36–482 PDF 

Calendar No. 263 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 110–127 

ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2008 

JULY 9, 2007.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. DORGAN, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1751] 

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1751) making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal 

year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, favorably 

thereon and recommends that the bill do pass. 

Amount in new budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2008 

Total of bill as reported to the Senate .................... $32,791,321,000 

Amount of 2007 appropriations ............................... 1 32,562,190,000 

Amount of 2008 budget estimate ............................ 30,887,838,000 

Bill as recommended to Senate compared to— 

2007 appropriations .......................................... ∂229,131,000 

2008 budget estimate ........................................ ∂1,903,483,000 1 Includes Emergency Appropriations of $1,761,665,000. 
(2) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

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

Transparency in Congressional Directives ............................................................ 4 

Title I: 

Department of Defense—Civil: Department of the Army: 

Corps of Engineers—Civil: 

General Investigations ....................................................................... 21 

Construction, General ........................................................................ 38 

Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries ........................... 63 

Operation and Maintenance, General .............................................. 68 

Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies .......................................... 100 

Regulatory Program ........................................................................... 101 

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ......................... 102 

General Expenses ............................................................................... 102 

General Provisions—Corps of Engineers—Civil .............................. 106 

Title II: 

Department of the Interior: 

Central Utah Project Completion Account .............................................. 109 

Bureau of Reclamation: 

Water and Related Resources ........................................................... 109 

Central Valley Project Restoration Fund ......................................... 121 

California Bay-Delta Restoration ...................................................... 122 

Policy and Administration ................................................................. 122 

General Provisions—Department of the Interior .................................... 122 

Title III: 

Department of Energy: 

Energy Supply and Conservation ............................................................ 125 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ..................................... 132 

Nuclear Energy .................................................................................. 134 

Fossil Energy Research and Development ....................................... 137 

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves ........................................ 140 

Elk Hills School Lands Fund ............................................................ 140 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve ............................................................. 140 

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve .............................................. 141 

Energy Information Administration ................................................. 141 

Non-defense Environmental Cleanup ...................................................... 141 

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund .. 143 

Science ........................................................................................................ 143 

High Energy Physics .......................................................................... 144 

Nuclear Physics .................................................................................. 144 

Biological and Environmental Research .......................................... 145 

Basic Energy Sciences ....................................................................... 146 

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

Departmental Administration .................................................................. 149 

Office of Inspector General ....................................................................... 149 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities: 

National Nuclear Security Administration: 

Weapons Activities ...................................................................... 150 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ............................................. 160 

Naval Reactors ............................................................................ 163 

Office of the Administrator ........................................................ 164 

Environmental and Other Defense Activities: 

Defense Environmental Cleanup ...................................................... 164 

Other Defense Activities .................................................................... 168 
Page

3 

Title III—Continued 

Department of Energy—Continued 

Environmental and Other Defense Activities—Continued 

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal ...................................................... 169 

Power Marketing Administrations: 

Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration ....................................................................................... 170 

Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration ....................................................................................... 170 

Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, 

Western Area Power Administration ..................................... 170 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Salaries and Expenses .. 171 

General Provisions—Department of Energy ........................................... 194 

Title IV: 

Independent Agencies: 

Appalachian Regional Commission .......................................................... 196 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ................................................. 196 

Delta Regional Authority .......................................................................... 197 

Denali Commission ................................................................................... 197 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission .............................................................. 197 

Office of Inspector General ................................................................ 198 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board .................................................. 198 

Tennessee Valley Authority Office of the Inspector General ................. 199 

Title V: General Provisions ..................................................................................... 200 

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 201 

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 201 

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 202 

Budgetary Impact Statement ................................................................................. 214 
(4) 

PURPOSE 

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

year 2008 beginning October 1, 2007, and ending September 30, 

2008, for energy and water development, and for other related purposes. It supplies funds for water resources development programs 

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

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

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

including environmental restoration and waste management, and 

atomic energy defense activities of the National Nuclear Security 

Administration in title III; and for related independent agencies 

and commissions, including the Appalachian Regional Commission, 

Delta Regional Authority, Denali Commission, and the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission in title IV. 

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The fiscal year 2008 budget estimates for the bill total 

$30,887,838,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The recommendation of the Committee totals $32,791,321,000. This is 

$1,903,483,000 above the budget estimates and $229,131,000 above 

the enacted appropriation for the current fiscal year. 

SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS

The Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water held five 

sessions in connection with the fiscal year 2008 appropriation bill. 

Witnesses included officials and representatives of the Federal 

agencies under the subcommittee’s jurisdiction. 

The subcommittee received numerous statements and letters 

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

Governors, State and local officials and representatives, and hundreds of private citizens throughout the United States. Information, 

both for and against many items, was presented to the subcommittee. The recommendations for fiscal year 2008 therefore, 

have been developed after careful consideration of available data. 

VOTES IN THE COMMITTEE

By a vote of 28 to 1 the Committee on June 28, 2007, recommended that the bill, as amended, be reported to the Senate. 

TRANSPARENCY IN CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTIVES 

On January 18, 2007, the Senate passed S. 1, The Legislative 

Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007, by a vote of 96–2. 

While the Committee awaits final action on this legislation, the 

chairman and ranking member of the Committee issued interim re-
5 

quirements to ensure that the goals of S. 1 are in place for the appropriations bills for fiscal year 2008. 

The Constitution vests in the Congress the power of the purse. 

The Committee believes strongly that Congress should make the 

decisions on how to allocate the people’s money. In order to improve transparency and accountability in the process of approving 

earmarks (as defined in S. 1) in appropriations measures, each 

Committee report includes, for each earmark: 

—(1) the name of the Member(s) making the request, and where 

appropriate, the President; 

—(2) the name and location of the intended recipient or, if there 

is no specifically intended recipient, the intended location of 

the activity; and 

—(3) the purpose of such earmark. 

The term ‘‘congressional earmark’’ means a provision or report 

language included primarily at the request of a Senator, providing, 

authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of discretionary 

budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for 

a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific state, locality or congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative, formula-driven, or competitive award process. 

For each earmark, a Member is required to provide a certification that neither the Member (nor his or her spouse) has a pecuniary interest in such earmark, consistent with Senate Rule 

XXXVII(4). Such certifications are available to the public at http:// 

appropriations.senate.gov/senators.cfm or go to appropriations.senate.gov and click on ‘‘Members’’. 
(6) 

TITLE I 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

INTRODUCTION

The Corps of Engineers is made up of approximately 35,000 civilian and 650 military members that perform both military and civil 

works functions. The military and civilian engineers, scientists and 

other specialists work hand in hand as leaders in engineering and 

environmental matters. The diverse workforce of biologists, engineers, geologists, hydrologists, natural resource managers and 

other professionals meets the demands of changing times and requirements as a vital part of America’s Army. 

The Corps’ mission is to provide quality, responsive engineering 

services to the Nation including: 

—Planning, designing, building and operating water resources 

and other civil works projects, (Navigation, Flood Control, Environmental Protection, Disaster Response, etc.) 

—Designing and managing the construction of military facilities 

for the Army and Air Force. (Military Construction) 

—Providing design and construction management support for 

other Defense and Federal agencies. (Interagency and International Services) 

The Energy and Water bill only funds the Civil Works missions 

of the Corps of Engineers. Approximately 23,000 civilians and 

about 190 military officers are responsible for this nationwide mission. 

From our hundreds of rivers, lakes and wetlands to our thousands of miles of coastal shoreline, we are fortunate in America to 

enjoy an abundance of water resources. As a Nation, we value 

these resources for their natural beauty; for the many ways they 

help meet human needs; and for the fact that they provide habitat 

for thousands of species of plants, fish and wildlife. 

The Congress has given the Corps of Engineers the responsibility 

of helping to care for these important aquatic resources. 

Through its Civil Works program the Corps carries out a wide 

array of projects that provide: 

—Coastal storm damage reduction 

—Disaster preparedness and response 

—Environmental protection and restoration 

—Flood damage reduction 

—Hydropower 

—Navigable waters 

—Recreational opportunities 
7 

—Regulatory oversight 

—Water supply 

One of the biggest challenges the Corps and other Government 

agencies face is finding the right balance among the often conflicting concerns our society has related to our water resources. Society wants these resources to help fuel economic growth (navigation, hydropower). Society wants them to provide social benefits 

(recreation). And finally society wants to be sure that they are 

available for future generations (environmental protection and restoration). 

The Corps is charged with seeking to achieve the best possible 

balance among these competing demands through an integrated approach to water resources management that focuses on regional solutions, involving an array of stakeholders (i.e. other Government 

agencies, environmental groups, businesses and private organizations). In recent years, the Corps has implemented this approach 

largely by concentrating on watersheds. 

OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST

The fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Corps of Engineers is composed of $4,871,000,000 in new budget authority. This is the 

largest budget that the administration has ever recommended for 

the Corps. However it is more than $460,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2007 enacted budget for the Corps. This budget request 

continues this administration’s policy of drastic underfunding of domestic infrastructure. At a time when this existing infrastructure, 

the foundation of our economic security and quality of life, is depreciating much faster than it is being recapitalized, when our increasing population is placing much greater stress on the Nation’s 

vital water resources, when shifts in population centers mean new 

and different problems and when a growing environmental awareness requires new solutions to persistent problems, this underfunding is unacceptable and threatens our continued well-being. 

In a particularly egregious example of this inattention, the administration budget continues the trend of ever lower General Investigations [GI] funding thereby depriving us of the Nation’s primary tool to identify future challenges and develop innovative solutions to water resources challenges and needs. The fiscal year 2002 

GI request was $130,000,000. This has declined to $90,000,000 in 

fiscal year 2008. This decline is not due to a reduction in water resources needs, rather, it appears to be a deliberate attempt to 

choke off the Corps planning program. Of the $90,000,000 recommended in the budget request only about one-third of it is for 

actual studies that might eventually become projects. This is unconscionable given the enormous water resource needs facing our 

Nation. Worse still, it eviscerates the Corps ability to do proper 

planning. It is clear that in assembling this budget, no thought was 

given to how these recommendations would impact the workload 

and workforce in the various district offices of the Corps. 

Planning in the Corps is a specialized skillset and once that ability is lost, it is difficult to reestablish. Most of the criticisms of the 

Corps project development process in recent years have centered on 

the planning process. The administration is providing funding for 

some improvements to the Planning program such as funding the 
8 

Planning Associates Program and Planning Centers of Expertise. 

However, if there are no planning studies to be undertaken this 

funding is wasted. The Committee believes that the Corps should 

have a robust planning program to not only address new water resource needs but to evaluate changes throughout the project development process. Continued budgets like this will lead to a complete 

loss of this vital Corps of Engineers’ competency. The administration should seriously revise their priorities for this account in the 

fiscal year 2009 budget. 

The Construction, General [CG] and Operation and Maintenance 

[O&M] accounts have to be discussed jointly due to the way the 

budget request blurs the line between the traditional project split 

between the two accounts. 

Priorities for the CG account are based on six criteria for fiscal 

year 2008. The primary criteria is the project’s benefit to cost ratio 

[BCR]. This is a welcome change from previous budgets that judged 

a program on its remaining cost to remaining benefits, which put 

rural projects a significant disadvantage. Projects with on going 

contracts and a BCR greater than 1.5 or are significant or cost effective aquatic ecosystem restoration projects are given funding for 

current contract needs. Projects that address significant risks to 

human health and safety are given sufficient funding to support an 

uninterrupted level of funding in fiscal year 2008. Projects with a 

BCR less than 1.5 are considered for deferral. No new construction 

starts met the administration’s new start criteria for fiscal year 

2008. Projects complying with treaties and biological opinions and/ 

or meeting mitigation requirements as well as dam safety, seepage 

control and static instability correction were given the maximum 

funding for efficient and effective execution. 

The O&M account appears to have been increased by nearly 

$500,000,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted amount. However 

this is very misleading. The administration has again proposed 

shifting major project rehabilitations and environmental compliance activities associated with completed projects from CG to 

O&M. Also shifted to O&M are dredged material disposal projects, 

beach erosion restoration due to completed navigation projects and 

initial nourishment of beach projects. This shifting of projects was 

allegedly done in the name of budget transparency—trying to show 

the true costs of project operations. This seems to be a very weak 

justification in that the Bureau of Reclamation which has similar 

projects in their construction accounts did not get similar guidance 

in their budget preparation. By shifting some of these projects such 

as major rehabs and beach nourishments to O&M it appears that 

the administration was able to circumvent their own new start criteria. Further, by funding environmental compliance activities in 

the individual O&M projects seems to make the budget process less 

transparent by hiding how much these activities are costing the 

Nation by distributing these costs across multiple projects as opposed to a single line item in previous budgets. Finally, the administration’s budget proposal limits coastal storm damage reduction 

projects that require periodic sand renourishments to those where 

the erosion is due to navigation projects. It also proposes to limit 

Federal participation to initial beach nourishment. 
9 

Shifting of projects from the two accounts totals almost $300,000,000 of the $500,000,000 increase to O&M. This also corresponds to a similar decrease in CG funding for fiscal year 2008. 

That still leaves an increase of $200,000,000 for traditional O&M 

projects. The Committee is pleased that the administration has 

provided this increase to O&M for fiscal year 2008. This is the first 

real increase in many years. Unfortunately, the Committee notes 

that the Corps maintenance backlog is more than $1,000,000,000 

and increases by about $100,000,000 annually as the inventory of 

projects ages. 

O&M is again presented as 21 separate regions based on watersheds as opposed to discrete projects. The Committee has indicated 

in the past that this so called ‘‘regional budget’’ is no more than 

an aggregation of the projects within a specific watershed. It does 

not appear that this budget is any different. The budget for these 

projects appears to be developed in the same way that it has always been and then aggregated with the other discrete projects in 

the watershed. The regional budgeting proposed in the last 2 years 

appears to serve no real budgetary purpose other than to circumvent the reprogramming guidance provided by the Committee. 

The regulatory budget gets a substantial increase to $180,000,000 for fiscal year 2008. This is more than $20,000,000 

over the amount provided in fiscal year 2007. However, the Committee recognizes the substantial increased burden to establishing 

new regulatory guidance in the wake of the Rapanos Supreme 

Court decision. 

The Committee is disappointed that funding for the Formerly 

Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP] was cut by 

nearly $10,000,000 from the fiscal year 2007 amount of 

$138,672,000. This program was transferred to the Corps from the 

Department of Energy, because the Committee was concerned with 

management and cost issues of the program within the Energy Department. This is a program that is being well managed by the 

Corps and should have stable, adequate budget resources to continue these radiological clean-up activities. 

The Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account is funded at 

$40,000,000 for fiscal year 2008. The Committee supports this 

funding for disaster readiness and preparedness activities of the 

Corps of Engineers. 

The budget request again combines the budget request for the 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) with 

the General Expenses [GE] account. The Committee continues to 

believe that the Assistant Secretary’s office should be funded in the 

Defense Appropriations bill. However, until such time as that can 

be reintegrated into that bill, the Committee believes that it should 

be funded as a separate account. The Assistant Secretary’s duties 

encompass much more than the civil works functions of the Corps 

of Engineers and the budget needs of the office should be addressed 

separately. 

The Committee is pleased to see an increase in the GE budget 

for fiscal year 2008. With the increases in responsibilities for the 

headquarters of the Corps in overseeing larger budgets as well as 

the massive rebuilding of the flood and storm damage reduction 

measures in the New Orleans area, it is appropriate that this ac-
10 

count should be increased. The Committee notes that the Corps operates one of the most efficient headquarters staffs in the National 

Capital region. Only about 3.5 percent of their staffing is at their 

headquarters level as opposed to 10 percent or more for comparable 

agencies in the National Capital region. 

PERFORMANCE BASED BUDGETING

The Committee has watched with interest over the last 4 years 

as the Corps has moved to a ‘‘performance based budget’’ model. 

Unfortunately, the Committee does not see improvement in the 

budgeting of the Nation’s Civil Works infrastructure program. In 

fact, the Committee believes quite the opposite is true. Rather than 

an integrated program, the budget for the Civil Works program 

seems to be degenerating toward a yearly collection of interchangeable projects dependent only on the budgetary whims and criteria 

in use in that particular year. The current method of performance 

based budgeting utilized in this budget preparation turns the Nation away from infrastructure investments that return two and 

even three times their cost. 

In fiscal year 2005, more than 130 projects were budgeted by the 

administration for construction; this year there are only about 66. 

However, Congress funded more than 300 projects in fiscal year 

2006 and has averaged about 315 annually since fiscal year 2000. 

Due to the joint funding resolution for fiscal year 2007, Congress 

did not propose any projects for construction within the 

$2,336,368,000 in Construction, General funding provided to the 

executive branch but left that task to the administration. The administration funded 244 construction projects in their fiscal year 

2007 work plan. They could have chosen to only fund the 85 proposed in the fiscal year 2007 budget request, but they didn’t. This 

demonstrates a recognition by the administration that their budget 

proposal only partially addressed the Nation’s needs. The work 

plan also demonstrated that the administration finds value in 

many of the projects that Congress annually funds. Unfortunately, 

the budget request pretends that these on going projects which 

have been funded annually for many years in enacted legislation 

do not exist. Further the budget assumes it costs nothing to ignore 

these projects. If Congress funded only the budget request for Construction, General, the administration would quickly discover that 

termination costs for unfunded on going projects could easily exceed the request. This is irresponsible budgeting on the part of the 

administration. 

From the Committee’s perspective, the Corps’ budget seems to be 

developed exactly in the opposite manner that it should be. It appears that overall spending targets are set by the administration 

and then their priority projects are inserted within these targets. 

Criteria are then established to justify funding the lower priority 

projects within the remaining funding targets. The problem with 

budgeting in this manner is evident in the construction account for 

fiscal year 2008. Six priority projects consume nearly 30 percent of 

the requested dollars in this account. Another nine projects related 

to dam safety consume another 20 percent. That means that some 

51 projects have to split the remaining construction dollars. 
11 

The logic behind this budgeting rational appears to be that concentrating scarce resources on finishing a few higher performing 

projects will allow the Nation to reap the benefits of these projects 

sooner. The trouble with this is that these are long-term projects 

that take many years to complete. At the rate the budget is headed, we will only be funding the administration’s six priority projects 

and the dam safety repairs in another couple of years with little 

else in the pipeline. The Committee questions this rationale when 

compared to the value of the benefits that are deferred by suspending or terminating these other projects in order to concentrate 

resources on such a few projects. In some cases these deferred benefits may never be realized due to these terminations. 

Local sponsors who share in these projects’ cost may lose their 

ability to share these costs or may lose public support for finishing 

these projects. Once these priority projects are completed, one has 

to wonder whether there will be any projects or sponsors interested 

in resuming construction in an infrastructure program that suspends projects based on changeable annual criteria. 

In the past, Corps budgets were developed from the bottom up, 

District to Division to Headquarters to ASA to OMB. District commanders were responsible for developing and managing a program 

within their geographic area. Division Commanders were responsible for integrating the District office programs into a single Division-wide program. The Headquarters office integrated the Division 

Programs into a single national program. The OASA assured that 

the program complied with administration policy and budgetary 

guidance and OMB developed the budgetary guidance and provided 

funding levels. Decisions for budgeting were made within the 

framework of administration policy by those who knew the projects 

and programs best, not Washington level bureaucrats. 

Another benefit of budgeting in this manner is that it allows the 

Corps to undertake workforce planning to distribute their work 

across the Nation. When one chooses to put 40–50 percent of the 

budget in a handful of projects, there is no way the workload can 

be balanced across the remainder of the Nation with what is left. 

Unlike other Federal agencies that have a salaries and expense 

component to their budget, the Corps does not, at least not at the 

District office level. Virtually all costs at District offices (rent, utilities, labor, materials, etc.) are charged to projects and studies as 

directed by Congress. This enables the public to be informed of the 

true cost of all projects. Accordingly, it is necessary that the budget 

process be consistent with the accounting practice. When dealing 

with such large differences in workload from fiscal year to fiscal 

year it is clear that the administration gave no thought to how this 

budget would impact the Corps’ organizational structure or ability 

to maintain a technically competent workforce. Congress has repeatedly demonstrated that it desires to keep the structure of the 

Corps of Engineers as it is currently configured. Yet, if the budget 

were enacted, there would be no way to maintain this workforce, 

due to how budgetary criteria skewed the projects to certain areas 

of the country. Neither a pure ‘‘bottom up’’ budget process, nor a 

performance-based budget process is perfect. Experienced decision 

makers are expected to exercise informed judgment to achieve a 

balanced program considering all factors. Once more, the adminis-
12 

tration appears to have submitted a very unbalanced program 

using oversimplified decision metrics to consider only a few objectives (e.g. BCR and efficient completion of a few projects) that do 

not take into account the long- term needs of the Nation or the organization expected to manage the program. 

The Congress will likely consider the passage of a water resources development bill this year. In this bill the BCR necessary 

for a project to be authorized for construction is 1.0 to 1. The criteria mentioned above requires a BCR to be 3.0 to 1 for budgeting. 

This performance based budgeting criteria furthers the divide between what is required for authorization and what is required to 

be budgeted. These criteria use to be one and the same. Most of 

the projects in the water resources development bill will likely not 

meet this criteria, increasing the backlog of authorized but 

unconstructed projects. These new projects, along with the deferrals in the budget and the major rehabilitations needed for aging 

infrastructure, are affecting and will continue to affect the national 

economy. Existing water resources infrastructure is wearing out. 

The Nation needs to recapitalize if we are to remain competitive 

in a global marketplace. 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET INITIATIVES

The administration has proposed several changes to how the civil 

works program is appropriated for fiscal year 2007. These include 

the regionalization of operations and maintenance funding and migrating four categories of projects from the Construction, General 

account to the Operations and Maintenance account. The Committee has rejected all of these initiatives. 

Regionalized operations and maintenance funding segregates 

funding for projects into 21 watershed regions around the country 

as opposed to displaying operations and maintenance costs by 

project as has been the tradition. As projects, not regions, are authorized and funded by Congress, the Committee must reject this 

proposal. Operation and Maintenance budgets are developed on a 

project by project basis. For large river basins such as the Ohio or 

the Missouri, budgeting for the individual projects, as authorized, 

involve multiple Districts and Divisions. As the proposals in the 

budget are not developed as a systemized budget, aggregating them 

in the fashion proposed does not lead to the ‘‘true costs’’ of operating the system, it just adds up the various parts. The Committee 

does not believe that this proposal advances the budgeting for operations and maintenance. 

The Committee is not opposed to a systemized budget for 

projects. However, the Corps must demonstrate the value of this 

approach to the Committee. The Corps is directed to prepare four 

systemized, integrated budgets for four different areas of the Nation, the Ohio River, the Great Lakes, the Texas Coast and the 

California coast, to demonstrate the value of system or watershed 

based planning and budgeting. Should the Corps want to select different areas they must coordinate their recommendations with the 

Committees prior to implementation. This process should start at 

the initial development phases of the budget so that goals can be 

developed and carried through the entire budget development process. 
13 

The Committee rejects the initiative to move Endangered Species 

Act [ESA] compliance activities from Construction, General to Operations and Maintenance. The stated reason was budget transparency, or to more appropriately show the true costs of operating 

these projects. The Committee has two issues with this logic. Budget transparency fades when the costs are rolled into the regionalized budgets. However, even if they were budgeted on a project by 

project basis, the casual observer would have no notion of how 

much of the operational costs of these projects is related to ESA 

compliance. Second, these are only being considered as operational 

costs because mitigation for these projects was not undertaken 

when the projects were constructed as is now required by subsequent laws. Were these projects constructed today, formulation of 

the projects would have required avoidance and minimization 

measures for the endangered species. 

If one wanted to take this argument to the extreme, all of the 

Everglades Restoration should be budgeted under the Central and 

South Florida O&M project since construction of this project resulted in the environmental restorations that are now being implemented. However, the costs for this work would not be transparent 

in the budget. By retaining the ESA compliance measures as separate line items in the CG account, it is much more transparent as 

to how much is being funded for these activities. 

The budget has proposed moving major rehabilitation for locks 

and dams from the Construction, General account to the Operations and Maintenance account. Corresponding to this is a legislative proposal to allow the proceeds from the Inland Waterway 

Trust Fund to be utilized in the Operations and Maintenance account. Current law only allows these funds to be utilized in the 

Construction, General account. The Congress moved major rehabilitation from the Construction, General account to the Operation and 

Maintenance account in fiscal year 1985. Subsequently as the backlog increased, it was returned to the Construction, General account 

in the fiscal year 1993 budget. The stipulations involved in moving 

it back to the Construction account included that these major rehabilitations would involve more than a simple restoration of 

project function. Operational improvements were considered as a 

part of the rehab. As such, the rehabilitated, or recapitalized, 

projects were considered new investment opportunities for the 

country, the same as other new projects, and had to compete as 

new starts in the Construction, General program. This is entirely 

appropriate as these recapitalized projects provide increased levels 

of service and performance not envisioned in their original construction. If they didn’t, under existing adminstration policy, the 

repairs would be considered major maintenance and would be funded under the Operation and Maintenance Account. To help fund 

these major rehabs, legislation allowed half the costs of the major 

rehab to be borne by the Inland Waterway Trust Fund with the 

other half to come from the General Treasury. The Committee does 

not believe moving these projects back to the Operations and Maintenance account will solve the backlog of major rehabs and rejects 

this proposal. The Committee believes that the real intent of this 

proposal is to skirt the new start issue in the CG account. 
14 

The Committee is disappointed that the administration has recycled their beach policy from the fiscal year 2007 budget. This was 

only a slight tweak to the fiscal year 2006 proposal that was rejected by the Congress. The Committee rejects the new policy as 

well. The Committee notes that beaches are the leading tourist destination in the United States. Typically beach projects are justified 

on storm damages prevented alone, and the recreation benefits only 

enhance the benefit to cost ratio. The maximum Federal Government contribution to Federal shore protection projects is 65 percent 

of the total project cost but the Government receives all the benefits in reducing Federal disaster assistance payments. By paying 

for Federal shore protection projects now, we can avoid many of the 

catastrophic losses and disaster assistance payments associated 

with hurricanes and coastal storms. Simply stated, the Nation can 

pay now to avoid losses or pay more later to recover from severe 

impacts. It truly makes sense to be proactive and not reactive in 

this environment. 

It is instructive to compare the Federal investment in beach infrastructure (beach nourishment) versus Federal tax revenues from 

tourists. The annual Federal investment in beach nourishment is 

approximately $100,000,000 a year. Travel and tourism in the 

United States produce $223,900,000,000 in tax revenues and 

growth in this sector exceeds 5 percent annually. About 53 percent 

or $119,000,000,000 of these tax revenues go to the Federal Government. Assuming that half of these tourists are beach tourists 

(beaches are the leading U.S. tourist destination by more than a 2 

to 1 margin), beach tourists produce Federal taxes of about 

$60,000,000,000 a year. Therefore, for every dollar in annual Federal expenditures for beach nourishment, the Federal Government 

is receiving tax revenues of approximately $600 from beach tourists. 

Interestingly, the administration has been pursuing authorization for coastal wetland restoration projects to protect coastal areas 

from hurricane storm surge. Yet the placement of sand in coastal 

areas for the exact same reason is given no priority by the administration in the budget process. While the Committee supports restoration of the coastal wetlands, it is difficult to imagine that wetlands will provide a greater national economic impact than placing 

sand on public beaches to mitigate storm surges on our densely 

populated coastal areas. 

The Committee believes that this budget proposal is no way to 

run a robust national infrastructure program. The Committee recommended that the Corps include additional criteria into the 

project prioritization process and commends the administration for 

having done so for the fiscal year 2008 budget request. The Committee also commends the administration for changing from the Remaining Benefits/Remaining Costs Ratio to the projects actual Benefit to Cost Ratio. However, the net result is that the mix of 

projects is substantially unchanged and fewer projects are proposed 

for funding in fiscal year 2008. The Committee does not believe 

that this prioritization method can be salvaged into a useable system. Further, the Committee has seen no evidence that it has improved the budget process. 
15 

Rather than trying new budget models and new prioritization criteria, the country needs to invest more heavily in its water resources. Water resource projects are some of the only Federal expenditures that go through a rigorous benefit to cost process to determine benefits to the national economy. The standard of living 

that we currently enjoy is due to the excess capacity that was built 

into our water resources infrastructure by previous generations. By 

failing to make new investments and recapitalizing aging infrastructure, the Nation is not only falling behind our competition 

around the world, but is jeopardizing our future economic growth. 

BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

The Committee continues to be concerned about the manner that 

budget justifications were prepared for the fiscal year 2008 budget. 

In the past, the Corps provided justification sheets for each project 

and presented them in budget order by Division across the country. 

Again for fiscal year 2008, a single book of justification sheets was 

provided by business lines. The Committee finds this manner of 

displaying the budget not very helpful in being able to find meaningful information on individual projects and studies. While the 

Committee believes that budget justifications could be improved by 

providing more relevant budget information, particularly for operations and maintenance projects, the method used for display in 

fiscal year 2008 provides less useful information, not more. For fiscal year 2009, the Committee instructs that the budget justifications should be prepared in the format used for fiscal year 2004, 

that is, prior to the business line budget model. This should include 

information on fund items in preceding acts that will have out year 

funding requirements as well as budgeted items. If the administration chooses to continue to provide the business line information, 

it may be provided as a separate appendix to the justifications. 

CONTINUING CONTRACTS AND REPROGRAMMING

Traditionally, the Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program 

has been a truly integrated nationwide water infrastructure program. As such, flexibility was required to manage the program. 

Congress has given the Chief of Engineers great latitude in management of this program in order to expend annual appropriations 

as efficiently and effectively as possible. Water resources projects, 

because of the nature of the work involved, are funded on an incremental annual basis. While aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines 

and even spacecraft have been constructed without the use of continuing contracts Congress recognized that those amounts of budget resources would never be available to the Corps, so they provided continuing contract authority to allow them to construct 

large scale projects without the Congress having to provide all of 

the budget authority up front. Additionally, this method of funding 

the Corps allowed the Congress to have more projects underway at 

the same time with the same budget authority. Congress recognized that by providing this flexibility it was relinquishing some 

measure of control over future appropriations; however, Congress 

believed that this was an acceptable trade off for the efficient use 

of limited funds. 
16 

This system worked well from the 1920s until 2005. For the few 

years prior to fiscal year 2006, the Corps had gotten somewhat 

sloppy in their management of continuing contracts as well as reprogramming of project funds. This sloppiness gave the appearance 

that construction contractors were dictating program execution. As 

the Committee has discussed in prior years, this perception was 

due to a number of factors some of them initiated by the Congress 

and other by the Corps’ interpretation of congressional directives. 

Unfortunately restrictions placed on the Corps in the fiscal year 

2006 budget, that are still in effect, have severely limited, if not 

prohibited the Corps from entering into new continuing contracts 

as well as virtually prohibited reprogramming of project funds. 

These factors have led to a dramatic increase in carryover of 

project funds which can only mean that projects are still being delayed even with the new guidance from fiscal year 2006. Carryover 

from fiscal year 2005 into fiscal year 2006 was about $300,000,000. 

With the new guidance from the fiscal year 2006 act, carryover 

ballooned to $1,400,000,000 from fiscal year 2006 into fiscal year 

2007. Preliminary indications are that carryover from fiscal year 

2007 into fiscal year 2008 will exceed $1,000,000,000 and may be 

as high as $1,200,000,000. While the Committee accepts that some 

level of carryover is unavoidable and desirable, carrying over nearly 20 percent of the Corps’ annual appropriations is unacceptable. 

Changes must be made by Congress and the Corps to efficiently 

and effectively utilize annual appropriations and reduce carryover 

balances to more reasonable levels. Noting these exceptionally 

large carryover balances, the Committee has continued to include 

small percentages of savings and slippage on all accounts to maximize resources. The fiscal year 2006 guidance has also had a significant impact on continuing contracts in effect prior to the guidance being implemented as contracts cannot be unilaterally modified by the Corps to adopt these changes to the law. 

The Committee expects the Chief of Engineers to execute the 

Civil Works program generally in accordance with congressional direction. This includes moving individual projects forward in accordance with the funds annually appropriated. However, the Committee realizes that many factors outside the Corps’ control may 

dictate the progress of any given project or study. Therefore, the 

Committee believes that it is imperative to give the Chief of Engineers ample flexibility to manage the program and to utilize excess 

funds as they become available on a particular project in order to 

move the entire program forward, effectively advancing projects to 

completion and accruing the benefits and services for which they 

were authorized, as soon as practicable. However, the Committee 

notes that granting this flexibility also requires responsibility to insure that appropriated funds are available for projects for which 

they were appropriated, when needed. 

The Committee believes that properly utilized continuing contracts serve a vital purpose in executing civil works projects. The 

Committee also believes that judicious use of reprogramming authority also contributes to an efficient and effectively run program. 

Therefore the Committee is repealing section 108 of Public Law 

109–103 pertaining to limitation on funding to continuing contracts. The Committee is leaving in place the provisions of section 
17 

106 as they restore the traditional uses of continuing contracts. 

The Committee directs that in utilizing continuing contracts that 

they should be for long term, large scale projects. The Committee’s 

expectation is that for a continuing contract to be utilized, the contract value should exceed $5,000,000 and have a minimum contract 

duration of 24 months. Anything less than these amounts should 

be considered for full funding. However, this should not be considered an endorsement by the Committee that only continuing contracts should be awarded above these thresholds. The Committee 

expects the Corps to use the proper contracting vehicle for each situation. For continuing contracts this should include the reasonable 

expectation of future funding. Authority for awarding continuing 

contracts should be at the lowest practical level. Exceptions to 

these limits should be forwarded to the Chief of Engineers for review and approval. 

The Committee further notes that current reprogramming recommendations have come to be elevated to the highest levels of the 

Corps, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) and 

OMB. The Committee believes that reprogrammings are operational decisions which should be delegated. The Committee believes that the Chief should delegate recommendation of reprogramming decisions to as low of a level as possible in order to 

expedite reprogramming actions in order to efficiently and effectively utilize scarce funds. 

The Committee is also revamping reprogramming guidance for 

the Corps. The Committee believes that the reprogramming guidance that is currently being utilized is too restrictive and does not 

address the inherent differences in the various accounts of the 

Corps of Engineers. For fiscal year 2008, reprogramming limitations will be tied to the base funding amounts available for the 

project, study, or activity for which funding is available. In other 

words, the base for each project, study or activity amounts to the 

new budget authority made available, excluding supplemental 

funds, coupled with previously provided unexpended funding for 

the project, study or activity. For reprogramming actions that must 

come to the Committee for approval, the Committee expects the 

Corps to fully coordinate the actions with the affected Members of 

Congress before the action is formally submitted to the Committees. In no case should a reprogramming action for less than 

$50,000 be submitted to the Committees for approval. The authority for each account is as follows: 

General Investigations.—For a base funding level less than 

$100,000, the reprogramming limit is $25,000. For a base level over 

$100,000, 25 percent up to a limit of $150,000 per study or activity. 

Amounts over this limit will require approval of the House and 

Senate Appropriations Committees, except that the Committee 

does not object to reprogramming up to $25,000 to any continuing 

study or activity that did not receive an appropriation in the current year. 

Construction, General.—For a base less than $2,000,000, the reprogramming limit is $300,000. For a base level over $2,000,000, 

15 percent up to a limit of $3,000,000 per project or activity. The 

Committee will allow reprogramming up to $3,000,000 for settled 

contractor claims, accelerated earnings or real estate deficiency 
18 

judgments. Amounts over this limit require approval of the House 

and Senate Appropriations Committees. Reprogramming within 

each section of the Continuing Authorities is unlimited however, 

the percentages between studies and implementation must be 

maintained as directed in this report. Further, no reprogramming 

is allowed between sections nor into or out of the overall CG account. The Committee does not object to reprogramming of up to 

$300,000 to any continuing project or program that did not receive 

an appropriation in the current year. 

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

Senate Appropriations Committees of these emergency actions as 

soon thereafter as practicable. For all other situations, for a base 

less than $1,000,000, the reprogramming limit is $150,000. For a 

base over $1,000,000, 15 percent up to a limit of $5,000,000 per 

project or activity. Amounts over this limit require approval of the 

House and Senate Appropriations Committees. The Committee 

does not object reprogramming up to $150,000 to any continuing 

project or program that did not receive an appropriation in the current year. 

Mississippi River and Tributaries.—The Corps should follow the 

same reprogramming guidelines for the General Investigations, 

Construction, General and Operation and Maintenance portions of 

the Mississippi River and Tributaries account as listed above. 

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.—The Corps 

may reprogram up to 15 percent of the base of the receiving 

project. 

This revised continuing contract and reprogramming guidance 

should help the Corps effectively manage their program while honoring the intent of Congress. These items reinvigorate the idea that 

once the Congress funds a study, that it intends for the study 

phase to be completed to determine if Federal investment is warranted. By the same token, once the Congress commits to initiation 

of construction of a project that it intends for the project to be completed and the national economy to accrue the project benefits. 

Five Year Comprehensive Budget Planning 

While the Committee appreciates the Corps’ attempts to provide 

a meaningful 5-year budget plan, it recognizes the inherent difficulties between the legislative and executive branches in preparing a 

useful plan. The executive branch is unwilling to project a 5-year 

horizon for projects for which they do not budget leaving a sizeable 

percentage of the Corps annual appropriations with a year to year 

event horizon for planning purposes. The fact that a sizeable portion of the annual appropriations are dedicated to congressional 

priorities is not a new phenomenon. Many major public works 

projects over the last two centuries have been funded on an annual 

basis without a clear budget strategy. The Committee would welcome the ideas and the opportunity to work with the executive 

branch to determine a mutually agreeable way to develop an integrated 5-year comprehensive budget that displays true funding 

needs for congressional as well as administration priorities. Any-
19 

thing less will only give a partial view of the investments needed 

in water resources infrastructure. 

Study and Project Reviews 

The Committee notes that review times have markedly improved 

for Corps of Engineers documents at the Headquarters, Office of 

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

of Management and Budget since statutory timeframes and notifications were imposed on these reviews. This is shown in the table 

below. 

Project Date to OMB Date review completed Date to Congress 

Smith Island, MD .............................................................. 22 Oct 02 .............. 18 Apr 05 1 ............ 02 Aug 06 

Hamilton Airfield, CA ......................................................... 24 Jan 05 .............. 20 Apr 05 .............. 03 May 05 

Silver Strand/Imperial Beach, CA ..................................... 03 Jan 05 .............. 22 Apr 05 .............. 06 May 05 

Western Sarpy, NE ............................................................. 25 Feb 04 .............. 22 Apr 05 .............. 15 Jul 05 

J.T. Myers/Greenup L&Ds KY, OH, IN ................................. 23 Aug 03 ............. 03 May 05 ............. 04 Jan 06 

Southwest Valley, NM ........................................................ 06 Apr 05 .............. 14 Jun 05 .............. 29 Jun 05 

Centralia, WA ..................................................................... 25 Apr 05 .............. 15 Jun 05 .............. 01 Jul 05 

Jacksonville Harbor, FL ...................................................... 18 May 05 ............. 25 Jul 05 ............... 03 Aug 05 

Denver County Streams, CO .............................................. 21 Jun 05 .............. 02 Sep 05 .............. 13 Oct 05 

Indian River Lagoon, FL .................................................... 22 Jun 05 .............. 17 Oct 05 .............. 01 Feb 06 

Louisiana Coastal Area, LA ............................................... 26 Aug 05 ............. 01 Nov 05 .............. 21 Nov 05

Napa River Salt Marsh, CA ............................................... 17 Aug 05 ............. 01 Nov 05 .............. 21 Nov 05 

Duwamish-Green Rivers, WA ............................................. 09 May 02 ............. 28 Nov 05 .............. 21 Dec 05 

Stillaguamish River, WA .................................................... 18 Apr 02 .............. 28 Nov 05 .............. 21 Dec 05 

Dare County Beaches, NC ................................................. 01 Nov 05 .............. 06 Jan 06 .............. 27 Jan 06

Chickamauga L&D, TN ...................................................... 16 Jun 04 .............. 11 Jan 06 .............. 25 Jan 06 

Miami Harbor, FL ............................................................... 17 Feb 06 .............. 24 Apr 06 .............. 25 May 06 

Rilito River, Pima County, AZ ........................................... 17 Feb 06 .............. 01 May 06 ............. 19 May 06 

Great Lakes Fish & Ecosystem Rest ................................. 07 Apr 06 .............. 15 Jun 06 .............. Complete 2

Missouri & Middle Mississippi River ................................ 30 Aug 05 ............. 15 Jun 06 .............. Complete 2

Ohio River Restoration, OH ............................................... 04 Mar 02 ............. 15 Jun 06 .............. Complete 2

Puget Sound, WA ............................................................... 02 May 05 ............. 15 Jun 06 .............. Complete 2

Bayou Sorrel, LA ................................................................ 10 Jul 06 ............... 15 Sep 06 .............. 04 Oct 06 

Poplar Island, MD .............................................................. 03 Aug 06 ............. 03 Oct 06 .............. 11 Oct 06 

Matilija Dam, CA ............................................................... 25 Sep 06 .............. 27 Nov 06 .............. 09 Apr 07 

Hamilton City, CA .............................................................. 25 Sep 06 .............. 22 Nov 06 .............. 21 Dec 06 

Bloomsburg, PA ................................................................. 11 Oct 06 .............. 20 Dec 06 .............. 11 Jan 07 

Matagorda Bay Re-Route, TX ............................................ 08 Sep 03 .............. 06 Feb 07 .............. 05 Mar 07 

GIWW, High Island to Brazos, TX ...................................... 08 Oct 04 .............. 06 Feb 07 .............. 09 Mar 07 

Deep Creek Bridge, VA ...................................................... 27 Aug 03 ............. 23 Feb 07 .............. 23 Mar 07 

Jackson Hole, Snake River, WY ......................................... 04 Mar 02 ............. 08 Mar 07 ............. 12 Mar 07 

Picayune Strand, FL .......................................................... 17 Jan 07 .............. 19 Mar 07 ............. 19 Apr 07 

Montauk Point, NY ............................................................. 05 Feb 07 .............. 19 Apr 07 .............. 03 May 07 

MS Coastal Improvements Program .................................. 20 Feb 07 .............. 23 Apr 07 .............. 04 May 07 

Breckinridge, MN ............................................................... 15 Jul 04 ............... 20 Mar 07 ............. 07 May 07 

Chesterfield, MO ................................................................ 13 Jun 06 .............. 01 May 07 ............. 30 May 07 

Lido Key, Lee County Shore, FL ......................................... 04 Aug 06 ............. 25 May 07 .............

1 Received June 27, 2006. 

2 Returned to DCW as complete by letter dated 17 Jul 06. Programmatic documents not to be reviewed by OMB. 

However, the Committee is not pleased that this improved review time only applies to new documents that have been forwarded 

for review. Many documents have been languishing for 3 to 4 years. 

This is unacceptable to the Committee and should be to OMB as 

well. The following table shows the name of the document, when 

it was forwarded to OMB and the current status. 
20 

Project Date to OMB Status 

Delaware Coastline, Port Mahon, DE .............................................. 07 Jun 99 & 08 Jan 02 .... Pending 

Whitewater River Basin, CA ............................................................ 09 May 02 ......................... Pending

Port Monmouth, NJ .......................................................................... 19 May 03 ......................... Pending 

Rio de Flag, AZ ............................................................................... 18 Sep 03 ......................... Pending 

Port Sutton, FL ................................................................................ 01 Oct 03 .......................... Pending 

Peoria Riverfront Development, IL ................................................... 28 Feb 04 .......................... Pending 1

Park River at Grafton, ND ............................................................... 28 May 04 ......................... Pending 

Tanque Verde, AZ ............................................................................ 02 Jun 04 .......................... Pending 

Dallas Floodway Extension, TX ........................................................ 23 Aug 04 ......................... Pending 

Corpus Christi Ship Channel, TX .................................................... 16 Sep 04 ......................... Active Review 

Swope Park Industrial Area, MO ..................................................... 28 Oct 04 .......................... Pending 

South River, Raritan River Basin, NJ .............................................. 05 Nov 04 ......................... Pending 

St. Clair River/Lake St. Clair, MI .................................................... 22 Mar 06 ......................... Pending

Manasquan to Barnegat Inlet, NJ ................................................... 25 Sep 06 ......................... On Hold 2

CERP—Site 1 Impoundment ........................................................... 25 Apr 07 .......................... Pending 

Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, IA ............................................... 25 Apr 07 .......................... Pending 

Craney Island Expansion, VA .......................................................... 07 Jun 07 .......................... Pending

1 Project Scope reduced by partial implementation authorized by section 519 of WRDA 2000. 

2 District answering questions on cumulative effects and air quality. 

The Committee directs the Chief of Engineers to work with the 

ASA[CW] and OMB to develop a plan to complete these policy compliance reviews as expeditiously as possible and forward the recommendations of these reports to Congress. This plan should be 

presented to the appropriate House and Senate authorizing and 

Appropriations Committees no later than September 30, 2007. The 

Committee directs that reviews of all of these documents should be 

completed no later than December 31, 2008. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes a total of 

$5,448,092,000. This is $577,092,000 over the administration’s 

budget request and $109,722,000 over the fiscal year 2007 enacted 

amount. Funding is displayed in the following tables in the accounts where projects have been traditionally located and comparisons to the budget request are made as if the request was presented in the traditional manner. Funding by account is as follows: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2007 

request 

Committee 

recommedation 

Request vs. 

recommendation 

General Investigations ................................................................... 90,000 172,147 ∂82,147 

Construction, General .................................................................... 1,818,811 2,059,474 ∂240,663 

Mississippi River and Tributaries .................................................. 260,000 375,000 ∂115,000 

Operation and Maintenance .......................................................... 2,175,189 2,291,971 ∂116,782 

Regulatory ...................................................................................... 180,000 180,000 ............................

Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies ....................................... 40,000 50,000 ∂10,000 

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ......................... 130,000 140,000 ∂10,000 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) ........ 6,000 4,500 ¥1,500 

General Expenses ........................................................................... 171,000 175,000 ∂4,000 

Total .................................................................................. 4,871,000 5,448,092 ∂577,092 

DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS

The Committee received more than 2,500 requests for projects, 

programs, studies or activities for the Corps of Engineers for fiscal 
21 

year 2008. These were items that were in addition to the budget 

request as well as those included in the budget request. The Committee obviously was unable to accommodate all of these requests. 

In the interest of providing full disclosure of funding provided in 

the Energy and Water bill, all disclosures are made in this report 

accompanying the Bill. 

All of the projects funded in this report have gone through the 

same rigorous public review and approval process as those proposed for funding by the President. The difference in these projects, 

of course, is that the congressionally directed projects are not subject to the artificial budgetary prioritization criteria that the administration utilizes to decide what not to fund. 

A new column has been added to the tables to show the requestors of the various projects. For those programs, projects, or studies 

that were included in the budgetary documents provided in the 

budget request, the word President has been added to denote this 

administration request. The level of funding provided for each of 

these programs projects or studies should not be construed as what 

was requested. Rather, the only intent is to disclose the requestor. 

It should be noted that many line items only have President listed as the requestor. It should not be inferred that the affected 

Members are not interested in these projects studies or activities. 

Rather this is due to Committee direction that the President’s 

budget requests are assumed to be requested by the affected Members unless they notify the Committee to the contrary. 

The purposes for the funding provided in the various accounts is 

described in the paragraphs associated with each account. The location of the programs, projects or studies are denoted in the account 

tables. 

GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $162,916,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 90,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 172,147,000 

1 Excludes emergency appropriations of $8,165,000. 

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

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

work, data collection, and interagency coordination and research 

activities. 

The planning program is the entry point for Federal involvement 

in solutions to the Nation’s water resource problems and needs. 

Unfortunately, the General Investigations [GI] account is eviscerated in the budget request. Nationwide studies and programs 

consume nearly two-thirds of the administration’s GI request. This 

budget is saying that the Nation should concentrate scarce resources on completing studies but not carrying forward ongoing 

studies or allowing new starts. The Committee believes this argument is remarkably shortsighted. It assumes that the country will 

stop growing and that new investment opportunities will not be 

present. 

In truth, as the country grows, new investment opportunities will 

be presented and some previously authorized projects may no 
22 

longer make sense or may be less competitive. The Corps should 

keep presenting the administration and Congress with new investment opportunities in order for the Nation to remain competitive 

in a global economy. The only conclusion one can draw from the administration’s GI proposal is that they are determined to redirect 

the Corps towards construction, operation and maintenance by 

strangling their ability to evaluate water resource problems and 

needs. 

The Committee has provided for a robust and balanced planning 

program for fiscal year 2008. The Committee has used the traditional view within the Corps planning program that only considers 

new starts as those that have never received GI funds before. The 

Committee believes that to maintain a robust planning program, a 

mix of new reconnaissance studies must be included with the existing feasibility and PED studies. As such the Committee has included several new reconnaissance studies in this account. To provide additional transparency in the budget process, the Committee 

has segregated the budget into three columns in the following 

table. 

The first column represents the reconnaissance phase of the 

planning process. These studies determine if there is a Federal interest in a water resource problem or need and if there is a cost 

sharing sponsor willing to move forward with the study. The next 

column represents the feasibility phase of the study. These detailed 

cost shared studies determine the selected alternative to be recommended to the Congress for construction. The third column represents the Preconstruction engineering and design phase. These 

detailed cost shared designs are prepared while the project recommended to Congress is awaiting authorization for construction. 

The Committee believes that by segregating the table in this 

manner that more attention will be focused on the various study 

phases, and a more balanced planning program will be developed 

by the administration. As the last two columns are generally cost 

shared, they demonstrate the commitment by cost sharing sponsors 

to be a part of the Federal planning process. By the same token, 

it also shows the level of commitment of the Federal Government 

to these cost sharing sponsors. The Committee directs that the fiscal year 2009 planning budget be presented to the Committee in 

this fashion. 

The budget request and the recommended Committee allowance 

are shown on the following table: 
23 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Requested by Investigations Planning RECON FEAS PED 

ALASKA 

ANCHORAGE HARBOR DEEPENING, AK ............................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. 500 .................. STEVENS ATKA BOAT HARBOR, AK ................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 200 .................. .................. STEVENS BARROW COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION, AK ....................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 400 .................. STEVENS DELONG MOUNTAIN DOCK, AK .......................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 100 400 STEVENS HAINES HARBOR, AK ......................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 350 STEVENS HOMER HARBOR MODIFICATION, AK ................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. 400 .................. STEVENS KENAI RIVER BLUFF EROSION, AK .................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 500 .................. STEVENS LITTLE DIOMEDE HARBOR, AK .......................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 600 .................. STEVENS MATANUSKA RIVER WATERSHED, AK ................................................................................................ .................. .................. 300 .................. .................. STEVENS MCGRATH, AK .................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 600 .................. .................. STEVENS WHITTIER BREAKWATER, AK .............................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. 400 .................. STEVENS YAKUTAT HARBOR, AK ....................................................................................................................... 300 .................. .................. 600 .................. PRESIDENT, STEVENS 

ARIZONA 

RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, AZ .................................................................................................... .................. 300 .................. .................. 300 PRESIDENT VA SHLY-AY AKIMEL SALT RIVER RESTORATION, AZ ........................................................................ .................. 658 .................. .................. 658 PRESIDENT 

ARKANSAS 

LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESOURCE STUDY ................................................................................. .................. .................. 250 .................. .................. COCHRAN, LINCOLN, PRYOR MAY BRANCH, FORT SMITH, AR ....................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 LINCOLN, PRYOR PINE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR ................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 500 LINCOLN, PRYOR RED RIVER NAVIGATION STUDY, SOUTHWEST ARKANSAS, AR .......................................................... .................. .................. .................. 200 200 LANDRIEU, LINCOLN, PRYOR, INHOFE WHITE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE, AR & MO ............................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 325 .................. BOND, LINCOLN, PRYOR WHITE RIVER MINIMUM FLOWS, AR .................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 475 LINCOLN, PRYOR WHITE RIVER NAVIGATION TO NEWPORT, AR ................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 LINCOLN, PRYOR 

CALIFORNIA 

CALIFORNIA COASTAL SEDIMENT MASTER PLAN, CA ....................................................................... 300 .................. .................. 450 .................. PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN CARPINTERIA SHORELINE STUDY ...................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 200 .................. FEINSTEIN COYOTE & BERRYESSA CREEKS, CA ................................................................................................ 700 250 .................. 700 250 PRESIDENT 
24 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Requested by Investigations Planning RECON FEAS PED 

COYOTE DAM, CA .............................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. 250 .................. FEINSTEIN ESTUDILLO CANAL, CA ...................................................................................................................... 425 .................. .................. 425 .................. PRESIDENT HAMILTON CITY, CA .......................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 800 FEINSTEIN HEACOCK AND CACTUS CHANNELS, CA ........................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 500 .................. FEINSTEIN HUMBOLT BAY LONG TERM SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT, CA .............................................................. .................. .................. .................. 250 .................. FEINSTEIN LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CORNFIELDS, CA ............................................................. .................. .................. .................. 750 .................. FEINSTEIN LOS ANGELES RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION ............................................................................. .................. .................. .................. 500 .................. BOXER LOS ANGELES RIVER WATERCOURSE IMPROVEMENT—HEADWORKS) ............................................. .................. .................. .................. 300 .................. FEINSTEIN LOWER CACHE CREEK, YOLO COUNTY, WOODLAND AND VICINITY .................................................. .................. .................. .................. 40 .................. FEINSTEIN LOWER MISSION CREEK, CA ............................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 500 FEINSTEIN MALIBU CREEK WATERSHED, CA ...................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 158 FEINSTEIN MATILIJA DAM, CA ............................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 1,000 FEINSTEIN, BOXER MIDDLE CREEK, CA ........................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 30 500 FEINSTEIN RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAMP, CA .......................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 227 .................. FEINSTEIN ROCK CREEK, KEEFER SLOUGH, CA ................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. 250 .................. FEINSTEIN SAC-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ISLANDS AND LEVEES, CA ....................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 2,000 .................. FEINSTEIN SAN DIEGO COUNTY SAMP, CA ......................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 200 .................. FEINSTEIN SAN JOAQUIN RB, WEST STANISLAUS COUNTY, ORESTIMBA CREE .................................................. .................. .................. .................. 300 .................. FEINSTEIN SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN (SJRB), FRAZIER CREEK/STRATHMO ..................................................... .................. .................. .................. 250 .................. FEINSTEIN SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN (SJRB), LOWER SAN JOAQUIN RIVE ...................................................... .................. .................. .................. 300 .................. FEINSTEIN SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN (SJRB), WHITE RIVER/DRY CREEK ........................................................ .................. .................. .................. 250 .................. FEINSTEIN SOLANA-ENCINITAS SHORELINE, CA ................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. 171 50 FEINSTEIN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SHORELINE, CA .......................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 1,250 .................. FEINSTEIN SUTTER COUNTY, CA ......................................................................................................................... 339 .................. .................. 339 .................. PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN TAHOE BASIN, CA & NV .................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 300 REID TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING, CA AND NV (SEC 503) ...................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 250 .................. REID, ENSIGN UPPER PENITENCIA CREEK, CA ........................................................................................................ 191 .................. .................. 191 .................. PRESIDENT 

COLORADO 

CACHE LA POUDRE, CO .................................................................................................................... 340 .................. .................. 340 .................. PRESIDENT CHATFIELD, CHERRY CREEK AND BEAR CREEK RESERVOIRS, CO .................................................. .................. .................. .................. 273 .................. ALLARD, SALAZAR FOUNTAIN CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, CO ......................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 149 .................. ALLARD, SALAZAR 
25 

SOUTH BOULDER CREEK, CO ........................................................................................................... .................. .................. 100 .................. .................. SALAZAR 

CONNECTICUT 

CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN WATERSHED STUDY, CT, MA, NH AN .................................................. .................. .................. .................. 200 .................. GREGG, DODD, LIEBERMAN 

DELAWARE 

DELAWARE RVR COMP, NY, NJ, PA & DE (WATERSHED FLD MGT ................................................... .................. .................. .................. 300 .................. LAUTENBERG, SPECTER, MENENDEZ, SCHUMER RED CLAY CREEK, CHRISTINA RIVER WATERSHED, DE .................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 250 .................. BIDEN, CARPER 

FLORIDA 

INDIAN RIVER LAGOON NORTH, FL ................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 500 .................. MARTINEZ FLAGLER BEACH, FL .......................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 250 .................. BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ LAKE WORTH INLET, FL ..................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 250 .................. BILL NELSON PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL ...................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 300 .................. BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ WALTON COUNTY FL .......................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 375 BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ 

GEORGIA 

AUGUSTA, GA .................................................................................................................................... .................. 750 .................. .................. 750 PRESIDENT LONG ISLAND, MARSH AND JOHNS CREEKS, GA .............................................................................. 531 .................. .................. 531 .................. PRESIDENT SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GA ................................................................................................ .................. 700 .................. .................. 700 PRESIDENT 

GUAM 

HAGATNA RIVER FLOOD CONTROL, ................................................................................................... 100 .................. .................. 100 .................. PRESIDENT 

HAWAII 

ALA WAI CANAL, OAHU, HI ................................................................................................................ 300 .................. .................. 700 .................. PRESIDENT, INOUYE BARBERS POINT HARBOR MODIFICATION, OAHU, HI ........................................................................ 50 .................. .................. 141 .................. PRESIDENT, INOUYE KAHUKU, HI ....................................................................................................................................... 60 .................. .................. .................. 260 PRESIDENT, INOUYE MAALAEA HARBOR, MAUI, HI ............................................................................................................ .................. 150 .................. .................. 150 PRESIDENT NAWILIWILI HARBOR MODIFICATION, KAUAI, HI ................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 450 .................. INOUYE, AKAKA WAILUPE STREAM, OAHU, HI ............................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 350 INOUYE, AKAKA WEST MAUI WATERSHED , HI ............................................................................................................ .................. .................. 300 .................. .................. INOUYE, AKAKA KAHULUI HARBOR MODIFICATION STUDY, HI .................................................................................... .................. .................. 100 .................. .................. INOUYE, AKAKA 

IDAHO 

BOISE RIVER, ID ............................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 400 .................. CRAIG 

ILLINOIS 

DES PLAINES RIVER, IL (PHASE II) ................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 500 .................. DURBIN 
26 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Requested by Investigations Planning RECON FEAS PED 

ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION, IL .......................................................................................... 400 .................. .................. 1,000 .................. PRESIDENT, DURBIN PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, IL ........................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 DURBIN SOUTH FORK OF SOUTH BRANCH OF CHICAGO RIVER (BUBBLY CR ............................................... .................. .................. .................. 500 .................. DURBIN UPPER MISS RIVER—ILLINOIS WW SYSTEM, IL, IA, MN, MO .......................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 12,000 DURBIN, BOND, OBAMA, GRASSLEY, 

KLOBUCHAR 

UPPER MISS RVR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IL, IA, MO, MN & WI ..................................................... .................. .................. 386 .................. .................. DURBIN, BOND, GRASSLEY 

INDIANA 

INDIANA HARBOR, IN ........................................................................................................................ 300 .................. .................. 300 .................. PRESIDENT 

IOWA 

CEDAR RIVER (TIME CHECK AREA), CEDAR RAPIDS, IA .................................................................. .................. .................. .................. 150 .................. HARKIN, GRASSLEY DES MOINES AND RACCOON RIVERS, IA .......................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 440 HARKIN, GRASSLEY 

KANSAS 

MANHATTAN, KS ................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 200 .................. BROWNBACK MISSOURRI RIVER DEGRADATION STUDY, KS ................................................................................... .................. .................. 300 .................. .................. BOND, ROBERTS TOPEKA, KS ....................................................................................................................................... .................. 100 .................. .................. 100 PRESIDENT UPPER TURKEY CREEK, KS ............................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 231 .................. BROWNBACK 

LOUISIANA 

BAYOU SORREL LOCK, LA ................................................................................................................. .................. 1,371 .................. .................. 1,371 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU BOSSIER PARISH, LA ......................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 300 .................. LANDRIEU, VITTER CALCASIEU RIVER AND SHIP CHANNEL ENLARGEMENT, LA ............................................................. .................. .................. .................. 361 .................. LANDRIEU, VITTER CALCASIEU RIVER BASIN, LA ............................................................................................................ 395 .................. .................. 395 .................. PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU CROSS LAKE, LA WATER SUPPLY IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 384 .................. LANDRIEU, VITTER LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM REST, LA (SCIENCE PRO ................................................... 5,000 .................. .................. .................. .................. PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LA .............................................................. 8,000 .................. .................. 12,000 .................. PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER LOUISIANA COASTAL PROTECTION AND RESTORATION, LA (LACP .................................................... .................. .................. .................. 2,000 .................. LANDRIEU PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LA (FC) ........................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 250 .................. LANDRIEU PORT OF IBERIA, LA .......................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 1,000 LANDRIEU SOUTHWEST COASTAL HURRICANE PROTECTION, LA ....................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 400 .................. LANDRIEU, VITTER 
27 

ST. CHARLES PARISH URBAN FLOOD CONTROL, LA ......................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 200 .................. LANDRIEU WEST BATON ROUGE (RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT), LA .................................................................. .................. .................. .................. 250 .................. LANDRIEU WEST PEARL RIVER NAVIGATION, LA AND MS .................................................................................. .................. .................. 100 .................. .................. COCHRAN WEST SHORE, LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, LA ........................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 498 280 LANDRIEU, VITTER 

MAINE 

PENOBSCOT RIVER RESTORATION, ME ............................................................................................. .................. .................. 100 .................. .................. SNOWE, COLLINS SEARSPORT HARBOR, ME ................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. 125 .................. SNOWE, COLLINS 

MARYLAND 

ANACOSTIA RIVER & TRIBUTARIES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MD ..................................................... .................. .................. .................. 500 .................. MIKULSKI, CARDIN BALTIMORE METRO WTR RES.—PATAPSCO AND BACK RIVERS ...................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 600 MIKULSKI, CARDIN CHESAPEAKE BAY MARSHLANDS, MD ............................................................................................... .................. .................. 200 .................. .................. MIKULSKI, CARDIN CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE, MARYLAND COASTAL MANAGEMENT, .............................................. .................. .................. .................. 250 .................. MIKULSKI, CARDIN EASTERN SHORE, MID CHESAPEAKE BAY ISLAND, MD .................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 600 MIKULSKI, CARDIN JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE REALLOCATION, MD AND WV ................................................................ .................. .................. 80 60 .................. MIKULSKI, CARDIN LOWER POTOMAC ESTUARY WATERSHED, ST MARY’S WATERSHED, ................................................ .................. .................. .................. 50 125 MIKULSKI, CARDIN MIDDLE POTOMAC RIVER—GREATER SENECA/MUDDY BRANCH, MD .............................................. .................. .................. .................. 300 .................. MIKULSKI, CARDIN MIDDLE POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED, MD, VA, PA, WV, AMD DC .................................................. .................. .................. .................. 50 150 MIKULSKI, CARDIN 

MASSACHUSETTS 

BLACKSTONE RIVER WATERSHED RESTORATION, MA & RI .............................................................. .................. .................. 100 .................. .................. REED BOSTON HARBOR (45-FOOT CHANNEL), MA ..................................................................................... 377 .................. .................. 377 .................. PRESIDENT COASTAL MASSACHUSETTS ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, MA ............................................................ 100 .................. .................. 100 .................. PRESIDENT 

MICHIGAN 

GREAT LAKES NAV SYST STUDY, MI, IL, IN, MN, NY, OH, PA .......................................................... 800 .................. 800 .................. .................. PRESIDENT, CLINTON, VOINOVICH GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS, MI .................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 1,000 .................. OBAMA, LUGAR, LEVIN, STABENOW, COLEMAN, SCHUMER, CLINTON, VOINOVICH, 

BROWN, KOHL 

MINNESOTA 

BLUE EARTH RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, MN (MN RIVER A ................................................. .................. .................. .................. 100 .................. COLEMAN, KLOBUCHAR FARGO,ND-MOORHEAD,MN & UPSTREAM SUB-BASIN (RRN BASIN A .............................................. .................. .................. .................. 250 .................. DORGAN, COLEMAN MARSH LAKE, MN (MN RIVER AUTHORITY) ...................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 150 .................. COLEMAN, KLOBUCHAR MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED, UMR LAKE ITASCA TO L&D 2, M ................................................ .................. .................. .................. 125 .................. COLEMAN, KLOBUCHAR MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN, MN & SD ................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 100 .................. COLEMAN WILD RICE RIVER, RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN, MN .............................................................. 270 .................. .................. 135 .................. PRESIDENT, COLEMAN 
28 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Requested by Investigations Planning RECON FEAS PED 

MISSISSIPPI 

MISSISSIPPI COASTAL HURRICANE STUDY, MS ................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 1,153 .................. COCHRAN 

MISSOURI 

BRUSH CREEK BASIN, KS & MO ...................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 200 .................. BOND, BROWNBACK, KANSAS CITYS, MO & KS .................................................................................................................. 589 100 .................. 589 100 PRESIDENT, ROBERTS, BOND SPRINGFIELD, MO .............................................................................................................................. 354 .................. .................. 354 .................. PRESIDENT MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, UNITS L455 & R460–471, MO ................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 350 BOND RIVER DES PERES, MO ..................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 180 .................. BOND ST LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, MO .................................................................................................. .................. 281 .................. .................. 281 PRESIDENT ST LOUIS MISSISSIPPI RIVERFRONT, MO & IL .................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. 148 .................. BOND SWOPE PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA, KANSAS CITY, MO ........................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 150 BOND 

MONTANA 

YELLOWSTONE RIVER CORRIDOR, MT .............................................................................................. 200 .................. .................. 500 .................. PRESIDENT, BAUCUS, TESTER 

NEBRASKA 

LOWER PLATTE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NE .................................................................................. 130 .................. .................. 130 .................. PRESIDENT, HAGEL 

NEVADA 

TRUCKEE MEADOWS, NV ................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 5,000 REID, ENSIGN 

NEW HAMPSHIRE 

MERRIMACK RIVER WATERSHED STUDY, NH & MA ......................................................................... 200 .................. .................. 200 .................. PRESIDENT, KENNEDY, KERRY 

NEW JERSEY 

DELAWARE RIVER COMPREHENSIVE, NJ ........................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 175 .................. LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ HUDSON—RARITAN ESTUARY, HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS, NJ ................................................... 200 .................. .................. 350 .................. PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ HUDSON—RARITAN ESTUARY, LOWER PASSAIC RIVER, NJ ............................................................. 200 .................. .................. 500 .................. PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ LOWER SADDLE RIVER, BERGEN COUNTY, NJ .................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 125 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, ENV RESTORATION, NJ .................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 125 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ 
29 

