATIONS ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION. 

Nothing in this title shall be construed as—

(1) creating any liability of the United States or its officers 

or employees for the recovery of damages caused by an action 

or failure to act; or 

(2) relieving an owner or operator of a levee of a legal duty, 

obligation, or liability incident to the ownership or operation of 

a levee. 

SEC. 9006. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry 

out this title $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2013. 

And the Senate agree to the same. 

From the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for consideration of the House bill and the Senate 

amendment, and modifications committed to conference: 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, 

BRIAN BAIRD, 

BRIAN HIGGINS, 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, 

STEVE KAGEN, 

JERRY MCNERNEY, 

JOHN L. MICA, 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., 

VERNON J. EHLERS, 

R.H. BAKER, 

HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., 

JOHN BOOZMAN, 

From the Committee on Natural Resources, for consideration of secs. 2014, 2023, and 6009 of the House bill and 

secs. 3023, 5008, and 5016 of the Senate amendment, and 

modifications committed to conference: 

NICK RAHALL, 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
254 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Managers on the Part of the House. 

BARBARA BOXER, 

MAX BAUCUS, 

JOE LIEBERMAN, 

TOM CARPER, 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

JAMES M. INHOFE, 

JOHN WARNER, 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, 

DAVID VITTER, 

Managers on the Part of the Senate. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
(255) 

JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF 

CONFERENCE 

The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the 

conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the 

amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 1495), 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, submit the following joint statement to the 

House and the Senate in explanation of the effect of the action 

agreed upon by the managers and recommended in the accompanying conference report: 

The Senate amendment struck all of the House bill after the 

enacting clause and inserted a substitute text. 

The House recedes from its disagreement to the amendment of 

the Senate with an amendment that is a substitute for the House 

bill and the Senate amendment. The differences between the House 

bill, the Senate amendment, and the substitute agreed to in conference are noted below, except for clerical corrections, conforming 

changes made necessary by agreements reached by the conferees, 

and minor drafting and clarifying changes. 

TITLE I—WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS 

SECTION 1001—PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS

1001(1). Haines, Alaska. House § 1001(1), Senate § 1001(1).—

Senate recedes. 

1001(2). Port Lions, Alaska. House § 1001(2). No comparable 

Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1001(3). Santa Cruz River, Paseo de Las Iglesias, Arizona. 

House § 1001(4). No comparable Senate Section.—Senate recedes. 

1001(4). Tanque Verde Creek, Pima County, Arizona. House 

§ 1001(5), Senate § 1001(2).—House recedes. 

1001(5). Salt River (Rio Salado Oeste), Maricopa County, Arizona. House § 1001(3). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1001(6). Salt River (Va Shly’ay Akimel), Maricopa County, Arizona. House § 1001(6), Senate § 1001(3).—House recedes, with an 

amendment. 

1001(7). May Branch, Fort Smith, Arkansas. House § 1001(7), 

Senate § 1001(4).—House recedes. 

1001(8). Hamilton City, Glenn County, California. House 

§ 1001(8), Senate § 1001(5).—House recedes. 

1001(9). Silver Strand Shoreline, Imperial Beach, California. 

House § 1001(9), Senate 1001(6).—House recedes. 

1001(10). Matilija Dam, Ventura County, California. House 

§ 1001(10), Senate 1001(7).—House recedes. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
256 

1001(11). Middle Creek, Lake County, California. House 

§ 1001(11), Senate 1001 § 1001(8).—House recedes. 

1001(12). Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration, California. 

House § 1001(12), Senate § 1001(9).—Senate recedes. 

1001(13). Denver County Reach, South Platte River, Denver, 

Colorado. House § 1001(13), Senate § 1001(10).—Senate recedes. 

1001(14). Central and Southern Florida, Indian River Lagoon. 

House § 6005, Senate § 1001 (12).—House recedes. 

1001(15). Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central 

and Southern Florida, Picayune Strand Restoration Project, Collier 

County, Florida. House § 6005, Senate § 1001(14).—House recedes. 

1001(16). Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central 

and Southern Florida, Site 1 Impoundment Project, Palm Beach 

County, Florida. House § 6005, Senate § 1001(11).—House recedes. 

1001(17). Miami Harbor, Miami-Dade County, Florida. House 

§ 1001(14), Senate § 1001(13).—Senate recedes. 

1001(18). East St. Louis and Vicinity, Illinois. House 

§ 1001(15), Senate § 1001(15).—Senate recedes. 

1001(19). Peoria Riverfront Development, Illinois. House 

§ 1001(16), Senate § 1001(16).—House recedes. 

1001(20). Wood River Levee System Reconstruction, Madison 

County, Illinois. House § 1001(17), Senate 1001(17).—House recedes. 

1001(21). Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, Des Moines, Iowa. 

House § 1001(18), Senate 1001(18).—Senate recedes. 

1001(22). Licking River Basin, Cynthiana, Kentucky. House 

§ 1001(19). No comparable Senate Section.—Senate recedes. 

1001(23). Bayou Sorrel Lock, Louisiana. House § 1001(20), Senate 1001(19).—House recedes. 

1001(24). Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana. House 

§ 1001(21), Senate § 1001(20).—House recedes. 

1001(25). Port of Iberia, Louisiana. House § 1001(22), Senate 

§ 1001(21).—House recedes, with an amendment. 

1001(26). Smith Island, Somerset County, Maryland. House 

§ 1001(23), Senate § 1001(23).—House recedes. 

1001(27). Roseau River, Roseau, Minnesota. House § 1001(24), 

Senate § 1001(24).—Senate recedes. 

1001(28). Argentine, East Bottoms, Fairfax-Jersey Creek, and 

North Kansas Levees Units, Missouri River and Tributaries at 

Kansas Cities, Missouri and Kansas. House § 1001(26), Senate 

§ 1001(26).—House recedes. 

1001(29). Swope Park Industrial Area, Blue River, Kansas 

City, Missouri. House § 1001(27), Senate § 1001(27).—Senate recedes. 

1001(30). Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet, New Jersey. House § 1001(28), Senate 1001(28).—House recedes. 

1001(31). Hudson Raritan Estuary, Liberty State Park, New 

Jersey. House § 1001(29), Senate § 1001(29).—Senate recedes. 

1001(32). New Jersey Shore Protection Study, Manasquan 

Inlet to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey. House § 1001(30), Senate 

§ 1001(30).—Senate recedes. 

1001(33). Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Union Beach, 

New Jersey. House § 1001(31), Senate § 1001(31).—House recedes. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
257 

1001(34). South River, Raritan River Basin, New Jersey. House 

§ 1001(32), Senate § 1001(32).—House recedes. 

1001(35). Southwest Valley, Bernalillo County, New Mexico. 

House § 1001(33), Senate § 1001(33).—House recedes. 

1001(36). Montauk Point, New York. House § 1001(34), Senate 

§ 1001(34).—Senate recedes. 

1001(37). Hocking River Basin, Monday Creek, Ohio. House 

§ 1001(35), Senate § 1001(35).—House recedes, with an amendment. 

1001(38). Town of Bloomsburg, Columbia County, Pennsylvania. House § 1001(36), Senate § 1001(36).—Senate recedes. 

1001(39). Pawleys Island, South Carolina. House § 1001(37), 

Senate § 1001(37).—Senate recedes. 

1001(40). Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, Texas. 

House § 1001(38), Senate 1001(38).—Senate recedes, with an 

amendment. 

1001(41). Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Brazos River to Port 

O’Connor, Matagorda Bay Re-Route, Texas. House § 1001(39), Senate § 1001(39).—House recedes. 

1001(42). Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, High Island to Brazos 

River, Texas. House § 1001(40), Senate § 1001(40).—House recedes. 

1001(43). Lower Colorado River Basin Phase I, Texas. House 

§ 1001(41), Senate § 1001(41).—Senate recedes. 

1001(44). Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge Replacement, 

Deep Creek, Chesapeake, Virginia. House § 1001(43), Senate 

§ 1001(43).—Senate recedes. 

1001(45). Craney Island Eastward Expansion, Norfolk Harbor 

and Channels, Hampton Roads, Virginia. House § 1001(44), Senate 

§ 1001(42).—House recedes, with an amendment. 

1001(46). Centralia, Chehalis River, Lewis County, Washington. Senate § 1001(44). No comparable House section.—House 

recedes. 

SEC. 1002. SMALL PROJECTS FOR FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION

1002(a)(1). Haleyville, Alabama. House § 1002(a)(1). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1002(a)(2). Weiss Lake, Alabama. House § 1002(a)(2). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1002(a)(3). Fort Yukon, Alaska. House § 5032. No comparable 

Senate section.—Senate recedes, with an amendment. 

1002(a)(4). Little Colorado River Levee, Arizona. House 

§ 1002(a)(3). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1002(a)(5). Cache River Basin, Grubbs, Arkansas. House 

§ 1002(a)(4), Senate § 1004(1).—Same. 

1002(a)(6). Barrel Springs Wash, Palmdale, California. House 

§ 1002(a)(5). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1002(a)(7). Borrego Springs, California. House § 1002(a)(6). No 

comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1002(a)(8). Colton, California. House § 1002(a)(7). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1002(a)(9). Dunlap Stream, Yucaipa, California. House 

§ 1002(a)(8). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1002(a)(10). Hunts Canyon Wash, Palmdale, California. House 

§ 1002(a)(9). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
258 

1002(a)(11). Ontario and Chino, California. House 

§ 1002(a)(10). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1002(a)(12). Santa Venetia, California. House § 1002(a)(11). No 

comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1002(a)(13). Whittier, California. House § 1002(a)(12). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1002(a)(14). Wildwood Creek, Yucaipa, California. House 

§ 1002(a)(13). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1002(a)(15). Bibb County and City of Macon Levee, Georgia. 

Senate § 1004(2). No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

1002(a)(16). Fort Wayne and Vicinity, Indiana. Senate 

§ 1004(3). House § 3051.—House recedes, with an amendment. 

1002(a)(17). St. Francisville, Louisiana. House § 1002(a)(14). No 

comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1002(a)(18). Salem, Massachusetts. House § 1002(a)(15), Senate 

1004(4).—Same. 

1002(a)(19). Cass River, Michigan. House § 1002(a)(16). No 

comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1002(a)(20). Crow River, Rockford, Minnesota. House 

§ 1002(a)(17), Senate § 1004(5).—Same. 

1002(a)(21). Marsh Creek, Minnesota. House § 1002(a)(18). No 

comparable Senate Section.—Senate recedes. 

1002(a)(22). South Branch of the Wild Rice River, Borup, Minnesota. House § 1002(a)(19), Senate § 1004(6).—Same. 

1002(a)(23). Blacksnake Creek, St. Joseph, Missouri. House 

§ 1002(a)(20). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1002(a)(24). Acid Brook, Pompton Lakes, New Jersey. House 

§ 1002(a)(21). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1002(a)(25). Canisteo River, Addison, New York. House 

§ 1002(a)(22). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1002(a)(26). Cohocton River, Campbell, New York. House 

§ 1002(a)(23). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1002(a)(27). Dry and Otter Creeks, Cortland, New York. House 

§ 1002(a)(24). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1002(a)(28). East River, Silver Beach, New York City, New 

York. House § 1002(a)(25). No comparable Senate section.—Senate 

recedes. 

1002(a)(29). East Valley Creek, Andover, New York. House 

§ 1002(a)(26). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1002(a)(30). Sunnyside Brook, Westchester County, New York. 

House § 1002(a)(27). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1002(a)(31). Little Yankee and Mud Run, Trumbull County, 

Ohio. House § 1002(a)(28). No comparable Senate section.—Senate 

recedes. 

1002(a)(32). Little Neshaminy Creek, Warrington, Pennsylvania. House § 1002(a)(29). No comparable Senate section.—Senate 

recedes. 

1002(a)(33). Southampton Creek Watershed, Southampton, 

Pennsylvania. House § 1002(a)(30). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1002(a)(34). Spring Creek, Lower Macungie Township, Pennsylvania. House § 1002(a)(31). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
259 

1002(a)(35). Yardley Aqueduct, Silver and Brock Creeks, 

Yardley, Pennsylvania. House §1002(a)(32). No comparable Senate 

section.—Senate recedes. 

1002(a)(36). Surfside Beach, South Carolina. House 

§1002(a)(33). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1002(a)(37). Sandy Creek, Jackson County, Tennessee. Senate 

§3113. No comparable House section.—House recedes, with an 

amendment. 

1002(a)(38). Congelosi Ditch, Missouri City, Texas. House 

§1002(a)(34). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1002(a)(39). Dilley, Texas. House §1002(a)(35). No comparable 

Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1002(a)(40). Cheyenne, Wyoming. Senate §1004(7). No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 1003. SMALL PROJECTS FOR EMERGENCY STREAMBANK

PROTECTION

1003(1). Aliso Creek, California. House §1003(1). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1003(2). St. Johns Bluff Training Wall, Duval County, Florida. 

House §1003(2). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1003(3). Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Iberville Parish, Louisiana. House §1003(3). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1003(4). Ouachita and Black Rivers, Arkansas and Louisiana. 

House §1003(4). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1003(5). Piney Point Lighthouse, St. Mary’s County, Maryland. 

House §1003(5). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1003(6). Pug Hole Lake, Minnesota. House §1003(6). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1003(7). Middle Fork Grand River, Gentry County, Missouri. 

House §1003(7). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1003(8). Platte River, Platte City, Missouri. House §1003(8). 

No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1003(9). Rush Creek, Parkville, Missouri. House §1003(9). No 

comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1003(10). Dry and Otter Creeks, Cortland County, New York. 

House §1003(10). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1003(11). Keuka Lake, Hammondsport, New York. House 

§1003(11). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1003(12). Kowawese Unique Area and Hudson River, New 

Windsor, New York. House §1003(12). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1003(13). Owego Creek, Tioga County, New York. House 

§1003(13). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1003(14). Howard Road Outfall, Shelby County, Tennessee. 

House §1003(14). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1003(15). Mitch Farm Ditch and Lateral D, Shelby County, 

Tennessee. House §1003(15). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1003(16). Wolf River Tributaries, Shelby County, Tennessee. 

House §1003(16). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1003(17). Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas. House §1003(17). 

No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
260 

1003(18). Wells River, Newbury, Vermont. House §1003(18). 

No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 1004. SMALL PROJECTS FOR NAVIGATION

1004(a)(1). Barrow Harbor, Alaska. Senate §1005(1). No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

1004(a)(2). Coffman Cove, Alaska. House §5030. No comparable 

Senate section.—Senate recedes, with an amendment. 

1004(a)(3). Kotzebue Harbor, Alaska. House §5033. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, with an amendment. 

1004(a)(4). Nome Harbor, Alaska. Senate §1005(2). No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

1004(a)(5). Old Harbor, Alaska. Senate §1005(3). No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

1004(a)(6). Little Rock Port, Arkansas. Senate §1005(4). No 

comparable House section.—House recedes. 

1004(a)(7). Mississippi River Ship Channel, Louisiana. House 

§1004(a)(1). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1004(a)(8). East Basin, Cape Cod Canal, Sandwich, Massachusetts. House §1004(a)(2), Senate 1005(5).—Same. 

1004(a)(9). Lynn Harbor, Lynn, Massachusetts. House 

§1004(a)(3), Senate §1005(6).—Same. 

1004(a)(10). Merrimack River, Haverhill, Massachusetts. 

House §1004(a)(4), Senate §1005(7).—Same. 

1004(a)(11). Oak Bluffs Harbor, Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts. 

House §1004(a)(5), Senate §1005(8).—Same. 

1004(a)(12). Woods Hole Great Harbor, Falmouth, Massachusetts. House §1004(a)(6), Senate §1005(9).—Same. 

1004(a)(13). Au Sable River, Michigan. House §1004(a)(7), Senate §1005(10).—Same. 

1004(a)(14). Clinton River, Michigan. Senate §1005(11). No 

comparable House section.—House recedes. 

1004(a)(15). Ontonagon River, Michigan. Senate §1005(12). No 

comparable House section.—House recedes. 

1004(a)(16). Outer Channel and Inner Harbor, Menominee 

Harbor, Michigan and Wisconsin. Senate §1005(16). No comparable 

House section.—House recedes. 

1004(a)(17). Sebewaing River, Michigan. Senate §1005(14). No 

comparable House section.—House recedes. 

1004(a)(18). Traverse City Harbor, Traverse City, Michigan. 

House §1004(a)(8), Senate §1005(13).—Same. 

1004(a)(19). Tower Harbor, Tower Minnesota. House 

§1004(a)(9), Senate §1005(15).—Same. 

1004(a)(20). Olcott Harbor, Olcott, New York. House 

§1004(a)(10). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1004(a)(21). Milwaukee Harbor, Wisconsin. Senate §1005(18). 

No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 1005. SMALL PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY OF

THE ENVIRONMENT

1005(1). Ballona Creek, Los Angeles County, California. House 

§ 1005(1). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
261 

1005(2). Ballona Lagoon Tide Gates, Marina Del Ray, California. House § 1005(2). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1005(3). Ft. George Inlet, Duval County, Florida. House 

§ 1005(3). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1005(4). Rathbun Lake, Iowa. House § 1005(4). No comparable 

Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1005(5). Smithville Lake, Missouri. House § 1005(5). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1005(6). Delaware Bay, New Jersey and Delaware. House 

§ 1005(6). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1005(7). Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Pennsylvania. House 

§ 1005(7). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 1006. SMALL PROJECTS FOR AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION

1006(a)(1). Cypress Creek, Montgomery, Alabama. House 

§ 1006(1). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1006(a)(2). Black Lake, Alaska. House § 1006(2), Senate 

§ 1006(1).—Same. 

1006(a)(3). Ben Lomond Dam, Santa Cruz, California. House 

§ 1006(4). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1006(a)(4). Dockweiler Bluffs, Los Angeles County, California. 

House § 1006(5). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1006(a)(5). Salt River, California. House § 1006(6). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1006(a)(6). San Diego River, California. Senate § 1006(2). No 

comparable House section.—House recedes. 

1006(a)(7). Santa Rosa Creek, Santa Rosa, California. House 

§ 1006(7). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1006(a)(8). Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel and Lower San 

Joaquin River, California. House § 1006(8). No comparable Senate 

section.—Senate recedes. 

1006(a)(9). Suisun Marsh, San Pablo Bay, California. Senate 

§ 1006(3). No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

1006(a)(10). Sweetwater Reservoir, San Diego County, California. House § 1006(9). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1006(a)(11). Biscayne Bay, Florida. House § 1006(10). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1006(a)(12). Clam Bayou and Dinkins Bayou, Sanibel Island, 

Florida. House § 1006(11). No comparable Senate section.—Senate 

recedes. 

1006(a)(13). Mountain Park, Georgia. Senate § 2037(a)(2)(A). 

No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

1006(a)(14). Chattahoochee Fall Line, Georgia and Alabama. 

House § 1006(12), Senate § 1006(4).—Senate recedes. 

1006(a)(15). Longwood Cove, Gainesville, Georgia. House 

§ 1006(13). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1006(a)(16). City Park, University Lakes, Louisiana. House 

§ 1006(15). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1006(a)(17). Lawrence Gateway, Massachusetts. Senate 

§ 1006(5). No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

1006(a)(18). Milford Pond, Milford, Massachusetts. Senate 

§ 1006(7). No comparable House section.—House recedes. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
262 

1006(a)(19). Mill Pond, Littleton, Massachusetts. House 

§ 1006(16), Senate § 1006(6).—Same. 

1006(a)(20). Pine Tree Brook, Milton, Massachusetts. House 

§ 1006(17), Senate § 1006(8).—Same. 

1006(a)(21). Clinton River, Michigan. Senate § 1006(9). No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

1006(a)(22). Kalamazoo River Watershed, Battle Creek, Michigan. House § 1006(18). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1006(a)(23). Rush Lake, Minnesota. House § 1006(19). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1006(a)(24). South Fork of the Crow River, Hutchinson, Minnesota. House § 1006(20). No comparable Senate section.—Senate 

recedes. 

1006(a)(25). St. Louis, Missouri. House § 1006(21). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1006(a)(26). Mobley Dam, Tongue River, Montana. No comparable House or Senate section. 

1006(a)(27). S and H Dam, Tongue River, Montana. No comparable House or Senate section. 

1006(a)(28). Vandalia Dam, Milk River, Montana. No comparable House or Senate section. 

1006(a)(29). Truckee River, Reno, Nevada. House § 1006(22). 

No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1006(a)(30). Grover’s Mill Pond, New Jersey. House § 1006(23). 

No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1006(a)(31). Caldwell County, North Carolina. Senate 

§ 1006(10). No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

1006(a)(32). Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Senate 

§ 1006(11). No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

1006(a)(33). Dugway Creek, Bratenahl, Ohio. House § 1006(24). 

No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1006(a)(34). Johnson Creek, Gresham, Oregon. House 

§ 1006(25), Senate § 1006(12).—Same. 

1006(a)(35). Beaver Creek, Beaver and Salem, Pennsylvania. 

House § 1006(26). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1006(a)(36). Cementon Dam, Lehigh River, Pennsylvania. 

House § 1006(27). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1006(a)(37). Ingham Spring Dam, Solebury Township, Pennsylvania. House § 5003(a)(5). Senate § 2037(a)(2)(E).—House recedes. 

1006(a)(38). Saucon Creek, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. House § 1006(28). No comparable Senate section.—Senate 

recedes. 

1006(a)(39). Stillwater Lake Dam, Monroe County, Pennsylvania. Senate § 2037(a)(2)(F), House § 5003(a)(7).—House recedes. 

1006(a)(40). Blackstone River, Rhode Island. House § 1006(29), 

Senate § 1006(13).—Same. 

1006(a)(41). Wilson Branch, Cheraw, South Carolina. House 

§ 1006(30). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1006(a)(42). White River, Bethel, Vermont. House § 1006(31). 

No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1006(a)(43). College Lake, Lynchburg, Virginia. Senate 

§ 1006(14). No comparable Senate section.—House recedes. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
263 

SEC. 1007. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SHORELINE PROTECTION

1007(1). Nelson Lagoon, Alaska. House § 1007(1). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1007(2). Nicholas Canyon, Los Angeles, California. Senate 

§ 4006. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

1007(3). Sanibel Island, Florida. House § 1007(2). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1007(4). Apra Harbor, Guam. House § 1007(3). No comparable 

Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1007(5). Piti, Cabras Island, Guam. House § 1007(4). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1007(6). Narrows and Gravesend Bay, Upper New York Bay, 

Brooklyn, New York. House § 1007(5). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

1007(7). Delaware River, Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Pennsylvania. House § 1007(7). No comparable Senate section.—Senate 

recedes. 

1007(8). Port Aransas, Texas. House § 1007(8). No comparable 

Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 1008. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SNAGGING AND SEDIMENT REMOVAL

1008. Kowawese Unique Area and Hudson River, New Windsor, New York. House § 1008. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 1009. SMALL PROJECTS TO PREVENT OR MITIGATE DAMAGE

CAUSED BY NAVIGATION PROJECTS

1009(1). Tybee Island, Georgia. Senate § 1007(1). House § 4032. 

House recedes. 

1009(2). Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana. Senate § 1007(2). 

House § 5069. House recedes. 

SEC. 1010. SMALL PROJECTS FOR AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL

1010. Republican River Basin, Nebraska. Senate § 1008. No 

comparable House section.—House recedes, with an amendment. 

TITLE 2—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

SEC. 2001. NON-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS

House § 2001, No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 2002. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS

House § 2003, Senate § 2017. Senate recedes, with an amendment. 

The Managers recognize the importance of efficient and effective processing of permits by the Corps of Engineers for activities 

affecting federally regulated waters, including wetlands, in compliance with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 

et seq.). Congress included a provision in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106–541, Sec. 214) to expedite the 

permit processing time for nonfederal public entities. 

The Managers also recognize the findings and recommendations of the May 2007 report of the United States Government AcVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:35 Aug 04, 2007 Jkt 036965 PO 00000 Frm 00267 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR280.XXX HR280

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
264 

countability Office (‘‘GAO’’), entitled ‘‘Corps of Engineers Needs To 

Ensure That Permit Decisions Made Using Funds From Nonfederal 

Public Entities Are Transparent and Impartial’’ (GAO–07–478). In 

this report, GAO emphasized the importance of transparency and 

impartiality in permit reviews and decisionmaking, and ensuring 

that all of the Corps’ District offices follow internal Corps’ Headquarters guidance on maintaining impartial decisionmaking, including, at a minimum, that all Corps District offices provide that 

permits decisions under section 214 are reviewed at least by one 

level above the decisionmaker, that all final permit decisions are 

made available electronically, that the Corps not eliminate any procedures or decisions that would otherwise be required for the type 

of project under consideration, and that the Corps comply with all 

applicable laws and regulations. The GAO report also expressed 

concern that certain Corps districts have allowed private companies to submit permit applications under section 214, in contravention to the intent of this authority. 

Although GAO was not able to conclude definitively whether 

permitting processing times have decreased under the section 214 

program, the report does recognize some benefits reported by participating non-Federal public entities, including the potential for reduced cost and time for permit processing for those entities that 

have contributed funds to the program, and improved communication between participating entities and the Corps. 

The Managers intend to conduct additional oversight on the 

implementation of this program before the authority for this program expires in 2009. 

SEC. 2003. WRITTEN AGREEMENT FOR WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

House § 2009, Senate § 2001, 2023, and 2039.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 2004. COMPILATION OF LAWS

House § 2011, No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 2005. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL

House § 2012, Senate § 3089.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 2006. REMOTE AND SUBSISTENCE HARBORS

House § 2015, Senate § 2038.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 2007. USE OF OTHER FEDERAL FUNDS

House § 2018, No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 2008. REVISION OF PROJECT PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT; COST

SHARING

House § 2019, 2020, 2035. No comparable Senate sections.— Senate recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 2009. EXPEDITED ACTIONS FOR EMERGENCY FLOOD DAMAGE

REDUCTION

House § 2021, No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
265 

SEC. 2010. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS

House § 2022, No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 2011. TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

House § 2023, Senate § 2027.—House recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 2012. WILDFIRE FIREFIGHTING

House § 2024, Senate § 2022.—Same. 

SEC. 2013. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

House § 2025, Senate § 2009.—Senate recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 2014. LAKES PROGRAM

House § 2026, Senate § 5001.—House and Senate with comparable sections, combine list of House and Senate projects. 

This section amends section 602(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to add the following locations to the Lakes 

Program: Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois; McCarter Pond, 

Borough of Fairhaven, New Jersey; Rogers Pond, Franklin Township, New Jersey; Greenwood Lake, New York and New Jersey; 

Lake Rodgers, Creedmoor, North Carolina; Lake Sakakawea, North 

Dakota; Lake Luxembourg, Pennsylvania; Lake Fairlee, Vermont; 

and Lake Morley, Vermont. 

SEC. 2015. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS

House § 2029, No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 2016. TRAINING FUNDS

House § 2030, Senate § 2003.—Same. 

SEC. 2017. ACCESS TO WATER RESOURCE DATA

House § 2031, Senate § 2010.—House recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 2018. SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS

House § 2032, Senate § 2014.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 2019. ABILITY TO PAY

House § 2033, No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 2020. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM AND ESTUARY RESTORATION

House § 2006, Senate § 2033, 2035, and 2037.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

The Managers recognize the importance of projects for the restoration of salt-water estuaries and for the rehabilitation and removal of dams in improving aquatic ecosystems and the environment. The Managers recognize that such projects are typically eliVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:35 Aug 04, 2007 Jkt 036965 PO 00000 Frm 00269 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR280.XXX HR280

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
266 

gible under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330). 

This section amends section 206 to explicitly authorize projects 

that improve elements and features of an estuary (as defined in 

section 103 of the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000 (33 

U.S.S. 2902)) and projects for the removal of dams, that otherwise 

meet the requirements of section 206. 

SEC. 2021. SMALL FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECTS

House § 2007, Senate § 2040.—Senate recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 2022. SMALL RIVER AND HARBOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

Senate § 2031, No comparable House section.—House recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 2023. PROTECTION OF HIGHWAYS, BRIDGE APPROACHES, PUBLIC

WORKS, AND NONPROFIT PUBLIC SERVICES

Senate § 2032, No comparable House section.—House recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 2024. MODIFICATION OF PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE

QUALITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

House § 2008, Senate § 2034.—Senate recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 2025. REMEDIATION OF ABANDONED MINE SITES

Senate § 2036, No comparable House section.—House recedes, 

with an amendment. 

In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall give priority to 

the Mt. Diablo Mercury Mine Clean-up project in Contra Costa 

County, California. 

SEC. 2026. LEASING AUTHORITY

House § 2034, No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 2027. FISCAL TRANSPARENCY REPORT

Senate § 2004, No comparable House section.—House recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 2028. SUPPORT OF ARMY CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM

House § 2041, No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 2029. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON CRITERIA FOR OPERATION AND

MAINTENANCE OF HARBOR DREDGING PROJECTS

House § 2043, No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 2030. INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT AUTHORITY

Senate § 2002, No comparable House section.—House recedes. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
267 

SEC. 2028. WATER RESOURCES PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES

House § 2036, Senate § 2006.—Senate recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 2032. WATER RESOURCE PRIORITIES REPORT

Senate § 2006(d), No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 2033. PLANNING

Senate § 2005, No comparable House section.—House recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 2034. INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW

Senate § 2007, House § 2037.—House recedes, with an amendment. 

Section 2034 provides that project studies shall be subject to 

peer review by an independent panel of experts, as provided in this 

section. The conference agreement is a combination of independent 

peer review proposals passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives. The managers believe that the conference agreement 

improves upon both the House and Senate proposals to create a 

strong, workable, and independent process for review of project 

studies carried out by the Corps of Engineers. For example, the 

conference agreement authorizes the independent peer review to 

run concurrent with the project study period, and requires that the 

peer review panel remain beyond the release of the independent 

peer review report to allow the expertise gained during the review 

period to be utilized by the Corps up to the release of the draft report of the Chief of Engineers. 