NEW JERSEY SHORE PROTECTION, HEREFORD TO CAPE MAY INLE ................................................ 256 .................. .................. 256 .................. PRESIDENT NEW JERSEY SHORELINE ALTERNATIVE LONG-TERM NOURISHMENT ............................................... .................. .................. .................. 250 .................. LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ PASSAIC RIVER MAIN STEM, NJ ........................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 125 .................. LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ PASSAIC RIVER, HARRISON, NJ ......................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 LAUTENBERG PECKMAN RIVER BASIN, NJ .............................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. 375 .................. LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ RAHWAY RIVER BASIN, NJ ................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 175 .................. LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, HIGHLANDS, NJ .................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 200 .................. LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, KEYPORT, NJ ....................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 200 .................. LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, LEONARDO, NJ ..................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 125 .................. LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, UNION BEACH, NJ ............................................................... .................. .................. .................. 100 .................. LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ SHREWSBURY RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NJ .................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 125 .................. LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ SOUTH RIVER, RARITAN RIVER BASIN, NJ ........................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 375 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ STONY BROOK, MILLSTONE RIVER BASIN, NJ ................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 150 .................. LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ 

NEW MEXICO 

BERNALILLO, NM ............................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 100 .................. .................. DOMENICI, BINGAMAN EAST MESA LAS CRUCES,NM ............................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 200 .................. DOMENICI, BINGAMAN ESPANOLA VALLEY RIO GRANDE AND TRIBS, NM ............................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 500 .................. DOMENICI, BINGAMAN MIDDLE RIO GRANDE BOSQUE, NM .................................................................................................. 311 .................. .................. 311 .................. PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN RIO GRANDE BASIN, NM, CO & TX ................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 250 .................. DOMENICI, BINGAMAN SANTA FE, NM ................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 175 .................. DOMENICI, BINGAMAN SOCORRO COUNTY, NM .................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 100 .................. .................. DOMENICI, BINGAMAN SW VALLEY FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION, ALBUQUERQUE, NM ........................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 DOMENICI 

NEW YORK 

BRONX RIVER BASIN, NY .................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. 375 .................. SCHUMER, CLINTON BUFFALO RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, NY ............................................................................ 100 .................. .................. 100 .................. PRESIDENT FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY ....................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 SCHUMER, CLINTON HUDSON—RARITAN ESTUARY, GOWANUS CANAL, NY ...................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 375 .................. SCHUMER, CLINTON HUDSON—RARITAN ESTUARY, NY & NJ ........................................................................................... 200 .................. .................. 500 .................. PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ, 

SCHUMER, CLINTON 

LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY ............................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 175 .................. SCHUMER, CLINTON MONTAUK POINT, NY ......................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 SCHUMER, CLINTON NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, ASHAROKEN, NY .......................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 125 SCHUMER, CLINTON NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND, BAYVILLE, NY .............................................................................. .................. .................. .................. 200 .................. SCHUMER, CLINTON SAW MILL RIVER AT ELSFORD/GREENBURGH, NY ............................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 SCHUMER, CLINTON SOUTH SHORE OF STATEN ISLAND, NY ............................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 150 .................. SCHUMER, CLINTON SUSQUEHANNA RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND LOW FL .............................................. .................. .................. 100 .................. .................. SCHUMER, CLINTON UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN ENVIRON REST, COOPERSTOW ............................................... .................. 102 .................. .................. 102 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON 
30 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Requested by Investigations Planning RECON FEAS PED 

NORTH CAROLINA 

BOGUE BANKS, NC ............................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 125 .................. DOLE, BURR CURRITUCK SOUND, NC .................................................................................................................... 150 .................. .................. 150 .................. PRESIDENT NEUSE RIVER BASIN, NC .................................................................................................................. 554 .................. .................. 554 .................. PRESIDENT NORTH CAROLINA INTERNATIONAL PORT, NC ................................................................................... .................. .................. 100 .................. .................. DOLE, BURR SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH, NC ................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 200 .................. DOLE, BURR 

NORTH DAKOTA 

RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN, MN, ND, SD & MANITOBA, C .................................................... .................. .................. .................. 3,550 .................. DORGAN 

OHIO 

BELPRE, OH ...................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 VOINOVICH CUYAHOGA RIVER BULKHEAD STUDY, OH ........................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 150 .................. VOINOVICH HOCKING RIVER BASIN, MONDAY CREEK, OH .................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 200 VOINOVICH MAHONING RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OH ........................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 250 VOINOVICH OHIO RIVERFRONT STUDY, CINCINNATI, OH ..................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 500 VOINOVICH WESTERN LAKE ERIE BASIN, OH, IN, & MI ...................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 492 .................. VOINOVICH 

OKLAHOMA 

GRAND (NEOSHO) RIVER BASIN WATERSHED, OK, KS, MO & AR .................................................... .................. .................. .................. 225 .................. ROBERTS SOUTHEAST OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCE STUDY, OK ................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 150 .................. INHOFE WASHITA RIVER BASIN, OK ............................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 268 .................. INHOFE 

OREGON 

LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR & WA .................................................... 100 .................. .................. 100 .................. PRESIDENT WALLA WALLA RIVER WATERSHED, OR & WA .................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 100 MURRAY, WYDEN, SMITH, CANTWELL WILLAMETTE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING, OR ...................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 375 .................. WYDEN, SMITH WILLAMETTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION, OR ........................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 84 .................. WYDEN, SMITH 

PENNSYLVANIA 

BLOOMSBURG, PA ............................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 400 SPECTER, CASEY 
31 

UPPER OHIO NAVIGATION STUDY, PA ............................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 3,000 .................. SPECTER, CASEY 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

EDISTO ISLAND, SC ........................................................................................................................... 218 .................. .................. 218 .................. PRESIDENT 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

CANYON LAKE DAM, RAPID CITY, SD ............................................................................................... .................. .................. 100 .................. .................. JOHNSON JAMES RIVER, SD & ND .................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 500 .................. JOHNSON, THUNE WATERTOWN, SD ............................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 450 JOHNSON, THUNE 

TENNESSEE 

MILL CREEK WATERSHED, DAVIDSON COUNTY, TN .......................................................................... 257 .................. .................. 257 .................. PRESIDENT 

TEXAS 

ABILENE, TX (BRAZOS RIVER BASIN-ELM CREEK) ........................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 150 .................. CORNYN BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, BROWNSVILLE CHANNEL, TX .................................................................. 400 .................. .................. 400 .................. PRESIDENT, CORNYN DALLAS FLOODWAY, UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX .................................................................... .................. 100 .................. .................. 100 PRESIDENT FREEPORT HARBOR, TX .................................................................................................................... 721 .................. .................. 721 .................. PRESIDENT GREENS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX ......................................................................................................... .................. 488 .................. .................. 488 PRESIDENT GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO RIVER BASINS, TX ......................................................................... 300 .................. .................. 300 .................. PRESIDENT LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, TX ............................................................................................... 300 .................. .................. 450 .................. PRESIDENT, HUTCHISON, CORNYN LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, WHARTON/ONION, TX .................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 600 CORNYN NUECES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, TX ............................................................................................. 250 .................. .................. 500 .................. PRESIDENT, HUTCHISON RAYMONDVILLE DRAIN, TX ................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. .................. 750 HUTCHISON, CORNYN RIO GRANDE BASIN, TX .................................................................................................................... 223 .................. .................. 223 .................. PRESIDENT SABINE-NECHES WATERWAY, TX ....................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 625 HUTCHISON SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TX ............................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. 175 .................. CORNYN SPARKS ARROYO COLONIA, EL PASO COUNTY, TX ........................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 125 .................. HUTCHISON, CORNYN TEXAS CITY CHANNEL (50-FOOT PROJECT), TX ................................................................................ .................. 300 .................. .................. 300 PRESIDENT, CORNYN UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TX ..................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 1,500 .................. HUTCHISON 

UTAH 

PARK CITY REGIONAL WATER TRANSPORT PROJECT, UT ................................................................. .................. .................. .................. 250 .................. BENNETT, HATCH 

VIRGINIA 

AIWW, BRIDGES AT DEEP CREEK, VA ............................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 46 WARNER, WEBB DISMAL SWAMP AND DISMAL SWAMP CANAL, VA ............................................................................ 62 .................. .................. 62 .................. PRESIDENT, WARNER, WEBB EASTWARD EXPANSION CRANEY ISLAND, VA .................................................................................... .................. 3,000 .................. .................. 3,000 PRESIDENT, WARNER, WEBB ELIZABETH RIVER BASIN, ENV RESTORATION, VA (PHASE II) .......................................................... .................. .................. .................. 90 .................. WARNER, WEBB ELIZABETH RIVER, HAMPTON ROADS, VA ......................................................................................... .................. 97 .................. .................. 97 PRESIDENT, WARNER, WEBB 
32 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Requested by Investigations Planning RECON FEAS PED 

FOURMILE RUN, VA ........................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 350 .................. WARNER, WEBB JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA & NC (SECTION 216) ...................................................... 300 .................. .................. 300 .................. PRESIDENT LYNNHAVEN RIVER BASIN, VA .......................................................................................................... 300 .................. .................. 300 .................. PRESIDENT, WARNER, WEBB NEW RIVER, CLAYTOR LAKE, VA ....................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 49 51 WARNER, WEBB NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, CRANEY ISLAND, VA ............................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. WARNER, WEBB UPPER RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER, VA (PHASE II) ................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. 200 .................. WARNER, WEBB VICINITY AND WILOUGHBY SPIT, VA ................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 150 WARNER, WEBB 

WASHINGTON 

CENTRALIA, WA ................................................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 150 MURRAY ELLIOTT BAY SEAWALL ...................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 750 .................. MURRAY, CANTWELL LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA ................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 400 .................. MURRAY, CANTWELL LOWER PUYALLUP RIVER ALTERNATIVES STUDY, WA ....................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 100 .................. CANTWELL PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE MARINE HABITAT RESTORATION, WA ................................................... 400 .................. .................. 1,500 .................. PRESIDENT, MURRAY, CANTWELL SKAGIT RIVER, WA ............................................................................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 700 .................. MURRAY, CANTWELL SKOKOMISH RIVER BASIN, WA .......................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 375 .................. CANTWELL 

WEST VIRGINIA 

CHERRY RIVER BASIN, WV ............................................................................................................... .................. .................. 50 .................. .................. BYRD LITTLE KANAWHA RIVER, WV ............................................................................................................. .................. .................. .................. 88 .................. BYRD OHIO RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE STUDY, WV, KY, OH, PA, ....................................................... .................. .................. 400 .................. .................. BYRD UPPER GUYANDOTTE RIVER BASIN, WV ........................................................................................... .................. .................. 150 .................. .................. BYRD 

WYOMING 

BEAR RIVER STUDY, WY ................................................................................................................... 26,553 8,747 100 .................. .................. THOMAS, ENZI 

SUBTOTAL FOR PROJECTS ................................................................................................... .................. .................. 5,116 73,450 42,582 

AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT TRI-CADD ............................................................... 350 .................. .................. 350 .................. PRESIDENT CHIEF’S 12 ACTIONS ......................................................................................................................... 3,100 .................. .................. .................. .................. PRESIDENT COASTAL FIELD DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................................... 1,400 .................. .................. 4,900 .................. PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, INOUYE, CANTWELL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STUDIES ....................................................................................................... 75 .................. .................. 75 .................. PRESIDENT 
33 

FEME/MAP MOD COORDINATION ....................................................................................................... 1,500 .................. .................. 1,500 .................. PRESIDENT FLOOD DAMAGE DATA PROGRAM ...................................................................................................... 220 .................. .................. 220 .................. PRESIDENT FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES ............................................................................................ 5,625 .................. .................. 10,196 .................. PRESIDENT, INOUYE, LANDRIEU, BEN NELSON, REED, BIDEN, CARPER, 

CHAMBLISS, GRASSLEY, VITTER, HAGEL, WYDEN, SMITH, WHITEHOUSE 

FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT STUDY ................................................................................................. 1,000 .................. .................. 1,000 .................. PRESIDENT HYDROLOGIC STUDIES ...................................................................................................................... 250 .................. .................. 250 .................. PRESIDENT INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES ...................................................................................................... 200 .................. .................. 200 .................. PRESIDENT NATIONAL FLOOD INVENTORY ........................................................................................................... 10,000 .................. .................. .................. .................. PRESIDENT NATIONAL SHORELINE STUDY ........................................................................................................... 375 .................. .................. 875 .................. PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG OTHER COORDINATION PROGRAMS .................................................................................................. 3,880 .................. .................. 5,130 .................. PRESIDENT, REID, DOMENICI PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES .................................................................................................. 4,550 .................. .................. 5,742 .................. PRESIDENT, INOUYE, BROWNBACK, MIKULSKI, LAUTENBERG, SPECTER, 

LIEBERMAN, BIDEN, CARPER, CARDIN, LUGAR, BAYH, GRASSLEY, MENENDEZ, CLINTON, DOLE, INHOFE 

PLANNING SUPPORT PROGRAM ........................................................................................................ 2,500 .................. .................. 2,500 .................. PRESIDENT PRECIPITATION STUDIES (NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE) ................................................................ 225 .................. .................. 225 .................. PRESIDENT REMOTE SENSING/GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM SUPPORT ............................................... 150 .................. .................. 150 .................. PRESIDENT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................ 17,300 .................. .................. 31,050 .................. PRESIDENT, REID, COCHRAN, DOMENICI, 

MIKULSKI, CARDIN, CASEY, WARNER, WEBB 

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTERS ...................................................................... 50 .................. .................. 50 .................. PRESIDENT STREAM GAGING (U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY) .................................................................................. 600 .................. .................. 600 .................. PRESIDENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ................................................................................................................ 350 .................. .................. 350 .................. PRESIDENT TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM ...................................................................................................... 1,000 .................. .................. 1,000 .................. PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE .................................................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. ¥15,364 ..................

Total .................................................................................................................................... 81,253 8,747 5,116 124,449 42,582 GRAND TOTAL ...................................................................................................................... 190,000 .................. .................. 172,147 ..................
34 

Atka Harbor, Alaska.—The Committee recommended $200,000 to 

initiate this reconnaissance study. 

DeLong Mountain Harbor, Alaska.—The Committee provided $100,000 to complete feasibility studies and $400,000 to initiate 

preconstruction engineering and design. 

Kenai River Bluff Erosion, Alaska.—The Committee recommended $500,000 to continue technical studies of the erosion 

problems. 

Lower Mississippi River Resource Assessment, Arkansas, Illinois, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee.—The 

Committee recommends $250,000 to initiate an expanded reconnaissance study. The study will include three assessments: (1) a 

list which identifies data gaps in information needed for river-related management; (2) an assessment of natural resource habitat 

needs; and (3) a needs assessment for river-related recreation access. 

May Branch, Fort Smith, Arkansas.—$250,000 is provided to execute a design agreement and initiate preconstruction engineering 

and design. 

Red River Navigation, Southwest Arkansas, Arkansas and Louisiana.—The Committee recommends $200,000 to complete feasi- bility studies and $200,000 to initiate preconstruction engineering 

and design. 

Heacock and Cactus Channels, California.—The Committee includes $100,000 to continue feasibility studies. Feasibility studies 

were initiated under the Continuing Authorities Program. 

Los Angeles River Watercourse Improvement, Headworks, California.—$300,000 is provided to continue the feasibility studies. 

Malibu Creek Watershed, California.—The Committee recommendation includes $158,000 to complete the feasibility study. 

Rock Creek and Keefer Slough, California.—$250,000 is provided 

to execute the Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement and initiate the 

feasibility phase of the study. The study was initiated under the 

Continuing Authorities Program. 

Sacramento, San Joaquin Delta Islands and Levees, California.— 

The Committee included $2,000,000 to complete the feasibility 

study. 

Chatfield, Cheery Creek and Bear Creek, Reservoirs.—The recommendation includes $273,000 to complete feasibility studies. 

Fountain Creek and Tributaries, Colorado.—The Committee provides $149,000 to complete the feasibility study. 

Boulder Creek, Colorado.—The Committee included $100,000 to 

initiate this reconnaissance study. The Committee notes that studies were initiated under the Continuing Authorities Program. 

Flagler County, Florida.—$250,000 is provided to continue feasibility studies for shore damage reduction. The Committee notes 

that recent storms have begun to threaten the county’s major evacuation route to State Road A1A. 

Walton County, Florida.—$375,000 is provided to continue the 

preconstruction, engineering and design phase. This study is a test 

bed for the Institute of Water Resources Hurricane and Storm 

Damage Reduction model. 

West Maui Watershed, Hawaii.—The Committee provided 

$300,000 to initiate the reconnaissance study to investigate the 
35 

comprehensive scope and extensive water resource problems in the 

watershed. 

Boise River, Idaho.—The Committee provided $400,000 to continue the feasibility study. 

Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway Navigation System, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin.—The Committee 

recommendation includes $12,000,000 for continuation of 

preconstruction engineering and design studies. The Committee 

recognizes the need to modernize this more than 60-year-old navigation system and has provided continued funding for both structural design and environmental restoration work. 

Cedar Rapids, Iowa.—The Committee provided $150,000 to initiate a cost-shared feasibility study. Reconnaissance level studies 

were completed under the Continuing Authorities Program, however, the scope of the proposed project exceeds the limits of the 

Continuing Authorities Program. 

Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration, Louisiana.—The 

Committee provides $12,000,000 for these important studies. The 

Committee has elected not to fund a separate Science and Technology line item under this study and directs the Corps not to include this line item in the fiscal year 2009 budget. This line item 

appears to be an attempt to fund other Federal agencies to undertake science activities that are not being funded within those agencies. If the administration believes this is worthwhile science, then 

they should budget for this work under the appropriate agency. 

Any funds from the fiscal year 2007 allocation that remain unexpended in the Science and Technology line should be utilized on advancing the study not science activities. 

West Pearl Navigation, Louisiana and Mississippi.—$100,000 is 

provided to initiate reconnaissance studies to deauthorize this antiquated navigation project. The project has been in caretaker status 

for more than 10 years. 

Eastern Shore-Chesapeake Bay Marshlands, Maryland 

(Blackwater Wildlife Refuge).—The Committee recommendation includes $200,000 for this study that was initiated under the Continuing Authorities Program in fiscal year 2006. 

Great Lakes Navigational System, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, 

Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.—The 

funds provided are to be used to complete the supplement to the 

reconnaissance report of Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Navigation Study, which, based on previous agreement between the secretary, the ministry of transportation Canada, and the Secretary of 

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

evaluating the economic, engineering and environmental impacts of 

maintaining the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway at current size 

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

supplemental report by September 2008, after which Congress, interested State and Federal agencies, and the public shall review 

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

Kansas Citys, Missouri and Kansas.—The Committee recommendation includes $689,000 for this effort. $589,000 is included 

for completion of the feasibility phase and $100,000 is for initiation 

of preconstruction engineering and design. 
36 

Missouri River Degradation, Mile 340 to 400, Missouri and Kansas.—The Committee included $300,000 to initiate an expanded Reconnaissance Study. The Missouri River in this reach has experienced significant degradation or downcutting of the river bed. 

There is a strong indication that this degradation could impact 

navigation, flood control and other infrastructure in the area. 

Yellowstone River Corridor, Montana.—The Committee recommendation includes $500,000 to continue feasibility studies. 

Delaware Basin Comprehensive, New Jersey.—The Committee included $175,000 to continue evaluation of alternative solutions to 

the region’s problems regarding flooding and environmental restoration along the New Jersey portion of the Delaware River and 

tributaries. 

Western Lake Erie Basin Study, Ohio, Indiana and Michigan.— $492,000 is included to complete feasibility studies. 

Walla Walla River Basin, Oregon and Washington.—$100,000 is 

provided to execute a design agreement and initiate 

preconstruction, engineering and design studies. 

Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas.—$625,000 is provided to negotiate and execute a design agreement and initiate preconstruction 

engineering and design. 

Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge Replacement at Deep 

Creek, Chesapeake, Virginia.—The Committee recommendation includes $46,000 to complete the preconstruction engineering and design phase. 

Eastward Expansion—Craney Island, Virginia.—$3,000,000 is 

provided to continue the preconstruction engineering and design 

phase. 

Vicinity of Willoughby Spit, Norfolk, Virginia.—The Committee 

recommendation includes $150,000 to continue the general reevaluation study. 

Bear River, Wyoming.—$100,000 is provided for reconnaissance 

studies for flood control and environmental restoration in the Bear 

River Basin above Bear Lake. 

Chief’s 12 Actions.—The Committee did not include funding for 

this item. The Committee believes that the activities proposed in 

the budget request for this line item should be incorporated into 

the various funded planning activities that the Corps has underway. 

National Inventory of Flood/Storm Damage Reduction Projects.— 

No funds have been provided for this effort under this account. The 

Committee has chosen to fund this item under the Flood Control 

and Coastal Emergencies account where all previous funds have 

been provided. 

National Shoreline Study.—Additional funds have been provided 

above the budget request for the National Planning Center of Expertise for Coastal Storm Damage Reduction to develop a process 

for managing shore protection projects as part of a systems approach to coastal protection for the purpose of achieving improved 

project performance, increased cost effectiveness, and enhanced 

benefits. 

Other Coordination Programs.—An additional $250,000 is provided along with budgeted funds for Lake Tahoe coordination activities. Also additional funds are provided above the budget re-
37 

quest for the Center for Computer Assisted Dispute Resolution 

[CADRE] within the Institute for Water Resources to undertake research, development, training and application activities consistent 

with the mission stated by the Office of Science and Technology 

Policy, Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality for collaborative tools and processes for U.S. water solutions in partnership 

with the Bureau of Reclamation, the Environmental Protection 

Agency, the Department of Energy and its research laboratories, 

and other Federal and non-Federal parties to develop solutions to 

water availability and quality problems through public participation and collaboration processes, decision-support computer technologies, and techniques for integrating these within various water 

contexts using tools that include portable, physical and social simulation modules, software to link existing water management software, as well as interfaces for both collaborative model development and displaying modeling results and tradeoffs. 

Planning Assistance to States.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $5,742,000 for this nationwide cost-shared program, 

$1,192,000 over the budget request. The Committee recognizes that 

there are hundreds of these studies on-going at any given time. 

Within the funds provided the following studies are to be given priority if cost sharing funds are available from the local sponsors: 

Southington Water Supply Project, Connecticut; Honolulu, Hawaii; 

Wabash River Enhancement Project, Indiana; Sac and Fox Tribe, 

Iowa; Kansas River Basin Technical Assistance, Kansas; Delaware 

Estuary Salinity Monitoring Study; Port of Rochester Environmental Remediation Planning, New York; Bartlesville Water Supply, Bartlesville, Oklahoma; Lehigh Releases at FE Walter Dam, 

Pennsylvania; Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan, Oklahoma. 

Coastal Field Data Collection.—The Committee has provided $4,900,000 for this nationwide program. An additional $3,500,000 

has been provided to continue the Coastal Data Information Program; the Southern California Beach Processes Study; Surge and 

Wave Island Modeling Studies, Hawaii; and the Pacific Island 

Land Ocean Typhoon Experiment Program. These are all studies 

that have been underway for a number of years and the Committee 

supports their continuation. 

Flood Plain Management Services Program.—The Committee recommendation includes $10,196,000. This is $4,571,000 above the 

budget request. Within this amount the Corps attention is directed 

to the following studies: White Clay Creek, New Castle, Delaware; 

Albany, Georgia [GIS]; Hurricane Evacuation Studies, Hawaii; 

Wapello, Iowa; Iowa Levee Certification; Maquoketa River Flood 

Warning, Iowa; Iowa Multi-site dam safety analyses; City of Gretna, Louisiana GIS; East Baton Rouge Parish Metropolitan GIS, 

Livingston Parish, Louisiana; Livingston Parish, Louisiana GIS; 

Papillion Creek Watershed, Flood Plain Mapping, Nebraska; Halfway Sediment Transport Assessment, Oregon; Rhode Island Ecosystem Restoration Study, Rhode Island. 

Research and Development.—The Committee has included 

$31,050,000 for the Corps nationwide research and development 

programs. The Committee believes that this is an important area 

of the Corps’ program that should be supported and has provided 

$15,050,000 above the budget request. Within the funds provided, 
38 

the Corps should continue submerged aquatic vegetation research 

in the Chesapeake Bay; the Southwest Flood Damage Development 

and Demonstration program to be conducted in close coordination 

and cooperation with the New Mexico District Office, the University of New Mexico and Sandia National Laboratories; innovative 

technology demonstrations for urban flooding and channel restoration in Nevada to be conducted in close coordination and cooperation with the Urban Water Research Program of the Desert Research Institute and the University of New Mexico. 

CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $2,336,368,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 1,523,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,059,474,000 

1 Excludes emergency appropriations of $36,500. 

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

projects having navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, 

water supply, hydroelectric, environmental restoration, and other 

attendant benefits to the Nation. The construction and major rehabilitation projects for inland and costal waterways will derive onehalf of the funding from the Inland Waterway Trust Fund. Funds 

to be derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund will be applied to cover the Federal share of the Dredged Material Disposal 

Facilities Program. 

The Committee has previously stated its rejection of the administration’s proposal to move projects from this account to the Operations and Maintenance account. 

Consequently, the Committee has elected to display the President’s budget request as if these projects had been requested in the 

CG account rather than the O&M account. This makes the actual 

budget request for CG, $1,818,811,000 rather than $1,523,000,000 

as requested in the budget. The projects moved from the O&M request include: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Caragory Project Name Amount 

ESA ................................ Columbia River Basin Restoration OR & WA ......................................................... 92,560 

ESA ................................ Missouri R Fish and Wildlife Recovery, IA, KS, MO, MT, NE, ND, SD .................... 85,000 

ESA ................................ Chief Joseph Dam Gas Abatment ........................................................................... 3,000 

ESA ................................ Howard Hanson Dam Ecosystem Restoration, WA .................................................. 16,000 

ESA ................................ Williamette River Temperature Control, OR ............................................................ 7,632 

ESA ................................ Lower Snake River ................................................................................................... 400 

Nav. Mitigation .............. Assategue, MD ......................................................................................................... 1,900 

Nav. Mitigation .............. Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, NJ .................................................... 5,111 

Nav. Mitigation .............. Folly Beach, SC ....................................................................................................... 35 

Nav. Mitigation .............. Broward County, FL (Canaveral Hbr) ...................................................................... 250 

Nav. Mitigation .............. Cape May Inlet to Lower Township, NJ ................................................................... 270 

Nav. Mitigation .............. Delaware Bay Coastline, Roosevelt Inlet to Lewes Beach, DE ............................... 105 

Nav. Mitigation .............. Nassau County, FL .................................................................................................. 6,000 

Nav. Mitigation .............. Surfside-Sunset-Newport Beach, C A ..................................................................... 9,000 

Nav. Mitigation .............. Lake Worth Sand Transfer Plant, FL ....................................................................... 2,000 

Nav. Mitigation .............. St. John’s County, FL ............................................................................................... 200 

Nav. Mitigation .............. Section 111 Program ............................................................................................... 4,874 

O&M Material ................ Poplar Island, MD .................................................................................................... 9,825 

O&M Material ................ Dredged Material Disposal Facilities ...................................................................... 8,241 

O&M Material ................ Indiana Harbor (Confined Disposal Facility), IN ..................................................... 18,065 

O&M Material ................ Section 204/145 ...................................................................................................... 2,663 
39 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Caragory Project Name Amount 

Rehab ............................ Lock and Dam 19, Mississippi River, IA ................................................................ 698 

Rehab ............................ Lock and Dam 24, IL &MO ..................................................................................... 340 

Rehab ............................ Markland Locks & Dam, KY & IL ............................................................................ 7,800 

Rehab ............................ Locks No. 27, Mississippi River, IL ......................................................................... 7,542 

Rehab ............................ Lock and Dam 11, Mississippi River, IA ................................................................ 6,300 

TOTAL ............... Projects Migrating from Construction to O&M ....................................................... 295,811 

The projects that included in the line item above for Dredged 

Material Disposal Facilities are: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Amount 

CALCASIEU RIVER & PASS ................................................................................................................................... 2,000 

CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC ................................................................................................................................... 1,200 

DILLINGHAM HARBOR (O&M) ................................................................................................................................ 300 

GEORGETOWN HARBOR, SC .................................................................................................................................. 1,100 

GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI ................................................................................................................................. 125 

GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI ...................................................................................................................................... 125 

HOMER HARBOR ................................................................................................................................................... 550 

SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA ....................................................................................................................................... 2,716 

ST CLAIR RIVER, MI ............................................................................................................................................. 125 

TOTAL, DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROGRAM [DMDF] .................................................. 8,241 

Due to constrained funding, the Committee reduced the requested amounts for some administration projects. This should not 

be perceived as a lack of support for any of these projects, rather 

it is an attempt by the Committee to balance out the program 

across the Nation and fund most of the projects or studies that 

were funded in the work plan produced by the administration for 

the fiscal year 2007 joint funding resolution but were not addressed 

by the administration proposal. Even with a $577,000,000 increase to the Corps’ accounts, the 

Committee is unable to address all of the needs. By the Committee’s estimate, only about 60 percent of the needed funding is available for this account. Construction schedules will slip due to this 

constrained funding. This will result in deferred benefits to the national economy. The Committee does not believe that there is any 

way to prioritize our way out of this problem without serious unintended consequences. Adequate resources have been denied for too 

long. Only providing adequate resources for these national investments will resolve this situation. 

The Committee has included a limited number of new construction starts as well as provided completion funding for a number of 

projects. As in the General Investigations account, the Committee 

has embraced the traditional view of new starts. New starts are 

generally defined as those projects that have not received Construction, General funding in the past. The Committee has included all 

of the administration’s proposed new construction starts, including 

the major rehabilitation projects that were proposed for funding in 

the Operations and Maintenance account. 

The appropriation provides funds for the Continuing Authorities 

Program (projects which do not require specific authorizing legislation), which includes projects for flood control (section 205), emer-
40 

gency streambank and shoreline protection (section 14), beach erosion control (section 103), mitigation of shore damages (section 

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

uses of dredged material (section 204), and project modifications for 

improvement of the environment (section 1135). 

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 

shown on the following table: 
41 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation Requested by 

ALABAMA 

TUSCALOOSA, AL ........................................................................................................................................................................................ ........................ 5,000 SHELBY MOBILE HARBOR TURNING BASIN, AL ....................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 2,000 SHELBY, SESSIONS 

ALASKA 

ALASKA COASTAL EROSION, AK .................................................................................................................................................................. ........................ 5,000 STEVENS, MURKOWSKI CHIGNIK HARBOR, AK ................................................................................................................................................................................. ........................ 1,000 STEVENS NOME HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, AK .......................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 1,500 STEVENS ST PAUL HARBOR, AK ................................................................................................................................................................................ ........................ 3,000 STEVENS SITKA HARBOR BREAKWATER UPGRADE, AK .............................................................................................................................................. ........................ 800 STEVENS AKUTAN HARBOR, AK ................................................................................................................................................................................. ........................ 2,500 STEVENS UNALASKA, AK ............................................................................................................................................................................................ ........................ 7,000 STEVENS 

ARIZONA 

NOGALES WASH, AZ ................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 4,461 KYL RIO DE FLAG FLAGSTAFF, AZ ..................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 3,000 KYL TUSCON DRAINAGE AREA ........................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 3,000 KYL 

ARKANSAS 

OZARK-JETA TAYLOR POWERHOUSE, AR (MAJOR REHAB) ......................................................................................................................... 17,300 17,300 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR RED RIVER BELOW DENISON DAM, LA, AR & TX ....................................................................................................................................... ........................ 2,500 LANDRIEU, LINCOLN, PRYOR RED RIVER EMERGENCY BANK PROTECTION, AR & LA ............................................................................................................................. ........................ 4,000 LANDRIEU, LINCOLN, PRYOR 

CALIFORNIA 

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (COMMON FEATURES), CA ........................................................................................................................ 12,000 12,000 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM MODIFICATIONS), C ........................................................................................................... 6,000 6,000 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED (FOLSOM DAM RAISE), CA ........................................................................................................................ 18,500 18,500 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER CALFED LEVEE STABILITY PROGRAM ......................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 5,000 FEINSTEIN CORONADO TRANSBAY WASTEWATER PIPELINE REIMBURSEMENT ............................................................................................................ ........................ 500 FEINSTEIN GUADALUPE RIVER, CA .............................................................................................................................................................................. ........................ 3,000 FEINSTEIN HAMILTON AIRFIELD WETLANDS RESTORATION, CA ................................................................................................................................... 4,900 4,900 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER HARBOR/SOUTH BAY WATER RECYCLING STUDY, LOS ANGELES, C .......................................................................................................... ........................ 3,000 FEINSTEIN LOS ANGELES HARBOR MAIN CHANNEL DEEPENING, CA .......................................................................................................................... ........................ 1,000 FEINSTEIN, BOXER 
42 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation Requested by 

MID-VALLEY AREA LEVEE RECONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. ........................ 500 FEINSTEIN MURRIETA CREEK, CA ................................................................................................................................................................................ ........................ 2,000 FEINSTEIN NAPA RIVER, CA ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 7,500 11,000 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER OAKLAND HARBOR (50 FOOT PROJECT), CA .............................................................................................................................................. 42,000 40,000 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER PORT OF LONG BEACH (DEEPENING), CA .................................................................................................................................................. ........................ 2,000 FEINSTEIN SACRAMENTO DEEPWATER SHIP CHANNEL, CA ......................................................................................................................................... 900 900 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION PROJECT, CA ............................................................................................................................. 21,528 21,528 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, CA ............................................................................................................. 500 500 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO STOCKTON, CA ................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 600 FEINSTEIN SAN LUIS REY RIVER, CA ........................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 1,000 FEINSTEIN SAN RAMON VALLEY RECYCLED WATER, CA ............................................................................................................................................. ........................ 3,000 FEINSTEIN SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CA ............................................................................................................................................................. 17,000 17,000 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN SANTA MARIA RIVER, CA ............................................................................................................................................................................ ........................ 300 FEINSTEIN (BOXER) SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY STREAMS, CA ............................................................................................................................................ 8,000 8,000 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER SUCCESS DAM, TULE RIVER, CA (DAM SAFETY) ........................................................................................................................................ 18,000 18,000 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER SURFSIDE-SUNSET-NEWPORT BEACH, CA .................................................................................................................................................. 9,000 8,000 PRESIDENT TAHOE BASIN RESTORATION 108 ............................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 4,500 REID, ENSIGN UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CA .................................................................................................................................................................. ........................ 1,000 FEINSTEIN UPPER NEWPORT BAY, CA ......................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 4,000 FEINSTEIN WEST SACRAMENTO, CA ............................................................................................................................................................................. ........................ 900 FEINSTEIN, BOXER YUBA RIVER BASIN, CA .............................................................................................................................................................................. ........................ 1,100 FEINSTEIN 

CONNECTICUT 

BRIDGEPORT ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, CT ............................................................................................................................... ........................ 200 LIEBERMAN 

DELAWARE 

DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, BROADKILL BEACH, DE ................................................................................................................................ ........................ 250 BIDEN, CARPER DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, ROOSEVELT INLET TO LEWES BEACH ........................................................................................................... 105 105 PRESIDENT, BIDEN, CARPER DELAWARE COAST FROM CAPE HELOPEN TO FENWICK ISLAND, Fenwick Island, DE ............................................................................... ........................ 105 BIDEN, CARPER DELAWARE COAST FROM CAPE HELOPEN TO FENWICK ISLAND, Rehobeth Beach to Dewey Beach, DE .................................................. ........................ 2,700 PRESIDENT, BIDEN, CARPER DELAWARE COAST PROTECTION, DE .......................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 390 BIDEN, CARPER 

FLORIDA 

BREVARD COUNTY, FL (MID REACH) ......................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 200 BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ 
43 

BROWARD COUNTY, FL (SEGMENT III REIMBURSEMENT) .......................................................................................................................... ........................ 1,000 BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL ............................................................................................................................................................................ 250 250 PRESIDENT CEDAR HAMMOCK, WARES CREEK, FL ....................................................................................................................................................... 5,000 5,000 PRESIDENT, MARTINEZ CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL ..................................................................................................................................................... 90,588 80,588 PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ ESTERO AND GASPARILLA SEGMENTS, FL (LEE COUNTY) .......................................................................................................................... ........................ 1,000 BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA COSYSTEM RESTORATION, FL ............................................................................................................ 4,310 4,310 PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS, FL ................................................................................................................................. ........................ 3,000 MARTINEZ HERBERT HOOVER DIKE, FL (SEEPAGE CONTROL) .................................................................................................................................... 55,776 55,776 PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL ........................................................................................................................................................................ ........................ 3,000 BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ KISSIMMEE RIVER, FL ................................................................................................................................................................................ 32,502 32,502 PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ LAKE WORTH SAND TRANSFER PLANT, FL ................................................................................................................................................. 2,000 2,000 PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON MODIFIED WATER DELIVERIES TO ENP ...................................................................................................................................................... 35,000 ........................ PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ NASSAU COUNTY, FL .................................................................................................................................................................................. 6,000 6,000 PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ PONCE DE LEON INLET, FL ........................................................................................................................................................................ ........................ 1,500 MARTINEZ ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FL .............................................................................................................................................................................. 200 200 PRESIDENT TAMPA HARBOR, FL .................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 304 MARTINEZ 

GEORGIA 

ATLANTA, GA EI .......................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 2,000 CHAMBLISS, ISAKSON BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA .......................................................................................................................................................................... 6,400 6,400 PRESIDENT RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA & SC ....................................................................................................................................... 6,900 6,900 PRESIDENT TYBEE ISLAND, GA ..................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 2,000 CHAMBLISS, ISAKSON 

HAWAII 

IAO STREAMS, HI ........................................................................................................................................................................................ ........................ 500 INOUYE, AKAKA HAWAII WATER MANAGEMENT, HI .............................................................................................................................................................. ........................ 2,000 INOUYE 

IDAHO 

RURAL IDAHO, ID ....................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 5,000 CRAIG, CRAPO 

ILLINOIS 

CHAIN OF ROCKS CANAL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (DEF CORR) .................................................................................................................. 4,500 4,500 PRESIDENT CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL, SECOND BARRIER, IL ................................................................................................................... 750 3,250 PRESIDENT, DURBIN, OBAMA, LUGAR, 

LEVIN, STABENOW, COLEMAN, SCHUMER, CLINTON, VOINOVICH, BROWN, KOHL 

CHICAGO SHORELINE, IL ............................................................................................................................................................................ 9,000 9,000 PRESIDENT, DURBIN DES PLAINES RIVER, IL .............................................................................................................................................................................. 6,620 6,620 PRESIDENT, DURBIN EAST ST LOUIS, IL ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,500 2,500 PRESIDENT ILLINOIS WATERWAY, LOCKPORT LOCK AND DAM, IL (REPLACEM ............................................................................................................. 20,445 20,445 PRESIDENT LOCK AND DAM 24, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL & MO (MAJOR REH ............................................................................................................... 340 340 PRESIDENT, BOND 
44 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation Requested by 

LOCK & DAM 27, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IL (REHABILITATION) ...................................................................................................................... 7,542 7,542 PRESIDENT, DURBIN, BOND MCCOOK AND THORNTON RESERVOIRS, IL ................................................................................................................................................ 33,500 31,500 PRESIDENT, DURBIN NUTWOOD DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT, IL ......................................................................................................................................... ........................ 300 DURBIN OLMSTED LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, IL & KY .................................................................................................................................... 104,000 94,000 PRESIDENT, MCCONNELL UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER RESTORATION, IL, IA, MN, MO & .................................................................................................................... 23,464 18,000 PRESIDENT, DURBIN, GRASSLEY, COLEMAN, 

FEINGOLD 

INDIANA 

INDIANA HARBOR (CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITY), IN .............................................................................................................................. 18,065 18,065 PRESIDENT LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, IN ........................................................................................................................................................................ 13,000 13,000 PRESIDENT 

IOWA 

DAVENPORT, IA ........................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 1,000 HARKIN, GRASSLEY DES MOINES RECREATION RIVER AND GREENBELT, IA ............................................................................................................................. ........................ 3,000 HARKIN, GRASSLEY LOCK AND DAM 11, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA (MAJOR REHAB) .................................................................................................................... 6,300 5,000 PRESIDENT, HARKIN, BOND, GRASSLEY LOCK AND DAM 19, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, IA (MAJOR REHAB) .................................................................................................................... 698 698 PRESIDENT, HARKIN, BOND, GRASSLEY MISSOURI R FISH AND WILDLIFE RECOVERY, IA,KS,MO,MT,NE, ................................................................................................................. 85,000 50,000 PRESIDENT, GRASSLEY 

KANSAS 

TURKEY CREEK BASIN, KS & MO ............................................................................................................................................................... 9,000 9,000 PRESIDENT, BOND, BROWNBACK, ROBERTS TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS (DAM SAFETY) .................................................................................................................................................... 28,500 28,500 PRESIDENT, BROWNBACK, ROBERTS 

KENTUCKY 

KENTUCKY LOCK AND DAM, TENNESSEE RIVER, KY .................................................................................................................................. 52,000 47,000 PRESIDENT, MCCONNELL, SHELBY MARKLAND LOCKS & DAM, KY & IL ........................................................................................................................................................... 7,800 7,000 PRESIDENT MCALPINE LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, KY & IN .................................................................................................................................. 45,000 41,000 PRESIDENT, MCCONNELL WOLF CREEK, KY (SEEPAGE CONTROL) ..................................................................................................................................................... 54,100 54,100 PRESIDENT, MCCONNELL, ALEXANDER, 

CORKER 

LOUISIANA 

COMITE RIVER, LA ...................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 7,000 LANDRIEU, VITTER EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LA ............................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 1,000 LANDRIEU INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL LOCK, LA .......................................................................................................................................... ........................ 2,000 LANDRIEU, VITTER 
45 

J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,500 7,000 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LA ............................................................................................................................................................. ........................ 2,200 LANDRIEU OUACHITA RIVER LEVEES, LA ..................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 1,400 LANDRIEU, VITTER SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA, LA ........................................................................................................................................................................ ........................ 18,500 LANDRIEU, VITTER 

MARYLAND 

ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MD AND DC, PHASE I .................................................................................................................... ........................ 308 CARDIN ASSATEAGUE ISLAND, MD .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,900 1,900 PRESIDENT, MIKULSKI, CARDIN ATLANTIC COAST OF MARYLAND, MD ......................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 200 MIKULSKI, CARDIN BALTIMORE METROPOLITAN WATER RESOURCES, GWYNNS FALLS, ........................................................................................................... ........................ 1,000 MIKULSKI, CARDIN CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND PROTECTIO ........................................................................................................ ........................ 2,031 MIKULSKI, CARDIN, CASEY, WARNER, WEBB CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RECOVERY, MD & VA ..................................................................................................................................... ........................ 2,000 MIKULSKI, CARDIN, CASEY, WARNER, WEBB CUMBERLAND, MD ..................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 700 MIKULSKI, CARDIN POPLAR ISLAND, MD .................................................................................................................................................................................. 9,825 10,374 PRESIDENT, MIKULSKI, CARDIN 

MASSACHUSETTS 

MUDDY RIVER, MA ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 10,000 10,000 PRESIDENT, KENNEDY, KERRY 

MICHIGAN 

GENESEE COUNTY, MI ................................................................................................................................................................................ ........................ 600 LEVIN, STABENOW NEGAUNEE, MI ............................................................................................................................................................................................ ........................ 385 LEVIN, STABENOW 

MINNESOTA 

BRECKENRIDGE, MN ................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 4,000 COLEMAN, KLOBUCHAR LOCK AND DAM 3, MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN (MAJOR REHAB) .................................................................................................................... ........................ 2,250 COLEMAN, KLOBUCHAR MARSHALL, MN ........................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 80 COLEMAN, KLOBUCHAR 

MISSISSIPPI 

MISSISSIPPI ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, MS ............................................................................................................................... ........................ 19,000 COCHRAN, LOTT DESOTO COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER SYSTEM, MS ........................................................................................................................... ........................ 10,000 COCHRAN, LOTT JACKSON COUNTY WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, MS ...................................................................................................................................... ........................ 5,519 COCHRAN, LOTT 

MISSOURI 

BLUE RIVER BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MO ...................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 4,117 BOND BLUE RIVER CHANNEL, KANSAS CITY, MO ................................................................................................................................................. 3,500 3,500 PRESIDENT, BOND BOIS BRULE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT, MISSOURI ......................................................................................................................... ........................ 5,000 BOND CAPE GIRARDEAU (FLOODWALL), MO ......................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 2,000 BOND CHESTERFIELD, MO .................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 2,500 BOND CLEARWATER LAKE, MO (SEEPAGE CONTROL) ........................................................................................................................................... 25,000 25,000 PRESIDENT MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (REG WORKS), MO ........................................................................................................... 2,100 3,000 PRESIDENT, BOND 
46 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation Requested by 

MISSOURI & MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS ENHANCEMENT, MO ................................................................................................................ ........................ 500 BOND,GRASSLEY MISSOURI RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, IA, NE, KS & MO .................................................................................................................................. ........................ 100 BOND ST LOUIS FLOOD PROTECTION, MO ............................................................................................................................................................ ........................ 2,000 BOND STE GENEVIEVE, MO ................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 438 BOND 

MONTANA 

RURAL MONTANA, MT ................................................................................................................................................................................. ........................ 5,000 BAUCUS, TESTER FT. PECK CABIN CONVEYANCE, MT ............................................................................................................................................................ ........................ 500 TESTER 

NEBRASKA 

ANTELOPE CREEK, LINCOLN, NE ................................................................................................................................................................ 9,000 9,000 PRESIDENT, BEN NELSON, HAGEL MISSOURI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL RIVER, NE & SD .............................................................................................................................. ........................ 1,000 HAGEL SAND CREEK WATERSHED, SAUNDERS COUNTY, NEBRASKA ..................................................................................................................... ........................ 1,000 BEN NELSON, HAGEL WESTERN SARPY COUNTY AND CLEAR CREEK .......................................................................................................................................... ........................ 3,000 BEN NELSON, HAGEL 

NEVADA 

RURAL NEVADA .......................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 19,000 REID, ENSIGN TROPICANA AND FLAMINGO WASHES, NV .................................................................................................................................................. ........................ 13,000 REID, ENSIGN 

NEW JERSEY 

BARNEGAT INLET TO LITTLE EGG HARBOR, NJ (NJ SHORE PROT .............................................................................................................. ........................ 5,000 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ CAPE MAY INLET TO LOWER TOWNSHIP, NJ .............................................................................................................................................. 270 270 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ DELAWARE RIVER MAIN CHANNEL DEEPENING, NJ, PA & DE ................................................................................................................... ........................ 2,500 SPECTOR, CASEY HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS, NJ .............................................................................................................................................................. ........................ 397 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ JOSEPH G MINISH HISTORIC WATERFRONT PARK, NJ ................................................................................................................................ ........................ 3,000 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY POINT, NJ ................................................................................................................................. 5,111 5,111 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ PASSAIC RIVER PRESERVATION OF NATURAL STORAGE AREAS, N ............................................................................................................ ........................ 2,000 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ RAMAPO AND MAHWAH RIVERS, MAHWAH, NJ AND SUFFERN, NY ............................................................................................................ ........................ 250 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ, SCHUMER, CLINTON RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, NJ .................................................................................................................................................. ........................ 250 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ RARITAN RIVER BASIN, GREEN BROOK SUB-BASIN, NJ ............................................................................................................................. 10,000 10,000 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ SANDY HOOK TO BARNEGAT INLET, NJ ...................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 3,000 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ TOWNSENDS INLET TO CAPE MAY INLET, NJ ............................................................................................................................................. ........................ 3,000 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ 
47 

GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET TO PECK BEACH (OCEAN CITY), NJ ............................................................................................................... ........................ 3,000 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, PORT MONMOUTH, NJ ................................................................................................................... ........................ 2,000 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ BRIGANTINE INLET TO GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET (ABSECON), ............................................................................................................... ........................ 2,000 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ BRIGANTINE INLET TO GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET, BRIGANTINE .............................................................................................................. ........................ 80 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ 

NEW MEXICO 

ACEQUIAS IRRIGATION SYSTEM, NM .......................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 2,400 DOMENICI, BINGAMAN ALAMOGORDO, NM ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 4,200 4,200 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN CENTRAL NEW MEXICO, NM ....................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 7,500 DOMENICI, BINGAMAN COCHITI LAKE (DAM SAFETY), NM ............................................................................................................................................................. ........................ 200 DOMENICI, BINGAMAN JEMEZ CANYON (DAM SAFETY), NM ........................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 150 DOMENICI, BINGAMAN MIDDLE RIO GRANDE FLOOD PROTECTION, BERNALILLO TO BELE ............................................................................................................ ........................ 300 DOMENICI, BINGAMAN NEW MEXICO, EI, NM ................................................................................................................................................................................. ........................ 10,000 DOMENICI, BINGAMAN RIO GRANDE FLOODWAY, SAN ACACIA TO BOSQUE DEL APACHE, ............................................................................................................ 800 800 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN 

NEW YORK 

ATLANTIC COAST OF NYC, ROCKAWAY INLET TO NORTON POINT, ............................................................................................................. 8,500 8,500 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON FIRE ISLAND INLET TO MONTAUK POINT, NY ............................................................................................................................................. 4,150 4,400 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HARBOR, NY & NJ ...................................................................................................................................... 91,000 85,000 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ, 

SCHUMER, CLINTON 

NORTH CAROLINA 

BRUNSWICK COUNTY BEACHES, NC .......................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 400 DOLE, BURR DARE COUNTY BEACHES, NC ..................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 2,000 DOLE, BURR WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC ......................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 3,000 DOLE, BURR WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC ......................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 300 BURR 

NORTH DAKOTA 

GARRISON DAM AND POWER PLANT, ND (REPLACEMENT) ........................................................................................................................ 6,200 6,200 PRESIDENT HOMME DAM, ND (DAM SAFETY) ............................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 235 DORGAN LAKE SAKAKAWEA PROJECT, ND ................................................................................................................................................................. ........................ 3,000 DORGAN MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, ND .......................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 300 DORGAN NORTH DAKOTA ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, ND .......................................................................................................................... ........................ 6,000 DORGAN 

OHIO 

METROPOLITAN REGION OF CINCINNATI, DUCK CREEK, OH ...................................................................................................................... 11,847 11,847 PRESIDENT 

OKLAHOMA 

CANTON LAKE, OK (DAM SAFETY) .............................................................................................................................................................. 17,300 17,300 PRESIDENT TAR CREEK CLEANUP, OK .......................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 3,500 INHOFE 
48 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation Requested by 

OREGON 

COLUMBIA RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS, OR & WA ........................................................................................................................... 15,000 15,000 PRESIDENT, MURRAY, CRAPO, BAUCUS, 

TESTER, WYDEN, SMITH, CANTWELL 

COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY FISHING ACCESS SITES, OR & WA ................................................................................................................... ........................ 3,800 WYDEN, SMITH, CANTWELL ELK CREEK LAKE, OR ................................................................................................................................................................................. 11,030 11,030 PRESIDENT LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OR & WA .............................................................................................................. 1,000 1,500 PRESIDENT, MURRAY WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL, OR ..................................................................................................................................... 7,632 7,632 PRESIDENT 

PENNSYLVANIA 

EMSWORTH L&D, OHIO RIVER, PA (STATIC INSTABILITY CORRE ............................................................................................................... 43,000 43,000 PRESIDENT, SPECTER, CASEY LOCKS AND DAMS 2, 3 AND 4, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA ....................................................................................................................... 70,300 65,300 PRESIDENT, SPECTER, CASEY PRESQUE ISLE PENINSULA, PA (PERMANENT) ........................................................................................................................................... ........................ 1,000 SPECTER, CASEY WYOMING VALLEY, PA (LEVEE RAISING) .................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 2,500 SPECTER, CASEY LACKAWANNA RIVER, SCRANTON, PA ......................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 2,000 SPECTER, CASEY 

PUERTO RICO 

PORTUGUES AND BUCANA RIVERS, PR ...................................................................................................................................................... 35,000 35,000 PRESIDENT RIO PUERTO NUEVO, PR ............................................................................................................................................................................ 11,500 11,500 PRESIDENT 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

FOLLY BEACH, SC ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 35 35 PRESIDENT 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

BIG SIOUX RIVER, SIOUX FALLS, SD .......................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 3,000 JOHNSON, THUNE CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX, SD ...................................................................................................................... ........................ 4,000 JOHNSON, THUNE MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, SD .......................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 100 JOHNSON 

TENNESSEE 

CENTER HILL DAM, TN (SEEPAGE CONTROL) ............................................................................................................................................. 25,000 25,000 PRESIDENT, ALEXANDER, CORKER CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TENNESSEE RIVER, TN ............................................................................................................................................ 35,200 35,200 PRESIDENT, SHELBY, ALEXANDER, CORKER 

TEXAS 

BRAYS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX .................................................................................................................................................................... 14,841 14,841 PRESIDENT, CORNYN 
49 

CENTRAL CITY, FORT WORTH, UPPER TRINITY RIVER BASIN, T ................................................................................................................ ........................ 500 HUTCHISON, CORNYN CLEAR CREEK, TX ...................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 1,000 CORNYN DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TRINITY RIVER PROJECT, TX ................................................................................................................... ........................ 13,000 HUTCHISON, CORNYN HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TX ................................................................................................................................... 16,320 16,320 PRESIDENT, HUTCHISON JOHNSON CREEK, UPPER TRINITY BASIN, ARLINGTON, TX ........................................................................................................................ ........................ 1,000 HUTCHISON RED RIVER BASIN CHLORIDE CONTROL, TX & OK ..................................................................................................................................... ........................ 1,000 INHOFE SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, TX .............................................................................................................................................. ........................ 10,000 HUTCHISON, CORNYN SIMS BAYOU, HOUSTON, TX ....................................................................................................................................................................... 24,154 20,000 PRESIDENT, CORNYN TEXAS CITY CHANNEL, TX .......................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 2,500 HUTCHISON 

UTAH 

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

VERMONT 

BURLINGTON HARBOR, VT .......................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 500 LEAHY LAKE CHAMPLAIN WATERSHED INITIATE, VT .............................................................................................................................................. ........................ 2,500 LEAHY 

VIRGINIA 

JOHN H KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA & NC (REPLACEMENT) .............................................................................................................. 13,000 13,000 PRESIDENT LYNCHBURG CSO, VA ................................................................................................................................................................................. ........................ 300 WARNER, WEBB NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VA (DEEPENING) ............................................................................................................................... ........................ 1,700 WARNER, WEBB RICHMOND CSO, VA ................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 300 WARNER, WEBB ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, HEADWATERS AREA, VA .......................................................................................................................... 10,150 10,150 PRESIDENT, WARNER, WEBB SANDBRIDGE BEACH, VA ............................................................................................................................................................................ ........................ 2,000 WARNER, WEBB VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (HURRICANE PROTECTION) ....................................................................................................................................... ........................ 3,000 WARNER, WEBB 

WASHINGTON 

CHIEF JOSEPH DAM GAS ABATEMENT, WA ................................................................................................................................................. 3,000 6,000 PRESIDENT, MURRAY COLUMBIA RIVER FISH MITIGATION, WA, OR & ID .................................................................................................................................... 92,560 83,500 PRESIDENT, MURRAY DUWAMISH AND GREEN RIVER BASIN, WA ................................................................................................................................................ ........................ 2,000 MURRAY, CANTWELL HOWARD HANSON DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, WA ........................................................................................................................... 16,000 16,000 PRESIDENT LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH & WILDLIFE COMPENSATION, WA, OR ............................................................................................................ 400 400 PRESIDENT MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA .................................................................................................................................................. 10,200 10,200 PRESIDENT, MURRAY MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA (FISH PASSAGE) ............................................................................................................................................... 11,500 11,500 PRESIDENT, MURRAY, CANTWELL PUGET SOUND AND ADJACENT WATERS RESTORATION, WA ...................................................................................................................... ........................ 3,000 MURRAY, CANTWELL SHOALWATER BAY, WA (SEC 545 OF WRDA 2000) ................................................................................................................................... ........................ 1,500 MURRAY 

WEST VIRGINIA 

BLUESTONE LAKE, WV (DAM SAFETY ASSURANCE) ................................................................................................................................... 12,000 12,000 PRESIDENT, BYRD GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WV ................................................................................................................................................................. ........................ 1,500 BYRD 
50 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation Requested by 

ISLAND CREEK BASIN IN AND AROUND LOGAN, WEST VIRGINIA ............................................................................................................... ........................ 200 BYRD LEVISA AND TUG FORKS AND UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER, WV, V .......................................................................................................... ........................ 26,500 BYRD, WARNER, WEBB LOWER MUD RIVER, MILTON, WV ............................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 1,050 BYRD MARMET LOCK, KANAWHA RIVER, WV ........................................................................................................................................................ 25,000 30,000 PRESIDENT, BYRD ROBERT C BYRD LOCKS AND DAM, OHIO RIVER, WV & OH ..................................................................................................................... 1,000 1,000 PRESIDENT 

WYOMING 

JACKSON HOLE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, JACKSON, WY ................................................................................................................ ........................ 475 THOMAS 

SUBTOTAL, FOR PROJECTS ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,687,308 1,987,854 

ABANDONED MINE RESTORATION ............................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 656 REID, FEINSTEIN, BAUCUS AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (SECTION 206) ................................................................................................................................. 11,278 25,000 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, FEINSTEIN, ALLARD, 

INOUYE, CRAIG, DURBIN, HARKIN, LANDRIEU, MIKULSKI, LAUTENBERG, REED, ALEXANDER, LEAHY, SALAZAR, DODD, LIBERMAN, BILL NELSON, CHAMBLISS, ISAKSON, CRAPO, GRASSLEY, CARDIN, KENNEDY, KERRY, COLEMAN, MENENDEZ, BINGAMAN, SCHUMER, CLINTON, WYDEN, SMITH, CASEY, WHITEHOUSE, CORNYN, WARNER, WEBB, CANTWELL, FEINGOLD 

AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL .......................................................................................................................................................................... 3,000 4,000 PRESIDENT BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL (SECTION 204, 207, 933) ...................................................................................................... 2,663 5,000 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, KOHL, GRASSLEY, 

FEINGOLD 

CHIEF’S 12 ACTIONS .................................................................................................................................................................................. 4,600 ........................ PRESIDENT DAM SAFETY AND SEEPAGE/STABILITY CORRECTION PROGRAM ............................................................................................................... 39,000 39,000 PRESIDENT DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROGRAM (DMDF) .................................................................................................................. 8,241 8,241 PRESIDENT EMERGENCY STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE PROTECTION (SECTION 14) ................................................................................................. 907 12,000 PRESIDENT, BYRD, COCHRAN, DORGAN, 

LANDRIEU, GREGG, LAUTENBERG, KOHL, CHAMBLISS, GRASSLEY, SNOWE, COLLINS, MENENDEZ, VOINOVICH 

EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION FUND ............................................................................................................................................................ 21,000 21,000 PRESIDENT 
51 

ESTUARY RESTORATION PROGRAM (PUBLIC LAW 106–457) ..................................................................................................................... 5,000 1,000 PRESIDENT FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205) .............................................................................................................................................. 11,716 45,000 PRESIDENT, BYRD, COCHRAN, DOMENICI, 

FEINSTEIN, INOUYE, BROWNBACK, LANDRIEU, MIKULSKI, BOND, BEN NELSON, LAUTENBERG, ALEXANDER, HUTCHISON, LINCOLN, PRYOR, BIDEN, CARPER, AKAKA, LUGAR, BAYH, GRASSLEY, ROBERTS, BUNNING, CARDIN, KENNEDY, KERRY, COLEMAN, HAGEL, MENENDEZ, BINGAMAN, SCHUMER, CLINTON 

INLAND WATERWAY USER BOARD (COE EXP) ............................................................................................................................................ 185 185 PRESIDENT INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD (BOARD EXPENSES) ......................................................................................................................... 40 40 PRESIDENT MITIGATION OF SHORE DAMAGES (SECTION 111) ..................................................................................................................................... 4,874 2,500 PRESIDENT, SNOWE, COLLINS, SCHUMER, 

CLINTON 

NAVIGATION PROJECTS (SECTION 107) ...................................................................................................................................................... 477 10,000 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN, INOUYE, LANDRIEU, 

MIKULSKI, REED, PRYOR, AKAKA, SNOWE, COLLINS, CARDIN, KENNEDY, KERRY, LEVIN, STABENOW, VOINOVICH 

PROJECT MODS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (SECTION 1135) .......................................................................................... 11,190 25,000 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, FEINSTEIN, INOUYE, 

HARKIN, LANDRIEU, MIKULSKI, BOND, LAUTENBERG, LEAHY, MURRAY, LINCOLN, PRYOR, BIDEN, CARPER, AKAKA, GRASSLEY, CARDIN, KENNEDY, KERRY, WARNER, WEBB, CANTWELL, FEINGOLD 

SHORE PROTECTION (SECTION 103) .......................................................................................................................................................... 422 5,000 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, MIKULSKI, CARDIN, 

CASEY 

SNAGGING AND CLEARING (SECTION 208) ................................................................................................................................................ 10 500 PRESIDENT 

SUBTOTAL, FOR PROJECTS NOT LISTED UNDER STATES .............................................................................................................. 124,603 204,122 

REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE ............................................................................................................................ ........................ ¥126,030 USE OF PRIOR BALANCES .......................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ ¥6,472 

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL ................................................................................................................................................. 1,818,811 2,059,474 
52 

Tuscaloosa, Alabama.—The Committee recommends $5,000,000 

for the relocation project at Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 

Akutan Harbor, Alaska.—The Committee recommendation includes $2,500,000 to initiate construction of this project. 

Alaska Coastal Erosion, Alaska.—The Committee recommendation provides $5,000,000 for Alaska Coastal Erosion. The following 

communities are eligible recipients of these funds: Kivalina, 

Newtok, Shishmaref, Koyukuk, Barrow, Kaktovik, Point Hope, 

Unalakleet, and Bethel. 

Nogales Wash, Arizona.—The Committee provides $4,461,000 for 

completion of this project. 

Red River Below Denison Dam, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma 

and Texas.—The Committee provides $2,500,000 to continue levee 

rehabilitation work in Arkansas and Louisiana. 

Red River Emergency Bank Protection, Arkansas and Louisiana.—The Committee provides $4,000,000 for bank stabilization 

along the Red River below Index, Arkansas. 

American River Watershed, California.—The Committee has chosen not to combine the various, separately authorized, components 

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

The Committee believes that it is prudent to maintain visibility of 

the various project elements in the budget process. 

American River Watershed (Folsom Dam Miniraise), California.— The Committee provides $18,500,000. Within the funds provided, 

$14,000,000 is for completion of the bridge. 

CALFED Levee Stability Program, California.—The Committee 

recommendation includes $5,000,000 to initiate this program. Within the funds provided, the Committee has provided $500,000 for the 

Corps to coordinate and complete within 6 months a review of 

Delta levees emergency preparedness and response planning with 

appropriate Federal and State agencies. The review will address 

preparation and response to protect (1) life and property within the 

Delta and (2) statewide interests reliant on water and other resources of the Delta, including measures to prevent salt water contamination of fresh water supplies consistent with the Delta Levee 

Stability Program High Priority, Priority Group A projects. 

Mid Valley Area Levee Reconstruction, California.—The Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for a limited reevaluation report as well as other necessary studies in advance of reconstruction. 

Oakland Harbor, California.—The Committee recommends 

$40,000,000 to continue construction of this project. The reduction 

made to this project should not be viewed as any diminution of support for this project, rather an attempt to balance out the Corps of 

Engineers nationwide program among the various missions of the 

Corps. 

Santa Ana River, California.—The Committee provides 

$17,000,000 to continue construction of this project. 

West Sacramento, California.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $900,000 for a general reevaluation of the project and 

other project needs. 

Delaware Coast, Cape Henlopen to Fenwick Island, Rehobeth 

Beach to Dewey Beach, Delaware.—The Committee recommendation includes $2,700,000 to complete the second nourishment cycle. 
53 

Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration, Florida.— The Committee has chosen not to combine the various, separately 

authorized components of the project into a single line item as was 

proposed in the budget. The Committee believes that it is prudent 

to maintain visibility of the various project elements in the budget 

process. The reduction made to the various component projects 

under this heading should not be viewed as any diminution of support for this project, rather an attempt to balance out the Corps of 

Engineers nationwide program among the various missions of the 

Corps. The Committee has chosen not to fund the $35,000,000 request 

for the Modified Waters Delivery Plan as proposed in the budget. 

The Committee does not believe that it is appropriate for the Corps 

to fund this work. This is not a traditional authorization of work 

for the Corps. It is direction for the Corps to be involved in the implementation of the project. As the work involved primarily benefits Everglades National Park, budgeting for this work should be 

continued by the Interior Department as was the practice prior to 

fiscal year 2006. The Committee has included legislative language 

that limits the Corps of Engineers share of this project to the 

amount previously appropriated. 

The Committee directs the administration to include the Modified Waters Delivery Plan funding in the Interior budget in future 

budget submissions. 

Central and South Florida, Florida.—Within the funds provided, 

the Corps shall continue work on the Upper St. Johns River 

project. 

Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements, Florida.—The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 for continued implementation of this project. The Committee urges the administration 

to budget for this project due to the interrelationship of this work 

to the Everglades Restoration project, Biscayne Bay and southern 

Florida’s nearshore waters. 

Jacksonville Harbor, Florida.—The Committee has provided 

$3,000,000 to continue work on the project as well as for a second 

general reevaluation report. 

Tampa Harbor, Florida.—$304,000 is provided to complete the 

General Reevaluation Report. 

Atlanta, Georgia.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$2,000,000 to continue this project. 

Tybee Island, Georgia.—The Committee recommendation provides $2,000,000 for the next scheduled renourishment. 

Rural Idaho Environmental Infrastructure, Idaho.—The Committee provides $5,000,000 for this project. Within the funds provided the Corps should give consideration to projects at Emmett, 

Burley, Deary, Rupert, Donnelly, East Idaho Regional Water Authority, and Smelterville. Other communities that meet the program criteria should be considered as funding allows. 

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Illinois.—The Committee has 

provided $3,250,000 for construction on Barriers I and II. Legislative language has been included for these projects as requested in 

the budget. 

McCook and Thornton Reservoirs, Illinois.—The Committee includes $31,500,000 for continued construction of this project. The 
54 

reduction made to this project should not be viewed as any diminution of support for this project, rather an attempt to balance out 

the Corps of Engineers nationwide program among the various 

missions of the Corps. 

Olmsted Locks and Dam, Ohio River, Illinois and Kentucky.—The 

Committee provides $94,000,000 to continue construction of this 

project. The reduction made to this project should not be viewed as 

any diminution of support for this project, rather an attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide program among the 

various missions of the Corps. None of the funds provided for the 

Olmsted Locks and Dam Project are to be used to reimburse the 

Claims and Judgment Fund. 

Indiana Harbor (Confined Disposal Facility), Indiana.—The 

Committee has retained funding for this project in the Construction, General account rather than moving it to the Operations and 

Maintenance account as proposed in the budget. 

Missouri Fish and Wildlife Recovery, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, 

Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota.—The Committee provides $50,000,000 for this project. Legislative language is 

included in the bill that accompanies this report to make modifications to the Intake Dam, as requested by the administration, to 

provide additional habitat for the pallid sturgeon. Funding for the 

modifications to Intake Dam are provided in this account rather 

than as a separate line as proposed in the budget. 