This section establishes two categories for independent peer review—project studies for which independent peer review is mandatory, and project studies for which such review is discretionary. 

This section provides for mandatory review of project studies that 

have an estimated total cost of more than $45 million, project studies for which the Governor of an affected state requests an independent peer review, and project studies that the Chief of Engineers determines are controversial. In determining whether a 

project is controversial, the Chief of Engineers must consider 

whether there is significant public dispute as to the size, nature, 

or effects of the proposed project, and whether there is significant 

public dispute as to the economic or environmental costs or benefits 

of the proposed project. 

Section 2034(a)(3)(B) provides for discretionary independent 

peer review of project studies for which the head of a Federal or 

state agency charged with reviewing the project study determines 

that the proposed project is likely to have a significant adverse impact on environmental, cultural, or other natural resources under 

the jurisdiction of the agency after implementation of the proposed 

mitigation plans. This section provides that the Chief of Engineers 

must reach a decision whether to conduct an independent peer review of such project studies within 21 days of a receipt of a request 

by the head of the Federal or state agency. In the event that the 

Chief of Engineers decides not to conduct a discretionary indeVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:35 Aug 04, 2007 Jkt 036965 PO 00000 Frm 00271 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR280.XXX HR280

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
268 

pendent peer review, the head of the Federal or state agency that 

requested the review may appeal this decision to the Chairman of 

the Council on Environmental Quality (‘‘CEQ’’). The Chairman of 

CEQ must reach a decision on whether an independent peer review 

must be conducted for the project study with 30 days of receipt of 

an appeal. In the event that the Chief of Engineers decides not to 

conduct an independent peer review, the Chief of Engineers must 

make the reasons for not conducting the review publicly available, 

including on the Internet. 

Section 2034 permits the Chief of Engineers to exclude a very 

limited number of project studies from independent peer review. 

The managers expect that project studies that could be excluded 

from independent peer review are so limited in scope or impact, 

that they would not significantly benefit from an independent peer 

review. 

Sections 2034(a)(5)(A) and (B) establish criteria for the Chief 

of Engineers to exclude a project study that is subject to independent peer review because its estimated total costs exceed $45 

million. The managers expect that these criteria allow the Chief of 

Engineers to exclude from independent peer review only those 

project studies for which there is no controversy, a lack of significant impact to cultural, historical, or tribal resources, a lack of substantial adverse impacts to fish and wildlife species or habitat, and 

a lack of an impact on endangered or threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act, or involve projects that, in essence, replace existing components of ongoing projects within the same footprint as the original project, or have minimal risk to life or public 

safety. 

Project studies subject to independent peer review based on the 

request of the Governor of an affected State may not be excluded 

from review. 

Section 2034(a)(5)(C) authorizes the Chief of Engineers to exclude the small project studies developed under certain of the 

Corps of Engineers continuing authorities programs; however, such 

project studies could be subject to independent peer review under 

the factors established under section 2034(a)(3)(A). 

Sections 2034(a)(2) and 2034(d) establish the duties of the 

independent peer review panel and the scope of review for a project 

study. The managers have defined the scope of review broadly to 

allow the independent review panel to examine all of the economic 

and environmental assumptions and projections, project evaluation 

data, economic analyses, environmental analyses, engineering analyses, formulation of alternative plans, methods for integrating risk 

and uncertainty, models used in evaluation of economic or environmental impacts of proposed projects, and any biological opinions of 

the project study. The managers expect the independent peer review panel to review those components of a project study for which 

the panel believes there is a reason for review. The managers do 

not expect the independent peer review panel to review components 

of the project study where the panel determines there is no controversy, disagreement, or concern. 

Sections 2034(b) and 2034(e)(1)(A) establish the timing of the 

independent peer review. The managers expect that, in all cases, 

the independent peer review will occur during the period beginning 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
269 

on the date of the signing of the feasibility cost-sharing agreement, 

and will be conducted concurrent with the development of the 

project study by the Corps of Engineers. The managers believe that 

having the independent peer review carried out concurrently with 

the development of the project study will allow the independent 

peer review panel to receive relevant information from the Corps, 

on a timely basis, and allow the independent peer review panel to 

provide ongoing input into the development of the project study. 

The managers expect that this process will provide the independent 

peer review panel with sufficient information to conduct its review, 

as well as allow the peer review panel to recommend mid-course 

corrections to the ongoing project study, and avoid the potential for 

significant issues or delay to arise at the end of the project study 

period. The managers recognize that the recommendations of the 

independent peer review panel are advisory; however, the managers expect the Corps to give full consideration to the findings of 

the independent peer review panel. 

Section 2034(e)(1)(A) provides that the independent peer review panel conclude its peer review, and submit a report to the 

Chief of Engineers, not more than 60 days after the close of the 

public comment period for the draft project study. The Chief of Engineers may extend the period for the peer review panel to conclude its peer review if the Chief of Engineers determines that additional time is necessary. The managers have included language 

to terminate the peer review panel on the date of the initiation of 

the State and agency review, which is conterminous with the release of the draft Report of the Chief of Engineers for the project, 

and which is after the issuance of the peer review report. The managers recognize that the Corps of Engineers intends to allow a 

member or members of the peer review panel to participate on the 

Civil Works Review Board, which requires District Commanders to 

present their final reports and recommendations for review. The 

managers have included language to keep the independent peer review impaneled beyond the issuance of the peer review report to 

allow a member of the peer review panel to participate on the Civil 

Works Review Board, and to be available as experts, if needed, for 

additional consultation with the Corps of Engineers on the project 

study. 

SEC. 2035. SAFETY ASSURANCE REVIEW

Senate § 2007(d), No comparable House section.—House recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 2036. MITIGATION FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE AND WETLANDS

LOSSES

House § 2013 and 2014, Senate § 2008.—House recedes, with 

an amendment. 

Section 2036 amends section 906(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 with more explicit mitigation requirements 

and to specify the elements that must be identified in a mitigation 

plan required under that section. 

This section requires the Secretary to mitigate losses to flood 

damage reduction capabilities and losses to fish and wildlife of the 

project area. The specific mitigation plan must include a descripVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:35 Aug 04, 2007 Jkt 036965 PO 00000 Frm 00273 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR280.XXX HR280

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
270 

tion of the physical action to be undertaken. The plan also must 

include a description of the lands or interests in lands to be acquired for mitigation, and the basis for a determination that such 

lands are available. This description is not intended to be a description of the specific property interests, but the plan must describe how the mitigation will be implemented. 

The managers expect the mitigation plan to identify the quantity and type of lands needed, and include a determination that 

lands of such quantity and type are available for acquisition. The 

plan also must include the type, amount, and characteristics of the 

habitat to be restored. The plan must include success criteria based 

on replacement of lost functions and values of the habitat, including hydrologic and vegetative characteristics. Finally, if monitoring 

is necessary to determine success of the mitigation, the plan must 

include a plan for monitoring and to the extent practicable, identification of the entities responsible for monitoring. As monitoring is 

part of operation and maintenance of a project, in most cases the 

entity responsible for any monitoring will be the non-Federal sponsor. If such person is not identifiable at the time the mitigation 

plan is prepared under this section, such person must be identified 

in the partnership agreement entered into with the non-Federal interest. 

The managers support more specificity in Corps reporting documents concerning expected mitigation efforts. Such increased 

specificity will better inform the Congress, the non-Federal sponsor, and the public as to planned mitigation efforts and the likely 

success of these efforts. This section also directs the Secretary to 

submit to Congress a report on the status of mitigation concurrent 

with the submission of reports on the status of project construction, 

as part of the President’s budget submission. 

Section 2036(c) directs the Secretary, when carrying out water 

resources projects, to first consider the use of a mitigation bank if 

the bank has sufficient and appropriate (including ecologically appropriate) credit to offset the impact, and the mitigation bank 

meets certain criteria. To the maximum extent practicable, the 

service area of the mitigation bank shall be in the same watershed 

as the project activity for which mitigation is required. 

Nothing in this section affects the responsibility of the Corps 

of Engineers to apply the regulatory guidelines developed under 

section 404(b)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (40 

CFR Part 230) related to mitigation sequencing. 

SEC. 2037. REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT

House § 2016, Senate § 2012.—Senate recedes, with an amendment. 

This section amends section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326), and includes a new subsection (f) that directs the Secretary to give priority to regional 

sediment management projects in the following locations: Little 

Rock Slackwater Harbor, Arkansas; Fletcher Cove, California; 

Egmont Key, Florida; Calcasieu Ship Channel, Louisiana; Delaware River Estuary, New Jersey and Pennsylvania; Fire Island 

Inlet, Suffolk County, New York; Smith Point Park Pavilion and 

the TWA Flight 800 Memorial, Brookhaven, New York; Morehead 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
271 

City, North Carolina; Toledo Harbor, Lucas County, Ohio; Galveston Bay, Texas; and Benson Beach, Washington. 

SEC. 2038. NATIONAL SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT

PROGRAM

House § 2005 and 2004, Senate § 2013.—House recedes, with 

an amendment. 

SEC. 2039. MONITORING ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION

Senate § 2015, No comparable House section.—House recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 2040. ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF PERMIT APPLICATIONS

Senate § 2018, No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 2041. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION

Senate § 2024, No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 2042. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION

Senate § 2025, No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 2043. STUDIES AND REPORTS FOR WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

House § 2038, No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 2044. COORDINATION AND SCHEDULING OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND

LOCAL ACTIONS

House § 2027, No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 2045. PROJECT STREAMLINING

House § 2028, No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 2046. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATION

Senate § 2028, House § 3123(f).—House recedes, with an 

amendment. 

SEC. 2047. FEDERAL HOPPER DREDGES

House § 2042, Senate § 2020.—Senate recedes, with an amendment. 

TITLE III—PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS 

SEC. 3001. BLACK WARRIOR-TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, ALABAMA

Senate § 3003. No comparable House section.—House recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 3002. COOK INLET, ALASKA

House § 3001. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
272 

SEC. 3003. KING COVE HARBOR, ALASKA

House § 3002. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3004. SEWARD HARBOR, ALASKA

Senate § 4001. No comparable House section.—House recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 3005. SITKA, ALASKA

House § 3003, Senate § 3002.—Same. 

SEC. 3006. TATITLEK, ALASKA

House § 3004. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3007. RIO DE FLAG, FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA

House § 3005, Senate § 3005.—Same. 

SEC. 3008. NOGALES WASH AND TRIBUTARIES FLOOD CONTROL

PROJECT, ARIZONA

Senate § 3004. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3009. TUCSON DRAINAGE AREA, ARIZONA

Senate § 3006. No comparable House section.—House recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 3010. OSCEOLA HARBOR, ARKANSAS

House § 3006. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3011. ST. FRANCIS RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS AND MISSOURI

Senate § 3010. House § 5043.—House recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 3012. PINE MOUNTAIN DAM, ARKANSAS

House § 3007. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 3013. RED-OUACHITA RIVER BASIN LEVEES, ARKANSAS AND

LOUISIANA

Senate § 3009. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3014. CACHE CREEK BASIN, CALIFORNIA

Senate § 3013. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3015. CALFED STABILITY PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA

Senate § 3014. No comparable House section.—House recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 3016. COMPTON CREEK, CALIFORNIA

House § 3009. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
273 

SEC. 3017. GRAYSON CREEK/MURDERER’S CREEK, CALIFORNIA

House § 3010, Senate § 2016(1).—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3018. HAMILTON AIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA

House § 3011, Senate § 3015.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3019. JOHN F. BALDWIN SHIP CHANNEL AND STOCKTON SHIP

CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA

House § 3012. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

The managers recommend that the Secretary and the Chief of 

Engineers expedite the completion of the ongoing General Reevaluation Report for the San Francisco Bay to Stockton project. 

SEC. 3020. KAWEAH RIVER, CALIFORNIA

House § 3013. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3021. LARKSPUR FERRY CHANNEL, LARKSPUR, CALIFORNIA

House § 3014, Senate § 3017.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3022. LLAGAS CREEK, CALIFORNIA

House § 3015, Senate § 3018.—House recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 3023. MAGPIE CREEK, CALIFORNIA

House § 3016, Senate § 3019.—Senate recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 3024. PACIFIC FLYWAY CENTER, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

House § 3017. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3025. PETALUMA RIVER, PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA

Senate § 3020. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3026. PINOLE CREEK, CALIFORNIA

House § 3018. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3027. PRADO DAM, CALIFORNIA

House § 3019. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3028. REDWOOD CITY NAVIGATION CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA

Senate § 3029. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

The managers recognize the importance of annual operation 

and maintenance of navigation channels and note that the work 

addressed in this section can be addressed under existing statutory 

authorities. The managers do not intend to address the operation 

and maintenance of every navigation project through the enactment of additional statutory language, but expect the Corps to address the maintenance dredging needs of authorized projects under 

existing statutory authorities. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
274 

SEC. 3029. SACRAMENTO AND AMERICAN RIVERS FLOOD CONTROL, 

CALIFORNIA

House § 3008 and 3020, Senate § 3023.—House recedes, with 

an amendment. 

SEC. 3030. SACRAMENTO DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA

House § 3019. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3031. SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION, CALIFORNIA

Senate § 3024. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3032. SALTON SEA RESTORATION, CALIFORNIA

Senate § 3026. No comparable House section.—House recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 3033. SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CALIFORNIA

No comparable Senate or House section. 

SEC. 3034. SANTA BARBARA STREAMS, LOWER MISSION CREEK, 

CALIFORNIA

Senate § 3027. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3035. SANTA CRUZ HARBOR, CALIFORNIA

House § 3022. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3036. SEVEN OAKS DAM, CALIFORNIA

House § 3023, Senate § 2016(2).—Senate recedes, with an 

amendment. 

SEC. 3037. UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CALIFORNIA

House § 3025, Senate § 3028.—House recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 3038. WALNUT CREEK CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA

House § 3025, Senate § 2016(3).—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3039. WILDCAT/SAN PABLO CREEK PHASE I, CALIFORNIA

House § 3026. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3040. WILDCAT/SAN PABLO CREEK PHASE II, CALIFORNIA

House § 3027, Senate § 2016(5).—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3041. YUBA RIVER BASIN PROJECT, CALIFORNIA

House § 3028, Senate § 3029.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3042. SOUTH PLATTE RIVER BASIN, COLORADO

House § 3029. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
275 

SEC. 3043. INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE RIVER TO

CHESAPEAKE BAY, DELAWARE AND MARYLAND

House § 3030. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3044. ST. GEORGE’S BRIDGE, DELAWARE

Senate § 3033. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3045. BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

House § 3031, Senate § 3035.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3046. BROWARD COUNTY AND HILLSBORO INLET, FLORIDA

House § 3032. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3047. CANAVERAL HARBOR, FLORIDA

House § 3033. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 3048. GASPARILLA AND ESTERO ISLANDS, FLORIDA

House § 3034. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3049. LIDO KEY BEACH, SARASOTA, FLORIDA

House § 3036, Senate § 3038.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3050. PEANUT ISLAND, FLORIDA

House § 3038. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3051. PORT SUTTON, FLORIDA

Senate § 3039. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3052. TAMPA HARBOR-BIG BEND CHANNEL, FLORIDA

House § 3039. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3053. TAMPA HARBOR CUT B, FLORIDA

House § 3040, Senate § 3040.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3054. ALLATOONA LAKE, GEORGIA

House § 3041, Senate § 3041.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3055. LATHAM RIVER, GLYNN COUNTY, GEORGIA

House § 3042. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3056. DWORSHAK RESERVOIR IMPROVEMENTS, IDAHO

Senate § 3042, House § 3043.—House recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 3057. LITTLE WOOD RIVER, GOODING, IDAHO

Senate § 3043. No comparable House section.—House recedes, 

with an amendment. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
276 

SEC. 3058. BEARDSTOWN COMMUNITY BOAT HARBOR, BEARDSTOWN, 

ILLINOIS

House § 3044. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3059. CACHE RIVER LEVEE, ILLINOIS

House § 3045, Senate § 3045.—Same. 

SEC. 3060. CHICAGO RIVER, ILLINOIS

House § 3046, Senate § 3046.—Same. 

SEC. 3061. CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIERS

PROJECT, ILLINOIS

House § 3047, Senate § 5015.—Senate recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 3062. EMIQUON, ILLINOIS

House § 3048. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3063. LASALLE, ILLINOIS

House § 3049. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3064. SPUNKY BOTTOMS, ILLINOIS

House § 3050, Senate § 3050.—Senate recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 3065. CEDAR LAKE, INDIANA

No comparable House or Senate section. 

SEC. 3066. KOONTZ LAKE, INDIANA

House § 3052. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3067. WHITE RIVER, INDIANA

House § 3053. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

The managers recognize the importance of waterfront and 

riverfront development projects to local communities and that, in 

some instances, waterfront and riverfront development plans contain elements that fall within traditional Corps mission areas of 

navigation, flood damage reduction, and environmental restoration, 

and associated recreation. However, the managers believe that waterfront and riverfront development projects, in and of themselves, 

are not a Corps mission and Corps participation in these development projects must be limited to traditional Corps missions. While 

recreation is frequently an element of waterfront and riverfront development projects, the managers do not intend for the Corps to 

carry out purely recreational elements of the project, unrelated to 

the traditional missions of the Corps. The managers direct the 

Corps to limit its work on recreation features to only those elements that relate to the traditional Corps mission areas that are 

being built as an element of the larger waterfront and riverfront 

development project plan. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
277 

SEC. 3068. DES MOINES RIVER AND GREENBELT, IOWA

House § 3054. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

The managers recognize the importance of waterfront and 

riverfront development projects to local communities and that, in 

some instances, waterfront and riverfront development plans contain elements that fall within traditional Corps mission areas of 

navigation, flood damage reduction, and environmental restoration, 

and associated recreation. However, the managers believe that waterfront and riverfront development projects, in and of themselves, 

are not a Corps mission and Corps participation in these development projects must be limited to traditional Corps missions. While 

recreation is frequently an element of waterfront and riverfront development projects, the managers do not intend for the Corps to 

carry out purely recreational elements of the project, unrelated to 

the traditional missions of the Corps. The managers direct the 

Corps to limit its work on recreation features to only those elements that relate to the traditional Corps mission areas that are 

being built as an element of the larger waterfront and riverfront 

development project plan. 

SEC. 3069. PERRY CREEK, IOWA

Senate § 3145. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3070. RATHBUN LAKE, IOWA

House § 3055, Senate § 3146.—Same. 

SEC. 3071. HICKMAN BLUFF STABILIZATION, KENTUCKY

Senate § 3054. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3072. MCALPINE LOCK AND DAM, KENTUCKY AND INDIANA

Senate § 3055. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3073. PRESTONSBURG, KENTUCKY

House § 3056. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3074. AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, LOUISIANA, EAST BATON

ROUGE PARISH WATERSHED

House § 3057, Senate § 3059.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3075. ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LOUISIANA

House § 3059 and 3062, Senate § 3056.—House recedes, with 

an amendment. 

SEC. 3076. ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM, REGIONAL VISITOR

CENTER, LOUISIANA

House § 3058, Senate § 3057.—House recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 3077. ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF, AND

BLACK, LOUISIANA

No comparable House or Senate section. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
278 

SEC. 3078. BAYOU PLAQUEMINE, LOUISIANA

House § 3056. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3079. CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LOUISIANA

Senate § 3058. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3080. RED RIVER (J. BENNETT JOHNSTON) WATERWAY, LOUISIANA

House § 3061, Senate § 3061.—House recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 3081. MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LOUISIANA

House § 3063. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3082. MISSISSIPPI RIVER-GULF OUTLET RELOCATION ASSISTANCE, LOUISIANA

Senate § 3060. No comparable House section.—House recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 3083. VIOLET, LOUISIANA

Senate § 3076. No comparable House section.—House recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 3084. WEST BANK OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER (EAST OF HARVEY

CANAL), LOUISIANA

House § 3065. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3085. CAMP ELLIS, SACO, MAINE

House § 3066, Senate § 3062.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3086. CUMBERLAND, MARYLAND

Senate § 3069. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3087. POPLAR ISLAND, MARYLAND

Senate § 1001(22). No comparable House section.—House recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 3088. DETROIT RIVER SHORELINE, DETROIT, MICHIGAN

House § 3067. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3089. ST. CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST. CLAIR, MICHIGAN

House § 3067, Senate § 3074.—Senate recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 3090. ST. JOSEPH HARBOR, MICHIGAN

House § 3065. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3091. SAULT SAINTE MARIE, MICHIGAN

House § 3070, No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

The Managers recognize the importance of constructing a second lock at Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan, to enhance overall national security by avoiding any potential disruption to Great Lakes, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
279 

national, and international shipping that would occur in the event 

of a shutdown or terrorist attack at the existing lock. The Secretary 

is directed to carry out the project, as expeditiously as practicable, 

without regard to normal policy considerations. 

SEC. 3092. ADA, MINNESOTA

House § 3071. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 3093. DULUTH HARBOR, MCQUADE ROAD, MINNESOTA

House § 3072, Senate § 3075.—Senate recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 3094. GRAND MARAIS, MINNESOTA

House § 3073. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3095. GRAND PORTAGE HARBOR, MINNESOTA

House § 3074. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3096. GRANITE FALLS, MINNESOTA

House § 3073. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 3097. KNIFE RIVER HARBOR, MINNESOTA

House § 3076. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3098. RED LAKE RIVER, MINNESOTA

House § 3077. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3099. SILVER BAY, MINNESOTA

House § 3078. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3100. TACONITE HARBOR, MINNESOTA

House § 3079. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3101. TWO HARBORS, MINNESOTA

House § 3078. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 3102. DEER ISLAND, HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

House § 3078. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3103. JACKSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

Senate § 3147. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3104. PEARL RIVER BASIN, MISSISSIPPI

House § 3082. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 3105. FESTUS AND CRYSTAL CITY, MISSOURI

House § 3083. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
280 

SEC. 3106. L–15 LEVEE, MISSOURI

House § 3084, Senate § 3078.—Same. 

SEC. 3107. MONARCH-CHESTERFIELD, MISSOURI

House § 3085. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3108. RIVER DES PERES, MISSOURI

House § 3086. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3109. LOWER YELLOWSTONE PROJECT, MONTANA

Senate § 3080. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3110. YELLOWSTONE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MONTANA AND

NORTH DAKOTA

Senate § 3081. No comparable House section.—House recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 3111. ANTELOPE CREEK, LINCOLN, NEBRASKA

House § 3087. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3112. SAND CREEK WATERSHED, WAHOO, NEBRASKA

House § 3088. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3113. WESTERN SARPY AND CLEAR CREEK, NEBRASKA

House § 3089, Senate § 3082.—Same. 

SEC. 3114. LOWER TRUCKEE RIVER, MCCARRAN RANCH, NEVADA

Senate § 3083. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3115. LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY POINT, NEW JERSEY

House § 3090. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3116. PASSAIC RIVER BASIN FLOOD MANAGEMENT, NEW JERSEY

House § 3091. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3117. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS, NEW MEXICO

Senate § 3084. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3118. MIDDLE RIO GRANDE RESTORATION, NEW MEXICO

Senate § 3085. No comparable House section.—House recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 3119. BUFFALO HARBOR, NEW YORK. 

House § 3092. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3120. LONG ISLAND SOUND OYSTER RESTORATION, NEW YORK AND

CONNECTICUT

Senate § 3086. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

The Managers recognize that oyster restoration activities are 

consistent with the Corps environmental protection and restoration 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
281 

mission, and are appropriately cost shared at a non-Federal cost of 

35 percent, consistent with section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213). This section does not create a new cost share for oyster restoration activities. 

SEC. 3121. MAMARONECK AND SHELDRAKE RIVERS WATERSHED

MANAGEMENT, NEW YORK

Senate § 3087. No comparable House section.—House recedes, 

with an amendment. 

The managers recognize the importance of waterfront and 

riverfront development projects to local communities and that, in 

some instances, waterfront and riverfront development plans contain elements that fall within traditional Corps mission areas of 

navigation, flood damage reduction, and environmental restoration, 

and associated recreation. However, the managers believe that waterfront and riverfront development projects, in and of themselves, 

are not a Corps mission and Corps participation in these development projects must be limited to traditional Corps missions. While 

recreation is frequently an element of waterfront and riverfront development projects, the managers do not intend for the Corps to 

carry out purely recreational elements of the project, unrelated to 

the traditional missions of the Corps. The managers direct the 

Corps to limit its work on recreation features to only those elements that relate to the traditional Corps mission areas that are 

being built as an element of the larger waterfront and riverfront 

development project plan. 

SEC. 3122. ORCHARD BEACH, BRONX, NEW YORK

House § 3093, Senate § 3088.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3123. PORT OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK AND NEW

JERSEY

House § 3094. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3124. NEW YORK STATE CANAL SYSTEM

House § 3095, Senate § 3090.—Same. 

SEC. 3125. SUSQUEHANNA RIVER AND UPPER DELAWARE RIVER

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, NEW YORK

Senate § 3091. No comparable House section.—House recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 3126. MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, NORTH DAKOTA

Senate § 3092. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3127. WAHPETON, NORTH DAKOTA

No comparable Senate or House section. 

SEC. 3128. OHIO

Senate § 3093. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
282 

SEC. 3129. LOWER GIRARD LAKE DAM, GIRARD, OHIO

House § 3096, Senate § 3094.—House recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 3130. MAHONING RIVER, OHIO

House § 3074. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3131. ARCADIA LAKE, OKLAHOMA

Senate § 3096. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3132. ARKANSAS RIVER CORRIDOR, OKLAHOMA

Senate § 3012. No comparable House section.—House recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 3133. LAKE EUFAULA, OKLAHOMA

Senate § 3097. No comparable House section.—House recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 3134. OKLAHOMA LAKES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM, OKLAHOMA

Senate § 3099. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3135. OTTAWA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA

Senate § 3100. No comparable House section.—House recedes, 

with an amendment. 

Section 3135 provides general authorization to complete the 

current buyout of residences and businesses in the communities of 

Picher, Cardin, and Hockerville, Oklahoma for those applicants 

that wish to participate in the program being administered by the 

State of Oklahoma. The funds authorized in this section may be appropriated through any Act of appropriation. 

Section 3135 directs the Administrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency to consider a remedial action for the Tar Creek, 

Oklahoma, National Priorities List site that includes permanent relocation of residents consistent with the program and costs of the 

program being administered by the State of Oklahoma. The Administrator should make appropriate use of the expertise and experience of the State of Oklahoma Lead-Impacted Communities Relocation Assistance Trust in developing such a remedy. 

Section 3135 also provides that the inclusion of subsidence 

remedies, such as relocation, as part of the remedial action does 

not preempt or in any way delay or interfere with the right of any 

sovereign entity, including any state or tribal government, to utilize state laws to seek additional or other remedies, such as abatement, for the land subsidence and subsidence risks. This section 

does not supersede state or tribal authority to seek remedies for 

land subsidence. 

SEC. 3136. RED RIVER CHLORIDE CONTROL, OKLAHOMA AND TEXAS

Senate § 3101. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3137. WAURIKA LAKE, OKLAHOMA

Senate § 3102. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
283 

SEC. 3138. UPPER WILLAMETTE RIVER WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM

RESTORATION, OREGON

Senate § 3104. House § 5103.—House recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 3139. DELAWARE RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA, NEW JERSEY, AND

DELAWARE

House § 3098. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3140. RAYSTOWN LAKE, PENNSYLVANIA

House § 3099. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3141. SHERADEN PARK STREAM AND CHARTIERS CREEK, 

ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

House § 3100. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3142. SOLOMON’S CREEK, WILKES-BARRE, PENNSYLVANIA

House § 3101. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3143. SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA

House § 3102. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3144. WYOMING VALLEY, PENNSYLVANIA

House § 3103. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3145. NARRAGANSETT BAY, RHODE ISLAND

Senate § 3106. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3146. MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, SOUTH DAKOTA

Senate § 3108. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3147. CEDAR BAYOU, TEXAS

House § 3104, Senate § 3113.—Senate recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 3148. FREEPORT HARBOR, TEXAS

House § 3105, Senate § 3116.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3149. LAKE KEMP, TEXAS

House § 3106. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3150. LOWER RIO GRANDE BASIN, TEXAS

House § 3107. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3151. NORTH PADRE ISLAND, CORPUS CHRISTI BAY, TEXAS

House § 3108. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3152. PAT MAYSE LAKE, TEXAS

House § 3109. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
284 

The managers recognize the need to review Federal policy concerning water supply at Corps of Engineers reservoirs, and to determine whether changes are warranted. At many existing Corps 

of Engineers reservoirs, there is the possibility of expanding the 

storage space that is dedicated to municipal and industrial water 

supply (drinking water) as an alternative to alleviate local water 

supply shortages. This is particularly true throughout the Southwest and Southeast. The current policy of the Corps of Engineers 

is to maximize the return to the Treasury for the right to utilize 

storage at these existing reservoirs. This often makes the cost of 

storage too high for many communities. 

The managers have included section 3152 in the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 to address this issue at Pat 

Mayse Lake, Texas; however, the managers do not expect to address additional water supply agreements on a case-by-case basis 

in future water resources bills, but rather to review the overall 

Federal policy concerning the operation of Corps of Engineers facilities. 