Turkey Creek, Kansas and Missouri.—The Committee recommendation includes $9,000,000 to continue construction of this 

project. 

Kentucky Lock and Dam, Tennessee River, Kentucky.—The Committee recommendation includes $47,000,000 to continue construction of this project. The reduction made to this project should not 

be viewed as any diminution of support for this project, rather an 

attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide program 

among the various missions of the Corps. 

Markland Locks and Dam, Kentucky and Illinois.—The Committee has provided $7,000,000 to initiate construction on this 

major rehabilitation requested by the administration. The Committee has provided these funds here rather than in O&M as proposed in the budget request. 

McAlpine Locks and Dam, Ohio River, Kentucky and Indiana.— 

The Committee has provided $57,000,000 to continue construction 

of this project and legislative language, as requested in the budget 

request, to raise the cost ceiling for the project so the funds can be 

utilized in fiscal year 2008. The reduction made to this project 

should not be viewed as any diminution of support for this project, 

rather an attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers nationwide program among the various missions of the Corps. 

J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Louisiana.—The Committee has 

provided $7,000,000 for navigation channel refinement features, 

land purchases and development for mitigation of project impacts, 

and construction of project recreation and appurtenant features. 

Southeast Louisiana project, Louisiana.—The Committee has 

provided $18,500,000 to continue construction of this vital interior 

drainage project. Additionally, the Committee has included legislative language directing the Secretary of the Army to include the 
55 

Southeast Louisiana Flood Control project authorized in section 

533 of Public Law 104–303, as amended, and other related internal 

pumping requirements as integral components of the comprehensive protection plan required to achieve certification for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program directed by Public 

Law 109–234. As the recent inundation study for the city of New 

Orleans and vicinity by the Corps of Engineers concluded, the improvements to the pumping capacity and levee system in the area 

have contributed to an improved mitigation of risk of catastrophic 

flooding in the region. However, a peripheral line of protection 

alone does not provide a truly comprehensive protection system 

without adding the ability to efficiently collect and evacuate the 

significant amounts of flood water that accumulate inside of this 

line of protection. The southeast Louisiana project and related interior pumping capacity projects are essential component pieces to 

such a comprehensive system and to the National Flood Insurance 

Program and, accordingly, must be designed and constructed concurrently with other projects in the area. 

Chesapeake Bay Environmental Program, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia.—The Committee has included $1,000,000 for 

continuation of this project. Within the funds provided, $450,000 is 

included to complete the environmental studies concerning non-native oysters. 

Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery, Maryland and Virginia.—The 

Committee includes $2,000,000 to continue construction of this 

project. 

Fort Peck Dam and Lake, Montana.—The Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for continuation of Fort Peck cabin 

sales. 

Rural Montana, Montana.—The Committee provides $5,000,000 

for this project. Within the funds provided the Corps should give 

consideration to the following projects: Crow Tribe Water and 

Wastewater System; Cabinet Heights Wastewater Collection Systems; Ranch Water District, Bigfork; Town of Medicine Lake; County Water District of Billings Heights; Power Water System improvements; Seely Lake, Greater Woods Bay Wastewater System; 

Basin Creek Reservoir, Butte; Dayton Wastewater Collection and 

Treatment Facility; Phillipsburg Wastewater Improvements; Glasgow Wastewater; Whitehall Wastewater; Cut Bank Water; 

Hamiliton Wastewater; Conrad Wastewater; Billings, West Wicks 

Lane Water and Sewer; and Port of Montana Water. Other communities that meet the program criteria should be considered as funding allows. 

Sand Creek, Nebraska.—The Committee includes $1,000,000 to 

continue construction of this project. 

Rural Nevada, Nevada.—The Committee recommendation provides $19,000,000 for this project. Within the funds provided the 

Corps should give consideration to projects at North Lemmon Valley; Spanish Springs Valley Phase II; Huffaker Hills Water Conservation; Lawton-Verdi; Boulder City; Lyon County; Gerlach; 

Searchlight; Incline Village; Esmeralda County; Cold Springs; 

Fallon; Goldfield; Churchill County; West Wendover; Yearington; 

Virgin Valley Water District; Lovelock; Truckee Meadows Water 

Authority; McGill-Ruth Consolidated Sewer and Water District; 
56 

Carlin; Moapa; Indian Springs; Eldorado Valley; Ely and Carson 

City. Other communities that meet the program criteria should be 

considered as funding allows. 

Tropicana and Flamingo Washes, Nevada.—The Committee recommendation includes $13,000,000 to continue construction of this 

flood control project. Within the funds provided $9,600,000 is provided for work performed in accordance with section 211 of Public 

Law 104–303. 

Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub-basin, New Jersey.—The 

Committee includes $10,000,000 to continue construction of this 

project. 

Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey.—The 

Committee provides $5,111,000 for this periodic renourishment 

here rather than in O&M as proposed by the administration’s 

budget request. 

Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey.—The Committee pro- vides $3,000,000 to continue construction of this project. 

Acequias Irrigation System, New Mexico.—The Committee pro- vides $2,400,000 to continue restoration of these historic irrigation 

distribution systems. 

Central New Mexico [EI], New Mexico.—The Committee includes 

$7,500,000 to continue construction of this project. 

New Mexico [EI], New Mexico.—The Committee includes 

$10,000,000 to continue construction of this project. 

Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota.—The original health care facility for the Three Affiliated Tribes tribe was permanently inundated 

due to the impoundment of Lake Sakakawea. A replacement 

healthcare facility was promised but never constructed. Legislative 

text has been included in the Bill this report accompanies that directs the Corps to construct this replacement facility. The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 for design of the replacement health care facility. The Corps should work closely with 

the Indian Health Service and the Three Affiliated Tribes on the 

design and construction of this facility. The Committee suggests 

that the Corps utilize the expertise in their military programs office for this project. 

North Dakota [EI], North Dakota.—The Committee has provided 

up to $6,000,000 for work related to the replacement of the Devils 

Lake Water supply pipeline. The Committee has included legislative text that reallocates the unexpended balance of $4,972,000 

from the Devils Lake outlet to this project. 

Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4, Monongahela River, Pennsylvania.—The Committee recommendation includes $65,300,000 to 

continue construction of this project. The reduction made to this 

project should not be viewed as any dimunition of support for this 

project, rather an attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers 

nationwide program among the various missions of the Corps. 

Presque Isle, Pennsylvania.—The Committee provides $1,000,000 

to continue this project. 

Big Sioux River, South Dakota.—The Committee includes 

$3,000,000 to continue construction of this project. 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, South Dakota.— 

The Committee notes that title IV of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Public Law 106–53 as amended, authorizes fund-
57 

ing to pay administrative expenses, implementation of terrestrial 

wildlife plans, activities associated with land transferred or to be 

transferred, and annual expenses for operating recreational areas. 

The Committee includes $4,000,000 for this effort. Within the 

funds provided, the Committee directs that not more than 

$1,000,000 shall be provided for administrative expenses, and that 

the Corps is to distribute the remaining funds as directed by title 

IV to the State of South Dakota, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 

and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe. 

Chickamauga Lock, Tennessee.—The Committee provides $35,200,000 to continue construction of this project. 

Central City, Fort Worth, Upper Trinity River Basin, Texas.—The 

Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for the Central City, 

Fort Worth, Texas, project. The Committee continues to be interested in the merits of combining the authorized Central City 

project with the proposed Riverside Oxbow project. The Committee 

understands that the Corps has an ongoing evaluation of the combined project and encourage that it be completed expeditiously and 

the results furnished to the Committee. 

Red River Basin Chloride Control, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas 

and Louisiana.—The Committee includes $1,000,000 to continue 

construction. 

San Antonio Channel Improvement, Texas.—The Committee recommendation include $10,000,000 to continue this flood control 

project. 

Sims Bayou, Houston, Texas.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $20,000,000 for this project. The reduction made to this 

project should not be viewed as any dimunition of support for this 

project, rather an attempt to balance out the Corps of Engineers 

nationwide program among the various missions of the Corps. 

Rural Utah, [EI], Utah.—The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 to continue construction of this project. 

Burlington Harbor, Vermont.—The Committee includes $500,000 

to initiate removal of oil bollards in the harbor. 

Lake Champlain Watershed Initiative.—The Committee recommendation includes $2,500,000 for continuation of this project. 

The Committee has included legislative text that reallocates the 

unexpended balance of $1,500,000 from the completed Waterbury 

Dam Seepage Correction repairs to this project. 

Columbia River Fish Mitigation, Washington, Oregon, and 

Idaho.—The Committee has chosen not to follow the budget proposal to include this work within the various O&M items in the 

system. The Committee believes that it is prudent to maintain visibility of the costs of environmental compliance activities for this 

project and have included funding in this account in the traditional 

items. $83,500,000 is provided for this project. 

Mud Mountain, Washington.—The Corps has provided 

$11,500,000 for fish passage at this project. 

Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Cumberland 

River, West Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia.—The Committee provides $26,500,000 for the continuation of the project. Within the 

funds provided, the Committee recommendation includes 

$7,500,000 for the Buchanan County, Dickenson County, and 

Grundy, Virginia elements. Further, the recommendation includes 
58 

$18,000,000 for Kermit, Lower Mingo County, McDowell County, 

Upper Mingo and Wayne County, West Virginia. 

Aquatic Plant Control Program.—The Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 for this program. Funds above the budget 

requests are included for cost-shared programs for Lake Gaston, 

North Carolina; Lake Champlain, Vermont; and Lake Chautauqua, 

New York. 

Chief’s 12 Actions.—The Committee did not include funding for 

this item. The Committee believes that the activities proposed in 

the budget request for this line item should be incorporated into 

the various funded construction activities that the Corps has underway. 

Dredged Material Disposal Facilities Program.—The Committee 

has retained this program in the Construction, General account 

rather than the Operations and Maintenance account as proposed 

by the budget. 

Shore Line Erosion Control Development and Demonstration Program.)—The Committee understands that this program will be considerably expanded and modified in the pending Water Resources 

Development Act. Therefore the Committee has included legislative 

text to extend the duration of this program so that the COE can 

continue monitoring of complete projects and finish work on 

projects, where possible with previousl appropriated funds. No new 

funds are provided. 

Collection and Study of Basic Data.—The recommendation includes $1,400,000 for these efforts. Funds provided above the budget request are for LIDAR mapping to be undertaken in the Delta 

portion of Mississippi. 

Ability to Pay.—Section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 Public Law 99–662, as amended, requires that all 

project cooperation agreements for flood damage reduction projects, 

to which non-Federal cost sharing applies, will be subject to the 

ability of non-Federal sponsors to pay their shares. Congress included this section in the landmark 1986 act to ensure that as 

many communities as possible would qualify for Federal flood damage reduction projects, based more on needs and less on financial 

capabilities. The Secretary published eligibility criteria in 33 CFR 

241, which requires a non-Federal sponsor to meet an ability-to-pay 

test. However, the Committee believes that the Secretary’s test is 

too restrictive and operates to exclude most communities from 

qualifying for relief under the ability-to-pay provision. For example, 

33 CFR 241.4(f) specifies that the test should be structured so that 

reductions in the level of cost sharing will be granted in ‘‘only a 

limited number of cases of severe economic hardship,’’ and should 

depend not only on the economic circumstances within a project 

area, but also on the conditions of the State in which the project 

area is located. 

CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM

When Congress authorized the initial Continuing Authorities in 

the 1940s and 1950s, they were envisioned to provide a small pool 

of money available to the Corps of Engineers to solve very small 

localized problems without being encumbered by the longer study 

and project authorization process. As more programs were added to 
59 

the Continuing Authorities Program [CAP] they became increasingly popular with congressional Members and the public. More 

and more congressionally directed projects began to appear in the 

annual appropriations bills. At first these congressionally directed 

projects were added to the base program. As more and more of 

these congressionally directed projects came into the program it became difficult for these congressionally directed projects to be 

added to the base, and as such, the base program began to shrink. 

Congressionally directed projects now dominate all sections of the 

CAP Program. Congressionally directed projects have proliferated 

to such an extent that several of the sections are over-subscribed. 

The table below shows the unfunded costs in each of the various 

sections of the CAP program along with the Statutory Limit of each 

section and the Mean Annual Allocation from 2001–2007 for each 

section. At current levels of funding it will take nearly 16 years to 

clear out this backlog. 

Section Statutory limit 

Mean annual 

allocation 

2001–2007 

Total unfunded 

Federal cost 

14 ............................................................................................................... $15,000 $13,730 $43,193 

103 ............................................................................................................. 30,000 4,179 45,435 

107 ............................................................................................................. 35,000 8,389 148,262 

111 ............................................................................................................. ( 1 ) 1,417 38,279 

145 ............................................................................................................. ( 1 ) 904 2,700 

204 ............................................................................................................. 15,000 1,876 26,754 

205 ............................................................................................................. 50,000 31,664 547,862 

206 ............................................................................................................. 25,000 29,658 734,545 

208 ............................................................................................................. 7,500 233 1,151

1135 ........................................................................................................... 25,000 28,951 323,226 

Totals ............................................................................................ ∂202,500 121,001 1,911,409 

1 None. 

The Committee tried to address the oversubscribed nature of 

some of the CAP sections by instituting a moratorium on new cost 

sharing agreements in fiscal year 2006. Due to the Joint funding 

resolution for fiscal year 2007, the moratorium was continued 

through the current year. The Committee does not recommend that 

the moratorium be continued into fiscal year 2008. 

Prioritization of these projects by the Corps is still essential. The 

Committee directs the Corps to prioritize projects in the following 

manner to try to get the backlog of these projects reduced. The first 

priority for funding should be for construction projects that are 

ready to execute Project Cooperation Agreements. The next priority 

should be for projects that are ready to execute design agreements. 

Third priority would be for those that are ready to execute feasibility agreements. The fourth priority would be for those projects 

progressing from design to construction. The last priority should be 

new starts. Priority should be given to those projects that have 

demonstrated capability to move forward. This would include having non-Federal financing in place and ready to be utilized. The 

Committee has provided no new starts in any of the sections. 

Starting with fiscal year 2008 the Committee will no longer provide any congressional earmarks for the section 14, Emergency 

Bank Stabilization authority. By definition these are projects that 

are estimated to fail within 9–12 months. As an ‘‘emergency situation’’ the Chief of Engineers should have the responsibility for de-
60 

termining how these funds are expended in the most efficient and 

effective manner. Budget justifications for this section should display the anticipated projects and associated costs to be undertaken 

in the budget year as well as the anticipated resources necessary 

to address emergencies that arise in the budget year. 

The Committee will not provide dollar amounts for the projects 

that are named in the report. The Committee directs that the Chief 

should have 100 percent reprogramming flexibility within the various sections of the CAP program in order to address the backlog. 

This reprogramming guidance has been addressed in section 101 of 

the bill accompanying this report. The Chief of Engineers should 

provide a report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees within 30 days of enactment of this bill detailing how funds 

will be distributed to the individual items in the various CAP sections for the fiscal year. The Chief should also provide an annual 

report at the end of each fiscal year detailing the progress made 

on the backlog of projects. The report should include the completions and terminations as well as progress of on going work. The 

Committee would be willing to work with the Corps on any reforms 

that they might suggest to improve this program. 

The Committee is concerned that if the Corps adhered strictly to 

the priorities above, that all funding would be exhausted for construction. Therefore, in order to provide a mix of studies, design 

and construction within each CAP section the Committee directs 

that funding be generally divided in the following manner for each 

of the CAP sections. These percentages should be considered upper 

limits in each section, not absolutes. 

CAP Section Available Funding Percent Available 

for Construction 

Section 103 ......................................................................................................................... $5,000,000 75 

Section 107 ......................................................................................................................... 10,000,000 75 

Section 1135 ....................................................................................................................... 25,000,000 70 

Section 14 ........................................................................................................................... 12,000,000 80 

Sections 204, 207, 933 ...................................................................................................... 5,000,000 75 

Section 205 ......................................................................................................................... 45,000,000 65 

Section 206 ......................................................................................................................... 25,000,000 70 

Even though the Committee is providing a listing of projects that 

are of interest, the Corps should develop the program based on all 

of the projects in each section whether named or not. Priorities 

should be based on the factors outlined above and should not consider prior year earmarks or a listing in this report. The Corps is 

directed not to initiate any new continuing authorities projects 

without explicit congressional direction. Only projects that have 

been named in prior appropriation bills or received prior year funds 

or are listed in this bill should be considered for funding. 

A listing of CAP projects follows: 

Project Requested by 

Section 103 Shoreline Protection: 

Goleta Beach, CA .......................................................................................................................... Feinstein 

Pismo Beach, CA .......................................................................................................................... Feinstein 

Conquest Preserve, MD ................................................................................................................. Mikulski, Cardin 

Franklin Point Park, MD ............................................................................................................... Mikulski, Cardin 

Mayo Beach Park, MD .................................................................................................................. Mikulski, Cardin 

Pleasure Island, Baltimore County, MD ....................................................................................... Mikulski, Cardin 
61 

Project Requested by 

Philadelphia Shipyard Sea Wall, Philadelphia, PA ...................................................................... Casey 

Section 107 Small Navigation Projects: 

Blytheville Harbor, AR ................................................................................................................... Pryor 

Kahoolawe Harbor, Kahoolawe, HI ................................................................................................ Inouye, Akaka 

Port Fourchon Extension, Lafourche Parish, LA ........................................................................... Landrieu 

Bucks Harbor, ME ......................................................................................................................... Snowe, Collins 

Naticoke Harbor, Wicomico, MD ................................................................................................... Mikulski, Cardin 

Rhodes Point, MD ......................................................................................................................... Mikulski, Cardin 

St. Jerome’s Creek, St. Mary’s County, MD .................................................................................. Mikulski, Cardin 

Woods Hole, Great Harbor, Woods Hole, MA ................................................................................ Kennedy, Kerry 

Northwestern Michigan College, Great Lakes Maritime Academy, Harbor Renovation, Traverse 

City, MI:.

Levin, Stabenow 

Ontonagon Channel Extension, MI ............................................................................................... Levin, Stabenow 

Yazoo Diversion Canal, MS ........................................................................................................... Cochran 

Ottawa River Recreational Dredging, NC ..................................................................................... Voinovich 

Charlestown Breachway, RI .......................................................................................................... Reed 

Section 111 Mitigation of Shore Damages Attributable to Navigation Projects: 

Camp Ellis Restoration Project, ME ............................................................................................. Snowe, Collins 

Mattituck Harbor, NY .................................................................................................................... Schumer, Clinton 

Sections 204, 207, 933 Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material: 

Blackhawk Bottoms, IA ................................................................................................................. Grassley 

Barataria Bay Waterway, LA ......................................................................................................... Landrieu 

Calcasieu River, Cameron Parish, LA .......................................................................................... Landrieu 

Restoration of the Cat Islands Chain, Green Bay, WI ................................................................. Kohl 

Section 205 Small Flood Control Projects: 

Wynne, AR ..................................................................................................................................... Lincoln, Pryor 

Las Gallinas Creek/Santa Venetia Levee, CA .............................................................................. Feinstein 

Little Mill Creek, Elsemere, DE .................................................................................................... Biden, Carper 

Kuliouou Stream, Oahu, HI ........................................................................................................... Inouye 

Palai Stream, Hawaii, HI .............................................................................................................. Inouye, Akaka 

Waiakea Stream, Hawaii, HI ......................................................................................................... Inouye, Akaka 

White River, Anderson, IN ............................................................................................................. Lugar, Bayh 

Indian Creek, Cedar Rapids, IA .................................................................................................... Grassley 

Mad Creek, Muscatine, IA ............................................................................................................ Grassley 

Red Oak Creek, Red Oak, IA ........................................................................................................ Grassley 

Winnebago River, Mason City, IA ................................................................................................. Grassley 

Eureka Creek, Manhattan, KS ...................................................................................................... Roberts, Brownback 

Red Duck Creek, Mayfield, KY ...................................................................................................... Bunning 

Bayou Choupique, St Mary Parish, LA ......................................................................................... Landrieu 

Bayou Queue de Tortue, Vermillion Parish, LA ............................................................................ Landrieu 

Coushatta Indian Reservation, LA [FC] ....................................................................................... Landrieu 

Jean Lafitte, Fisher School Basin, LA .......................................................................................... Landrieu 

Pailet Basin, Barataria, LA .......................................................................................................... Landrieu 

Rosethorn Basin, LA ..................................................................................................................... Landrieu 

Town of Carencro, Lafayette Parish, LA ....................................................................................... Landrieu 

Elkton, MD .................................................................................................................................... Mikulski, Cardin 

North River, Peabody, MA ............................................................................................................. Kennedy, Kerry 

Ada, MN ........................................................................................................................................ Coleman 

Montevideo, MN ............................................................................................................................ Coleman 

McKinney Bayou, Tunica County, MS ........................................................................................... Cochran 

Blacksnake Creek, St. Joseph, MO ............................................................................................... Bond 

Festus-Crystal City, MO ................................................................................................................ Bond 

Little River Diversion, Dutchtown, MO ......................................................................................... Bond 

Fremont South,NE ......................................................................................................................... Hagel, Ben Nelson 

Schuyler, NE .................................................................................................................................. Hagel, Ben Nelson 

Jackson Brook, Morris County, NJ ................................................................................................ Lautenberg, Menendez 

Mill Brook, Highland Park, NJ ...................................................................................................... Lautenberg, Menendez 

Upper Passaic River and Tributaries, Long Hill Township, NJ .................................................... Lautenberg, Menendez 

Hatch, NM ..................................................................................................................................... Domenici, Bingaman 

Steel Creek, NY ............................................................................................................................. Schumer, Clinton 

Poplar Brook, Deal and Ocean Township, NJ ............................................................................... Lautenberg, Menendez 

Beaver Creek, TN .......................................................................................................................... Alexander 

Pecan Creek, Gainesville, TX ........................................................................................................ Hutchison 

WV Statewide Flood Warning System ........................................................................................... Byrd 

Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration: 

Upper York Creek, Dam Removal, CA .......................................................................................... Feinstein 
62 

Project Requested by 

Arkansas River Habitat Restoration Project, CO ......................................................................... Allard, Salazar 

Goose Creek, Boulder, CO ............................................................................................................. Salazar 

Lower Boulder Creek, CO .............................................................................................................. Salazar 

Tamarisk Eradication, CO ............................................................................................................. Salazar 

Stamford Mill River Restoration, CT ............................................................................................ Dodd, Lieberman 

Rose Bay, FL ................................................................................................................................. Nelson 

Chattahoochee Fall-Line Ecosystem Estoration, GA .................................................................... Chambliss, Isakson 

Mokuhinia/Mokuula Restoration, HI ............................................................................................. Inouye 

Paradise Creek Ecosystem Restoration, Moscow, Idaho .............................................................. Craig, Crapo 

Salmon River, Challis, ID ............................................................................................................. Craig, Crapo 

Emiquon Preserve, Fulton County, IL ........................................................................................... Durbin 

Squaw Creek Restoration, IL ........................................................................................................ Durbin 

Chariton River/Rathbun Lake, Iowa ............................................................................................. Grassley 

Duck Creek, Davenport, IA ............................................................................................................ Grassley 

Iowa River/Clear Creek, Iowa City, IA .......................................................................................... Grassley 

Storm Lake, IA .............................................................................................................................. Grassley 

Ventura Marsh Habitat Restoration, IA ........................................................................................ Harkin, Grassley 

Whitebreast Creek Watershed, IA ................................................................................................. Grassley 

Bayou Grosse Tete Restoration, Iberville Parish, LA .................................................................... Landrieu

Lake Fausse Pointe, Iberia Parish, LA ......................................................................................... Landrieu 

Lake Killarney, Louisiana State Penitentiary, LA ......................................................................... Landrieu 

Lake Verret Assumption Parish, LA .............................................................................................. Landrieu 

Mandeville Ecosystem Restoration, LA ......................................................................................... Landrieu 

University Lakes, Baton Rouge, LA .............................................................................................. Landrieu 

Vermillion River Ecosystem Restoration, LA ................................................................................ Landrieu 

Zemurray Park Lake Restoration, Tangipahoa Parish, LA ........................................................... Landrieu 

Deep Run/Tiber Hudson, Howard County, MD .............................................................................. Mikulski, Cardin 

Dog Island Shoals, MD ................................................................................................................. Mikulski, Cardin 

Greenbury Point, Anne Arundel County, MD ................................................................................. Mikulski, Cardin 

Hanover Street Wetlands, Baltimore City, MD ............................................................................. Mikulski, Cardin 

North Beach Wetland Restoration, MD ........................................................................................ Mikulski, Cardin 

Northwest Branch Anacostia River, MD ....................................................................................... Mikulski, Cardin 

Paint Branch Fish Passage, MD .................................................................................................. Mikulski, Cardin 

Tidal Middle Branch, MD .............................................................................................................. Mikulski, Cardin 

Urieville Lake, Kent Conrad, MD .................................................................................................. Mikulski, Cardin 

Wright’s Creek, Dorchester Creek, MD ......................................................................................... Mikulski, Cardin 

Milford Pond, Milford, MA ............................................................................................................. Kennedy, Kerry 

Painters Creek, Minnehaha Creek, Watershed, MN ..................................................................... Coleman 

Rancocas Creek Fish Passage Restoration Project, NJ ............................................................... Lautenberg, Menendez 

Blue Hole Lake State Park, NM .................................................................................................... Domenici, Bingaman 

Bottomless Lakes State Park, NM ................................................................................................ Domenici, Bingaman 

Janes-Wallace Memorial Dam, Santa Rosa, NM .......................................................................... Domenici, Bingaman 

Chenango Lake, NY ...................................................................................................................... Schumer, Clinton 

Gerritsen Creek, Booklyn, NY ........................................................................................................ Schumer, Clinton 

Lower Hempstead Harbor, NY ...................................................................................................... Schumer, Clinton 

Manhasset Bay, NY ...................................................................................................................... Schumer, Clinton 

Mud Creek, Great South Bay, NY ................................................................................................. Schumer, Clinton 

Northport Harbor, Huntington, NY ................................................................................................ Schumer, Clinton 

Soundview Park, Bronx, NY .......................................................................................................... Schumer, Clinton 

Pennsville, Salem County, NJ ....................................................................................................... Lautenberg, Menendez 

Christine and Hickson Dams, ND ................................................................................................ Dorgan 

Drayton Dam, ND .......................................................................................................................... Dorgan 

Arrowhead Creek, OR .................................................................................................................... Wyden, Smith 

Camp Creek-Zumwalt Prairie, OR ................................................................................................ Wyden, Smith 

Springfield Mill Race Stabilization and Protection, OR ............................................................... Wyden, Smith 

Dents Run, Elk County, PA ........................................................................................................... Casey 

North Park Lake Restoration, PA .................................................................................................. Casey 

Brush Neck Cove, RI ..................................................................................................................... Reed, Whitehouse 

Narrow River Restoration, RI ........................................................................................................ Reed 

Ten Mile River restoration, RI ...................................................................................................... Reed, Whitehouse 

Winneapaug Pond Restoration, RI ................................................................................................ Reed, Whitehouse 

Pistol Creek, Maryville, TN ............................................................................................................ Alexander 

San Marco River Ecosystem Restoration, TX ............................................................................... Cornyn 

West Branch of Little River, VT ................................................................................................... Leahy 

Wild Branch of Lamoille River, VT ............................................................................................... Leahy 

Elizabeth River, Scuffletown Creek, Chesapeake, VA .................................................................. Warner, Webb 
63 

Project Requested by 

Tangier Island, Accomack County, VA ......................................................................................... Warner, Webb 

Swift Creek Asbestos Sediment Management, WA ...................................................................... Cantwell 

Section 1135 Project Modifications for the Improvement of the Environment: 

Lower Cache Restoration, AR ....................................................................................................... Lincoln, Pryor 

Millwood Lake, Grassy Lake, AR .................................................................................................. Lincoln, Pryor 

Tujunga Wash Environmental Restoration, CA ............................................................................ Feinstein

Oyster Revitalization in the Delaware Bay, DE ............................................................................ Biden, Carper 

Kanaha Pond Wildlife Sanctuary Restoration, HI ........................................................................ Inouye 

Kaunakakai Stream Environmental Restoration, HI ..................................................................... Inouye, Akaka 

Kawainui Marsh Restoration, HI ................................................................................................... Inouye 

Charitan River, Rathbun Lake Watershed, IN .............................................................................. Harkin 

Rathbun Lake, South Fork Restoration, IA ................................................................................... Grassley 

Amite River Diversion Canal Bank Gapping, LA .......................................................................... Landrieu 

Frazier/Whitehouse Oxbow Lake Weir, LA ..................................................................................... Landrieu 

Lake St. Joseph, Tensas Parish, LA ............................................................................................. Landrieu 

Hart-Miller Island, MD .................................................................................................................. Mikulski, Cardin 

Broad Meadows Marsh, Quincy, MA ............................................................................................. Kennedy, Kerry 

Duck Creek Conservation Area, Stoddard County, MO ................................................................ Bond 

Assunpink Creek, NJ ..................................................................................................................... Lautenberg, Menendez 

Delaware Bay Oyster Restoration, NJ ........................................................................................... Lautenberg, Menendez 

Lincoln Park West, Ecosystem Restoration Study, NJ .................................................................. Lautenberg, Menendez 

Lower Assunpink Creek, NJ .......................................................................................................... Lautenberg, Menendez 

Mordecai Island Coastal Wetland Restoration, NJ ....................................................................... Lautenberg, Menendez 

Pine Mount Creek, NJ ................................................................................................................... Lautenberg, Menendez 

Pond Creek Salt Marsh Restoration, Cape May County, NJ ........................................................ Lautenberg, Menendez 

Rahway River, Rahway, NJ ........................................................................................................... Lautenberg, Menendez 

Las Cruces Dam environmental Restoration, Dona Ana County, NM .......................................... Domenici, Bingaman 

Pueblo of Santa Ana Aquatic Restoration, NM ............................................................................ Domenici, Bingaman 

Route 66 Environmental Restoration, Albuquerque, NM ............................................................. Domenici, Bingaman 

Smokes Creek, NY ......................................................................................................................... Schumer, Clinton 

Spring Creek, NY .......................................................................................................................... Schumer, Clinton 

Whitney Point Lake, NY ................................................................................................................ Schumer, Clinton 

Joe Creek restoration, OK ............................................................................................................. Inhofe 

Lake Champlain Lamprey Barriers, VT ........................................................................................ Leahy 

Village of Oyster, Northampton County, VA ................................................................................. Warner, Webb 

Mapes Creek Restoration, WA ...................................................................................................... Murray, Cantwell 

The Committee has included a rescission of $6,472,000 in unobligated funds from the Construction account of the fiscal year 2006 

Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act (Public Law 

109–103). 

FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, ARKANSAS, ILLINOIS, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, AND TENNESSEE

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $396,565,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 260,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 375,000,000 

This appropriation funds planning, construction, and operation 

and maintenance activities associated with water resource projects 

located in the lower Mississippi River Valley from Cape Girardeau, 

Missouri to the Gulf of Mexico. The Committee wishes to reiterate 

that MR&T project is a good model for the Corps to examine for 

moving towards a watershed approach. 

The budget request and the approved Committee allowance are 

shown on the following table: 
64 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation Requested by 

INVESTIGATIONS 

BAYOU METO BASIN, AR ............................................................................................................................................................................ ........................ 1,400 LINCOLN, PRYOR SOUTHEAST ARKANSAS, AR ........................................................................................................................................................................ ........................ 400 LINCOLN, PRYOR ALEXANDRIA TO THE GULF, LA ................................................................................................................................................................... 200 200 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM LAND STUDY, LA ...................................................................................................................... 200 200 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU MORGANZA TO THE GULF, LA .................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 4,000 LANDRIEU, VITTER SPRING BAYOU, LA ..................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 100 LANDRIEU COLDWATER RIVER BASIN BELOW ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS ......................................................................................................................... 300 300 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN MEMPHIS METRO AREA, STORM WATER MGMT STUDY, T ......................................................................................................................... ........................ 148 COCHRAN COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA .................................................................................................................................................. 400 1,400 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN 

CONSTRUCTION 

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN ........................................................................................................................... 53,395 55,414 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR GRAND PRAIRIE REGION, AR ...................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 10,000 LINCOLN, PRYOR MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN ....................................................................................................................... 28,767 51,767 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN, LANDRIEU, BOND, 

LINCOLN, PRYOR, VITTER 

ST FRANCIS RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, AR & MO ...................................................................................................................................... ........................ 7,000 LINCOLN, PRYOR ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA .......................................................................................................................................... 1,800 1,800 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA ............................................................................................................................................................................ 23,800 23,800 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA ................................................................................................................................................................. ........................ 1,000 LANDRIEU YAZOO BASIN—BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS ............................................................................................................................................ ........................ 200 COCHRAN YAZOO BASIN—DELTA HEADWATERS PROJECT, MS .................................................................................................................................. ........................ 20,000 COCHRAN YAZOO BASIN—MAIN STEM, MS ................................................................................................................................................................ ........................ 25 COCHRAN YAZOO BASIN—REFORMULATION UNIT, MS .............................................................................................................................................. ........................ 1,500 COCHRAN YAZOO BASIN—UPPER YAZOO PROJECTS, MS .......................................................................................................................................... ........................ 13,000 COCHRAN YAZOO BASIN—YAZOO BACKWATER F&WL MITIGATION LANDS, M ........................................................................................................... ........................ 50 COCHRAN YAZOO BASIN—YAZOO BACKWATER, MS .................................................................................................................................................. ........................ 10,000 COCHRAN ST JOHNS BAYOU AND NEW MADRID FLOODWAY, MO ............................................................................................................................... ........................ 4,000 BOND WEST TENNESSEE TRIBUTARIES, TN .......................................................................................................................................................... ........................ 200 ALEXANDER, CORKER 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN ........................................................................................................................... 59,977 64,951 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN, LANDRIEU HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR ................................................................................................................................................... 63 400 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR 
65 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR ................................................................................................................................................... 249 249 PRESIDENT LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, NORTH BANK, AR ............................................................................................................................................. 100 300 PRESIDENT LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, SOUTH BANK, AR ............................................................................................................................................. 115 115 PRESIDENT MISSISSIPPI RIVER LEVEES, AR, IL, KY, LA, MS, MO & TN ....................................................................................................................... 10,726 11,800 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN, LANDRIEU, BOND, 

LINCOLN, PRYOR, 

ST FRANCIS BASIN, AR & MO .................................................................................................................................................................... 4,725 10,000 PRESIDENT, BOND, LINCOLN, PRYOR TENSAS BASIN, BOEUF AND TENSAS RIVERS, AR & LA ............................................................................................................................ 2,667 2,667 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, LINCOLN, PRYOR WHITE RIVER BACKWATER, AR ................................................................................................................................................................... 900 1,000 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL .................................................................................................................................................... 170 170 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY ................................................................................................................................................... 93 93 PRESIDENT ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LA .......................................................................................................................................... 2,291 2,700 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA ............................................................................................................................................................................ 11,019 12,500 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU BATON ROUGE HARBOR, DEVIL SWAMP, LA .............................................................................................................................................. 17 400 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA .................................................................................................................................................. 41 41 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU BONNET CARRE, LA .................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,367 3,000 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA ................................................................................................................................................... 1,037 1,237 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU LOWER RED RIVER, SOUTH BANK LEVEES, LA .......................................................................................................................................... 45 80 PRESIDENT MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LA ................................................................................................................................................................. 125 125 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU OLD RIVER, LA ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 9,045 10,000 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU TENSAS BASIN, RED RIVER BACKWATER, LA ............................................................................................................................................. 2,500 4,000 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 30 300 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS .................................................................................................................................................. 143 143 PRESIDENT VICKSBURG HARBOR, MS ........................................................................................................................................................................... 71 300 PRESIDENT YAZOO BASIN, ARKABUTLA LAKE, MS ........................................................................................................................................................ 5,995 6,000 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN YAZOO BASIN, BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, MS .............................................................................................................................................. 196 196 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN YAZOO BASIN, ENID LAKE, MS ................................................................................................................................................................... 7,011 10,000 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN YAZOO BASIN, GREENWOOD, MS ............................................................................................................................................................... 1,558 1,500 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN YAZOO BASIN, GRENADA LAKE, MS ........................................................................................................................................................... 6,664 8,000 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN YAZOO BASIN, MAIN STEM, MS .................................................................................................................................................................. 2,075 3,000 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN YAZOO BASIN, SARDIS LAKE, MS ............................................................................................................................................................... 7,476 11,000 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN YAZOO BASIN, TRIBUTARIES, MS ............................................................................................................................................................... 818 1,000 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN YAZOO BASIN, WILL M WHITTINGTON AUX CHAN, MS ............................................................................................................................... 191 191 PRESIDENT YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO BACKWATER AREA, MS ........................................................................................................................................... 613 613 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN YAZOO BASIN, YAZOO CITY, MS ................................................................................................................................................................. 578 578 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO .................................................................................................................................................. 185 185 PRESIDENT WAPPAPELLO LAKE, MO .............................................................................................................................................................................. 4,819 4,819 PRESIDENT, BOND INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN ................................................................................................................................................... 81 81 PRESIDENT MEMPHIS HARBOR, MCKELLAR LAKE, TN .................................................................................................................................................. 2,866 2,866 PRESIDENT, ALEXANDER, CORKER MAPPING ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,496 1,496 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU 
66 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—FLOOD CONTROL, MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation Requested by 

ANTICIPATED REDUCTION FOR SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE ............................................................................................................................ ........................ ¥11,000 

TOTAL ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 260,000 375,000 
67 

The Committee believes that it is essential to provide adequate 

resources and funding to the Mississippi River and Tributaries program in order to protect the large investment in flood control facilities. Although much progress has been made, considerable work remains to be done for the protection and economic development of 

the rich natural resources in the Valley. The Committee expects 

the additional funds to be used to advance ongoing studies, initiate 

new studies, and advance important construction and maintenance 

work. 

General Investigations 

Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System Land Study, Louisiana.— The Committee has provided $100,000 to initiate this study as recommended in the budget request. 

Morganza to the Gulf, Louisiana.—The Committee has provided $4,000,000 to continue Preconstruction Engineering and Design for 

this study. 

Memphis Metro, Storm Water Management Study, Tennessee and 

Mississippi.—The Committee has provided $148,000 to complete 

the reconnaissance phase and initiate feasibility studies. 

Construction 

Grand Prairie, Arkansas.—The Committee has provided $10,000,000 for continued construction of the project. 

Mississippi River Levees, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisisna, 

Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee.—Additional funds above the 

budget request could be used to continue Item 2, New Madrid levee 

closure and box culvert and mitigation land acquisition for New 

Madrid levee closure and box culvert; award contracts for ReidBedford-King, Item 424–L; Magna Vista-Brunswick, Item 468-L; 

Bayou Vidal-Elkridge, Item 421–R; Carrollton Levee Enlargement; 

continue Floodway assessments; Trotters, Mississippi relief wells; 

Wilson, Arkansas relief wells; Cairo, Illinois Grade Raise and complete LMRMRIS. 

Yazoo Basin, Backwater Pumping Plant, Mississippi.—The Committee has provided $10,000,000 to fully fund pump and motor contracts and initiate purchase of conservation easements. Funds are 

also provided for the center associated with the Theodore Roosevelt 

National Wildlife Refuge. 

Yazoo Basin, Delta Headwaters Project, Mississippi.—The Committee has provided $20,000,000 to continue construction of this 

project. 

Yazoo Basin, Upper Yazoo Project, Mississippi.—The Committee 

has provided $13,000,000 which could be used to fully fund a contract for Item 6B structures; fund a contract for one bridge relocation; fund a contract for Item 7 channel; continue design of Item 

7 and Item 8 channel; purchase project and mitigation lands; and 

reforestation. 

Maintenance 

Mississippi River Levees, Arkasnas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee.—Funds provided above the 

budget request are to provide gravel surfacing to selected locations 

along roads on top of levees in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Lou-
68 

isiana to ensure all weather access for flood fights and for other 

backlog maintenance. 

The Committee has provided additional funding to address the 

maintenance backlog at Arkabutla, Sardis, Enid and Grenada 

Lakes in Mississippi. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $1,973,347,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 2,471,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,291,971,000 

1 Excludes emergency appropriation of $3,000,000. 

This appropriation funds operation, maintenance, and related activities at the water resources projects that the Corps operates and 

maintains. Work to be accomplished consists of dredging, repair, 

and operation of structures and other facilities, as authorized in 

the various River and Harbor, Flood Control, and Water Resources 

Development Acts. Related activities include aquatic plant control, 

monitoring of completed projects where appropriate, removal of 

sunken vessels, and the collection of domestic waterborne commerce statistics. 

The Committee continues to believe that it is essential to provide 

adequate resources and attention to operation and maintenance requirements in order to protect the large Federal investment. In 

order to cope with the current fiscal situation, the Corps has had 

to defer or delay scheduled maintenance activities. 

The O&M budget request appears to have been increased by 

nearly $500,000,000 above the fiscal year 2007 enacted amount. 

However this is very misleading. Shifting of projects from the CG 

account to the O&M account totals almost $300,000,000 of the 

$500,000,000 increase to O&M. That still leaves an increase of 

$200,000,000 for traditional O&M projects. The Committee is 

pleased that the administration has provided this increase to O&M 

for fiscal year 2008. This is the first real increase in many years. 

Unfortunately, the Committee notes that the Corps maintenance 

backlog is more than $1,000,000,000 and increases by about 

$100,000,000 annually as the inventory of projects ages. 

The Committee has chosen to display the budget request as the 

discreet projects that are the tradition as opposed to the regional 

budget proposed by the administration. Also the Committee has 

chosen to migrate the projects that the administration proposed in 

O&M back to their traditional location in the CG account. This 

makes the actual budget request for O&M $2,175,189,000 rather 

than $2,471,000,000 as presented in the budget. A list of these migrated projects is displayed under the CG heading earlier in this 

report. 

Maintenance of our aging water infrastructure inventory gets 

more expensive every year, however, it is consistently underfunded. 

If this trend continues, the Corps will not be able to maintain expected levels of service at all of its projects. The Committee has 

maintained its tradition of supporting what the budget request 

terms as ‘‘low use harbors and waterways’’. The Committee recognizes the importance of these facilities and will continue to provide 

funding for them. 
69 

CORPS HOPPER DREDGE FLEET

During fiscal year 2002, the Committee requested the General 

Accounting Office [GAO] to review the benefits and effects of current and proposed restrictions on the Corps’ hopper dredge fleet. 

The Committee faces significant future investments in the Corps 

hopper dredge fleet, as it is rapidly aging. The Committee believes 

that the investment decisions must take into consideration the subsequent use of the fleet. The final GAO report, released March 

2003, reviewed the impacts of operational changes to the fleet since 

fiscal year 1993. GAO’s findings made it clear to the Committee 

that additional costs have been imposed upon the Corps with the 

decreased use of the fleet, but that the benefits have not been realized. Additionally, the GAO found that the Corps’ contracting process for hopper dredges was not effective. Most importantly, the 

GAO reported that the Corps of Engineers did not have even a limited system to evaluate the costs and benefits of the varying operational levels of its hopper dredge fleet, nor did it have a means 

to make maintenance and repair decisions of the fleet taking operational use into consideration. The Committee remains concerned 

that since 2000, the Corps has provided a report to Congress which 

has been found to have no analytical basis, thus calling into question the ready reserve policy. Therefore, the Committee has provided legislative language which changes the current dredge policy. 

The Committee is concerned that lead and asbestos abatement 

measures have been deferred aboard the McFarland due to guidance in prior Energy and Water Appropriation Acts and uncertainties about its future based on the Corps’ report recommending its 

retirement. The Committee is understandably skeptical of the findings of this report, particularly in light of the GAO study mentioned above. As the McFarland is likely to be in continued use for 

the foreseeable future, the Committee believes that addressing 

these health and safety concerns are critical and have provided legislative direction that the Revolving Fund be utilized to expeditiously fund lead and asbestos abatment. 
70 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation Requested by 

ALABAMA 

ALABAMA—COOSA COMPREHENSIVE WATER STUDY, AL ...................................................................................................................... 500 500 PRESIDENT ALABAMA—COOSA RIVER, AL ................................................................................................................................................................ 3,686 3,686 PRESIDENT, SHELBY, SESSIONS BLACK WARRIOR AND TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, AL ..................................................................................................................................... 20,948 20,948 PRESIDENT, SHELBY GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AL ..................................................................................................................................................... 5,102 5,102 PRESIDENT MILLERS FERRY LOCK AND DAM, WILLIAM ‘‘BILL’’ DANNELLY LA ......................................................................................................... 5,564 5,564 PRESIDENT, SHELBY, SESSIONS MOBILE HARBOR, AL .............................................................................................................................................................................. 20,000 20,000 PRESIDENT, SHELBY PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AL ........................................................................................................................................................ 125 125 PRESIDENT ROBERT F HENRY LOCK AND DAM, AL .................................................................................................................................................. 5,767 5,767 PRESIDENT, SHELBY SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AL ............................................................................................................................................ 99 99 PRESIDENT TENNESSEE—TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY WILDLIFE MITIGATION, AL ......................................................................................................... 1,967 2,000 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN, SHELBY TENNESSEE—TOMBIGBEE WATERWAY, AL & MS .................................................................................................................................. 21,848 26,848 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN, SHELBY WALTER F GEORGE LOCK AND DAM, AL & GA ...................................................................................................................................... 7,039 7,039 PRESIDENT WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, AL ......................................................................................................................................... 35 35 PRESIDENT 

ALASKA 

ANCHORAGE HARBOR, AK ...................................................................................................................................................................... 16,115 16,115 PRESIDENT, STEVENS CHENA RIVER LAKES, AK ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2,601 2,601 PRESIDENT, STEVENS CORDOVA HARBOR, AK .......................................................................................................................................................................... 500 500 PRESIDENT, STEVENS DILLINGHAM HARBOR, AK ...................................................................................................................................................................... 800 800 PRESIDENT, STEVENS HOMER HARBOR, AK .............................................................................................................................................................................. 350 350 PRESIDENT, STEVENS INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AK ............................................................................................................................................... 55 55 PRESIDENT, STEVENS KETCHIKAN HARBOR, BAR POINT, AK .................................................................................................................................................... 600 600 PRESIDENT, STEVENS NINILCHIK HARBOR, AK .......................................................................................................................................................................... 350 350 PRESIDENT, STEVENS NOME HARBOR, AK ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1,650 1,650 PRESIDENT, STEVENS PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AK ........................................................................................................................................................ 525 525 PRESIDENT, STEVENS 

ARIZONA 

ALAMO LAKE, AZ .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,783 1,783 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AZ ............................................................................................................................................... 95 95 PRESIDENT PAINTED ROCK DAM, AZ ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,217 1,217 PRESIDENT SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, AZ ........................................................................................................................................... 37 37 PRESIDENT WHITLOW RANCH DAM, AZ ..................................................................................................................................................................... 183 183 PRESIDENT 
71 

ARKANSAS 

BEAVER LAKE, AR .................................................................................................................................................................................. 5,204 5,204 PRESIDENT BLAKELY MT DAM, LAKE OUACHITA, AR ................................................................................................................................................ 8,043 8,043 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, AR ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2,068 2,068 PRESIDENT BULL SHOALS LAKE, AR ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6,864 6,864 PRESIDENT, BOND, LINCOLN, PRYOR DARDANELLE LOCK AND DAM, AR ......................................................................................................................................................... 7,006 7,006 PRESIDENT DEGRAY LAKE, AR .................................................................................................................................................................................. 9,333 9,333 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR DEQUEEN LAKE, AR ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1,545 1,545 PRESIDENT DIERKS LAKE, AR ................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,653 1,653 PRESIDENT GILLHAM LAKE, AR ................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,078 1,078 PRESIDENT GREERS FERRY LAKE, AR ...................................................................................................................................................................... 6,945 6,945 PRESIDENT HELENA HARBOR, PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR ............................................................................................................................................... 438 438 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, AR ............................................................................................................................................... 228 228 PRESIDENT MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, AR ............................................................................................................ 26,144 29,144 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR MILLWOOD LAKE, AR .............................................................................................................................................................................. 2,360 2,360 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR NARROWS DAM, LAKE GREESON, AR ..................................................................................................................................................... 4,179 4,179 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR NIMROD LAKE, AR .................................................................................................................................................................................. 2,484 2,484 PRESIDENT NORFORK LAKE, AR ................................................................................................................................................................................ 5,794 5,794 PRESIDENT OSCEOLA HARBOR, AR ........................................................................................................................................................................... 12 700 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, AR & LA .............................................................................................................................................. 9,865 9,865 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, LINCOLN, PRYOR, 

VITTER 

OZARK—JETA TAYLOR LOCK AND DAM, AR .......................................................................................................................................... 4,855 4,855 PRESIDENT PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, AR ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 8 PRESIDENT WHITE RIVER, AR ................................................................................................................................................................................... 30 1,000 PRESIDENT, LINCOLN, PRYOR YELLOW BEND PORT, AR ........................................................................................................................................................................ .......................... 176 LINCOLN, PRYOR 

CALIFORNIA 

BLACK BUTTE LAKE, CA ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2,462 2,462 PRESIDENT BUCHANAN DAM, HV EASTMAN LAKE, CA .............................................................................................................................................. 2,257 2,257 PRESIDENT COYOTE VALLEY DAM, LAKE MENDOCINO, CA ....................................................................................................................................... 7,165 7,165 PRESIDENT CRESCENT CITY HARBOR, CA ................................................................................................................................................................ .......................... 500 FEINSTEIN, BOXER DRY CREEK (WARM SPRINGS) LAKE AND CHANNEL, CA ....................................................................................................................... 6,893 6,893 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN FARMINGTON DAM, CA ........................................................................................................................................................................... 453 453 PRESIDENT HIDDEN DAM, HENSLEY LAKE, CA .......................................................................................................................................................... 2,415 2,415 PRESIDENT HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CA ........................................................................................................................................................ 5,600 5,600 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CA ............................................................................................................................................... 1,796 1,796 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN ISABELLA LAKE, CA ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1,414 1,414 PRESIDENT LOS ANGELES—LONG BEACH HARBORS, CA ........................................................................................................................................ 2,560 4,560 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CA ......................................................................................................................................... 4,582 4,582 PRESIDENT MARINA DEL REY, CA ............................................................................................................................................................................. 2,550 2,550 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN 
72 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation Requested by 

MERCED COUNTY STREAMS, CA ............................................................................................................................................................ 351 351 PRESIDENT MOJAVE RIVER DAM, CA ........................................................................................................................................................................ 290 290 PRESIDENT MORRO BAY HARBOR, CA ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1,426 1,426 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN NAPA RIVER, CA ..................................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 500 FEINSTEIN NEW HOGAN LAKE, CA ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2,249 2,249 PRESIDENT NEW MELONES LAKE, DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL, CA .............................................................................................................................. 1,764 1,764 PRESIDENT OAKLAND HARBOR, CA ........................................................................................................................................................................... 7,510 7,510 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN OCEANSIDE HARBOR, CA ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1,115 1,115 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN PETALUMA RIVER, CA ............................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 500 FEINSTEIN PINE FLAT LAKE, CA ............................................................................................................................................................................... 3,395 3,395 PRESIDENT PINOLE SHOAL MANAGEMENT STUDY, CA .............................................................................................................................................. .......................... 500 FEINSTEIN PORT HUENEME, CA ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1,309 1,309 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CA ........................................................................................................................................................ 2,422 2,422 PRESIDENT RICHMOND HARBOR, CA ........................................................................................................................................................................ 7,775 7,775 PRESIDENT SACRAMENTO RIVER (30 FOOT PROJECT), CA ....................................................................................................................................... 3,078 3,078 PRESIDENT SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES (DEBRIS CONTROL), CA .......................................................................................................... 1,432 1,432 PRESIDENT SACRAMENTO RIVER SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL, CA ............................................................................................................................ 173 173 PRESIDENT SAN DIEGO HARBOR, CA ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2,471 2,471 PRESIDENT SAN FRANCISCO BAY LONG TERM MANAGEMENT STRATEGY, CA ......................................................................................................... .......................... 1,000 FEINSTEIN SAN FRANCISCO BAY, DELTA MODEL STRUCTURE, CA .......................................................................................................................... 1,121 1,121 PRESIDENT SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY, CA (DRIFT REMOVAL) .................................................................................................................. 2,805 2,805 PRESIDENT SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CA ................................................................................................................................................................ 2,793 2,793 PRESIDENT SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, CA ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3,094 3,094 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN, BOXER SAN PABLO BAY AND MARE ISLAND STRAIT, CA ................................................................................................................................... .......................... 1,000 FEINSTEIN SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CA ................................................................................................................................................................ 3,455 3,455 PRESIDENT SANTA BARBARA HARBOR, CA ............................................................................................................................................................... 1,940 1,940 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CA ........................................................................................................................................... 1,681 1,681 PRESIDENT SUCCESS LAKE, CA ................................................................................................................................................................................ 2,156 2,156 PRESIDENT SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CA .................................................................................................................................................................... 2,825 2,825 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN TERMINUS DAM, LAKE KAWEAH, CA ....................................................................................................................................................... 2,247 2,247 PRESIDENT VENTURA HARBOR, CA ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3,695 3,695 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN YUBA RIVER, CA ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 117 117 PRESIDENT 
73 

COLORADO 

BEAR CREEK LAKE, CO .......................................................................................................................................................................... 283 283 PRESIDENT CHATFIELD LAKE, CO .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1,013 1,679 PRESIDENT, ALLARD, SALAZAR CHERRY CREEK LAKE, CO ...................................................................................................................................................................... 612 1,280 PRESIDENT, ALLARD, SALAZAR INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CO .............................................................................................................................................. 165 165 PRESIDENT JOHN MARTIN RESERVOIR, CO ............................................................................................................................................................... 5,723 5,723 PRESIDENT SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, CO ........................................................................................................................................... 713 713 PRESIDENT TRINIDAD LAKE, CO ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1,158 1,824 PRESIDENT, ALLARD, SALAZAR 

CONNECTICUT 

BLACK ROCK LAKE, CT ........................................................................................................................................................................... 600 600 PRESIDENT BRIDGEPORT HARBOR DREDGING, CT ................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 500 DODD, LIEBERMAN COLEBROOK RIVER LAKE, CT ................................................................................................................................................................. 858 858 PRESIDENT HANCOCK BROOK LAKE, CT ................................................................................................................................................................... 391 391 PRESIDENT HOP BROOK LAKE, CT ............................................................................................................................................................................ 991 991 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, CT ............................................................................................................................................... 90 90 PRESIDENT LONG ISLAND SOUND DMMP, CT ........................................................................................................................................................... 2,800 2,800 PRESIDENT MANSFIELD HOLLOW LAKE, CT ............................................................................................................................................................... 684 684 PRESIDENT NORTH COVE HARBOR, CT ..................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 2,000 LIEBERMAN NORTHFIELD BROOK LAKE, CT ............................................................................................................................................................... 490 490 PRESIDENT NORWALK HARBOR DREDGING INITIATIVE, CT ....................................................................................................................................... .......................... 3,000 DODD, LIEBERMAN PATCHOGUE RIVER, WESTBROOK, CT .................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 100 DODD, LIEBERMAN PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, CT ........................................................................................................................................................ 1,000 1,000 PRESIDENT STAMFORD HURRICANE BARRIER, CT .................................................................................................................................................... 649 649 PRESIDENT THOMASTON DAM, CT ............................................................................................................................................................................. 826 826 PRESIDENT WEST THOMPSON LAKE, CT .................................................................................................................................................................... 681 681 PRESIDENT 

DELAWARE 

HARBOR OF REFUGE, LEWES, DE .......................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 750 BIDEN, CARPER INDIAN RIVER INLET AND BAY, SUSSEX COUNTY, DE ........................................................................................................................... .......................... 1,500 BIDEN, CARPER INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE R TO CHESAPEAKE BAY, D ..................................................................................................... 11,295 13,295 PRESIDENT, MIKULSKI, BIDEN, CARPER, 

CARDIN 

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, REHOBOTH BAY TO DELAWARE BAY, D ..................................................................................................... 20 20 PRESIDENT MISPILLION RIVER, DE ........................................................................................................................................................................... 20 850 PRESIDENT, BIDEN, CARPER MURDERKILL RIVER, DE ......................................................................................................................................................................... 20 20 PRESIDENT PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DE ........................................................................................................................................................ 131 131 PRESIDENT WILMINGTON HARBOR, DE ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2,683 3,683 PRESIDENT, BIDEN, CARPER 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, DC .............................................................................................................................................. 25 25 PRESIDENT 
74 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation Requested by 

POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS, DC (DRIFT REMOVAL) ................................................................................................................... 850 850 PRESIDENT PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, DC ....................................................................................................................................................... 25 25 PRESIDENT WASHINGTON HARBOR, DC .................................................................................................................................................................... 20 20 PRESIDENT 

FLORIDA 

AIWW, NORFOLK, VA TO ST JOHNS RIVER, FL, GA, SC, NC & ............................................................................................................... 100 100 PRESIDENT CANAVERAL HARBOR, FL ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4,880 4,880 PRESIDENT, MARTINEZ CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, FL ................................................................................................................................................. 13,971 13,971 PRESIDENT EAST PASS CHANNEL, FL ....................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 500 BILL NELSON ESCAMBIA AND CONECUH RIVERS, FL ................................................................................................................................................... 930 930 PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA, SBC RESERVATION PLAN, FL ........................................................................................................ 300 300 PRESIDENT FERNANDINA HARBOR, FL ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1,800 1,800 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, FL ............................................................................................................................................... 300 300 PRESIDENT INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, CALOOSAHATCHEE R TO ANCLOTE R, ....................................................................................................... 150 1,000 PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI, FL ..................................................................................................................... 325 4,000 PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FL .................................................................................................................................................................... 4,750 4,750 PRESIDENT JIM WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM, LAKE SEMINOLE, FL, AL & GA ........................................................................................................... 7,553 7,553 PRESIDENT, SHELBY MANATEE HARBOR, FL ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2,400 2,400 PRESIDENT, MARTINEZ MIAMI HARBOR, FL ................................................................................................................................................................................. 75 75 PRESIDENT MIAMI RIVER, FL .................................................................................................................................................................................... 4,500 7,500 PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ OKEECHOBEE WATERWAY, FL ................................................................................................................................................................. 2,017 2,017 PRESIDENT PALM BEACH HARBOR, FL ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2,170 2,170 PRESIDENT, MARTINEZ PANAMA CITY HARBOR, FL ..................................................................................................................................................................... 953 953 PRESIDENT PENSACOLA HARBOR, FL ........................................................................................................................................................................ 935 935 PRESIDENT PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, FL ........................................................................................................................................................ 1,075 1,075 PRESIDENT REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, FL ...................................................................................................................................................... 3,650 3,650 PRESIDENT SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, FL ............................................................................................................................................ 30 30 PRESIDENT TAMPA HARBOR, FL ................................................................................................................................................................................ 4,250 4,250 PRESIDENT, BILL NELSON, MARTINEZ WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, FL ......................................................................................................................................... 300 300 PRESIDENT 

GEORGIA 

ALLATOONA LAKE, GA ............................................................................................................................................................................. 5,452 5,452 PRESIDENT APALACHICOLA, CHATTAHOOCHEE AND FLINT RIVERS, GA, AL & .......................................................................................................... 4,045 2,000 PRESIDENT, SHELBY ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GA .............................................................................................................................................. 257 1,000 PRESIDENT, CHAMBLISS, ISAKSON 
75 

BRUNSWICK HARBOR, GA ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4,993 4,993 PRESIDENT BUFORD DAM AND LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GA ........................................................................................................................................ 7,960 7,960 PRESIDENT CARTERS DAM AND LAKE, GA ................................................................................................................................................................ 7,445 7,445 PRESIDENT HARTWELL LAKE, GA & SC ..................................................................................................................................................................... 10,774 10,774 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, GA .............................................................................................................. 50 50 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, GA ............................................................................................................................................... 48 48 PRESIDENT J STROM THURMOND LAKE, GA & SC .................................................................................................................................................... 10,201 10,201 PRESIDENT PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, GA ........................................................................................................................................................ 325 325 PRESIDENT RICHARD B RUSSELL DAM AND LAKE, GA & SC ................................................................................................................................... 7,384 7,384 PRESIDENT SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA ......................................................................................................................................................................... 12,906 12,906 PRESIDENT SAVANNAH RIVER BELOW AUGUSTA, GA ................................................................................................................................................ 243 243 PRESIDENT WEST POINT DAM AND LAKE, GA & AL .................................................................................................................................................. 12,147 12,147 PRESIDENT 

HAWAII 

BARBERS POINT HARBOR, HI ................................................................................................................................................................. 218 218 PRESIDENT HALEIWA HARBOR, OAHU, HI ................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 220 INOUYE INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, HI ................................................................................................................................................ 216 326 PRESIDENT, INOUYE PORT ALLEN, BREAKWATER REPAIR, HI ................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 1,700 INOUYE PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, HI ......................................................................................................................................................... 360 360 PRESIDENT, INOUYE WAIANAE HARBOR, HI ............................................................................................................................................................................ .......................... 220 INOUYE 

IDAHO 

ALBENI FALLS DAM, ID ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1,614 1,614 PRESIDENT DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR, ID ................................................................................................................................................... 4,073 4,073 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ID ................................................................................................................................................ 82 82 PRESIDENT LUCKY PEAK LAKE, ID ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1,741 1,741 PRESIDENT SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ID ............................................................................................................................................ 456 456 PRESIDENT 

ILLINOIS 

CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, IL & IN ................................................................................................................................................ 3,852 3,852 PRESIDENT CARLYLE LAKE, IL .................................................................................................................................................................................. 4,443 4,443 PRESIDENT CHICAGO HARBOR, IL ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1,875 1,875 PRESIDENT CHICAGO RIVER, IL ................................................................................................................................................................................ 450 450 PRESIDENT CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL ................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 500 DURBIN FARM CREEK RESERVOIRS, IL ............................................................................................................................................................... 396 396 PRESIDENT ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVR PORTION), IL & IN ....................................................................................................................................... 31,379 31,379 PRESIDENT ILLINOIS WATERWAY (MVS PORTION), IL & IN ....................................................................................................................................... 1,929 1,929 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IL ................................................................................................................................................ 857 857 PRESIDENT KASKASKIA RIVER NAVIGATION, IL ......................................................................................................................................................... 3,175 3,175 PRESIDENT LAKE MICHIGAN DIVERSION, IL .............................................................................................................................................................. 624 624 PRESIDENT 
76 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation Requested by 

LAKE SHELBYVILLE, IL ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5,072 5,072 PRESIDENT, DURBIN MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVR PORTION) ....................................................................................................... 48,425 49,970 PRESIDENT, BOND, GRASSLEY MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVS PORTION) ....................................................................................................... 26,657 26,657 PRESIDENT, GRASSLEY PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IL ......................................................................................................................................................... 99 99 PRESIDENT REND LAKE, IL ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 4,424 4,424 PRESIDENT SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IL ......................................................................................................................... 123 123 PRESIDENT WAUKEGAN HARBOR, IL ......................................................................................................................................................................... 718 718 PRESIDENT 

INDIANA 

BROOKVILLE LAKE, IN ............................................................................................................................................................................ 945 945 PRESIDENT BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, IN ............................................................................................................................................................ 3,680 3,680 PRESIDENT CAGLES MILL LAKE, IN ........................................................................................................................................................................... 830 830 PRESIDENT CECIL M HARDEN LAKE, IN .................................................................................................................................................................... 916 916 PRESIDENT INDIANA HARBOR, IN .............................................................................................................................................................................. 760 760 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IN ................................................................................................................................................ 300 300 PRESIDENT J EDWARD ROUSH LAKE, IN ................................................................................................................................................................... 2,022 2,022 PRESIDENT MISSISSINEWA LAKE, IN ......................................................................................................................................................................... 970 970 PRESIDENT MONROE LAKE, IN .................................................................................................................................................................................. 971 971 PRESIDENT PATOKA LAKE, IN .................................................................................................................................................................................... 952 952 PRESIDENT PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, IN ......................................................................................................................................................... 177 177 PRESIDENT SALAMONIE LAKE, IN .............................................................................................................................................................................. 831 831 PRESIDENT SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, IN ........................................................................................................................ 117 117 PRESIDENT 

IOWA 

CORALVILLE LAKE, IA ............................................................................................................................................................................. 3,169 3,169 PRESIDENT, GRASSLEY INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, IA ................................................................................................................................................ 227 227 PRESIDENT MISSOURI RIVER—KENSLERS BEND, NE TO SIOUX CITY, IA ................................................................................................................ 161 161 PRESIDENT MISSOURI RIVER—RULO TO MOUTH, IA, NE, KS & MO ........................................................................................................................ 4,615 6,000 PRESIDENT, BOND, GRASSLEY MISSOURI RIVER—SIOUX CITY TO RULO, IA & NE ............................................................................................................................... 1,889 1,889 PRESIDENT RATHBUN LAKE, IA ................................................................................................................................................................................. 3,067 3,067 PRESIDENT, GRASSLEY RED ROCK DAM AND LAKE RED ROCK, IA ............................................................................................................................................. 3,650 3,650 PRESIDENT, GRASSLEY SAYLORVILLE LAKE, IA ........................................................................................................................................................................... 4,308 4,308 PRESIDENT, GRASSLEY 
77 

KANSAS 

CLINTON LAKE, KS .................................................................................................................................................................................. 2,112 2,112 PRESIDENT COUNCIL GROVE LAKE, KS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1,594 1,594 PRESIDENT EL DORADO LAKE, KS ............................................................................................................................................................................. 402 402 PRESIDENT ELK CITY LAKE, KS ................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,063 1,063 PRESIDENT FALL RIVER LAKE, KS ............................................................................................................................................................................. 2,489 2,489 PRESIDENT HILLSDALE LAKE, KS .............................................................................................................................................................................. 871 871 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KS ............................................................................................................................................... 222 222 PRESIDENT JOHN REDMOND DAM AND RESERVOIR, KS ........................................................................................................................................... 2,689 2,689 PRESIDENT KANOPOLIS LAKE, KS .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1,366 1,366 PRESIDENT MARION LAKE, KS ................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,671 1,671 PRESIDENT MELVERN LAKE, KS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 2,099 2,099 PRESIDENT MILFORD LAKE, KS ................................................................................................................................................................................. 2,569 2,569 PRESIDENT PEARSON—SKUBITZ BIG HILL LAKE, KS ............................................................................................................................................... 1,047 1,047 PRESIDENT PERRY LAKE, KS ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,252 2,252 PRESIDENT POMONA LAKE, KS .................................................................................................................................................................................. 2,174 2,174 PRESIDENT SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, KS ........................................................................................................................................... 39 39 PRESIDENT TORONTO LAKE, KS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1,551 1,551 PRESIDENT TUTTLE CREEK LAKE, KS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2,406 2,406 PRESIDENT WILSON LAKE, KS ................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,667 1,667 PRESIDENT, ROBERTS 