SEC. 3153. PROCTOR LAKE, TEXAS

House § 3110. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3154. SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

House § 3111. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3155. CONNECTICUT RIVER RESTORATION, VERMONT

Senate § 3118. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3156. DAM REMEDIATION, VERMONT

Senate § 3118. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

This provision adds the following dams to section 543 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 2000; Camp Wapanacki, 

Hardwick; Star Lake Dam, Mt. Holly; Curtis Pond, Calais; 

Weathersfield Reservoir, Springfield; Burr Pond, Sudbury; 

Maidstone Lake, Guildhall; Upper and Lower Hurricane Dam; 

Lake Fairlee; West Charleston Dam; White River, Sharon. 

SEC. 3157. LAKE CHAMPLAIN EURASIAN MILFOIL, WATER CHESTNUT, 

AND OTHER NONNATIVE PLANT CONTROL, VERMONT

Senate § 3120. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3158. UPPER CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN WETLAND RESTORATION, 

VERMONT AND NEW HAMPSHIRE

Senate § 3121. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3159. UPPER CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN ECOSYSTEM

RESTORATION, VERMONT AND NEW HAMPSHIRE

Senate § 3122. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3160. LAKE CHAMPLAIN WATERSHED, VERMONT AND NEW YORK

Senate § 3123. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
285 

SEC. 3161. SANDBRIDGE BEACH, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA

Senate § 3148. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3162. TANGIER ISLAND SEAWALL, VIRGINIA

House § 3112, Senate § 3126.—House recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 3163. DUWANISH/GREEN, WASHINGTON

House § 3113. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3164. MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, MCNARY NATIONAL WILDLIFE

REFUGE, WASHINGTON AND IDAHO

Senate § 3128. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3165. SNAKE RIVER PROJECT, WASHINGTON AND IDAHO

Senate § 3130. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3166. YAKIMA RIVER, PORT OF SUNNYSIDE, WASHINGTON

House § 3114. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3167. BLUESTONE LAKE, OHIO RIVER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA

House § 3115. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3168. GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA

House § 3116. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3169. LESAGE/GREENBOTTOM SWAMP, WEST VIRGINIA

House § 3117. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3170. LOWER MUD RIVER, MILTON, WEST VIRGINIA

Senate § 3132. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3171. MCDOWELL COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA

Senate § 3133. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3172. PARKERSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA

House § 3118. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

The managers recognize the importance of waterfront and 

riverfront development projects to local communities and that, in 

some instances, waterfront and riverfront development plans contain elements that fall within traditional Corps mission areas of 

navigation, flood damage reduction, and environmental restoration, 

and associated recreation. However, the managers believe that waterfront and riverfront development projects, in and of themselves, 

are not a Corps mission and Corps participation in these development projects must be limited to traditional Corps missions. While 

recreation is frequently an element of waterfront and riverfront development projects, the managers do not intend for the Corps to 

carry out purely recreational elements of the project, unrelated to 

the traditional missions of the Corps. The managers direct the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
286 

Corps to limit its work on recreation features to only those elements that relate to the traditional Corps mission areas that are 

being built as an element of the larger waterfront and riverfront 

development project plan. 

SEC. 3173. GREEN BAY HARBOR, GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN

Senate § 3134. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3174. MANITOWOC HARBOR, WISCONSIN

House § 3119. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3175. MISSISSIPPI RIVER HEADWATERS RESERVOIRS

House § 3120, Senate § 3137.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3176. UPPER BASIN OF THE MISSOURI RIVER

Senate § 3140. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3177. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Senate § 3139. No comparable House section.—House recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 3178. UPPER OHIO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES NAVIGATION SYSTEM

NEW TECHNOLOGY PILOT PROGRAM

Senate § 3144. No comparable House section.—House recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 3179. CONTINUATION OF PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS

(1) Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California. House 

§ 3121(1). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

(2) Agana River, Guam. House § 3121(2). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

(3) Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland and Virginia. 

House § 3121(3), Senate § 3067.—Senate recedes. 

(4) Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts. House § 3121(4), Senate 

§ 3071.—Senate recedes. 

(5) Ecorse Creek, Wayne County, Michigan. Senate § 3073, No 

comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3180. PROJECT REAUTHORIZATIONS

(1) Menominee Harbor and River, Michigan and Wisconsin. 

House § 3122(1). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

(2) Hearding Island Inlet, Duluth Harbor, Minnesota. House 

§ 3122(3). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

(3) Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin. House § 3122(2), Senate 

§ 3135.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3181. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS

(a)(1) Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut. House § 3123(a)(1), Senate § 6003.—Senate recedes. 

(a)(2) Mystic River, Connecticut. House § 3123(a)(2). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
287 

(a)(3) Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut. Senate § 3031. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

(a)(4) Rockland Harbor, Maine. House § 3123(a)(4), Senate 

§ 3036.—House recedes. 

(a)(5) Rockport Harbor, Maine. Senate § 3064. No comparable 

House section.—House recedes. 

(a)(6) Falmouth Harbor, Massachusetts. House § 3123(a)(5), 

Senate § 6027.—Senate recedes. 

(a)(7) Island End River, Massachusetts. House § 3123(a)(5), 

Senate § 6028.—Senate recedes. 

(a)(8) City Waterway, Tacoma, Washington. House § 3123(a)(7). 

No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

(a)(9) Aunt Lydia’s Cove, Massachusetts. House § 3123(a)(8), 

Senate § 3070.—Senate recedes. 

(a)(10) Whatcom Creek Waterway, Bellingham, Washington. 

Senate § 3131. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

(a)(11) Oconto Harbor, Wisconsin. Senate § 3136. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

(b) Anchorage Area, New London Harbor, Connecticut. Senate 

§ 3031, House § 3142(a)(3).—House recedes. 

(c) Southport Harbor, Fairfield, Connecticut. House § 3123(b). 

No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

(d) Saco River, Maine. House § 3123(c), Senate § 3065.—Same. 

(e) Union River, Maine. House § 3123(d), Senate § 3066.—Senate recedes. 

(f) Mystic River, Massachusetts. House § 3123(e), Senate 

§ 6029.—Senate recedes. 

(g) Rivercenter, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. No comparable 

House or Senate section. 

(h) Additional Deauthorizations. Senate §§ 6002, 6004, 6005, 

6007, 6008, 6009, 6011, 6013, 6014, 6015, 6016, 6017, 6018, 6019, 

6022, 6023, 6026, 6033, 6034, 6036, 6037, 6042, 6045, 6046, 6048, 

6049, 6050, 6051, 6052, 6053, and 6055. No comparable House sections.—House recedes. 

SEC. 3182. LAND CONVEYANCES

(a) St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri. House § 3124(a), 

Senate § 3011.—Senate recedes. 

(b) Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal, California. Senate 

§ 5006. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

(c) Milford, Kansas. House § 3124(b), Senate § 3052.—Senate 

recedes. 

(d) Strawn Cemetery, John Redmond Lake, Kansas. Senate 

§ 3051. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

(e) Pike County, Missouri. House § 3124(c), Senate § 3077.—

House recedes. 

(f) Union Lake, Missouri. Senate § 3079, No comparable House 

section.—House recedes. 

(g) Boardman, Oregon. House § 3124(d). No comparable Senate 

section.—Senate recedes. 

(h) Lookout Point Project, Lowell, Oregon. House § 3124(e), 

Senate § 3103.—Senate recedes, with an amendment. 

(i) Richard B. Russell Lake, South Carolina. House § 3124(g), 

Senate § 3107.—House recedes, with an amendment. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
288 

(j) Denison, Texas. House § 3124(h), Senate § 3114.—House recedes, with an amendment. 

(k) Generally Applicable Provisions. House § 3124(i). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 3183. EXTINGUISHMENT OF REVERSIONARY INTERESTS AND USE

RESTRICTIONS

(a) Idaho. House § 3125(a), Senate § 3044.—House recedes. 

(b) Lake Texoma, Oklahoma. House § 3125(b), Senate § 3098.—

House recedes, with an amendment. 

(c) Lowell, Oregon. House § 3124(f). No comparable Senate provision.—Senate recedes. 

(d) Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee. 

House § 3125(c), Senate § 3111.—House recedes. 

(e) Lower Granite Pool, Washington. Senate § 3128. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

(f) Port of Pasco, Washington. House § 3125(d). No comparable 

Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

TITLE IV—STUDIES 

SEC. 4001. JOHN GLENN GREAT LAKES BASIN PROGRAM

House § 4001. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4002. LAKE ERIE DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES

House § 4002. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4003. SOUTHWESTERN UNITED STATES DROUGHT STUDY

House § 4003. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4004. DELAWARE RIVER

House § 4004. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4005. EURASIAN MILFOIL

Senate § 4031. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 4006. FIRE ISLAND, ALASKA

House § 5031. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 4007. KNIK ARM, COOK INLET, ALASKA

House § 4005. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4008. KUSKOKWIM RIVER, ALASKA

House § 4006. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4009. NOME HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, ALASKA

Senate § 4002. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 4010. ST. GEORGE HARBOR, ALASKA

House § 4007. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
289 

SEC. 4011. SUSITNA RIVER, ALASKA

House § 4008. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4012. VALDEZ, ALASKA

House § 5037. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 4013. GILA BEND, MARICOPA, ARIZONA

House § 4009. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4014. SEARCY COUNTY, ARKANSAS

House § 4010. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4015. ALISO CREEK, CALIFORNIA

House § 4011. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4016. FRESNO, KINGS, AND KERN COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA

House § 4013. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4017. FRUITVALE AVENUE RAILROAD BRIDGE, ALAMEDA, 

CALIFORNIA

Senate § 4004. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 4018. LOS ANGELES RIVER REVITALIZATION STUDY, CALIFORNIA

House § 4014, Senate § 4005.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4019. LYTLE CREEK, RIALTO, CALIFORNIA

House § 4015. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4020. MOKELUMNE RIVER, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

House § 4016. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4021. ORICK, CALIFORNIA

House § 4018. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4022. SHORELINE STUDY, OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA

Senate § 4007. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 4023. RIALTO, FONTANA, AND COLTON, CALIFORNIA

House § 4019. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4024. SACRAMENTO RIVER, CALIFORNIA

House § 4020. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4025. SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

House § 4021. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4026. SAN FRANCISCO BAY, SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, 

CALIFORNIA

House § 4022, Senate § 4009.—Senate recedes. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
290 

SEC. 4027. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SHORELINE, CALIFORNIA

House § 4023, Senate § 4010.—House recedes. 

SEC. 4028. TWENTYNINE PALMS, CALIFORNIA

House § 4024. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 4029. YUCCA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA

House § 4025. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 4030. SELENIUM STUDY, COLORADO

Senate § 4013. No comparable House section.—House recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 4031. DELAWARE AND CHRISTINA RIVERS AND SHELLPOT CREEK, 

WILMINGTON, DELAWARE

House § 4027. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4032. DELAWARE INLAND BAYS AND TRIBUTARIES AND ATLANTIC

COAST, DELAWARE

Senate § 4014. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 4033. COLLIER COUNTY BEACHES, FLORIDA

House § 4028. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4034. LOWER ST. JOHNS RIVER, FLORIDA

House § 4029. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 4035. HERBERT HOOVER DIKE SUPPLEMENTAL MAJOR

REHABILITATION REPORT, FLORIDA

Senate § 4015. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 4036. VANDERBILT BEACH LAGOON, FLORIDA

House § 4030. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4037. MERIWETHER COUNTY, GEORGIA

House § 4031. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4038. BOISE RIVER, IDAHO

House § 4033, Senate § 4016.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4039. BALLARD’S ISLAND SIDE CHANNEL, ILLINOIS

House § 4034. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4040. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

Senate § 3046. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
291 

SEC. 4041. SALEM, INDIANA

House § 4035. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4042. BUCKHORN LAKE, KENTUCKY

House § 4036. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4043. DEWEY LAKE, KENTUCKY

House § 4037. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4044. LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY

House § 4038. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4045. VIDALIA PORT, LOUISIANA

Senate § 4018. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 4046. FALL RIVER HARBOR, MASSACHUSETTS AND RHODE ISLAND

Senate § 3071(b). No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 4047. CLINTON RIVER, MICHIGAN

House § 4039. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4048. HAMBURG AND GREEN OAK TOWNSHIPS, MICHIGAN

House § 4040. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4049. LAKE ERIE AT LUNA PIER, MICHIGAN

Senate § 4019. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 4050. DULUTH–SUPERIOR HARBOR, MINNESOTA AND WISCONSIN

House § 4041. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4051. NORTHEAST MISSISSIPPI

House § 4042. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4052. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL, NEW JERSEY

House § 4044. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4053. BAYONNE, NEW JERSEY

House § 4045. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4054. CARTERET, NEW JERSEY

House § 4046. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4055. GLOUCESTER COUNTY, NEW JERSEY

House § 4047. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4056. PERTH AMBOY, NEW JERSEY

House § 4048. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
292 

SEC. 4057. BATAVIA, NEW YORK

House § 4049. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4058. BIG SISTER CREEK, EVANS, NEW YORK

House § 4050. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4059. FINGER LAKES, NEW YORK

House § 4051. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4060. LAKE ERIE SHORELINE, BUFFALO, NEW YORK

House § 4052. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4061. NEWTOWN CREEK, NEW YORK

House § 4053. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4062. NIAGARA RIVER, NEW YORK

House § 4054. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4063. SHORE PARKWAY GREENWAY, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK

House § 4055. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4064. UPPER DELAWARE RIVER WATERSHED, NEW YORK

House § 4056. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4065. LINCOLN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

House § 4057. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4066. WILKES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

House § 4058. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4067. YADKINVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA

House § 4059. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4068. FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION, OHIO

Senate § 4022. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 4069. LAKE ERIE, OHIO

House § 4060. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4070. OHIO RIVER, OHIO

House § 4061, Senate § 4024.—Same. 

SEC. 4071. TOLEDO HARBOR DREDGED MATERIAL PLACEMENT, TOLEDO, 

OHIO

Senate § 4025. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 4072. TOLEDO HARBOR, MAUMEE RIVER, AND LAKE CHANNEL

PROJECT, TOLEDO, OHIO

Senate § 4026. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
293 

SEC. 4073. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND FISH PASSAGE

IMPROVEMENTS, OREGON

House § 4062. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4074. WALLA WALLA RIVER BASIN, OREGON

House § 4063, Senate § 4038.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4075. CHARTIERS CREEK WATERSHED, PENNSYLVANIA

House § 4064. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4076. KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PENNSYLVANIA

House § 4065. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4077. WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION

House § 4066. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4078. WILLIAMSPORT, PENNSYLVANIA

House § 4067. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4079. YARDLEY BOROUGH, PENNSYLVANIA

House § 4068. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4080. RIO VALENCIANO, JUNCOS, PUERTO RICO

House § 4069. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4081. WOONSOCKET LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, BLACKSTONE

RIVER BASIN, RHODE ISLAND

Senate § 4027. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 4082. CROOKED CREEK, BENNETTSVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA

House § 4070. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4083. BROAD RIVER, YORK COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA

House § 4071. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4084. SAVANNAH RIVER, SOUTH CAROLINA AND GEORGIA

Senate § 4028. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 4085. CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE

House § 4072. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4086. CLEVELAND, TENNESSEE

House § 4073. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4087. CUMBERLAND RIVER, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE

House § 4074. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4088. LEWIS, LAWRENCE, AND WAYNE COUNTIES, TENNESSEE

House § 4075. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
294 

SEC. 4089. WOLF RIVER AND NONCONNAH CREEK, MEMPHIS, 

TENNESSEE

House § 4076. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4090. ABILENE, TEXAS

House § 4077. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4091. COASTAL TEXAS ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION AND

RESTORATION, TEXAS

House § 4078. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4092. PORT OF GALVESTON, TEXAS

House § 4079. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4093. GRAND COUNTY AND MOAB, UTAH

House § 4080. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4094. SOUTHWESTERN UTAH

House § 4081. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4095. ECOSYSTEM AND HYDROPOWER GENERATION DAMS, 

VERMONT

Senate § 4030. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 4096. ELLIOTT BAY SEAWALL, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

House § 4083, Senate § 4034.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4097. MONONGAHELA RIVER BASIN, NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA

House § 4084. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4098. KENOSHA HARBOR, WISCONSIN

House § 4085. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4099. JOHNSONVILLE DAM, JOHNSONVILLE, WISCONSIN

House § 4087, Senate § 4035.—Same. 

SEC. 4100. WAUWATOSA, WISCONSIN

House § 4086. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 4101. DEBRIS REMOVAL

Senate § 4036. No comparable House section.—House recedes, 

with an amendment. 

TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUS 

SEC. 5001. MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION CHANNELS

5001(a)(1). Manatee Harbor Basin, Florida. House § 5001(a)(1). 

No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

5001(a)(2). Tampa Harbor, Sparkman Channel and Davis Island, Florida. No comparable Senate or House section. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
295 

5001(a)(3). West turning basin, Canaveral Harbor, Florida. 

House § 5001(a)(2). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

5001(a)(4). Bayou LaFourche Channel, Port Fourchon, Louisiana. House § 5001(a)(3). No comparable Senate section.—Senate 

recedes. 

5001(a)(5). Calcasieu River at Devil’s Elbow, Louisiana. House 

§ 5001(a)(4). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

5001(a)(6). Pidgeon Industrial Harbor, Pidgeon Industrial 

Park, Memphis Harbor, Tennessee. House § 5001(a)(5). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

5001(a)(7). Houston Ship Channel, Bayport Cruise Channel 

and Bayport Cruise turning basin, as part of the existing Bayport 

Channel, Texas. No comparable Senate or House section. 

5001(a)(8). Pix Bayou Navigation Channel, Chambers County, 

Texas. House § 5001(a)(6). No comparable Senate section.—Senate 

recedes. 

5001(a)(9). Jacintoport Channel at Houston Ship Channel, 

Texas. No comparable Senate or House section. 

5001(a)(10). Racine Harbor, Wisconsin. House § 5001(a)(7). No 

comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5002. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

House § 5002. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

Subsection (d) of § 5002 authorizes the Secretary to provide 

technical assistance to non-federal interests for carrying out watershed management, restoration and development projects in the following locations: Charlotte Harbor watershed, Florida; Those portions of the watersheds of the Chattahoochee, Etowah, Flint, 

Ocmulgee, and Oconee Rivers lying within the counties of Bartow, 

Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Fulton, Forsyth, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Paulding, Rockdale, and Walton, Georgia; Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois; Amite River 

basin, Louisiana; East Atchafalaya River basin, Iberville Parish 

and Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana; Red River watershed, Louisiana; Taunton River basin, Massachusetts; Marlboro Township, 

New Jersey; Esopus, Plattekill, and Rondout Creeks, Greene, Sullivan, and Ulster Counties, New York; Greenwood Lake watershed, 

New York and New Jersey; Long Island Sound watershed, New 

York; Ramapo River watershed, New York; Tuscarawas River 

basin, Ohio; Western Lake Erie basin, Ohio; Those portions of the 

watersheds of the Beaver, Upper Ohio, Connoquenessing, Lower 

Allegheny, Kiskiminetas, Lower Monongahela, Youghiogheny, 

Shenango, and Mahoning Rivers lying within the counties of Beaver, Butler, Lawrence, and Mercer, Pennsylvania; Otter Creek watershed, Pennsylvania; Unami Creek watershed, Milford Township, 

Pennsylvania; and Sauk River basin, Washington. 

SEC. 5003. DAM SAFETY

House § 5003. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

Section 5003(a) authorizes the Secretary to provide assistance 

to enhance dam safety at the following locations: Keith Creek, 

Rockford, Illinois; Mount Zion Mill Pond Dam, Fulton County, Indiana; Fish Creek Dam, Blaine County, Idaho; Hamilton Dam, Flint 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
296 

River, Flint, Michigan; Congers Lake Dam, Rockland County, New 

York; Lake Lucille Dam, New City, New York; Peconic River Dams, 

town of Riverhead, Suffolk, Long Island, New York; Pine Grove 

Lakes Dam, Sloatsburg, New York; State Dam, Auburn, New York; 

Whaley Lake Dam, Pawling, New York; Brightwood Dam, Concord 

Township, Ohio; Ingham Spring Dam, Solebury Township, Pennsylvania; Leaser Lake Dam, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania; Stillwater 

Dam, Monroe County, Pennsylvania; Wissahickon Creek Dam, 

Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. 

SEC. 5004. STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY EVALUATIONS

House § 5004. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 5005. FLOOD MITIGATION PRIORITY AREAS

House § 5005. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

Section 5005(a)(3) adds the following locations to Section 212(e) 

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

2332(e)): Ascension Parish, Louisiana; East Baton Rouge Parish, 

Louisiana; Iberville Parish, Louisiana; Livingston Parish, Louisiana; and Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana. 

SEC. 5006. ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR AUTHORIZED PROJECTS

House § 5006, Senate § 3008.—Senate recedes. 

The managers recognize that in carrying out the project for the 

Colonias along the United States-Mexico border, the Secretary may 

provide assistance to projects in Webb, Zapata, Starr, and Hidalgo 

counties, Texas. 

SEC. 5007. EXPEDITED COMPLETION OF REPORTS AND CONSTRUCTION

FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS

House § 5007, 5038, and 7010(2). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, with an amendment. 

Section 5007 directs the Secretary to expedite completion of the 

reports, and if the Secretary finds that the project is feasible, to expedite completion of construction of following projects: Project for 

navigation, Whittier, Alaska; Laguna Creek watershed flood damage reduction project, California; Daytona Beach shore protection 

project, Florida; Flagler Beach shore protection project, Florida; St. 

Johns County shore protection project, Florida; Chenier Plain environmental restoration project, Louisiana; False River, Louisiana; 

Fulmer Creek, Village of Mohawk, New York; Moyer Creek, Village 

of Frankfort, New York; Steele Creek, Village of Ilion, New York; 

Oriskany Wildlife Management Area, Rome, New York; Whitney 

Point Lake, Otselic River, Whitney Point, New York; North River, 

Peabody, Massachusetts; and Chenango Lake, Chenango County, 

New York. 

The managers request that a timetable for the execution and 

completion of a feasibility cost-sharing agreement and initiation of 

construction of the Laguna Creek watershed flood damage reduction project, Fremont, California, be provided to the Committee on 

Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of RepresentaVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:35 Aug 04, 2007 Jkt 036965 PO 00000 Frm 00300 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR280.XXX HR280

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
297 

tives within 90 days of the enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. 

SEC. 5008. EXPEDITED COMPLETION OF REPORTS FOR CERTAIN

PROJECTS

House § 5008(a), Senate § 4012.—Senate recedes, with an 

amendment. 

Section 5008(a) directs the Secretary to expedite completion of 

the following reports, and, if the Secretary determines that the 

project is justified, authorizes the Secretary to proceed to project 

preconstruction, engineering and design: Project for water supply, 

Little Red River, Arkansas; Watershed study, Fountain Creek, 

north of Pueblo, Colorado; Project for shoreline stabilization, 

Egmont Key, Florida; Project for navigation, Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas and Louisiana; and Project for ecosystem restoration, 

University Lake, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 

In carrying out the review of the project for navigation, SabineNeches Waterway, Texas and Louisiana, referred to in subsection 

(a)(3), the Secretary is directed to utilize all current available data, 

models, and analyses to facilitate the scheduled completion of the 

Chief of Engineers report. 

House § 5008(b). No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5009. SOUTHEASTERN WATER RESOURCES ASSESSMENT

House § 5009. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5010. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS ENHANCEMENT

PROJECT

House § 5011, Senate § 3109.—House recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 5011. GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION

PROGRAM

House § 5012, Senate § 3141.—House recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 5012. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS AND SEDIMENT

REMEDIATION

House § 5013, Senate § 3142.—Senate recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 5013. GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODELS

House § 5014, Senate § 3143.—Senate recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 5014. GREAT LAKES NAVIGATION AND PROTECTION

House § 5015 and 5016, Senate § 5029.—Senate recedes, with 

an amendment. 

The Great Lakes contain 134 deep-draft harbors and six connecting channels within the Corps of Engineers’ dredging responsibility, including 25 of the nation’s largest ports. The total waterborne commerce on the Great Lakes equals nearly 7 percent of the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
298 

nation’s maritime commerce. Recent shortfalls in the Corps’ dredging appropriation have delayed dredging at many Great Lakes 

ports and waterways. The low water levels that have plagued the 

Lakes since the late 1990s have only exacerbated the problem. As 

a result, the largest vessels in the Great Lakes fleet must forfeit 

nearly 270 tons of cargo for each 1-inch reduction in loaded draft. 

Ocean-going vessels in the international trade lose roughly 100 

tons of cargo for each 1-inch loss of draft. 

Section 5014(a) directs the Secretary, using available appropriated funds, to expedite the operation and maintenance, including dredging, of the navigation features of the Great Lakes and 

Connecting Channels for the purpose of supporting commercial 

navigation to authorized project depths. 

SEC. 5015. SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY

House § 5017. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 5016. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER DISPERSAL BARRIER PROJECT

House § 5018, Senate § 4021.—Senate recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 5017. ESTUARY RESTORATION

Senate § 5002. No comparable House section.—House recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 5018. MISSOURI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MITIGATION, RECOVERY, 

AND RESTORATION, IOWA, KANSAS, MISSOURI, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, 

NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA, AND WYOMING

Senate § 5016. No comparable House section.—House recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 5019. SUSQUEHANNA, DELAWARE, AND POTOMAC RIVER BASINS, 

DELAWARE, MARYLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VIRGINIA

House § 5019, Senate § 5010.—House recedes. 

SEC. 5020. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND

PROTECTION PROGRAM

House § 5020, Senate § 3068.—Senate recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 5021. CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RESTORATION, VIRGINIA AND

MARYLAND

Senate § 3124. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 5022. HYPOXIA ASSESSMENT

House § 5021. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5023. POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT AND TRIBUTARY

STRATEGY EVALUATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM

House § 5022. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
299 

SEC. 5024. LOCK AND DAM SECURITY

House § 5023. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5025. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR COLUMBIA

AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON SURVIVAL

House § 5025. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5026. WAGE SURVEYS

House § 5135. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5027. REHABILITATION

House § 5024. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5028. AUBURN, ALABAMA

House § 5026. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5029. PINHOOK CREEK, HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA

House § 5027. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5030. ALASKA

House § 5028, Senate § 5004.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5031. BARROW, ALASKA

House § 5029. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5032. LOWELL CREEK TUNNEL, SEWARD, ALASKA

House § 5034. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 5033. ST. HERMAN AND ST. PAUL HARBORS, KODIAK, ALASKA

House § 5035, Senate § 3001.—Same. 

SEC. 5034. TANANA RIVER, ALASKA

House § 5036. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5035. WRANGELL HARBOR, ALASKA

House § 5039. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5036. AUGUSTA AND CLARENDON, ARKANSAS

House § 5040, Senate § 3007.—House recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 5037. DES ARC LEVEE PROTECTION, ARKANSAS

House § 5041. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5038. LOOMIS LANDING, ARKANSAS

House § 5042. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5039. CALIFORNIA

Senate § 5005. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
300 

SEC. 5040. CALAVERAS RIVER AND LITTLEJOHN CREEK AND

TRIBUTARIES, STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA

Senate § 5007. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 5041. CAMBRIA, CALIFORNIA

House § 5044. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5042. CONTRA COSTA CANAL, OAKLEY AND KNIGHTSEN, 

CALIFORNIA; MALLARD SLOUGH, PITTSBURG, CALIFORNIA

House § 5045. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5043. DANA POINT HARBOR, CALIFORNIA

House § 5046. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5044. EAST SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

House § 5047. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5045. EASTERN SANTA CLARA BASIN, CALIFORNIA

House § 5048. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5046. LA–3 DREDGED MATERIAL OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE

DESIGNATION, CALIFORNIA

Senate § 3016. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 5047. LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA

House § 5049. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5048. LOS OSOS, CALIFORNIA

House § 5050. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5049. PINE FLAT DAM FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT, CALIFORNIA

House § 5051, Senate § 3021.—House recedes. 

SEC. 5050. RAYMOND BASIN, SIX BASINS, CHINO BASIN, AND SAN

GABRIEL BASIN, CALIFORNIA

House § 5052. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 5051. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

House § 5053. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5052. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, WATERFRONT AREA

House § 5054, Senate § 3025.—Senate recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 5053. SAN PABLO BAY, CALIFORNIA, WATERSHED AND SUISUN

MARSH ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION

House § 5055, Senate § 4011.—Senate recedes. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
301 

SEC. 5054. ST. HELENA, CALIFORNIA

Senate § 4008. No comparable House section.—House recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 5055. UPPER CALAVERAS RIVER, STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA

House § 5056. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5056. RIO GRANDE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, COLORADO, NEW MEXICO, AND TEXAS

Senate § 5008, House § 5002(d)(9).—House recedes, with an 

amendment. 

SEC. 5057. CHARLES HERVEY TOWNSHEND BREAKWATER, NEW HAVEN

HARBOR, CONNECTICUT

House § 5057, Senate § 3030.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5058. STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT

No comparable Senate or House section. 

The managers recognize the importance of waterfront and 

riverfront development projects to local communities and that, in 

some instances, waterfront and riverfront development plans contain elements that fall within traditional Corps mission areas of 

navigation, flood damage reduction, and environmental restoration, 

and associated recreation. However, the managers believe that waterfront and riverfront development projects, in and of themselves, 

are not a Corps mission and Corps participation in these development projects must be limited to traditional Corps missions. While 

recreation is frequently an element of waterfront and riverfront development projects, the managers do not intend for the Corps to 

carry out purely recreational elements of the project, unrelated to 

the traditional missions of the Corps. The managers direct the 

Corps to limit its work on recreation features to only those elements that relate to the traditional Corps mission areas that are 

being built as an element of the larger waterfront and riverfront 

development project plan. 