KENTUCKY 

BARKLEY DAM AND LAKE BARKLEY, KY & TN ....................................................................................................................................... 10,975 10,975 PRESIDENT BARREN RIVER LAKE, KY ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2,007 2,007 PRESIDENT BIG SANDY HARBOR, KY ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,393 1,393 PRESIDENT BUCKHORN LAKE, KY ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1,734 1,734 PRESIDENT CARR CREEK LAKE, KY .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,644 1,644 PRESIDENT CAVE RUN LAKE, KY ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1,039 1,039 PRESIDENT DEWEY LAKE, KY .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,704 1,704 PRESIDENT ELVIS STAHR (HICKMAN) HARBOR, KY ................................................................................................................................................... 9 9 PRESIDENT FISHTRAP LAKE, KY ................................................................................................................................................................................ 2,162 2,162 PRESIDENT GRAYSON LAKE, KY ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1,316 1,316 PRESIDENT GREEN AND BARREN RIVERS, KY .......................................................................................................................................................... 2,294 2,294 PRESIDENT GREEN RIVER LAKE, KY ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,838 1,838 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, KY ............................................................................................................................................... 237 237 PRESIDENT KENTUCKY RIVER, KY ............................................................................................................................................................................. 20 20 PRESIDENT LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KY ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,587 1,587 PRESIDENT MARTINS FORK LAKE, KY ....................................................................................................................................................................... 986 986 PRESIDENT MIDDLESBORO CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KY .................................................................................................................................... 897 897 PRESIDENT NOLIN LAKE, KY ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,229 2,229 PRESIDENT 
78 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation Requested by 

OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, KY, IL, IN & OH .................................................................................................................................. 38,861 38,861 PRESIDENT OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, KY, IL, IN & OH ............................................................................................................................ 4,330 4,330 PRESIDENT PAINTSVILLE LAKE, KY ............................................................................................................................................................................ 857 857 PRESIDENT ROUGH RIVER LAKE, KY ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2,289 2,289 PRESIDENT TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, FALLS, OF OHIO, KY ............................................................................................................................................. 16 16 PRESIDENT TAYLORSVILLE LAKE, KY ......................................................................................................................................................................... 955 955 PRESIDENT WOLF CREEK DAM, LAKE CUMBERLAND, KY .......................................................................................................................................... 8,804 9,804 PRESIDENT, MCCONNELL YATESVILLE LAKE, KY ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1,028 1,028 PRESIDENT 

LOUISIANA 

ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF AND BLACK, L ....................................................................................................... 6,717 14,000 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER BARATARIA BAY WATERWAY, LA ............................................................................................................................................................ .......................... 1,000 LANDRIEU BAYOU BODCAU RESERVOIR, LA ............................................................................................................................................................ 766 766 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU BAYOU LACOMBE, LA ............................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 450 LANDRIEU BAYOU LAFOURCHE AND LAFOURCHE JUMP WATERWAY, LA ................................................................................................................. 1,273 1,273 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU BAYOU PIERRE, LA ................................................................................................................................................................................. 35 35 PRESIDENT BAYOU SEGNETTE WATERWAY, LA ......................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 750 LANDRIEU BAYOU TECHE AND VERMILION RIVER, LA ............................................................................................................................................ 60 270 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU BAYOU TECHE, LA .................................................................................................................................................................................. 209 209 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU CADDO LAKE, LA .................................................................................................................................................................................... 196 196 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LA ........................................................................................................................................................... 16,108 20,000 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER FRESHWATER BAYOU, LA ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5,570 5,570 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, LA ..................................................................................................................................................... 21,851 21,851 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER HOUMA NAVIGATION CANAL, LA ............................................................................................................................................................. 135 2,000 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, LA ............................................................................................................................................... 1,025 1,025 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU J BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, LA ................................................................................................................................................... 10,431 12,431 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER LAKE PROVIDENCE HARBOR, LA ............................................................................................................................................................ 25 546 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU, VITTER MADISON PARISH PORT, LA ................................................................................................................................................................... 4 81 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU MERMENTAU RIVER, LA .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,685 1,685 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU MISSISSIPPI RIVER OUTLETS AT VENICE, LA ......................................................................................................................................... 290 2,000 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BATON ROUGE TO THE GULF OF MEXICO .............................................................................................................. 59,424 59,424 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, LA ........................................................................................................................................................ 60 60 PRESIDENT REMOVAL OF AQUATIC GROWTH, LA ...................................................................................................................................................... 2,000 2,000 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU TANGIPAHOA RIVER, LA .......................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 700 LANDRIEU 
79 

TCHEFUNCTE RIVER & BOGUE FALIA, LA ............................................................................................................................................... .......................... 400 LANDRIEU WALLACE LAKE, LA ................................................................................................................................................................................. 211 211 PRESIDENT, LANDRIEU WATERWAY FROM EMPIRE TO THE GULF, LA ......................................................................................................................................... .......................... 1,500 LANDRIEU WATERWAY FROM INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY TO BAYOU DULAC, LA ................................................................................................... .......................... 125 LANDRIEU 

MAINE 

DISPOSAL AREA MONITORING, ME ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,100 1,100 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ME .............................................................................................................................................. 20 20 PRESIDENT NARRAGUAGUS RIVER, ME ..................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 1,000 SNOWE, COLLINS PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, ME ....................................................................................................................................................... 760 760 PRESIDENT SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, ME ....................................................................................................................... 17 17 PRESIDENT 

MARYLAND 

BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS (50 FOOT), MD ........................................................................................................................... 16,655 18,655 PRESIDENT, MIKULSKI, CARDIN BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD (DRIFT REMOVAL) ......................................................................................................................................... 335 335 PRESIDENT, MIKULSKI, CARDIN CUMBERLAND, MD AND RIDGELEY, WV ................................................................................................................................................. 168 168 PRESIDENT GOOSE CREEK, MD ................................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 120 MIKULSKI, CARDIN HERRING BAY AND ROCKHOLD, MD ....................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 700 MIKULSKI, CARDIN HONGA RIVER AND TAR BAY, MD .......................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 1,000 MIKULSKI, CARDIN INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MD .............................................................................................................................................. 40 40 PRESIDENT JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MD & WV .................................................................................................................................................. 1,722 1,722 PRESIDENT OCEAN CITY HARBOR AND INLET AND SINEPUXENT BAY, MD .............................................................................................................. 150 150 PRESIDENT PARISH CREEK, MD ................................................................................................................................................................................ .......................... 60 MIKULSKI, CARDIN PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MD ....................................................................................................................................................... 380 380 PRESIDENT RHODES POINT TO TYLERTON, MD ......................................................................................................................................................... 140 140 PRESIDENT SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MD .......................................................................................................................................... 89 89 PRESIDENT TWITCH COVE AND BIG THOROFARE RIVER, MD ................................................................................................................................... .......................... 140 MIKULSKI, CARDIN WICOMICO RIVER, MD ............................................................................................................................................................................ 800 800 PRESIDENT, MIKULSKI, CARDIN 

MASSACHUSETTS 

BARRE FALLS DAM, MA .......................................................................................................................................................................... 922 922 PRESIDENT BIRCH HILL DAM, MA ............................................................................................................................................................................. 795 795 PRESIDENT BOSTON HARBOR, MA ............................................................................................................................................................................ 7,000 7,000 PRESIDENT, KENNEDY, KERRY BUFFUMVILLE LAKE, MA ......................................................................................................................................................................... 637 637 PRESIDENT CAPE COD CANAL, MA ........................................................................................................................................................................... 9,200 9,200 PRESIDENT CHARLES RIVER NATURAL VALLEY STORAGE AREA, MA ........................................................................................................................ 358 358 PRESIDENT CONANT BROOK LAKE, MA ..................................................................................................................................................................... 280 280 PRESIDENT EAST BRIMFIELD LAKE, MA .................................................................................................................................................................... 525 525 PRESIDENT HODGES VILLAGE DAM, MA .................................................................................................................................................................... 658 658 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MA .............................................................................................................................................. 129 129 PRESIDENT 
80 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation Requested by 

KNIGHTVILLE DAM, MA ........................................................................................................................................................................... 728 728 PRESIDENT LITTLEVILLE LAKE, MA ............................................................................................................................................................................ 734 734 PRESIDENT NEW BEDFORD FAIRHAVEN AND ACUSHNET HURRICANE BARRIER ....................................................................................................... 385 385 PRESIDENT PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MA ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,100 1,100 PRESIDENT TULLY LAKE, MA ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 852 852 PRESIDENT WEST HILL DAM, MA .............................................................................................................................................................................. 767 767 PRESIDENT WESTVILLE LAKE, MA ............................................................................................................................................................................. 691 691 PRESIDENT 

MICHIGAN 

ARCADIA HARBOR, MI ............................................................................................................................................................................ .......................... 159 LEVIN, STABENOW AU SABLE, MI ......................................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 214 LEVIN, STABENOW BAY PORT HARBOR, MI .......................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 550 LEVIN, STABENOW BOLLES HARBOR, MI .............................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 388 LEVIN, STABENOW CASEVILLE HARBOR, MI ......................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 114 LEVIN, STABENOW CHANNELS IN LAKE ST CLAIR, MI .......................................................................................................................................................... 90 90 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW CHARLEVOIX HARBOR, MI ...................................................................................................................................................................... 188 188 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW CLINTON RIVER, MI ................................................................................................................................................................................ .......................... 330 LEVIN, STABENOW CROOKED RIVER LOCK UPGRADES, MI .................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 375 LEVIN, STABENOW DETROIT RIVER, MI ................................................................................................................................................................................ 5,523 5,523 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW FRANKFORT HARBOR, MI ........................................................................................................................................................................ .......................... 237 LEVIN, STABENOW GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MI ................................................................................................................................................................... 656 656 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW GRAND MARAIS HARBOR, MI ................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 1,500 LEVIN, STABENOW GRAYS REEF PASSAGE, MI ..................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 125 LEVIN, STABENOW HOLLAND HARBOR, MI ........................................................................................................................................................................... 497 497 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW INLAND ROUTE, MI ................................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 400 LEVIN, STABENOW INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MI ............................................................................................................................................... 149 149 PRESIDENT KEWEENAW WATERWAY, MI .................................................................................................................................................................... 15 250 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW LELAND HARBOR, MI .............................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 190 LEVIN, STABENOW LEXINGTON HARBOR, MI ........................................................................................................................................................................ .......................... 175 LEVIN, STABENOW LITTLE LAKE HARBOR, MI ....................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 311 LEVIN, STABENOW LUDINGTON HARBOR, MI ........................................................................................................................................................................ .......................... 500 LEVIN, STABENOW MANISTEE HARBOR, MI .......................................................................................................................................................................... 677 1,196 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW MARQUETTE HARBOR, MI ....................................................................................................................................................................... 387 387 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW MENOMINEE HARBOR, MI ....................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 300 LEVIN, STABENOW 
81 

MONROE HARBOR, MI ............................................................................................................................................................................ .......................... 500 LEVIN, STABENOW MUSKEGON HARBOR, MI ........................................................................................................................................................................ 566 566 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW NEW BUFFALO HARBOR, MI ................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 130 LEVIN, STABENOW ONTONAGON HARBOR, MI ...................................................................................................................................................................... 643 643 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW PENTWATER HARBOR, MI ....................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 163 LEVIN, STABENOW PETOSKEY HARBOR, MI .......................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 3,198 LEVIN, STABENOW PORT SANILAC HARBOR, MI ................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 150 LEVIN, STABENOW PORTAGE HARBOR, MI ........................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 245 LEVIN, STABENOW PRESQUE ISLE HARBOR, MI ................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 320 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MI ........................................................................................................................................................ 184 184 PRESIDENT ROUGE RIVER, MI ................................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 900 LEVIN, STABENOW SAGINAW RIVER, MI ............................................................................................................................................................................... 2,148 2,148 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW SAUGATUCK HARBOR, MI ....................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 315 LEVIN, STABENOW SEBEWAING RIVER, MI ........................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 337 LEVIN, STABENOW SOUTH HAVEN HARBOR, MI ................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 302 LEVIN, STABENOW ST CLAIR RIVER, MI ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1,515 1,515 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW ST JOSEPH HARBOR, MI ......................................................................................................................................................................... 667 667 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW ST MARYS RIVER, MI ............................................................................................................................................................................. 21,999 21,999 PRESIDENT, LEVIN, STABENOW SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MI ........................................................................................................................ 2,806 2,806 PRESIDENT WHITE LAKE HARBOR, MI ....................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 319 LEVIN, STABENOW 

MINNESOTA 

BIGSTONE LAKE WHETSTONE RIVER, MN & SD ..................................................................................................................................... 242 242 PRESIDENT DULUTH—SUPERIOR HARBOR, MN & WI .............................................................................................................................................. 3,794 3,794 PRESIDENT HARRIET ISLAND LOWER HARBOR DREDGING, MN ................................................................................................................................ .......................... 100 COLEMAN, KLOBUCHAR INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MN .............................................................................................................................................. 129 129 PRESIDENT INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES, MN .................................................................................................................................................... 105 105 PRESIDENT LAC QUI PARLE LAKES, MINNESOTA RIVER, MN .................................................................................................................................... 713 713 PRESIDENT MINNESOTA RIVER, MN .......................................................................................................................................................................... 194 194 PRESIDENT MISS RIVER BTWN MO RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS (MVP PORTION) ....................................................................................................... 53,025 53,025 PRESIDENT ORWELL LAKE, MN ................................................................................................................................................................................. 341 341 PRESIDENT PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MN ....................................................................................................................................................... 70 70 PRESIDENT RED LAKE RESERVOIR, MN .................................................................................................................................................................... 133 133 PRESIDENT RESERVOIRS AT HEADWATERS OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MN ................................................................................................................... 3,700 3,700 PRESIDENT, COLEMAN SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, MN ...................................................................................................................... 223 223 PRESIDENT TWO HARBORS, MN ................................................................................................................................................................................ 368 368 PRESIDENT 

MISSISSIPPI 

BILOXI HARBOR, MS ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1,250 1,250 PRESIDENT CLAIBORNE COUNTY PORT, MS .............................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 63 COCHRAN 
82 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation Requested by 

EAST FORK, TOMBIGBEE RIVER, MS ...................................................................................................................................................... 135 135 PRESIDENT GULFPORT HARBOR, MS ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3,559 5,059 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MS .............................................................................................................................................. 153 153 PRESIDENT MOUTH OF YAZOO RIVER, MS ................................................................................................................................................................ 110 134 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN OKATIBBEE LAKE, MS ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1,455 1,895 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MS .................................................................................................................................................................... 4,646 12,000 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN, LOTT PEARL RIVER, MS & LA ......................................................................................................................................................................... 212 212 PRESIDENT PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, MS ....................................................................................................................................................... 100 100 PRESIDENT ROSEDALE HARBOR, MS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 20 600 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN WATER/ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION, MS ........................................................................................................................................ 25 25 PRESIDENT YAZOO RIVER, MS .................................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 140 COCHRAN 

MISSOURI 

CARUTHERSVILLE HARBOR, MO ............................................................................................................................................................. 10 500 PRESIDENT, BOND CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE, MO ........................................................................................................................ 5,692 5,692 PRESIDENT, BOND CLEARWATER LAKE, MO ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3,899 3,899 PRESIDENT, BOND HARRY S TRUMAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, MO ...................................................................................................................................... 9,324 9,324 PRESIDENT, BOND INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, MO ............................................................................................................. 62 62 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MO .............................................................................................................................................. 799 799 PRESIDENT LITTLE BLUE RIVER LAKES, MO ............................................................................................................................................................. 1,065 1,065 PRESIDENT LONG BRANCH LAKE, MO ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1,036 1,036 PRESIDENT MISS RIVER BTWN THE OHIO AND MO RIVERS (LOWER RIVER) ........................................................................................................... 25,813 25,813 PRESIDENT, BOND NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO .................................................................................................................................................................... 783 783 PRESIDENT, BOND NEW MADRID HARBOR, MO (MILE 889) ................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 200 BOND POMME DE TERRE LAKE, MO ................................................................................................................................................................. 2,162 2,162 PRESIDENT SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MO .......................................................................................................................................... 327 327 PRESIDENT SMITHVILLE LAKE, MO ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1,376 1,376 PRESIDENT SOUTHEAST MISSOURI PORT, MO .......................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 275 BOND STOCKTON LAKE, MO .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3,776 3,776 PRESIDENT TABLE ROCK LAKE, MO .......................................................................................................................................................................... 6,326 6,326 PRESIDENT, BOND UNION LAKE, MO .................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 6 PRESIDENT 

MONTANA 

FT PECK DAM AND LAKE, MT ................................................................................................................................................................. 4,862 4,862 PRESIDENT 
83 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, MT .............................................................................................................................................. 32 32 PRESIDENT LIBBY DAM, LAKE KOOCANUSA, MT ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,891 1,891 PRESIDENT SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, MT ........................................................................................................................................... 90 90 PRESIDENT 

NEBRASKA 

GAVINS POINT DAM, LEWIS AND CLARK LAKE, NE & SD ....................................................................................................................... 5,625 5,625 PRESIDENT HARLAN COUNTY LAKE, NE .................................................................................................................................................................... 2,173 2,173 PRESIDENT, HAGEL INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NE ............................................................................................................................................... 117 117 PRESIDENT PAPILLION CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES LAKES, NE ................................................................................................................................... 387 387 PRESIDENT PAPIO CREEK, NE ................................................................................................................................................................................... 40 40 PRESIDENT SALT CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, NE ....................................................................................................................................................... 585 585 PRESIDENT 

NEVADA 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NV ............................................................................................................................................... 48 48 PRESIDENT MARTIS CREEK LAKE, NV & CA ............................................................................................................................................................. 812 812 PRESIDENT PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS LAKES, NV ............................................................................................................................................ 247 247 PRESIDENT 

NEW HAMPSHIRE 

BLACKWATER DAM, NH .......................................................................................................................................................................... 779 779 PRESIDENT COCHECO RIVER, NH ............................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 3,000 GREGG EDWARD MACDOWELL LAKE, NH ............................................................................................................................................................ 667 667 PRESIDENT FRANKLIN FALLS DAM, NH ..................................................................................................................................................................... 749 749 PRESIDENT HOPKINTON—EVERETT LAKES, NH ........................................................................................................................................................ 1,281 1,281 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NH .............................................................................................................................................. 28 28 PRESIDENT OTTER BROOK LAKE, NH ........................................................................................................................................................................ 802 802 PRESIDENT PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NH ....................................................................................................................................................... 233 233 PRESIDENT SURRY MOUNTAIN LAKE, NH .................................................................................................................................................................. 1,238 1,238 PRESIDENT 

NEW JERSEY 

ABSECON INLET, NJ ................................................................................................................................................................................ .......................... 145 LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ BARNEGAT INLET, NJ .............................................................................................................................................................................. 54 1,000 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ COLD SPRING INLET, NJ ......................................................................................................................................................................... 250 650 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ DELAWARE RIVER AT CAMDEN, NJ ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 5 PRESIDENT DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA, NJ, PA & DE ............................................................................................................... 20,005 20,005 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, SPECTER, 

MENENDEZ 

DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA, PA TO TRENTON, NJ ........................................................................................................................ 870 2,375 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, SPECTER, 

MENENDEZ 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NJ ............................................................................................................................................... 120 123 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ MANASQUAN RIVER, NJ .......................................................................................................................................................................... 200 200 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NJ ......................................................................................................................................... 50 2,110 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC RIVERS, NJ ......................................................................................................................... 3,410 3,410 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ 
84 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation Requested by 

PASSAIC RIVER FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS, NJ ..................................................................................................................................... 575 575 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NJ ........................................................................................................................................................ 1,312 1,312 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ RARITAN RIVER, NJ ................................................................................................................................................................................ 3,150 3,150 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ SALEM RIVER, NJ ................................................................................................................................................................................... 25 25 PRESIDENT SHARK RIVER, NJ ................................................................................................................................................................................... 300 300 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ SHOAL HARBOR AND COMPTON CREEK, NJ ........................................................................................................................................... 175 175 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ SHREWSBURY RIVER, MAIN CHANNEL, NJ ............................................................................................................................................. 150 150 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ 

NEW MEXICO 

ABIQUIU DAM, NM .................................................................................................................................................................................. 2,693 3,097 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN COCHITI LAKE, NM ................................................................................................................................................................................. 4,493 7,815 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN CONCHAS LAKE, NM ............................................................................................................................................................................... 3,533 7,556 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN GALISTEO DAM, NM ................................................................................................................................................................................ 899 1,404 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NM .............................................................................................................................................. 166 1,060 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN JEMEZ CANYON DAM, NM ...................................................................................................................................................................... 13,868 2,177 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN RIO GRANDE BOSQUE REHABILITATION, NM .......................................................................................................................................... .......................... 4,000 DOMENICI, BINGAMAN SANTA ROSA DAM AND LAKE, NM .......................................................................................................................................................... 1,711 2,210 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, NM .......................................................................................................................................... 291 291 PRESIDENT TWO RIVERS DAM, NM ........................................................................................................................................................................... 689 781 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN UPPER RIO GRANDE WATER OPERATIONS MODEL STUDY, NM .............................................................................................................. 2,270 2,670 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN 

NEW YORK 

ALMOND LAKE, NY .................................................................................................................................................................................. 583 583 PRESIDENT ARKPORT DAM, NY ................................................................................................................................................................................. 320 320 PRESIDENT BLACK ROCK CHANNEL AND TONAWANDA HARBOR, NY ........................................................................................................................ 1,368 1,368 PRESIDENT BRONX RIVER, NY .................................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 1,000 SCHUMER, CLINTON BUFFALO HARBOR, NY ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2,045 2,045 PRESIDENT BUTTERMILK CHANNEL, NY .................................................................................................................................................................... 300 300 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON EAST ROCKAWAY INLET, NY ................................................................................................................................................................... 480 480 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY .......................................................................................................................................................................... 671 671 PRESIDENT EASTCHESTER CREEK, NY ...................................................................................................................................................................... 80 80 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON FIRE ISLAND INLET TO JONES INLET, NY ............................................................................................................................................... 350 2,000 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NY ............................................................................................................................................................. 150 150 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON GLEN COVE CREEK, NY .......................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 350 SCHUMER, CLINTON 
85 

GREAT KILLS HARBOR, S.I., NY .............................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 50 SCHUMER, CLINTON GREAT SOUTH BAY, NY .......................................................................................................................................................................... 150 150 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON HUDSON RIVER CHANNEL, NY ................................................................................................................................................................ 80 80 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON HUDSON RIVER, NY (MAINT) .................................................................................................................................................................. 3,190 3,190 PRESIDENT HUDSON RIVER, NY (O&C) ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1,155 1,155 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NY ............................................................................................................................................... 809 809 PRESIDENT JAMAICA BAY, NY ................................................................................................................................................................................... 3,400 3,400 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON JONES INLET, NY .................................................................................................................................................................................... 100 3,000 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, NY ................................................................................................................................................................. 120 120 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON LITTLE SODUS BAY HARBOR, NY ........................................................................................................................................................... 10 10 PRESIDENT LONG ISLAND INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NY ....................................................................................................................................... 280 280 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON MORICHES INLET, NY ............................................................................................................................................................................. 180 900 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON MOUNT MORRIS DAM, NY ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3,985 3,985 PRESIDENT NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY CHANNELS, NY ....................................................................................................................................... 7,960 7,960 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ, 

SCHUMER, CLINTON 

NEW YORK HARBOR, NY ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4,580 4,580 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ, 

SCHUMER, CLINTON 

NEW YORK HARBOR, NY & NJ (DRIFT REMOVAL) .................................................................................................................................. 6,145 6,145 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ, 

SCHUMER, CLINTON 

NEW YORK HARBOR, NY (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSIT ...................................................................................................... 950 950 PRESIDENT, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ, 

SCHUMER, CLINTON 

PORTCHESTER HARBOR, NY ................................................................................................................................................................... 100 100 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NY ........................................................................................................................................................ 1,516 1,516 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON ROCHESTER HARBOR, NY ...................................................................................................................................................................... 10 10 PRESIDENT SHINNECOCK INLET, NY ......................................................................................................................................................................... 210 1,000 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON SOUTHERN NEW YORK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS, NY ....................................................................................................................... 1,149 1,149 PRESIDENT SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, NY ....................................................................................................................... 496 496 PRESIDENT WESTCHESTER CREEK, NY ..................................................................................................................................................................... 80 80 PRESIDENT, SCHUMER, CLINTON WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY ...................................................................................................................................................................... 676 676 PRESIDENT 

NORTH CAROLINA 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NC ............................................................................................................................................. 4,900 7,000 PRESIDENT, DOLE, BURR B EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE, NC ............................................................................................................................................... 1,817 1,817 PRESIDENT BOGUE INLET, NC ................................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 900 DOLE, BURR CAPE FEAR RIVER ABOVE WILMINGTON, NC .......................................................................................................................................... 588 588 PRESIDENT CAROLINA BEACH INLET, NC .................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 600 DOLE, BURR FALLS LAKE, NC ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,013 2,013 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, NC .............................................................................................................................................. 39 39 PRESIDENT LOCKWOODS FOLLY RIVER, NC .............................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 1,000 DOLE, BURR MANTEO (SHALLOWBAG) BAY, NC .......................................................................................................................................................... 7,600 10,600 PRESIDENT, DOLE, BURR 
86 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation Requested by 

MASONBORO INLET AND CONNECTING CHANNELS, NC ......................................................................................................................... 65 600 PRESIDENT, DOLE, BURR MOREHEAD CITY HARBOR, NC ............................................................................................................................................................... 5,500 5,500 PRESIDENT, DOLE, BURR NEW RIVER INLET, NC ............................................................................................................................................................................ 500 500 PRESIDENT, DOLE, BURR NEW TOPSAIL INLET, NC ........................................................................................................................................................................ .......................... 900 DOLE, BURR PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, NC ....................................................................................................................................................... 675 675 PRESIDENT ROLLINSON CHANNEL, NC ...................................................................................................................................................................... 650 650 PRESIDENT SILVER LAKE HARBOR, NC ..................................................................................................................................................................... 900 900 PRESIDENT W KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NC ............................................................................................................................................ 3,050 3,050 PRESIDENT WILMINGTON HARBOR, NC ..................................................................................................................................................................... 11,200 11,200 PRESIDENT, DOLE, BURR 

NORTH DAKOTA 

BOWMAN—HALEY LAKE, ND .................................................................................................................................................................. 140 140 PRESIDENT GARRISON DAM, LAKE SAKAKAWEA, ND ................................................................................................................................................. 9,261 10,411 PRESIDENT, DORGAN HOMME LAKE, ND ................................................................................................................................................................................... 176 176 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, ND .............................................................................................................................................. 91 91 PRESIDENT INTERNATIONAL WATER STUDIES, ND .................................................................................................................................................... 35 35 PRESIDENT LAKE ASHTABULA AND BALDHILL DAM, ND ........................................................................................................................................... 1,289 1,289 PRESIDENT PIPESTEM LAKE, ND ............................................................................................................................................................................... 185 185 PRESIDENT PIPESTEM LAKE, ND ............................................................................................................................................................................... 342 342 PRESIDENT SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, ND ........................................................................................................................................... 120 120 PRESIDENT SOURIS RIVER, ND ................................................................................................................................................................................. 279 279 PRESIDENT 

OHIO 

ALUM CREEK LAKE, OH .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,102 1,102 PRESIDENT ASHTABULA HARBOR, OH ....................................................................................................................................................................... 900 900 PRESIDENT, VOINOVICH BERLIN LAKE, OH ................................................................................................................................................................................... 3,340 3,340 PRESIDENT CAESAR CREEK LAKE, OH ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2,010 2,010 PRESIDENT CLARENCE J BROWN DAM, OH ............................................................................................................................................................... 2,439 2,439 PRESIDENT CLEVELAND HARBOR, OH ....................................................................................................................................................................... 8,310 8,310 PRESIDENT, VOINOVICH CONNEAUT HARBOR, OH ........................................................................................................................................................................ 840 840 PRESIDENT DEER CREEK LAKE, OH .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,414 1,414 PRESIDENT DELAWARE LAKE, OH .............................................................................................................................................................................. 2,244 2,244 PRESIDENT DILLON LAKE, OH ................................................................................................................................................................................... 5,840 5,840 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OH .............................................................................................................................................. 338 338 PRESIDENT 
87 

LORAIN HARBOR, OH .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1,040 1,040 PRESIDENT MASSILLON, OH ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 155 155 PRESIDENT MICHAEL J KIRWAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, OH ..................................................................................................................................... 1,523 1,523 PRESIDENT MOSQUITO CREEK LAKE, OH .................................................................................................................................................................. 1,729 1,729 PRESIDENT MUSKINGUM RIVER LAKES, OH .............................................................................................................................................................. 7,505 7,505 PRESIDENT NORTH BRANCH KOKOSING RIVER LAKE, OH ......................................................................................................................................... 268 268 PRESIDENT PAINT CREEK LAKE, OH .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,746 1,746 PRESIDENT PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OH ....................................................................................................................................................... 368 368 PRESIDENT ROSEVILLE, OH ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 35 35 PRESIDENT SANDUSKY HARBOR, OH ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,050 1,050 PRESIDENT SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, OH ....................................................................................................................... 195 195 PRESIDENT TOLEDO HARBOR, OH ............................................................................................................................................................................. 3,975 3,975 PRESIDENT, VOINOVICH TOM JENKINS DAM, OH .......................................................................................................................................................................... 550 550 PRESIDENT WEST FORK OF MILL CREEK LAKE, OH .................................................................................................................................................. 701 701 PRESIDENT WILLIAM H HARSHA LAKE, OH ................................................................................................................................................................ 1,341 1,341 PRESIDENT 

OKLAHOMA 

ARCADIA LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................................................................................. 837 837 PRESIDENT, INHOFE BIRCH LAKE, OK ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 602 602 PRESIDENT, INHOFE BROKEN BOW LAKE, OK ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2,168 2,168 PRESIDENT, INHOFE CANTON LAKE, OK .................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,604 1,604 PRESIDENT, INHOFE COPAN LAKE, OK .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,118 1,118 PRESIDENT, INHOFE EUFAULA LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................................................................................. 5,095 5,095 PRESIDENT, INHOFE FORT GIBSON LAKE, OK ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6,536 6,536 PRESIDENT, INHOFE FORT SUPPLY LAKE, OK ......................................................................................................................................................................... 796 796 PRESIDENT, INHOFE GREAT SALT PLAINS LAKE, OK ............................................................................................................................................................... 254 254 PRESIDENT, INHOFE HEYBURN LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................................................................................ 855 855 PRESIDENT, INHOFE HUGO LAKE, OK ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,292 1,292 PRESIDENT, INHOFE HULAH LAKE, OK .................................................................................................................................................................................... 996 996 PRESIDENT, INHOFE INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OK ............................................................................................................................................... 238 238 PRESIDENT KAW LAKE, OK ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 2,145 2,145 PRESIDENT, INHOFE KEYSTONE LAKE, OK ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4,173 4,173 PRESIDENT, INHOFE MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION SYSTEM, OK ............................................................................................................ 5,307 5,307 PRESIDENT, INHOFE OOLOGAH LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................................................................................ 2,083 2,083 PRESIDENT, INHOFE OPTIMA LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................................................................................... 231 231 PRESIDENT PENSACOLA RESERVOIR, LAKE OF THE CHEROKEES, OK ...................................................................................................................... 85 85 PRESIDENT PINE CREEK LAKE, OK ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1,197 1,197 PRESIDENT, INHOFE ROBERT S KERR LOCK AND DAM AND RESERVOIRS, OK ...................................................................................................................... 5,131 5,131 PRESIDENT, INHOFE SARDIS LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,056 1,056 PRESIDENT, INHOFE SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OK ........................................................................................................................................... 868 868 PRESIDENT 
88 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation Requested by 

SKIATOOK LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1,743 1,743 PRESIDENT, INHOFE TENKILLER FERRY LAKE, OK .................................................................................................................................................................. 3,700 3,700 PRESIDENT, INHOFE WAURIKA LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,371 1,371 PRESIDENT, INHOFE WEBBERS FALLS LOCK AND DAM, OK .................................................................................................................................................... 3,783 3,783 PRESIDENT, INHOFE WISTER LAKE, OK ................................................................................................................................................................................... 760 760 PRESIDENT, INHOFE 

OREGON 

APPLEGATE LAKE, OR ............................................................................................................................................................................. 901 901 PRESIDENT BLUE RIVER LAKE, OR ........................................................................................................................................................................... 400 400 PRESIDENT BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA ................................................................................................................................................ 15,176 15,176 PRESIDENT CHETCO RIVER, OR ................................................................................................................................................................................ 443 443 PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH COLUMBIA & LWR WILLAMETTE R BLW VANCOUVER, WA & PORTLA .................................................................................................... 25,212 25,512 PRESIDENT, MURRAY, WYDEN, SMITH COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OR & WA ......................................................................................................................................... 12,050 14,820 PRESIDENT, MURRAY, WYDEN, SMITH COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WA AND THE DALLES, O ..................................................................................................... 484 484 PRESIDENT COOS BAY, OR ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 3,967 3,967 PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH COQUILLE RIVER, OR ............................................................................................................................................................................. 275 275 PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH COTTAGE GROVE LAKE, OR .................................................................................................................................................................... 968 968 PRESIDENT COUGAR LAKE, OR ................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,324 1,324 PRESIDENT DETROIT LAKE, OR ................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,285 1,285 PRESIDENT DORENA LAKE, OR .................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,044 1,044 PRESIDENT FALL CREEK LAKE, OR ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1,099 1,099 PRESIDENT FERN RIDGE LAKE, OR ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1,379 1,379 PRESIDENT GREEN PETER—FOSTER LAKES, OR ...................................................................................................................................................... 1,646 1,646 PRESIDENT HILLS CREEK LAKE, OR .......................................................................................................................................................................... 816 816 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, OR .............................................................................................................. 43 43 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, OR .............................................................................................................................................. 174 174 PRESIDENT JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA .................................................................................................................................................... 4,686 4,686 PRESIDENT LOOKOUT POINT LAKE, OR ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1,632 1,632 PRESIDENT LOST CREEK LAKE, OR ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3,134 3,134 PRESIDENT MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, OR & WA ...................................................................................................................................................... 5,711 5,711 PRESIDENT PORT ORFORD, OR ................................................................................................................................................................................. 333 333 PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, OR ....................................................................................................................................................... 150 150 PRESIDENT ROGUE RIVER AT GOLD BEACH, OR ...................................................................................................................................................... 462 462 PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, OR ........................................................................................................................................... 64 64 PRESIDENT 
89 

SIUSLAW RIVER, OR ............................................................................................................................................................................... 520 520 PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WA ....................................................................................................................... 400 400 PRESIDENT TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, OR ............................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 2,000 WYDEN, SMITH UMPQUA RIVER, OR ............................................................................................................................................................................... 974 974 PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OR .................................................................................................................................... 80 258 PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH WILLAMETTE RIVER BANK PROTECTION, OR .......................................................................................................................................... 62 62 PRESIDENT WILLOW CREEK LAKE, OR ...................................................................................................................................................................... 617 617 PRESIDENT YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OR ............................................................................................................................................................ 1,348 1,348 PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH YAQUINA RIVER, OR ............................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 400 WYDEN, SMITH 

PENNSYLVANIA 

ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA ........................................................................................................................................................................... 7,039 7,039 PRESIDENT, CASEY ALVIN R BUSH DAM, PA ......................................................................................................................................................................... 813 813 PRESIDENT AYLESWORTH CREEK LAKE, PA .............................................................................................................................................................. 320 320 PRESIDENT BELTZVILLE LAKE, PA ............................................................................................................................................................................. 2,457 2,457 PRESIDENT BLUE MARSH LAKE, PA .......................................................................................................................................................................... 3,115 3,115 PRESIDENT CONEMAUGH RIVER LAKE, PA ................................................................................................................................................................ 1,630 1,630 PRESIDENT COWANESQUE LAKE, PA ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2,326 2,326 PRESIDENT CROOKED CREEK LAKE, PA .................................................................................................................................................................... 1,457 1,457 PRESIDENT CURWENSVILLE LAKE, PA ....................................................................................................................................................................... 805 805 PRESIDENT EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE, PA .............................................................................................................................................. 1,682 1,682 PRESIDENT FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS DAM, PA ......................................................................................................................................................... 805 805 PRESIDENT FRANCIS E WALTER DAM, PA ................................................................................................................................................................. 1,286 1,286 PRESIDENT GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN DAM AND RESERVOIR, PA ............................................................................................................................. 372 372 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, PA ............................................................................................................................................... 456 456 PRESIDENT JOHNSTOWN, PA ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,247 1,247 PRESIDENT KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PA ..................................................................................................................................... 1,377 1,377 PRESIDENT LOYALHANNA LAKE, PA ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1,166 1,166 PRESIDENT MAHONING CREEK LAKE, PA .................................................................................................................................................................. 2,408 2,408 PRESIDENT MONONGAHELA RIVER, PA ..................................................................................................................................................................... 17,170 17,170 PRESIDENT OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, PA, OH & WV ...................................................................................................................................... 24,723 24,723 PRESIDENT OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, PA, OH & WV ............................................................................................................................... 520 520 PRESIDENT PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, PA ........................................................................................................................................................ 85 85 PRESIDENT PROMPTON LAKE, PA .............................................................................................................................................................................. 792 792 PRESIDENT PUNXSUTAWNEY, PA ............................................................................................................................................................................... 786 786 PRESIDENT RAYSTOWN LAKE, PA .............................................................................................................................................................................. 4,420 4,420 PRESIDENT SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, PA ........................................................................................................................................... 63 63 PRESIDENT SCHUYLKILL RIVER, PA .......................................................................................................................................................................... 150 1,500 PRESIDENT, SPECTER SHENANGO RIVER LAKE, PA ................................................................................................................................................................... 3,002 3,002 PRESIDENT STILLWATER LAKE, PA ............................................................................................................................................................................ 572 572 PRESIDENT 
90 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation Requested by 

SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, PA ....................................................................................................................... 87 87 PRESIDENT TIOGA—HAMMOND LAKES, PA ............................................................................................................................................................... 2,760 2,760 PRESIDENT TIONESTA LAKE, PA ................................................................................................................................................................................ 2,216 2,216 PRESIDENT UNION CITY LAKE, PA ............................................................................................................................................................................. 320 320 PRESIDENT WOODCOCK CREEK LAKE, PA ................................................................................................................................................................. 956 956 PRESIDENT YORK INDIAN ROCK DAM, PA ................................................................................................................................................................. 632 632 PRESIDENT YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE, PA & MD ................................................................................................................................................. 2,149 2,149 PRESIDENT 

RHODE ISLAND 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, RI ................................................................................................................................................ 22 22 PRESIDENT POINT JUDITH HARBOR OF REUGE, RI ................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 200 REED, WHITEHOUSE PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, RI ......................................................................................................................................................... 400 400 PRESIDENT WARWICK COVE, RI ................................................................................................................................................................................ .......................... 200 REED, WHITEHOUSE 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, SC .............................................................................................................................................. 872 3,872 PRESIDENT, GRAHAM CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC ..................................................................................................................................................................... 9,342 9,342 PRESIDENT, GRAHAM COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, SC .......................................................................................................................................... 3,982 3,982 PRESIDENT, GRAHAM FOLLY RIVER, SC .................................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 500 GRAHAM GEORGETOWN HARBOR, SC ................................................................................................................................................................... 3,360 3,360 PRESIDENT, GRAHAM INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SC ............................................................................................................................................... 60 60 PRESIDENT PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, SC ........................................................................................................................................................ 593 593 PRESIDENT 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

BIG BEND DAM, LAKE SHARPE, SD ........................................................................................................................................................ 7,996 7,996 PRESIDENT CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX, SD .................................................................................................................. .......................... 3,000 JOHNSON, THUNE COLD BROOK LAKE, SD .......................................................................................................................................................................... 237 237 PRESIDENT COTTONWOOD SPRINGS LAKE, SD .......................................................................................................................................................... 174 174 PRESIDENT FORT RANDALL DAM, LAKE FRANCIS CASE, SD ..................................................................................................................................... 7,533 7,533 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, SD ............................................................................................................................................... 25 25 PRESIDENT LAKE TRAVERSE, SD & MN .................................................................................................................................................................... 570 570 PRESIDENT MISSOURI R BETWEEN FORT PECK DAM AND GAVINS PT, SD, MT ....................................................................................................... 150 150 PRESIDENT OAHE DAM, LAKE OAHE, SD & ND ......................................................................................................................................................... 9,079 9,379 PRESIDENT, DORGAN SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, SD ........................................................................................................................................... 54 54 PRESIDENT 
91 

TENNESSEE 

CENTER HILL LAKE, TN .......................................................................................................................................................................... 5,431 5,431 PRESIDENT CHEATHAM LOCK AND DAM, TN ............................................................................................................................................................. 7,095 7,095 PRESIDENT CHICKAMAUGA LOCK, TENNESSEE RIVER, TN ........................................................................................................................................ 1,140 1,140 PRESIDENT, ALEXANDER, CORKER CORDELL HULL DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN ............................................................................................................................................ 5,298 5,298 PRESIDENT DALE HOLLOW LAKE, TN ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6,414 6,414 PRESIDENT, ALEXANDER, CORKER INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TN ............................................................................................................................................... 35 35 PRESIDENT J PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TN ........................................................................................................................................... 4,240 4,240 PRESIDENT OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, TN ........................................................................................................................................................ 8,156 8,156 PRESIDENT PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, TN ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 2 PRESIDENT TENNESSEE RIVER, TN ........................................................................................................................................................................... 22,264 22,264 PRESIDENT, SHELBY WOLF RIVER HARBOR, TN ...................................................................................................................................................................... 251 251 PRESIDENT 

TEXAS 

AQUILLA LAKE, TX .................................................................................................................................................................................. 944 944 PRESIDENT ARKANSAS—RED RIVER BASINS CHLORIDE CONTROL—AREA VI ........................................................................................................ 1,410 1,410 PRESIDENT BARBOUR TERMINAL CHANNEL, TX ........................................................................................................................................................ 188 188 PRESIDENT BARDWELL LAKE, TX .............................................................................................................................................................................. 2,168 2,168 PRESIDENT BAYPORT SHIP CHANNEL, TX ................................................................................................................................................................. 188 188 PRESIDENT BELTON LAKE, TX ................................................................................................................................................................................... 3,227 3,227 PRESIDENT BENBROOK LAKE, TX .............................................................................................................................................................................. 2,498 2,498 PRESIDENT BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TX ................................................................................................................................................................ .......................... 1,000 CORNYN BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TX ................................................................................................................................................ 6,272 6,272 PRESIDENT CANYON LAKE, TX .................................................................................................................................................................................. 3,219 3,219 PRESIDENT CHANNEL TO PORT BOLIVAR, TX ............................................................................................................................................................ 569 569 PRESIDENT CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, TX ..................................................................................................................................................... 10,597 10,597 PRESIDENT DENISON DAM, LAKE TEXOMA, TX .......................................................................................................................................................... 7,415 7,415 PRESIDENT, INHOFE ESTELLINE SPRINGS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT, TX ................................................................................................................................ 1 1 PRESIDENT FERRELLS BRIDGE DAM, LAKE O’ THE PINES, TX .................................................................................................................................. 3,251 3,251 PRESIDENT FREEPORT HARBOR, TX .......................................................................................................................................................................... 5,735 5,735 PRESIDENT, CORNYN GALVESTON HARBOR AND CHANNEL, TX ............................................................................................................................................... 20,567 20,567 PRESIDENT GRANGER DAM AND LAKE, TX ................................................................................................................................................................ 2,336 2,336 PRESIDENT GRAPEVINE LAKE, TX .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3,047 3,047 PRESIDENT GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, TX ..................................................................................................................................................... 24,161 25,000 PRESIDENT, HUTCHISON HORDS CREEK LAKE, TX ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,336 1,336 PRESIDENT HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TX ................................................................................................................................................................. 14,442 17,221 PRESIDENT, HUTCHISON, CORNYN INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, TX ............................................................................................................................................... 713 713 PRESIDENT JIM CHAPMAN LAKE, TX ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,748 1,748 PRESIDENT JOE POOL LAKE, TX ................................................................................................................................................................................ 785 785 PRESIDENT LAKE KEMP, TX ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 617 617 PRESIDENT 
92 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation Requested by 

LAVON LAKE, TX ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,595 2,595 PRESIDENT LEWISVILLE DAM, TX .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3,780 3,780 PRESIDENT MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TX ............................................................................................................................................................ 8,713 8,713 PRESIDENT, HUTCHISON NAVARRO MILLS LAKE, TX ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2,266 2,266 PRESIDENT NORTH SAN GABRIEL DAM AND LAKE GEORGETOWN, TX ...................................................................................................................... 2,007 2,007 PRESIDENT O C FISHER DAM AND LAKE, TX ............................................................................................................................................................ 871 871 PRESIDENT PAT MAYSE LAKE, TX ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1,049 1,049 PRESIDENT PROCTOR LAKE, TX ................................................................................................................................................................................ 2,347 2,347 PRESIDENT RAY ROBERTS LAKE, TX ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,421 1,421 PRESIDENT SABINE—NECHES WATERWAY, TX ......................................................................................................................................................... 12,612 12,612 PRESIDENT SAM RAYBURN DAM AND RESERVOIR, TX ............................................................................................................................................. 4,229 4,229 PRESIDENT SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, TX ............................................................................................................................................ 196 196 PRESIDENT SOMERVILLE LAKE, TX ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3,932 3,932 PRESIDENT STILLHOUSE HOLLOW DAM, TX ............................................................................................................................................................... 1,912 1,912 PRESIDENT TEXAS CITY SHIP CHANNEL, TX ............................................................................................................................................................. 4,587 4,587 PRESIDENT TEXAS WATER ALLOCATION ASSESSMENT, TX ........................................................................................................................................ 100 1,000 PRESIDENT, HUTCHISON, CORNYN TOWN BLUFF DAM, B A STEINHAGEN LAKE, TX ..................................................................................................................................... 3,081 3,081 PRESIDENT WACO LAKE, TX ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,669 2,669 PRESIDENT WALLISVILLE LAKE, TX ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2,358 2,358 PRESIDENT WHITNEY LAKE, TX ................................................................................................................................................................................. 6,493 6,493 PRESIDENT WRIGHT PATMAN DAM AND LAKE, TX .................................................................................................................................................... 3,610 3,610 PRESIDENT 

UTAH 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, UT ............................................................................................................................................... 50 50 PRESIDENT SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, UT ........................................................................................................................................... 695 695 PRESIDENT 

VERMONT 

BALL MOUNTAIN LAKE, VT ...................................................................................................................................................................... 988 988 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VT ............................................................................................................................................... 55 55 PRESIDENT NARROWS OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN, VT & NY ............................................................................................................................................. 80 80 PRESIDENT NORTH HARTLAND LAKE, VT ................................................................................................................................................................... 1,229 1,229 PRESIDENT NORTH SPRINGFIELD LAKE, VT ............................................................................................................................................................... 951 951 PRESIDENT TOWNSHEND LAKE, VT ............................................................................................................................................................................ 965 965 PRESIDENT UNION VILLAGE DAM, VT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 695 695 PRESIDENT 
93 

VIRGINIA 

APPOMATTOX RIVER, VA ......................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 750 WARNER, WEBB ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—ACC, VA ................................................................................................................................... 1,795 1,795 PRESIDENT ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY—DSC, VA ................................................................................................................................... 561 1,619 PRESIDENT, WARNER, WEBB CHINCOTEAGUE INLET, VA ...................................................................................................................................................................... 650 650 PRESIDENT GATHRIGHT DAM AND LAKE MOOMAW, VA ............................................................................................................................................. 2,019 2,019 PRESIDENT HAMPTON RDS, NORFOLK & NEWPORT NEWS HBR, VA (DRIFT REM .................................................................................................... 897 897 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, VA ............................................................................................................................................... 243 243 PRESIDENT JAMES RIVER CHANNEL, VA ................................................................................................................................................................... 4,320 4,320 PRESIDENT JOHN H KERR LAKE, VA & NC ............................................................................................................................................................... 11,102 11,102 PRESIDENT JOHN W FLANNAGAN DAM AND RESERVOIR, VA .................................................................................................................................... 1,730 1,730 PRESIDENT LITTLE WICOMICO RIVER, VA ................................................................................................................................................................. 100 100 PRESIDENT NORFOLK HARBOR, VA ........................................................................................................................................................................... 10,687 10,687 PRESIDENT, WARNER, WEBB NORFOLK HARBOR, VA (PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE DEPOSITS ....................................................................................................... 210 210 PRESIDENT NORTH FORK OF POUND RIVER LAKE, VA .............................................................................................................................................. 435 435 PRESIDENT ONANCOCK RIVER, VA ............................................................................................................................................................................ .......................... 1,400 WARNER, WEBB PHILPOTT LAKE, VA ................................................................................................................................................................................ 4,875 4,875 PRESIDENT PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, VA ........................................................................................................................................................ 860 860 PRESIDENT RUDEE INLET, VA ................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,023 1,023 PRESIDENT, WARNER, WEBB TYLERS BEACH, VA ................................................................................................................................................................................ 200 200 PRESIDENT WATERWAY ON THE COAST OF VIRGINIA, VA ......................................................................................................................................... 190 190 PRESIDENT YORK RIVER, VA ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 50 50 PRESIDENT 

WASHINGTON 

CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, WA ......................................................................................................................................................................... 814 814 PRESIDENT COLUMBIA RIVER AT BAKER BAY, WA & OR ......................................................................................................................................... .......................... 500 MURRAY, CANTWELL COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN CHINOOK AND SAND ISLAND, WA ............................................................................................................. .......................... 500 MURRAY EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WA .................................................................................................................................... 1,637 1,637 PRESIDENT, MURRAY, CANTWELL GRAYS HARBOR AND CHEHALIS RIVER, WA .......................................................................................................................................... 8,705 8,705 PRESIDENT HOWARD HANSON DAM, WA ................................................................................................................................................................... 3,615 3,615 PRESIDENT ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WA ......................................................................................................................................................... 4,052 4,052 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, WA .............................................................................................................. 65 65 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WA .............................................................................................................................................. 320 320 PRESIDENT LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WA ..................................................................................................................................................... 5,952 5,952 PRESIDENT, CANTWELL LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, WA ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,467 1,467 PRESIDENT LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, WA ................................................................................................................................................... 3,944 3,944 PRESIDENT LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, WA ........................................................................................................................................... 3,202 3,202 PRESIDENT, CRAPO MILL CREEK LAKE, WA ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1,539 1,539 PRESIDENT MT ST HELENS SEDIMENT CONTROL, WA .............................................................................................................................................. 278 278 PRESIDENT MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, WA ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3,830 3,830 PRESIDENT, MURRAY, CANTWELL 
94 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation Requested by 

NEAH BAY, WA ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 33 33 PRESIDENT PORT TOWNSEND, WA ............................................................................................................................................................................ 275 275 PRESIDENT PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WA ....................................................................................................................................................... 447 447 PRESIDENT PUGET SOUND AND TRIBUTARY WATERS, WA ........................................................................................................................................ 910 910 PRESIDENT QUILLAYUTE RIVER, WA .......................................................................................................................................................................... 66 66 PRESIDENT SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WA ........................................................................................................................................... 515 515 PRESIDENT SEATTLE HARBOR, WA ............................................................................................................................................................................ 55 55 PRESIDENT STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WA .................................................................................................................................................................... 182 182 PRESIDENT SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WA ....................................................................................................................... 64 64 PRESIDENT SWINOMISH CHANNEL, WA ..................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 500 MURRAY, CANTWELL TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WA ............................................................................................................................................................. 146 146 PRESIDENT THE DALLES LOCK AND DAM, WA & OR ................................................................................................................................................ 3,978 3,978 PRESIDENT WILLAPA RIVER AND HARBOR, WA ......................................................................................................................................................... 34 34 PRESIDENT 

WEST VIRGINIA 

BEECH FORK LAKE, WV .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,236 1,236 PRESIDENT BLUESTONE LAKE, WV ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2,592 2,592 PRESIDENT BURNSVILLE LAKE, WV ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1,987 1,987 PRESIDENT EAST LYNN LAKE, WV ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1,799 1,799 PRESIDENT ELKINS, WV ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 13 13 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WV .............................................................................................................................................. 121 121 PRESIDENT KANAWHA RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV ............................................................................................................................................... 10,293 10,293 PRESIDENT OHIO RIVER LOCKS AND DAMS, WV, KY & OH ...................................................................................................................................... 31,709 31,709 PRESIDENT OHIO RIVER OPEN CHANNEL WORK, WV, KY & OH ............................................................................................................................... 2,541 2,541 PRESIDENT R D BAILEY LAKE, WV ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1,994 1,994 PRESIDENT STONEWALL JACKSON LAKE, WV ............................................................................................................................................................ 1,120 1,120 PRESIDENT SUMMERSVILLE LAKE, WV ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1,696 1,696 PRESIDENT SUTTON LAKE, WV .................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,962 1,962 PRESIDENT TYGART LAKE, WV .................................................................................................................................................................................. 3,753 3,753 PRESIDENT 

WISCONSIN 

EAU GALLE RIVER LAKE, WI ................................................................................................................................................................... 789 789 PRESIDENT FOX RIVER, WI ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 2,135 4,535 PRESIDENT, KOHL GREEN BAY HARBOR, WI ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2,845 4,970 PRESIDENT, KOHL 
95 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WI ............................................................................................................................................... 42 42 PRESIDENT KEWAUNEE HARBOR, WI ......................................................................................................................................................................... 8 8 PRESIDENT MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WI ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1,519 1,519 PRESIDENT PROJECT CONDITION SURVEYS, WI ........................................................................................................................................................ 108 108 PRESIDENT STURGEON BAY, WI ................................................................................................................................................................................ 20 20 PRESIDENT SURVEILLANCE OF NORTHERN BOUNDARY WATERS, WI ........................................................................................................................ 487 487 PRESIDENT TWO RIVERS HARBOR, WI ...................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 2,000 KOHL 

WYOMING 

INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS, WY .............................................................................................................................................. 16 16 PRESIDENT JACKSON HOLE LEVEES, WY ................................................................................................................................................................... 332 332 PRESIDENT SCHEDULING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS, WY ........................................................................................................................................... 88 88 PRESIDENT 

SUBTOTAL, PROJECTS LISTED UNDER STATES ......................................................................................................................... 2,083,432 2,237,653 

REMAINING ITEMS: 

AQUATIC NUISANCE CONTROL RESEARCH .................................................................................................................................... 690 690 PRESIDENT ASSET MANAGEMENT/FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................... 4,000 4,000 PRESIDENT BUDGET/MANAGEMENT SUPPORT FOR O&M BUSINESS LINES ..................................................................................................... 5,365 5,365 PRESIDENT CHIEF’S 12 ACTIONS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 8,737 8,737 PRESIDENT COASTAL INLET RESEARCH PROGRAM .......................................................................................................................................... 2,475 2,475 PRESIDENT CULTURAL RESOURCES (NAGPRA/CURATION) ............................................................................................................................... 1,500 1,500 PRESIDENT DREDGE WHEELER READY RESERVE ............................................................................................................................................ 8,000 8,000 PRESIDENT DREDGING DATA AND LOCK PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM ............................................................................................. 1,062 1,062 PRESIDENT DREDGING OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL R ........................................................................................................................ 6,080 6,080 PRESIDENT DREDGING OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT PROGRAM ............................................................................................................ 1,391 1,391 PRESIDENT EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................ 270 270 PRESIDENT FACILITY PROTECTION ................................................................................................................................................................... 12,000 12,000 PRESIDENT GREAT LAKES SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MODEL .............................................................................................................................. 900 900 PRESIDENT HARBOR MAINTENANCE FEE DATA COLLECTION ........................................................................................................................... 725 725 PRESIDENT INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION CHARTS ..................................................................................................................................... 3,708 3,708 PRESIDENT INSPECTION OF COMPLETED WORKS ............................................................................................................................................ 1,780 1,780 PRESIDENT MONITORING OF COASTAL NAVIGATION PROJECTS ....................................................................................................................... 1,575 1,575 PRESIDENT NATIONAL COASTAL MAPPING ....................................................................................................................................................... 4,000 10,000 PRESIDENT, COCHRAN NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................................ 10,000 10,000 PRESIDENT NATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS (NEPP) ........................................................................................................................... 5,000 5,000 PRESIDENT NATIONAL NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................ 3,296 3,296 PRESIDENT NATIONAL PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT FOR REALLOCATION ............................................................................................................. 300 300 PRESIDENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT TECHNICAL SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................... 300 300 PRESIDENT PROTECTION OF NAVIGATION—REMOVAL OF SUNKEN VESSELS .................................................................................................. 500 500 PRESIDENT PROTECTION OF NAVIGATION—STRAIGHTENING OF CHANNELS ................................................................................................... 50 50 PRESIDENT 
96 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title Budget estimate Committee recommendation Requested by 

RECREATIONONESTOP(R1S) NATIONAL RECREATION RESERVATION ............................................................................................. 1,130 1,130 PRESIDENT REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................ 1,391 4,391 PRESIDENT, INOUYE, CARDIN, DOLE, BURR, 

WYDEN, SMITH, REED, WHITEHOUSE, SCHUMER 

RELIABILITY MODELS PROGRAM FOR MAJOR REHAB ................................................................................................................... 608 608 PRESIDENT WATER OPERATIONS TECHNICAL SUPPORT (WOTS) ...................................................................................................................... 653 653 PRESIDENT WATERBORNE COMMERCE STATISTICS ......................................................................................................................................... 4,271 4,271 PRESIDENT 

SUBTOTAL FOR ITEMS NOT LISTED UNDER STATES ................................................................................................................. 91,757 100,757 

REDUCTION FOR ANTICIPATED SAVINGS AND SLIPPAGE ........................................................................................................................ .......................... ¥46,439 

TOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE .................................................................................................................................... 2,175,189 2,291,971 
97 

Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Alabama and Mississippi.—The 

Committee recommendation includes $26,848,000. Funds provided 

above the budget request are provided for the construction of mooring cells near Columbus, Mississippi for safety of tows tying up 

during high water levels. 

Helena Harbor, Arkansas.—The Committee includes $438,000 for 

maintenance dredging of this harbor. 

McClellan-Kerr, Arkansas River Navigation System, Arkansas 

and Oklahoma.—An additional $3,000,000 is provided above the 

budget request to begin Planning, Engineering and Design [PED] 

for the Arkansas/White Cutoff project and to complete repairs on 

the Jim Smith Lake Structure, south end. 

Crescent City, California.—The Committee has provided $500,000 

for dredging. 

Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor, California.—An additional 

$2,000,000 is provided for dredging the Los Angeles River Estuary. 

Cherry Creek, Chatfield, and Trinidad Lakes, Colorado.—The 

Committee has included an additional $2,000,000 for continued repairs at these three lakes. This action in no way is intended to 

alter the Corps of Engineers’ lease and property accountability policies. It is the Committee’s understanding that the State of Colorado 

has agreed to cost share this project on a 50–50 basis. It is also 

the understanding of the Committee that the Secretary is not to assume, nor share in the future of the operation and maintenance of 

these recreation facilities. Of the funds provided, the Corps is directed to conduct a reallocation study for Chatfield Reservoir 

project. 

Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, Delaware and Maryland.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$13,295,000 for this project. Additional funds provided above the 

budget request are for repairs to the Summit Bridge. 

Intracoastal Waterway, Caloosahatchee to Anclote, Florida.—The 

Committee provides $1,000,000 for maintenance dredging. 

Intracoastal Waterway, Jacksonville to Miami, Florida.—The 

Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000 for maintenance 

dredging. 

Miami River, Florida.—The Committee provides $7,500,000 for 

continued operations and maintenance of the Miami River Channel. This project will provides the first maintenance dredging of the 

Miami River since its original authorization in 1930. 

Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Georgia.—$1,000,000 is provided 

for dredging critical areas of this waterway as well as for work related to new upland disposal sites. 

Port Allen Breakwater Repair, Hawaii.—The Committee includes 

$1,700,000 for the breakwater repair. 

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Illinois.—The Committee has 

provided $500,000 for maintenance of the Asian Carp Barriers. 

Mississippi River Between Missouri River and Minneapolis (MVR 

Portion), Illinois.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$49,970,000. Additional funds are provided for backlogged maintenance. 

Missouri River—Rulo to the Mouth, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and 

Missouri.—Additional funds provided above the budget request are 

for dike repairs. 
98 

Wolf Creek Dam, Lake Cumberland, Kentucky.—The Committee 

notes that Lake Cumberland has been drastically lowered for ongoing seepage/stability correction repairs to Wolf Creek Dam. Additional funds provided above the budget request are for pool lowering mitigation features. 

Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf and Black, Louisiana.—The Committee has provided an additional funds for maintenance dredging activities. 

Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana.—The Committee provides 

additional funding for maintenance dredging of this channel. 

J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Louisiana.—The Committee recommendation includes an additional $2,000,000 for bank stabilization repairs, dredging entrances to oxbow lakes, routine operation 

and maintenance activities, annual dredging requirements, and 

backlog maintenance. 

Herring Bay and Rockhold Creek, Maryland.—The Committee 

recommendation includes funds to dredge this project. 

Boston Harbor, Massachusetts.—The Committee has provided $7,000,000 for dredging in the Harbor. 

Michigan Harbors, Michigan.—The Committee notes that there 

are some 30 federally maintained harbors in Michigan. However, 

the Committee also notes that fewer than 10 are budgeted. The 

Committee has attempted to provide for some of the dredging 

needs of the State. However, recognizing that conditions on these 

harbors are constantly changing and that the Great Lakes are continuing to suffer from historic low water levels, the Committee is 

directing the Corps to propose a dredging program for fiscal year 

2008 that would most effectively utilize the scarce funds available 

for these harbor projects. This plan should be presented within 30 

days of enactment of this act as a reprogramming action for approval by the House and Senate Appropriation Committees. 

Grand Marais Harbor, Michigan.—The Committee provides $1,500,000 to continue construction of the replacement breakwater. 

Mouth of the Yazoo River, Mississippi.—The Committee includes 

additional funds for the maintenance dredging of the entrance to 

Vicksburg Harbor. 

Pascagoula Harbor, Mississippi.—The Committee has provided 

$12,000,000 for this project. Additional funds above the budget request are to perform maintenance dredging of the Bar Channel, the 

Pascagoula River and Bayou Casotte channels. 

Rosedale Harbor, Mississippi.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $600,000 for maintenance dredging of the harbor. 

Cocheco River, New Hampshire.—The Committee provides 

$3,000,000 continue dredging of the Cocheco River project. 

Rio Grande Bosque Rehabilitation, New Mexico.—The Committee 

includes $4,000,000 to continue fire reduction work and general 

Bosque rehabilitation in order to complete repairs and fire protection resulting from 2003 and 2004 fires in the urban interface. 

Upper Rio Grande Water Operations Model, New Mexico.—The 

Committee recommendation includes $500,000 to develop an outline for an integrated management plan of the Rio Grande in New 

Mexico in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation. 

Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, North Carolina.—The Committee 

includes an additional $2,100,000 for dredging of the project. 
99 

Manteo (Shallowbag Bay), North Carolina.—The Committee includes additional funds for dredging of the project. 

Garrison Dam and Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota.—The Committee provides $200,000 for mosquito control, $950,000 for the 

Corps to work in cooperation with the Friends of Lake Sakakawea 

to ensure the recreation sites around the lake can be utilized. 

Columbia River at the Mouth, Oregon and Washington.—The 

Committee recommendation includes $14,820,000 for the project. 

Additional funds above the budget request are to initiate a design 

documentation report to serve as supporting information for plans 

and specifications for the major rehabilitation of the jetties and to 

repair a foredune at the North Jetty that breached during the winter storms of 2007. 

Cheyenne River Siuox Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, South Dakota.— 

The Committee notes that title VI of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, as amended, requires that funding to inventory 

and stabilize cultural and historic sites along the Missouri River in 

South Dakota, and to carry out the terrestrial wildlife habitat programs, shall be provided from the Operation and Maintenance account. The Committee provides $3,000,000 to protect cultural resource sites and provide funding to the State and tribes for approved restoration and stewardship plans and in compliance with 

the requirements of title VI, directs the Corps to contract with or 

reimburse the State of South Dakota and affected tribes to carry 

out these duties. 

Oahe Dam, Lake Oahe, South Dakota and North Dakota.—The 

Committee has provided additional funds above the budget request 

to allow the Corps to modify public facilities so that they can be 

utilized with the extreme low water levels currently being experienced on the lake. 

Houston Ship Channel, Texas.—The Committee includes an additional $2,779,000 for additional dredging and dredging related activities. 

Texas Water Allocation Study, Texas.—The Committee provides 

$1,000,000 for this ongoing study. 

Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway-DSC, Virginia.—The Committee 

has provided additional operation and maintenance funds for the 

project. 

Chinook, Head of Sand Island and Baker Bay, Washington.—The 

conferees note the proximity of Corps navigation facilities on the 

Columbia River between Chinook and the Head of Sand Island, 

Washington, and at Baker Bay, Washington, and encourage the 

Corps of Engineers to seek ways to achieve cost savings and efficiency, such as by utilizing appropriate contracting methods while 

having these two projects be considered together when seeking bids 

and awarding contracts. 

Mud Mountain Dam, Washington.—Within the funds provided, 

the Corps is directed to use up to $903,000 to satisfy Federal fish 

passage obligations for the term of the cooperative agreement with 

Puget Sound Energy. 

Fox River, Wisconsin.—Additional funds above the budget request are to reimburse Wisconsin, in accordance with the agreement, for the costs of repairs and rehabilitation of the transferred 
100 

locks and for the Corps of Engineers to undertake major repairs for 

the dams and associated infrastructure. 

Chief’s 12 Actions.—The Committee has provided the Administration’s request for this item. The Committee believes that these 

funds can serve to make significant improvements to the way the 

Corps administers completed projects to account for changed conditions since construction. 

National Coastal Mapping.—$10,000,000 is provided for this program. Additional funds provided above the budget request are for 

LIDAR bathymetry for use in regional sediment management and 

for Coastal Zone Mapping and Imaging LIDAR/LASER to be conducted with the University of Southern Mississippi. 

Regional Sediment Management Demonstration Program.—The 

Committee has provided $4,391,000 for this program, $3,000,000 

above the budget request. Within the funds provided, the Corps is 

directed to undertake studies for the southeast coast of Oahu, Hawaii; the State of North Carolina; South Jetty and Clatsop Spit, 

Oregon; South Coastal Rhode Island; and for Long Island, New 

York coastal planning. 

FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... $40,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 50,000,000 

1 Excludes emergency appropriation of $1,561,000,000. 

The Committee has included $50,000,000 for the FCCE account. 

This account provides funds for preparedness activities for natural 

and other disasters, response, and emergency flood fighting and 

rescue operations, hurricane response, and emergency shore protection work. It also provides for emergency supplies of clean water 

where the source has been contaminated or where adequate supplies of water are needed for consumption. 

The Committee has provided an additional $10,000,000 in this 

account to continue the National Flood Inventory rather than authorize the work to be carried out in the General Investigations Account as proposed by the administration. The National Flood Inventory was initiated in this account through supplemental funding 

following Hurricane Katrina. It is an interagency effort to improve 

management of the Nation’s flood and storm damage reduction infrastructure. To date, work has consisted of data collection and development of an assessment methodology specific to levees and 

floodwalls. The COE has also worked with the Federal Emergency 

Management agency on issues such as risk communication and revisions to the Corps’ Rehabilitation and Inspection program. The 

recommended funds will be used to continue development of the inventory of both Federal and non-Federal projects, to initiate testing 

of a risk assessment methodology for levees and floodwalls, to 

begin preliminary identification of ‘‘high risk’’ levees and other for 

other associated items. The Committee directs that outyear funding 

should be budgeted in this account unless specific authorization is 

enacted for this study in a Water Resource Development Act. 
101 

REGULATORY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $159,273,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 180,000,000 

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

An appropriation of $180,000,000 is recommended for the regulatory program of the Corps of Engineers. 

This appropriation provides for salaries and costs incurred administering regulation of activities affecting U.S. waters, including 

wetlands, in accordance with the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 

33 U.S.C. section 401, the Clean Water Act of 1977 Public Law 95– 

217, and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 

1972 Public Law 92–532. 

The appropriation helps maintain program performance, protects 

important aquatic resources, and supports partnerships with States 

and local communities through watershed planning efforts. 

The Committee is aware that the Corps of Engineers has begun 

a pilot program aimed at streamlining decisions for certain complex, high impact permit applications which have national or large 

regional implications. Specifically, we understand this program is 

focusing on projects related to rail capacity expansion, highway 

construction and pipelines where knowledge and experience gained 

in one district can be shared with other districts facing similar 

challenges, thus promoting efficiencies, the development and sharing of ‘‘best practices,’’ and use of virtual or dedicated teams to expedite broad-impact permit applications. Since the Committee continues to be concerned about the permit application backlog and 

delays in making permit decisions, it fully supports this effort and 

encourages the Corps to dedicate even more attention and expand 

its efforts to an even greater extent in developing and using this 

pilot program to minimize negative impacts of the backlog and resulting delays, especially where there are significant impacts to the 

nation’s economy and environmental health. The Committee further supports the three emphasis areas selected for the pilot program as it believes them to be critical elements of a healthy, expanding economy which must be vigorously developed, but in an 

environmentally sound manner. 

The Committee is keenly aware that U.S. economic health and 

national security depends on the continued availability of reliable 

and affordable energy. The Committee is also aware that the Army 

Corps of Engineers (Corps) Regulatory Branch plays a key role by 

authorizing much of the 1.13 billion tons of coal production expected this year through its regulatory program. 

Therefore, the Committee directs the Corps to work with the Office of Surface Mining [OSM] to develop a more efficient process for 

issuing permits associated with surface coal mining operations. To 

avoid unnecessary time delays and duplication of agency resources, 

the Corps shall maintain the availability of a meaningful general 

permit for surface coal mining that may be issued in coordination 

with and for the term of the permit already required pursuant to 

the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act [SMCRA]. The 

Corps should also dedicate sufficient personnel and financial resources to support a consistent program for permit review and 

issuance. 
102 

FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $138,672,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 130,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 140,000,000 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $140,000,000 to 

continue activities related to the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial 

Action Program [FUSRAP] in fiscal year 2005. 

The responsibility for the cleanup of contaminated sites under 

the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program was transferred to the Army Corps of Engineers in the fiscal year 1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, Public Law 105– 

62. 

FUSRAP is not specifically defined by statute. The program was 

established in 1974 under the broad authority of the Atomic Energy Act and, until fiscal year 1998, funds for the cleanup of contaminated defense sites had been appropriated to the Department 

of Energy through existing appropriation accounts. In appropriating FUSRAP funds to the Corps of Engineers, the Committee 

intended to transfer only the responsibility for administration and 

execution of cleanup activities at eligible sites where remediation 

had not been completed. It did not intend to transfer ownership of 

and accountability for real property interests that remain with the 

Department of Energy. 

The Corps of Engineers has extensive experience in the cleanup 

of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes through its work for the 

Department of Defense and other Federal agencies. The Committee 

always intended for the Corps’ expertise be used in the same manner for the cleanup of contaminated sites under FUSRAP. The 

Committee expects the Corps to continue programming and budgeting for FUSRAP as part of the Corps of Engineers—Civil program. The Committee directs the Corps to prioritize sites that are 

nearing completion during fiscal year 2008. 

GENERAL EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $167,250,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 177,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 175,000,000 

This appropriation finances the expenses of the Office, Chief of 

Engineers, the Division Offices, and certain research and statistical 

functions of the Corps of Engineers. The Committee recommendation is $175,000,000. The Committee rejects the proposal to include 

the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) 

within the GE account. The Committee continues to believe that 

the office should be funded in the Defense Appropriations Act due 

to the other Army related duties of the Assistant Secretary’s office 

and directs that it be funded in the Department of Defense, Operation and Maintenance—Army budget account in future budgets. 

However, the Committee recognizes that this office will likely be 

funded in this bill this year. The Committee believes that if the 

Secretary’s office is going to be funded in this bill, it should be 

funded in a separate account. The Committee’s recommendation includes funding for this office under a separate account. 
103 

Executive Direction and Management.—The Office of the Chief of 

Engineers and eight division offices supervise work in 38 district 

offices. 

Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity.—This support center provides administrative services (such as personnel, logistics, 

information management, and finance and accounting) for the Office of the Chief of Engineers and other separate field operating activities. 

Institute for Water Resources.—This institute performs studies, 

analyses, and develops planning techniques for the management 

and development of the Nation’s water resources. 

United States Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center.—This 

center provides centralized support for all Corps finance and accounting. 

Office of Congressional Affairs.—The Committee has included 

statutory language for the past several years prohibiting any funds 

from being used to fund an Office of Congressional Affairs within 

the executive office of the Chief of Engineers. The Committee believes that an Office of Congressional Affairs for the Civil Works 

Program would hamper the efficient and effective coordination of 

issues with the Committee staff and Members of Congress. The 

Committee believes that the technical knowledge and managerial 

expertise needed for the Corps headquarters to effectively address 

Civil Works authorization, appropriation, and Headquarters policy 

matters resides in the Civil Works organization. Therefore, the 

Committee strongly recommends that the Office of Congressional 

Affairs not be a part of the process by which information on Civil 

Works projects, programs, and activities is provided to Congress. 

The Committee reminds the Corps that the General Expenses account is to be used exclusively for executive oversight and management of the Civil Works Program. 

In 1998, The Chief of Engineers issued a Command Directive 

transferring the oversight and management of the General Expenses account, as well as the manpower associated with this function, from the Civil Works Directorate to the Resource Management Office. The Corps is reminded that General Expense funds 

are appropriated solely for the executive management and oversight of the Civil Works Program under the direction of the Director of Civil Works. 

The Committee is pleased with the efforts of the Corps to restructure the management of general expense funds. It continues 

to believe that the general expense dollars are ultimately at the 

discretion of the Chief of Engineers and are intended to be utilized 

in his effort to carry out the Corps’ civil works mission. The new 

controls put in place to manage the general expense dollars and 

evaluate the needs of the Corps address the Committee’s previous 

concerns. The Committee requests the Corps continue to provide biannual written notification of the dispersal of general expense 

funds. 

Millions of dollars have been spent over the last several years on 

an initiative to contract out Government jobs in order to make the 

Government more efficient. However, in more than 70 percent of 

the cases Government employees win the competition for their jobs. 

The Committee fails to see any evidence of cost savings or in-
104 

creased efficiency by undergoing these expensive competitions. 

Therefore, the Committee directs that no funds provided in this account or otherwise available for expenditure shall be used to comply with the competitive sourcing initiative. 

The Committee acknowledges that the General Expense account 

has not kept pace with inflation. Over the last 6 years this account 

has fluctuated. The low point was in fiscal year 2000, when the account was funded at $149,500,000 for a $4,100,000,000 program. 

The high point was in fiscal year 2005, when the account was funded at $167,000,000 for a $4,700,000,000 program. Both of these 

numbers represent about 3.6 percent of the total dollars appropriated. The Committee recommendation for the fiscal year 2007 

program is about $5,450,000,000. Using the same percentage, this 

translates to more than $196,000,000 for the GE account for fiscal 

year 2007. Obviously other variables must be considered than a 

single percentage, but it is one way to approximate the level of 

funding needed in the GE account to provide similar levels of service. 

While the Committee recommendation did not provide 

$192,000,000 for the GE account, it did increase the account by 

$3,000,000 to $175,000,000. These additional funds are provided in 

recognition of the heavier workload of the Corps Headquarters offices resulting from recent budget increases unrelated to hurricane 

Katrina. The costs for overseeing the New Orleans area are temporary and are being addressed in current budgets. The additional 

funds are provided for the recent budget increases to the Corps’ 

program and that the recognition by this Committee that effective 

oversight of the Corps’ program was being endangered by the lean 

budgets of the last few years. The Committee believes that these 

additional funds should be used to hire an additional 15–20 positions and that these additional positions should continue to be 

budgeted for in future budget submissions. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. $4,500,000 

The Committee has recommended $4,500,000 for the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) [OASA(CW)]. As has 

been previously stated, the Committee believes that this office 

should be funded through the Defense appropriations bill and directs the administration to budget for this office under the Department of Defense, Operation and Maintenance—Army account in future budget submissions. The Committee continues to believe that 

the ASA(CW) has neither the time nor should he be involved in the 

day-to-day operational matters of the civil works program. It is the 

Committee’s opinion that the traditional role of the ASA(CW) is to 

provide the Chief of Engineers advice about policy matters and 

generally be the political spokesperson for the administration’s 

policies; however, the Chief of Engineers is responsible for carrying 

out the program. This is underscored by the administration’s budget documents that state that the OASA(CW) provides policy direction and oversight for the civil works program and the Head-
105 

quarters of the Corps provides executive direction and management 

of the civil works program. 

The decisions of fiscal year 2005 through 2007 to fund the expenses of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works 

through Energy and Water appropriations were an experiment in 

striving for management improvements in the Civil Works program. The desired management improvements can be and are 

being achieved but, based on the experience of these 3 years, it is 

apparent that funding the Assistant Secretary’s office out of Energy 

and Water appropriations, rather than the military appropriation 

that funds the rest of the Army Secretariat, is neither necessary 

to achieve these improvements nor is it an efficient way to fund the 

office. 

The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works advises the 

Secretary of the Army on a variety of matters, including the Civil 

Works program of the Corps of Engineers. The Assistant Secretary 

is a member of the Army Secretariat with responsibilities, such as 

participating in Continuity of Government exercises that extend 

well beyond Civil Works. The Assistant Secretary also oversees the 

administration, operation and maintenance, and capital development of Arlington National Cemetery and the Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home National Cemetery. Congressional oversight of the 

Army Cemetery program lies not with the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, but rather with the Appropriation Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and with 

the Committee on Veterans Affairs. 

The Assistant Secretary has broad responsibilities to oversee the 

Support for Others program of the Corps of Engineers, totaling 

nearly $2,400,000,000 in fiscal year 2005. Through this program, 

the Corps provides reimbursable engineering and construction services for more than 70 other Federal agencies and, under certain 

conditions specified in law, provides services for States, localities 

and tribes. The Assistant Secretary also has oversight over Corps 

international activities that are not directly in support of U.S. military forces overseas. These include more than $500,000,000 in design and construction for the Defense Department’s Foreign Military Sales program and more than $150,000,000 in vertical construction for the Department of State’s Cooperative Threat Reduction program. Oversight of domestic activities includes support for 

the Department of Homeland Security (in both national security activities and emergency response under the Stafford Act in support 

of the Federal Emergency Management Agency), the Environmental Protection Agency’s Superfund program, the Department of 

Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and 

many other agencies. 

The Army’s accounting system does not track OMA funding of 

overhead or Army-wide support offices on the basis of which office 

receives support, nor would it be efficient or effective to do so for 

a 20 person office. Instead, expenses such as legal support, personnel services, finance and accounting services, the executive 

motor pool, travel on military aircraft, and other support services 

are centrally funded and managed on a department-wide basis. 

Transferring the funding for the expenses of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works to a separate account has greatly com-
106 

plicated the Army’s accounting for such indirect and overhead expenses with no commensurate benefit to justify the change. The 

Committee does not agree that these costs should be funded in this 

bill and therefore has only provided funding for salaries and expenses as in previous years. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

Section 101. The bill includes language concerning reprogramming guidelines. 

Section 102. The bill includes language prohibiting implementation of competitive sourcing or HPO. 

Section 103. The bill includes language prohibiting the divesting 

or transferring Civil Works functions. 

Section 104. The bill includes language prohibiting any steps to 

dismantle the St. Georges Bridge in Delaware. (Biden, Carper) 

Section 105. The bill includes language concerning report notifications. 

Section 106. The bill includes language concerning reallocations 

in Lake Cumberland, Kentucky. (McConnell) 

Section 107. The bill includes language regarding the Lower Mud 

River, Milton, West Virginia, project. (Byrd) 

Section 108. The bill includes language allowing the use of the 

revolving fund for construction of two buildings at the U.S. Army 

Engineer Research and Design Center. (Cochran) 

Section 109. The bill includes language concerning cooperative 

agreements. (Domenici) 

Section 110. The bill includes language concerning in-kind services for the Rio Grande Basin Watershed study. The provision allows for local sponsors of this project to be reimbursed for overpayment of the non-Federal share of the costs of the study. (Domenici) 

Section 111. The bill includes language regarding the Middle Rio 

Grande Collaborative Program, New Mexico. (Domenici) 

Section 112. The bill includes language regarding Apalachiacola, 

Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers and Alabama, Coosa and 

Tallapoosa Rivers, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. (Shelby) 

Section 113. The bill includes language regarding the Rio De 

Flag, Arizona, project. The provision increases the cost ceiling on 

this ongoing project to allow progress on te project to continue uninterrupted. (Kyl) 

Section 114. The bill includes language regarding Avian Predation in the Columbia River Fish Mitigation project. The provision 

increases the authorization of funding to allow continued work on 

aviation predation. (Murray) 

Section 115. The bill includes language regarding the Santa Ana, 

California, project. The provision increases the cost ceiling for the 

project in order to allow incorporation of the replacement of an 

aging wastewater line to be incorporated as a project feature. The 

line is endangered by bank erosion caused by other features of the 

Santa Ana project. (Feinstein) 

Section 116. The bill includes language regarding the Upper 

Guadalupe, California, project. The provision increases the cost 

ceiling on this ongoing project to allow progress on te project to 

continue uninterrupted. (Feinstein) 
107 

Section 117. The bill includes language concerning the conveyance of surplus property in Tate County, Mississippi. (Cochran) 

Section 118. The bill includes a modification to section 594 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The modification provides authority for North Dakota to be eligible for this assistance. 

(Dorgan) 

Section 119. The bill includes language regarding the Kahuku 

Storm Damage Reduction Project, Hawaii. This provision allows 

the Corps to initiate PED and to include interior drainage improvements as part of the project. (Inouye) 

Section 120. The bill includes language regarding the Federal 

dredge fleet. 

Section 121. The bill includes language regarding the Federal 

dredge fleet. 

Section 122. The bill includes language regarding the Federal 

dredge fleet. 

Section 123. The bill includes language concerning Missouri 

River mitigation. The provision authorizes provision of facilities at 

Intake Dam for endangered species recovery. (President, Baucus, 

Tester) 

Section 124. The bill includes language limiting Corps of Engineers expenditure on a project. 

Section 125. The bill includes language repealing a sections of 

Public Law 109–103 pertaining to continuing contracts. 

Section 126. The bill includes language concerning the Shore 

Line Erosion Control Development and Demonstration Program. 

This provision extends the authorization and will allow the Corps 

to expend funds that have been previously appropriated to complete on going projects and continue monitoring of completed 

projects. 

Section 127. The bill includes language regarding congressional 

budget justifications. 

Section 128. The bill includes language regarding a replacement 

health care facility at Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota. (Dorgan) 

Section 129. The bill includes language regarding reimbursements. This provision increases the limits allowed on certain reimbursements for work undertaken by local interests. 

Section 130. The bill includes language regarding Johnson Creek, 

Texas. This amends the previous authorization for the flood control 

project. (Hutchison) 

Section 131. The bill includes language regarding McAlpine Lock 

and Dam. The provision increases the cost ceiling on this ongoing 

project to allow progress on te project to continue uninterrupted. 

(President, McConnell) 

Section 132. The bill includes a provision concerning reimbursement for expenses incurred by locals carrying out portions of authorized Federal flood and storm damage reduction projects. 

(Landrieu, Vitter) 

Section 133. The bill includes language regarding crediting of 

non-Federal expenditures on the San Lorenzo River, California 

project. (Feinstein) 

Section 134. The bill includes a provision regarding the Missouri 

and Middle Mississippi Rivers Enhancement Project. (Bond) 
108 

Section 135. The bill includes a provision concerning Nogales 

Wash, Arizona. The provision increases the cost ceiling on this ongoing project to allow progress on the project to continue uninterrupted. (Kyl) 

Section 136. The bill includes a provision concerning Tucson 

Drainage Area, Arizona. The provision increases the cost ceiling on 

this ongoing project to allow progress on the project to continue uninterrupted. (Kyl) 

Section 137. The bill includes a provision on the Coronado, California project. The provision allows the local project sponsor credit 

for work undertaken prior to a project cooperation agreement. 

(Feinstein) 

Section 138. The bill includes a provision concerning the Rural 

Utah [EI], Utah project. The provision increases the cost ceiling on 

this ongoing project to allow progress on the project to continue uninterrupted. (Bennett) 

Section 139. Te bill includes a provision for the Navajo Reservation, Arizona, Utah and New Mexico project. This provision modifies the project by allowing the non-Federal share to be in the form 

of in-kind services. (Domenici) 

Section 140. The bill contains a provision concerning the Connecticut River Watershed Study, New Hampshire, Connecticut, 

Massachusetts and Vermont. The provision allows The Nature Conservancy to serve as the non-Federal sponsor of the study. 

(Lieberman, Gregg) 

Section 141. The bill contains a provision concerning the Asian 

carp barriers on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Illinois. 

(President, Durbin, Obama, Levin. Stabenow) 

Section 142. The bill contains a funding limitation on a project. 

Section 143. The bill contains a provision concerning the visitor 

reservation services for Corps of Engineers recreation sites. 

Section 144. The bill includes a provision concerning Marshall, 

Minnesota project. The provision increases the cost ceiling on this 

completed ongoing project allowing the Corps to do the final fiscal 

closeouts of the project. (Coleman, Klobuchar) 

Section 145. The bill includes a provision concerning the St. 

John’s-New Madrid Floodway, Missouri. The provision makes the 

St. John’s-New Madrid project a part of the Mississippi River Levees project. (Bond) 

Section 146. The bill contains a provision concerning the Southeast Louisiana, Louisiana project. The provision recognizes the 

Southeast Louisiana project as an integral part of the project to 

provide 100-year level of protection to certain areas of the New Orleans metropolitan area. (Landrieu) 

Section 147. The bill contains a provision allowing funds provided in Public Law 110–28 to be utilized for the purposes for 

which they were appropriated. 
(109) 

TITLE II 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $34,020,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 43,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 43,000,000 

The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2008 to carry out 

the provisions of the Central Utah Project Completion Act totals 

$43,000,000. An appropriation of $40,404,000 has been provided for 

Central Utah project construction; $976,000 for fish, wildlife, and 

recreation, mitigation and conservation. The Committee recommendation provides $1,620,000 for program administration and 

oversight. 

Legislative language in the bill that accompanies this report allows up to $1,500,000 to be used for administrative costs. The one 

time increase in administrative expenses is to provide funding for 

costs associated with securing new office space and relocating the 

Commission’s office in fiscal year 2007. 

The Central Utah Project Completion Act (titles II–VI of Public 

Law 102–575) provides for the completion of the central Utah 

project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. The Act 

also authorizes the appropriation of funds for fish, wildlife, recreation, mitigation, and conservation; establishes an account in the 

Treasury for the deposit of these funds and of other contributions 

for mitigation and conservation activities; and establishes a Utah 

Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission to administer funds in that account. The act further assigns responsibilities 

for carrying out the act to the Secretary of the Interior and prohibits delegation of those responsibilities to the Bureau of Reclamation. 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $878,623,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 816,197,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 950,106,000 

1 Includes Emergency Supplemental Appropriations of $18,000,000. 

An appropriation of $950,106,000 is recommended by the Committee for general investigations of the Bureau of Reclamation. The 

water and related resources account supports the development, 

management, and restoration of water and related natural resources in the 17 Western States. The account includes funds for 

operating and maintaining existing facilities to obtain the greatest 

overall level of benefits, to protect public safety, and to conduct 
110 

studies on ways to improve the use of water and related natural 

resources. Work will be done in partnership and cooperation with 

non-Federal entities and other Federal agencies. 

The Committee has divided underfinancing between the Resources Management Subaccount and the Facilities Operation and 

Maintenance subaccount. The Committee directs that the underfinancing amount in each subaccount initially be applied uniformly 

across all projects within the subaccounts. Upon applying the 

underfinanced amounts, normal reprogramming procedures should 

be undertaken to account for schedule slippages, accelerations or 

other unforeseen conditions. 

It has been nearly 10 years since the Committee addressed reprogramming guidance for Reclamation. The Committee believes 

that Reclamation is managing funds in the appropriate manner, 

but thinks that it would be prudent to reiterate the guidelines. The 

guidelines are as follows: 

The Bureau is permitted to transfer, without prior congressional 

approval and without regard to percentage limitation, not more 

than $5,000,000 in any one case to provide adequate funds for settled contractor claims, increased contractor earnings due to accelerated rates of operations, and real estate deficiency judgments, provided that such reprogramming is necessary to discharge legal obligations of the Bureau of Reclamation. 

As to each project within the Resources Management and Development category for which $2,000,000 or more is available at the 

beginning of the fiscal year, the Bureau is permitted to transfer to 

such project in that fiscal year no more than 15 percent of the 

amount available at the beginning of the fiscal year for such 

project, without prior congressional approval. As to each project 

within the Resources Management and Development category for 

which less than $2,000,000 is available at the beginning of the fiscal year, the Bureau is permitted to transfer to such project no 

more than $300,000 in that fiscal year without prior congressional 

approval. 

The Bureau is further permitted to transfer funds within the Facility Operation, Maintenance and Rehabilitation category without 

prior congressional approval and without regard to percentage or 

dollar limitation. The Bureau may not transfer, without prior congressional approval, more than $500,000 from either the Facilities 

Operation, Maintenance and Rehabilitation category or the Resources Management and Development category to any project in 

the other category. The Bureau is prohibited from initiating any 

program, project or activity through an internal reprogramming action. 

DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS

The Committee received more than 130 requests for projects, programs, studies or activities for the Bureau of Reclamation for fiscal 

year 2008. These were items that were in addition to the budget 

request as well as those included in the budget request. The Committee obviously was unable to accommodate all of these requests. 

In the interest of providing full disclosure of funding provided in 

the Energy and Water bill, all disclosures are made in this report 

accompanying the bill. 
111 

All of the projects funded in this report have gone through the 

same rigorous public review and approval process as those proposed for funding by the President. The difference in these projects, 

of course, is that the congressionally directed projects are not subject to the artificial budgetary prioritization criteria that the administration utilizes to decide what not to fund. 

A new column has been added to the tables to show the requestors of the various projects. For those programs, projects, or studies 

that were included in the budgetary documents provided in the 

budget request, the word President has been added to denote this 

administration request. The level of funding provided for each of 

these programs projects or studies should not be construed as what 

was requested. Rather, the only intent is to disclose the requestor. 

It should be noted that many line items only have President listed as the requestor. It should not be inferred that the affected 

members are not interested in these projects studies or activities. 

Rather this is due to Committee direction that the President’s 

budget requests are assumed to be requested by the affected Members unless they notify the Committee to the contrary. 

The purposes for the funding provided in the various accounts is 

described in the paragraphs associated with each account. The location of the programs, projects or studies are denoted in the account 

tables. 

The amounts recommended by the Committee are shown on the 

following table along with the budget request. 
112 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Requested by Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

ARIZONA 

AK CHIN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT .............................................................................................. .................. 8,700 .................. 8,700 PRESIDENT CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT, COLORADO RIVER BASIN .......................................................................................... 26,961 218 27,811 218 PRESIDENT, KYL, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN COLORADO RIVER FRONT WORK AND LEVEE SYSTEM ............................................................................................. 3,312 .................. 3,312 .................. PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN NORTHERN ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM .................................................................................................... 385 .................. 385 .................. PRESIDENT PHOENIX METROPOLITAN WATER REUSE PROJECT .................................................................................................. 200 .................. 200 .................. PRESIDENT SALT RIVER PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................... 360 240 360 240 PRESIDENT SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE WATER SETTLEMENT ACT .......................................................................................... 310 .................. 310 .................. PRESIDENT SOUTH/CENTRAL ARIZONA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ........................................................................................... 915 .................. 915 .................. PRESIDENT SOUTHERN ARIZONA WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT PROJECT ........................................................................... 4,445 .................. 4,445 .................. PRESIDENT YUMA AREA PROJECTS ............................................................................................................................................. 1,652 21,257 1,652 21,257 PRESIDENT YUMA EAST WETLANDS ............................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. 1,500 .................. KYL 

CALIFORNIA 

CACHUMA PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................. 1,071 640 1,821 640 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM .................................................................................................................. 460 .................. 460 .................. PRESIDENT CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT RECYCLING PLANT ................................................................................. 900 .................. 900 .................. PRESIDENT CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECTS: 

AMERICAN RIVER DIVISION ............................................................................................................................. 1,903 7,725 1,903 7,725 PRESIDENT AUBURN-FOLSOM SOUTH UNIT ....................................................................................................................... 4,723 100 4,723 100 PRESIDENT DELTA DIVISION ............................................................................................................................................... 11,818 5,830 11,818 5,830 PRESIDENT EAST SIDE DIVISION ........................................................................................................................................ 1,551 2,903 1,551 2,903 PRESIDENT FRIANT DIVISION ............................................................................................................................................. 2,261 3,686 3,761 4,261 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................... 12,697 1,083 14,697 1,083 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN REPLACEMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND EXTRAORDINARY MAINT ........................................................................... .................. 19,410 .................. 19,410 PRESIDENT SACRAMENTO RIVER DIVISION ........................................................................................................................ 6,522 1,506 6,522 1,506 PRESIDENT SAN FELIPE DIVISION ...................................................................................................................................... 891 29 891 29 PRESIDENT SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION ................................................................................................................................... 327 .................. 327 .................. PRESIDENT SHASTA DIVISION ............................................................................................................................................ 584 7,957 584 7,957 PRESIDENT TRINITY RIVER DIVISION ................................................................................................................................. 7,329 3,133 9,329 3,133 PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN WATER AND POWER OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................... 1,407 8,874 1,407 8,874 PRESIDENT WEST SAN JOAQUIN DIVISION, SAN LUIS UNIT ............................................................................................... 3,460 6,504 3,460 6,504 PRESIDENT 
113 

YIELD FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION .................................................................................................................. 562 .................. 562 .................. PRESIDENT 

IRVINE BASIN GROUND AND SURFACE WATER IMPROVEMENT ............................................................................... .................. .................. 1,000 .................. FEINSTEIN LAKE TAHOE REGIONAL WETLANDS .......................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 2,300 .................. REID LONG BEACH AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJECT ........................................................................... 600 .................. 600 .................. PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN LONG BEACH DESALINATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJ ........................................................................ 250 .................. 250 .................. PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY AREA WATER RECYCLING PROJECT ............................................................................ 1,500 .................. 1,500 .................. PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL WATER RECLAMATION PROJECT, PHAS ...................................................................... 1,500 .................. 1,500 .................. PRESIDENT, FEINSTEIN ORLAND PROJECT ..................................................................................................................................................... 15 702 15 702 PRESIDENT SALTON SEA RESEARCH PROJECT ........................................................................................................................... 300 .................. 300 .................. PRESIDENT SAN DIEGO AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM ............................................................................ 3,450 .................. 3,450 .................. PRESIDENT SAN GABRIEL BASIN PROJECT ................................................................................................................................. 700 .................. 700 .................. PRESIDENT SAN JOSE AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM .............................................................................. 200 .................. 200 .................. PRESIDENT SOLANO PROJECT ..................................................................................................................................................... 1,452 2,533 1,452 2,533 PRESIDENT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ............................................................................................... 190 .................. 237 .................. PRESIDENT VENTURA RIVER PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................ 402 56 402 56 PRESIDENT 

COLORADO 

ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT, CRSP .......................................................................................................................... 57,750 250 63,000 250 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, ALLARD, SALAZAR, 

BINGAMAN 

COLLBRAN PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................. 172 1,321 172 1,321 PRESIDENT COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON PROJECT ...................................................................................................................... 370 11,319 370 11,319 PRESIDENT COLORADO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ................................................................................................................... 304 .................. 304 .................. PRESIDENT FRUITGROWERS DAM PROJECT ................................................................................................................................ 57 151 57 151 PRESIDENT FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT .............................................................................................................................. 172 8,897 172 8,897 PRESIDENT GRAND VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II .................................................................................................................. 144 1,014 144 1,014 PRESIDENT LEADVILLE/ARKANSAS RIVER RECOVERY ................................................................................................................. 36 1,994 36 1,994 PRESIDENT MANCOS PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................... 51 101 51 101 PRESIDENT PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CRBSCP, TITLE II .............................................................................................................. 62 2,501 62 2,501 PRESIDENT PINE RIVER PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................... 124 145 124 145 PRESIDENT SAN LUIS VALLEY PROJECT ...................................................................................................................................... 272 4,715 272 4,715 PRESIDENT UNCOMPAHGRE PROJECT ......................................................................................................................................... 108 132 108 132 PRESIDENT UPPER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................... 200 .................. 200 .................. PRESIDENT 

HAWAII 

HAWAII RECLAIMATION PROJECTS—LAHAINA .......................................................................................................... .................. .................. 1,000 .................. INOUYE 

IDAHO 

BOISE AREA PROJECTS ............................................................................................................................................ 2,420 2,743 2,420 2,743 PRESIDENT COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON RECOVERY PROJECT ................................................................................. 15,000 .................. 15,000 .................. PRESIDENT IDAHO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ........................................................................................................................... 331 .................. 331 .................. PRESIDENT 
114 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Requested by Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

LEWISTON ORCHARDS PROJECTS ............................................................................................................................. 576 27 576 27 PRESIDENT MINIDOKA AREA PROJECTS ...................................................................................................................................... 3,029 2,720 3,029 2,720 PRESIDENT 

KANSAS 

KANSAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ........................................................................................................................ 72 .................. 72 .................. PRESIDENT WICHITA-CHENEY PROJECT ...................................................................................................................................... 8 419 8 419 PRESIDENT WICHTITA PROJECT—EQUUS BEDS DIVISION .......................................................................................................... .................. .................. 1,000 .................. ROBERTS 

MONTANA 

FORT PECK RESERVATION/DRY PRAIRIE RURAL WATER SYSTEM ............................................................................ .................. .................. 10,000 .................. BAUCUS, TESTER HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................ .................. 913 .................. 913 PRESIDENT HUNTLEY PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................... 56 105 56 105 PRESIDENT LOWER YELLOWSTONE PROJECT .............................................................................................................................. 235 65 235 65 PRESIDENT MILK RIVER PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................... 471 1,255 471 1,255 PRESIDENT MONTANA INVESTIGATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 23 .................. 23 .................. PRESIDENT ROCKY BOYS/NORTH CENTRAL MONTANA RURAL WATER SYSTEM ......................................................................... .................. .................. 6,000 .................. BAUCUS, TESTER SUN RIVER PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................ 108 262 108 262 PRESIDENT 

NEBRASKA 

MIRAGE FLATS PROJECT .......................................................................................................................................... 29 111 29 111 PRESIDENT NEBRASKA INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM .................................................................................................................... 8 .................. 8 .................. PRESIDENT 

NEVADA 

HALFWAY WASH PROJECT STUDY ............................................................................................................................. 175 .................. 175 .................. PRESIDENT LAHONTAN BASIN PROJECT ...................................................................................................................................... 4,875 3,704 4,875 3,704 PRESIDENT LAKE MEAD/LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM ................................................................................................................ 900 .................. 2,750 .................. PRESIDENT, REID, ENSIGN NORTH LAS VEGAS WATER REUSE ........................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 3,000 .................. REID 

NEW MEXICO 

ALBUQUERQUE METRO AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE ........................................................................... .................. .................. 1,500 .................. DOMENICI, BINGAMAN CARLSBAD PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................. 2,231 660 3,181 660 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN CHIMAYO WATER PLAN ............................................................................................................................................ .................. .................. 1,000 .................. DOMENICI, BINGAMAN 
115 

EASTERN NEW MEXICO INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAMS .............................................................................................. 38 .................. 38 .................. PRESIDENT, DOMENICI EASTERN NEW MEXICO WATER REUSE .................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 500 .................. DOMENICI, BINGAMAN EASTERN NEW MEXICO RURAL WATER SUPPLY ...................................................................................................... .................. .................. 500 .................. DOMENICI, BINGAMAN MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PROJECT ................................................................................................................................ 12,005 11,195 20,655 18,895 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN NAVAJO-GALLUP WATER SUPPLY, NM, UT, CO ......................................................................................................... .................. .................. 500 .................. DOMENICI, BINGAMAN NAVAJO NATION INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ............................................................................................................ 84 .................. 84 .................. PRESIDENT, DOMENICI PECOS RIVER BASIN WATER SALVAGE PROJECT ..................................................................................................... .................. 197 .................. 197 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI RIO GRANDE PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................. 833 3,683 833 3,683 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ............................................................................................... 133 .................. 133 .................. PRESIDENT, DOMENICI SANTA FE BUCKMAN DIVERSION, NM ...................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 500 .................. DOMENICI, BINGAMAN SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO/WEST TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ........................................................................ 140 .................. 140 .................. PRESIDENT, DOMENICI TUCUMCARI PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................... 23 10 23 10 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI UPPER RIO GRANDE BASIN INVESTIGATIONS ........................................................................................................... 76 .................. 76 .................. PRESIDENT, DOMENICI 

NORTH DAKOTA 

DAKOTAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ...................................................................................................................... 204 .................. 204 .................. PRESIDENT PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN—GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT .................................................................................. 15,495 4,725 64,275 4,725 PRESIDENT, DORGAN 

OKLAHOMA 

ARBUCKLE PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................. 51 137 51 137 PRESIDENT MCGEE CREEK PROJECT .......................................................................................................................................... 42 568 42 568 PRESIDENT MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT ....................................................................................................................................... 15 400 15 400 PRESIDENT NORMAN PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................... 16 387 16 387 PRESIDENT WASHITA BASIN PROJECT ......................................................................................................................................... 26 1,467 26 1,467 PRESIDENT W.C. AUSTIN PROJECT .............................................................................................................................................. 18 357 18 357 PRESIDENT 

OREGON 

BURNT, MALHEUR, OWYHEE, AND POWER RIVER BASIN WATER OPTIMAZATION FEASIBILITY STUDY .................... .................. .................. 300 .................. WYDEN, SMITH CROOKED RIVER PROJECT ....................................................................................................................................... 426 548 426 548 PRESIDENT DESCHUTES PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................... 264 172 264 172 PRESIDENT EASTERN OREGON PROJECTS .................................................................................................................................. 521 289 521 289 PRESIDENT KLAMATH PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................... 23,605 1,395 23,605 1,395 PRESIDENT OREGON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ....................................................................................................................... 232 .................. 732 .................. PRESIDENT, WYDEN, SMITH ROGUE RIVER BASIN PROJECT, TALENT DIVISION ................................................................................................... 851 490 851 490 PRESIDENT SAVAGE RAPIDS DAM REMOVAL .............................................................................................................................. 15,000 .................. 15,000 .................. PRESIDENT TUALATIN BASIN WATER SUPPLY PROJECT .............................................................................................................. .................. .................. 250 .................. WYDEN, SMITH TUALATIN PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................... 125 243 125 243 PRESIDENT TUALATIN PROJECT TITLE TRANSFER AND FACILITY ASSESMENT STUDY ................................................................ .................. .................. 400 .................. WYDEN, SMITH UMATILLA PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................. 957 2,689 957 2,689 PRESIDENT 
116 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Requested by Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM ............................................................................................................. 15,000 .................. 28,000 .................. PRESIDENT, JOHNSON, HARKIN, GRASSLEY, 

COLEMAN KLOBUCHAR, THUNE 

MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER PROJECT ..................................................................................................................... .................. 15 .................. 15 PRESIDENT MNI WICONI PROJECT .............................................................................................................................................. 19,474 9,526 30,909 9,526 PRESIDENT, JOHNSON, THUNE PERKINS COUNTY RURAL WATER SYSTEM, SD ........................................................................................................ .................. .................. 1,500 .................. JOHNSON, THUNE RAPID VALLEY PROJECT, DEERFIELD DAM ............................................................................................................... .................. 74 .................. 74 PRESIDENT 

TEXAS 

BALMORHEA PROJECT .............................................................................................................................................. 41 17 41 17 PRESIDENT CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT ...................................................................................................................................... 72 72 72 72 PRESIDENT DALLAS-TRINITY WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE STUDY .................................................................................... .................. .................. 500 .................. HUTCHISON LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY WATER RESOURCES .................................................................................................. 50 .................. 3,500 .................. PRESIDENT, HUTCHISON NUECES RIVER PROJECT .......................................................................................................................................... 29 718 29 718 PRESIDENT SAN ANGELO PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................. 10 331 10 331 PRESIDENT TEXAS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ........................................................................................................................... 114 .................. 114 .................. PRESIDENT 

UTAH 

HYRUM PROJECT ...................................................................................................................................................... 120 33 120 33 PRESIDENT MOON LAKE PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................... 3 29 3 29 PRESIDENT NEWTON PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................... 54 25 54 25 PRESIDENT NORTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ......................................................................................................... 76 .................. 576 .................. PRESIDENT, BENNETT OGDEN RIVER PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................... 160 92 160 92 PRESIDENT PARK CITY FEASIBILLTY STUDY ............................................................................................................................... .................. .................. 500 .................. BENNETT PROVO RIVER PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................ 553 314 553 314 PRESIDENT SCOFIELD PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................. 56 37 56 37 PRESIDENT SOUTHERN UTAH INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM .......................................................................................................... 114 .................. 114 .................. PRESIDENT STRAWBERRY VALLEY PROJECT ............................................................................................................................... 204 16 204 16 PRESIDENT WEBER BASIN PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................... 1,546 421 1,546 421 PRESIDENT WEBER RIVER PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................... 48 69 48 69 PRESIDENT 
117 

WASHINGTON 

COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT ...................................................................................................................................... 3,658 8,299 5,658 8,299 PRESIDENT, MURRAY, CANTWELL MAKAH INDIAN COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY ........................................................................................................... .................. .................. 300 .................. MURRAY ODESSA SUBAREA SPECIAL STUDY .......................................................................................................................... 185 .................. 1,185 .................. PRESIDENT, MURRAY, CANTWELL STORAGE DAM FISH PASSAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY .................................................................................................. 400 .................. 400 .................. PRESIDENT WASHINGTON AREA PROJECTS ................................................................................................................................. 82 10 82 10 PRESIDENT WASHINGTON INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ................................................................................................................ 138 .................. 138 .................. PRESIDENT YAKIMA PROJECT ...................................................................................................................................................... 1,155 6,789 1,155 6,789 PRESIDENT YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT .......................................................................................... 8,470 .................. 8,470 .................. PRESIDENT YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE PROJECT ................................................................................................... .................. .................. 1,000 .................. MURRAY, CANTWELL 

WYOMING 

KENDRICK PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................. 108 3,839 108 3,839 PRESIDENT NORTH PLATTE PROJECT .......................................................................................................................................... 323 1,816 323 1,816 PRESIDENT SHOSHONE PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................ 76 960 76 960 PRESIDENT 

SUBTOTAL FOR PROJECTS .......................................................................................................................... 321,433 211,064 459,948 218,764 

REGIONAL PROGRAMS 

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL, TITLE I ............................................................................................. .................. 9,441 .................. 9,441 PRESIDENT, KYL COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL, TITLE II ............................................................................................ 7,850 .................. 8,350 .................. PRESIDENT, BENNETT COLORADO RIVER STORAGE, SECTION 5 ................................................................................................................. 2,110 3,884 2,110 3,884 PRESIDENT COLORADO RIVER STORAGE, SECTION 8 ................................................................................................................. 4,690 .................. 4,690 .................. PRESIDENT COLORADO RIVER WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ................................................................................ 440 .................. 440 .................. PRESIDENT DAM SAFETY PROGRAM 

DEPARTMENT DAM SAFETY PROGRAM ............................................................................................................ .................. 1,400 .................. 1,400 PRESIDENT INITIATE SOD CORRECTIVE ACTION ................................................................................................................ .................. 57,100 .................. 57,100 PRESIDENT SAFETY OF EVALUATION OF EXISTING DAMS .................................................................................................. .................. 18,500 .................. 18,500 PRESIDENT 

DROUGHT EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ...................................................................................................... 436 .................. 436 .................. PRESIDENT, INOUYE EMERGENCY PLANNING & DISASTER RESPONSE PROGRAM ................................................................................... .................. 1,442 .................. 1,442 PRESIDENT ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................. 16,614 .................. 16,614 .................. PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BENNETT, SALAZAR, 

BINGAMAN, HATCH 

ENVIRONMENTAL & INTERAGENCY COORDINATION ACTIVITIES ............................................................................... 1,637 .................. 1,637 .................. PRESIDENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ......................................................................................................... 855 .................. 855 .................. PRESIDENT EXAMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES ................................................................................................................ .................. 6,440 .................. 6,440 PRESIDENT FEDERAL BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY PROGRAM ..................................................................................................... .................. 1,496 .................. 1,496 PRESIDENT GENERAL PLANNING STUDIES .................................................................................................................................. 2,006 .................. 2,006 .................. PRESIDENT LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ........................................................................................................... 7,584 .................. 7,584 .................. PRESIDENT LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................... 1,000 .................. 1,000 .................. PRESIDENT LOWER COLORADO RIVER INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ............................................................................................ 236 .................. 236 .................. PRESIDENT 
118 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION—WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title 

Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Requested by Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

Resources 

management 

Facilities 

OM&R 

LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM ................................................................................................. 15,418 .................. 15,418 .................. PRESIDENT MISCELLANEOUS FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS ..................................................................................................... .................. 675 .................. 675 PRESIDENT NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS PROGRAM .................................................................................................................... 6,179 .................. 6,179 .................. PRESIDENT NEGOTIATION & ADMINISTRATION OF WATER MARKETING ...................................................................................... 1,597 .................. 1,597 .................. PRESIDENT OPERATIONS AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................ 828 458 828 458 PRESIDENT PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN .................................................................................................................................. 4,130 36,836 4,130 36,836 PRESIDENT POWER PROGRAM SERVICES ................................................................................................................................... 786 240 786 240 PRESIDENT PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY PROGRAM ................................................................................................................. 1,088 155 1,088 155 PRESIDENT RECLAMATION LAW ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................... 2,073 .................. 2,073 .................. PRESIDENT RECLAMATION RECREATION MANAGEMENT (TITLE XXVII) ........................................................................................ .................. .................. 1,000 .................. DOMENICI RECREATION & FISH & WILDLIFE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................... 1,076 .................. 1,076 .................. PRESIDENT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT DESALINATION AND WATER PURIFICATION PROGRAM .......................................... 2,275 2,100 5,400 2,100 PRESIDENT, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN SALT CEDAR AND RUSSIAN OLIVE CONTROL PROGRAM .......................................................................................... .................. .................. 600 .................. DOMENICI, BEN NELSON, BINGAMAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ................................................................................................................... 9,003 .................. 9,003 .................. PRESIDENT SITE SECURITY ......................................................................................................................................................... .................. 35,500 .................. 35,500 PRESIDENT TITLE XVI WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROGRAM ......................................................................................... 800 .................. 3,800 .................. PRESIDENT, DOMENICI UNITED STATES/MEXICO BORDER ISSUES—TECHNICAL SUPPORT ......................................................................... 90 .................. 90 .................. PRESIDENT WATER CONSERVATION FIELD SERVICES PROGRAM ................................................................................................ 6,232 .................. 7,000 .................. PRESIDENT WATER 2025 ............................................................................................................................................................ 11,000 .................. 14,000 .................. PRESIDENT, REID, DOMENICI, BINGAMAN UNDER FINANCING ................................................................................................................................................... .................. .................. ¥22,158 ¥3,688 PRESIDENT 

SUBTOTAL, WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 429,466 386,731 559,363 390,743 TOTAL, WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES ............................................................................................... 816,197 .................. 950,106 ..................
119 

Central Arizona Project, Colorado River Basin.—The Committee 

recommendation includes $600,000 for activities related to the Gila 

River Settlement in New Mexico and $500,000 to initiate environmental compliance for the San Carlos Irrigation Project. 

Central Valley Project—Friant Division.—The Committee recommendation includes an additional $1,000,000 for the Friant-Kern 

and Madera canals capacity improvements and an additional 

$500,000 for the Semi Tropic Phase II groundwater banking. 

Miscellaneous Project Programs.—An additional $2,000,000 above 

the budget request is provided for anadromous fish screen projects. 

Trinity River Division.—The Committee has provided $2,000,000 

above the budget request to accelerate implementation of the Trinity River Restoration Program. 

Animas-La Plata, Colorado.—The Committee has provided $63,000,000 for construction of this project. 

Hawaii Reclamation Projects, Lahaina.—The Committee has included $1,000,000 for this water reuse project. 

Fort Peck, Dry Prairie Rural Water System, Montana.—The Committee has provided $10,000,000 for continued construction of the 

project. 

Carlsbad Project, New Mexico.—The committee provided an addi- tional $200,000 to assess the rehabilitation of radial gates at Sumner Dam, New Mexico and $750,000 for implementation of water 

salvage in partnership with the New Mexico Interstate Stream 

Commission under the Pecos River Settlement. 

Middle Rio Grande Project, New Mexico.—The Committee recommendation includes $39,550,000 for the Middle Rio Grande 

project, $20,655,000 for Resources Management and $18,895,000 

for Operations, Maintenance and Replacements. Within the 

$20,655,000 for Resources Management, the Committee includes 

$16,271,000 for the Collaborative Program; and $1,000,000 for the 

Silvery Minnow Sanctuary operations. Within the $18,895,000 for 

Operations, Maintenance and Replacements, the Committee includes $2,200,000 for further development of the Upper Rio Grande 

Water Operations Model and ESA Water conservation planning; 

$500,000 for initial development of an integrated management plan 

in partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and 

$2,000,000 to be transferred to the USGS for stream gage repair 

and development in New Mexico. The Committee encourages the 

Bureau of Reclamation to be transparent in its communication of 

the cost of administration of the Middle Rio Grande Endangered 

Species Collaborative Program and to rapidly implement project 

management improvements to address the issues and recommendations of the non-Federal partners to the Collaborative Program. 

The Committee also encourages the Bureau of Reclamation to work 

closely with the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District and the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop a rehabilitation plan for 

the levee system in the Middle Rio Grande. 

Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin, Garrison Diversion Unit, North Dakota.—An additional $48,780,000 has been provided for rural water 

projects. Of this amount, $24,390,000 shall be expended for the following projects: $10,000,000 for the Northwest Area Water Supply; 

$500,000 for the Lakota Water Supply; $3,000,000 for the South 

Central Regional Water District; $1,000,000 for the Walsh Rural 
120 

Water District; $1,000,000 for the South Benson County/North 

Central Rural Water System; $1,000,000 for the Traill Rural Water 

District; $500,000 for the Upham/All Seasons Rural Water System;$2,000,000 for the Williston Water Treatment Plant; 

$4,000,000 for the Southwest Pipeline; and $1,390,000 for Garrison 

Water Treatment. 

Northern Utah Investigations Program, Utah.—The Committee 

has included an additional $500,000 for the Rural Water Technology Alliance. 

Odessa Subarea Special Study, Washington.—The Committee 

has provided $1,185,000 for this study. 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project, Title I.—In the fiscal year 2006 conference report (House Report 109–275), the conferees expressed their concern that the Bureau of Reclamation was 

making excess releases of approximately 100,000 acre-feet of water 

per year from storage in Colorado River reservoirs to help meet the 

United States’ Colorado River water quality obligations to Mexico. 

The excess releases are being made because Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District’s agricultural return flows—that bypass the Colorado River and are discharged to the Cienega de 

Santa Clara in Mexico (bypass flows)—are not counted as part of 

the 1.5 million acre-feet of water that the United States is required 

to deliver annually to Mexico. Because the bypass flows are not 

counted, system storage from the Colorado River has been used to 

make up for the bypass flows. The Yuma Desalting Plant was originally constructed to treat the flows and return a portion of them 

to the river, thus reducing excess releases from Colorado River reservoirs. 

The current drought and projected long-term water demands 

have heightened concern about this demand on the river system. 

Consequently, in fiscal year 2006, the conferees indicated their support for Reclamation’s ongoing public process to address this complex hydrologic problem, considering various methods of recovering 

or replacing the flows, including options that address potential impacts to wetlands in the Cienega de Santa Clara. This Committee 

encourages Reclamation to continue this stakeholder process. In 

fiscal year 2006, the conferees also directed the Bureau of Reclamation to dedicate sufficient resources to the Yuma Desalting Plant 

so that one-third operational capacity may be achieved by the end 

of calendar year 2006. To date, the plant is not one-third operational, although Reclamation did conduct a demonstration run at 

one-tenth capacity for 90 days in 2007. The Committee, once again, 

directs the Bureau of Reclamation, within the funds provided for 

the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project, title I, to dedicate sufficient funds to the Yuma Desalting Plant so that one-third 

operational capacity may be achieved by the end of calendar year 

2007. The Bureau of Reclamation is also directed to provide the 

Committee with a status report of the plant’s operational status by 

no later than March 1, 2008. If the plant is not one-third operational by the end of calendar year 2007, the report shall include 

an explanation as to why the Bureau of Reclamation has failed to 

comply with the Committee’s directive. 

Drought Emergency Assistance.—The Committee has provided 

the budget request for this program. Within the funds provided, 
121 

the Committee urges the Bureau of Reclamation to provide full and 

fair consideration for drought assistance from the State of Hawaii. 

Research and Development, Desalination Research and Development Program.—The Committee has provided $7,500,000. Of the funds provided, $2,100,000 is provided to New Mexico State University to undertake operations and maintenance of the newly constructed National Inland Desalination Research Facility in 

Alamogordo, New Mexico, on behalf of the Bureau of Reclamation; 

$1,900,000 is provided to New Mexico State University for research 

activities undertaken at or associated with the National Inland Desalination Research Facility; and $3,000,000 is provided to New 

Mexico State University to undertake a research program for development and commercialization of water treatment technology in 

collaboration with Federal agencies, national laboratories, State 

agencies, local agencies, industry, educational institutions or other 

water research entities. 

Title XVI, Water Reclamation and Reuse.—The Committee has 

provided $3,800,000 for this program. Within the funds provided, 

the Committee has included $3,000,000 for the WateReuse Foundation. These are available to support the Foundation’s research priorities. 

Water Conservation Field Service Program.—The Committee has 

provided $7,000,000 for the Water Conservation Field Services Program. Within the amounts provided, Reclamation is urged to continue urban water conservation projects identified through the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Innovative Conservation Program; industrial water efficiency surveys to assess opportunities to conserve water in industrial water use; and for 

weather based irrigation controller activities to pilot ways to speed 

distribution and acceptance of these landscape water efficiency devices. 

Water 2025.—The dire drought the West is currently experiencing, combined with an unprecedented number of water users 

and endangered species and related requirements, make water use 

efficiencies more critical than ever. The Committee has provided 

$14,000,000 for this initiative proposed by the administration. The 

Committee has included additional funds above the budget request 

to provide for continued efficiency and water improvements related 

to the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District. A critical component of reducing tension among multiple water users is collaborative planning and joint operations. Within the funds provided, 

funds are provided for the Desert Research Institute to address 

water quality and environmental issues in ways that will bring industry and regulators to mutually acceptable answers. 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $52,150,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 1 59,122,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 51,622,000 

1 Includes $7,500,000 legislative proposal on which Congress has not acted. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $51,622,000 for 

the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund. The Committee recommendation does not reflect the establishment of the San Joaquin 

River Restoration Fund as proposed by the administration as this 
122 

program is not yet authorized. Consequently the Budget request is 

reduced by $7,500,000. 

The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund was authorized in 

the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, title 34 of Public Law 

102–575. This fund was established to provide funding from project 

beneficiaries for habitat restoration, improvement and acquisition, 

and other fish and wildlife restoration activities in the Central Valley project area of California. Revenues are derived from payments 

by project beneficiaries and from donations. Payments from project 

beneficiaries include several required by the act (Friant Division 

surcharges, higher charges on water transferred to non-CVP users, 

and tiered water prices) and, to the extent required in appropriations acts, additional annual mitigation and restoration payments. 

CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA RESTORATION

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $36,648,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 31,750,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 40,750,000 

This account funds activities that are consistent with the 

CALFED Bay-Delta Program, a collaborative effort involving 18 

State and Federal agencies and representatives of California’s 

urban, agricultural, and environmental communities. The goals of 

the program are to improve fish and wildlife habitat, water supply 

reliability, and water quality in the San Francisco Bay-San Joaquin River Delta, the principle hub of California’s water distribution system. 

POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $57,575,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 58,811,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 58,811,000 

The Committee recommendation for general administrative ex- penses is $58,811,000. This is the same as the budget request. 

The policy and administrative expenses program provides for the 

executive direction and management of all reclamation activities, 

as performed by the Commissioner’s offices in Washington, DC, 

Denver, Colorado, and five regional offices. The Denver office and 

regional offices charge individual projects or activities for direct 

beneficial services and related administrative and technical costs. 

These charges are covered under other appropriations. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Section 201. The bill includes language regarding the San Luis 

Unit and the Kesterson Reservoir in California. (President) 

Section 202. The bill includes language that states requirements 

for purchase or lease of water from the Middle Rio Grande or 

Carlsbad Projects in New Mexico. (Domenici) 

Section 203. The bill includes language regarding Drought Emergency Assistance. 

Section 204. The bill includes language concerning Water 2025. 

Section 205. The bill includes language regarding the Rio Grande 

Collaborative water operations team. (Domenici) 
123 

Section 206. The bill includes language concerning the project at 

Las Vegas Wash and Lake Mead. (Reid) 

Section 207. The bill includes language concerning expended 

funds from the Desert Terminus Lakes program for the Truckee 

River Settlement Act. (Reid) 

Section 208. The bill includes language concerning expended 

funds from the Desert Terminus Lakes program for a number of 

purposes within Nevada. (Reid) 

Section 209. The bill includes a provision extending the authorization of the Mni Wiconi project from 2008 until 2013. Without 

this provision work would have to stop during fiscal year 2008. 

(Johnson) 

Section 210. The bill includes a provision concerning operations 

of the Tularosa Basin National Desalination Research Facility. 

(Domenici) 

Section 211. The bill includes a provision for a reporting requirement to the appropriate House and Senate authorizing committees 

concerning changed land use determinations. (Dorgan) 

Section 212. The bill contains a provision that increases the appropriation ceiling for the Indian Irrigation projects in the PickSloan—Garrison Diversion Unit, North Dakota and South Dakota. 

(Dorgan) 
(124) 

TITLE III 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

LABORATORY DIRECTED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT [LDRD] 

The Committee recognizes the invaluable role the Laboratory Directed Research and Development [LDRD] program provides to the 

Federal Government and the Nation in general. Discretionary 

LDRD investments have been and will continue to be responsive to 

the energy needs of the Nation, as evidenced by recent R&D 

projects in materials science, optoelectronics, computer science, and 

high energy density physics. Cutting-edge LDRD research provides 

the science base for energy-specific applications such as fuel cells, 

hydrogen technologies, carbon management, nuclear energy and 

solid state lighting. In addition, LDRD is the national labs’ most 

important tool for maintaining the vitality of the national labs in 

support of other national security missions. LDRD enables the labs 

to hire the ‘‘best and brightest’’ young scientists and engineers and 

allows them to seek innovative science and technology solutions for 

current or emerging national security issues, including those of energy security. LDRD investments have been effective in providing 

solutions for today’s energy problems and demonstrate the inherent 

flexibility of the program to provide national security mission support on a very timely basis. Energy research needs can best be addressed by continuing a vibrant LDRD program at the national 

labs. 

REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

The Committee requires the Department to promptly and fully 

inform the Committee when a change in program execution or 

funding is required during the fiscal year. A reprogramming includes the reallocation of funds from one activity to another within 

an appropriation, or any significant departure from a program, 

project, or activity described in the agency’s budget justification, including contemplated site budgets as presented to and approved or 

modified by Congress in an appropriations act or the accompanying 

statement of managers or report. For construction projects, a reprogramming constitutes the reallocation of funds from one construction project identified in the justifications to another or a significant change in the scope of an approved project. 

Reprogrammings should not be employed to initiate new programs or to change program, project, or activity allocations specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in the act or report. 

In cases where unforeseen events or conditions are deemed to require such changes, proposals shall be submitted in advance to the 

Committee and be fully explained and justified. The Committee has 

not provided the Department with any internal reprogramming 
125 

flexibility in fiscal year 2008, unless specifically identified in the 

House, Senate, or conference reports. Any reallocation of new or 

prior year budget authority or prior year de-obligations must be 

submitted to the Committees in writing and may not be implemented prior to approval by the Committees on Appropriations. 

ENERGY SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $1,474,285,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 1,236,199,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,715,551,000 

The Committee recommendation is $1,715,551,000 for Energy Ef- ficiency and Renewable Energy, $479,352,000 above the President’s 

request. The Committee notes that virtually every program except 

Hydrogen Research and Development [R&D] suffers a reduction 

from the fiscal year 2007 Operating Plan. Hardest hit are the energy efficiency programs. Vehicle Technologies, Building Technologies, and Industrial Technologies are down about $40,000,000, 

while Weatherization grants are down over $60,000,000. The Department plays a key role in developing new energy-efficient technologies. For every dollar invested in Energy Efficiency R&D, the 

U.S. economy receives about $20 in return through energy savings, 

new jobs, and new products. This Committee sees wisdom in such 

investments, and supports increases above the President’s request 

in the efficiency programs. The Committee understands the Department has made awards for projects within the Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, but has not provided funding to 

carryout these awards. The Committee strongly urges the Department to fulfill it prior commitments, and to provide notification to 

the Committee on any awards that are not being funded and for 

what purpose. 

Hydrogen Technology.—The Committee recommends 

$228,000,000, a total of $15,000,000 above the request. The Committee notes that fiscal year 2008 request completes the President’s 

5-year, $1,200,000,000 commitment to the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. Along with the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy request, the President’s budget also requests research and development funding for hydrogen projects in the budgets of the Office of 

Science ($59,500,000), the Office of Nuclear Energy ($22,600,000), 

and the Office of Fossil Energy ($12,450,000), as well as in the Department of Transportation ($1,425,000). In total, the fiscal year 

2008 request amounts to $308,975,000 for hydrogen research and 

development, the largest for hydrogen in the 5-year period. 

Since the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, there has 

been insufficient attention paid to the guidance Congress gave the 

Department regarding the hydrogen program which had several 

purposes. It broadened the Secretary’s authority to accelerate the 

research, development and demonstration process toward commercialization; made Government a more reliable partner in more ambitious public/private partnerships; and gave the program permanent authority beyond the 5-year span of the President’s Hydrogen 

Fuel Initiative. The Committee is encouraged by the Department’s 

efforts to establish a program facilitating the deployment of hydro-
126 

gen and fuel cell technology and to cultivate a competitive market 

for such technologies as demonstrated by its recent request for information [DE–PS36–07GO37002]. The Committee believes that 

the Federal Government can be an early adopter of new technology 

and can play a role in its deployment. In order to facilitate Federal 

purchases it is essential to provide Federal procurement officials 

with proven validation of operational performance data and expected lifecycle costs of alternative energy technologies. The Department, using its extensive laboratory capabilities and in partnership with technology venders, could validate the operational and 

economic capabilities of specific technologies. This review is likely 

to provide procurement officials more confidence in deploying alternative, energy saving technologies. Within the additional funds 

provided, the Committee recommends an additional $5,000,000 to 

support the development of a technology validation strategy. The 

Department may establish a pilot program to demonstrate such a 

capability if it believes it will have a positive impact. The Committee authorizes the Department to recover all costs associated 

with the validation activities. 

The Committee also notes that the Department requested 24 percent less funding for Technology Validation Program than the enacted fiscal year 2007 program. This runs counter to the intent of 

the Energy Policy Act, and endangers the success of worthwhile 

public investments already made. The validation program has ambitious and critical goals concerning durability, vehicle range, storage, attainable hydrogen fuel cost, data reporting, technology evolution, renewable hydrogen feedstock generation, codes and standards coordination and public outreach. Within the funding available to the Program, the Committee directs that $40,000,000 be allocated to Technology Validation efforts in fiscal year 2008. 

The Committee appreciates that this program has achieved its 

objective and is beginning to phase out research on hydrogen production from natural gas starting in fiscal year 2008. The full benefits of a hydrogen economy will be realized when our Nation is able 

to generate hydrogen from renewable sources and nuclear energy 

rather than fossil fuels. The Committee supports continued research and development into solar-powered hydrogen generation 

research and development programs including both thermo-chemical and photolysis processes. The Committee commends the Department for this progress in these areas and urges the Department to provide additional funds to the Department’s Hydrogen 

Production and Delivery program for its continuation. 

Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D.—The Committee strongly endorses the commitment to decrease our reliance on foreign oil. 

The President’s goal of reducing gasoline usage by 20 percent in 

the next 10 years, coupled with growth in the Biomass R&D budget, could significantly reduce this Nation’s ‘‘oil addiction.’’ Unfortunately, the President’s request is $20,424,000 below the fiscal year 

2007 Operating Plan, and well below this Committee’s recommendation from last year. Therefore, the Committee recommends $244,000,000, an increase of $64,737,000 over the request. Of the increase, $32,897,000 is for the Integration of Biorefinery Technologies under the Utilization of Platform Outputs 
127 

R&D subprogram, and $5,000,000 is for the Products Development 

element within this subprogram. 

Within the available funds, the Committee directs the Department to conduct a study on the feasibility of increasing consumption in the United States of ethanol-blended gasoline with levels of 

ethanol blends between 10–25 percent, including a study of production and infrastructure constraints on increasing the consumption. 

In addition, the Committee requests that Department provide periodic updates on the National Biofuels Action Plan and have a goal 

of providing the final plan to Congress no later than the submission of the fiscal year 2009 budget request. 

Within the available funds, the Committee recommends the Department provide a report to the House and Senate Appropriations 

Committee on how it intends to develop the proposed reverse auction as proposed in the fiscal year 2008 budget request before establishing such a program. The report should include information 

on market data and pricing and proposals as to which incentives 

would be the most effective in facilitating the deployment of cellulosic biomass and the expected costs. 

The Feedstock Infrastructure subprogram provides for work with 

the Department of Agriculture on biomass feedstock. Lowering 

feedstock costs and ensuring sustainable supplies of biomass are 

necessary to greatly increase the amount of Biofuels production in 

the United States. To meet this goal, the Department developed a 

Regional Feedstock Partnership and should continue to work with 

the Sun Grant Initiative as well as other laboratories, and universities to assess and improve biomass resource availability throughout five distinct regions. The Committee is encouraged by the Department commitment to developing a variety of biomass feedstock. 

The Committee expects the Department to evaluate all manner of 

regional feedstock materials that include sorghum, switch grass, 

rice straw, corn stover, as well as other feedstock material. 

The Committee also notes that the Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory is building on key competencies in the areas of catalysis 

and biotechnology, and conducts R&D with industry as part of the 

DOE/Office of Biomass core program. The core research program 

also is an important part of expanding research with Washington 

State University, in a new Bioproducts, Sciences, and Engineering 

Laboratory [BSEL] being constructed in Richland, Washington, by 

the State of Washington. 

Solar Energy.—The Committee recommends $180,000,000, an increase of $31,696,000 over the President’s request. The Committee 

is pleased with the administration’s efforts to diversify our energy 

supply while minimizing the generation of greenhouse gases. The 

Solar Energy Technology Program has established a target of making solar power cost-competitive by 2015, 5 years sooner than targeted in fiscal year 2006 budget request. Under this scenario, solar 

would provide hundreds of thousands of new high-tech jobs 

throughout the United States and would reduce natural gas demand on the order of billions of cubic feet. Unfortunately, as is 

painfully clear from the Department’s budget, the promise of solar 

energy stretches back 33 years, to the 1974 Solar Heating and 

Cooling Demonstration Act, and the program has only lost ground 

to other nations ever since. Now, the United States must make 
128 

substantial investments if it is to reclaim technological leadership 

in this critical sector. Therefore, the Committee directs an increase 

of $8,000,000 for Photovoltaic Energy Systems, an increase of 

$2,696,000 for Solar Heating and Lighting Systems to support deployment of this technology, and an increase of $16,000,000 for 

Concentrating Solar Power. The increase in Concentrating Solar 

Power is to help reduce the cost of heliostat technology to improve 

the economic performance of power towers and to facilitate the deployment of demonstration facilities. The Committee recommends 

$4,000,000 to demonstrate thermo-chemical processes in producing 

hydrogen using high temperature solar facilities. 

Wind Energy.—The recommendation is $57,500,000, a total of 

$17,431,000 above the request. 

Geothermal Technology.—The recommendation for Geothermal 

Technology is $25,000,000, similar to the fiscal year 2006 level, and 

above the administration’s request of $0. The Committee notes the 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology report on the Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems on the United States in the 21st century recommended a number of actions that could be taken to encourage development of renewable energy sources. Among the 

short-term recommendations in this report is a call for more detailed and site-specific assessment of geothermal energy resources 

in the United States, as well as demonstrations of reservoir stimulation technology at as many as five enhanced geothermal systems 

within or on the edges of existing geothermal fields. The Committee urges the Department to build upon the success of its geothermal program and move the program forward. 

Hydropower.—The Committee provides $2,000,000 for continuation of the program. 

Water Power Energy R&D.—The Committee recommends creating a new program, authorized in EPACT 2005, which explores 

technologies that could convert the kinetic energy from non-impounded water sources, such as waves, currents and tidal streams, 

into renewable energy. The Committee recommends $8,000,000 to 

initiate this R&D effort. 

Vehicle Technologies.—The Committee provides $230,000,000 for 

vehicles technology. This is an increase of $53,862,000 over the request. The recommendation provides $100,000,000 for hybrid electric systems. The increase of $19,336,000 is for Energy Storage Research and Development to make improvements in plug-in hybrid 

technology. Other increases provide a total of $50,000,000 for Advanced Combustion Energy Research and Development, 

$45,000,000 for Materials Technology, $18,000,000 for Fuels Technology, and $17,000,000 for Technology Integration Innovative Concepts. The Committee urges the Department to continue to support 

the Advanced Reciprocating Engine Systems program. 

The Committee fully funds the fiscal year 2008 request for 

FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership, a $207,819,000 departmental 

effort of which $126,619,000 is requested under the Vehicle Technologies program. 

The Committee urges the Department to integrate the transportation sector’s fuel and energy needs with zero emission and renewable electricity generation to improve the Nation’s energy and environmental security by providing a minimum of $10,000,000 from 
129 

the funds made available for Vehicles Technology in competitively 

awarded grants for developing, researching, testing and operating 

grid-enabled plug-in electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles 

and batteries and technology, and related power electronics that 

use zero emission generated electricity for recharging. The Committee wishes to reinforce and recommend further enhancing research, development and demonstration of advanced battery technology (in partnership with the private sector), for electric, hybridelectric, and plug-in hybrid vehicles. The Committee is concerned 

that many advanced batteries are currently being sourced from 

outside the United States. The prohibitively high costs of many advanced battery technologies must be addressed, along with the remaining performance barriers. The Committee includes $5,000,000 for Off-highway Engine R&D 

within the Advanced Combustion Engine R&D subprogram. Offhighway Engine R&D supports diesel engine research and development having a high potential for improving fuel efficiency and low 

emission engines. The Committee also supports the 21st Century 

Truck Partnership. This cooperative effort between commercial vehicle (truck and bus) industry and major Federal agencies is developing technologies that will make commercial vehicles more efficient, clean, and safe. The 21st Century Truck Partnership will use 

research and development funding to increase engine efficiency, improve hybrid powertrains, and reduce losses. 

The Committee directs the Department to study methods of increasing the fuel efficiency of alternative fueled vehicles by optimizing alternative fueled vehicles to operate using E–85 fuel. Within this funding the Committee directs the Department to use at 

least $2,000,000 for E–85 infrastructure deployment. 

Building Technologies.—The Committee provides $137,000,000, an increase of $50,544,000 above the request. The increase is distributed as follows: $7,300,000 for Residential Buildings Integration; $10,000,000 for Commercial Buildings Integration; $8,244,000 

for Emerging Technologies; $18,639,000 for Technology Validation 

and Market Introduction; and $6,361,000 for Equipment Standards 

and Analysis. The increase supports technology deployment of increased energy efficiency technologies that can improve energy savings in the home and reduce the cost of operating lighting, heating 

and cooling, and electricity using energy efficient appliances in residential and commercial buildings. The Department has set a goal 

of achieving zero emission homes by 2020 using the most energyefficient technology and applying state-of-the-art distributed renewable generation so as to achieve a net zero energy consumption. 

The Committee specifically recommends $24,283,000 for the solid 

state lighting research and development portion of the Emerging 

Technologies budget, an increase of $5,000,000 to support advanced 

research. The Committee recognizes the potential to achieve significant energy savings in this area. 

Industrial Technologies.—The Committee provides $57,000,000, 

an increase of $11,002,000 over the request. Of the increase, the 

Committee directs $6,000,000 to be applied to the specific industries budget subprogram to begin focusing on new process development that can provide energy savings, environmental and economic 

benefits. The Committee directs $2,002,000 to be applied to the 
130 

combustion budget for continued development and deployment on 

Super Boiler technology. The Committee recommends that from 

within available funds, $3,000,000 is provided to support research 

and development to increase the efficiency of computer chips and 

systems. 

Federal Energy Management Program.—This program is intended to support the deployment of energy efficiency and renewable technology to U.S. Government buildings. Since 1985, the Program has assisted in the reduction of energy intensity in Federal 

buildings by nearly 30 percent. Considering today’s energy challenges, it hardly seems the time to reduce funding for this Program. Therefore, the Committee recommends $23,000,000, a total 

of $6,209,000 above the request. 

Facilities and Infrastructure.—The Committee recommends 

$6,982,000, the same as the budget request. 

Weatherization.—The Committee provides $240,550,000, a total 

of $96,550,000 above the request. This program provides critical assistance to encourage the use of energy efficient technology to reduce energy costs for low and moderate income families hit hardest 

by high energy costs. The Secretary is directed to make fiscal year 

2008 Weatherization funding available from October 1, 2007, 

through March 31, 2009, for States that submit plans requesting 

allocations for all or part of this period. 

The Committee also provides $55,000,000 to the State Energy 

Program Grants, $7,000,000 for Tribal Energy Activities, and 

$5,000,000 for Renewable Energy Production Incentive programs. 

The Committee eliminates funding for the Asia-Pacific Partnership 

[APP]. The Committee remains unclear about the goals and direction of APP. 

Program Direction.—The Committee recommends $105,013,000, 

the same as the budget request. 

Program Support.—The Committee recommends $13,481,000, 

consistent with the budget request. 

Congressionally Directed Projects.—The Committee recommendation includes the following congressionally directed projects, within 

available funds, for the purposes of research, development, and 

demonstration of energy efficiency or renewable energy technologies or programs. The Committee reminds recipients that statutory cost sharing requirements may apply to these projects. 

COMMITTEE DIRECTED ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS 

Project Committee recommendation Requested by 

Auburn, NY, Auburn Regional Bioenergy Enterprise ................................................ $500,000 Schumer, Clinton 

Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Biofuels Research ................................... 300,000 Durbin 

Chariton Valley R.C.&D., Chariton Valley Biomass for Rural Development ............ 500,000 Harkin, Grassley 

Chautauqua County, NY, Methane Gas Utilization Project from landfill at 

Ellery.

500,000 Schumer, Clinton 

Department of Energy’s Clean Energy Technology Export Program (CETE), to export U.S. clean energy technologies.600,000 Byrd 

Compact Membrane Systems, Inc., Wilmington, DE, Development of Applied 

Membrane Technology for Processing Ethanol from Biomass.

500,000 Biden, Carper 

DBS Energy, Inc., Glastonbury CT, Connecticut Biofuels Technology Project in 

Suffield, CT.

1,000,000 Dodd 
131 

COMMITTEE DIRECTED ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS—Continued 

Project Committee recommendation Requested by 

Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research, Inc., St. Simons Island, GA ........... 2,000,000 Stabenow, Brown, Kohl, 

Inouye, Bayh, Levin, 

Klobuchar, McConnell, Bunning, Bond, 

Chambliss, Lugar 

Costilla County, CO, and Costilla County Economic Development Council, Inc., 

Biodiesel Project.

275,000 Salazar 

Council of Energy Resource Tribes, Denver, CO ...................................................... 500,000 Salazar 

Dakota Gold Research Association, Sioux Falls, SD, Biomass ................................ 1,000,000 Johnson 

U. of Florida, Gainesville, with the EARTH University Foundation, Biofuel 

Project.

1,000,000 Nelson, Bill 

Eikos, Inc., Franklin, MA, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Conductive, 

Transparent Coatings for Solar Cells.

1,000,000 Kennedy, Kerry 

Electro Energy, Inc., Danbury, CT, Development of bipolar wafer cell vehicle batteries.500,000 Lieberman 

Foster-Glocester Regional School District, RI, Ponaganset Alternative Energy Lab 

and Biomass Facilities Project.

1,000,000 Reed, Whitehouse 

Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, Honolulu, HA, Hawaii-New Mexico Sustainable 

Energy Security Partnership.

2,000,000 Inouye 

Koochiching County, Renewable Energy Clean Air Project (RECAP), Koochiching 

County, MN, Plasma Gasification Waste-to-Energy project.

400,000 Klobucher 

Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities, Iowa Stored Energy Plant ........................ 1,500,000 Harkin 

Iowa Central Community College, Iowa Renewable Fuels Testing Laboratory ........ 1,000,000 Harkin, Grassley 

Lilliputian Systems, Inc., Woburn, MA, Silicon Based Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Chip 

for Portable Consumer Electronics.

500,000 Kennedy, Kerry 

Louisiana State University, Agriculture Center Biorefinery for Ethanol, Chemicals, 

Animal Feed and Biomaterials from Sugar Cane Bagasse.

1,000,000 Landrieu, Vitter 

Michigan State University, Advanced Hybrid Vehicle Technology, Hybrid Electric 

Vehicle group.

400,000 Levin 

Michigan Technological University, Fuel Cell Research at the Center for 

Nanostructured and Lightweight Materials.

500,000 Stabenow, Levin 

National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, Ann Arbor, MI, Lightweight Automotive Materials for Increased Fuel Efficiency.400,000 Levin 

Nevada Institute for Renewable Energy Commercialization, Reno, NV ................... 1,500,000 Reid 

North Dakota State University, Center for Nanoscale Energy ................................. 6,000,000 Dorgan 

Oregon Institute of Technology, Geothermal Power Generation Study .................... 1,000,000 Wyden, Smith 

Pacific International Center for High Technology Research, Honolulu, HI, Renewable Energy Development Venture.1,250,000 Inouye 

Pierce County, WA, Landfill Gas-to-Clean-Fuel Project, Biomass ........................... 3,550,000 Murray 

Raceland Raw Sugar Corporation, Raceland, LA, Bio-Renewable Ethanol and CoGeneration Plant, Biomass.1,500,000 Landrieu 

Stamford, CT, Waste-to-Energy Project .................................................................... 500,000 Lieberman 

South Dakota State University, SD, Sun Grant Initiative, Regional Biomass Feedstock Development Partnerships, Biomass.3,500,000 Johnson 

Snohomish County, WA, Biodiesel Project ................................................................ 100,000 Murray, Cantwell

Trenton, NJ, Trenton Fuel Works Biofuels Plant Re-Construction, Biomass ............ 1,500,000 Lautenberg, Menendez 

U. of Hawaii, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, Development of High Yield Tropical Feedstocks, Biomass.500,000 Inouye 

U. of Nebraska, Kearney, CIBS Solar Cell Development, Solar ............................... 950,000 Ben Nelson, Hagel 

U. of Nebraska, Lincoln, Bioenergy Demonstration Project: Value-Added Products 

from Renewable Fuels.

2,000,000 Ben Nelson, Hagel 

U. of Nevada, Las Vegas, Light Emitting Diode Display Engineering .................... 600,000 Reid 

U. of Nevada, Las Vegas, Solar Cell Nanotechnology ............................................. 750,000 Reid 

U. of North Dakota, Grand Forks, Center for Biomass Utilization .......................... 2,000,000 Dorgan 

U. of Northern Iowa, National Agriculture-Based Industrial Lubricants (NABL), 

Biomass.

1,000,000 Harkin, Grassley 

U. of Rhode Island, Research and Technology Development for genetic improvement of Switchgrass, Biomass.1,500,000 Reed 

University of Akron, OH, Carbon Based Fuel Cell .................................................... 1,000,000 Brown 

Vermont Biomass Energy Resources Center, Biomass ............................................ 1,000,000 Leahy 

Vermont Public Power Supply Authority, Renewable Energy from Animal Biomass.500,000 Sanders 
132 

COMMITTEE DIRECTED ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS—Continued 

Project Committee recommendation Requested by 

Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund, Montpelier, VT, Central Vermont Recovered Biomass Facility, Biomass.500,000 Leahy 

Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund, Montpelier, VT, Vermont Biofuels Initiative, Biomass.1,000,000 Leahy 

West Virginia University, Lightweight Composite Material for Heavy Duty 

Vehicles.

500,000 Byrd 

West Virginia University, Transportable Emissions Testing Laboratory (TESL), for 

alternative vehicles emissions testing.

1,000,000 Byrd 

City of Chula Vista, CA, Alternative Fuels Pilot Project .......................................... 750,000 Boxer 

Affordable, Energy Efficient, Self Help Housing, Mississippi .................................. 300,000 Cochran 

Alternate Fuel Cell Membranes for Energy Independence at USM, Mississippi ..... 1,000,000 Cochran 

Alternate Fuel for Cement Processing at Auburn University, Alabama .................. 1,500,000 Shelby 

Center for Advanced Vehicular Systems (CAVS) at MSU, Mississippi .................... 4,000,000 Cochran 

Center for Producer-Owned Energy, Minnesota ....................................................... 1,000,000 Coleman 

Cloud County Community College Wind Turbine, Kansas ....................................... 1,000,000 Brownback 

Cooling, Heating, and Power (CHP) at MSU, Mississippi ........................................ 2,000,000 Cochran 

Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, Demonstration of Plug-in Vehicles, 

Kansas.

1,000,000 Brownback 

Great Plains Wind Power Test Facility at Texas Tech University, Texas ................. 2,000,000 Hutchison 

Kentucky Rural Energy Consortium at the University of Louisville, Kentucky ........ 2,000,000 McConnell 

MidSouth/Southeast Bioenergy Consortium, Georgia ............................................... 2,000,000 Chambliss, Isakson 

Nanostructured Materials for Energy at NC State, North Carolina ......................... 1,000,000 Dole 

Renewable Energy for Rural Economic Development Program, Utah ...................... 1,000,000 Bennett 

Sandia National Lab Concentrating Solar, New Mexico .......................................... 3,000,000 Domenici 

Sustainable Buildings Project at the University of Louisville, Kentucky ................ 400,000 McConnell 

Sustainable Energy Research Center at MSU, Mississippi ..................................... 11,000,000 Cochran 

Ocean Power Technologies, Reedsport, OR, Wave Energy Research and Demo 

Center, Reedsport, Oregon.

2,000,000 Smith, Wyden 

ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $137,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 114,937,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 168,437,000 

The Committee recommendation is $168,437,000, a total of 

$53,500,000 above the request. The increase brings the High Temperature Superconductivity [HTS] R&D subaccount up to 

$40,242,000. As no technology has greater potential to resolve the 

transmission and distribution dilemma than HTS wire and cables 

and attendant HTS equipment can potentially provide, this funding 

level will permit continued strategic research at universities and 

National Laboratories; develop second generation (2G) wire; and 

will continue superconductivity industry partnerships which design, fabricate, test and demonstrate prototype products for the Nation’s aging electric power grid. Additionally, $25,305,000 is provided for Visualization and Controls subaccount, the same as the 

request, from which the Committee encourages the Department to 

continue its efforts at the Electricity Infrastructure Operations 

Center at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. The Operations and Analysis subaccount recommendation is $19,500,000, 

$7,944,000 above the request. The Committee encourages continuation of the electricity transmission, distribution, and energy assurance activities including the Modern Grid Initiative, and, in particular, the Phase 2 Development Field Tests for the Allegheny 

Power Initiative. 
133 

Renewable Energy Deployment.—In order to facilitate further deployment of renewable energy resources, the Committee has provided additional funding to support the development of large scale 

energy storage capabilities to mitigate the effects of the intermittent nature of wind and solar power. Developing low-cost, reliable 

technologies will have a positive impact on renewable energy deployment. The Committee expects the Office of Electricity Delivery 

and Energy Reliability and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to work together developing transmission and distribution technologies to enable a smart, reliable grid; developing 

technical and regulatory standards for interconnecting our Nation’s 

renewable and distributed energy portfolio; and enabling demand 

response. To the extent possible, the Office of Electricity Delivery 

and Energy Reliability will be the primary Federal interface with 

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the States for the 

Department of Energy. 

The Committee is interested to understand the commercial potential of the distributed generation market, including deployment 

of fuel cells, combined heat and power systems or other technologies that will increase the efficiency of existing generating 

(electric and thermal) sources. The Committee encourages the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability to identify the 

possible energy savings that may be achieved from increased efficiency and from transmission line losses as a result of locating generating facilities closer to the users. The Committee hopes this 

study will provide a clearer potential of the best commercial opportunities that can be realized immediately and the possibilities of 

technologies in the future for both industrial and residential systems. 

The Committee recommends $21,803,000 for energy storage ac- tivities, and increase of $15,000,000. The Committee also provides 

$30,700,000 for Distributed systems integration, an increase of 

$5,000,000 in order to support the study on distributed generation 

and to enable this office to play a greater role in the deployment 

of renewable energy onto the transmission grid. 

Congressionally Directed Projects.—The Committee recommendation includes the following congressionally directed projects, within 

available funds for the purposes of research, development, and 

demonstration of electricity delivery and energy reliability technologies or programs. The Committee reminds recipients that statutory cost sharing requirements may apply to these projects. 

COMMITTEE DIRECTED OFFICE OF ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY PROJECTS 

Project Committee recommendation Requested by 

Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA, Electricity Utility Transmission and Distribution Line Engineering Program.$800,000 Murray, Cantwell 

Navajo Tribal Utility Authority, Fort Defiance, AZ, Navajo Electrification Demonstration Program.2,000,000 Bingaman, Domenici 

Bismarck State College, Center of Excellence ......................................................... 5,200,000 Dorgan 

Florida State University, FL, Electric Power Infrastructure Security Research & 

Development.

1,000,000 Bill Nelson, Martinez 

Rolls-Royce Fuel Cell Systems (US), Inc., Stark State College of Tech., Fuel Cell 

Prototyping Center, Canton, OH, solid oxide fuel cell.

500,000 Brown, Voinovich 

Energy Surety Research Center at New Mexico Tech University, New Mexico ........ 2,000,000 Domenici 
134 

COMMITTEE DIRECTED OFFICE OF ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY PROJECTS— 

Continued 

Project Committee recommendation Requested by 

Alabama Power Project, Integrated Distribution Management System, Alabama .. 2,000,000 Shelby 

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $618,190,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 801,703,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 720,558,000 

The Committee recommendation for the Office of Nuclear Energy 

is $720,558,000. 

Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.—The Committee recognizes 

the administration, through the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, is seeking to reduce the amount of nuclear waste that will 

need to be placed in a permanent repository or repositories. The 

goal of providing a comprehensive solution to the nuclear fuel cycle 

is understandable in light global growth of nuclear power. The policy of reinitiating the recycling of spent nuclear fuel in the United 

States is a significant issue and one that has international implications. While the Committee has members who support the administration’s efforts on GNEP there are also members who have questions regarding the cost, pace, science, technology, and nonproliferation implications underpinning the GNEP initiative. The 

Committee believes the administration must come forward with 

greater scientific, technical, and policy information that examines 

more alternatives in the fuel cycle and recycling process. The administration is directed to limit the fiscal year 2008 work scope to 

research and development and technology demonstrations at existing facilities. No funds may be used beyond conceptual design of 

new facilities or the sodium cooled fast burner reactor. 

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommendation for nuclear energy research and 

development includes a total of $470,600,000. This is $97,145,000 

below the budget request of $567,745,000. 

University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support.—For the second 

year, the Committee rejects the administration’s proposal to include funding within the research and development accounts and 

provides $15,000,000 for this program. The Committee has decided 

to break this funding out of the research and development accounts, and therefore, doesn’t expect the Department to duplicate 

these efforts. 

Nuclear Power 2010.—The Committee has included $135,000,000 

to support the development of license applications for new nuclear 

power plant designs under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s 

combined Construction and Operating License process, an increase 

of $21,000,000. 

Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative.—The Committee provides 

$22,600,000 for nuclear hydrogen research and development, as requested. The Committee recommends the Department work to accelerate the experiments for thermochemical and high-temperature 
135 

electrolysis production methods and move to a hydrogen production 

pilot scale demonstration to test the system under extreme temperatures. 

Generation IV.—The Committee provides $55,000,000 for the 

Generation IV nuclear energy systems initiative. Of the total funding provided, $45,000,000 is for the Very High Temperature Reactor at Idaho National Laboratory. $7,000,000 is provided for continued research and development of gas cooled reactors. The Department is urged to coordinate research between the GenIV and AFCI 

programs was conducting this research, but diverted funding to 

GNEP activities. 

Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative.—The Committee recommends 

$243,000,000 for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative. The Committee notes that the Department seems to have decided on a recycling pathway that consists of the UREX∂ separations technology 

and sodium cooled advanced burner reactors. Many feel the decision to down-select to these technologies was made too soon. The 

Committee directs the Department to support a broader technology 

research and development program that better defines the technical requirements, validates the proliferation resistance and demonstrates the commercial feasibility of various recycling technologies. In addition, the Committee does not support the integration of the NNSA’s mixed oxide fuel facility into the GNEP. This 

technology is intended to support a key nonproliferation objective 

of destroying weapons grade plutonium. The Committee does not 

support additional delays that may result in attempt to redesign 

the plant to handle spent nuclear fuel. As such, the Committee expects the Department, on August 1, 2007, to proceed with the construction of the facilities that will support the MOX program in 

South Carolina. 

Of the funds provided, $50,000,000 is provided for separations 

technology development. DOE is directed to examine a broader 

array of technologies than UREX∂, including pyroprocessing, and 

other technologies to determine the most cost-effective and proliferation resistant technology. $50,000,000 is provided for advanced fuels technology, including investments in testing facilities 

to support fuel irradiation experiments. Reactor and separations 

designs will be dependent on the type of fuel to be used, so fuels 

are on the critical path—and they pose substantial complexities. 

DOE is directed to examine different approaches for fuels that 

could be used for recycling, including, oxide, triso, metal, and 

nitride fuels; fuels with the plutonium and minor actinides together 

or separate; inert matrix fuels; and fuels that do or do not leave 

some of the fission products in the recycling fuel. $8,000,000 is provided for transmutation science. $50,000,000 is provided for systems analysis. DOE is urged to analyze a broad range of scenarios, 

including both once-through and recycling scenarios that include 

more than and UREX∂. $25,000,000 is provided for reactor technology. DOE is directed to work with our international partners to 

examine other advanced burner reactor technology, including molten-salt, lead-cooled, and gas-cooled thermal fast-reactors, as well 

as sodium cooled reactors. DOE should focus on whether technical 

barriers can be overcome and costs reduced enough so that these 

reactors might make sense for commercial deployment. $5,000,000 
136 

is provided for the budget request related to small reactors that are 

passively safe and proliferation resistant. As the Committee recommends no funding to support the advanced fuel cycle facility for 

either technology development or demonstration, the Committee instead recommends $40,000,000 to be provided to make needed upgrades to existing hot cells at the NNSA and Department of Energy 

facilities. Of this funding, the Committee provides $10,000,000 to 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, $7,000,000 to Idaho National Laboratory and $23,000,000 to Los Alamos National Laboratory to 

make badly needed investments to the existing infrastructure to 

support nuclear fuel production and testing. The Committee also 

recognizes the strong technical capabilities of the existing laboratory staff, and encourages the Department to make additional investment in upgrading existing nuclear facilities in future budget 

submissions. The Committee recommendation includes the following congressionally directed projects, within available funds. 

The Committee reminds recipients that statutory cost sharing requirements may apply to these projects. $3,000,000 is provided to 

Technologies Ventures Corporation for technology transfer activities (Domenici). 

RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

The Committee provides $53,021,000, the same as the budget request, for the Radiological Facilities Management program. 

IDAHO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommends $120,713,000, an increase of 

$16,000,000 to support nuclear research and development at the 

Idaho National Laboratory. The Committee has included an increase of $16,000,000 for research and development as well as planning design, modernization, and construction of safety posture improvements at the Advanced Test Reactor. 

PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee provides $76,244,000 in Program Direction. 

IDAHO SITE-WIDE SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The Committee recommends $75,949,000 consistent with the 

budget request and provided in 050 Defense Activity under the 

Other Defense Activities account. 

LEGACY MANAGEMENT

The Committee provides $35,104,000 for Energy Supply-related 

activities of the Office of Legacy Management, the same the budget 

request. Funds will be used to protect human health and the environment through efficient long-term surveillance and maintenance, 

to protect and make accessible legacy records and information, and 

to ensure contractor worker pension and medical benefits. 
137 

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

(INCLUDING DEFERRAL AND RECISSION)

The Committee recommends the deferral of $149,000,000 in the 

Clean Coal Technology funding until fiscal year 2009. The Committee is aware that not all of the previously awarded projects have 

been successfully developed for a variety of reasons and available 

balances will not be used. The Committee recommends that the Department transfer $166,000,000 from the Clean Coal Technology 

account and apply $88,000,000 in funding to the FutureGen 

project, $73,000,000 in funding to the Clean Coal Power Initiative 

for the current competitive solicitation, and $5,000,000 in funding 

to the Fossil Energy Research and Development program. 

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $592,621,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 566,801,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 808,113,000 

The Committee recommendation for Fossil Energy Research and 

Development is $808,113,000 an increase of $215,492,000 above the 

request. 

The Committee is concerned with the reduction in the fossil energy research and development activities proposed as part of this 

budget. In 2005, the Congress passed and the President signed the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005. This legislation provided incentives to 

support the deployment of clean coal technology that would provide 

reliable domestic energy supply and the potential to diversify our 

transportation fuel supply. The Department is challenged with developing new technology that will support the continued deployment of coal through affordable and environmentally sound generating facilities, while creating opportunities for production of hydrogen and other coal technologies. The Committee has provided 

additional funding to sustain technology development and to send 

a clear message to the administration that the Congress is serious 

about making a long-term investment in fossil energy. 

Clean Coal Power Initiative.—The Committee recommends 

$88,000,000. The Committee is frustrated by the remarkably low 

level of funding provided to this initiative which demonstrates advanced coal technologies including carbon sequestration, emission 

control and other co-production opportunities. The budget only provided $15,000,000 in new funding in addition to the $58,000,000 

transferred from the Clean Coal Technology account. The Committee is aware that the Department has announced a new solicitation for the Clean Coal Power Initiative for the capture of carbon 

dioxide for sequestration or other beneficial uses. However, the 

Committee strongly urges the Department to select projects after 

September 30, 2008, so that sufficient funding will be available to 

award projects that will result in significant technological impact. 

Funds previously awarded for the WMPI project selected under 

DOE solicitation DE–PS26–02NT41428 shall remain available for 

obligation to the project provided that a cooperative agreement is 

awarded not later than September 30, 2008. 
138 

FutureGen.—The Committee understands and recognizes the potential value of the FutureGen project. However, the Committee is 

concerned about maintaining adequate funding for the core fossil 

energy research, development, and demonstration programs. The 

Committee has emphatically stated its intent, and has warned that 

this R&D project must not be funded at the expense of the balance 

of the core coal R&D program. Yet the administration has continued to ignore congressional intent and has eliminated or decreased 

funding for other core coal programs. Therefore, the Committee 

provides $88,000,000 for the FutureGen project. This is 

$20,000,000 less than the budget request, but $34,000,000 more 

than was provided in fiscal year 2007. 

Fuels and Power Systems.—The Committee recommends 

$374,025,000 for fuels and power systems, an increase of 

$128,423,000. The recommendation includes $34,000,000 for Innovations for Existing Plants. Because carbon capture from existing 

plants is a substantial ongoing challenge to the existing fleet, the 

Innovations for Existing Plants program is directed to consider carbon capture as a future focus of this program. Included in Innovations for Existing Plants is $12,000,000 for Federal laboratories, in 

collaboration with research institutions, to conduct research and 

development on the critical link between water and fossil energy 

extraction and utilization and how different regions of the country 

can employ water efficiency technology. The Committee recommends $55,000,000 for the Advanced Integrated Gasification 

Combined Cycle activities and $25,000,000 for Advanced Turbines. 

The Committee recommends $132,000,000 for Carbon Sequestration activities. The Committee believes that carbon capture and sequestration must be accelerated while also advancing other important related coal research and development activities. The Committee urges the Department to continue to support the carbon sequestration demonstration projects authorized in the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005, including section 413 of Public Law 109–58. Additional 

funds are needed for the Regional Partnerships to expand to field 

and large-scale injection in various geologic formations. The Committee encourages the Department to develop and validate a 

science-based, site-specific risk assessment framework based on appropriate field observations from pilot injections and analog sites, 

including both short-term and long-term risks; this framework 

should serve as a common resource for assessing large-scale demonstrations and storage efforts. The Committee recommends 

$10,000,000 within the available funds to support this report. 

Within available funds for Carbon Sequestration, the Committee 

encourages the program to study CO2 accelerated growth algae 

technology to recycle carbon and produce fuels. The Committee recommends $30,000,000 for Fuels to support both fuels from coal liquids and hydrogen. Within available funds for Fuels, the Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 to initiate an integrated coal and biomass research activity to address carbon emissions and technology barrier issues. The Committee recommends 

$65,025,000 for Fuel Cell Research. Within available funds for Fuel 

Cell Research, $5,000,000 is available for the manufacturing initiative for coal-based systems. The Committee recommends 

$33,000,000 for Advanced Research. Within available funds for Ad-
139 

vanced Research, the Committee recommendation includes 

$5,000,000 for computational energy sciences. 

Natural Gas Technology.—The Committee recommendation includes $20,000,000. Of this amount, $15,000,000 is provided for 

methane hydrates, and $5,000,000 for research in developing technology solutions to minimize the impact, or develop treatment technologies for produced water as a by-product of natural gas production. 

Oil Technology.—The Committee recommends $10,000,000. Within the available funds, the Committee provides $1,500,000 to continue support for the Risk Based Management System, a nationwide database for oil and gas regulations and technology developments. The Committee recommends the continuation of the stripper well program. 

Program Direction.—The Committee recommends $149,962,000 

for Program Direction. 

Other Programs.—The Committee recommends $16,570,000 for 

fossil energy environmental restoration. The increase of $7,000,000 

is to carryout research authorized in section 964 of EPACT 2005 

that supports research in advanced coal mining recovery and to 

minimize the environmental impacts associated with underground 

mining. The Committee recommendation is $656,000 for the special 

recruitment program. The Committee recommendation for plant 

and capital equipment is $13,000,000. The Committee recommendation for cooperative research and development is 

$8,000,000. 

Congressionally Directed Projects.—The Committee recommendation includes the following congressionally directed projects, within 

available funds for the purposes of research, development, and 

demonstration of fossil energy related technologies or programs. 

The Committee reminds recipients that statutory cost sharing requirements may apply to these projects. 

COMMITTEE DIRECTED FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 

Project Committee recommendation Requested by 

Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO, Colorado Center for Sustainable Energy 

at the Colorado School of Mines.

$1,000,000 Salazar, Allard 

North Dakota Energy and Environment Research Center, Grand Forks, ND, Fossil 

Fuel Cooperative Research & Development.

4,000,000 Dorgan 

Ramgen, Bellevue, WA, CO2 compression initiative utilizing shockwave/ramjet 

compression technology.

1,200,000 Murray 

Sparks, NV, City of Sparks Methane Reclamation project ...................................... 1,000,000 Reid 

US/China Energy and Environmental Center, Clean Coal Technologies, Tulene 

University, Louisiana.

1,200,000 Landrieu 

North Dakota Energy and Environment Research Center, Grand Forks, ND, National Center for Hydrogen Technology.3,000,000 Dorgan 

West Virginia University, Advanced coal technology (liquefaction) in China ......... 350,000 Byrd 

Center for Zero Emissions Technology, Montana State University, Clean Coal 

Technologies.

6,000,000 Baucus, Tester 

Interdisciplinary Clean Energy Program at the University of Utah, Utah ............... 3,500,000 Bennett 

Shallow Carbon Sequestration Pilot Demonstration, Missouri ................................ 2,500,000 Bond 

Gulf of Mexico Hydrates Research Consortium at the University of Mississippi, 

MS.

1,000,000 Cochran 

Membrane Technology for Produced Water at Lea County, New Mexico ................. 1,500,000 Domenici 

Carbon Sequestration Monitoring Activities, Wyoming ............................................ 1,650,000 Enzi 

Penn State University, Solid Oxide Fuel Cells, Pennsylvania .................................. 4,000,000 Specter 

Arctic Energy Office, Alaska ..................................................................................... 7,000,000 Stevens 
140 

COMMITTEE DIRECTED FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS—Continued 

Project Committee recommendation Requested by 

Center for Advanced Separation Technologies, Virginia .......................................... 1,000,000 Warner, Webb 

NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $21,326,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 17,301,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 21,301,000 

The Committee recommends $21,301,000 for fiscal year 2008. 

$2,000,000 of the increase provided is for the operation of the naval 

petroleum and oil shale reserves. Within available funds and consistent with the budget request, $3,000,000 is provided to support 

the Rocky Mountain Oil Technology Centers and $3,810,000 is recommended to support NPR–3 to continue and maintain production. 

Congressionally Directed Projects.—The Committee recommendation includes the following congressionally directed projects, within 

available funds. The Committee reminds recipients that statutory 

cost sharing requirements may apply to these projects. $2,000,000 

is provided to Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico to 

support research for inbasin scale environmental impacts for oil 

shale production (Domenici, Bingaman). 

ELK HILLS SCHOOL LANDS FUND

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

The State of California maintains that they are due $9,710,000 

under the Elk Hills program from fiscal year 2007. The Department disagrees. If this legal dispute is resolved prior to the completion of the conference report, this issue may be re-visited. 

STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $164,441,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 331,609,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 163,472,000 

The Committee supports maintaining the existing storage program but does not support the expansion program request at this 

time. Current cost estimates and schedule for an expansion are 

$10,000,000,000 for new facilities and $55,000,000,000 for the cost 

of the oil fill, which would not be complete until 2027. The Committee does not believe that it makes sense to spend Federal funds 

to take oil off the market when prices are at record levels when 

such funds can be used for more pressing needs. The Committee 

recommends $163,472,000 for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 

Within available funds for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, 

$10,000,000 is provided for the Secretary to conduct an updated inventory of the oil and natural gas resources of the Eastern Gulf of 

Mexico OCS planning area using the latest non-drilling seismic 

technologies. The committee has also included section 313 regarding land acquisition related to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 
141 

NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $5,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 5,325,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 12,825,000 

The Committee recommends $12,825,000, an increase of 

$7,500,000 above the budget request. The Department will use the 

additional funds to meet costs associated with increased storage 

contracts. 

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $90,653,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 105,095,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 105,095,000 

The Committee recommends $105,095,000 for the Energy Information Administration. 

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $349,687,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 180,937,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 195,437,000 

For the Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup program, the Com- mittee recommends $195,437,000, a net increase of $14,500,000 

above the President’s request (this increase reflects an offset of 

$10,000,000 to prior year funds located at the Consolidated Business Center for which the program has no identified need). The 

Committee realizes that the Department’s effort to complete cleanup in the future will be challenged by the failure to request sufficient funding. The Committee reminds the Department that it is 

not enough to simply fund projects that have the greatest perceived 

reduction to public risk; the Department committed to the public 

that it would meet regulatory agreements too. The Committee expects future funding requests to include sufficient funding to meet 

that commitment. 

Control Levels.—In fiscal year 2006, the Environmental Management Program’s budget was restructured to better display site information, which paralleled its management of the program. However, Congress increased the number of congressional reprogramming control points from approximately 25 line items in fiscal year 

2005 to nearly 100 in fiscal year 2006. This Committee understands and continues to support the need for site managers to have 

the flexibility to meet the changing requirements at the sites and 

recommends the following reprogramming control points for fiscal 

year 2008: 

—West Valley Demonstration Project; 

—Gaseous Diffusion Plants; 

—Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility Decontamination and Decommissioning; 

—-Small Sites; 

—All construction line items. 

Internal Reprogramming Authority.—In fiscal year 2008, Envi- ronmental Management may transfer up to $2,000,000, one time, 

between accounts listed below to reduce health and safety risks, 

gain cost savings, or complete projects, as long as a program or 
142 

project is not increased or decreased by more than $2,000,000 in 

total during the fiscal year. This reprogramming authority may not 

be used to initiate new programs or to change funding levels for 

programs specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in 

the act or report. The Committee on Appropriations in the House 

and Senate must be notified within 30 days after the use of this 

internal reprogramming authority. 

The following is a list of account control points for internal reprogramming purposes: 

—West Valley Demonstration Project 

—Gaseous Diffusion Plants; 

—Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility Decontamination and Decommissioning; 

—Small Sites; 

—Transfers between construction line item(s) and operating 

projects within the same site, as applicable. 

West Valley Demonstration Project.—The Committee includes 

$78,895,000 for West Valley, $24,500,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee notes that this budget request is significantly lower 

than that enacted fiscal year 2006 or the program’s own preferred 

funding level displayed in their fiscal year 2007 Operating Plan 

submitted to Congress in March 2007. The fiscal year 2008 reduction is puzzling considering the amount of waste, decontamination 

and decommissioning, and remediation of contaminated groundwater that still must be accomplished. The Committee therefore 

provides an additional $18,000,000 for decontamination and decommissioning of excess ancillary facilities, per the State agreement, as 

well as $6,500,000 for additional low-level waste shipments for disposal from the ongoing decontamination and decommissioning. 

Gaseous Diffusion Plants.—The Committee recommends 

$38,120,000 for operation of gaseous diffusion plant uranium conversion and stabilization activities, the same as the President’s request. 

Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility Decontamination and Decommissioning Project.—The Committee recommends $10,342,000, the 

same as the budget request. 

Small Sites.—The Committee includes $78,080,000 for fiscal year 

2008. These funds are distributed as follows: Argonne National 

Laboratory, $2,437,000; Brookhaven National Laboratory, 

$23,699,000; Idaho National Laboratory, $5,400,000; California Site 

Support, $160,000; Inhalation Toxicology, $427,000; Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, $5,900,000; Energy Technology Engineering 

Center, $13,000,000; Los Alamos National Laboratory, $1,905,000; 

Consolidated Business Center’s Completed Sites Administration 

and Suppport, $1,200,000; and Moab, $23,952,000. The Committee 

is concerned with the lack of progress and funding in the request 

for Moab. The removal of the tailings pile must be accelerated to 

cut costs. The Committee expects to see increased funding in fiscal 

year 2009. 

The Committee is aware of the suspension of the Department’s 

deactivation and decommissioning activities at the Energy Technology and Engineering Site, Santa Susanna Field Laboratory, in 

Simi Valley, California, while the Department evaluates stakeholder concerns and input regarding the deactivation and decom-
143 

missioning activities at the site. The Department has placed all operations in a safe and stable configuration during this pause that 

allows time to complete the evaluation, but will continue to perform environmental monitoring activities. The Department claims 

it is committed to cleaning up the Energy Technology and Engineering Site in accordance with applicable Federal and State regulations. The Committee is very concerned with this situation and 

will be monitoring the Department’s actions during the ‘‘pause’’ in 

cleanup. 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING

FUND

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $556,606,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 573,509,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 573,509,000 

Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund.—The Committee provides 

$573,509,000, the same as the budget request. The Committee also 

recommends $250,406,000, an increase of $20,000,000, to keep the 

decontamination and decommissioning of the East Tennessee Technology Park’s K–25 process building on schedule for completion by 

fiscal year 2010. This building is on the critical path for the regulatory-driven completion of the cleanup of East Tennessee Technology Park by fiscal year 2012. 

Uranium/Thorium Reimbursement.—The Committee recommends no funding for this activity, $20,000,000 below the request. 

SCIENCE

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $3,797,294,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 4,397,876,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,496,759,000 

The Committee recommends $4,496,759,000 for the Office of 

Science. These funds represent an investment in basic research 

that is critical to both the future economic competitiveness of the 

United Sates and to the success of our national and energy security. 

Report on Scientific Cooperation.—The Department is directed to 

prepare a report supported by the Office of Science and the Office 

of Energy Supply and Conservation regarding the specific steps the 

Department is taking to ensure cooperation between the two offices 

in identifying broad research objectives and goals as well as specific 

R&D priorities required in the short term. This report should contain information as to how the various Department of Energy laboratories are supporting these activities and budget projections in 

the next 5 years. This report is due to the Committee concurrent 

with the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget submission. 

Advanced Materials Testing.—Many of the stockpile stewardship, 

Office of Science, and nuclear energy R&D programs face scientific 

challenges posed by ultra high temperature and pressure and high 

radiation environments. As such, the Committee urges the Department to begin to develop a research and development roadmap that 

considers the questions of what types of facilities are needed to perform experiments on materials under extreme temperature and 
144 

pressure. This facility should be shared between the Department of 

Energy and the National Nuclear Security Administration and likewise should contribute to the benefit of both programs. 

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

For High Energy Physics, the Committee recommends 

$789,238,000. Understanding the way the universe works is the 

key mission of the High Energy Physics program, and it succeeds 

by probing interactions among matter, energy, space and time. The 

High Energy Physics program has many promising opportunities to 

advance our understanding of the universe and its makeup. However, the Department must make important decisions about the future of this program, including balancing the immediate opportunities provided through the Joint Dark Energy Mission and large future investments in the International Linear Collider. 

International Linear Collider.—The Committee provides 

$60,000,000 to support research to support the U.S. ILC effort 

within the Accelerator Development, International Linear Collider 

R&D activities. The Committee appreciates the scientific challenge 

of building the ILC in the United States, establishing our leadership in this discipline among an international team. Despite the 

large financial commitment by the President in scientific research, 

the Committee is concerned that the ILC will crowd out other valuable research as has been demonstrated with both the National Ignition Facility within the NNSA, the Rare Isotope Accelerator and 

ITER, both within the Office of Science. The Department must provide a cost estimate including an out year funding plan and an explanation of how this initiative will impact other facilities and scientific research. 

Joint Dark Energy Mission.—The Committee has consistently 

urged the Department to move forward toward launch of the Joint 

Dark Energy Mission [JDEM]. Unfortunately, in spite of the Committee’s support and the Department’s own scientific facilities planning process, this has not happened. The Department’s fiscal year 

2008 request for JDEM will cripple the Department’s capacity to 

move forward either in partnership with NASA or as a single agency mission in 2008. Unfortunately, this budget reduction may also 

discourage international collaborations interested in a near term 

launch—collaborations which could significantly reduce the United 

States’ costs. The Committee reasserts its strong support of JDEM, 

directs DOE to down select from among the three JDEM competitors immediately following the decision of the NRC committee, and 

provides $7,000,000 above the combined requests for JDEM, SNAP 

and other Dark Energy research programs to fund the competition 

and to aggressively ramp up activities focused on a launch in 2014. 

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

The Committee provides $471,319,000 for Nuclear Physics. The 

Nuclear Physics program fosters fundamental research that will 

advance our understanding of nuclear matter, helping the United 

States maintain a leading role in developing nuclear energy, nuclear medicine, and national security. 
145 

BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

For Biological and Environmental Research [BER], the Committee provides $605,320,000. BER uses competitive and peer-reviewed research at national laboratories, universities, and private 

institutions to further the Nation’s competitiveness in the scientific 

arena. 

Low Dose Research.—The Committee supports the Department’s 

ongoing research efforts to understand the relationship between 

low dose radiation exposure and the impact to human health. After 

eight years of research, the Department is now compiling the data 

for independent scientific review. Following this review, the Committee encourages the Department to share its finding with other 

agencies and Congress as it may support review of our existing regulatory thresholds. 

Medical Applications and Measurement Science.—Of the funds 

provided, $34,000,000 is for Medical Applications and Medical 

Science. The increase of $20,000,000 is for nuclear medicine research and should be distributed through a grant program. The 

Committee is disappointed that for the third year in a row the Department has eliminated from its budget funding for nuclear medicine research. 

The Committee recommends that funding by used to support new 

isotope development R&D and increased availability of research 

isotopes for critical nuclear medicine applications. The Committee 

also notes that diagnostics are currently in development between 

the University of New Mexico and Los Alamos utilizing the unique 

capabilities of Los Alamos at the IPF at LANSCE and the radiopharmaceutical expertise of UNM at the Center for Isotopes in 

Medicine. 

Congressionally Directed Projects.—The Committee recommendation includes the following congressionally directed projects, within 

available funds. The Committee reminds recipients that statutory 

cost sharing requirements may apply to these projects. $400,000 is 

provided to the University of Rochester in New York to support biosensor and fuel cell research (Schumer, Clinton); $2,000,000 is provided to the Neurosciences Institute in Morgantown, West Virginia, 

to support molecular genetics research (Byrd); $1,000,000 is provided to the Inland Northwest Research Alliance in Idaho Falls, 

Idaho, to support water research (Murray, Cantwell); $500,000 is 

provided to the Nevada Cancer Institute in Las Vegas to support 

research of cellular antigens and nuclei acids (Reid); $2,500,000 is 

provided to the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks to support antibodies research (Dorgan); $2,000,000 is provided to the 

University of California, San Diego to support seismic research 

(Feinstein); $500,000 is provided to the University of Massachusetts at Boston to support marine systems research (Kennedy, 

Kerry); $3,000,000 is provided to the University of Vermont in Burlington to support research in agricultural, environmental, and biological sciences (Leahy); $1,000,000 is provided to the University of 

Vermont in Burlington to conduct research of MRI science (Leahy); 

$250,000 is provided to the Center for Nanomedicine at the University of Maryland in Baltimore to support research into new 

nanoconstructs (Mikulski, Cardin); $2,000,000 is provided to the 
146 

University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha to conduct 

nanoscale imaging of proteins (Ben Nelson, Hagel); $1,500,000 is 

provided to WIPP in Carlsbad, New Mexico, to support neutrino research (Domenici, Bingaman); $12,000,000 is provided the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, New Mexico, for the Mind Institute ongoing research into brain related research including supporting research of military personnel suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, depression and traumatic brain injuries 

(Domenici, Bingaman); $1,500,000 is provided to New Mexico Tech 

University in Socorro, New Mexico, for Applied Energy Science Design (Domenici); $2,000,000 is provided to Jackson State University 

in Jackson, Mississippi, for Bioengineering Research Training 

(Cochran); $600,000 is provided to the University of Mississippi 

Medical Center in Jackson, Mississippi, to fund research in the 

areas of increasing efficiency by reducing the amount of contrast 

media needed for certain procedures (Cochran); $6,000,000 is provided to the University of California, Los Angeles for the Institute 

for Molecular Medicine radiation research (Stevens); $1,200,000 is 

provided to Northwest Missouri State University in Maryville, Missouri, for the Nanoscience Education Project (Bond); $1,000,000 is 

provided to The University of Louisville Regional NMR Facility in 

Louisville, Kentucky, to support ongoing research in fundamental 

processes of electron transport systems and the structural biology 

of proteins (McConnell); $1,000,000 is provided to Ultra-dense 

Supercomputing memory storage in Colorado for further research 

in this field (Allard); $1,000,000 is provided to Northern Hemisphere Pierre Auger Observatory in Colorado for the northern 

hemisphere location of a particle detection observatory (Allard); 

$1,000,000 is provided to University of Oklahoma in Norman, 

Oklahoma, for the Large Scale Application of Single-Walled Carbon 

Nanotubes (Inhofe); $1,000,000 is provided to the University of 

Maine in Orono, Maine, for research in Integrated Forest Products 

Refinery technology (Snowe, Collins); $1,000,000 is provided to 

Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for the 

Institute for Regenerative Medicine (Burr, Dole); $1,100,000 is provided to the South Dakota Catalyst Group for Alternative Energy 

to support research that will synthesize, characterize and scale up 

production of catalysts important for energy alternatives to fossil 

fuels (Thune); $1,500,000 is provided to Louisiana Tech University 

in Ruston, Louisiana, for research in nanotechnology (Vitter, 

Landrieu); $300,000 is provided to Dominican University in River 

Forest, Illinois for research related to the role of transglutaminases 

in Alzheimer’s and Huntington’s diseases (Durbin); $300,000 is provided to the University of Chicago to research multi-modality, 

image-based markers for assessing breast density and structure to 

determine risk of breast cancer (Durbin). 

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommends $1,512,257,000 for Basic Energy 

Sciences, an increase of $13,760,000 from the budget request. The 

Committee fully funds facilities within this account including the 

four Nanoscale Science Research Centers and provides $15,992,000 

for the Manuel Lujan, Jr., Neutron Scattering Center. The Com-
147 

mittee provides $17,000,000 for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research [EPSCoR]. 

ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING RESEARCH

The Committee provides $334,898 for Advanced Scientific Computing Research. The increase of $7,700,000 is for the Oak Ridge 

Leadership Computing Facility to maintain budget and cost schedule. The Committee has also included language in the NNSA Advanced Simulation and Computing program to encourage the Office 

of Science and the NNSA to work together to establish a high performance computing capability within the Department by joining 

the capabilities of both program support advanced computing architecture, improvements in cyber security and to support the development of advanced software and algorithms to increase the speed 

and efficiency of existing and future systems. The Committee does 

not support the Department transferring $19,000,000 to the Department of Defense to play a minor role in that effort. Instead, the 

Committee has shifted $13,000,000 from the Office of Science to the 

NNSA Advanced Computing and Simulation program to reestablish 

the Department leadership role in high performance computing. 

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

For Fusion Energy Sciences, the Committee recommends 

$427,850,000. This program advances plasma science, fusion 

science, and fusion technology through collaborations among U.S. 

universities, industry, national research laboratories, and the international fusion community. 

High Energy Density Plasma Laboratory Program.—The Committee is pleased that the Department has developed a multidisciplinary research program, which this Committee has been an advocate for the past several years. The Committee believes this program will provide greater interaction between the Office of Science 

researchers and the NNSA scientists and provide greater access to 

user facilities such as the Z machine, NIF and Omega. While these 

activities have their primary responsibility in the weapons program, these facilities can offer scientists new capabilities to support 

their experiments. The Committee encourages the Department to 

increase their investment in this modest program to ensure it future success. The Committee supports the budget request of 

$12,281,000 for the Office of Science. The Committee notes a similar amount has been included in the NNSA program. 

SCIENCE LABORATORIES INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee provides $88,956,000 to support infrastructure 

activities, an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget request. The 

Committee continues to be supportive of the Physical Sciences Facility at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. The Physical 

Sciences Facility is supported by the Office of Science, the National 

Nuclear Security Administration [NNSA], and the Department of 

Homeland Security. The Committee is aware of the MOU that was 

signed by the three agencies in November 2006 but it is unable to 

understand why the fiscal year 2008 budget request does not support this interagency agreement. This Committee provides the re-
148 

quested amount of $35,000,000 from the Office of Science. The 

Committee is aware that a portion of this project is to be developed 

by a third party and that the financing proposal has not yet been 

approved by OMB. To prevent further delay of this project the 

Committee provides an additional $10,000,000 to proceed with the 

design of the buildings expected to be financed by the third party. 

All funding provided in fiscal year 2008 and all funds provided in 

previous bills for this project shall not be held in reserve. 

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The Committee recommendation provides $76,592,000 for Safeguards and Security activities, the same as the budget request. The 

Safeguards and Security program provides funding for physical security, information protection, and cyber security for the national 

laboratories and facilities of the Office of Science. 

SCIENCE PROGRAM DIRECTION

The Committee recommends $184,934,000 for the Office of 

Science Program Direction, the same as the budget request. 

SCIENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

These initiatives support the missions of the Department’s Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists program. The Committee provides $11,000,000. 

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $99,206,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 202,454,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 204,054,000 

The Committee recommendation for the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management include $202,454,000 from fees collected 

by the Secretary which are deposited into the fund established by 

Public Law 97–425 as amended and $242,046,000 provided from 

the defense appropriation. An additional $1,600,000 is provided for 

a total of $446,100,000. 

The Committee directs the Department to exercise great discretion to ensure that any work undertaken at or near Yucca Mountain is consistent with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act’s requirements 

that no repository construction can be undertaken prior to the 

issuance of a repository license by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Committee provides $1,600,000 for the cooperative agreement between the Department of Energy and Inyo County, California. (Feinstein) 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $7,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 8,390,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,390,000 

The Committee recommendation to support the Office of Loan 

Guarantees is $8,390,000, as requested. The Committee has provided full funding to enable to the Department to hire experienced 

staff with a background in project finance or have experience with 

existing U.S. Government agencies such as the Overseas Private 
149 

Investment Corporation or the Export-Import Bank. These entities 

have effectively utilized loan guarantees to encourage foreign countries to invest in U.S. technology, including the recent sale of nuclear reactor technology to China. The Committee strongly believes 

the administration should support a domestic initiative of greater 

proportion here in this country to diversity our energy portfolio. 

The Committee has included language regarding the terms and 

conditions of the loan guarantees provided under section 1702(b)(2) 

of the Energy Policy Act. The Committee does note that in an April 

20, 2007 letter, the Government Accountability Office concluded 

the following: ‘‘EPACT section 1702(b)(2) confers upon DOE independent authority to make loan guarantees, notwithstanding the 

FCRA requirements.’’ The Committee agrees with this determination and doesn’t believe Congress is required to provide statutory 

authorization in an appropriations bill to comply with the Fair 

Credit Reform Act. However, the Committee is taking this prudent 

step to avoid complications in the future over legal interpretations 

intended to frustrate the effectiveness of this program. 

The Committee expects the Department to move expeditiously to 

complete the rulemaking process and make awards on the first solicitation once the regulations have been finalized. The Committee, 

however, is concerned that the draft rules propose to limit the Federal guarantee to 90 percent of the debt portion, which is inconsistent with the statute, which allows for the Government to guarantee up to 100 percent of the debt portion. The Committee urges 

the administration to make the correction in order to optimize the 

effectiveness of the loan guarantee program to support the deployment of a diversified portfolio of energy saving applications and 

clean generation sources. 

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

(GROSS)

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $276,832,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 310,366,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 308,596,000 

(MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES)

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. ¥$123,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... ¥161,818,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥161,818,000 

The Committee recommends $308,596,000 for Departmental Administration, a net appropriation of $146,778,000. The Departmental Administration account funds eleven Department-wide 

management organizations support administrative functions such 

as human resources, accounting, budgeting, workforce diversity 

and project management activities. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $41,819,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 47,732,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 47,732,000 

For the Office of Inspector General, the Committee recommends 

$47,732,000 consistent with the budget request. The Office of In-
150 

spector General identifies opportunities for cost savings and operational efficiencies and provides the Department of Energy with 

the assurance that those attempting to defraud the Government 

are apprehended. 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $6,275,583,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 6,511,312,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,489,024,000 

Reliable Replacement Warhead.—The Committee is divided on 

the Reliable Replacement Warhead [RRW] program, but unified in 

its desire to review and discuss our national strategic defense policy and the role of nuclear weapons in the post-cold war and postSeptember 11th world. The President requested $88,000,000 for the 

RRW program and the bill will provide funding of $66,000,000. 

This is the amount required to complete phase 2a, design definition 

and cost studies, of the RRW research and planning outline. Following the completion of phase 2a, Congress will have to authorize 

any continuation of the RRW program. 

The information developed from phase 2a will be helpful in assessing the role RRW might play in the reliability, safety, and nonproliferation areas of the nuclear weapon arsenal, but the information alone will not be enough upon which to base a decision on its 

construction or deployment. Congress should have a more vigorous 

analysis and debate of our national strategic defense policy prior to 

deciding whether to continue or terminate RRW development. 

Specifically, we need to decide the type and size of our future inventory of nuclear weapons. We have thousands of warheads. 

Under treaties we have committed to substantial reductions and 

eventual elimination of nuclear warheads. We must decide the 

methodology of meeting those obligations and over what time. In 

the meantime, we also have to determine how we maintain the 

warheads we decide we must keep. Do we continue the Stockpile 

Stewardship Program, which has been used for many years to 

maintain our nuclear deterrence, or do we develop the RRW program to replace the current nuclear warheads with new ones? 

These are important questions that must be answered before we 

decide whether to continue with or terminate the RRW program. 

Some of these answers will be influenced by how long the current 

nuclear warheads can be maintained in the Stockpile Stewardship 

Program without degradation. New evidence suggests that the life 

of those warheads is decades longer than previously estimated. The 

future funding requirements for a new RRW program will also 

have to be weighed against and compared to the costs of the Life 

Extension Program within the Stockpile Stewardship Program. 

We should also consider what impact the RRW program would 

have on international nonproliferation efforts. The United States is 

engaged around the world on trying to halt the spread of nuclear 

weapon capability and we must consider the role of RRW in those 

efforts. These are among the most important issues policy makers 
151 

will face in the months and years ahead. The question of whether 

the RRW program should be continued must be based on accurate 

information and thorough debate. 

The Committee favors the development of a bipartisan commission created by the Congress to evaluate and make recommendations on the role of nuclear weapons in our future strategic posture. 

That commission should engage the administration, the Congress 

and the best minds in the public and private sector to evaluate the 

future role of nuclear weapons as a part of our defense and strategic policies. That Commission report can form the basis of information and advice from which the President and the Congress can 

make decisions about the future of RRW and other weapons programs. 

Complex 2030.—The Committee rejects the Department’s premature deployment of the NNSA Complex 2030 consolidation effort. This plan was based on the adoption and deployment of the 

Reliable Replacement Warhead systems. The Government Accountability Office found this proposal to be lacking critical details about 

the size and military mission of the RRW system, which of course 

would dictate the size and makeup of the future stockpile including 

the necessity for a new pit manufacturing capability. The Committee has previously canceled the Modern Pit Facility, because the 

National Nuclear Security Administration, the Nuclear Weapons 

Council and the Department of Defense were unable to make a 

compelling case for a significantly larger pit manufacturing need. 

The Committee has not provided any funding for the Consolidated 

Pit Center for the very same reason. For as much thought as the 

Department has given to supporting Complex 2030 and its deployment, the Committee is concerned about sustaining the science capability at the laboratories and ensuring a balanced program that 

continues to make critical investment in improving the scientific 

mission. For example, the NNSA has established a preeminent capability in super computing to simulate warhead reliability without 

underground testing. However, the Department has no plans to advance the field of high performance computing, but instead proposes to reduce computing capacity within the laboratory system. 

This, however, doesn’t mean that the NNSA doesn’t have plans to 

purchase additional platforms in the future, but it is unclear what 

is driving these decisions. The Committee is frustrated by the lack 

of planning to ensure that the laboratory mission is not compromised. The Committee directs the Department to provide a comprehensive computing proposal that involves the input from the 

weapons laboratories that includes a long term strategy to maintain the necessary simulation capabilities within the complex and 

to drive innovation and competition for technology and performance. The Committee is also frustrated with the lack of scientific 

development vision for the labs. The NNSA has focused on its 

transformational plan, based on the RRW systems, but appears to 

have given little thought to the scientific path forward. The Committee directs the Department, drawing on the resources within 

NNSA and the Office of Science, to provide to the Committee a research and development plan that addresses unresolved physics 

and materials questions that will support national security mission 

as well as contributed to improving our energy independence, non-
152 

proliferation mission and to support biomedical applications. This 

plan should explore technology options that can be deployed and 

provide an added capability to our R&D program to update the scientific capabilities at each of the laboratories. 

Consolidation.—The Committee does believe the consolidation for 

disposal of the various amounts of special nuclear material, including highly enriched uranium; plutonium and excess pits should be 

aggressively pursued. The Committee is concerned that rising security costs continue to erode mission critical funding. The Committee encourages the administration to careful evaluate the future 

mission need for all special nuclear material. Any and all material 

that no longer has a specific mission need should be consolidated 

and destroyed, preferably into other forms that can be reused in 

other applications such as light water reactor fuel if possible. The 

Committee also supports utilizing existing facilities to recycle or 

destroy excess material at the H Canyon at the Savannah River 

Site. The facility, which is the last of its kind, can play a key role 

in down-blending a significant and varied amount of highly enriched uranium and various forms of plutonium and uranium. The 

cost of running this facility to support the consolidation campaign 

appears to be much more cost effective than attempting to develop 

a new capability. The Committee continues to encourage the Department to maintain its campaign to remove plutonium from the 

Livermore National Laboratory as soon as possible and urges the 

Department to give greater consideration to expanding the amount 

of plutonium that can be added to the 34 tons of weapons grade 

material that will be turned in to mixed oxide fuel for use in civilian reactors for electric generation. 

DIRECTED STOCKPILE WORK

The Committee recommendation provides $1,409,521,000 for the Directed Stockpile Activities, a reduction of $37,715,000. These activities support the activities needed to provide critical surveillance, engineering, research and development, maintenance, and 

dismantlement of the stockpile. 

Life Extension Programs.—The Committee recommends 

$238,686,000, as requested. The Committee is concerned about the 

growing costs associated with the Life Extension Program for the 

W–76. The Committee is aware of the fact that the NNSA is facing 

a challenge posed by attempting to reengineer cold war capabilities. 

However, the Committee expects that Department to establish a 

better program assessment and reporting requirements to better 

manage this program. 

Stockpile Systems.—The Committee recommends $346,717,000 

for the Stockpile Systems account as requested. 

Reliable Replacement Warhead.—The Committee recommends 

$66,000,000 and directs the Department to conduct the appropriate 

feasibility studies allowed under phase 2a. The Committee commends the NNSA and laboratories for their work in the design 

competition for the RRW program. The design teams made security, reliability and manufacturability the foundation of both designs and both teams should be commended for their effort. The 

Committee expects the NNSA to conduct a timely and thorough 

feasibility review of the weapon system in order to provide Con-
153 

gress with the necessary information to make an informed decision 

as to whether or not it will authorize the National Nuclear Security 

Administration to proceed with the next phase of development. It 

will be incumbent upon NNSA to provide specific details as to how 

many RRW weapons will be manufactured, how the Department of 

Defense intends to integrate the system into the stockpile and how 

many weapons from the existing deterrent can be retired. No funds 

may be used for initial research of a RRW2. 

Weapons Dismantlement.—The Committee provides the re- quested level of $52,500,000 as requested. The Committee commends the Department for their recent efforts to increase the number of dismantlement and fulfill the terms of the Washington-Moscow Treaty, which calls for the reduction of the active stockpile to 

the lowest level in over three decades. 

Stockpile Services.—The Committee recommends $705,868,000 

for these activities, a reduction of $14,946,000. The Committee expects the Department to focus on providing adequate funding support to protect the ongoing research and development, engineering 

and production support to maintain the existing life extension program, and not to undertake significant transformational activities 

proposed as part of Complex 2030 or to accommodate the proposed 

RRW workload. The Committee recommends $284,979,000 for the 

Production support program as requested. The Committee provides 

no funding for the responsive infrastructure activity. The Committee recommends $205,576,000 for the Management, Technology 

and Production activity. The Committee provides full funding of the 

production of limited life components for the existing stockpile. Key 

limited life components, such as neutron generators, contain radiological sources that cannot be manufactured by private vendors. 

The Committee directs the NNSA to continue to provide full support for the continued production of neutron generators to support 

the existing stockpile. The Committee also supports the Department’s efforts to deploy new core surveillance diagnostic capabilities developed in the Engineering Campaign. 

CAMPAIGNS

The campaigns provide the foundation for the experimental 

science-based activities that support the NNSA Stockpile Stewardship mission. Research supported by the programs provide data 

that is used with the super computing capabilities at each of the 

laboratories needed to support the life extension program and to 

certify to the President the confidence of the nuclear deterrent. 

The Committee recommends $1,933,193,000, an increase of 

$66,973,000 above the budget request. Within the funds provided, 

for the various campaigns, the Committee supports the budget request for the university research program in robotics [URPR] for 

the development of advanced robotic technologies for strategic national applications 

Science Campaign.—The Committee recommends $273,075,000 

as requested to support the science campaign. This is the same as 

the budget request. 

Engineering Campaign.—The Committee recommends 

$172,749,000, an increase of $20,000,000 for the engineering campaign. This account provides critical engineering support to the 
154 

stockpile and can provide solutions to deploy state-of-the-art use 

control technologies. There remains a significant amount that still 

must be understood regarding limited life components. The Committee expects the NNSA to develop a better predictive capability 

to better understand why systems fail and what must be done to 

increase reliability and component lifetimes. The Committee recognizes the continued threat posed by international terrorist organizations that seek to acquire and detonate nuclear weapons within 

the stockpile of the United States and those possessed by other nations. The Committee recommends that the NNSA accelerate efforts within the Enhanced Surety subactivity of the engineering 

campaign to increase the safety, security and improved surveillance 

of nuclear weapons in the existing stockpile by developing modern 

surety technologies, and to take advantage of every opportunity to 

implement these technologies in any weapon program. Furthermore, the Committee recommends that the NNSA work with other 

nations to explore opportunities to share these technologies, within 

the bounds of existing laws and treaties so that nuclear weapons 

can be better secured against international terrorist threats. The 

Committee recommends $44,803,000, an increase of $20,000,000 

above the request, to enhance these important activities. The Committee also requests the NNSA to report back by July 1, 2008 on 

progress made both in the inclusion of modern surety technologies 

in the RRW studies and the plan for making surety technologies 

available for other nations. The Committee expects the Department 

to complete the buildout of the MESA facility. The Committee also 

directs the NNSA to initiate the refurbishment of the Ion Beam 

Lab by reprogramming uncosted Microsystems and Engineering 

Science Applications and Exterior Communication Infrastructure 

Modernization contingency funds. This program is on the critical 

path and the replacement of these existing facilities will be offset 

against the increasing costly maintenance and repair activities. 

Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign.—The Committee recommends $459,146,000 for the ICF 

campaign activities including $10,139,000 for the final year of construction of the National Ignition Facility as requested. The baseline ignition approach on NIF is x-ray or indirect drive. This approach was chosen after detailed review of its maturity and value 

to the weapons program. Significant challenges remain for the 

baseline approach as independent reviews have concluded. In addition there are severe budgetary constraints on the overall Stockpile 

Stewardship Program. The Department is therefore directed to allocate all of its resources for the first ignition demonstration with 

indirect drive and to defer other approaches such as direct drive 

until after achievement of x-ray driven ignition or after experiments have shown that the baseline approach will not succeed. The 

funds budgeted for direct drive should be used to increase the operating capacity of all other ICF funded facilities within the complex. 

Facility Operations and Target Production.—The Committee recommends $132,970,000 for the facility operations and target production. This funding increase reflects the Committee’s desire to 

consolidate funding for the Z machine operations and experimentation into NNSA Science and ICF campaign accounts. The Z facility at Sandia National Laboratories is a model NNSA shared na-
155 

tional user facility. The request for Z experiments continues to 

grow. Scientists at the NNSA weapons laboratories are focused on 

the mission needs of the Stockpile Stewardship Program, and the 

new initiative in high energy density laboratory plasmas will increase the interest from scientists in the fundamental research 

fields of high-energy-density science, planetary science, and laboratory astrophysics. NNSA has invested $120,000,000 in the Z facility 

and a petawatt-class laser. Despite this investment, the budget request fails to provide sufficient funding to reestablish experimental 

capabilities (precision, performance, and shot rate) required to support the many users of the facility. This funding shortfall will severely restrict the ability to conduct high-priority weapons science, 

ICF, and basic science research using the refurbished Z facility. 

The Committee concurs with the President’s budget request for Z 

using $12,800,000 in the Science Campaign, $10,440,000 in the ICF 

Pulsed Power and $1,200,000 in the ICF National Ignition Campaign activities. The Committee has provided $58,357,000 in the 

Facility Operations and Target Production category of the ICF 

Campaign in order to fully reestablish experimental capabilities on 

the refurbished Z facility. The Committee shifts $28,887,000 from 

the RTBF Campaign budgeted for Z to the ICF Facility Operations 

and Target Production category. Within the available funds, 

$13,000,000 has been added to ensure full operations and target 

production on Z and $5,000,000 to support a new approach known 

as a Linear Transformer Driver or LTD to create high current 

pulsed power devices has recently been demonstrated at Sandia. 

The funding shall be used to refine the baseline design including 

all of the critical elements of rep-rated high yield fusion facility and 

begin component improvements and demonstrations as appropriate. 

The Committee expects that the Department will provide adequate 

funding for the full utilization of Z machine in the out-year budgets. 

Joint Program in High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas.— 

The Committee appreciates the Department’s effort to establish the 

High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas joint program. The Committee is encouraged the Department is taking the proper steps to 

coordinate research between the Office of Science and NNSA, and 

to expand it to other agencies as well. The Department has provided $24,637,000 divided equally between Fusion Energy Sciences 

and NNSA. The Committee recommends the entire NNSA contribution of $12,356,000 be provided in the High Energy Density Laboratory Plasma line. The Committee has shifted funds from experimental support activities. 

NIF Assembly and Installation.—The Committee provides 

$136,912,000 for NIF assembly and installation. 

Advanced Simulation and Computing.—The Committee recommends $610,738,000 for the activities with the Advanced Simulation and Computing program. This is an increase of $25,000,000 

above the President’s request. The Committee has provided an additional $12,000,000 for infrastructure improvements such as 

power, storage and visualization across the complex. The Committee has also reallocated funding targeted to subsidize the Department of Defense research program and applied it to support a 

joint NNSA and Office of Science high performance computing ef-
156 

fort; $19,000,000 is reprioritized to support this initiative. The 

Committee expects the Department to complete work on this computing system before proceeding with other platform acquisitions. 

The National Nuclear Security Administration and the Office of 

Science both have major High Performance Computing [HPC] programs. These programs have provided national leadership in the 

development of HPC technologies and their application to stockpile 

stewardship and scientific discovery. To address emerging issues in 

the Nation’s security, economic competitiveness and scientific leadership, advances in HPC need to be accelerated beyond what each 

office can accomplish individually. 

The Committee expects the Department to continue to diversify 

it computing potential and bring together national laboratories, 

computer industries and universities to develop critical technologies for future supercomputing platforms. Important areas for 

research and development include advanced supercomputer architectures, new algorithms and system software to enable efficient 

use of emerging architectures, advanced interconnection network 

technologies and advanced memory subsystems technologies that 

keep pace with advances in microprocessors. The Department is directed to establish a joint program office lead by the NNSA Administrator and the Under Secretary for Science. This office will have 

the primary responsibility to ensure the sustained availability of a 

well balanced, and hence productive and highly scalable, computing 

platforms for the DOE and the Nation and will serve the missions 

of NNSA, the Office of Science and emerging economic competitiveness initiatives. Within this responsibility, the institute will develop and maintaining a long-range HPC roadmap and create the 

strategy and guidelines for competitive acquisition of supercomputer platforms for the DOE including pre-competitive HPC R&D. 

These supercomputers protect national security information and 

thus have demanding cyber security requirements. The Department is expected to support research and development efforts to 

ensure these systems are protected from cyber attack. The Department of Energy has requested $19,000,000 to be provided to the 

Department of Defense to subsidize the creation of its own high 

performance computing program. Since the Department of Energy 

plays such a minor role in this effort, the Committee recommends 

no funding be provided to the Department of Defense from either 

the Office of Science or the NNSA and instead use the funds to revitalize the Department’s own R&D capability. The Committee is 

aware of several competitive ideas for increased computing capacity 

from several different technology providers. The Committee encourages the NNSA to ensure the three laboratories have sufficient 

computing capacity to support each of the laboratory missions well 

into the future. 

The Committee supports the administration’s request to provide 

$52,100,000 for the Roadrunner at Petaflop scale. 

Pit Manufacturing.—The Committee recommends $256,316,000 

to support the Pit Manufacturing mission, down $24,914,000. The 

Committee does not endorse the consolidated plutonium center and 

has not provided any funding for this activity. The NNSA, Nuclear 

Weapons Council and the Defense Department have failed to clearly articulate its vision for the stockpile and the explain how it will 
157 

utilize the proposed tools in the Complex 2030 plan to reduce the 

overall number of warheads as well as individual weapons systems. 

Readiness Campaign.—The Committee recommends 

$161,169,000, as requested. The Committee understands that 

$12,400,000 in uncosted obligations remain available from the completed Tritium Extraction Facility (98D125000). The Committee 

has rescinded these available funds for use in other priorities in 

the weapons program. This still leaves sufficient funding for closeout activities. 

READINESS IN TECHNICAL BASE AND FACILITIES

The Committee provides $1,659,248,000. This funding is used to 

support the operations and maintenance of the NNSA laboratories, 

productions facility, equipment purchases and personnel. 

Operations of Facilities.—The Committee recommends 

$1,126,409,000 for this account. This funding level reflects a reduction of $32,896,000. Within this amount the Committee shifted 

$28,887,000 to the ICF Campaign in order to consolidate funding 

for operations of the Z machine. The Committee also recommends 

a reduction of $4,009,000 from the Institution Site Support activities. This cut is expected to be spread equally among all sites. 

Program Readiness.—The Committee provides the requested 

amount of $71,466,000. 

Material Recycle and Recovery.—The Committee notes this activity continues to have uncosted obligations. As such funding has 

been reduced by $5,000,000 to $64,962,000. 

Containers.—The Committee recommends $19,184,000. 

Storage.—The Committee recommendation included $25,133,000, 

a reduction of $10,000,000. According to the GAO, this activity also 

contains uncosted balances. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends $352,094,000, an increase of $45,000,000. The Committee has provided this funding increase to make key investments in laboratory infrastructure and 

security needs. 

Project 08–D–801, High Pressure Fire Loop, Pantex, Texas.—The 

Committee recommends $7,000,000, the same as the request. —08–D–802, High Explosives Pressing Facility, Pantex, Texas.— The Committee recommends $25,300,000, the same as the request. —08–D–804, TA–55 Reinvestment Project, Los Alamos, New Mexico.—The Committee recommends $6,000,000, the same as the 

request. —08–D–805, Classified Vaults, Los Alamos, New Mexico.—The 

Committee recommends an additional $45,000,000 to demonstrate proposed super vault type rooms at Los Alamos to 

consolidate 142 existing vaults into 10 vaults. Consolidation of 

classified data will deploy advanced security technology to defeat both internal and external threats. 

—07–D–140 Project Engineering and Design, Various Locations.—The Committee recommends $2,500,000, the same as 

the request. 

—07–D–220 Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility Upgrade Project, LANL, New Mexico.—The Committee recommends $26,672,000, the same as the request. 
158 

—06–D–140 Project Engineering and Design, Various Locations.—The recommendation for this activity is $23,862,000, 

the same as the budget request. —06–D–420 NTS Replace Fire Stations 1&2, Nevada Test Site, 

Nevada.—The Committee recommends $6,719,000, the same as 

the request. —05–D–140, Project Engineering and Design, Various Locations.—The Committee recommends $7,000,000, the same as 

the request. —04–D–125, Chemistry and Metallurgy Facility Replacement 

Project, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New 

Mexico.—The Committee recommends $95,586,000 for the 

Chemistry and Metallurgy Facility Replacement Project. The 

current authorization basis for the existing CMR lasts only 

through 2010, as it does not provide adequate worker safety or 

containment precautions. However, deep spending cuts implemented by the NNSA in the 2007 Spend Plan and a significant 

cut to the 2008 budget request will likely result in delays that 

will require the laboratory to continue operations in the existing CMR facility. Any further reductions below the $95,586,000 

request, which is $65,000,000 below the proposed spend plan 

from the 2007 request, would stop all work on the Nuclear Facility and long lead equipment purchases and would result in 

the layoff of key design personnel. Attempting to reconstitute 

a new team at a later day would likely result in a new round 

of delays and cost increases. The NNSA’s indecision regarding 

future facilities will also result in added costs, delays and keep 

workers in unsafe working conditions at least 2 years beyond 

the existing 2010 deadline. The Committee has not provided 

funding to initiate work on the new multibillion consolidated 

plutonium because the Defense Department has been unable to 

articulate a coherent policy and pit requirement for the stockpile. —04–D–128 TA–18 Criticality Experiments Facility [CEF], Los 

Alamos National Lab, Los Alamos, New Mexico.—The Committee recommends $29,455,000, the same as the request. —01–D–124 HEU Materials Facility, Y–12 Plant, Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee.—The Committee recommends $77,000,000, the 

same as the request. 

Test Capabilities Revitalization Phase II.—The Committee is very 

concerned about the lack of funding for the Test Capabilities Revitalization Phase II located at Sandia National Laboratory. The 

NNSA has previously indicated its desire to upgrade this testing 

facility, but has failed to provide any funding in the fiscal year 

2008 budget request. The Committee is concerned that this facility, 

which represents a single point failure in the complex and cannot 

be operated for much longer in this State. The Committee directs 

the Department to provide a report to the Appropriations Committee identifying the options for the recovery of this facility and 

the expected cost and timetable. 

FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE RECAPITALIZATION

The Committee recommends $262,743,000 for Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization activities, a decrease of $31,000,000. 
159 

This program was developed to reduce the backlog of deferred 

maintenance of aging infrastructure facilities throughout the complex. The old facilities continue to be a drain on resources and 

should be demolished or disposed of as quickly as possible. The 

Committee recommends $200,023,000 to support the FIRP program 

and $62,720,000 to support construction activities as requested. 

SECURE TRANSPORTATION ASSET

The Committee recommendation for the Secure Transportation 

Asset program is $215,646,000 as requested. This organization provides an invaluable service that is responsible for the safe and secure transport of our nuclear weapons, weapons components and 

special nuclear material. 

NUCLEAR WEAPONS INCIDENT RESPONSE

The Committee recommends full funding for the nuclear weapons 

incident response program. The Committee provides $161,748,000 

as requested. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT AND OPERATIONS

The Committee recommends $17,518,000 as requested for long 

term stewardship responsibilities. 

SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY

The Committee recommendation for the Safeguards and Security 

program is $893,057,000, an increase of $12,000,000. The Committee is frustrated with the continued climb in funding for this activity and the constantly increasing demands for additional resources. Currently, the Department and laboratories spend over $1 

billion on physical security costs. The ever increasing costs lies in 

the application of the Design Basis Threat, which is linked to manpower needs. The Committee continues to be concerned that the 

Department does not have a realistic threat assessment in which 

to accurately assign risk and allocate scarce resources. This view 

is based on the continued escalation of security costs around the 

complex that seem to have no ceiling. Therefore, the Committee 

recommends the National Academy of Sciences analyze how the 

Design Basis Threat is currently formulated along with the funding 

requests to meet these requirements and then build a comprehensive ‘‘probabilistic risk assessment’’ tool for comparison purposes 

and provide a report back to the Committee on Appropriations. The 

Committee expects the NAS to perform this evaluation for both the 

physical and cyber environments and to inform the Committee if 

the Department has identified the proper balance between the two 

activities. 

Operations.—The Committee recommends $733,318,000, an increase of $12,000,000 to be used to complete the cyber security upgrades of the red network at Los Alamos. This funding will provide 

the interconnectivity and hardening to facilitate this complete 

transformation of the site and allow the diskless classified 

workstation program to come rapidly to full implementation. Operating costs for classified computing and media will drop to provide 
160 

annual savings that can continue to support world-class cyber security. 

Construction.—The Committee recommends $57,496,000, as requested to support the following projects: —08–D–701 Nuclear Materials S&S Upgrade Project Los Alamos 

National Laboratory.—The Committee provides $49,496,000 as 

requested. —05–D–170 Project Engineering and Design, Various Locations.—The Committee recommends $8,000,000 as requested. 

Cyber Security.—The Committee encourages this office to redouble its efforts to increase the level of cyber protection of national 

security data and help facilitate the deployment of new technology 

and red networks throughout the complex in order to better control 

classified data. Despite the constant and evolving cyber threat, the 

Committee is surprised that the rate of growth in cyber security 

has failed to keep pace with physical security demands. The Committee hopes the National Academy Study will shed some light on 

our best opportunity to defeat this growing danger. 

Congressionally Directed Projects.—The Committee recommendation includes the following congressionally directed projects, within 

available funds. The Committee reminds recipients that statutory 

cost sharing requirements may apply to these projects. The Committee provides $8,000,000 for North Dakota State University 

(Fargo) to support computing capability (Dorgan); $600,000 is provided to the Atomic Testing Museum in Las Vegas, Nevada, for operations and maintenance (Reid); $19,650,000 is provided to the 

Nevada Test Site for operations and infrastructure improvements 

(Reid); $1,000,000 is provided to Arrowhead Center at New Mexico 

State University to promote prosperity and public welfare in New 

Mexico through economic development (Domenici, Bingaman); 

$750,000 is provided to the National Museum of Nuclear Science 

and History in Albuquerque, New Mexico, for the museum site 

(Domenici); $3,500,000 is provided to the University of Texas in 

Austin, Texas, to complete the construction of the Petawatt Laser 

(Hutchison); $3,500,000 is provided to the Sandia Institute for Advanced Computing Algorithms, New Mexico, for high performance 

computing and advanced algorithm development (Domenici); 

$350,000 is provided to the University of Nevada-Las Vegas for insitu nanomechanics (Reid). 

Unused Carryover Balances.—The Government Accountability 

Office has conducted a review of the NNSA budget and found that 

$67,000,000 in unobligated carryover balances are available for 

reuse. The Committee has shifted these funds to support vital activities with the weapons accounts. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $1,818,339,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 1,672,646,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,872,646,000 

NONPROLIFERATION AND VERIFICATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommends $322,252,000 for Nonproliferation 

and Verification Research and Development activities, an increase 

of $57,000,000. The Committee is disappointed that the Depart-
161 

ment of Energy has reduced the funding for this activity over the 

past 2 years, despite out year budget estimates that show additional needs. The Committee recognizes this program provides a 

critical tool to prevent against technical surprise from other nations. The Committee recognizes it is the capabilities developed by 

this program that enable the Federal Government to monitor, detect and verify clandestine efforts by other countries to hide or disguise their nuclear capability. This program also plays a critical 

role in the development of technologies that secure civilian nuclear 

technology and to provide international monitoring of enrichment, 

reprocessing and reactor operations. The Committee also believes 

innovations in detection equipment can provide port and rail cargo 

better screening facilities and provide the NNSA with greater capability to screen more cargo in a timely fashion, including the deployment of mobile portal detection systems. Of the funding provided, $17,000,000 is for Project 06–D–180, National Security Laboratory at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. In providing 

this funding the Committee accelerates half of the NNSA’s fiscal 

year 2009 funding share for this facility. Acceleration of completion 

of this facility is driven by the Department of Energy’s environmental cleanup of the Hanford 300 Area. The NNSA is urged to 

meet its commitments to this replacement facility and continue to 

work closely with the Office of Science and the Department of 

Homeland Security. 

NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

For Nonproliferation and International Security, the Committee 

recommends $210,870,000, an increase of $86,000,000. These activities provide critical oversight capabilities to ensure compliance 

with international treaties and agreements to reduce and eliminate 

nuclear material that poses a proliferation threat. Within available 

funds, the Committee recommends $1,500,000 to New England Research in White River Junction, Vermont, for the Caucasus Seismic 

Network (Leahy). 

International Fuel Bank.—The Committee recommends an additional $50,000,000 to provide the U.S. contribution toward the establishment of an International Nuclear Fuel Bank under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency, [IAEA]. The fuel 

bank would accept contributions from many nations and private 

contributors to operate a civilian nuclear fuel reserve for countries 

that agree to forgo the development of a domestic enrichment capability. This international reserve will protect countries from potential economic and political disruptions in the nuclear fuel supply. 

Before the U.S. contribution is made to establish this international 

reserve, the Department will negotiate the terms and conditions for 

participation and use of the fuel bank and certify to Congress that 

the conditions are acceptable. Sixty days following the congressional notification, and assuming no legislative action is taken to 

prevent the Department from proceeding, the Department is directed to make the appropriated contribution. 

Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention.—The Committee 

recommends $28,000,000 for the Global Initiatives for Proliferation 

and Prevention. This is an increase of $8,000,000 to support international science collaboration. The Committee believes that the ef-
162 

forts to engage both Iraqi and Libyan scientific institutions are unlikely to bear significant results and the Committee authorizes the 

NNSA to use these funds and others to develop stronger research 

ties with China. 

Global Regimes.—The Committee recommends $10,126,000 for 

the Global Regimes program, an increase of $8,000,000. This additional funding shall be used by the Department to conduct an 

international ministerial-level conference on nuclear nonproliferation goals and objectives. The Committee encourages the administration to press for new multilateral options to address the spread 

of fissile material, equipment and technology, particularly with respect to international supplier rules, strengthened IAEA safeguards and physical protection requirements, bilateral and multilateral cooperation to support implementation UNSCAR 1540 and 

the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, and multilateral cooperative agreements on civilian nuclear technology. 

INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS PROTECTION AND COOPERATION

The Committee recommends $391,771,000, an increase of 

$20,000,000. The fiscal year 2007 global war on terror supplemental enacted on May 25, 2007 provided additional funding to 

support efforts to secure special nuclear material. The Committee 

will closely follow the Department’s efforts as it works off the 

amount of un-obligated balances as a result of the supplemental 

appropriation. 

ELIMINATION OF WEAPONS-GRADE PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION

The Committee recommends $152,593,000, a decrease of 

$29,000,000. This nominal reduction is enabled by the fact that the 

Department has succeeded in raising this amount of funding from 

other countries such as United Kingdom, Canada, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Republic of Finland and New Zealand. The Committee provided the Department with the statutory authority in 

2005 to apply international contributions to the program and continues to encourage the Department to find offsetting contributions 

that allows the Department to provide funding to other priorities. 

FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION

The Committee recommends $609,534,000 as requested to support the Fissile Materials Disposition program. The Committee provides full funding to the Plutonium Disposition Program and expects the Department to proceed expeditiously with construction of 

the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility a Pit Disassembly and 

Conversion Facility. The Committee would note that the Department has also completed certification of the surplus pit shipping 

containers and are beginning to fabricate them. During the delay 

in the start of construction due to the 2007 joint resolution, the Department has undertaken a thorough review of all the options 

available in disposing of excess weapons-grade plutonium. Despite 

the increasing projects costs associated with the MOX facility, the 

Department has found the MOX path still offers the lowest cost 

and quickest path to disposal. The Committee expects the Department to focus on delivering this project at cost and on time. 
163 

Russian Program.—The Committee continues to wait for an final 

agreement with the Russian Government as to terms and conditions Russian intends to fulfill the Plutonium Management and 

Disposition Agreements and dispose of 34 tons of excess Russian 

plutonium. The Committee is frustrated with the delay. The Committee is aware of the fact that more than $250,000,000 has been 

appropriated earmarked for Russia if they commit to a disposition 

pathway. The Committee directs the Department to rescind 

$57,000,000 in previously appropriated funds for the Russian program and apply it to the construction activities of the MOX Fuel 

Fabrication Facility. This will increase that account from 

$333,849,000 to $390,849,000 for construction of the MOX facility 

on the currently validated baseline and schedule. The Committee 

is not backing away from the United States obligation to provide 

assistance to this program and will support future budget requests 

for the Russian program once the Russian Government commits to 

a specific disposal pathway that includes a cost-sharing arrangement and on a timetable consistent with the United States effort. 

Further, the plutonium discharged from the portion of the reactors 

used weapons plutonium must be less than the weapons plutonium 

loaded into these reactors, and any material eventually reprocessed 

from these operations should be mixed in such a way that any plutonium recovered is not weapons-grade. The Committee emphasizes 

the importance of reaching agreement with Russia quickly on a 

monitoring regime, so that disposition in those facilities that already exist can begin; it should not be difficult to reach agreement 

on measures that will confirm that weapon-grade plutonium is 

being dispositioned. The Committee is disappointed that the Department does not yet appear to have focused on (a) the measures 

needed to ensure that high levels of security are maintained 

throughout the disposition process in Russia, and (b) working with 

Russia to ensure that the disposition pathway chosen is expandable 

to handle much larger quantities of plutonium, should the two 

sides agree to disposition of much larger quantities (which the 

Committee believes would significantly enhance the national security value of this effort). In both cases, the needed measures will 

be more effective and less expensive if designed in from the outset. 

The Committee’s future support for the Russian effort will be affected by the progress made in these two areas. 

GLOBAL THREAT REDUCTION INITIATIVE

The Committee provides $185,626,000 for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, an increase of $66,000,000 over the request. The 

program serves the important role of securing and reducing vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials located at civilian sites 

around the world. The program is central to our efforts to prevent 

the use of such materials in weapons of mass destruction and acts 

of terrorism. 

NAVAL REACTORS

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $781,800,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 808,219,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 808,219,000 
164 

Through the Naval Reactors program, the National Nuclear Security Administration is working to provide the U.S. Navy with nuclear propulsion plants that are capable of responding to the challenges of 21st century security concerns. The Committee recommends $808,219,000 for the Naval Reactors program. 

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $340,291,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 394,656,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 394,656,000 

The Committee recommends $394,656,000 for the Office of the 

Administrator, the same as the President’s request. 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $5,731,839,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 5,363,905,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,690,380,000 

For Defense Environmental Cleanup, the Committee provides 

$5,690,380,000, an increase of $326,475,000 above the President’s 

request. This total includes $10,000,000 for Hazardous Waste 

Worker Training. The Committee recognizes the program’s focus on 

project management and encourages the program to continue its 

disciplined approach to managing its projects under the Department’s Project Management Order (DOE Order 413). Using this 

process, 73 percent (in terms of dollar value) of all near-term 

project baselines have been validated, and 96 percent of those baselines are operating within an acceptable performance range (plus 

or minus 10 percent). However, the program is only requesting sufficient funding to provide a 50 percent confidence that the objectives (cost, scope, and schedule) of its projects will remain unchanged. The Department’s effort to complete clean up in the future will be challenged by the failure to request sufficient funding. 

More importantly, it is not enough to simply fund projects that 

have the greatest perceived reduction to public risk; the Department committed to the public that it would meet regulatory agreements too. The Committee expects future funding requests to include sufficient funding to meet that commitment. 

Recently, the Office of Envirenmental Management’s Leadership 

determined that a number of activities that were directed by the 

Congress in the past have merit, benefiting the cleanup program 

as well as the taxpayer. Activities such as the historic preservation 

activities related to the Manhattan Project sites, the Self-Reliance 

Foundation/Hispanic Communications Network, the Diagnostic Instrumentation and Analysis Laboratory, and the Western Environmental Technology Office have now been incorporated into the fabric of the EM Cleanup program. The Committee recognizes that 

this determination came too late to be included in the fiscal year 

2008 request, but will be supported within available funds. The 

Committee expects these meritorious activities to be supported in 

fiscal year 2009 and future budgets. 
165 

Control Levels.—In fiscal year 2006, the Environmental Management Program’s budget was restructured to better display site information, which paralleled its management of the program. However, Congress increased the number of congressional reprogramming control points from approximately 25 line items in fiscal year 

2005 to nearly 100 in fiscal year 2006. This Committee understands and continues to support the need for site managers to have 

the flexibility to meet the changing requirements at the sites and 

recommends the following reprogramming control points for fiscal 

year 2008: 

—Closure sites; 

—Savannah River site, 2012 completion projects; 

—Savannah River site, 2035 completion projects; 

—Savannah River site, tank farm operations projects; 

—Waste Isolation Pilot Plant; 

—Idaho National Laboratory; 

—Oak Ridge Reservation; 

—Hanford site; 2012 completion projects; 

—Hanford site; 2035 completion projects; 

—Office of River Protection, tank farm operations projects; 

—Office of River Protection, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant; 

—Program Direction; 

—Program Support; 

—Technology Development and Deployment; 

—All construction line items; 

—NNSA sites; 

—Safeguards and Security. 

Internal Reprogramming Authority.—In fiscal year 2008, Environmental Management may transfer up to $5,000,000, one time, 

between accounts listed below to reduce health and safety risks, 

gain cost savings, or complete projects, as long as a program or 

project is not increased or decreased by more than $5,000,000 in 

total during the fiscal year. This reprogramming authority may not 

be used to initiate new programs or to change funding levels for 

programs specifically denied, limited, or increased by Congress in 

the act or report. The Committee on Appropriations in the House 

and Senate must be notified within 30 days after the use of this 

internal reprogramming authority. 

The following is a list of account control points for internal reprogramming purposes: 

—Savannah River site, 2012 completion projects; 

—Savannah River site, 2035 completion projects; 

—Savannah River site, tank farm operations projects; 

—Hanford site; 2012 completion projects; 

—Hanford site; 2035 completion projects; 

—Transfers between construction line item(s) and operating 

projects within the same site, as applicable. 

Closure Sites.—The Committee includes $55,937,000, an increase 

of $13,500,000 above the request, to assure disposal of the Fernald 

Byproducts Waste. Miamisburg receives $30,308,000, Consolidated 

Business Center receives $11,834,000, and Ashtabula receives 

$295,000, all as requested. 
166 

Hanford Site.—The Committee includes $950,376,000, a total of 

$73,296,000 above the budget request. The Committee recommendation includes an increase of $23,000,000 for solid waste 

activities, $19,400,000 for soil remediation in the Central Plateau 

(U Plant & BC Cribs), Plutonium-Uranium Extraction Facility remedial investigation/feasibility study to meet Tri-Party Agreement 

milestones, $23,000,000 for the River Corridor Closure project to 

meet near-term milestones and continue the deactivation of critical 

facilities to meet mid-term compliance milestones, and the transfer 

and combination of $471,000 from the Office of River Protection to 

the Hanford Office for Community and Regulatory Support. The 

Committee also recognizes that the program has determined the 

Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response 

[HAMMER] facility has merit to the needs of the cleanup program 

and is included in the Hanford budget. The program should separately provide funding for this activity in its fiscal year 2009 request. 

Office of River Protection.—The Committee is frustrated that the 

Department of Energy continues to request inadequate funds for 

Tank Farm Activities. The safe operation of the tank farms, retrieval of waste and the closure of the tank farms is an increasingly important activity as the underground storage tanks are past 

their planned life expectancy. Additionally, DOE has selected a 

supplemental treatment technology as part of its overall treatment 

plan for low-activity waste but has requested no funds for the demonstration project for the past 2 years. The delay of the Waste 

Treatment Plant highlights the need to test, evaluate, and ultimately deploy alternatives for treatment of liquid tank waste instead of relying solely on one solution. To support a robust program 

the Committee provides an additional $53,000,000 for the Tank 

Farm Activities. Funding at this level will keep an experienced, 

well-trained workforce on the job, achieving real cleanup results. 

The Committee also transfers $471,000 from the Office of River 

Protection to the Hanford Office to consolidate the Community and 

Regulatory Support function in one place. The total for the Tank 

Farm Activities is $325,972,000. The Committee includes 

$690,000,000 for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant 

[WTP], bringing the site total to $1,015,972,000. A significant factor in establishing an annual funding level of $690,000,000 for this 

project was to moderate the Federal budget impact of significant 

year-to-year swings in actual construction costs by allowing for carryover of excess funds in years with lower costs to years where 

costs rise above the appropriation. Continued support for this funding level will provide both solutions to identified problems with the 

project as well as ramp up in construction. 

Idaho Cleanup Project.—The Committee recommends 

$532,926,000, an increase of $28,900,000. The increase supports 

shipping legacy mixed low-level waste offsite for disposal at the Nevada Test Site; plant and equipment upgrades that will permit Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Plant to operate at capacity to 

meet Settlement Agreement milestones; and completion of the remote handled-transuranic waste shipments to the Waste Isolation 

Pilot Plant by the end of fiscal year 2008 to meet its operational 
167 

requirements (to emplace remote-handled waste prior to emplacing 

contact-handled waste in disposal rooms). 

NNSA Sites.—The Committee recommendation is $361,663,000, 

a total of $90,533,000 above the request. The Committee recommends $222,000,000 for cleanup at Los Alamos National Laboratory, $82,533,000 above the request, of which $5,000,000 is to support environmental impact studies and environmental remediation 

to support land transfer activities from the Los Alamos National 

Laboratory to Los Alamos County. The increase is necessary to prevent the site from missing agreed upon cleanup milestones in fiscal 

year 2008, and will also enable the laboratory to undertake the 

necessary predatory work necessary to remain on schedule for fiscal year 2009. The Committee also provides $8,000,000 above the 

request of $81,106,000 for characterization and certification of remaining transuranic waste stored at Nevada for disposal at the 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. The Committees also includes 

$8,680,000 for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 

$1,511,000 for the NNSA Service Center, $27,585,000 for the Separations Process Research Unit, $12,411,000 for Pantex, and 

$370,000 for California Site Support, all as requested. 

Oak Ridge Reservation.—The recommendation is $179,284,000, 

the same as the budget request. 

Savannah River Site.—The Committee includes $1,200,090,000. 

Within the recommendation, the Committee provides $311,811,000 

for the nuclear materials stabilization and disposition activity, the 

same as the budget request. 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant [WIPP].—The recommendation is 

$250,739,000, an increase of $31,000,000 above the requested 

amount. The increase provides for equipment to maintain operational reliability, assurance of transuranic waste receipts at an 

average rate of 21 contact- and 5 remote-handled shipments per 

week, procurement of TRUPACT III shipping casks for large containers, and finally, monitoring and plugging of wells. The remaining funds are for Carlsbad educational support, infrastructure improvements resulting from of operations at WIPP and for construction of the WIPP digital records center, activities the Program 

found meritorious enough to support in fiscal year 2007. 

Program Direction.—The Committee includes $309,760,000, consistent with the requested amount. 

Program Support.—The Committee includes $41,946,000. 

Safeguards and Security.—The Committee recommends 

$273,581,000, an increase of $200,000, which is for WIPP. 

Technology Development and Deployment.—The Committee provides $55,106,000, which provides for additional research and development for High Level Waste retrieval, pretreatment and immobilization, and decontamination and decommissioning activities designed to reduce long-term costs. 

The Committee recommendation includes the following congressionally directed projects, within available funds. The Committee 

reminds recipients that statutory cost sharing requirements may 

apply to these projects. $3,000,000 is provided to the University of 

Nevada, Reno, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, for continued expansion of the James E. Rogers and Louis 

Weiner Jr. Large-Scale Structures Laboratory (Reid); $3,475,000 is 
168 

provided to the University of Nevada, Reno, Center for Materials 

Reliability (Reid); $1,500,000 is provided to Cellular Bioengineering, Inc., Honolulu, Hawaii, to continue development of 

polymeric hydrogels for radiation decontamination (Inouye); 

$1,500,000 is provided to Cerematec Incorporated in Salt Lake 

City, Utah, for Remediation of Low-Level Nuclear Waste Utilizing 

Ceramic Ionic Transport Membranes (Bennett, Hatch); $1,000,000 

is provided to Savannah River National Lab in South Carolina for 

Integrated Collaborative Prototyping Environment (Graham). 

Federal Contribution to Uranium Enrichment Decontamination 

and Decommissioning Fund.—The recommendation is 

$463,000,000, the same as the request. 

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $636,271,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 763,974,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 765,464,000 

The Committee recommends $765,464,000 for Other Defense Activities. 

HEALTH, SAFETY AND SECURITY

The Committee recommends $429,348,000, including 

$100,043,000 for Program Direction. The Committee does not recommend a reduction of $990,000 of prior-year balances, as these 

funds were not received by the program due to the year long continuing resolution in fiscal year 2007. 

The Office of Health, Safety and Security is the Department’s 

central organization responsible for health, safety, environment, 

and security; providing corporate-level leadership and strategic vision to coordinate and integrate these programs. This Office provides the Department with effective and consistent policy, assistance, enforcement, and independent oversight activities. The integrated approach and functional alignment of responsibility alleviates overlap in reporting and provides consistency in policy and 

guidance while increasing the effectiveness of communication and 

accountability for worker health, safety and security. 

The Committee directs the Office of Health, Safety and Security 

to allocate $16,500,000 from within available funds for the former 

worker medical screening programs. The Office of Health, Safety 

and Security is directed to initiate an early lung cancer screening 

program using helical low dose CT scanning for former workers at 

Fernald facility in Harrison, Ohio, and the Mound facility in 

Miamisburg, Ohio, who are at elevated risk of lung cancer. Additionally, the Office of Health, Safety and Security is to extend early 

lung cancer screening at the three gaseous diffusion plants in 

Portsmouth, Ohio, Paducah, Kentucky, and Oak Ridge (K–25), Tennessee, for those who have not previously been screened but are 

now eligible according to established eligibility protocols. Given 

that lung cancer screening program carried out at the three gaseous diffusion plants since 2000 has identified the majority of lung 

cancers at early stages where surgical intervention has been demonstrated to be successful, and studies indicate this has led to an 
169 

increase in survival rates, it is appropriate to extend lung screening to at-risk workers at the Fernald and Mound facilities. 

LEGACY MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommends $159,063,000, the same as the request. This funding is in addition to $35,401,000 appropriated 

under the Energy Supply and Conservation appropriation of the 

Department. Funds are used to monitor closed cleanup sites and 

manage DOE property as well as manage the pension and benefit 

responsibilities of former DOE contractors employed by the closed 

sites. 

Congressionally Directed Projects.—The Committee recommendation includes the following congressionally directed projects, within 

available funds. The Committee reminds recipients that statutory 

cost sharing requirements may apply to these projects. $500,000 is 

provided to the Rocky Flats Cold War Museum in Colorado to recognize the work that went on at Rocky Flats and those who contributed to the history (Allard). 

FUNDING FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES AT IDAHO

The recommendation is $75,949,000, the same as the request. 

This provides for Safeguards and Security of the entire Idaho National Laboratory, protecting both the Nuclear Energy and Environmental Management cleanup employees. 

DEFENSE RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

For Defense Related Administrative Support, the Committee recommends $99,000,000, the same as the request. These funds provide for departmental services which support the National Nuclear 

Security Administration. The Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Under 

Secretaries, and General Counsel are among the offices receiving 

funds. 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

The Committee provides $4,607,000 for the Office of Hearings 

and Appeals, the same as the President’s request. The Office of 

Hearings and Appeals conducts hearings to issue decisions of the 

Department for any adjudicative proceedings that the Secretary 

may delegate. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $346,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 292,046,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 242,046,000 

The Committee recommendation for the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management is $242,046,000. This total is 

$50,000,000 below the request. 

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

The Bonneville Power Administration is the Department of Energy’s marketing agency for electric power in the Pacific Northwest. 
170 

Bonneville provides electricity to a 300,000 square mile service 

area in the Columbia River drainage basin. Bonneville markets the 

power from Federal hydropower projects in the Northwest, as well 

as power from non-Federal generating facilities in the region. Bonneville also exchanges and markets surplus power with Canada 

and California. The Committee recommends no new borrowing authority for BPA during fiscal year 2008. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHEASTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $5,602,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 6,463,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,463,000 

For the Southeastern Power Administration, the Committee recommends $6,463,000 the same as the budget request. The Committee provides $62,215,000 for purchase power and wheeling. 

The Southeastern Power Administration markets hydroelectric 

power produced at Corps of Engineers projects in 11 Southeastern 

States. Southeastern does not own or operate any transmission facilities and carries out its marketing program by utilizing the existing transmission systems of the power utilities in the area. This is 

accomplished through transmission arrangements between Southeastern and each of the area utilities with transmission lines connected to the projects. The utility agrees to deliver specified 

amounts of Federal power to customers of the Government, and 

Southeastern agrees to compensate the utility for the wheeling 

service performed. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SOUTHWESTERN POWER

ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $29,998,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 30,442,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 30,442,000 

For the Southwestern Power Administration, the Committee recommends $30,442,000 the same as the budget request. The Committee provides $45,000,000 for purchase power and wheeling. 

The Southwestern Power Administration is the marketing agent 

for the power generated at the Corps of Engineers’ hydroelectric 

plants in the six State area of Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, 

Arkansas, and Louisiana, with a total installed capacity of 2,158 

megawatts. It operates and maintains some 1,380 miles of transmission lines, 24 generating projects, and 24 substations, and sells 

its power at wholesale, primarily to publicly and cooperativelyowned electric distribution utilities. 

CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, 

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $232,326,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 201,030,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 231,030,000 

The Western Power Administration is responsible for marketing 

the electric power generated by the Bureau of Reclamation, the 

Corps of Engineers, and the International Boundary and Water 
171 

Commission. Western also operates and maintains a system of 

transmission lines nearly 17,000 miles long, providing electricity to 

15 Central and Western States over a service area of 1.3 million 

square miles. 

The Committee notes that Western Area Power Administration 

funding for Construction, Rehabilitation, Operations and Maintenance is significantly reduced from prior levels. The budget proposes to offset this reduction by a far greater reliance on use of alternative financing. While direct customer financing is well established there are limits on the availability of this alternative financing mechanism. The Committee is concerned that continued reductions in Western’s construction program could impair the reliability 

of the transmission systems. 

The Committee recommends $231,030,000 for the Western Area 

Power Administration. The total program level for Western in fiscal 

year 2008 is $755,911,000 which includes $62,915,000 for construction and rehabilitation, $53,271,000 for system power operation 

and maintenance, $475,254,000 for purchase power and wheeling, 

and $157,304,000 for program direction. The Committee recommendation includes $7,167,000 for the Utah Mitigation and Conservation Fund. 

Offsetting collections total $312,639,000; with the use of 

$3,937,000 of offsetting collections from the Colorado River Dam 

Fund (as authorized in Public Law 98–381), this requires a net appropriation of $231,030,000. 

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $2,665,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 2,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,500,000 

The Falcon Dam and Amistad Dam on the Rio Grande River generate power through hydroelectric facilities and sell this power to 

public utilities through the Western Power Administration. This 

fund, created in the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Years 1994 and 1995, defrays the costs of operation, maintenance, 

and emergency activities and is administered by the Western Area 

Power Administration. For the Falcon and Amistad Operating and 

Maintenance Fund, the Committee recommends $2,500,000 the 

same as the request. 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $221,902,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 255,425,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 255,425,000 

REVENUES APPLIED

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. ¥$221,902,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... ¥255,425,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥255,425,000 
172 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Revised enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Revised enacted Budget estimate 

ENERGY EFFICENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY 

Hydrogen Technology ............................................................................................................................................................ 193,551 213,000 228,000 ∂34,449 ∂15,000 Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D ............................................................................................................................... 199,687 179,263 244,000 ∂44,313 ∂64,737 Solar energy .......................................................................................................................................................................... 159,372 148,304 180,000 ∂20,628 ∂31,696 Wind energy .......................................................................................................................................................................... 49,319 40,069 57,500 ∂8,181 ∂17,431 Geothermal technology ......................................................................................................................................................... 5,000 .......................... 25,000 ∂20,000 ∂25,000 Hydropower ........................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,000 ∂2,000 ∂2,000 Ocean Tech ........................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 8,000 ∂8,000 ∂8,000 Vehicle technologies ............................................................................................................................................................. 188,024 176,138 230,000 ∂41,976 ∂53,862 Building technologies ........................................................................................................................................................... 104,329 86,456 137,000 ∂32,671 ∂50,544 Industrial technologies ......................................................................................................................................................... 56,563 45,998 57,000 ∂437 ∂11,002 Federal Energy Management Program: 

Departmental energy management program .............................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Federal energy management program ........................................................................................................................ 19,480 16,791 23,000 ∂3,520 ∂6,209 

Subtotal, Federal Energy Management Program .................................................................................................... 19,480 16,791 23,000 ∂3,520 ∂6,209 

Facilities and infrastructure: 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) .......................................................................................................... 24,035 6,982 6,982 ¥17,053 ..........................Research Support Buildings ........................................................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................NREL Solar equipment recapitalization ...................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................NREL South-table Mountain infrastructure ................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................NREL energy systems integration facility ................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Strategic investment facilities .................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Construction: 

07–EE–01 Integrated biorefinery research facility, NREL, Golden, CO ............................................................. 20,000 .......................... .......................... ¥20,000 ..........................06–EE–01 Research support facility Project–1 NREL, Golden, CO ................................................................... 63,000 .......................... .......................... ¥63,000 ..........................02–E–001 Science and technology facility, NREL ............................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Total, Construction ......................................................................................................................................... 83,000 .......................... .......................... ¥83,000 ..........................Total, Facilities and infrastructure ................................................................................................................ 107,035 6,982 6,982 ¥100,053 ..........................
173 

Program Support .................................................................................................................................................................. 10,930 13,281 13,481 ∂2,551 ∂200 Program Direction ................................................................................................................................................................. 99,264 105,013 105,013 ∂5,749 ..........................

Total, Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation RDD&D .................................................................................. 1,192,554 1,031,295 1,316,976 ∂124,422 ∂285,681 

Federal energy assistance: 

Weatherization assistance ........................................................................................................................................... 200,000 139,450 236,000 ∂36,000 ∂96,550 Training and technical assistance ............................................................................................................................. 4,550 4,550 4,550 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Weatherization ......................................................................................................................................... 204,550 144,000 240,550 ∂36,000 ∂96,550 

Other: 

State energy program .................................................................................................................................................. 49,457 45,501 55,000 ∂5,543 ∂9,499 State energy activities ................................................................................................................................................ 9,348 .......................... .......................... ¥9,348 ..........................Gateway deployment .................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................International renewable energy program .................................................................................................................... 9,473 .......................... .......................... ¥9,473 ..........................Tribal energy activities ................................................................................................................................................ 3,957 2,957 7,000 ∂3,043 ∂4,043 Renewable energy production incentive ...................................................................................................................... 4,946 4,946 5,000 ∂54 ∂54 Asia pacific ................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... 7,500 .......................... .......................... ¥7,500 Congressionally directed technology deployments ...................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 91,025 ∂91,025 ∂91,025 

Subtotal, Other ........................................................................................................................................................ 77,181 60,904 158,025 ∂80,844 ∂97,121 Total, Federal energy assistance ............................................................................................................................ 281,731 204,904 398,575 ∂116,844 ∂193,671 TOTAL, ENERGY EFFICENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY ......................................................................................... 1,474,285 1,236,199 1,715,551 ∂241,266 ∂479,352 

ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY 

High temperature superconductivity R&D ............................................................................................................................ 47,000 28,186 40,242 ¥6,758 ∂12,056 Transmission reliability R&D ................................................................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Electricity distribution transformation R&D ......................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Energy storage R&D ............................................................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Gridwise ................................................................................................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Gridworks .............................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Visiualization and controls ................................................................................................................................................... 25,054 25,305 25,305 ∂251 ..........................Energy storage and power electonics .................................................................................................................................. 2,900 6,803 21,803 ∂18,903 ∂15,000 Distributed systems integration ........................................................................................................................................... 24,189 25,700 30,700 ∂6,511 ∂5,000 Congressionally directed technology deployments ............................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 13,500 ∂13,500 ∂13,500 

TOTAL, Research and development ........................................................................................................................ 99,143 85,994 131,550 ∂32,407 ∂45,556 

Electricity restructuring ........................................................................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................
174 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Revised enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Revised enacted Budget estimate 

Operations and analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 20,500 11,556 19,500 ¥1,000 ∂7,944 Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. 17,357 17,387 17,387 ∂30 ..........................

TOTAL, ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY ..................................................................................... 137,000 114,937 168,437 ∂31,437 ∂53,500 

NUCLEAR ENERGY 

Research and development: 

University reactor infrastructure and education assist .............................................................................................. 16,547 .......................... 15,000 ¥1,547 ∂15,000 Nuclear power 2010 .................................................................................................................................................... 80,291 114,000 135,000 ∂54,709 ∂21,000 Generation IV nuclear energy systems initiative ........................................................................................................ 35,586 36,145 55,000 ∂19,414 ∂18,855 Nuclear hydrogen initiative ......................................................................................................................................... 19,265 22,600 22,600 ∂3,335 ..........................Advanced fuel cycle initiative ..................................................................................................................................... 167,484 395,000 243,000 ∂75,516 ¥152,000 

Total, Research and development .......................................................................................................................... 319,173 567,745 470,600 ∂151,427 ¥97,145 

Infrastructure: 

Radiological facilities management: 

Space and defense infrastructure ..................................................................................................................... 30,650 35,110 35,110 ∂4,460 ..........................Medical isotopes infrastructure ......................................................................................................................... 15,634 14,964 14,964 ¥670 ..........................Enrichment facility and uranium management ................................................................................................. 491 .......................... .......................... ¥491 ..........................Research reactor infrastructure ......................................................................................................................... .......................... 2,947 2,947 ∂2,947 ..........................Oak Ridge nuclear infrastructure ...................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Radiological facilities management .............................................................................................. 46,775 53,021 53,021 ∂6,246 ..........................

Idaho facilities management: 

INL Operations and infrastructure ..................................................................................................................... 107,693 104,713 120,713 ∂13,020 ∂16,000 INL infrastructure: 

Construction: 

06–E–200 Project engineering and design (PED), INL, ID .............................................................. 6,030 .......................... .......................... ¥6,030 ..........................06–E–201 Gas test loop in the ATR, INL, ID .................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Idaho facilities management ....................................................................................... 113,723 104,713 120,713 ∂6,990 ∂16,000 
175 

Idaho sitewide safeguards and security ..................................................................................................................... 75,919 .......................... 75,949 ∂30 ∂75,949 

Total, Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................................ 236,417 157,734 249,683 ∂13,266 ∂91,949 

Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. 62,600 76,224 76,224 ∂13,624 ..........................

Subtotal, Nuclear Energy ........................................................................................................................................ 618,190 801,703 795,507 ∂177,317 ¥6,196 

Funding from other defense activities ................................................................................................................................. ¥122,634 .......................... ¥75,949 ∂46,685 ¥75,949 Funding from Naval Reactors .............................................................................................................................................. ¥13,365 .......................... .......................... ∂13,365 ..........................

TOTAL, NUCLEAR ENERGY ....................................................................................................................................... 482,191 801,703 719,558 ∂237,367 ¥82,145 

ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH 

Office of Environment, Safety and Health (non-defense) ................................................................................................... 7,848 .......................... .......................... ¥7,848 ..........................Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. 19,993 .......................... .......................... ¥19,993 ..........................

TOTAL, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH .......................................................................................................... 27,841 .......................... .......................... ¥27,841 ..........................

OFFICE OF LEGACY MANAGEMENT 

Legacy management ............................................................................................................................................................ 33,187 35,104 35,104 ∂1,917 ..........................

TOTAL, ENERGY SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION ........................................................................................................ 2,154,504 2,187,943 2,639,650 ∂485,146 ∂451,707 

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY 

Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2005 ............................................................................................................ 257,000 .......................... .......................... ¥257,000 ..........................Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2007 ............................................................................................................ ¥257,000 .......................... .......................... ∂257,000 ..........................Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2008 ............................................................................................................ .......................... 257,000 257,000 ∂257,000 ..........................Rescission, uncommitted balances ...................................................................................................................................... .......................... ¥149,000 ¥149,000 ¥149,000 ..........................Transfer to Fossil Energy R&D (CCPI) ................................................................................................................................. .......................... ¥58,000 ¥73,000 ¥73,000 ¥15,000 Transfer to Fossil Energy R&D (FutureGen) ......................................................................................................................... .......................... ¥108,000 ¥88,000 ¥88,000 ∂20,000 Transfer to Fossil Energy R&D(Fuels & Power Systems) ..................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥5,000 ¥5,000 ¥5,000 

Total, Clean Coal Technology ................................................................................................................................. .......................... ¥58,000 ¥58,000 ¥58,000 ..........................

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 

Clean coal power initiative .................................................................................................................................................. 60,433 73,000 88,000 ∂27,567 ∂15,000 FutureGen ............................................................................................................................................................................. 54,000 108,000 88,000 ∂34,000 ¥20,000 
176 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Revised enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Revised enacted Budget estimate 

Fuels and Power Systems: 

Innovations for existing plants ................................................................................................................................... 16,015 .......................... 34,000 ∂17,985 ∂34,000 Advanced integrated gasification combined cycle ..................................................................................................... 56,952 50,000 55,000 ¥1,952 ∂5,000 Advanced turbines ....................................................................................................................................................... 20,000 22,000 25,000 ∂5,000 ∂3,000 Carbon sequestration .................................................................................................................................................. 100,000 79,077 132,000 ∂32,000 ∂52,923 Fuels ............................................................................................................................................................................ 22,127 10,000 30,000 ∂7,873 ∂20,000 Fuel cells ..................................................................................................................................................................... 63,352 62,025 65,025 ∂1,673 ∂3,000 Advanced research ...................................................................................................................................................... 32,868 22,500 33,000 ∂132 ∂10,500 U.S./China Energy and environmental center ............................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Fuels and power systems ....................................................................................................................... 311,314 245,602 374,025 ∂62,711 ∂128,423 Subtotal, Coal ......................................................................................................................................................... 425,747 426,602 550,025 ∂124,278 ∂123,423 

Natural Gas Technologies .................................................................................................................................................... 12,000 .......................... 20,000 ∂8,000 ∂20,000 Petroleum-Oil Technologies .................................................................................................................................................. 2,700 .......................... 10,000 ∂7,300 ∂10,000 Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. 129,803 129,973 149,962 ∂20,159 ∂19,989 Plant and Capital Equipment .............................................................................................................................................. 12,000 .......................... 13,000 ∂1,000 ∂13,000 Fossil energy environmental restoration .............................................................................................................................. 9,715 9,570 16,570 ∂6,855 ∂7,000 Import/export authorization .................................................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Advanced metallurgical research ......................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Special recruitment programs .............................................................................................................................................. 656 656 656 .......................... ..........................Cooperative research and development ............................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 8,000 ∂8,000 ∂8,000 Congressionally directed technology deployments ............................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 39,900 ∂39,900 ∂39,900 

TOTAL, FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................ 592,621 566,801 808,113 ∂215,492 ∂241,312 

NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES ................................................................................................................... 21,316 17,301 21,301 ¥15 ∂4,000 ELK HILLS SCHOOL LANDS FUNDS ....................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE ........................................................................................................................................ 164,441 331,609 163,472 ¥969 ¥168,137 NORTHEAST HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE ........................................................................................................................... 5,000 5,325 12,825 ∂7,825 ∂7,500 ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION .............................................................................................................................. 90,653 105,095 105,095 ∂14,442 ..........................
177 

NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP 

West Valley Demonstration Project ...................................................................................................................................... 78,591 54,395 78,895 ∂304 ∂24,500 Gaseous Diffusion Plants ..................................................................................................................................................... 66,860 38,120 38,120 ¥28,740 ..........................Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion, 02–U–101 ...................................................................................................... 52,179 .......................... .......................... ¥52,179 ..........................Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility (WA) .................................................................................................................................... 34,843 10,342 10,342 ¥24,501 ..........................Small Sites ........................................................................................................................................................................... 117,214 78,080 78,080 ¥39,134 ..........................Legacy management ............................................................................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Use of Prior year balances ................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥10,000 ¥10,000 ¥10,000 

TOTAL, NON-DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP ................................................................................................. 349,687 180,937 195,437 ¥154,250 ∂14,500 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING FUND 

Decontamination and decommissioning .............................................................................................................................. 536,806 553,509 573,509 ∂36,703 ∂20,000 Uranium/thorium reimbursement ......................................................................................................................................... 19,800 20,000 .......................... ¥19,800 ¥20,000 

SUBTOTAL, URANIUM ENRICHMENT D&D FUND ...................................................................................................... 556,606 573,509 573,509 ∂16,903 ..........................

Uranium sales and barter (scorekeeping adjustment) ........................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, UED&D FUND/URANIUM INVENTORY CLEANUP ........................................................................................... 556,606 573,509 573,509 ∂16,903 ..........................

SCIENCE 

High energy physics: 

Proton accelerator-based physics ............................................................................................................................... 374,733 389,672 389,672 ∂14,939 ..........................Electron accelerator-based physics ............................................................................................................................ 104,127 79,763 79,763 ¥24,364 ..........................Non-accelerator physics .............................................................................................................................................. 59,865 72,430 79,430 ∂19,565 ∂7,000 Theoretical physics ...................................................................................................................................................... 56,407 56,909 56,909 ∂502 ..........................Advanced technology R&D .......................................................................................................................................... 156,654 183,464 183,464 ∂26,810 ..........................

Total, High energy physics ..................................................................................................................................... 751,786 782,238 789,238 ∂37,452 ∂7,000 

Nuclear physics .................................................................................................................................................................... 410,646 453,619 453,619 ∂42,973 ..........................

Construction: 

07–SC–02 Electron beam ion source Brookhaven National Laboratory, NY ..................................................... 5,000 4,200 4,200 ¥800 ..........................06–SC–01 Project engineering and design (PED) 12 GeV continuous electron beam accelerator facility upgrade, Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator facility (was project 07–SC–001), Newport News, VA ....... 7,000 13,500 13,500 ∂6,500 ..........................06–SC–02 Project engineering and design (PED), Electron beam ion source, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY ............................................................................................................................................... 120 .......................... .......................... ¥120 ..........................

Total, Nuclear physics ............................................................................................................................... 422,766 471,319 471,319 ∂48,553 ..........................
178 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Revised enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Revised enacted Budget estimate 

Biological and environmental research: 

Biological research ...................................................................................................................................................... 349,097 393,773 467,196 ∂118,099 ∂73,423 Climate change research ............................................................................................................................................ 134,398 138,124 138,124 ∂3,726 ..........................

Total, Biological and environmental research ........................................................................................................ 483,495 531,897 605,320 ∂121,825 ∂73,423 

Basic energy sciences: 

Research: 

Materials sciences and engineering research ................................................................................................... 898,481 1,093,219 1,106,979 ∂208,498 ∂13,760 Chemical sciences, geosciences and energy biosciences ................................................................................. 226,740 283,956 283,956 ∂57,216 ..........................

Subtotal, Research ......................................................................................................................................... 1,125,221 1,377,175 1,390,935 ∂265,714 ∂13,760 

Construction: 

08–SC–01 Advanced light source (ALS) user support building, LBNL, CA ...................................................... .......................... 17,200 17,200 ∂17,200 ..........................08–SC–10 Project engineering and design (PED) Photon ultrafast laser science and engineering (PULSE) 

building renovation, SLAC, CA ....................................................................................................................... .......................... 950 950 ∂950 ..........................

08–SC–11 Photon ultrafast laser science and engineering (PULSE) building renovation, SLAC, CA ............. .......................... 6,450 6,450 ∂6,450 ..........................07–SC–06 Project engineering and design (PED) National Synchrotron light source II (NSLS–II) .................. 3,000 45,000 45,000 ∂42,000 ..........................07–SC–12 Project engineering and design (PED) Advanced light source user building, LBNL ...................... 1,500 .......................... .......................... ¥1,500 ..........................05–R–320 LINAC coherent light source (LCLS) ................................................................................................. 101,000 51,356 51,356 ¥49,644 ..........................05–R–321 Center for functional nanomaterials (BNL) ..................................................................................... 18,864 366 366 ¥18,498 ..........................04–R–313 The molecular foundry (LBNL) ......................................................................................................... 257 .......................... .......................... ¥257 ..........................03–SC–002 Project engineering & design (PED) SLAC ..................................................................................... 161 .......................... .......................... ¥161 ..........................03–R–313 Center for Integrated Nanotechnology ............................................................................................. 247 .......................... .......................... ¥247 ..........................99–E–334 Spallation neutron source (ORNL) .................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Construction ................................................................................................................................... 125,029 121,322 121,322 ¥3,707 ..........................Total, Basic energy sciences ......................................................................................................................... 1,250,250 1,498,497 1,512,257 ∂262,007 ∂13,760 

Advanced scientific computing research ............................................................................................................................. 283,415 340,198 334,898 ∂51,483 ¥5,300 Fusion energy sciences program .......................................................................................................................................... 318,950 427,850 427,850 ∂108,900 ..........................
179 

Science laboratories infrastructure: 

Laboratories facilities support: 

Infrastructure support ........................................................................................................................................ 1,520 1,520 1,520 .......................... ..........................General plant projects ........................................................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Construction: 

07–SC–05 Physical science facilities, PNNL ..................................................................................................... 10,000 .......................... .......................... ¥10,000 ..........................07–SC–04 Science laboratories infrastructure project engineering and design (PED) .................................. 8,908 .......................... .......................... ¥8,908 ..........................04–SC–001 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations ........................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................03–SC–001 Science laboratories infrastructure MEL–001 Multiprogram energy laboratory infrastructure 

projects, various locations ............................................................................................................................. 10,131 63,529 73,529 ∂63,398 ∂10,000 

Subtotal, Construction ............................................................................................................................... 29,039 63,529 73,529 ∂44,490 ∂10,000 Subtotal, Laboratories facilities support .................................................................................................. 30,559 65,049 75,049 ∂44,490 ∂10,000 

Oak Ridge landlord ..................................................................................................................................................... 5,079 5,079 5,079 .......................... ..........................Excess facilities disposal ............................................................................................................................................ 6,348 8,828 8,828 ∂2,480 ..........................

Total, Science laboratories infrastructure .............................................................................................................. 41,986 78,956 88,956 ∂46,970 ∂10,000 

Safeguards and security ...................................................................................................................................................... 75,830 76,592 76,592 ∂762 ..........................Workforce development for teachers and scientists ............................................................................................................ 7,952 11,000 11,000 ∂3,048 ..........................Science program direction: 

Field offices ................................................................................................................................................................. 95,716 104,193 104,193 ∂8,477 ..........................Headquarters ............................................................................................................................................................... 70,753 80,741 80,741 ∂9,988 ..........................

Total, Science program direction ............................................................................................................................ 166,469 184,934 184,934 ∂18,465 ..........................Subtotal, Science .................................................................................................................................................... 3,802,899 4,403,481 4,502,364 ∂699,465 ∂98,883 

Less security charge for reimbursable work ........................................................................................................................ ¥5,605 ¥5,605 ¥5,605 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, SCIENCE ...................................................................................................................................................... 3,797,294 4,397,876 4,496,759 ∂699,465 ∂98,883 

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL 

Repository program .............................................................................................................................................................. 33,566 127,780 129,380 ∂95,814 ∂1,600 Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. 65,640 74,674 74,674 ∂9,034 ..........................Integrated spent fuel recycling ............................................................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................
180 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Revised enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Revised enacted Budget estimate 

TOTAL, NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL ........................................................................................................................ 99,206 202,454 204,054 ∂104,848 ∂1,600 

ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH 

Office of Environment, Safety and Health (non-defense) ................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH .......................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program administrative operations ...................................................................... .......................... 8,390 8,390 ∂8,390 ..........................

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION 

Administrative operations: 

Salaries and expenses: 

Office of the Secretary ....................................................................................................................................... 5,429 5,787 5,787 ∂358 ..........................Board of Contract Appeals ................................................................................................................................. 147 .......................... .......................... ¥147 ..........................Chief Financial Officer ....................................................................................................................................... 38,044 40,260 40,260 ∂2,216 ..........................Management ....................................................................................................................................................... 54,161 63,939 63,939 ∂9,778 ..........................Human capital management ............................................................................................................................. 22,107 28,161 28,161 ∂6,054 ..........................Chief Information Officer ................................................................................................................................... 39,172 47,502 47,502 ∂8,330 ..........................Congressional and intergovernmental affairs ................................................................................................... 4,813 4,762 4,762 ¥51 ..........................Economic impact and diversity .......................................................................................................................... 5,477 5,649 5,649 ∂172 ..........................General Counsel ................................................................................................................................................. 23,202 30,076 30,076 ∂6,874 ..........................Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation ................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Policy and international affairs ......................................................................................................................... 15,054 18,948 18,948 ∂3,894 ..........................Public affairs ...................................................................................................................................................... 4,493 3,860 3,860 ¥633 ..........................Loan guarantee office ........................................................................................................................................ 7,000 .......................... .......................... ¥7,000 ..........................

Subtotal, Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................... 219,099 248,944 248,944 ∂29,845 ..........................

Program support: 

Minority economic impact ........................................................................................................................................... 677 834 834 ∂157 ..........................Policy analysis and system studies ............................................................................................................................ 389 625 625 ∂236 ..........................Environmental policy studies ...................................................................................................................................... 558 531 531 ¥27 ..........................
181 

Climate change technology program (prog. supp) ..................................................................................................... 501 1,066 1,066 ∂565 ..........................Cybersecurity and secure communications ................................................................................................................. 43,075 35,184 35,184 ¥7,891 ..........................Corporate management information program ............................................................................................................ 22,825 28,421 28,421 ∂5,596 ..........................

Subtotal, Program support ..................................................................................................................................... 68,025 66,661 66,661 ¥1,364 ..........................

Competitive sourcing initiative (A–76) ................................................................................................................................ 2,464 1,770 .......................... ¥2,464 ¥1,770 

Total, Administrative operations ............................................................................................................................. 289,588 317,375 315,605 ∂26,017 ¥1,770 

Cost of work for others ........................................................................................................................................................ 74,243 91,991 91,991 ∂17,748 ..........................

Subtotal, Departmental Administration .................................................................................................................. 363,831 409,366 407,596 ∂43,765 ¥1,770 

Funding from other defense activities ................................................................................................................................. ¥86,999 ¥99,000 ¥99,000 ¥12,001 ..........................

Total, Departmental administration (gross) ........................................................................................................... 276,832 310,366 308,596 ∂31,764 ¥1,770 

Miscellaneous revenues ........................................................................................................................................................ ¥123,000 ¥161,818 ¥161,818 ¥38,818 ..........................

TOTAL, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION (net) ...................................................................................................... 153,832 148,548 146,778 ¥7,054 ¥1,770 

Office of Inspector General .................................................................................................................................................. 41,819 47,732 47,732 ∂5,913 ..........................

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES 

Life extension program: 

B61 Life extension program ........................................................................................................................................ 58,302 63,115 63,115 ∂4,813 ..........................W76 Life extension program ....................................................................................................................................... 193,566 175,571 175,571 ¥17,995 ..........................W80 Life extension program ....................................................................................................................................... 12,491 .......................... .......................... ¥12,491 ..........................

Subtotal, Life extension program ........................................................................................................................... 264,359 238,686 238,686 ¥25,673 ..........................

Stockpile systems: 

B61 Stockpile systems ................................................................................................................................................ 67,879 75,091 75,091 ∂7,212 ..........................W62 Stockpile systems ................................................................................................................................................ 2,075 2,153 2,153 ∂78 ..........................W76 Stockpile systems ................................................................................................................................................ 62,481 69,238 69,238 ∂6,757 ..........................W78 Stockpile systems ................................................................................................................................................ 38,667 38,991 38,991 ∂324 ..........................W80 Stockpile systems ................................................................................................................................................ 36,558 32,372 32,372 ¥4,186 ..........................B83 Stockpile systems ................................................................................................................................................ 24,412 25,012 25,012 ∂600 ..........................
182 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Revised enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Revised enacted Budget estimate 

W84 Stockpile systems ................................................................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................W87 Stockpile systems ................................................................................................................................................ 63,098 57,147 57,147 ¥5,951 ..........................W88 Stockpile systems ................................................................................................................................................ 41,024 46,713 46,713 ∂5,689 ..........................

Subtotal, Stockpile systems .................................................................................................................................... 336,194 346,717 346,717 ∂10,523 ..........................

Reliable replacement warhead ............................................................................................................................................. 35,846 88,769 66,000 ∂30,154 ¥22,769 Weapons dismantlement and disposition ............................................................................................................................ 75,000 52,250 52,250 ¥22,750 ..........................Stockpile services: 

Production support ...................................................................................................................................................... 258,722 284,979 284,979 ∂26,257 ..........................Research and development support ........................................................................................................................... 68,245 33,329 33,329 ¥34,916 ..........................Research and development certification and safety .................................................................................................. 194,998 181,984 181,984 ¥13,014 ..........................Management, technology, and production .................................................................................................................. 166,928 205,576 205,576 ∂38,648 ..........................Responsive infrastructure ........................................................................................................................................... 25,430 14,946 .......................... ¥25,430 ¥14,946 

Subtotal, Stockpile services .................................................................................................................................... 714,323 720,814 705,868 ¥8,455 ¥14,946 Total, Directed stockpile work ................................................................................................................................ 1,425,722 1,447,236 1,409,521 ¥16,201 ¥37,715 

Campaigns: 

Science campaign: 

Primary assessment technologies ...................................................................................................................... 54,844 63,527 63,527 ∂8,683 ..........................Test readiness .................................................................................................................................................... 14,644 .......................... .......................... ¥14,644 ..........................Dynamic materials properties ............................................................................................................................ 84,238 98,014 98,014 ∂13,776 ..........................Advanced radiography ........................................................................................................................................ 36,387 30,995 30,995 ¥5,392 ..........................Secondary assessment technologies .................................................................................................................. 80,345 80,539 80,539 ∂194 ..........................

Subtotal, Science campaigns ........................................................................................................................ 270,458 273,075 273,075 ∂2,617 ..........................

Engineering campaign: 

Enhanced surety ................................................................................................................................................. 26,666 24,803 44,803 ∂18,137 ∂20,000 Weapons system engineering assessment technology ...................................................................................... 21,102 19,691 19,691 ¥1,411 ..........................Nuclear survivability ........................................................................................................................................... 15,962 8,813 8,813 ¥7,149 ..........................Enhanced surveillance ....................................................................................................................................... 87,533 80,614 80,614 ¥6,919 ..........................
183 

Microsystem and engineering science applications (MESA), other project costs ............................................. 4,603 7,630 7,630 ∂3,027 ..........................Construction: 01–D–108 Microsystem and engineering science applications (MESA), SNL, Albuquerque, NM 6,920 11,198 11,198 ∂4,278 ..........................

Subtotal, MESA .......................................................................................................................................... 11,523 18,828 18,828 ∂7,305 ..........................Subtotal, Engineering campaign ............................................................................................................... 162,786 152,749 172,749 ∂9,963 ∂20,000 

Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield campaign: 

Ignition ........................................................................................................................................................................ 78,827 97,537 97,537 ∂18,710 ..........................Support of stockpile programs .................................................................................................................................... 5,872 .......................... .......................... ¥5,872 ..........................NIF diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support .............................................................................................. 45,959 67,935 58,792 ∂12,833 ¥9,143 Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion .................................................................................................................. 9,584 10,440 10,440 ∂856 ..........................University grants/other ICF support ............................................................................................................................ 12,186 .......................... .......................... ¥12,186 ..........................Joint program in high energy density laboratory plasmas ......................................................................................... .......................... 3,213 12,356 ∂12,356 ∂9,143 Facility operations and target production .................................................................................................................. 53,796 86,083 132,970 ∂79,174 ∂46,887 Inertial fusion technology ............................................................................................................................................ 26,412 .......................... .......................... ¥26,412 ..........................NIF demonstration program ........................................................................................................................................ 143,438 136,912 136,912 ¥6,526 ..........................High-energy petawatt laser development ................................................................................................................... 2,213 .......................... .......................... ¥2,213 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 378,287 402,120 449,007 ∂70,720 ∂46,887 

Construction: 96–D–111 National ignition facility, LLNL ........................................................................................... 111,419 10,139 10,139 ¥101,280 ..........................

Subtotal, Inertial confinement fusion ..................................................................................................................... 489,706 412,259 459,146 ¥30,560 ∂46,887 

Advanced simulation and computing .................................................................................................................................. 611,973 585,738 610,738 ¥1,235 ∂25,000 Pit manufacturing and certification: 

W88 pit manufacturing ............................................................................................................................................... 152,709 155,838 155,838 ∂3,129 ..........................W88 pit certification ................................................................................................................................................... 55,536 45,999 45,999 ¥9,537 ..........................Pit manufacturing capability ...................................................................................................................................... 34,147 54,479 54,479 ∂20,332 ..........................Pit campaign support activities at NTS ..................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Consolidated plutonium center: other project cost .................................................................................................... .......................... 24,914 .......................... .......................... ¥24,914 

Subtotal, Pit manufacturing and certification ....................................................................................................... 242,392 281,230 256,316 ∂13,924 ¥24,914 

Readiness campaign: 

Stockpile readiness ..................................................................................................................................................... 21,964 18,924 18,924 ¥3,040 ..........................High explosives and weapon operations ..................................................................................................................... 19,256 9,835 9,835 ¥9,421 ..........................Non-nuclear readiness ................................................................................................................................................ 31,139 25,592 25,592 ¥5,547 ..........................Advanced design and production technologies .......................................................................................................... 51,609 33,587 33,587 ¥18,022 ..........................Tritium readiness ........................................................................................................................................................ 77,745 73,231 73,231 ¥4,514 
184 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Revised enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Revised enacted Budget estimate 

Construction: 98–D–125 Tritium extraction facility, SR ............................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Tritium readiness .................................................................................................................................... 77,745 73,231 73,231 ¥4,514 ..........................Subtotal, Readiness campaign ............................................................................................................................... 201,713 161,169 161,169 ¥40,544 ..........................Total, Campaigns .................................................................................................................................................... 1,979,028 1,866,220 1,933,193 ¥45,835 ∂66,973 

Readiness in technical base and facilities (RTBF): 

Operations of facilities ................................................................................................................................................ 1,150,141 1,159,305 1,126,409 ¥23,732 ¥32,896 Program readiness ...................................................................................................................................................... 75,167 71,466 71,466 ¥3,701 ..........................Material recycle and recovery ..................................................................................................................................... 69,982 69,962 64,962 ¥5,020 ¥5,000 Containers ................................................................................................................................................................... 20,130 19,184 19,184 ¥946 ..........................Storage ........................................................................................................................................................................ 35,285 35,133 25,133 ¥10,152 ¥10,000 

Subtotal, Readiness in technical base and fac .................................................................................................... 1,350,705 1,355,050 1,307,154 ¥43,551 ¥47,896 

Construction: 

08–D–801 High pressure fire loop (HPFL) Pantex, TX ............................................................................................... .......................... 7,000 7,000 ∂7,000 ..........................08–D–802 High explosive pressing facility Pantex Plant, Amerillo, TX ..................................................................... .......................... 25,300 25,300 ∂25,300 ..........................08–D–804 TA–55 Reinvestment project Los Almos National Laboratory (LANL) ....................................................... .......................... 6,000 6,000 ∂6,000 ..........................08–D–805 Classified Vault Los Almos National Laboratory (LANL) .......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 45,000 ∂45,000 ∂45,000 07–D–140 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations ........................................................................ .......................... 2,500 2,500 ∂2,500 ..........................07–D–220 Radioactive liquid waste treatment facility upgrade project, LANL ........................................................ .......................... 26,672 26,672 ∂26,672 ..........................06–D–140 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations ........................................................................ 16,577 23,862 23,862 ∂7,285 ..........................06–D–402 NTS replace fire stations 1 & 2 Nevada Test Site, NV ............................................................................ 13,919 6,719 6,719 ¥7,200 ..........................06–D–403 Tritium facility modernization Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA ......................... 7,926 .......................... .......................... ¥7,926 ..........................06–D–404 Building remediation, restoration, and upgrade, Nevada Test Site, NV .................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................05–D–140 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations ........................................................................ 9,615 7,000 7,000 ¥2,615 ..........................05–D–401 Building 12–64 production bays upgrades, Pantex plant, Amarillo, TX ................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................05–D–402 Berylium capability (BEC) project, Y–12 National security complex, Oak Ridge, TN .............................. 7,494 .......................... .......................... ¥7,494 ..........................04–D–103 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations ........................................................................ 3,478 .......................... .......................... ¥3,478 ..........................04–D–125 Chemistry and metallurgy facility replacement project, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, 

NM ........................................................................................................................................................................... 53,422 95,586 95,586 ∂42,164 ..........................
185 

04–D–128 TA–18 mission relocation project, Los Alamos Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM .......................................... 24,197 29,455 29,455 ∂5,258 ..........................03–D–103 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations ........................................................................ 14,161 .......................... .......................... ¥14,161 ..........................01–D–103 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations ........................................................................ 1,565 .......................... .......................... ¥1,565 ..........................01–D–124 HEU materials facility, Y–12 plant, Oak Ridge, TN ................................................................................. 110,182 77,000 77,000 ¥33,182 ..........................

Subtotal, Construction ............................................................................................................................................ 262,536 307,094 352,094 ∂89,558 ∂45,000 Total, Readiness in technical base and facilities ................................................................................................. 1,613,241 1,662,144 1,659,248 ∂46,007 ¥2,896 

Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program ........................................................................................................ 123,750 231,023 200,023 ∂76,273 ¥31,000 

Construction: 

08–D–601 Mercury highway, Nevada Test Site, NV .......................................................................................... .......................... 7,800 7,800 ∂7,800 ..........................08–D–602 Portable water system upgrades Y–12 Plant, Oak Ridge, TN ........................................................ .......................... 22,500 22,500 ∂22,500 ..........................07–D–253 TA 1 heating systems modernization (HSM) Sandia National Laboratory ...................................... 14,500 13,000 13,000 ¥1,500 ..........................06–D–160 Project engioneering and design (PED), various locations ............................................................. 2,700 .......................... .......................... ¥2,700 ..........................06–D–601 Electrical distribution system upgrade, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, TX ............................................... 6,429 2,500 2,500 ¥3,929 ..........................06–D–602 Gas main and distribution system upgrade, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, TX ....................................... 3,145 1,900 1,900 ¥1,245 ..........................06–D–603 Steam plant life extension project (SLEP), Y–12 National Security Complex, Oak Ridge, TN ....... 17,811 15,020 15,020 ¥2,791 ..........................05–D–160 Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program project engineering design (PED), various 

locations ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,048 .......................... .......................... ¥1,048 ..........................

05–D–601 Compressed air upgrades project (CAUP), Y–12, National security complex, Oak Ridge, TN ....... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................05–D–602 Power grid infrastructure upgrade (PGIU), Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM ..... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................05–D–603 New master substation (NMSU), SNL .............................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Construction ................................................................................................................................... 45,633 62,720 62,720 ∂17,087 ..........................Total, Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program ....................................................................... 169,383 293,743 262,743 ∂93,360 ¥31,000 

Secure transportation asset: 

Operations and equipment .......................................................................................................................................... 134,777 130,845 130,845 ¥3,932 ..........................Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................ 74,760 84,801 84,801 ∂10,041 ..........................

Total, Secure transportation asset ......................................................................................................................... 209,537 215,646 215,646 ∂6,109 ..........................

Nuclear weapons incident response .................................................................................................................................... 133,514 161,748 161,748 ∂28,234 ..........................Environmental projects and operations: Long term stewardship ........................................................................................ .......................... 17,518 17,518 ∂17,518 ..........................Safeguards and security: 

Defense nuclear security ............................................................................................................................................. 656,653 721,318 733,318 ∂76,665 ∂12,000 Cybersecurity ............................................................................................................................................................... 104,505 102,243 102,243 ¥2,262 ..........................Construction: 

08–D–701 Nuclear materials S&S upgrade project Los Almos National Laboratory ....................................... .......................... 49,496 49,496 ∂49,496 ..........................
186 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Revised enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Revised enacted Budget estimate 

05–D–170 Project engineering and design (PED), various locations ............................................................... .......................... 8,000 8,000 ∂8,000 ..........................Material security and consolidation project, Idaho National Lab, ID ............................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Construction ................................................................................................................................... .......................... 57,496 57,496 ∂57,496 ..........................Subtotal, Defense nuclear security ................................................................................................................ 761,158 881,057 893,057 ∂131,899 ∂12,000 Subtotal, Safeguards and security ................................................................................................................ 761,158 881,057 893,057 ∂131,899 ∂12,000 Subtotal, Weapons activities ......................................................................................................................... 6,291,583 6,545,312 6,552,674 ∂261,091 ∂7,362 

Less security charge for reimbursable work ........................................................................................................................ ¥33,000 ¥34,000 ¥34,000 ¥1,000 ..........................Transfer to Office of the Administrator ............................................................................................................................... 17,000 .......................... .......................... ¥17,000 ..........................Congressionally directed technology deployments ............................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 37,350 ∂37,350 ∂37,350 Use of prior year balances ................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥67,000 ¥67,000 ¥67,000 

TOTAL, WEAPONS ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................................................. 6,275,583 6,511,312 6,489,024 ∂213,441 ¥22,288 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION 

Nonproliferation and verification, R&D ................................................................................................................................ 262,467 265,252 305,252 ∂42,785 ∂40,000 

Construction: 

07–SC–05 Physical Science Facility, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA ........................... 4,220 .......................... 17,000 ∂12,780 ∂17,000 06–D–180 06–01 Project engineering and design [PED] National Security Laboratory, PNNL ....................... 3,700 .......................... .......................... ¥3,700 ..........................

Subtotal, Nonproliferation & verification R&D .............................................................................................. 270,387 265,252 322,252 ∂51,865 ∂57,000 

Nonproliferation and international security ......................................................................................................................... 128,911 124,870 210,870 ∂81,959 ∂86,000 

International nuclear materials protection and cooperation ...................................................................................... 472,730 371,771 391,771 ¥80,959 ∂20,000 Global initiatives for proliferation prevention ............................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................HEU transparency implementation .............................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Elimination of weapons-grade plutonium production program .................................................................................. 225,754 181,593 152,593 ¥73,161 ¥29,000 
187 

Fissile materials disposition: 

U.S. surplus materials disposition .............................................................................................................................. 159,273 148,842 148,842 ¥10,431 ..........................Russian surplus materials disposition ....................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................U.S. uranium disposition ............................................................................................................................................. .......................... 66,843 66,843 ∂66,843 ..........................Construction: 

99–D–141 Pit disassembly and conversion facility, Savannah River, SC ....................................................... 48,289 60,000 60,000 ∂11,711 ..........................99–D–143 Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility, Savannah River, SC ............................................................ 262,500 333,849 390,849 ∂128,349 ∂57,000 

Subtotal, Construction ................................................................................................................................... 310,789 393,849 450,849 ∂140,060 ∂57,000 Total, Fissile materials disposition ............................................................................................................... 470,062 609,534 666,534 ∂196,472 ∂57,000 

Global threat reduction initiative ......................................................................................................................................... 115,495 119,626 185,626 ∂70,131 ∂66,000 International nuclear fuel bank ........................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ........................................................................................................... 1,683,339 1,672,646 1,929,646 ∂246,307 ∂257,000 

Use of prior year balances—Russian Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition program ...................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥57,000 ¥57,000 ¥57,000 Use of prior year balances—Fissile Materials Disposition MOX construction line ............................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Use of prior year balances for Emergency Supplemental for fiscal year 1999 (H.R. 4328, Public Law 105–277) .......... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Supplemental Appropriations—Public Law 110–28 (emergency). ...................................................................................... 135,000 .......................... .......................... ¥135,000 ..........................

TOTAL, DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION ..................................................................................................... 1,818,339 1,672,646 1,872,646 ∂54,307 ∂200,000 

NAVAL REACTORS 

Naval reactors development ................................................................................................................................................. 734,283 765,519 765,519 ∂31,236 ..........................Transfer to Nuclear Energy .................................................................................................................................................. 13,365 .......................... .......................... ¥13,365 ..........................

Construction: 

08–D–901 Shipping and receiving and warehouse complex (SRWC), BAPL .................................................... .......................... 9,000 9,000 ∂9,000 ..........................08–D–190 Project engineering and design Expended Core Facility M–290 recovering discharge station, 

Naval Reactor Facility, ID .............................................................................................................................. .......................... 550 550 ∂550 ..........................

07–D–190 Materials research technology complex (MRTC) .............................................................................. 1,485 450 450 ¥1,035 ..........................06–D–901 Central office building II ................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Transfer to Nuclear Energy ................................................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................05–N–900 Materials development facility building, Schenectady, NY ............................................................. 1,287 .......................... .......................... ¥1,287 ..........................

Subtotal, Construction ............................................................................................................................................ 2,772 10,000 10,000 ∂7,228 ..........................Total, Naval reactors development ......................................................................................................................... 750,420 775,519 775,519 ∂25,099 ..........................
188 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Revised enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Revised enacted Budget estimate 

Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. 31,380 32,700 32,700 ∂1,320 ..........................

TOTAL, NAVAL REACTORS ........................................................................................................................................ 781,800 808,219 808,219 ∂26,419 ..........................

Office of the Adminstrator: 

Office of the Administrator ......................................................................................................................................... 340,291 394,656 394,656 ∂54,365 ..........................

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ....................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................All other Office of the Administrator ................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

HBCU contribution from NNSA .................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Use of prior year balances .......................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................ES & H transfer ........................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR ................................................................................................................. 340,291 394,656 394,656 ∂54,365 ..........................TOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ....................................................................................... 9,216,013 9,386,833 9,564,545 ∂348,532 ∂177,712 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP 

Closure Sites ........................................................................................................................................................................ 468,063 42,437 55,937 ¥412,126 ∂13,500 Hanford Site: 

2012 Completion projects ........................................................................................................................................... 425,204 413,038 443,463 ∂18,259 ∂30,425 2035 Completion projects ........................................................................................................................................... 410,112 464,042 506,913 ∂96,801 ∂42,871 

Total, Hanford Site .................................................................................................................................................. 835,316 877,080 950,376 ∂115,060 ∂73,296 

Office of River Protection: 

Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant ............................................................................................................... 690,000 690,000 690,000 .......................... ..........................Tank Farm activities ................................................................................................................................................... 277,127 273,443 325,972 ∂48,845 ∂52,529 

Total, Office of River Protection ............................................................................................................................. 967,127 963,443 1,015,972 ∂48,845 ∂52,529 

Idaho National Laboratory: Operating expenses .................................................................................................................. 495,904 391,226 420,126 ¥75,778 ∂28,900 
189 

Construction: 

06–D–401, Sodium bearing waste treatment project, ID ................................................................................. 31,000 112,800 112,800 ∂81,800 ..........................04–D–414, Sodium bearing waste treatment facility, PED ID ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Total, Idaho National Laboratory ................................................................................................................... 526,904 504,026 532,926 ∂6,022 ∂28,900 

NNSA ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 306,509 271,130 361,663 ∂55,154 ∂90,533 Oak Ridge Reservation ......................................................................................................................................................... 203,862 179,284 179,284 ¥24,578 ..........................Savannah River site: 

2012 Completion projects: Oerating expenses ........................................................................................................... 244,626 .......................... .......................... ¥244,626 ..........................Construction: 

04–D–423 Container surveillance capability in 235F ....................................................................................... .......................... 31,000 31,000 ∂31,000 ..........................04–D–414 Project Engineering and Design, 105–K .......................................................................................... 2,935 .......................... .......................... ¥2,935 ..........................

Subtotal, 2012 accelerated completions ....................................................................................................... 247,561 31,000 31,000 ¥216,561 ..........................

2035 Completion projects: 

Operating expenses ............................................................................................................................................ 300,524 495,071 495,071 ∂194,547 ..........................Construction: 08–D–414 Project engineering and design Plutonium Vitrification Facility, VL ........................ .......................... 15,000 9,000 ∂9,000 ¥6,000 

Subtotal, 2035 accelerated completions ....................................................................................................... 300,524 510,071 504,071 ∂203,547 ¥6,000 

Tank Farm Activities: Radioactive liquid tank waste stabil & disposition ............................................................... 513,809 524,018 524,018 ∂10,209 ..........................

Construction: 

05–D–405, Salt waste processing facility ............................................................................................... .......................... 131,000 131,000 ∂131,000 ..........................04–D–408, Glass waste storage building #2 .......................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................03–D–414, Salt waste processing facility PED SR .................................................................................. 51,500 10,001 10,001 ¥41,499 ..........................

Subtotal, Tank farm activities .............................................................................................................. 565,309 665,019 665,019 ∂99,710 ..........................

Nuclear material Stabilization and Disposition .......................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Total, Savannah River site ..................................................................................................................................... 1,113,394 1,206,090 1,200,090 ∂86,696 ¥6,000 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant: Operating expenses ................................................................................................................. 228,818 219,739 250,739 ∂21,921 ∂31,000 

Total, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant ........................................................................................................................... 228,818 219,739 250,739 ∂21,921 ∂31,000 

Program direction ................................................................................................................................................................. 294,516 309,760 309,760 ∂15,244 ..........................Program support ................................................................................................................................................................... 38,031 33,146 41,946 ∂3,915 ∂8,800 Safeguards and Security ...................................................................................................................................................... 275,920 273,381 273,581 ¥2,339 ∂200 Technology development ....................................................................................................................................................... 21,389 21,389 55,106 ∂33,717 ∂33,717 
190 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Revised enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Revised enacted Budget estimate 

Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution ....................................................................................................................... 452,000 463,000 463,000 ∂11,000 ..........................Material consolidation .......................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Legacy Management ............................................................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Canyons and Pu Vitrification office ..................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN UP ........................................................................................................ 5,731,849 5,363,905 5,690,380 ¥41,469 ∂326,475 

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

Health, safety and security: 

Health, safety and security ......................................................................................................................................... .......................... 329,305 329,305 ∂329,305 ..........................Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................ .......................... 100,043 100,043 ∂100,043 ..........................

Total, Health, safety and security .......................................................................................................................... .......................... 429,348 429,348 ∂429,348 ..........................

Office of Security and Safety Performance Assurance: 

Nuclear safeguards and security ................................................................................................................................ 196,546 .......................... .......................... ¥196,546 ..........................Security investigations ................................................................................................................................................ 40,531 .......................... .......................... ¥40,531 ..........................rogram direction .......................................................................................................................................................... 76,818 .......................... .......................... ¥76,818 ..........................Use of prior year balances .......................................................................................................................................... .......................... ¥990 .......................... .......................... ∂990 

Subtotal, Office of Security and Safety Performance Assurance ........................................................................... 313,895 ¥990 .......................... ¥313,895 ∂990 

Environment, safety and health (Defense) .......................................................................................................................... 60,304 .......................... .......................... ¥60,304 ..........................

Program direction—EH ............................................................................................................................................... 20,076 .......................... .......................... ¥20,076 ..........................

Subtotal, Environment, safety & health (Defense) ................................................................................................ 80,380 .......................... .......................... ¥80,380 ..........................

Office of Legacy Management: 

Legacy management .......................................................................................................................................... 19,733 148,063 148,563 ∂128,830 ∂500 Program direction ............................................................................................................................................... 11,202 11,000 11,000 ¥202 ..........................

Subtotal, Office of Legacy Management ....................................................................................................... 30,935 159,063 159,563 ∂128,628 ∂500 
191 

Nuclear energy: 

Infrastructure: 

Idaho facilities management .................................................................................................................... 15,923 .......................... .......................... ¥15,923 Idaho sitewide safeguards and security ................................................................................................... 75,949 75,949 75,949 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal, Infrastruture .......................................................................................................................... 91,872 75,949 75,949 ¥15,923 ..........................

Program direction ............................................................................................................................................... 30,844 .......................... .......................... ¥30,844 ..........................

Subtotal, Nuclear energy ............................................................................................................................... 122,716 75,949 75,949 ¥46,767 ..........................

Defense related administrative support ..................................................................................................................... 86,999 99,000 99,000 ∂12,001 ..........................Office of Hearings and Appeals .................................................................................................................................. 4,349 4,607 4,607 ∂258 ..........................

Subtotal, Other Defense Activities .......................................................................................................................... 639,274 766,977 768,467 ∂129,193 ∂1,490 

Less security charge for reimbursable work ............................................................................................................... ¥3,003 ¥3,003 ¥3,003 .......................... ..........................

TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................................................... 636,271 763,974 765,464 ∂129,193 ∂1,490 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL 

Defense nuclear waste disposal .......................................................................................................................................... 346,500 292,046 242,046 ¥104,454 ¥50,000 

TOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................ 15,930,633 15,806,758 16,262,435 ∂331,802 ∂455,677 

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS 

SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION 

Operation and maintenance: 

Purchase power and wheeling .................................................................................................................................... 47,198 62,215 62,215 ∂15,017 ..........................Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................ 5,602 6,463 6,463 ∂861 ..........................

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ................................................................................................................... 52,800 68,678 68,678 ∂15,878 ..........................

Less alternative financing (PPW) ......................................................................................................................................... ¥14,485 ¥13,802 ¥13,802 ∂683 ..........................Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................................................... ¥32,713 ¥48,413 ¥48,413 ¥15,700 ..........................

TOTAL, SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION .................................................................................................. 5,602 6,463 6,463 ∂861 ..........................
192 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Revised enacted Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Committee recommendation compared 

to— 

Revised enacted Budget estimate 

SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION 

Operation and maintenance: 

Operating expenses ..................................................................................................................................................... 5,604 11,978 11,978 ∂6,374 ..........................Purchase power and wheeling .................................................................................................................................... 12,400 45,000 45,000 ∂32,600 ..........................Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................ 20,782 22,214 22,214 ∂1,432 ..........................Construction ................................................................................................................................................................ 3,612 4,300 4,300 ∂688 ..........................

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ................................................................................................................... 42,398 83,492 83,492 ∂41,094 ..........................

Less alternative financing (for program direction) ............................................................................................................. .......................... ¥877 ¥877 ¥877 ..........................Less alternative financing (for O&M) .................................................................................................................................. .......................... ¥6,304 ¥6,304 ¥6,304 ..........................Less alternative financing (PPW) ......................................................................................................................................... ¥9,400 ¥10,000 ¥10,000 ¥600 ..........................Less alternative financing (Const.) ..................................................................................................................................... .......................... ¥869 ¥869 ¥869 ..........................Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................................................... ¥3,000 ¥35,000 ¥35,000 ¥32,000 ..........................

TOTAL, SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION .................................................................................................. 29,998 30,442 30,442 ∂444 ..........................

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION 

Operation and maintenance: 

Construction and rehabilitation .................................................................................................................................. 60,205 62,915 62,915 ∂2,710 ..........................Operation and maintenance ........................................................................................................................................ 45,734 53,271 53,271 ∂7,537 ..........................Purchase power and wheeling .................................................................................................................................... 427,931 425,254 475,254 ∂47,323 ∂50,000 Program direction ........................................................................................................................................................ 147,748 157,304 157,304 ∂9,556 ..........................Utah mitigation and conservation .............................................................................................................................. 6,633 7,167 7,167 ∂534 ..........................

Subtotal, Operation and maintenance ................................................................................................................... 688,251 705,911 705,911 ∂17,660 ..........................

Less alternative financing (for O&M) .................................................................................................................................. ¥2,058 ¥11,971 ¥5,000 ¥2,942 ∂6,971 Less alternative financing (for Const.) ................................................................................................................................ ¥17,177 ¥47,915 ¥30,690 ¥13,513 ∂17,225 Less alternative financing (for Program direction) ............................................................................................................. ¥5,054 ¥15,804 ¥10,000 ¥4,946 ∂5,804 Less alternative financing (for PPW) ................................................................................................................................... ¥148,931 ¥166,552 ¥166,552 ¥17,621 ..........................Offsetting collections (Public Law 108–477 and Public Law 109–103) ............................................................................ ¥279,000 ¥258,702 ¥308,702 ¥29,702 ¥50,000 
193 

Offsetting collections (Public Law 98–381) ........................................................................................................................ ¥3,705 ¥3,937 ¥3,937 ¥232 ..........................

TOTAL, WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION .................................................................................................. 232,326 201,030 231,030 ¥1,296 ∂30,000 

FALCON AND AMISTAD OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FUND 

Operation and maintenance ................................................................................................................................................. 2,665 2,500 2,500 ¥165 ..........................

TOTAL, POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS ....................................................................................................... 270,591 240,435 270,435 ¥156 ∂30,000 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Federal energy regulatory commission ................................................................................................................................. 221,902 255,425 255,425 ∂33,523 ..........................FERC revenues ...................................................................................................................................................................... ¥221,902 ¥255,425 ¥255,425 ¥33,523 ..........................

GRAND TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ............................................................................................................... 24,228,203 24,762,713 25,898,485 ∂1,670,282 ∂1,135,772 

(Total amount appropriated) ......................................................................................................................... (24,093,203 ) (24,911,713 ) (26,057,485 ) (∂1,964,282 ) (∂1,145,772 ) (Emergency appropriations) ........................................................................................................................... (135,000 ) .......................... .......................... (¥135,000 ) ..........................(Rescissions) .................................................................................................................................................. .......................... (¥149,000 ) (¥159,000 ) (¥159,000 ) (¥10,000 ) 
194 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

The following list of general provisions is recommended by the 

Committee. The recommendation includes several provisions which 

have been included in previous Energy and Water Appropriations 

Acts and new provisions as follows: 

Section 301. Language is included under section 301 to prohibit 

the use of funds to make payments for a noncompetitive management and operating contract unless certain conditions have been 

met. 

Section 302. Language is included under section 302 which prohibits the use of funds for severance payments under the worker 

and community transition program under section 3161 of Public 

Law 102–484. 

Section 303. Language is included under section 303 to prohibit 

the augmentation of several payments under section 3161 of Public 

Law 102–484 unless a reprogramming request is submitted to Congress. 

Section 304. Language is included under section 304, which prohibits the use of funds in this act to initiate a request for proposal 

of expression of interest for new programs which have not yet been 

presented to Congress in the annual budget submission and which 

have not yet been approved and funded by Congress. 

Section 305. Language is included in section 305, which permits 

the transfer and merger of unexpended balances of prior appropriations with appropriation accounts established in this bill. 

Section 306. Language is included that prohibits the use of funds 

by the Bonneville Power Administration to enter into energy efficiency contracts outside its service area. 

Section 307. This section establishes certain notice and competition requirements for Department of Energy user facilities. 

Section 308. Language is included specifically authorizing intelligence activities pending enactment of the fiscal year 2008 Intelligence Authorization Act. 

Section 309. Language is included in section 309 regarding laboratory directed research and development activities. 

Section 310. Language is included in section 312 prohibiting the 

Department of Energy to modify a ratemaking policy by changing 

the interest rate on future obligation for the Southeastern, Southwest, and Western Area Power Administrations. The Committee rejects a pending proposal to require Southeastern Power Administration, Southwestern Power Administration, and the Western 

Area Power Administration to apply the interest rate charged Government corporations for new investment and instead instructs the 

Secretary to apply the yield rate for all new investment in hydroelectric plant. The average yield shall be computed as the average 

during the fiscal year of the daily bid prices. The Committee has 

consistently opposed the use of budget gimmicks carried in the 

budget request that will increase rates paid by power customers. 

The Committee recommends the Department of Energy heed this 

direction and refrain from requesting new regulations to modify 

ratemaking procedures for Southeastern Power Administration, 

Southwestern Power Administration, and the Western Area Power 

Administration. 
195 

Section 311. The Committee has included a provision related to 

the Use Permit at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 

Section 312. The Committee has included a provision related to 

Bonneville Power Administration. 

Section 313. The Committee has included a provision related to 

the Strategic Petroleum Preserve. 
(196) 

TITLE IV 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $64,858,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 65,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 75,000,000 

Established in 1965, the Appalachian Regional Commission is an 

economic development agency composed of 13 Appalachian States 

and a Federal co-chair appointed by the President. For fiscal year 

2008, the Committee recommends the budget request of 

$75,000,000 for the ARC, of which $5,597,000 is for salaries and expenses and $64,087,000 is for area development and $5,316,000 is 

for local development districts. 

Area Development and Technical Assistant Program funds are 

used to increase job opportunities and income, improve education 

and health, strengthen infrastructure, and for the Appalachian 

Highway System. Such funds are allocated by formula, with assistance targeted to the most distressed and underdeveloped areas. 

Local Development Districts Program funds assist local governments in promoting sustainable community and economic development in the Appalachian region. 

The Committee recognizes the importance of trade and investment opportunities to the Appalachian Region and is encouraged 

by the findings in a report that Appalachian firms could find significant trade and investment opportunities, particularly in the energy, high technology, and transportation sectors in the Republic of 

Turkey and the surrounding region. In this regard, the Committee 

supports the Appalachian-Turkish Trade Project [ATTP], a project 

to promote opportunities to expand trade, encourage business interests, stimulate foreign studies, and to build a lasting and mutually 

meaningful relationship between Appalachian States and the Republic of Turkey, as well as the neighboring regions, such as 

Greece. The Committee commends the ARC for its leadership role 

in helping to implement the mission of the ATTP. The Committee 

expects the ARC to continue to be a prominent ATTP sponsor. 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $21,914,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 22,499,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 22,499,000 

For fiscal year 2008, the Committee recommends $22,499,000, 

the same as the President’s request, for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. This Board is responsible for evaluating the im-
197 

plementation of standards for design, construction, operation, and 

decommissioning of the Department of Energy’s defense nuclear facilities. Based on these evaluations, the Board makes specific recommendations to the Secretary of Energy to ensure that both public and employee heath and safety are protected. 

DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $11,888,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 6,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 12,000,000 

For the Delta Regional Authority, the Committee recommends $12,000,000. The Delta Regional Authority was established to assist the eight State Mississippi Delta Region in obtaining basic infrastructure, transportation, skills training, and opportunities for 

economic development. The Government Accountability Office recently reported that the DRA has a commendable record in the percentage of funds spent in rural America, and the Committee recognizes the DRA’s role in bettering this underserved area of the Nation. 

DENALI COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $49,509,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 1,800,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 31,800,000 

The Denali Commission is a Federal-State partnership responsible for promoting infrastructure development, job training, and 

other economic development services in rural areas throughout 

Alaska. For fiscal year 2008, the Committee recommends 

$31,800,000. 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $816,639,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 908,409,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 910,559,000 

REVENUES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $659,328,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... ¥757,720,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥757,720,000 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $157,311,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 150,689,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 152,839,000 

The Committee recommendation for the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission for fiscal year 2008 is $910,559,000, an increase of 

$2,150,000 over the budget request. This amount is offset by estimated revenues of $757,720,000 resulting in a net appropriation of 

$152,839,000. 

The Committee provides an additional $2,150,000 to support enhancing foreign regulators’ programs to enhance security over radioactive sources. The Commission should continue to coordinate 
198 

its efforts with those at the Department of State and the Department of Energy. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $8,285,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 8,144,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,744,000 

REVENUES

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $7,410,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... ¥7,330,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... ¥7,330,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ¥7,870,000 

NET APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $875,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 814,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 874,000 

The Committee recommends $8,744,000, an increase of $600,000 

over the budget request. The additional funds will provide the Office of Inspector General with the necessary resources to provide effective oversight of the agency’s new licensing activities while fulfilling its statutory responsibilities under the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, and the Federal Information Security Management Act of 1992. The Committee also recommends that the current no year authority of the Office of Inspector General be retained. The Office of Inspector General, as an administrative entity, is fully integrated into the administrative processes at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to include its accounting, pay, and 

travel system, as well as other infrastructure support systems. In 

addition, the proposed two year funding authority could limit the 

continuity of the Inspector General’s oversight. 

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. $3,591,000 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... 3,621,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,621,000 

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board was established to 

evaluate the scientific and technical validity of the Department of 

Energy’s nuclear waste disposal program. The Board reports its 

findings no fewer than two times a year to Congress and to the 

Secretary of Energy. For fiscal year 2008, the Committee recommends $3,621,000. 

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL COORDINATOR FOR ALASKA NATURAL GAS

TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

Appropriation, 2007 ............................................................................... ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... $2,322,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,322,000 

The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas 

Transportation Projects was established as an independent agency 

in the Executive Branch on December 13, 2006, pursuant to the 
199 

Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act of 2004. The Committee recommends $2,322,000, the same as the budget request. 

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

GROSS APPROPRIATION

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... $15,100,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

OFFSET FROM TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY FUND

Appropriations, 2007 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2008 ........................................................................... ¥$15,100,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

The Committee recommendation does not include the administration’s proposal to establish a congressionally funded Office of the 

Inspector General to oversee the Tennessee Valley Authority. In recent years, the TVA has funded the requests of the TVA–IG office 

out of power revenues and receipts. This process has worked well, 

and the Committee sees no compelling reason to change that mechanism for funding the TVA–IG. 

GENERAL PROVISION, INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

The following general provision is recommended by the Committee. 

Section 401. The Committee has included a provision related to 

the Tennessee Valley Authority. 
(200) 

TITLE V 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

The following list of general provisions are recommended by the 

Committee. 

Section 501. The provision prohibits the use of any funds provided in this bill from being used to influence congressional action. 

Section 502. The provision addresses transfer authority under 

this act. 
(201) 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment to 

the House bill ‘‘which proposes an item of appropriation which is 

not made to carry out the provisions of an existing law, a treaty 

stipulation, or an act or resolution previously passed by the Senate 

during that session.’’ 

The Committee recommends funding for the following programs 

or activities which currently lack authorization for fiscal year 2006: 

The US Army Corps of Engineers: General Investigations; Construction, General; Mississippi River and Tributaries; Operations 

and Maintenance; Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program; 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation; 

Water and Related Resources; 

Department of Energy: Energy Conservation and Supply Activities: 

Office of Fossil Energy: Fossil Energy R&D, Clean Coal, Naval 

Petroleum and Oil Shale Research; 

Health, Safety and Security; 

Non-Defense Environmental Management; 

Office of Science; 

Department of Administration; 

National Nuclear Security Administration: Weapons Activities; 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation; Naval Reactors; Office of the Administrator; 

Defense Environmental Management, Defense Site Acceleration 

Completion; 

Other Defense Activities; 

Defense Nuclear Waste Fund; 

Office of Security and Performance Assurance; 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; 

Power Marketing Administrations: Southeastern, Southwestern, 

Western Area; and 

Energy Information Administration. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI, OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on June 28, 2007, the 

Committee ordered reported en bloc: an original bill (S. 1745) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, 

science, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 

30, 2008, and authorized the chairman of the committee or the 

chairman of the subcommittee to offer the text of the Senate bill 

as a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute to the 

House companion measure; an original bill (S. 1751) making appro-
202 

priations for energy and water development and related agencies 

for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, and authorized the chairman of the committee or the chairman of the subcommittee to offer the text of the Senate bill as a 

committee amendment in the nature of a substitute to the House 

companion measure; and H.R. 2764, making appropriations for the 

Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs for 

the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, 

with an amendment in the nature of a substitute; with each bill 

subject to amendment and subject to the budget allocations, by a 

recorded vote of 28–1, a quorum being present. The vote was as follows: 

Yeas Nays 

Chairman Byrd Mr. Brownback 

Mr. Inouye 

Mr. Leahy 

Mr. Harkin 

Ms. Mikulski 

Mr. Kohl 

Mrs. Murray 

Mr. Dorgan 

Mrs. Feinstein 

Mr. Durbin 

Mr. Johnson 

Ms. Landrieu 

Mr. Reed 

Mr. Lautenberg 

Mr. Nelson 

Mr. Cochran 

Mr. Stevens 

Mr. Specter 

Mr. Domenici 

Mr. Bond 

Mr. McConnell 

Mr. Shelby 

Mr. Gregg 

Mr. Bennett 

Mr. Craig 

Mrs. Hutchison 

Mr. Allard 

Mr. Alexander 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI, OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports on 

a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or part 

of any statute include ‘‘(a) the text of the statute or part thereof 

which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a comparative print of 

that part of the bill or joint resolution making the amendment and 

of the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended, showing by 

stricken-through type and italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical devices the omissions and insertions which 
203 

would be made by the bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form 

recommended by the Committee.’’ 

In compliance with this rule, changes in existing law proposed to 

be made by the bill are shown as follows: existing law to be omitted 

is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is printed in italic; and 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman. 

TITLE 16—CONSERVATION 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 12A—TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 

* * * * * * * 

§ 831a. Membership, operation, and duties of the Board of 

Directors 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(f) Compensation 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(2) Adjustments in stipends 

The amount of the østipend under paragraph (1)(A)(i)¿ stipends under paragraph (1)(A) shall be adjusted by the same 

percentage, at the same time and manner, and subject to the 

same limitations as are applicable to adjustments under section 5318 of title 5. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 19B—WATER RESOURCES PLANNING 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER IV—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1962d–5a. Reimbursement to States 

(a) Combination of reimbursement of installation costs and 

reduction in contributions; single project limitation 

The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, may, when he determines it to be in the public interest, 

enter into agreements providing for reimbursement to States or political subdivisions thereof for work to be performed by such nonFederal public bodies at water resources development projects authorized for construction under the Secretary of the Army and the 

supervision of the Chief of Engineers. Such agreements may provide for reimbursement of installation costs incurred by such entities or an equivalent reduction in the contributions they would oth-
204 

erwise be required to make, or in appropriate cases, for a combination thereof. The amount of Federal reimbursement, including reductions in contributions, for a single project shall not exceed 

$5,000,000 or 1 percent of the total project cost, whichever is greater; except that the amount of actual Federal reimbursement, including reductions in contributions, for such project may not exceed 

ø$5,000,000¿ $7,000,000 in any fiscal year. 

* * * * * * * 

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1990, 

PUBLIC LAW 101–640 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE I—WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS 

SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(10) MCALPINE LOCK AND DAM, INDIANA AND KENTUCKY.— 

The project for navigation, McAlpine Lock and Dam, Indiana 

and Kentucky: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated June 29, 

1990, at a total cost of ø$219,600,000¿ $430,000,000, with a 

first Federal cost of ø$219,600,000¿$430,000,000. The Federal 

share of costs of construction of the project is to be paid onehalf from amounts appropriated from the general fund of the 

Treasury and one-half from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. 

* * * * * * * 

RECLAMATION PROJECTS AUTHORIZATION AND 

ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1992, PUBLIC LAW 102–575 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE XXXV—THREE AFFILIATED TRIBES AND STANDING 

ROCK SIOUX TRIBE EQUITABLE COMPENSATION PROGRAM, NORTH DAKOTA 

SEC. 3501. SHORT TITLE. 

This title may be cited as the ‘Three Affiliated Tribes and 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act’. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 3507. STANDING ROCK SIOUX INDIAN RESERVATION. 

(a) * * * 

(b) SPECIFIC.—There is authorized to be appropriated, in addition to any other amounts authorized by this title, or any other 

law, to the Secretary of the Interior ø$4,660,000¿ $12,660,000 for 

use by the Secretary of the Interior in carrying out irrigation 

projects for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. 

* * * * * * * 
205 

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1992, 

PUBLIC LAW 102–580 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS 

SEC. 219. ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(f) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(71) CORONADO, CALIFORNIA.—$10,000,000 is authorized 

for wastewater infrastructure, Coronado, California.¿ 

(71) CORONADO, CALIFORNIA.— 

(A) $10,000,000 is authorized for wastewater infrastructure, Coronado, California. 

(B) The Federal Share may be in the form of grants or 

reimbursements of project costs incurred by the non-Federal 

sponsor for work performed by the non-Federal sponsor before or after the execution of a project cooperation agreement, if the Secretary determines that such work is integral 

to the project. 

(C) The Secretary is authorized to credit towards the 

non-Federal share of project costs the costs incurred by the 

non-Federal sponsor for work performed by the non-Federal 

sponsor before or after the execution of a project cooperation 

agreement, if the Secretary determines that such work is integral to the project. 

* * * * * * * 

YAVAPAI-PRESCOTT INDIAN TRIBE WATER RIGHTS 

SETTLEMENT ACT OF 1994, PUBLIC LAW 103–434 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE VIII—MNI WICONI RURAL WATER SUPPLY PROJECT 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 813. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

Section 10 of the Act (102 Stat. 2571) is amended to read as 

follows: 

‘‘SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

‘‘(a) PLANNING, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION.—There are authorized to be appropriated $263,241,000 for the planning, design, 

and construction of the Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System, 

the Rosebud Sioux Rural Water Supply System, the Lower Brule 

Sioux Rural Water Supply System, the West River Rural Water 

Supply System, and the Lyman-Jones Rural Water Supply System 

described in sections 3, 3A, 3B, and 4. Such funds are authorized 

to be appropriated only through the end of the year ø2003¿ 2013. 

The funds authorized to be appropriated by the first sentence of 

this section, less any amounts previously obligated for the Systems, 

may be increased or decreased by such amounts as may be justified 
206 

by reason of ordinary fluctuations in development costs incurred 

after October 1, 1992, as indicated by engineering costs indices applicable for the type of construction involved. 

* * * * * * * 

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996, 

PUBLIC LAW 104–303 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE I—WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS 

SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(5) SAN LORENZO RIVER, CALIFORNIA.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood control, San 

Lorenzo River, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated June 30, 1994, at a total cost of $21,800,000, 

with an estimated Federal cost of $10,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $10,900,000 and habitat restoration, at a total cost of $4,050,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $3,040,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 

of $1,010,000. 

(B) CREDIT TOWARD NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the 

project the costs expended by non-Federal interests for the 

replacement and reconstruction of the Soquel Avenue 

Bridge, if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 

to the project. 

(C) MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF CREDIT.—The credit under 

paragraph (B) may not exceed $2,000,000. 

(D) LIMITATION OF TOTAL PROJECT COST.—The Secretary shall not include the costs to be credited under paragraphs (B) and (C) in total project costs in determining the 

amounts of the Federal and non-Federal contributions. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 227. SHORE PROTECTION. 

(a) * * * 

‘‘SEC. 5. NATIONAL SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT 

AND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM. 

‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF EROSION CONTROL PROGRAM.—The 

Secretary shall establish and conduct a national shoreline erosion 

control development and demonstration program for a period of ø7¿ 

12 years beginning on the date that funds are made available to 

carry out this section. 

* * * * * * * 
207 

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1999, 

PUBLIC LAW 106–53 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 514. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS ENHANCEMENT 

PROJECT. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to pay the Federal share of the cost of carrying 

out this section $30,000,000 øfor the period of fiscal years 2000 and 

2001.¿ per year, and that authority shall extend until Federal fiscal 

year 2015. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 582. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR COLUMBIA 

AND SNAKE RIVERS SALMON SURVIVAL. 

* * * * * * * 

‘‘(c) MANAGEMENT OF PREDATION ON COLUMBIA/SNAKE RIVER

SYSTEM NATIVE FISHES.— 

‘‘(1) NESTING AVIAN PREDATORS.—In conjunction with the 

Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior, and 

consistent with a management plan to be developed by the 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Secretary shall 

carry out methods to reduce nesting populations of avian predators on dredge spoil islands in the Columbia River under the 

jurisdiction of the Secretary. 

‘‘(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated ø$1,000,000¿ $2,000,000 to carry out 

research and development activities under this subsection. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 520. NAVAJO RESERVATION, ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO, AND UTAH. 

(a) * * * 

(b) COST SHARING.—The Federal share of the cost of activities 

carried out under this section shall be 75 percent. Funds made 

available under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.) may be used by the Navajo Nation in meeting the non-Federal share of the cost of the activities. 

The local match for the funds appropriated for flood plain delineation on the Navajo reservation in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah 

may be provided as in-kind services. 

* * * * * * * 

øSEC. 594. OHIO.¿ SEC. 594. OHIO AND NORTH DAKOTA. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary shall establish a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal 

interests in øOhio.¿ Ohio and North Dakota. 

(b) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance under this section maybe 

in the form of design and construction assistance for 
208 

waterrelatedenvironmental infrastructure and resource protection 

anddevelopment projects in øOhio,¿ Ohio and North Dakota, including projects for— 

* * * * * * * 

(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorizedto 

be appropriated to carry out this section ø$240,000,000.¿ 

$240,000,000 for Ohio and $100,000,000 for North Dakota. 

* * * * * * * 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS 

ACT, 2004, PUBLIC LAW 108–137 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE I 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS-CIVIL

* * * * * * * 

GENERAL PROVISIONS

CORPS OF ENGINEERS-CIVIL

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 117. Section 595 of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1999 (113 Stat. 383; 117 Stat. 142) is amended— 

* * * * * * * 

(4) in subsection (h), by striking ‘‘2001—’’ and all that fol- lows and inserting ‘‘2001 $25,000,000 for each of Idaho, Montana, øNew Mexico, and rural Utah¿ and New Mexico and 

$50,000,000 for Rural Utah, to remain available until expended.’’. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II 

* * * * * * * 

GENERAL PROVISIONS

* * * * * * * 

øSEC. 209. ENDANGERED SPECIES COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM. (a) 

Using funds previously appropriated, the Secretary of the Interior, 

acting through the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation and 

the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, for purposes of improving the efficiency and expediting the efforts of the Endangered 

Species Act Collaborative Program Workgroup, is directed to establish an executive committee of seven members consisting of— 

ø(1) one member from the Bureau of Reclamation; 

ø(2) one member from the Fish and Wildlife Service; and 
209 

ø(3) one member at large representing each of the following seven entities (selected at the discretion of the entity in 

consultation with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Fish and 

Wildlife Service) currently participating as signatories to the 

existing Memorandum of Understanding: 

ø(A) other Federal agencies; 

ø(B) State agencies; 

ø(C) municipalities; 

ø(D) universities and environmental groups; 

ø(E) agricultural communities; 

ø(F) Middle Rio Grande Pueblos (Sandia, Isleta, San 

Felipe, Cochiti, Santa Ana, and Santo Domingo); and 

ø(G) Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District. 

ø(b) Formation of this Committee shall not occur later than 45 

days after enactment of this Act. 

ø(c) Fiscal year 2004 appropriations shall not be obligated or 

expended prior to approval of a detailed spending plan by the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

ø(d) The above section shall come into effect within 180 days 

of enactment of this Act, unless the Bureau of Reclamation, in consultation with the above listed parties, has provided an alternative 

workgroup structure which has been approved by the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations.¿ 

SEC. 210. TULAROSA BASIN NATIONAL DESALINATION RESEARCH

FACILITY. (a) DESALINATION DEMONSTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT.— 

Pursuant to section 4(a) of Public Law 104–298; 110 Stat. 3622 

(October 11, 1996), the Secretary may hereafter conduct or contract 

for the design, construction, øtesting and operation¿ and testing of 

the Tularosa Basin National Desalination Research Facility. 

(b) The Tularosa Basin National Desalination Research Facility is hereafter exempt from all provisions of section 7 of Public 

Law 104–298; 110 Stat. 3622 (October 11, 1996). The Federal share 

of the cost of the Tularosa Basin National Desalination Research 

Facility may be up to 100 percent, including the cost of design, construction, operation, maintenance, repair and rehabilitation. 

(c) The Secretary shall enter into an agreement with New Mexico State University for the operations, maintenance, and the administration of research activities undertaken at the Tularosa Basin 

National Desalination Research Facility. Operation and maintenance shall occur at full Federal cost and title to the facility shall 

remain in the United States. 

* * * * * * * 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005, 

PUBLIC LAW 108–335 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE III—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

øSEC. 345. The project for the Chicago Sanitary and Ship 

Canal Dispersal Barrier, Illinois, initiated under section 1135 of 

Public Law 99–662, is authorized at a total cost of $9,100,000 with 

a Federal cost of $6,825,000 and a non-Federal cost of $2,275,000.¿ 
210 

SEC. 345. There are authorized to be appropriated such sums 

as are necessary to carry out the Barrier II project 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. 2309a). 

* * * * * * * 

ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005, PUBLIC LAW 109–58 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE IX—RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 999H. FUNDING. 

(a) OIL AND GAS LEASE INCOME.—øFor each of fiscal years¿ 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), for 

each of fiscal years 2007 through 2017, from any Federal royalties, rents, and bonuses derived from Federal onshore and offshore oil and gas leases issued under the Outer Continental 

Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) and the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) which are deposited in the 

Treasury, and after distribution of any such funds as described 

in subsection (c), $50,000,000 shall be deposited into the UltraDeepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Research Fund (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Fund’’). 

øFor purposes of this¿ 

(2) STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE.—For fiscal year 2008 

the Secretary of Energy shall direct not more than $25,000,000 

from Federal royalties, rents, and bonuses described in paragraph (1) shall be used to carry out land acquisition activities 

for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve required under section 

301(e)(1). 

(3) DEFINITION OF ROYALTIES.—In this section, the term 

‘‘royalties’’ excludes proceeds from the sale of royalty production taken in kind and royalty production that is transferred 

under section 27(a)(3) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 

Act (43 U.S.C. 1353(a)(3)). 

* * * * * * * 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS 

ACT, 2006, PUBLIC LAW 109–103 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE I 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

* * * * * * * 
211 

GENERAL PROVISIONS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

* * * * * * * 

øSEC. 108. None of the funds made available in title I of this 

Act may be used to award any continuing contract or to make 

modifications to any existing continuing contract that commits an 

amount for a project in excess of the amount appropriated for such 

project pursuant to this Act: Provided, That the amounts appropriated in this Act may be modified pursuant to the authorities 

provided in section 101 of this Act or through the application of unobligated balances for such project.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 121. ø(a) The Secretary of the Army may carry out and 

fund projects to comply with the 2003 Biological Opinion described 

in section 205(b) of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108–447; 118 Stat. 2949) as amended 

by subsection (b) and may award grants and enter into contracts, 

cooperative agreements, or interagency agreements with participants in the Endangered Species Act Collaborative Program 

Workgroup referenced in section 209(a) of the Energy and Water 

Development Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108– 137; 117 

Stat. 1850) in order to carry out such projects. Any project undertaken under this subsection shall require a non-Federal cost share 

of 25 percent, which may be provided through in-kind services or 

direct cash contributions and which shall be credited on a programmatic basis instead of on a project-by-project basis, with reconciliation of total project costs and total non-Federal cost share 

calculated on a three year incremental basis. Non-Federal cost 

share that exceeds that which is required in any calculated three 

year increment shall be credited to subsequent three year increments.¿ (a) The Secretary of the Army may carry out and fund 

planning studies, watershed surveys and assessments, or technical 

studies at 100 percent Federal expense to accomplish the purposes 

of the 2003 Biological Opinion described in section 205(b) of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 

108–447; 118 Stat. 2949) as amended by subsection (b) and the collaborative program long-term plan. In carrying out a study, survey, 

or assessment under this subsection, the Secretary of the Army shall 

consult with Federal, State, tribal and local governmental entities, 

as well as entities participating in the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program referred to in section 205 of 

the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2008. The 

Secretary of the Army may also provide planning and administrative assistance to the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program, which shall not be subject to cost sharing requirements with non-Federal interests. 

* * * * * * * 

øSEC. 134. PROJECT MODIFICATION. (a) IN GENERAL.—The 

project for flood damage reduction, environmental restoration, 

recreation, Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas, authorized by section 

101(b)(14) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 

Stat. 280–281) is modified— 
212 

ø(1) to deauthorize the ecosystem restoration portion of the 

project that consists of approximately 90 acres of land located 

between Randol Mill and the Union Pacific East/West line; and 

ø(2) to authorize the Secretary of the Army to design and 

construct an ecosystem restoration project on lands identified 

in subsection (c) that will provide the same or greater level of 

national ecosystem restoration benefits as the portion of the 

project described in paragraph (1). 

ø(b) CREDIT TOWARD FEDERAL SHARE.—The Secretary of the 

Army shall credit toward the Federal share of the cost of the modified project the costs incurred by the Secretary to carry out the 

project as originally authorized under section 101(b)(14) of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 280). The 

non-Federal interest shall not be responsible for reimbursing the 

Secretary for any amount credited under this subsection. 

ø(c) COMPARABLE PROPERTY.—Not later than 6 months after 

the date of enactment of this Act, the City of Arlington, Texas, 

shall identify lands, acceptable to the Secretary of the Army, 

amounting to not less than 90 acres within the City, where an ecosystem restoration project may be constructed to provide the same 

or greater level of National ecosystem restoration benefits as the 

land described in subsection (a)(1).¿ 

* * * * * * * 

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT 

FOR DEFENSE, THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR, AND 

HURRICANE RECOVERY, 2006, PUBLIC LAW 109–234 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II 

FURTHER HURRICANE DISASTER RELIEF AND RECOVERY 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 3 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

* * * * * * * 

CONSTRUCTION

For an additional amount for ‘‘Construction’’ for necessary expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Katrina and other 

hurricanes of the 2005 season, $549,400,000, to remain available 

until expended, of which up to $20,200,000 may be used to reduce 

the risk of storm damage to the greater New Orleans metropolitan 

area, at full Federal expense, 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 
213 

its operations; at least $495,300,000 shall be used consistent with 

the cost-sharing provisions under which the projects were originally 

constructed to raise levee heights where necessary and otherwise 

enhance the existing Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity project and 

the existing West Bank and Vicinity project to provide the levels 

of protection necessary to achieve the certification required for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program under the base 

flood elevations current at the time of this øconstruction: Provided,¿ : Provided, That the Secretary of the Army, in implementing 

projects and measures in the New Orleans metropolitan area required to achieve certification for participation in the National 

Flood Insurance Program as directed in Public Law 109–234 shall 

include all authorized features of the Southeast Louisiana Flood 

Control project and related internal pumping requirements as integral elements of the comprehensive protection system for the area 

and shall complete all authorized work for the Southeast Louisiana 

project concurrently and integrally with other area projects: Provided further, That the amount provided under this heading is designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of H. 

Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the 

budget for fiscal year 2006: Provided further, That $1,500,000 shall 

be for the North Padre Island, Texas project: Provided further, That $30,400,000 is available for flood control work in the Sacramento, California, Area: Provided further, That $2,000,000 shall 

be provided at full Federal expense for the Hawaii Water Systems 

Technical Assistance Program. 

* * * * * * * 
214 

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL 

PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 

308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget authority Outlays 

Committee 

allocation 1

Amount 

of bill 

Committee 

allocation 1

Amount 

of bill 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations 

to its subcommittees of budget totals for 2008: Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development: 

Mandatory ............................................................................ .................... .................... 1 1 1 

Discretionary ........................................................................ 32,273 32,273 33,229 1 33,083 

Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2008 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 2 19,905 

2009 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 9,152 

2010 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 2,747 

2011 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 203 

2012 and future years ........................................................ .................... .................... .................... 98 

Financial assistance to State and local governments for 

2008 ......................................................................................... NA 111 NA 19 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

NA: Not applicable. 
215 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2007 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2007 

appropriation Budget estimate 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

Corps of Engineers—Civil 

Investigations ....................................................................................................................................................................... 162,916 90,000 172,147 ∂9,231 ∂82,147 

Rescission .................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Emergency appropriations ........................................................................................................................................... 8,165 .......................... .......................... ¥8,165 ..........................

Total, Investigations ............................................................................................................................................... 171,081 90,000 172,147 ∂1,066 ∂82,147 

Construction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2,336,368 1,523,000 2,059,474 ¥276,894 ∂536,474 

Rescission .................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Emergency appropriations ........................................................................................................................................... 36,500 .......................... .......................... ¥36,500 ..........................

Total, Construction .................................................................................................................................................. 2,372,868 1,523,000 2,059,474 ¥313,394 ∂536,474 

Mississippi River and tributaries ......................................................................................................................................... 396,565 260,000 375,000 ¥21,565 ∂115,000 Operations and Maintenance ............................................................................................................................................... 1,973,347 2,471,000 2,291,971 ∂318,624 ¥179,029 

Emergency appropriations ........................................................................................................................................... 3,000 .......................... .......................... ¥3,000 ..........................

Total, Operations and Maintenance ....................................................................................................................... 1,976,347 2,471,000 2,291,971 ∂315,624 ¥179,029 

Regulatory program .............................................................................................................................................................. 159,273 180,000 180,000 ∂20,727 ..........................FUSRAP ................................................................................................................................................................................. 138,672 130,000 140,000 ∂1,328 ∂10,000 Flood control and coastal emergencies ............................................................................................................................... .......................... 40,000 50,000 ∂50,000 ∂10,000 

Emergency appropriations ........................................................................................................................................... 1,561,000 .......................... .......................... ¥1,561,000 ..........................

Total, Flood control and coastal emergencies ....................................................................................................... 1,561,000 40,000 50,000 ¥1,511,000 ∂10,000 

Expenses ............................................................................................................................................................................... 167,250 177,000 175,000 ∂7,750 ¥2,000 Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) ..................................................................................................... 3,979 .......................... 4,500 ∂521 ∂4,500 
216 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2007 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2007 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Total, title I, Department of Defense—Civil .......................................................................................................... 6,947,035 4,871,000 5,448,092 ¥1,498,943 ∂577,092 

Appropriations ................................................................................................................................................ (5,338,370 ) (4,871,000 ) (5,448,092 ) (∂109,722 ) (∂577,092 ) Emergency appropriations ............................................................................................................................. (1,608,665 ) .......................... .......................... (¥1,608,665 ) ..........................Rescissions .................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Central Utah Project Completion Account 

Central Utah project construction ........................................................................................................................................ 31,351 40,404 40,404 ∂9,053 ..........................Fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation ................................................................................................ 937 976 976 ∂39 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 32,288 41,380 41,380 ∂9,092 ..........................

Program oversight and administration ................................................................................................................................ 1,732 1,620 1,620 ¥112 ..........................

Total, Central Utah project completion account .................................................................................................... 34,020 43,000 43,000 ∂8,980 ..........................

Bureau of Reclamation 

Water and related resources ................................................................................................................................................ 878,623 816,197 950,106 ∂71,483 ∂133,909 

Emergency appropriations ........................................................................................................................................... 18,000 .......................... .......................... ¥18,000 ..........................

Total, Water and related resources ........................................................................................................................ 896,623 816,197 950,106 ∂53,483 ∂133,909 

Central Valley project restoration fund ................................................................................................................................ 52,150 59,122 51,622 ¥528 ¥7,500 California Bay-Delta restoration .......................................................................................................................................... 36,648 31,750 40,750 ∂4,102 ∂9,000 Policy and administration .................................................................................................................................................... 57,575 58,811 58,811 ∂1,236 ..........................Legislative proposal SJRRF .................................................................................................................................................. .......................... ¥7,500 .......................... .......................... ∂7,500 

Total, Bureau of Reclamation ................................................................................................................................. 1,042,996 958,380 1,101,289 ∂58,293 ∂142,909 Total, title II, Department of the Interior ............................................................................................................... 1,077,016 1,001,380 1,144,289 ∂67,273 ∂142,909 
217 

Appropriations ................................................................................................................................................ (1,059,016 ) (1,001,380 ) (1,144,289 ) (∂85,273 ) (∂142,909 ) Emergency Appropriations ............................................................................................................................. (18,000 ) .......................... .......................... (¥18,000 ) ..........................

TITLE III—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Energy Programs 

Energy efficiency and renewable energy .............................................................................................................................. 1,474,285 1,236,199 1,715,551 ∂241,266 ∂479,352 Electricity delivery and energy reliability ............................................................................................................................. 137,000 114,937 168,437 ∂31,437 ∂53,500 Nuclear energy ...................................................................................................................................................................... 482,191 801,703 720,558 ∂238,367 ¥81,145 

(Reallocation from Energy supply and conservation) ................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................(Reallocation from Nuclear nonproliferation) .............................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Office of Legacy Management ............................................................................................................................................. 33,187 35,104 35,104 ∂1,917 ..........................Clean coal technology: 

Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2005 ................................................................................................... 257,000 .......................... .......................... ¥257,000 ..........................Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2007 ................................................................................................... ¥257,000 .......................... .......................... ∂257,000 ..........................Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2008 ................................................................................................... .......................... 257,000 257,000 ∂257,000 ..........................Deferral of unobligated balances, fiscal year 2009 ................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥149,000 ¥149,000 ¥149,000 Rescission, uncommitted balances ............................................................................................................................. .......................... ¥149,000 .......................... .......................... ∂149,000 Transfer to Fossil Energy R&D .................................................................................................................................... .......................... ¥166,000 ¥166,000 ¥166,000 ..........................

Total, Clean coal technology .................................................................................................................................. .......................... ¥58,000 ¥58,000 ¥58,000 ..........................

Fossil Energy Research and Development ........................................................................................................................... 592,621 400,801 642,113 ∂49,492 ∂241,312 

Transfer from Clean Coal Technology ......................................................................................................................... .......................... 166,000 166,000 ∂166,000 ..........................

Subtotal, Fossil Energy Research and Development .............................................................................................. 592,621 566,801 808,113 ∂215,492 ∂241,312 

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves ............................................................................................................................ 21,316 17,301 21,301 ¥15 ∂4,000 Strategic petroleum reserve ................................................................................................................................................. 164,441 331,609 163,472 ¥969 ¥168,137 Northeast home heating oil reserve ..................................................................................................................................... 5,000 5,325 12,825 ∂7,825 ∂7,500 Energy Information Administration ...................................................................................................................................... 90,653 105,095 105,095 ∂14,442 ..........................Non-defense environmental clean up .................................................................................................................................. 349,687 180,937 195,437 ¥154,250 ∂14,500 

(Reallocation from Energy supply and conservation) ................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund ................................................................................... 556,606 573,509 573,509 ∂16,903 ..........................Science ................................................................................................................................................................................. 3,797,294 4,397,876 4,496,759 ∂699,465 ∂98,883 Nuclear Waste Disposal ....................................................................................................................................................... 99,206 202,454 204,054 ∂104,848 ∂1,600 Environment, safety and health (Reallocation from Energy supply and conservation) ...................................................... 27,841 .......................... .......................... ¥27,841 ..........................Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program ................................................................................................................. .......................... 8,390 8,390 ∂8,390 ..........................Departmental administration ............................................................................................................................................... 276,832 310,366 308,596 ∂31,764 ¥1,770 
218 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2007 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2007 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Miscellaneous revenues ............................................................................................................................................... ¥123,000 ¥161,818 ¥161,818 ¥38,818 ..........................

Net appropriation ............................................................................................................................................... 153,832 148,548 146,778 ¥7,054 ¥1,770 

Office of the Inspector General ............................................................................................................................................ 41,819 47,732 47,732 ∂5,913 ..........................

Atomic Energy Defense Activities 

National Nuclear Security Administration: 

Weapons activities ...................................................................................................................................................... 6,275,583 6,511,312 6,489,024 ∂213,441 ¥22,288 Defense nuclear nonproliferation ................................................................................................................................ 1,683,339 1,672,646 1,872,646 ∂189,307 ∂200,000 

(Reallocation to Nuclear energy) ........................................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Emergency appropriations .................................................................................................................................. 135,000 .......................... .......................... ¥135,000 ..........................

Subtotal, Defense nuclear nonproliferation ................................................................................................... 1,818,339 1,672,646 1,872,646 ∂54,307 ∂200,000 

Naval reactors ............................................................................................................................................................. 781,800 808,219 808,219 ∂26,419 ..........................Office of the Administrator ......................................................................................................................................... 340,291 394,656 394,656 ∂54,365 ..........................

Subtotal, National Nuclear Security Administration ............................................................................................... 9,216,013 9,386,833 9,564,545 ∂348,532 ∂177,712 

Defense environmental cleanup ........................................................................................................................................... 5,731,839 5,363,905 5,690,380 ¥41,459 ∂326,475 Other defense activities ....................................................................................................................................................... 636,271 763,974 765,464 ∂129,193 ∂1,490 Defense nuclear waste disposal .......................................................................................................................................... 346,500 292,046 242,046 ¥104,454 ¥50,000 

Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities ................................................................................................................. 15,930,623 15,806,758 16,262,435 ∂331,812 ∂455,677 

Power Marketing Administrations 

Operation and maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration ...................................................................................... 38,315 54,876 54,876 ∂16,561 ..........................

Offsetting collection .................................................................................................................................................... ¥32,713 ¥48,413 ¥48,413 ¥15,700 ..........................

Subtotal, O&M, Southeastern Power Administration .............................................................................................. 5,602 6,463 6,463 ∂861 ..........................
219 

Operation and maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration ..................................................................................... 32,998 65,442 65,442 ∂32,444 ..........................

Offsetting collection .................................................................................................................................................... ¥3,000 ¥35,000 ¥35,000 ¥32,000 ..........................

Subtotal, O&M, Southwestern Power Administration ............................................................................................. 29,998 30,442 30,442 ∂444 ..........................

Construction, rehabilitation, operation and maintenance, Western Area Power Administration ........................................ 515,031 463,669 493,669 ¥21,362 ∂30,000 

Offsetting collection .................................................................................................................................................... ¥279,000 ¥258,702 ¥262,639 ∂16,361 ¥3,937 Offsettting collection Colorado River Dam Fund ........................................................................................................ ¥3,705 ¥3,937 .......................... ∂3,705 ∂3,937 

Subtotal, O&M, Western Area Power Administration .............................................................................................. 232,326 201,030 231,030 ¥1,296 ∂30,000 

Falcon and Amistad operating and maintenance fund ...................................................................................................... 2,665 2,500 2,500 ¥165 ..........................

Total, Power Marketing Administrations ................................................................................................................. 270,591 240,435 270,435 ¥156 ∂30,000 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 221,902 255,425 255,425 ∂33,523 ..........................Revenues applied ................................................................................................................................................................. ¥221,902 ¥255,425 ¥255,425 ¥33,523 ..........................

Total, title III, Department of Energy ..................................................................................................................... 24,228,193 24,762,713 25,897,985 ∂1,669,792 ∂1,135,272 

Appropriations ................................................................................................................................................ (24,093,193 ) (24,654,713 ) (25,789,985 ) (∂1,696,792 ) (∂1,135,272 ) Emergency appropriations ............................................................................................................................. (135,000 ) .......................... .......................... (¥135,000 ) ..........................Rescissions .................................................................................................................................................... .......................... (¥149,000 ) .......................... .......................... (∂149,000 ) 

TITLE IV—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

Appalachian Regional Commission ...................................................................................................................................... 64,858 65,000 75,000 ∂10,142 ∂10,000 Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board .............................................................................................................................. 21,914 22,499 22,499 ∂585 ..........................Delta Regional Authority ...................................................................................................................................................... 11,888 6,000 12,000 ∂112 ∂6,000 Denali Commission ............................................................................................................................................................... 49,509 1,800 31,800 ¥17,709 ∂30,000 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 

Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................................................ 816,639 908,409 910,559 ∂93,920 ∂2,150 Revenues ..................................................................................................................................................................... ¥659,328 ¥757,720 ¥757,720 ¥98,392 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 157,311 150,689 152,839 ¥4,472 ∂2,150 

Office of Inspector General ......................................................................................................................................... 8,285 8,144 8,744 ∂459 ∂600 Revenues ..................................................................................................................................................................... ¥7,410 ¥7,330 ¥7,870 ¥460 ¥540 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 875 814 874 ¥1 ∂60 
220 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2007 appropriation Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2007 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Total, Nuclear Regulatory Commission ................................................................................................................... 158,186 151,503 153,713 ¥4,473 ∂2,210 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board ............................................................................................................................... 3,591 3,621 3,621 ∂30 ..........................Tennessee Valley Authority: Office of Inspector General ..................................................................................................... .......................... 15,000 .......................... .......................... ¥15,000 

Offset ........................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... ¥15,000 .......................... .......................... ∂15,000 

Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects ........................................................... .......................... 2,322 2,322 ∂2,322 ..........................

Total, title IV, Independent agencies ..................................................................................................................... 309,946 252,745 300,955 ¥8,991 ∂48,210 Grand total .............................................................................................................................................................. 32,562,190 30,887,838 32,791,321 ∂229,131 ∂1,903,483 

Appropriations ................................................................................................................................................ (30,800,525 ) (31,036,838 ) (32,791,321 ) (∂1,990,796 ) (∂1,754,483 ) Emergency appropriations ............................................................................................................................. (1,761,665 ) .......................... .......................... (¥1,761,665 ) ..........................Rescission ...................................................................................................................................................... .......................... (¥149,000 ) .......................... .......................... (∂149,000 ) 

Æ