SEC. 5059. DELMARVA CONSERVATION CORRIDOR, DELAWARE, MARYLAND, AND VIRGINIA

House § 5081, Senate § 5009.—House recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 5060. ANACOSTIA RIVER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND

House § 5080, Senate § 5011.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5061. EAST CENTRAL AND NORTHEAST FLORIDA

House § 5060. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5062. FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS

House § 5058. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5063. LAKE WORTH, FLORIDA

House § 5059. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
302 

SEC. 5064. BIG CREEK, GEORGIA, WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AND

RESTORATION PROGRAM

Senate § 5012. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 5065. METROPOLITAN NORTH GEORGIA WATER PLANNING DISTRICT

Senate § 5013. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 5066. SAVANNAH, GEORGIA

No comparable Senate or House section. 

The managers recognize the importance of waterfront and 

riverfront development projects to local communities and that, in 

some instances, waterfront and riverfront development plans contain elements that fall within traditional Corps mission areas of 

navigation, flood damage reduction, and environmental restoration, 

and associated recreation. However, the managers believe that waterfront and riverfront development projects, in and of themselves, 

are not a Corps mission and Corps participation in these development projects must be limited to traditional Corps missions. While 

recreation is frequently an element of waterfront and riverfront development projects, the managers do not intend for the Corps to 

carry out purely recreational elements of the project, unrelated to 

the traditional missions of the Corps. The managers direct the 

Corps to limit its work on recreation features to only those elements that relate to the traditional Corps mission areas that are 

being built as an element of the larger waterfront and riverfront 

development project plan. 

SEC. 5067. IDAHO, MONTANA, RURAL NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, RURAL

UTAH, AND WYOMING

Senate § 5014. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 5068. RILEY CREEK RECREATION AREA, IDAHO

House § 5062. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5069. FLOODPLAIN MAPPING, LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

House § 5066. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 5070. RECONSTRUCTION OF ILLINOIS AND MISSOURI FLOOD

PROTECTION PROJECTS

House § 5063, Senate § 3049.—House recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 5071. ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION

House § 5064, Senate § 3048.—Senate recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 5072. PROMONTORY POINT THIRD-PARTY REVIEW, CHICAGO

SHORELINE, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

House § 5067, Senate § 4017.—House recedes, with an amendment. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
303 

SEC. 5073. KASKASKIA RIVER BASIN, ILLINOIS, RESTORATION

House § 5065. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 5074. SOUTHWEST ILLINOIS

House § 5068. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5075. CALUMET REGION, INDIANA

House § 5070. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5076. FLOODPLAIN MAPPING, MISSOURI RIVER, IOWA

House § 5071. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 5077. PADUCAH, KENTUCKY

House § 5072. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5078. SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY

House § 5073. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5079. WINCHESTER, KENTUCKY

House § 5074. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5080. BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA

House § 5075. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5081. CALCASIEU SHIP CHANNEL, LOUISIANA

House § 5076. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5082. EAST ATCHAFALAYA BASIN AND AMITE RIVER BASIN REGION, 

LOUISIANA

House § 5077. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5083. INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL LOCK PROJECT, 

LOUISIANA

Senate § 5028. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 5084. LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, LOUISIANA

No comparable Senate or House section. 

SEC. 5085. SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA REGION, LOUISIANA

Senate § 5017. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 5086. WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LOUISIANA

House § 5078. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 5087. CHARLESTOWN, MARYLAND

House § 5079. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
304 

SEC. 5088. ST. MARY’S RIVER, MARYLAND

No comparable House or Senate section. 

SEC. 5089. MASSACHUSETTS DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES

House § 5082. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5090. ONTONAGON HARBOR, MICHIGAN

House § 5083. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5091. CROOKSTON, MINNESOTA

House § 5084. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5092. GARRISON AND KATHIO TOWNSHIP, MINNESOTA

House § 5085. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5093. ITASCA COUNTY, MINNESOTA

House § 5086. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5094. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA

House § 5087. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5095. NORTHEASTERN MINNESOTA

House § 5088. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5096. WILD RICE RIVER, MINNESOTA

House § 5089, Senate § 4020.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5097. MISSISSIPPI

Senate § 5018. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 5098. HARRISON, HANCOCK, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI

House § 5090. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5099. MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MISSOURI AND ILLINOIS

House § 5091. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5100. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI

House § 5092. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5101. ST. LOUIS REGIONAL GREENWAYS, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI

No comparable Senate or House section. 

The managers recognize the importance of waterfront and 

riverfront development projects to local communities and that, in 

some instances, waterfront and riverfront development plans contain elements that fall within traditional Corps mission areas of 

navigation, flood damage reduction, and environmental restoration, 

and associated recreation. However, the managers believe that waterfront and riverfront development projects, in and of themselves, 

are not a Corps mission and Corps participation in these development projects must be limited to traditional Corps missions. While 

recreation is frequently an element of waterfront and riverfront deVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:35 Aug 04, 2007 Jkt 036965 PO 00000 Frm 00308 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR280.XXX HR280

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
305 

velopment projects, the managers do not intend for the Corps to 

carry out purely recreational elements of the project, unrelated to 

the traditional missions of the Corps. The managers direct the 

Corps to limit its work on recreation features to only those elements that relate to the traditional Corps mission areas that are 

being built as an element of the larger waterfront and riverfront 

development project plan. 

SEC. 5102. MISSOULA, MONTANA

No comparable Senate or House section. 

The managers recognize the importance of waterfront and 

riverfront development projects to local communities and that, in 

some instances, waterfront and riverfront development plans contain elements that fall within traditional Corps mission areas of 

navigation, flood damage reduction, and environmental restoration, 

and associated recreation. However, the managers believe that waterfront and riverfront development projects, in and of themselves, 

are not a Corps mission and Corps participation in these development projects must be limited to traditional Corps missions. While 

recreation is frequently an element of waterfront and riverfront development projects, the managers do not intend for the Corps to 

carry out purely recreational elements of the project, unrelated to 

the traditional missions of the Corps. The managers direct the 

Corps to limit its work on recreation features to only those elements that relate to the traditional Corps mission areas that are 

being built as an element of the larger waterfront and riverfront 

development project plan. 

SEC. 5103. ST. MARY PROJECT, GLACIER COUNTY, MONTANA

Senate § 5019. No comparable House section.—House recedes, 

with an amendment. 

In carrying out this section, the managers expect the Secretary 

to conduct all hiring and contracting in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Indian Self Determination Act. 

SEC. 5104. LOWER PLATTE RIVER WATERSHED RESTORATION, 

NEBRASKA

Senate § 5020, House § 5002(d)(8).—House recedes, with an 

amendment. 

SEC. 5105. HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS AREA, NEW JERSEY

House § 5093. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5106. ATLANTIC COAST OF NEW YORK

House § 5094. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5107. COLLEGE POINT, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK

House § 5095. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5108. FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK

House § 5096. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
306 

SEC. 5109. HUDSON RIVER, NEW YORK

House § 5097. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

The managers recognize the importance of waterfront and 

riverfront development projects to local communities and that, in 

some instances, waterfront and riverfront development plans contain elements that fall within traditional Corps mission areas of 

navigation, flood damage reduction, and environmental restoration, 

and associated recreation. However, the managers believe that waterfront and riverfront development projects, in and of themselves, 

are not a Corps mission and Corps participation in these development projects must be limited to traditional Corps missions. While 

recreation is frequently an element of waterfront and riverfront development projects, the managers do not intend for the Corps to 

carry out purely recreational elements of the project, unrelated to 

the traditional missions of the Corps. The managers direct the 

Corps to limit its work on recreation features to only those elements that relate to the traditional Corps mission areas that are 

being built as an element of the larger waterfront and riverfront 

development project plan. 

SEC. 5110. MOUNT MORRIS DAM, NEW YORK

House § 5098. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5111. NORTH HEMPSTED AND GLEN COVE NORTH SHORE

WATERSHED RESTORATION, NEW YORK

No comparable Senate or House section. 

The managers recognize the importance of waterfront and 

riverfront development projects to local communities and that, in 

some instances, waterfront and riverfront development plans contain elements that fall within traditional Corps mission areas of 

navigation, flood damage reduction, and environmental restoration, 

and associated recreation. However, the managers believe that waterfront and riverfront development projects, in and of themselves, 

are not a Corps mission and Corps participation in these development projects must be limited to traditional Corps missions. While 

recreation is frequently an element of waterfront and riverfront development projects, the managers do not intend for the Corps to 

carry out purely recreational elements of the project, unrelated to 

the traditional missions of the Corps. The managers direct the 

Corps to limit its work on recreation features to only those elements that relate to the traditional Corps mission areas that are 

being built as an element of the larger waterfront and riverfront 

development project plan. 

SEC. 5112. ROCHESTER, NEW YORK

No comparable Senate or House section. 

The managers recognize the importance of waterfront and 

riverfront development projects to local communities and that, in 

some instances, waterfront and riverfront development plans contain elements that fall within traditional Corps mission areas of 

navigation, flood damage reduction, and environmental restoration, 

and associated recreation. However, the managers believe that waVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:35 Aug 04, 2007 Jkt 036965 PO 00000 Frm 00310 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR280.XXX HR280

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
307 

terfront and riverfront development projects, in and of themselves, 

are not a Corps mission and Corps participation in these development projects must be limited to traditional Corps missions. While 

recreation is frequently an element of waterfront and riverfront development projects, the managers do not intend for the Corps to 

carry out purely recreational elements of the project, unrelated to 

the traditional missions of the Corps. The managers direct the 

Corps to limit its work on recreation features to only those elements that relate to the traditional Corps mission areas that are 

being built as an element of the larger waterfront and riverfront 

development project plan. 

SEC. 5113. NORTH CAROLINA

Senate § 5021. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 5114. STANLY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

House § 5100. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5115. JOHN H. KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, NORTH CAROLINA

House § 5099. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5116. CINCINNATI, OHIO

House § 5101. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

The managers recognize the importance of waterfront and 

riverfront development projects to local communities and that, in 

some instances, waterfront and riverfront development plans contain elements that fall within traditional Corps mission areas of 

navigation, flood damage reduction, and environmental restoration, 

and associated recreation. However, the managers believe that waterfront and riverfront development projects, in and of themselves, 

are not a Corps mission and Corps participation in these development projects must be limited to traditional Corps missions. While 

recreation is frequently an element of waterfront and riverfront development projects, the managers do not intend for the Corps to 

carry out purely recreational elements of the project, unrelated to 

the traditional missions of the Corps. The managers direct the 

Corps to limit its work on recreation features to only those elements that relate to the traditional Corps mission areas that are 

being built as an element of the larger waterfront and riverfront 

development project plan. 

SEC. 5117. OHIO RIVER BASIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Senate § 5022. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 5118. TOUSSAINT RIVER NAVIGATION PROJECT, CARROLL

TOWNSHIP, OHIO

House § 5102, Senate § 3095.—House recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 5119. STATEWIDE COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLANNING, OKLAHOMA

Senate § 5023. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
308 

SEC. 5120. FERN RIDGE DAM, OREGON

House § 5104. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5121. ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

House § 5105. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5122. CLINTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

House § 5106. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5123. KEHLY RUN DAMS, PENNSYLVANIA

House § 5107. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5124. LEHIGH RIVER, LEHIGH COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

House § 5108. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5125. NORTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA

House § 5109. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5126. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND

NEW YORK

House § 5110, Senate § 3105.—Senate recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 5127. CANO MARTIN PENA, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO

House § 5111. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 5128. LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE, SOUTH CAROLINA

No comparable House or Senate section. 

SEC. 5129. CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX TRIBE, 

AND TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION, SOUTH DAKOTA

House § 5112, Senate § 5024.—Same. 

SEC. 5130. EAST TENNESSEE

House § 5113. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5131. FRITZ LANDING, TENNESSEE

House § 5114. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5132. J. PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TENNESSEE

House § 5115. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5133. NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE

No comparable Senate or House section. 

The managers recognize the importance of waterfront and 

riverfront development projects to local communities and that, in 

some instances, waterfront and riverfront development plans contain elements that fall within traditional Corps mission areas of 

navigation, flood damage reduction, and environmental restoration, 

and associated recreation. However, the managers believe that waVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:35 Aug 04, 2007 Jkt 036965 PO 00000 Frm 00312 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR280.XXX HR280

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
309 

terfront and riverfront development projects, in and of themselves, 

are not a Corps mission and Corps participation in these development projects must be limited to traditional Corps missions. While 

recreation is frequently an element of waterfront and riverfront development projects, the managers do not intend for the Corps to 

carry out purely recreational elements of the project, unrelated to 

the traditional missions of the Corps. The managers direct the 

Corps to limit its work on recreation features to only those elements that relate to the traditional Corps mission areas that are 

being built as an element of the larger waterfront and riverfront 

development project plan. 

SEC. 5134. NONCONNAH WEIR, MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE

Senate § 3110. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 5135. TENNESSEE RIVER PARTNERSHIP

House § 5117. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5136. TOWN CREEK, LENOIR CITY, TENNESSEE

House § 5116. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5137. UPPER MISSISSIPPI EMBAYMENT, TENNESSEE, ARKANSAS, 

AND MISSISSIPPI

House § 5118. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5138. TEXAS

Senate § 5025. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 5139. BOSQUE RIVER WATERSHED, TEXAS

House § 5119. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5140. DALLAS COUNTY REGION, TEXAS

House § 5120. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5141. DALLAS FLOODWAY, DALLAS, TEXAS

House § 5121. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5142. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

House § 5122, Senate § 3117.—House recedes. 

SEC. 5143. JOHNSON CREEK, ARLINGTON, TEXAS

House § 5123, Senate § 4029.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5144. ONION CREEK, TEXAS

House § 5124. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5145. CONNECTICUT RIVER DAMS, VERMONT

Senate § 5026. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 5146. LAKE CHAMPLAIN CANAL, VERMONT AND NEW YORK

Senate § 4032. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
310 

SEC. 5147. DYKE MARSH, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA

House § 5126. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5148. EASTERN SHORE AND SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA

House § 5125. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5149. JAMES RIVER, VIRGINIA

Senate § 3125. No comparable House section.—House recedes. 

SEC. 5150. BAKER BAY AND ILWACO HARBOR, WASHINGTON

House § 5127, Senate § 4033.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5151. HAMILTON ISLAND CAMPGROUND, WASHINGTON

House § 5128. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5152. EROSION CONTROL, PUGET ISLAND, WAHKIAKUM COUNTY, 

WASHINGTON

House § 5129, Senate § 3127.—House recedes. 

SEC. 5153. WILLAPA BAY, WASHINGTON

House § 5130. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5154. WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD CONTROL

House § 5131. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5155. CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA

House § 5132. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5156. SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA

House § 5133. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 5157. CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS BY NONFEDERAL INTERESTS

House § 5134, Senate § 2011.—Senate recedes, with an amendment. 

(12) Perris, California 

(13) Thornton Reservoir, Cook County, Illinois. 

(14) Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana. 

(15) Buffalo Bayou, Texas. 

(16) Halls Bayou, Texas. 

(17) Menomonee River Watershed, Wisconsin. 

SEC. 5158. ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR CRITICAL PROJECTS

House § 5136, Senate § 5003.—House recedes, with an amendment. 

TITLE VI—FLORIDA EVERGLADES 

SEC. 6001. HILLSBORO AND OKEECHOBEE AQUIFER, FLORIDA

House § 6001, Senate § 3037.—Senate recedes, with an amendment. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
311 

SEC. 6002. PILOT PROJECTS

House § 6002. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 6003. MAXIMUM COSTS

House § 6004, Senate § 3034.—Senate recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 6004. CREDIT

House § 6006. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

The managers are concerned about the practice of the non-Federal sponsor performing work on the project without a written 

agreement with the Corps, and then relying upon legislation to receive credit against the non-Federal share. Consistent with section 

2003 of this bill, for future work to be considered eligible for credit, 

it must be performed under a written agreement with the Secretary. 

SEC. 6005. OUTREACH AND ASSISTANCE

House § 6007. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 6006. CRITICAL RESTORATION PROJECTS

House § 6008, Senate § 3036.—House recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 6007. REGIONAL ENGINEERING MODEL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL

RESTORATION

House § 6011. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

INITIAL PROJECTS, COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, FLORIDA

The managers have agreed to delete House section 6003 that 

would have increased the maximum cost for three initial projects 

of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP)—Water 

Conservation Areas 3A/3B Levee Seepage Management, C–11 Impoundment and Stormwater Treatment Area, and C–9 Impoundment and Stormwater Treatment Area. These projects are still undergoing study and final cost estimates are not available. Project 

components of CERP have seen their cost estimates vary widely 

during the project formulation and design phases. The managers 

support the completion of the studies on these projects prior to taking action on their cost estimates. Until the final project implementation report recommends final cost estimates, the managers believe that it is premature to enact new cost figures. 

The project implementation reports for the three projects are 

projected to be completed in 2008. The managers expect to consider 

the correct authorization levels for these projects in a water resources bill next year. 

MODIFIED WATER DELIVERIES PROJECT, FLORIDA

The Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 

1989, Public Law 101–229, (1989 Act), authorized the expansion of 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
312 

Everglades National Park (Park), a change to more natural water 

deliveries to the Park, and flood damage reduction measures for 

the area known as the eight and one-half square mile area. Of the 

three activities, there still has been no change in water deliveries 

to the Park. Without a change in water delivery to the Park, restoration of the Everglades, and many of the projects authorized as 

components of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan 

(CERP) in 2000, will not succeed. 

To achieve more natural water deliveries to the Park, it is necessary to modify the way water crosses under the Tamiami Trail 

Highway. The managers of the bill are concerned that nearly 18 

years have passed since the 1989 Act, and the restoration of more 

natural water flows has not occurred. While the House bill contained language directing a particular option toward restoring 

flows, the Corps of Engineers and other interested parties have indicated that the ‘‘two-bridge’’ option may not be the preferred solution. However, the managers are concerned that continuing reanalysis of options for modifying water deliveries will only delay 

benefits to the Everglades. 

The managers have observed proposals related to improved 

water deliveries to the Park come and go over the years, yet the 

more natural flows to the Park do not occur. It is time for the Chief 

of Engineers to implement measures to improve water deliveries 

and adopt an adaptive management approach toward restoring 

flows. 

The managers have agreed to delete the House language on 

the two-bridge option. The managers direct the Chief of Engineers 

to re-examine options to modify the water delivery to the Park. 

However, the managers also direct the Chief of Engineer to pursue 

immediate steps to increase flows to the Park of at least 1400 cubic 

feet per second, without significantly increasing the risk of roadbed 

failure. Flows less than 1400 cubic feet per second will not produce 

measurable benefits to the Park. 

The managers direct the Chief of Engineers to proceed with increasing flows to the Park upon the completion of the eight and 

one-half square mile area construction this fall. Completing that 

construction removes the current constraint on water levels within 

the Northeast Shark River Slough area of the Park. 

The managers direct the Chief of Engineers to re-examine the 

prior reports and environmental documentation associated with 

modifying water deliveries to the Park prepared under the 1989 

Act, and to evaluate the practicable alternatives for increasing the 

flow of water under the highway and into the Park. The recommendations resulting from this re-examination are to be for improving flows in a manner that is consistent with the direction in 

the 1989 Act that the Secretary of the Army construct modifications ‘‘to improve water deliveries into the park and shall, to the 

extent practicable, take steps to restore the natural hydrological 

conditions within the Park.’’ The managers direct that the flows to 

the Park have a minimum target of 4000 cubic feet per second so 

as to address the restoration envisioned in the 1989 Act. 

The Chief of Engineers is to develop the recommendations in 

consultation with the Department of the Interior, the Department 

of Transportation, the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
313 

Seminole Tribe of Florida, and the State of Florida, and shall consider environmental benefits produced, cost, related CERP improvements, and other relevant factors. 

The recommendations of the Chief of Engineers shall identify 

a plan for increasing and distributing water flows to the Park 

through project components that take into account the fact that a 

subsequent project involving modifications to the Tamiami Trail 

Highway may be accomplished under the authority of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 2000. Modifications that are not 

compatible with that project or are duplicative should be avoided. 

The recommendations of the Chief of Engineers shall be available for public review and comment consistent with applicable law, 

and shall be submitted to Congress not later than July 1, 2008. 

Concurrent with the preparation of recommendations for modifying water deliveries under the 1989 Act, the managers direct the 

Chief of Engineers to initiate an evaluation of the Tamiami Trail 

project component of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 

Plan authorized by section 601(b)(2)(C)(viii) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 2000, or other appropriate authorities, as soon 

as practicable. The recommendations shall include an evaluation of 

modifying Tamiami Trail from Krome Avenue to the boundary of 

the Big Cypress National Park to restore natural flows and ecological connectivity through the Park to Florida Bay. Upon completion 

of these recommendations the Chief of Engineers shall submit the 

recommendations to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 

Environment and Public Works of the Senate. 

The House language in section 6009 also addressed cost allocations between the Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior. The 

managers direct that any arrangements for sharing of costs between the Secretaries be prospective only. The mangers do not support any arrangement where the Secretary of the Interior is credited with expenditures for land acquisition toward the costs of 

modifying the water delivery to the Park. These costs represent 

separate responsibilities within the missions of the Department of 

the Army and the Department of the Interior, and the costs of one 

should not be used to offset the costs of the other. 

TITLE VII—LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA 

SEC. 7001. DEFINITIONS

House § 7001. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 7002. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

House § 7002, Senate § 1003(h).—Senate recedes, with an 

amendment. 

SEC. 7003. LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA

House § 7003, Senate § 1003(a) and (b).—House recedes, with 

an amendment. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
314 

SEC. 7004. COASTAL LOUISIANA ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION AND

RESTORATION TASK FORCE

House § 7004, Senate § 1003(i).—House recedes, with an 

amendment. 

SEC. 7005. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS

House § 7005, Senate § 1003(m).—Senate recedes, with an 

amendment. 

SEC. 7006. CONSTRUCTION

House § 7006, Senate § 1003(c), (d), (e), (f) and (j).—House recedes, with an amendment. 

For the benefit of the Louisiana coastal area, the managers 

have authorized a number of projects and programs. In the case of 

the Additional Projects authorized in section 7006(e), the managers 

have authorized 4 projects for construction and have authorized 6 

other projects contingent upon a Chief’s Report being completed no 

later than December 31, 2010. The managers understand that the 

4 projects authorized for construction are closer to having a completed study than are the other 6 projects. The managers expect 

the Secretary to plan and construct all of these projects on a priority and a schedule that maximizes the efficient and timely delivery of benefits. 

SEC. 7007. NON-FEDERAL COST SHARE

House § 7007, Senate § 1003(g).—Senate recedes, with an 

amendment. 

SEC. 7008. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION

House § 7008, Senate § 1003(k).—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 7009. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

House § 7009, Senate § 1003(n).—House recedes, with an 

amendment. 

SEC. 7010. EXPEDITED REPORTS

House § 7010, Senate § 1003(t).—House recedes, with an 

amendment. 

SEC. 7011. REPORTING

House § 7011. No comparable Senate provision.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 7012. NEW ORLEANS AND VICINITY

House § 7012, Senate § 1003(p).—House recedes, with an 

amendment. 

SEC. 7013. MISSISSIPPI RIVER-GULF OUTLET

House § 7013, Senate § 1003(s).—House recedes, with an 

amendment. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
315 

SEC. 7014. HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION

Senate § 1003(u). No comparable House provision.—House recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 7015. LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW

Senate § 1003(q). No comparable House provision.—House recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 7016. LOWER JEFFERSON PARISH, LOUISIANA

Senate § 1003(r). No comparable House provision.—House recedes, with an amendment. 

TITLE VIII—UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS 

WATERWAY SYSTEM 

SEC. 8001. DEFINITIONS

House § 8001, Senate § 1002(a).—Same. 

SEC. 8002. NAVIGATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS AND RESTORATION

House § 8002. No comparable Senate section.—Senate recedes. 

SEC. 8003. AUTHORIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION OF NAVIGATIONAL

IMPROVEMENTS

House § 8003, Senate § 1002(b).—House recedes, with an 

amendment. 

SEC. 8004. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AUTHORIZATION

House § 8004, Senate § 1002(c).—Senate recedes, with an 

amendment. 

SEC. 8005. COMPARABLE PROGRESS

House § 8005, Senate § 1002(d).—Senate recedes. 

TITLE IX—NATIONAL LEVEE SAFETY PROGRAM 

SEC. 9001. SHORT TITLE

Senate § 2051. No comparable House section.—House recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 9002. DEFINITIONS

Senate § 2052. No comparable House section.—House recedes, 

with an amendment. 

SEC. 9003. COMMITTEE ON LEVEE SAFETY

Senate § 2053 and 2054. No comparable House section.—House 

recedes, with an amendment. 

SEC. 9004. INVENTORY AND INSPECTION OF LEVEES

Senate § 2054. No comparable House section.—House recedes, 

with an amendment. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
316 

SEC. 9005. LIMITATIONS ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

No comparable House or Senate section. 

SEC. 9006. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Senate § 2055. No comparable House section.—House recedes, 

with an amendment. 

ADDITIONAL MATTERS 

The managers request the Secretary make it a priority to reimburse non-federal project sponsors for carrying out federal projects 

in accordance with cooperative agreements. These projects provide 

benefits to the federal taxpayer and the Corps of Engineers should 

make every effort to reimburse non-federal project sponsors the appropriate amount in a timely manner. In one instance, Manatee 

County, Florida carried out the Anna Maria Island beach re-nourishment under a cooperative agreement with the Army Corps of 

Engineers for construction of the Manatee County Shore Protection 

Project in 2002. For Fiscal Year 2002, Congress appropriated $1 

million for the project, and in Fiscal Year 2003, Congress appropriated $3.5 million for the project. Yet, Manatee County has received only $2.3 million in reimbursement from the Army Corps of 

Engineers and is still owed over $1.7 million for work that was 

completed in 2002. Many local communities and other non-federal 

project sponsors that undertake federal projects put their financial 

security at stake and timely reimbursement by the Corps of Engineers is critical to their economic prosperity. 

The Corps recently determined that the stability of Wolf Creek 

Dam is threatened by seepage under and around the dam, increasing the risk of catastrophic failure. The managers recognize that 

the Corps has cited an extreme concern for safety and lowered the 

level of Lake Cumberland dramatically to mitigate the risk of failure. The managers recognize that the Nashville District of the 

Corps has recommended that this project be classified as a dam 

safety project and therefore subject to reimbursement rates in accordance with the Dam Safety Act. Given the threat to safety as 

cited by the Corps and the recommendation by the Corps district 

office, the managers urge the administration to accept the recommendation of the Corps to classify this project as dam safety, 

and to finalize such a decision as soon as possible. 

The managers have increasingly heard concerns from Members 

of Congress regarding the backlog in the processing of permits 

under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. In particular, the Jacksonville District of the Corps of Engineers processes 1⁄8 of all the 

permits nationwide. The managers direct the Chief of Engineers to 

examine the permitting workload and consider alternatives for better distribution of the workload. The managers also direct the Chief 

of Engineers to work with States using current authorities to minimize the time required for the Corps to respond to permit applications. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
317 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XXI 

Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is required to include a list of congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits (as defined in clause 9(d), 

9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives) in the Conference Report. The Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure requires Members of Congress to comply with 

all requirements of clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI. The following table provides the list of such provisions included in the 

Conference Report: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
318 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/730 HR280.001
319 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/731 HR280.002
320 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/732 HR280.003
321 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/733 HR280.004
322 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/734 HR280.005
323 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/735 HR280.006
324 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/736 HR280.007
325 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/737 HR280.008
326 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/738 HR280.009
327 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/739 HR280.010
328 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/740 HR280.011
329 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/741 HR280.012
330 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/742 HR280.013
331 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/743 HR280.014
332 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/744 HR280.015
333 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/745 HR280.016
334 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/746 HR280.017
335 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/747 HR280.018
336 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/748 HR280.019
337 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/749 HR280.020
338 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/750 HR280.021
339 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/751 HR280.022
340 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/752 HR280.023
341 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/753 HR280.024
342 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/754 HR280.025
343 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/755 HR280.026
344 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/756 HR280.027
345 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/757 HR280.028
346 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/758 HR280.029
347 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/759 HR280.030
348 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/760 HR280.031
349 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/761 HR280.032
350 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/762 HR280.033
351 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/763 HR280.034
352 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/764 HR280.035
353 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/765 HR280.036
354 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/766 HR280.037
355 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/767 HR280.038
356 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/768 HR280.039
357 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/769 HR280.040
358 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/770 HR280.041
359 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/771 HR280.042
360 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/772 HR280.043
361 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/773 HR280.044
362 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/774 HR280.045
363 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/775 HR280.046
364 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 001/776 HR280.047
365 

From the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for consideration of the House bill and the Senate 

amendment, and modifications committed to conference: 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, BRIAN BAIRD, BRIAN HIGGINS, HARRY E. MITCHELL, STEVE KAGEN, JERRY MCNERNEY, JOHN L. MICA, 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., 

VERNON J. EHLERS, 

R.H. BAKER, 

HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., 

JOHN BOOZMAN, 

From the Committee on Natural Resources, for consideration of secs. 2014, 2023, and 6009 of the House bill, and 

secs. 3023, 5008, and 5016 of the Senate amendment, and 

modifications committed to conference: 

NICK RAHALL, GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Managers on the Part of the House. 

BARBARA BOXER, 

MAX BAUCUS, 

JOE LIEBERMAN, 

TOM CARPER, 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

JAMES M. INHOFE, 

JOHN WARNER, 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, 

DAVID VITTER, 

Managers on the Part of the Senate. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING